God fortsättning, alla!

 It appears that the US, according to WikiLeaks cables, is playing a large part in writing other countries' laws - expecially IP laws. The following is a translation from a PiratPariet posting. It can be viewed in its original Swedish here.

A few days before Christmas I received a package with a few telegrams from Wikileaks' vast collection, "which might be of interest to me," an anonymous source. They had been published in part by the SVT in the past.
But it was what had not been published by the SVT that was pure explosive subject matter. It took me four days to understand what I had just been in black and white, and I still have not digested it. In short: every law, every investigation that has been hostile towards the net, youth and civil rights here in Sweden in recent years has been the custom orders by the U.S. government and American business. We suspected that it was so, but had thought it might come a little bit here and there. It was wrong. It was coordinated and the Swedish government had been given a checklist to check off, and is described in diplomatic telegrams as "very cooperative" and "completely caught on."
Since 2006, we claimed that the data storage, police method investigation, investigation that would turn off people from the network (Renfors Inquiry), the political trial and the persecution of The Pirate Bay, IPRED and FRA whole thing is part of a larger whole, a coherent whole that is controlled by American interests. It has allowed conspiracy at the top. Even ridiculous. We have suggested that the U.S. government hunts on the systematic dismantling of civil rights in Europe and elsewhere to American corporate dominance is not at risk, and particularly on copyright and patents.
But suddenly it was there in black and white. So far that officials at the Justice Department have been writing the text of the law to IPRED, officials whom I have named and criticized, has been at the embassy and received instruction.
This will be a bit long newsletter, for I intend to go through the documents in detail. If you do not feel the need to read a lot right now, so enough of this sentence:
Pirate Party was right in everything. The search for common Svensson who share music and movies with each other has been behind the largest dismantling of civil rights in modern times, and American interests have been behind everything.
Please spread this message by all means go: send on to friends, post in forums, on blogs, facebook, twittering about it, etc. Oh, and talk about it too.
For those who want more comments, instead of hard reference point, I recommend Christian Engström's blog post "Foil Hats off to Sweden's puppet government".
In the middle of härvan are diplomatic telegram Stockholm 09-141, which recommends that Sweden is not blacklisted by the U.S. in the so-called Special 301 "list, and explain why. Special 301 is a list that the U.S. puts together each year to single out countries that they consider not to be sufficiently attentive to American industry. A majority of the world's population is listed, including Canada and Spain. Quite hyvens company to be in.
Since the 1980s, the U.S. has aggressively threatened trade sanctions against countries that do not give American companies large enough competitive advantage - this is described in detail in the book Information Feudalism on the TRIPS Agreement and the WTO came to for those who are interested in details. In practical terms, it works so that the professional organizations in the United States goes to the American Economy Ministry, which in turn goes to the U.S. State Department, which goes to the embassies, which in turn talking to governments, including the Swedish, and require legislative changes to benefit the U.S. firms.
It sounds like science fiction, right? But here are the documents. This document is from the copyright industry's trade association IIPA, which mainly consists of the record and film companies. They have listed six requirements in the Swedish government, which is to be found in the linked document:
- Allows you to turn the citizens from the Internet without or awaiting trial (known as "injunctive relief" on the legal language) and for IPRED in a way so that the copyright industry can get the IP addresses.- Prosecute the people behind The Pirate Bay, as far as absolutely possible.- Increase the number of police officers who are just working to hunt down ordinary file-sharers.- Initiate a massive campaign to eradicate file sharing and piracy.- Ensure that the rights holders may obtain damages [from file sharers] quickly and easily.- Abolish budbärarimmuniteten so that ISPs are liable when copyright infringement occurs over their networks, and that such be placed in the transfer itself.
We recognize all this, right? With one exception, so it looks like the checklist that Swedish government has followed. Embassy explains even exemption.
The telegram Stockholm 09-141 reads (in translation), with my comments:
1st Stockholm embassy recommends that Sweden continues to be on the processing list, instead of black list this year. We are aware that trade associations IIPA [copyright industry] and PhRMA [pharmaceutical industry] think differently. We base our recommendation on:
- The progress made by the Swedish government has done in five of the six points that IIPA identified last year and which we gave to the Swedish government;
[Rick's comment: They write straight out that the government has a checklist.]
- The sensitive domestic policies that the government needs to deal with when you look down on file sharing. The government is fighting, with good intentions, against a noisy youth movement and a negative media climate. For example, we want to highlight the risk that the Pirate Party is elected to the European Parliament later this year.
[Rick's note: It is apparently "a vocal youth movement" fighting for basic civil rights.]
2nd We are here through the progress that Sweden has made in the checklist that we gave to the government last year. The Embassy continues to work very constructively with the Swedish Govern, and has good access and good working with officials in decision-making and working levels. It made since last year's survey reinforces the laws to fight against file sharing. The trial of The Pirate Bay is currently in the Stockholm district court. The last day of the trial is March 4, and the award may be expected on or around March 25.
[Rick's note: The embassy says that they have good access to officials. The second telegram name those whom, and that's including the man who wrote the Act to IPRED.]
3rd [...] The Justice Department, which has primary responsibility for these matters, is entirely at our notes and know what is at stake. They fight right now with the Ministry of Industry on the next appropriate steps to crack down on file sharing. Now that IPRED will finally take effect on 1 April, and it soon will be a tingsrättsdom in Pirate-Bay case, then the Department of Justice to give attention to other key issues, notably the question of how ISPs can be held liable [for the that people send in their networks]. [...]
[Rick's comment: it is therefore a clear indication that the Justice Department and Ash are working to eliminate budbärarimmuniteten and make ISPs responsible for what their customers do, so we will have a powerful form of censorship outside the law. This is one of the most serious threats that exist on the Internet's basic principles today. Note also the wording on the Justice Department is in the U.S. in the knee, the questions.]
4th [...] The embassy has provided a list of things to be addressed to the Swedish government in which the U.S. government had hoped to see progress in 2008.
5th Events list under [the so-called] Special 301 Initiative contained recommendations in six areas. Sweden's government has acted, in varying degrees, in five of these areas. A review of this follows in the following paragraphs.
[Here I throw on the section the order a bit, so that we can compare with the checklist from the U.S. copyright industry's trade association IIPA, and I take it as a reference. The numbers in front of the paragraph is therefore in a diplomatic telegram, and then select which piece of text that is referenced. Checklist items taken from the top down in IIPAs list.]
The checklist says:
Allows you to turn the citizens from the Internet without trial or awaiting trial (known as "injunctive relief" on the legal language) and ...
The embassy says:
7th Injunctive relief: the only point of no progress is number two on the list, "injunctive relief". Swedish Government maintains that there are sufficient measures in Swedish legislation, and does not intend to add new bills. (Note that the [copyright] industry's claims to the contrary was supported by Renfors investigation, an investigation that would examine the file-sharing situation. The Swedish Government has announced that it will not proceed with Renfors investigation.)
Rick's comment:
Renfors study was the bill that explicitly wanted to turn the citizens from the network without trial. Its secretary, John Axhamn, lobbying hard right now to introduce censorship outside the law by another of the six points.
The checklist says:
... And before IPRED in a way so that the copyright industry can get the IP addresses.
The embassy says:
8th Implementation of IPRED: The law passed by Parliament on 25 February, and the new legislation takes effect on 1 April 2009. The political sensitivities made the final stage of the bill handling very sensitive to the Alliance Government. Much of the debate and negotiations have taken place in transparency, and individual MPs have come under enormous pressure. A law passed through is therefore a much greater victory for the Swedish government than it might seem. Major changes compared to the original bill:
- The law will not be retroactive. [...]
- The court will make an assessment of proportionality, ie, balancing the elements from the copyright owner to find out the identity behind the internet subscription to privacy aspects of the person. The law says that a certain level of copyright infringement must have occurred to information should be released. In normal circumstances, this would occur when the interference consists of uploading one film or piece of music [...]
- The Act contains text that the government intends to observe and assess how the law is used [...]
Rick's comments:
Here are two things that are worth noting. Firstly, it is clear that the United States and the embassy was behind all the controversial elements of IPRED (part for the release of subscriber information on a voluntary basis in the EU directive). Second, you wary when the government talks about "large-scale file sharers", for this is in black and white what that means: to upload a single movie or song, such as two million Swedes do every day.
Also note the tone of disappointment that the law was not made retroactive.
The checklist says:
Prosecute the people behind The Pirate Bay, as far as absolutely possible.
The embassy says:
12th After the raid on The Pirate Bay on 31 May 2006, as discussed intensively filesharing in Sweden. The media climate was the main purpose, and still is, disadvantageous to the comments made by the defendants and the U.S. government. Raid against The Pirate Bay was presented as the Swedish government had departed for printing from the United States. The sensitivity of the situation made it difficult, if not counterproductive, for the embassy to intervene in the public debate on copyright. Behind the scenes, the embassy has worked well with all stakeholders. After 18 months of investigation, the prosecutor brought charges against four individuals for aiding copyright infringement because of their activity in managing the BitTorrent website The Pirate Bay. The goal is heard right now in the district court in Stockholm, and the last day of the hearing is on 4 March. Judgement is expected on or about March 25, that is before the Special 301 review is completed. Note that we expect the sentence will be appealed to higher courts, meaning that the final verdict will not be known for several years.
Rick's comment:
Even when the raid came on 31 May, so it appeared clear indications that the U.S. had pressed on. It was not to prove. Now it is in black and white on an action list, along with the comment that the Justice Department is fully caught on and are very cooperative.
The embassy also writes home that they have worked behind the scenes with "all stakeholders". Some of these names in other diplomatic telegrams, including target ägarsidan in Pirate Bay trial.
The checklist says:
Increase the number of police officers who are just working to hunt down file-sharers.
The embassy says:
10th Police and prosecutors: there are now two full-time prosecutors dealing with copyright issues. Police officers have been trained, but we understand that they must not give copyright issues some attention. They are back at his regular job in their police district, where there are other priorities. We understand that the prosecutors have indicated that this is a problem for their work - they are stuck with a backlog of old cases without support from the investigating police officers. Prosecutors ask for investigating police officers that are folded full-time to IPR [Copyright issues], today there is no such thing. The Justice Department has repeatedly asked the Commissioner of Police how he plans to rectify these deficiencies. Although the government recognizes the need, so will the budget for next year is unlikely to contain a sharp rise in funding for police, given the economic situation. This is an area where the embassy is working with government and [copyright] industry to illustrate what a profound impact which can be made for additional resources to this area.
The checklist says:
Initiate a massive campaign to eradicate file sharing and piracy.
The embassy says:
11th Educating the public: In the fall of 2008, then sent the Government / Ministry of Justice is the new training materials, primarily targeted at young people, who will distriberas widely in Swedish schools. Justice Ask staff are currently considering the pros and cons of engaging individual ministers in the public debate. Given all the negative attention that came around IPRED Act and the Pirate Bay trial, so the decision has so far been keeping a low profile. Central government recognizes that there is a real risk that the window for the debate was lost several years ago, when leading politicians did not debate. How to put themselves in at this time is a sensitive issue.
Rick's comments:
We criticized this material when it came out. The Justice Department sent out "teaching" with copyright-sided propaganda that school supplies! It had not happened before, and I criticized the material on point after point to be politically biased, only tell half the story, or at times directly wrong. Now we know that it was commissioned by the United States.
Sample text from the material available on in this earlier blog post. It is purely a party statement from the copyright industry that is sent out as even-handed materials.
The checklist says:
Ensure that the rights holders may obtain damages [from file sharers] quickly and easily.
The embassy says:
9th To give police and prosecutors the right to identity behind the IP addresses [Internet service] for individuals suspected of copyright infringement of lower ranking, that is bötesbrott instead of prison crimes: The Justice Department has also worked towards the goal of changing the law so that police and prosecutors can access identities behind IP addresses in cases where the crime that most can be fined, rather than prison. The usual Swedish term for this type of crime is "minor crimes". At the moment, so can law enforcement officials only such information about copyright infringement can lead to imprisonment. Government / Ministry of Justice has agreed to change the law and the amendment was baked in an investigation that would suggest the necessary steps for such a change. The changes were removed recently from the rest of the investigation, and presented in advance of the Minister of Justice Ash late in January 2009. Although the slow legislative process has been disappointing, as the government / Justitedepartementet already agreed on the necessary changes that will enhance the investigative ability of law enforcement officials.
Rick's comments:
This is data storage. This is the so-called "Step 2" of data storage that Beatrice Ask announced last Thursday - when the traffic data storage went from being confined to serious crimes to include bötesbrott as file sharing. It is not an obsolete telegram, but the government is still in the tick of their checklist.
Now, the Parliament may, at least, with hindsight, vote down this job order from foreign power business interests.
The checklist says:
Abolish budbärarimmuniteten so that ISPs are liable when copyright infringement occurs over their networks, and that such be placed in the transfer itself.
The embassy says:
6th Industry Consulting and liability for ISPs: Swedish government held a series of industry meetings in the summer and autumn of 2008, with the explicit objective to discuss a voluntary industry agreement between ISPs and rights holders. Industrial Relations reported that the ISPs were reluctant (they claimed it was impossible) to act this way voluntarily. The first round was completed in autumn 2008. Ministry of Justice are currently working internally to get to a second round with a clear incentive to get to the results, namely, the threat of legislation if an agreement is reached. There is some resistance in the Ministry of Industry against this, and negotiations are under way at senior levels in government offices.
Rick's comments:
This is one of the ugliest ways to destroy the Internet as we know it. If budbärarimmuniteten disappear, if ISPs are held accountable for what their customers are communicating, they will censor the net hard and mercilessly completely outside the law. It's just like the Post would be responsible for what is carried in the mail, or by the telephone company would be liable for aiding and abetting as planned on the phone. They would only allow certain pre-determined, approved and safe things to be said. "Press 1 to say goodbye.". Otherwise, they held themselves accountable for everything that was said.
The concept is completely foreign. The only thing that really helps somewhat against file sharing is killing the entire Internet, and this would be such a measure. Christopher Kullenberg comment in more detail.
Copyright industry lobbying body Netopia working intensively with pressure around this and call it the 'middleman liability' to make it sound positive.
Concluding remarks
So here we have it. Everything in black and white.
This takes, as Christian Engstrom writes, a little time to digest. But now we know that politicians lie, all the time. Everything was simple custom orders to violate Swedish citizens to benefit American industry. Just as we have said since 2006, but not really had evidence that everything is connected like this clearly.
Please forward this to all the way to go.
Talk to you soon again,Rick

The History of Santa Claus and Other Name Brands

"Most people can agree on what Santa Claus looks like -- jolly, with a red suit and a white beard. But he did not always look that way, and Coca-Cola® advertising actually helped shape this modern-day image of Santa." That is a quote from Coca-Cola's website, from a page titled "Coke Lore".

Indeed, Santa did not always look that way. He did not always appear as a jolly fat man in a red suit, with his trademark red hat with the white poof at the end. In fact, he did not always appear in any "one" way. Instead, as the Coke Lore site explains, Santa's look ranged from "big to small and fat to tall. Santa even appeared as an elf and looked a bit spooky"

According to the Saint Nicholas Center, Alexander Anderson drew Santa for its first Saint Nicholas anniversary dinner on December 6, 1810. See directly above.

Thomas Nast, a civil war cartoonist, drew Santa for Harper's Weekly. It was a far cry from the Santa that Coke created. See directly above.

Maybe the presence of cocaine in Coca-Cola early in the life of the soft drink helped. If the quasi-ownership of Christmas's central character isn't enough, Coca-Cola has remained viable through anti-Semitism. Coke created a brand called Fanta Orange in order to keep up its sales to Nazis during WWII.

Coke's branding genius is not in a league of its own. Listerine began its life as a floor cleaner, an anti-septic, and a treatment for gonorrhea. Then, the branding strategists created the word "halitosis", and sales took off. Kleenex became famous for its ad campaign "Don’t Carry a Cold in Your Pocket", but the tissue brand started by advertising its products ability to remove makeup.

So, brands change, with advertising... The more effective these ads are, the more likely the company is to rebrand itself.

Getting Paid for Every Word You Text...

What if you could make money for each word that people text to eachother on their smart-phones? I think it's possible to monetize the auto-correct spelling feature of these phones. There is a chance that this is already being done however, because of its concealed and very subtle nature.

As a lawyer, I spent precious few of my daily text messages talking about the bar. When I did text the word 'bar', it was often because I wanted to stop studying and have a barbeque. So, I would hit up my friends with a text. I would take out my HTC Hero Droid phone and type in, "Barbeque and Nazi Zombies?". But, on the HTC Hero, as soon as one types in "Barb", the phone gives "Barn" and "BARBRI" as suggestions for the word you are trying to type. Thus reminding me that I had to wake up early the following morning for 4 hours of video-taped classes.

For those of you who don't know BARBRI, it is the name of one of the popular bar study courses - it is a trademark. It is unlikely that BARBRI is aware of Droid's generous execution of its auto-correct software. If BARBRI was aware, it would probably be alright with this use. In fact, BARBRI and other trademark owners would probably pay for Droid's auto-correct to suggest that trademarks are what the phone user "intends" to type into a text.

Imagine if Facebook could expose you to it's brand every time you type "face" into your phone. With my Droid, if you type "face" followed by the letter 'b', 'n', or 'v', one of the suggestions for what you intend to type is indeed "Facebook". Thus, Facebook "owns" the real estate of two letters of the alphabet that aren' even in its name. I'm not sure if Facebook knows of this generous execution of Droid's auto-correct code.

This auto-correct code could be created in such a way as to suggest trademarks based on the trademark owner who paid the most. Every time you type "dont", your phone tells you that you must be typing "Sony", and Droid gets a nickel because you were exposed to the trademark. Well, right now Doird probably doesn't get anything, but it could...

Try typing the word "stood" into a Droid phone. Does the phone ask if you are trying to type its name - "Droid"? My phone does. If you write the code that tells people what they mean to type, then it's easy to play favoritism with yourself.

The code could be written so that if I type Pepsi, it suggests Coca-Cola. At least it could be written that way if Coke were Droid's customer. Otherwise, it should suggest Tab.

Boardwalk Empire - Public Domain At Its Best

So many of us are drawn into alternate realities, often, by television, the
ubiquitous media that permeates the human race. But basic cable hardly offers
what we crave. Enter Home Box Office (HBO).

HBO was responsible for the Sopranos, the show about a New Jersey gangster
and his family, which ended three years ago. It is also responsible for the new
gangster show, Boardwalk Empire. HBO also broadcasts Entourage, the show based
on Mark Wahlberg’s experiences as an up-and-comer. HBO can also claim Oz, Sex
in the City, and Six Feet Under as its own productions.

After watching episodes of each of these shows, it becomes apparent where
the producers can save money without the audience really noticing. Because if
there is one thing you want to avoid as a producer (at least if you are
postured like HBO), it’s the appearance of frugality. Viewers do not want to
watch a show and say, “Wow, they must have done this for very little
money,” because if they did, firms like HBO would hardly be able to
justify their premium on top of cable. In fact, many viewers attain
satisfaction from a show, such as Boardwalk Empire, when they watch the show
and think that everything in it came with a large price tag
All of these shows have the commonality that, if they are successful,
advertising can be sold, product promotions may become common place, and there
is also the holy grail of syndication. These are all ways to save and make money,
but they do not appear (at least no pervasively) until the show has enjoyed
some success. Also, advertising, clothing promotions, and syndication are
usually noticeable, even by the less than discerning viewer. Even Joe Schmoe
knows when he’s seen enough advertisements, when every character drinks a
Coca-Cola with the label showing, or when he is watching a rerun.

So, how does HBO save money while still convincing the average viewer that
no expense is being spared? By taking advantage of the public domain. The
public domain consists of works that are not protected by copyright or related
rights, and it is free for anyone to use.

For example: in one of the birthday episodes of Entourage, the guys all sing
the song: Happy Birthday. This is an expensive undertaking because Happy
Birthday is under copyright and is owned by AOL Time Warner. The ownership
interest is worth about $2 million per year. Elsewhere
in the same episode, the guys can be seen watching an old black-and-white
movie. The movie is likely in the public domain, meaning that the expensive
license acquired for the right to sing Happy Birthday was offset by the free
license for use of the movie.

In Boardwalk Empire, use of the public domain is more apparent, especially
in its wonderful soundtrack. Boardwalk’s music consists of several songs that
are likely from the public domain: “So Long, Oo Long (How Long You Gonna
Be Gone)”, performed by Seabreeze Park Wurlitzer Band Organ, was written
by Al Bernard in 1920; “Battle Hymn of the Republic”, performed by
Vince Giordano and the Nighthawks, was written by Julia Ward Howe in 1861;
“Tenting On the Old Camp Ground”, performed by Seabreeze Park
Wurlitzer Band Organ, was written by Walter Kittredge in 1863; “Some of These
Days”, performed by Sophie Tucker, was written by Shelton Brooks in 1910; “String
Quartet No. 5 in F Minor” was written by Joseph Haydn in 1772; “By the Waters
of Minnetonka”, performed by Zen Confrey, was published by Thurlow Lieurance in
1913, but he borrowed the melody from an older Indian song; “Good Morning,
Judge” was recorded by Sophie Tucker sometime between 1920 and 1922; “Don’t
Take Away Those Blues” was originally performed by Flo Bert between 1920 and
1928; “An Old Fashioned Garden”, was first performed in the early 1900s by
Olive Kline; “I Never Knew I Had A Wonderful Wife”, performed by Vince Giordano
and the Nighthawks Feat. Stephen De Rosa, was written by Lew Brown and Albert
von Tilzer in 1919; “Fascination”, performed by Craig Duncan, was written by
F.D. Marchetti in 1905 and published in 1932.

Songs published prior to 1923 are presumptively in the public domain,
meaning that you or I could use the same song and make a profit from it. The
songs published well before 1978 are in the public domain if their copyright
protection has lapsed. That doesn’t mean that you can download the songs as
performed by the artists on Boardwalk Empire. But you could use the sheet music
as you wish, which is what the producers of Boardwalk did. The producers of
Boardwalk paid good musicians to perform the public domain songs for use in the
television show. Thus, the producers were able to remove the cost of having to
pay for a license to use the underlying sheet music by taking advantage of the
public domain.

Additionally, any of the publicity rights associated with the characters
represented on Boardwalk are likely free to exploit, as many of the characters
depicted, such as Al Capone, died decades ago. The story for Boardwalk Empire
was lifted from a factual history of New Jersey written by Nelson Johnson,
which was experiencing slow sales at the time, and was likely lifted at a
relatively small cost for that reason. Facts are very similar to works in the
public domain because neither are protected by copyright – copyright protects
not facts or ideas, but the expression thereof. Thus, I submit that the show,
which seems lavish, and really is, is also not as expensive a production as one
would think at first view. Like many shows, it takes advantage of the public
domain. Like few shows, it does it with seamless elegance.