Jakten på fildelare – om prevention, repression och det övervakade samhället
(2012) JURM02 20121Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Kriminalisering är en bland många olika former av social kontroll. När en gärningstyp kriminaliseras beläggs den med straff genom lagstiftning. En kriminalisering ska lämpligen användas som en sista utväg, ultima ratio, eftersom den innebär en inskränkning av individens valfrihet och efter en överträdelse individen kan drabbas av straff, som i sig oftast är menat och uppfattat som något ont. Ett alltför högt kriminaliseringstryck kan leda till att straffrättens fördömande budskap förlorar sin styrka.
De mekanismer som styr kriminalisering respektive avkriminalisering är inte varandras spegelbilder eftersom det är mycket lättare att kriminalisera än att avkriminalisera. Ett vanligt synsätt är att kriminaliseringens syfte är att förhindra... (More) - Kriminalisering är en bland många olika former av social kontroll. När en gärningstyp kriminaliseras beläggs den med straff genom lagstiftning. En kriminalisering ska lämpligen användas som en sista utväg, ultima ratio, eftersom den innebär en inskränkning av individens valfrihet och efter en överträdelse individen kan drabbas av straff, som i sig oftast är menat och uppfattat som något ont. Ett alltför högt kriminaliseringstryck kan leda till att straffrättens fördömande budskap förlorar sin styrka.
De mekanismer som styr kriminalisering respektive avkriminalisering är inte varandras spegelbilder eftersom det är mycket lättare att kriminalisera än att avkriminalisera. Ett vanligt synsätt är att kriminaliseringens syfte är att förhindra vissa icke önskvärda handlingar och frammana andra, önskvärda, handlingar. Annorlunda uttryckt ska straffhotet påverka människors handlingar i en önskvärd riktning.
Utvecklingen har gått mot ett successivt stärkande av det immaterialrättsliga skyddet, vilket också har lett till allt fler motkrafter som ifrågasätter skyddet. Immateriella rättigheters status och legitimitet har ofta debatterats och frågan ställts varför vi ska skydda immateriella rättigheter över huvud taget. Lagharmoniseringsarbetet inom EU har verkat pådrivande inom de skärpta sanktionerna mot immaterialrättsintrång.
På senare tid har en del omdebatterade lagändringar ägt rum, med den gemensamma nämnaren att de alla fått utstå kritik mot alltför långtgående ingrepp i den personliga integriteten. Enligt min och många andras mening går det att se en oroande utveckling när dessa lagändringar utsätts för en samlad bedömning.
Vad är egentligen en godtagbar inskränkning av den personliga integriteten i ett demokratiskt samhälle? Det finns i mitt tycke starka och betydelsefulla skäl till att skydda upphovsrätten. Däremot är jag av uppfattningen att den har fått väga alltför tungt när den balanseras mot individens rätt att bli lämnad i fred.
Övervakningen och lagringen av uppgifter om oss ökar och motiveras med kampen mot terrorism och den grova organiserade brottsligheten. Detta leder till effektivare makt- och tvångsmedel för de brottsbekämpande myndigheterna vilket rimligtvis också borde leda till en större restriktivitet i användningen av dem, men i stället tycks det peka mot motsatt riktning.
Det finns all anledning för den som förespråkar den idealtypiska defensiva straffrättspolitiska modellen, där statsmakten är en potentiell fiende, att vara orolig över de senaste ändringarna och den framtida utvecklingen. (Less) - Abstract
- Criminalization is one among many forms of social control. When an act is criminalized, it is enforced with a penalty by law. Criminalization should be used as a last resort, ultima ratio, since it restricts the individual's choice and after a violation individuals may suffer retribution, which in itself is usually meant and understood as something evil. A too high rate in criminalization may lead to that the message of contempt in criminal law loses its strength.
The mechanisms of criminalization and decriminalization do not mirror each other as it is much easier to criminalize than to decriminalize. A common view is that criminalization is designed to prevent certain undesirable actions and evoke other desirable actions. Put another... (More) - Criminalization is one among many forms of social control. When an act is criminalized, it is enforced with a penalty by law. Criminalization should be used as a last resort, ultima ratio, since it restricts the individual's choice and after a violation individuals may suffer retribution, which in itself is usually meant and understood as something evil. A too high rate in criminalization may lead to that the message of contempt in criminal law loses its strength.
The mechanisms of criminalization and decriminalization do not mirror each other as it is much easier to criminalize than to decriminalize. A common view is that criminalization is designed to prevent certain undesirable actions and evoke other desirable actions. Put another way, the threat of punishment shall affect peoples’ actions in a desirable direction.
The trend has been towards a gradual strengthening of intellectual property protection, which has also led to an increasing number of countervailing forces that question the protection. Intellectual property rights status and legitimacy has often been debated and the question has been asked why we should protect intellectual property rights at all. The legal harmonization within the EU has been the driving force within the tightened sanctions against intellectual property rights violations.
More recently, some controversial legislative changes has been made with the common denominator that they all had to endure criticism of excessive infringement in personal integrity. In my and many others' opinion, it is possible to see a disturbing trend when these legislative changes are subject to an overall assessment.
What is an acceptable restriction of personal privacy in a democratic society? In my opinion there are strong and important reasons to protect copyrights. However, I am also of the opinion that it has weighed too heavily when balanced against the individual's right to his or her privacy.
Monitoring and storage of data about us is increasing and is justified by the fight against terrorism and serious organized crime. This leads to more power and efficient means of coercion of the law enforcement agencies which reasonably should also lead to a greater restraint in their use, but instead it seems to point towards the opposite direction.
There is every reason for those who advocate the ideal-typical defensive model, which emphasizes legal security and in which the state is a potential enemy, to be concerned about recent changes and future developments. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2702095
- author
- Berger, Daniel LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The hunt for filesharers – on prevention, repression and the surveillance society
- course
- JURM02 20121
- year
- 2012
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- datalagring, fildelning, immaterialrätt, kriminalisering, prevention, straffrätt, upphovsrätt, övervakning
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 2702095
- date added to LUP
- 2012-10-15 10:56:59
- date last changed
- 2012-10-15 10:56:59
@misc{2702095,
abstract = {{Criminalization is one among many forms of social control. When an act is criminalized, it is enforced with a penalty by law. Criminalization should be used as a last resort, ultima ratio, since it restricts the individual's choice and after a violation individuals may suffer retribution, which in itself is usually meant and understood as something evil. A too high rate in criminalization may lead to that the message of contempt in criminal law loses its strength.
The mechanisms of criminalization and decriminalization do not mirror each other as it is much easier to criminalize than to decriminalize. A common view is that criminalization is designed to prevent certain undesirable actions and evoke other desirable actions. Put another way, the threat of punishment shall affect peoples’ actions in a desirable direction.
The trend has been towards a gradual strengthening of intellectual property protection, which has also led to an increasing number of countervailing forces that question the protection. Intellectual property rights status and legitimacy has often been debated and the question has been asked why we should protect intellectual property rights at all. The legal harmonization within the EU has been the driving force within the tightened sanctions against intellectual property rights violations.
More recently, some controversial legislative changes has been made with the common denominator that they all had to endure criticism of excessive infringement in personal integrity. In my and many others' opinion, it is possible to see a disturbing trend when these legislative changes are subject to an overall assessment.
What is an acceptable restriction of personal privacy in a democratic society? In my opinion there are strong and important reasons to protect copyrights. However, I am also of the opinion that it has weighed too heavily when balanced against the individual's right to his or her privacy.
Monitoring and storage of data about us is increasing and is justified by the fight against terrorism and serious organized crime. This leads to more power and efficient means of coercion of the law enforcement agencies which reasonably should also lead to a greater restraint in their use, but instead it seems to point towards the opposite direction.
There is every reason for those who advocate the ideal-typical defensive model, which emphasizes legal security and in which the state is a potential enemy, to be concerned about recent changes and future developments.}},
author = {{Berger, Daniel}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Jakten på fildelare – om prevention, repression och det övervakade samhället}},
year = {{2012}},
}