Author: Carsten Agger Published: February 25th, 2010
Forhandlingerne om den kommende, ifølge rygterne superhårde og meget skadelige konvention om ophavsret (ACTA) foregår i dybeste hemmelighed, så vi som borgere ikke har mange muligheder for at finde ud af eller blande os i, hvad de er ved at trække ned over hovederne på os. Dette er der ikke enighed om rundt om bordet – ifølge nogle lækkede, hollandske dokumenter er nogle regeringer meget åbne for at tage diskussionen i åbenhed, mens andre – formentlig dem, der er mest i lommen på industrien og dens interesser – presser på for at holde den så hemmelig som mulig.
Blandt de allerstørste syndere er Danmark. Surprise? Michael Geist skriver:
Throughout the debate over ACTA transparency, many countries have taken public positions that they support release of the actual text, but that other countries do not. Since full transparency requires consensus of all the ACTA partners, the text simply can’t be released until everyone is in agreement. Of course, those same countries hasten to add that they can’t name who opposes ACTA transparency, since that too is secret.
No longer. In an important new leak from the Netherlands (Dutch, Google English translation), a Dutch memorandum reporting back on the Mexico ACTA negotiation round names names, pointing specifically to which countries support releasing the text and which do not (note that the memo does not canvass everyone – Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are known to support transparency but are not named in the memo). According to the Dutch memo, the UK has played a lead role in making the case for full disclosure of the documents and is of the view that there is consensus for release of the text (there is support from many countries including the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, and Austria). However, the memo indicates that several countries are not fully supportive including Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Denmark. Of these four countries, the Dutch believe that Denmark is the most inflexible on the issue.
Skandale – eller …? Geists konklusion: “Those in the U.S., South Korea, Singapore, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Denmark should be demanding answers from their leaders”.
Author: Carsten Agger Published: November 12th, 2009
Dette er et tyve minutters foredrag om ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, den nye traktat om ophavsret, der forhandles på plads i dybeste hemmelighed i disse dage. Vi snakker nye drakoniske muligheder og straffe. Hvis lobbyisterne ender med at få magt som de har agt i denne sag, kan threee strikes-love og fængselsstraffe for download af musik til eget forbrug hurtigt blive dagens orden.
An end to the sale of violent videogames in Venezuela has moved one step closer to becoming a reality.
Venezuela’s National Assembly recently considered the Prohibition of Video Games and Toy Weapons bill, which it subsequently approved after just one debate.
The bill’s exact details aren’t widely known, but the title suggests that all videogames – violent or not – could face sales restrictions in the country.
Before the bill can be written into Venezuelan law, it must be debated and approved during a second National Assembly session – and then rubber-stamped by President Hugo Chavez.
Exactly how the bill’s supporters envisage a ban on violent videogames contributing to a reduction in the country’s colossal crime rate is a mystery. A link between the violent crime and violent games has never been proven.
Før vi griner alt for hånligt og overlegent, er det naturligvis værd at huske, at der også er politikere på vore breddegradder, der har været inde på noget af det samme – senest i Tyskland. Selveste Hillary Clinton var ude at forlange en undersøgelse med henblik på et forbud af det berømte GTA San Andreas.
Ikke desto mindre er det stadig ret dårligt nyt. En ung mand fra Venezuela beklager sig højt og klart over den nye lov:
The law scapegoats gamers for the obscene levels of violence in our country (see below), and goes to extraordinary lengths to criminalize gaming, to the point of holding out long jail terms to people who buy the wrong kinds of games.
It’s no joke. Last year, on a trip to the US, I was able to buy a Nintendo DS for my brother, and a puzzle game that deals with using weapons to defend the fish stock of penguins in Antarctica, Defendin’ de Penguin. Early next year, when the law kicks in, bring such a game could land me in jail for 3 to 5 years, for importing forbidden violent games, as the penguins use snowball guns to ward off walruses, foxes (in Antarctica? OMG think of Biogeography!), polar bears and the Yeti.
The law is just the latest nail in the coffin of Venezuelans’ right of dissent and broader civil liberties. A pitiful attempt to blame video games and toys for the widespread lethal violence in our country, instead of a defective judicial structure, systemic corruption and governmental (purposeful?) ineptitude to deal with the problem.
I am 26 years old. Ever since I can remember Venezuela has been a very dangerous place. Every year the body count seemed to climb higher than the previous year. Being on the streets after dark, especially in the big cities, became a little bit more dangerous with each passing year, no matter who was in power or how high prices for our oil rose.
I believed it was just a fact of life. Then, ten years ago, Hugo Chávez came to power promising change at every level, promising a new, less corrupt, wealthier, safer society. Most of my friends and family voted for him, to register their contempt for our traditional politicians, because they wanted justice and a decent country.
Ten years later, we are indeed wealthier, thanks to a feverish oil boom, but the country’s also falling deeper into debt, issuing bonds and getting loans even from the despised Capitalist tool that is the IMF, and printing money like there’s no tomorrow, while our electric system collapses, many staples are hard to find on store shelves, our hospitals are rotting and corruption and crime are still getting worse. [...]
Let’s put this in perspective. Last year, we had almost 14,000 deaths due to crime, out of a population of about 27 million people. Let’s round it up to 28 million, and make some calculations: If Bangladesh had our murder rate, there would be 125,000 murder victims there every year, if the US had our murder rate, we would be talking about 150,000 deaths due to crime, if Japan had our problem, there would be 60000 Japanese dead due to crime every time our pretty planet goes around the sun. If China and India had our levels of violence, we would get rid of 1,100,000 people every year.
The numbers of death due to violence do not seem so big in Venezuela due to our smallish population, but this a serious problem that is only getting worse after almost 11 years of Bolivarian rule. The number of people mugged, assaulted and robbed are much greater than that. Some relatives of mine have been shot and stabbed, most of my friends have been robbed at least once, and I had to jump from a bus in motion to avoid being robbed a month ago, in Mérida, where I live, a university town that not so long ago used to be relatively safe. In Valera, where my parents live, it is unwise to go out after 9 in the streets, and after 8:30, it gets really difficult to find public transportation.
So, will the government correct its strategy, accept that we have a huge problem that has to be solved ASAP and will follow its rhetoric and work along the communities to tackle crime (Death penalty and traditional top-down approaches won’t work)?
No. Instead, it will blame the gamers for the problem.
Author: Carsten Agger Published: October 9th, 2009
I et angiveligt retssamfund som Danmark har vi “logningsdirektivet”, der påbyder landets Internet-udbydere og telefonselskaber at logge oplysninger om tid, person og sted for samtlige emails, telefonsamtaler og SMS’er og stille dem til rådighed for politiet og PET, hvis de skulle bede om det.
Denne overvågning af borgerne giver mindelser om Orwells “1984″ og er også et af de mest eklatante brud på princippet om, at man er uskyldig, til det modsatte er bevist: Staten har besluttet, at alle er under mistanke og forbeholder sig ret til at snage i alle menneskers privatliv, som om de var kriminelle.
Men så er det jo godt, at der er nogle EU-lande, hvor retssamfundet faktisk kan tage sig sammen og håndhæve borgernes elementære, demokratiske rettigheder mod den snigende overvågning.
Som traditionelt selvtilfreds nordbo kan jeg dog ikke lade være med at finde det en smule ironisk, at det her netop er Rumænien, der går foran med et godt eksempel:
Romania’s Constitutional Court Thursday ruled unconstitutional a controversial law compelling telecom operators to store data on people’s calls, emails and short messages and provide them to investigators on request.
The law was challenged before the Constitutional Court by an NGO which argued, during a trial involving telecom operator Orange Romania, that the law infringes article 28 of Romania’s Constitution, which guarantees the secrecy of correspondence.
Several other NGOs called on the ombudsman to notify the Constitutional Court regarding this law, which they say breaches citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties.
Nu mangler vi bare, at den danske Højesteret gør det samme – men vi skal nok ikke holde vejret.
Author: Carsten Agger Published: September 29th, 2009
Alverdens firmaer og regeringer kunne spare 5.000.000.000.000 – nej, der er ikke for mange nuller: Fem tusind milliarder kroner ved at gå over til fri/open source software og spare de dyre licenser, har forretningsmand og grundlægger af open source-firmaet CygnusMichael Tiemann beregnet, skriver Computerworld:
Michael Tiermann fremhæver i et interview med Computerworlds engelske søsterblad, at hvis alle virksomheder gik over til open source-licenser, ville de samlet årligt spare fem billioner kroner – svarende til fem tusinde milliarder kroner – eller slet og ret 5.000.000.000.000 kroner.
Det astronomiske beløb har Michael Tiermann sjusset sig frem til ved at gå ud fra analysehusets Gartners beregninger om et verdensomspændende årligt it-budget på 17,3 billioner kroner i 2008.
Erfaringer med, at mellem 18 til 30 procent af budgettet bliver brugt på proprietær software, giver et årligt forbrug mellem tre og fem billioner kroner i, hvad Michael Tiermann kalder “dødsvægt-udgifter”.
Han fremhæver i en publikation fra Open Source Initiative, at det har været fremme, at it-industrien sidste år samlet set tabte omkring 305 milliarder kroner i tabte licenskroner, fordi folk og virksomheder benyttede open source-software frem for proprietære softwarelicenser.
“Det er helt sikkert historien om glasset, der er halvtomt eller halvfyldt, for de kunder, der brugte færre penge på it-udstyr, kunne jo skabe mere værdi for dem selv,” forklarer Michael Tiermann om, at samfundet ville have godt af besparelserne.
Og så er der også meget solide politiske og forbrugermæssige fordele ved fri software – læs selv mere i linksene herunder.
Joel Tenebaum fortæller i The Guardian om sine genvordigheder, efter at pladebranchen har sagsøgt ham for fildeling, og han har nægtet at bøje sig og erkende, at han skulle have gjort noget galt:
To a certain extent, I’m afraid to write this. Though they’ve already seized my computer and copied my hard drive, I have no guarantee they won’t do it again. For the past four years, they’ve been threatening me, making demands for trial, deposing my parents, sisters, friends, and myself twice – the first time for nine hours, the second for seven. I face up to $4.5m in fines and the last case like mine that went to trial had a jury verdict of $1.92m.
When I contemplate this, I have to remind myself what I’m being charged with. Investment fraud? Robbing a casino? A cyber-attack against the federal government? No. I shared music. And refused to cave.
No matter how many people I explain this to, the reaction is always the same: dumbfounded surprise and visceral indignance, both of which are a result of the amazing secrecy the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has operated under. “How did they get you?” I’m asked. I explain that there are 40,000 people like me, being sued for the same thing, and we were picked from a pool of millions who shared music. And that’s when a look appears on the face of whoever I’m talking to, the horrified “it could have been me!” look. [...]
in August 2007, I came home from work to find a stack of papers, maybe 50 pages thick, sitting at the door to my apartment. That’s when I found out what it was like to have possibly the most talented copyright lawyers in the business, bankrolled by multibillion-dollar corporations, throwing everything they had at someone who wanted to share Come As You Are with other Nirvana fans.
I had assumed that as an equal in a court of law in the United States, my story would be told and a just outcome would result. I discovered the sheer magnitude of obstacles in your way to get your say in court. And even if you get to trial, (which only one other person, Jammie Thomas Rasset, has done) you’re still far from equal with the machine controlling 85% of commercial music in the US. [...]
My sisters, dad and mother have all been deposed. My high-school friends, friends of the family too. My computer’s been seized and hard drive copied, and my parents and sister narrowly escaped the same fate for their computers. And the professor who supervises my teaching is continually frustrated with my need to have people cover for me, while my research in grad school is put on hold to deal with people whose full-time job is to keep an anvil over my head. I have to consider every unrelated thing I do in my private life in the event that I’m interrogated under oath about it. I wonder how I’ll stand up in a courtroom for hours having litigators try to convince a jury of my guilt and the reprehensibility of my character.
Er der nogen af mine læsere, der kan genkende denne følelse af “det ku’ have været mig!”, som jeg har fremhævet?
Regeringen vil undersøge mulighederne for at indføre skærpet overvågning af de offentlige toiletter. I modsætning til alle andre offentligt tilgængelige områder er toiletter friholdt, idet de kun er udsat for såkaldt “almindelig” overvågning i form af stikprøvekontrol.
Det fremgår af et svar fra Justitsministeriet til Folketingets Retsudvalg. Ministeriet oplyser til udvalget, at der ifølge Politiets Efterretningstjeneste (PET) og Rigspolitiet er “en stigning i de problemer, som brugen af offentlige toiletter udgør i forbindelse med efterforskningen af sager om terrorisme og organiseret kriminalitet”.
Problemet opstår, fordi de kriminelle kan udnytte det frirum, de kan finde på de offentlige toiletter, til at mødes og udveksle planer. På samme måde vil regeringen finde ud af, om det er muligt at registrere og identificere gæster i folks hjem, ligesom man ønsker at opstille overvågningskameraer i alle private sove- og badeværelser i stedet for som nu blot i alle husets øvrige rum.
PET oplyser nemlig, at “den stadig stigende aktivitet i almindelige menneskers soveværelser” indebærer “tiltagende problemer for politiets og efterretningstjenestens muligheder for at efterforske sager om terrorisme og organiseret kriminalitet, hvor aflytning og overvågning ofte er et afgørende efterforskningsredskab”.
SFs Marina Johansen Duhmhardt har “ingen problemer med”, at der bliver indført skærpet overvågning på de offentlige toiletter.
“Det virker urimeligt, at kriminelle kan slippe af sted med at udveksle planer, blot ved at bruge de offentlige toiletter,” siger hun.
Til gengæld tvivler hun på, at det nytter noget at indføre overvågning af folks soveværelser.
“De, der ønsker at udveksle planer til kriminelle formål, har formentlig ikke behov for at gøre det i soveværelset”, siger hun:
“Jeg har svært ved at forestille mig, at det er et stort problem. Der er ingen grund til at lave bureaukrati og nye regler, hvis der ikke er et problem.”
Dansk Folkepartis Peter Skaarup erklærer sin tilfredshed med de nye regler:
“Men i den praktiske verden kan der være vanskeligheder. De offentlige toiletter er selvfølgelig lukket land for fremmede og subsistensløse, men man ved aldrig, hvad der gemmer sig under et ellers tilforladeligt ydre. Bør folk ikke altid identificeres, f.eks. med foto, før de lukkes ind?”.
Skaarup tilføjer, at man bør overveje at montere et kamera af webkameratypen nede i selve cisternen: “Man ved aldrig, hvilke tatoveringer de forskellige terrorist-typer render rundt med, og måske det kan lette identifikationen. Hvis man ikke har noget at skjule, har man heller ikke noget at være bange for”.
Nåhnej – egentlig handlede Berlingskes artikel jo om biblioteker. Her er et pluk fra den rigtige artikel, som jeg næsten citerer ovenfor:
Regeringen vil nemlig undersøge, om brugere af bibliotekerne fremover skal fremvise identifikation såsom pas eller sygesikringskort og lade sig registrere, hvis de vil bruge bibliotekernes computere til at komme på internettet.
På samme måde vil regeringen finde ud af, om det er muligt at registrere og identificere kunder, der køber taletidskort i kiosker, benytter internetcafeer eller trådløse netværk, såkaldte hotspots, rundt omkring på hoteller, cafeer osv.
Det fremgår af et svar fra Justitsministeriet til Folketingets Retsudvalg. Ministeriet oplyser til udvalget, at der ifølge Politiets Efterretningstjeneste (PET) og Rigspolitiet er »en stigning i de problemer, som brugen af uregistrerede taletidskort udgør i forbindelse med efterforskningen af sager om terrorisme og organiseret kriminalitet«.
Dertil kommer, at »den stadig stigende udbredelse af gratis hotspots på offentligt tilgængelige steder« indebærer »tiltagende problemer for politiets og efterretningstjenestens muligheder for at efterforske sager om terrorisme og organiseret kriminalitet, hvor telefon- og internetaflytning ofte er et afgørende efterforskningsredskab«.
Smil, kære ven – dit privatliv er historie, eller rettere sagt: I dag er det PET, der ejer rettighederne til dit livs historie.
Det gør du selv, mener du måske (hvis du har nogen af disse ting). Men balladen omkring Amazons Kindle-læser viser, at det måske ikke lige præcis er dig der ejer disse ting i den forstand, at det er dig, der bestemmer, hvordan du kan bruge dem eller hvilke ting, du må have på dem. Farhad Manjoo beskriver situationen i en artikel i Slate:
The worst thing about this story isn’t Amazon’s conduct; it’s the company’s technical capabilities. Now we know that Amazon can delete anything it wants from your electronic reader. That’s an awesome power, and Amazon’s justification in this instance is beside the point. As our media libraries get converted to 1′s and 0′s, we are at risk of losing what we take for granted today: full ownership of our book and music and movie collections.
Most of the e-books, videos, video games, and mobile apps that we buy these days day aren’t really ours. They come to us with digital strings that stretch back to a single decider—Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, or whomever else. Steve Jobs has confirmed that every iPhone routinely checks back with Apple to make sure the apps you’ve purchased are still kosher; Apple reserves the right to kill any app at any time for any reason. But why stop there? If Apple or Amazon can decide to delete stuff you’ve bought, then surely a court—or, to channel Orwell, perhaps even a totalitarian regime—could force them to do the same. Like a lot of others, I’ve predicted the Kindle is the future of publishing. Now we know what the future of book banning looks like, too.[...]
In The Future of the Internet and How To Stop It, Harvard law professor Jonathan Zittrain argues that such “tethered” appliances give the government unprecedented power to reach into our homes and change how our devices function. In 2004, TiVo sued Echostar (which runs Dish Network) for giving its customers DVR set-top boxes that TiVo alleged infringed on its software patents. A federal district judge agreed. As a remedy, the judge didn’t simply force Dish to stop selling new devices containing the infringing software—the judge also ordered Dish to electronically disable the 192,000 devices that it had already installed in people’s homes. (An appeals court later stayed the order; the legal battle is ongoing.) In 2001, a company called Playmedia sued AOL for including a version of the company’s MP3 player in its software. A federal court agreed and ordered AOL to remove Playmedia’s software from its customers’ computers through a “live update.”
Mine fremhævelser. Modtræk? Nægte at bruge apparater og medier, der anvender nogen form for kopibeskyttelse, også når man sælger e-bøger og online-film. Insistere på, at alt skal kunne håndteres ved hjælp af fri software. Boycot iPhones og brug Android og andre GNU/Linux-baserede telefoner i stedet. Afvis tanken om, at producenten skal bestemme, hvad man kan gøre ved eller have liggende på sine egne ting.
Amazon sælger en e-bogslæser, de selv har produceret, den såkaldte Kindle. Denne ebogs-læser er ikke som ethvert andet boglæserprogram, f.eks. FBReader – nej, en Kindle er forsynet med DRM, også kendt som kopibeskyttelse, der sætter Amazon i stand til i samarbejde med rettighedshaverne at bestemme, hvilke bøger den enkelte kunde kan læse på sin Kindle.
For eksempel udgav Amazon for nylig George Orwells samlede værker i deres e-bogsformat. Det var rigtig fint, og masser af mennesker kunne således købe, downloade og læse “1984″ og andre af Orwells værker i deres elektroniske bogsamling.
Men så skete det, at Amazon blev uenig med dem, der bestyrer rettighederne for Orwells bøger. Hvad gør man ved det? Jo, næste gang e-bogs-læserne kommer i kontakt med Internettet, ryger der besked ud om, at Orwells bøger alligevel ikke er solgt – de er så at sige usolgt. Bøgerne blev bag om ryggen og uden at spørge slettet fra folks Kindles, og en eller to må have spurgt sig selv, om det mon i virkeligheden var en Swindle, de dér havde købt:
David Pogue. writing in the New York Times, reported that hundreds of customers awoke to find that Amazon remotely deleted books that they’d earlier bought and downloaded. Apparently, the publisher determined that it should not offer those titles, so Amazon logged into Kindles, erased the books, and issued refunds. This was aptly compared to someone sneaking into your house, taking away your books, and leaving a stack of cash on the table.
That George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm were among the wiped books is so funny that it aches. The headlines across the ‘net wrote themselves. Down the memory hole!
If this were the only example of this sort of thing, it could be written off as a mistake. But it’s just the latest in a series illustrating Amazon’s vision for the future of reading.
• First, Amazon selectively disabled text-to-speech. It did this to cosy up to publishers who felt audiobook sales were threatened by the Kindle’s robotic enunciation. This mocks the blind and supports an ugly interpretation of the law, which would make reading to your own children an act of copyright infringement.
• The Author’s contract for Kindle publications is “the pinnacle of bogosity.” Nor can you resell Kindle books, as you can normal ones, even though you have the legal right to do so. This is because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent the electronic locks that Amazon applies to its e-books.
Now we find that the books you buy are never really yours, and that enjoying them is a privilege granted and withdrawn by Amazon at publisher behest. No-one who enjoys reading can take comfort in any of this.
Helt ærligt: Kunne man forestille sig en boghandler, der fandt ud af, at han alligevel ikke havde “ret” til at sælge dig en bestemt bog, fordi forlæggeren var raget uklar med rettighedshaverne, og derfor brød ind i dit hus i nattens mulm og mørke for at tage bogen tilbage? Og hvis ikke – hvordan kan Amazon så tro, at det på nogen måde kan være acceptabelt, når blot indbruddet er på et stykke forbrugerelektronik i kundens hjem frem for et fysisk indbrud?
Eksemplet understreger, hvorfor kopibeskyttelse og anden “fjernkontrol” er en uskik, vi som borgere og forbrugere ikke burde finde os i.
![[FSF
Associate Member]](http://www.modspil.dk/images/fsfMembergetButton.png){kind=small}
