Norge följer nu det danska exemplet. I Norge föreslås nämligen nu en ny lag varigenom det skall bli möjligt för myndigheterna att beordra ISP'erna att blockera sådana sidor som anses sprida upphovrättsskyddat material.
Problemet är att en sådan blockering också kommer att censurera bort fullt laglig information såsom information från politiska partier, verk som lagts ut av upphovrättsmannen själv etc. Men detta brukar dock inte bekymra vare sig upphovsrättsmaffian eller dess allierade politiker.
I USA går man ännu ett steg längre. Där ligger nu ett förslag varigenom det skall ges möjligheter till myndigheter att beslagta domäner och att förbjuda sökmaskiner att länka till misshagliga sidor. Allt sker under påståendet att denna censur är för folkets bästa. Men det är väl vad varje diktator påstår när han kväser oppositionella?
What they are doing in Norway is worse than what is done in Denmark. The difference is if the government simply can make a list of sites that all ISPs must block (as is being proposed in Norway), or if a court has to look at each blocked site and order it to be blocked (as we now do in Denmark.
SvaraRaderaSome parties tried to do the Norway approach in our parliament. It was unconstitutional, and our chairman of parliament who is responsible for rejecting unconstitutional law proposals responded to an inquiry about that by telling that a special parliamentary procedure was used which made it impossible for him to reject the proposal. Fortunately that proposal fell, at least for now...
The Danish approach involves the courts (in some strange and incomplete way), but is not much better.
It relies on an abuse of special court procedures making it impossible for fx. TPB to talk to the court before the court decides to block it. And the central legal argument for blocking is a special condition in local danish copyright law, which is in direct violation of the InfoSoc directive. The civil servant responsible for this InfoSoc directive violation is now employed in the danish lawyer group AntiPiratGruppen where he works with these blocking cases.
Instead of a real court case a special court procedure is used, where the court is similar to Kronofogden in Sweden. This court procedure is only meant to give temporary and preliminary rulings - not to settle disputes. It is a form of court where the burden of evidence is lower than in a normal civil court case. Our law of the courts say that this procedure should be followed by a real court case, but this has never happened with the blocking cases in Denmark. Problem is that if both parties in the case agree a real court case is not needed, it can be avoided. Here the parties are antipirates and ISPs, and if they both agree nobody can force the case to go ahead, and the preliminary injunction becomes permanent.
This is actually a good thing.
SvaraRaderaIts about time we switched to some sort of decentralized dns system. Also it would be good to propagate any changed ip more effectively.