Securing views Berg

Then came the final judgment. 100-page judgment, but judgment and grounds. Like most people with an opinion on the matter, I have not read it, but the consequences, one can reason about, anyway.

Copyright Lobby acts in several areas and the door closes is legal are also given;

• They want to prove that the more documents in the field by precedents are documented as criminals. Here is piratebay judgment of the greatest importance to them. Since the main offense is dividend has been at all times been able to access the individual fildelaren, but it is of course more efficient to close the main water than all the individual taps.

• In order to obtain the precedents, it is important to have compelling evidence in court, and it is here IPRED (formally called "Civil sanctions on intellectual property") comes into the picture. As I said in previous posts, the probative value of which we can access without hurray matter very weakly, if you avsert the individual user.

The logical next step is to work for a block at the ISP level, then, that our broadband providers to filter. We already have such a filter in place today with regard to child pornography. A filter of this type is really a departure from the firmly-rooted democratic principle that we have the right to speak out and say what we want, but legally must be held accountable for what has been said. That the state helps to prevent people saying something is called censorship and is associated with dictatorships.

This filter is nothing as practical disturb anyone but the bizarre little band with this addiction, but that the filter is has violated the constitutionally protected freedom of expression and represent a crack in the democratic foundations. If all tools, there is now a real risk that we have a purpose slip where the filter is also beginning to be used in any other, and then you are a good way into the inclined plane which ends in Gerogre Orwell's 1984 society.

The copyright lobby will operate in the filter direction is by no means self-evident as it is already implemented in Denmark. For my part, it feels important to therefore work to ensure that the filtering is handled as administrative decisions. Current management circumvented by a secretive, there is no transparency in how it's done, you can not appeal. The ECPAT's activities is commendable I am the first to sign on but that ECPAT is the limit for Swedish speech I buy at all. It is ECPAT, which in fact brings up the list of domain names to be filtered. However, I am quite sure that the IFPI and BSA, and others will fall into the category of who is entitled to deliver a file to the list.

Child Porn Filter is a measure aimed at preventing something monumentally disgusting and it is perhaps as laudable, but by the way it is implemented, there is now a real risk that we get a slip that makes our democracy will be curtailed. There is no development, we must help!