Pirate cops bust LITTLE GIRL, take her Winnie-the-Pooh laptop In their zeal to excise the cancer of copyright-infringing downloads, a Finnish anti-piracy group sent police to the home of a nine-year-old girl, where the coppers confiscated her Winnie-the-Pooh laptop. The Pooh-impounding plods were unleashed upon the young lass by the Finnish Copyright Information and Anti-Piracy Centre ( …
We're public guardians bold yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're chary
When danger threatens we're not there
But when we see a helpless woman
Or little boys who do no harm…
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
To show them we're the beaux gendarmes
a) that the young lass hit some site where one could conceivably download offending material is not being questioned - and, being 9 years old and a fan of a pop artist will tend to lead young ones down odd paths.
b) I would guess that the offence would (in any case) be booked against the subscriber of the broadband account, thus her parent(s)/guardian(s). I will for the purposes of the argument ONLY moot the fact that any offence actually was committed. ( the law typically being an ass, its possible that the attempt itself is an offence. )
c) the fee is ridiculous. But that is to be expected - the folks running this scam want it to be prohibitive to get caught.
d) - The NDA is what revolts me the most. It takes the penalty (the fine) from being a fine to being extortion. Period. "We caught you doing this, cough up this money and NEVER tell anyone about this."
If they are going to permit this **AND** use local law enforcement to do so, WE as citizens (where ever this occurs ) should damned well KNOW that our law enforcement tax dollars are going to support the corporate flunky agencies. Here's my question.
What portion of the COST of law enforcement participation in this corporate income enhancement is being funded by the corporate entity that is getting paid?
If you are naive enough to believe a nine year old isn't using drugs, learning sex or pirating, you must live under a rock.
The police did their job, nothing more or less. Copyright holders are forced by law to act on piracy so hating them is ignorant and futile. Sooner or later those who believe they are above the law are going to get a knock on the door and the judicial system is going to make it very clear to them that they are not above the law and that they will be held acountable for their crimes.
f you are naive enough to believe a music executive isn't using drugs, learning sex or pirating, you must live under a rock.
The police did their job, nothing more or less. Copyright holders are forced by law to act on piracy so hating them is ignorant and futile. Sooner or later those who believe they are above the law are going to get a knock on the door and the judicial system is going to make it very clear to them that they are not above the law and that they will be held accountable for their crimes
"If you are naive enough to believe a nine year old isn't using drugs, learning sex or pirating, you must live under a rock."
I live in a house made of rocks, does that count?
In some places, children are still children and aren't getting doped up, banged up (either sense of the phrase), or engaging in wholescale wilful piracy (I don't count listening to copyright material on YouTube etc as I reckon the fine points of copyright infringement would probably be lost on the under-10s). I wouldn't consider myself naïve, I just consider myself lucky I don't live wherever it is that you live...
I notice that no-one has bothered to think that this story is complete balls?
It's reported from torrent freak, who are hardly an impartial source and basic common sense (what's the age of criminal responsibility in Finland?) suggests it's to be taken with a pinch of salt. However everyone seems to be believing that the nasty police came round to the girl's house and arrested her, but that they didn't even speak to her parents or, more likely, arrest them, what with the broadband and laptop being in their name.
Try a tiny little bit of critical thinking, for pity's sake.
Sadly the story is true. It is all over all Finnish news media, with interviews from named police personnel involved with the case. You'd think they would deny it happened if it wasn't true, eh?
Torrentfreak has also reported on TPB-related news from Finland in the past. I've read a few of their stories and they have been remarkably thorough and well written.
Well, when it gets to the point where state broadcaster's news services are reporting on it, it's reasonable to assume that either:
a) there's some sort of factual basis for the story, or
b) someone at said broadcaster will soon be making an embarassed apology for publishing something without doing any fact-checking.
I notice you're not actually giving any compelling evidence against the story being true, other than your own personal "smells like bollocks" sense, which is hardly an objective metric.
So from now until forever, there is going to be a brown box in the evidence room of the Finnish police station with a Pooh laptop in it? I can see it now.... years in the future, the Finnish "Cold Case" squad cracks open the box and finds the laptop. On it, are pictures of a 9 year-old girl. "What!" they exclaim, "this must be an unsolved child pornography case!" After a long investigation, to their shock and dismay, they find that the laptop contains the fingerprints of a retired Finnish policeman. He is charged and arrested for possession and distribution of child porn, thrown into the slammer, where he becomes the unwilling wife of the tossed salad man, and eventually dies in prison of AIDS."
</end of daydream>
Whomever released this story to the media is exploiting this child to promote their negative views on enforcement of copyright laws. They should know by now that it's futile as all civilized countries enforce copyright laws so it's time to get real. Feel free to pirate but expect to be held accountable for your actions as this girl and her parents are being held accountable for their actions.
Copyright law in EU are based on the EU copyright directive. This copyright directive was subject to heavy lobbying (bribes) by the music and movie industry. It holds manner of all stupid restrictions on breaking encryption etc.
I am not even sure it holds up to EU treaties. But nobody has so far put it to the test in ECJ that handle this type of matters inside EU. So this EU copyright directive goes on unchallenged in EU.
However. Many countries have chosen to implement it as laws. But ignore action part of it. Sadly. That country is not Finland. How did go crazy in enforcing this directive to the letter and way be on it in reality. Germany has also gone way past this directive mandate in terms of enforcing this law. That are based to service the MPAA and RIAA needs. Not the artist them self. How often get paid less and late due to the music companies willingness to cheat them out when and where they can do so.
More on this in links below.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HTML
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Directive
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060428/036245.shtml
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2012/120718brein
It sounds reminiscent of the solicitors in the UK who were sending out false accusations of illegal downloading and offering to drop proceedings on payment of a large "administration" fee. At least the UK police did not seem to get involved in the scam and I don't think any cases ever went to court because they feared the precedent of a losing a case.
Understand your rights.
I am not a lawyer, but having seen off some "minor legal claims" in my time, my observations are here:
If its a matter of a few hundred pounds/dollars,
Any solicitor's latter demanding anything really isnt worth the paper its printed on.
They have to take you to small claims court and get a judgment compelling you to pay up.
Small claims court is there for such matters and its expensive for them (in time and fees) to get you there. Once there, they have to show your are liable for some tort or other (which is tricky). You will not have to pay their costs. Just yours. Nobody who knows their rights falls for it.
So these scumbags just play a numbers game. They figure if they send out 100 letters and just one person falls for it, then they have broken even. Everything else is gravy. Its a shakedown on a grand scale.
All that said, there are some very disturbing elements to this.
The first is how the MPAA et al are slowly succeeding in co-opting the machinery of the state to protect intellectual property rights. The police exist to control activities that, if left unchecked, would threaten the security of our society. Things like murder, rape, arson, GBH, robbery etc.
Leaving aside the debate about rights of artists to make a living, the police are NOT there to ensure record companies and artists get paid, any more than they are there to help me if I sell my services to a company that doesn't pay up.
The second is the idea that a solicitor can use the threat of police action if payment isnt forthcoming. If a crime has been committed, a citizen has a duty to report it to police because its a criminal matter. If a tort has been committed the citizen has recourse to civil court for relief.
Whenever the citizen demands payment in order to NOT go to the police, that's blackmail pure and simple - a far more serious offence than downloading content.
This is why we have a separation of civil and criminal law. The commingling of the two in this case is deeply, deeply troubling. "We think you downloaded something, pay us $$$ or the police will raid your home"? What the F**K is that all about.
> Small claims court is there for such matters and its expensive for them (in time and fees) to get you there.
It's not *that* expensive. You can fill out the claim online in a maatter of moments. There is a fee to be paid, but that is added to the judgement should the plaintiff prevail.
There is some expense in actually going to court - as always, it is better not to if possible.
> Once there, they have to show your are liable for some tort or other (which is tricky).
I disagree. If there is any case whatsoever, it's easy enough to show that a debt is owing. Small Claims Court Judges are sharp cookies, and they are predominantly interested in settling the issue - they expect those appearing in front of them to be untrained in the Law, and IME are especially accomodating. They don't get sidetracked, they just get on with working out who owes what to whom, and issuing a judgement accordingly.
> You will not have to pay their costs. Just yours
That's not true. In the event of a loss, the defendant is liable for the debt claimed (or part of it, should the judge award a partial), and for the court fees that the plaintiff has already paid. Additionally, the winning side can ask for - and might be awarded[1] - costs for appearing in court. These latter costs are currently capped at the princely sum of £50 per day.
> Nobody who knows their rights falls for it.
That depends on whether or not the plaintiff is just trying it on. Every time I have started Small Claims proceedings, the defendant has assumed exactly that. Each of them has later been surprised. I've only actually had to apply for a judgement on one occasion - most people settle once they realise you're serious. A CCJ against a trading company can really make a mess of things...
Vic.
[1] I was awarded costs the last time I went to court. And I'd only gone in as a witness for the defendant. He and I got £100 each for the two days we'd spent in court. Not exactly a great rate of earnings, but we did put an end to the efforts of the lying cheating git that filed the case. Which was nice.
Isn't she too young to be held responsible?
Whatever, I will never buy anything from idiotTunes, and in the light of this fascism I shall not bother buying any more so called music. Except bargain bin CDs from time to time maybe.
I think that copyright as is is well past its sell by date. I was a signed musician at one time - the record company and management took all of the money from the sale of recordings, I only ever got paid for live performances - and that is he way it should be - the recordings are advertising, no more, and the sooner the recording industry disappears in its current form the better for the world at large.
My knowledge of Finnish Law is pretty limited but if this were in the UK then yes she would be below the age of ciminal responsibility. However, what this means is that she could not be convicted. It doesn't mean that the police wouldn't or couldn't investigate the alleged crime.
Maybe where you live you hang at dawn everyone you don't like. Dunno.
Here, in the civilised world, theft and unauthorised use of other's properties are two different crimes. Both are crimes only if the thing is of non-negligible value, etc. Of course, so called intellectual property has its own laws. And, of course, downloading for personal use is legal here.
The whole point of this story is to generate ire for copyright enforcement, which is wasted energy as the laws are not wrong and the police were just doing their job. Cybercrime is much more of a social problem than a lot of people want to accept.
This situation could have been totally avoided. Yes the girl pirated and she probably knew she was pirating. Yes her father is a moron for not teaching her better and for not responding to the infringment notice he received. This should be a valuable lesson for both of them. Using the child to create negative sentiment toward copyright laws or the authorities who enforce copyright laws, is futile.
"Cybercrime" and "piracy" are business managers bulls. The industry loves this, spins this and controls this all over the world.
They could shut down every single torrent site and sharing site in 24/48 hours all over the world if they really want to.
They never do that. With no controlled "piracy" they know hardware sales would drop and they would lose money. It's the industry itself that releases 90% of "pirated" copies on the 'net, as well as hacks, cracks and custom roms for smartphones and consoles.
They want people to believe that little computer wiz kids are doing all of that, and genius university students and other bulls. Unfortunately they succeeded into putting these false silly myths in the minds of worldwide population. The truth is far different.
"This right to bear arms is becoming more and more attractive."
And whom would you shoot at? My understanding of the article is that the bastards that need to taste the bitterness of lead sent the police to go do their dirty work, who according to the "it might have been better if you'd paid" comment appear to have been more than happy to be complicit in this matter. Shooting at them is like taking down the Pawns and ignoring the King, not a terribly useful strategy. Plus, they probably shoot back, so for the sake of a nine-year-old's failed attempt to download a song (that was subsequently legally purchased), there'll be a bunch of dead or seriously injured people, maybe one of them looking at a lot of prison time, so potentially either way the girl loses her father. Of course, this is assuming he actually starts blowing away the cops. He might just want a big gun so he can brandish it and go "grrr", at which point the police must surely assume he is a justifiable threat and unholster their own weapons. If he is dumb enough to do anything other than put the gun down, he risks being shot. He will probably be arrested. In this less gory scenario, the girl loses her father. I'm sure there are some who might consider this just results for piracy...
Are you still certain the right to bear arms is attractive? I can't see it does anything other than make a shitty situation worse.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
