Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Legalize File Sharing, Say Swedish MPs

Posted by kdawson on Fri Jan 11, 2008 08:59 AM
from the common-sensical dept.
CrystalFalcon writes "In the past week, the file sharing debate has exploded in Sweden, with numerous mainstream politicians finally having understood the issue. Last week, seven Swedish MPs wrote a prominent opinion piece saying that fully legalized file sharing is not just the best solution, it's the only solution. Now their number has increased to 13, and the issue continues to grow. Good summaries at TorrentFreak and P2P Consortium. Original opinion piece in English here."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Politics: Interview With Pirate Party Leader Rick Falkvinge 515 comments
mmuch writes "In the wake of the recent copyright debate in Swedish mainstream media, the P2P Consortium has published an interview with Rick Falkvinge, the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party. He comments on the mainstream politicians starting to understand the issues, the interplay between strict copyright enforcement and mass surveillance, and the chances for global copyright reform." Some choice Falkvinge quotes: "What was remarkable was that this was the point where the enemy — forces that want to lock down culture and knowledge at the cost of total surveillance — realized they were under a serious attack... for the first time, we saw everything they could bring to the battle. And it was... nothing. Not even a fizzle. All they can say is 'thief, we have our rights, we want our rights, nothing must change, we want more money, thief, thief, thief'... Whereas we are talking about scarcity vs. abundance, monopolies, the nature of property, 500-year historical perspectives on culture and knowledge, incentive structures, economic theory, disruptive technologies, etc. The difference in intellectual levels between the sides is astounding... When the Iron Curtain fell, all of the West rejoiced that the East would become just as free as the West. It was never supposed to be the other way around."
[+] Your Rights Online: Four Indicted in Pirate Bay Case 709 comments
paulraps writes "Suddenly the founders of the Pirate Bay are not so hearty. The four men behind the popular file-sharing site were indicted in Sweden on Thursday on charges of being accessories to breaking copyright law. And this is more than just a shot across the bows. The prosecutor reckons that they can be hooked for 'promoting other people's copyright breaches' but there will be no walking the plank: instead, they face fines of up to $200,000 and the confiscation of all their hardware. 'The Swedish prosecutor listed dozens of works that had been downloaded through The Pirate Bay site, including The Beatles' Let It Be, Robbie Williams' Intensive Care and the movie Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire. Plaintiffs in the case include Warner, MGM, Columbia Pictures, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony BMG, Universal and EMI.'"
[+] Sweden to Give Courts New Power to Hunt IP Infringers 171 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Swedish Culture & Justice ministers are preparing to give new power to Swedish courts to let them force ISPs to give up subscriber IPs. The end goal is trying subscribers in court for copyright infringement. As the one-time home of the Pirate Bay, which is now internationally distributed, they face both US pressure and push-back at home. The Swedish arm of the Pirate Party is calling this move a 'sanctioned blackmailing operation', but hopefully the Swedish courts won't allow the IFPI to use as many tricks as the RIAA has in US courts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • There's no emoticon for what I'm feeling.
  • by hossi19 (1199735) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:12AM (#21998342)
    I'm very proud to live in the Sweden now. Proud of the nation of Pirates! So if you mpaa or riaa are planing to invande Sweden, think again! We will fight to the last man. Yarr!
  • Hmm, maybe.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rotide (1015173) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:13AM (#21998354)
    While I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea, I also think that suing 12yr olds is even more retarded. The benefits of this idea are that time/money/lives aren't lost and/or ruined by overly greedy corporations. However, I don't think the artists/creators will enjoy this much. But I think we can all agree, those that want to infringe will, regardless of the laws.
    • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by famebait (450028) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:27AM (#21998528)
      I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea,

      I'm a bit confused about what you mean here.
      Who is ignoring copyright infringement and should be penalized for it?

      The pirates today are _performing_ infringement.
      The Swedish MPs in question want to change the law so that it is _not_ an infringement.
      In free countries it is not normal to punish civilians for ignoring the petty crimes of their fellow citizens.
      Is it the law enforcers you want to punish, than, if they fail to crack down on file-sharers?
    • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by tkrotchko (124118) * on Friday January 11 2008, @10:08AM (#21999122) Homepage
      You are correct. However, my preferences would be to change the law to:

      a) Force the party suing people to first prove they know the exact person who infringed the copyright - it's kind of like those speed cameras. Since they can't tell who was driving, the fine is $40, no points, and by law they can't be used by insurance companies to raise fees.

      b) The punishment matches the crime - If you share a electronic copy of a CD, the retail price is about $8-10, as determined by the market. That would be the maximum punishment. If this is someone who has never been convicted of sharing copyrighted materials, there would be no punishment for a "first offense".

      c) The fines/fees from any punishment would be used to fund the arts - this allows the RIAA/MPAA to put their money where their mouths are. They keep saying they're protecting the artist (RIAA), or that every time a movie is copied, then a stuntman or gaffer is put out of work. Well, this allows the arts to flourish, and deters people from sharing copyrighted material.

      d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive.

         
      • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Opportunist (166417) on Friday January 11 2008, @11:50AM (#22000628)
        d) so-called "intellectual property" will be treated as real property, including the levy of "property tax" on the fair market value of the so-called "intellectual property". This would encourage artists and companies to maximize the value of productive property and abandon property that is not productive.

        OMG. This is one of the most insightful ideas concerning copyright since its conception. If anything, this would be a huge leap towards more balance between those that create and those that use that creation, either to consume it or to create something new out of it.

        I wouldn't do a "property tax", I'd rather have IP holders pay an annual fee for their creations to "keep" them. That would immediately eliminate all discussions about whether copyright should be 10 years, 20, 50, 70 or infinitly. The IP holder himself could determine how long his property is valuable to him, and release it into public domain as soon as it becomes "worthless". There is so much IP lying around, because it's "worthless", but cannot be used sensibly by anyone because it is still kept under lock by the one holding the rights to it. It could be reused, recycled, in art as collages or music as remixes, and new art could arise out of old. A new art form could emerge out of it.

        You, sir, single handedly shaped an idea that could revolutionize the way we handle IP. Please write to your congressman (or whatever similar entity exists in your country)!
    • Re:Hmm, maybe.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by asuffield (111848) <asuffield@suffields.me.uk> on Friday January 11 2008, @01:47PM (#22002364)

      While I think NO penalties for ignoring copyright infringement is a bad idea


      Kindly explain why you think it is a bad idea for people to share what they have, and that we should stop them from doing this. Note that this is the exact opposite of what most children are taught is the "right" way to behave.

      The internet has finally brought these two fundamentally opposed notions into direct conflict. There can be no compromise between those who want to base society on taking/withholding and those who want to base it on sharing, and that's what we're looking at here.

      Do you share your ball with the other kids on the playground, so that you can all enjoy the game, or do you reserve it for the few who can afford to pay you, which means there aren't enough players for a good game but you'll benefit more from it? It's all the same ethical decision at the bottom of it.
  • by Wooky_linuxer (685371) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:13AM (#21998356)
    After all, in a democratic country, if a very large percentage of the population willingly infringes a law, there is a very strong case that the law is wrong, not the people. So I guess in any (truly) democratic country file-sharing and similar attitudes regarding "intellectual property" should be legal.
    • Exactly. If a large enough percentage of the population wants the law to change, they will simply vote in new politicians.

      Most of the time, the existing politicians sense this is about to happen ahead of time, and change the law themselves.

      That's how democracy works. Or at least, how it's supposed to work.
      • by dintech (998802) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:33AM (#21998606)
        We have a lot of stupid laws that were brought about by public demand too. For example, all the laws retracting your freedom in order to catch terrorists. Most of the people on the street are actually convinced this kind of thing is a good idea.
        • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday January 11 2008, @12:08PM (#22000892)
          Really? They are? Did you ask anyone?

          I actually thought the same and started asking people. Not just friends. I went out on the street, posed as a "survey man" and started asking. It helps when you studied statistics, you know the drill. And you know how to word questions without leading people to answers.

          Interesting enough: 63.4% of the people I asked (sample size 1000, taken in a city of about 2 million inhabitants) did not agree with the anti-terror laws that were created (compared to 8.2 percent thinking we need more surveillance, 23.1 percent saying we have adequate laws and 5.3 percent refusing to answer).

          Now tell me again, who wants those laws? Barely a third of the people I asked think they're ok or not going far enough, two thirds are telling me they go too far and they don't want them. What "public demand" do you see?
      • by YA_Python_dev (885173) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:36AM (#21998644) Journal

        I agree, but not only because there are so many people pirating, but simply because this is the right thing to do. It's not about pirating or saving a few bucks: one of the primary reasons for the existence of nations is to contribute to the diffusion and development of culture (I live in Italy and here we have this clearly written in one of the first articles of our constitution; the proposed European constitution says pretty much the same thing).

        Copyright was established as a state-created monopoly, for a limited time, to encourage the creation and diffusion of artistic works. Not to guarantee an endless stream of money to the MAFIAA lawyers. It's pretty clear that the creation and diffusion of art, music, movies, books, etc. is doing pretty well today (probably better than any other period in human history!) despite, and sometimes thanks to, the huge diffusion of filesharing and piracy.

        So there's no need to outlaw it. It's that simple: copyright isn't a law of nature, it was accepted as a compromise to achieve an end and can be changed if necessary.

      • by zyklone (8959) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:47AM (#21998792) Homepage
        Yes, people speed.
        That doesn't mean they don't support the laws against speeding. They usually accept that there has to be a law against it, they just choose to violate it and accept the penalty.

        With filesharing people do not agree they are committing a crime.
        • When I speed I don't think I'm doing something wrong. I'm not very aggressive, I just speed with the flow of traffic...probably going slower would be more likely to cause an accident. I'm confident in my moral superiority, that clearly the road was built for higher speeds than the limit indicates, and the law is silly, or limit too low for realistic expectations of society.

          People who fileshare will probably agree there is a law against it (you can't argue with fact), but are also probably certain that the law doesn't make any societal sense, and that they are morally fine.

          Exactly the same in my view.
      • by morcego (260031) on Friday January 11 2008, @10:07AM (#21999098) Homepage
        Of course it does. Morality is not something engraved in stone tablets. It is something defined by society. Is having sex under 18 moral ? Is drinking beer ? How about eating pork ? Owning a gun ? Morality is ONLY defined by the society.

        There are many reason (that have nothing to do with morality) why slavery is not a good idea. Same about many other "morality" related issues. Many times, morality is just a guise, and there are other reasons. The same applies about copyright. I'm sure most /.ers agree with limited term copyright. Copyright is not about morality. It has a use. These days, we keep seeing it being abused.
  • It would be really interesting to know what percentage of computer users share files...? In my informal surveys, the figure is really high, 80-90%, and the people who do not share files don't do it simply because they don't care, or don't know how.

    I have never, once, found someone who actually states that they have a moral principle against it.

    The whole "piracy is theft" campaign seems as empty as the "don't smoke pot" campaign. People will do it, and just find ways of not getting caught.
  • Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Armakuni (1091299) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:18AM (#21998410) Homepage
    It seems that any actual societal progress comes from Europe these days, while the US is sinking deeper into a Republican/corporate mire. This is just another example.
          • Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)

            by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Friday January 11 2008, @11:29AM (#22000322)

            Then you wouldn't mind people copying your passport, your high school/college diplomas (if any), your date of birth and drivers license, your credit card numbers and bank accounts, your address and pictures of your family and pets in the nude?

            Nice strawman. You're conflating privacy issues with copyright issues. The data you mention is generally kept private, out of the public eye. Personally, I actually spend money on keeping that information private.

            Data like the latest American Idol hit single is made public, and people spend a lot of money to make it as public as possible.

            It's a shame you don't understand the difference between those two sets of information. It makes it impossible to take your argument as anything but the snide remarks of someone who has no clue.
  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:23AM (#21998480) Journal
    Weapons of mass distribution are found in sweden, US pledges to liberate the citizens.

    Anyone else think that some one at the media forgot to pay swedish politicians? Don't worry, it will soon be corrected when the politicians all of sudden find they aren't invited to any media social events.

  • by whisper_jeff (680366) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:23AM (#21998486)
    "Politicians who play for the antipiracy team should be aware that they have allied themselves with a special interest that is never satisfied and that will always demand that we take additional steps toward the ultimate control state."

    It boggles my mind that there aren't more politicians who have figured out this gem of wisdom. Restricting the rights and freedoms OF YOUR VOTERS for the benefit of a corporation or trade organization, who will never be happy and will continue to push for more and more restrictions and limitations, is a sure way to decrease your chances of being re-elected...
  • by El Yanqui (1111145) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:25AM (#21998510) Homepage
    Please re-seed. I'm stuck at 67%.
  • by ddrichardson (869910) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:30AM (#21998556) Homepage

    FTA:

    Decriminalizing all non-commercial file sharing and forcing the market to adapt is not just the best solution. It's the only solution, unless we want an ever more extensive control of what citizens do on the Internet.

    That's not the same as the synopsis:

    Last week, seven Swedish MPs wrote a prominent opinion piece saying that fully legalized file sharing is not just the best solution, it's the only solution.

    Now, I RTFA and it reads to me that he feels that the media/IP industries will never be satisfied with what the state does and that he doesn't feel it's the states place to police the Internet. Both of these are admirable and sensible statements, in line with what many people actually think.

    But I really don't think he is advocating Sweden as some sort of torrent haven as some posters seem to be suggesting.

    • by CrystalFalcon (233559) * on Friday January 11 2008, @09:36AM (#21998652) Homepage
      Yes, he means that all noncommercial (i.e. not-for-profit) file sharing should be fully legalized, i.e. that nobody must be allowed to monitor and police the Internet for copyright infringements.

      As I have met the man in question, I am well aware of his points and arguments.
    • by Kjella (173770) on Friday January 11 2008, @10:14AM (#21999198) Homepage
      In Sweden the term "commercial" has not been corrupted to mean "swapping copyrighted material". It really refers to legalizing all private not-for-proft copying. For scale, the parliament has 349 seats so 13 representatives is 3.7%. Still, this is mainstream politicans in the second largest party and a far cry bigger than the pirate party's 0.6% in the last election. If put to a vote, more would probably offer their support. If I was the RIAA/MPAA, I'd really worry right about now.
    • Re:Sure, (Score:5, Informative)

      by famebait (450028) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:13AM (#21998352)
      Actually they recently criminalized _buying_ sexual services. Selling therm is still legal, though.
    • Re:Sure, (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Marcus Green (34723) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:25AM (#21998508) Homepage
      It would be handy if people posting responses to this could indicate if they have ever created anything from which they gained a financial return due to copyright laws. I write stuff and generate income from the fact that the law gives me the right to control its copying in return for money. If that law is repealed I will find other ways to spend my time/earn money. I suspect other people will feel and act in the same way. Of course some people will do it for the love of it. Me I quite like going to folk clubs where people do it for the love of the art. Not sure if that is all the creative content I want in my life though.

      • Re:Sure, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rolfc (842110) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:48AM (#21998800)
        I do not earn money from copyright laws, but that is not the point. You see, The media industry is ripping of you too.

        A CD here in stockholm cost more or less 150 SEK, of that about 10 SEK go to the copyright holders. If I want to buy a song online, the price at www.ahlens.se is 12.90 SEK.

        From that I can easily see that although the distribution-cost practically has vanished, the media industry still want the same price for the music. They are ripping us of. A fair price for an album would be 30 SEK, 10 SEK for the distributor and 20 SEK for the artist. And a fair price for a song would be 3 SEK.

        The problem with the copyright law is that it allow these abuses, and it enables the media industry to undermine our integrity and rights society through spending vasts amount on lobbying.

        That is why copyright is Evil.
      • Re:Sure, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by neuron2neuron (1080375) on Friday January 11 2008, @10:14AM (#21999202) Homepage
        God, I hate pseudo-arguments like this; taking one aspect of the argument and spinning it, but ok, I'll bite

        a) worked on many different TV shows
        b) worked for a record company
        c) have a couple of patents
        and d) I write.

        Of course, you'd know of d alrady - I wrote the piece for TorrentFreak.

        The point of the pieces through, isn't abolishing copyright, returning to anarchy, but instead that attempting to criminalise a large section of the population, because an industry hasn't moved on, nor learned from past attempts (with the VCR and MP3 players specifically mentioned).

        I just hope your writing is a damned sight better than your reading comprehension.
      • Re:Sure, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by randomaxe (673239) on Friday January 11 2008, @11:00AM (#21999914)
        In a world where content is created only by those who really enjoy doing it, and not by those who are simply in it for the money, there would be no Britney Spears albums, no Michael Bay movies, and no more anything by Dr. Phil. The Church of Scientology would dry up and disappear due to a shortage of funds and perceived "star power". I am having a very difficult time understanding what is "bad" about any of this.
      • Re:Sure, (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CyberLord Seven (525173) on Friday January 11 2008, @11:26AM (#22000274)
        This is an interesting challenge. Thank you for bringing it up. This should be done from time to time.

        Now here's my perspective:

        I have not created anything that I have been paid for, but that is not for lack of trying. I have wanted to create comic books since the 1970s.

        To get the @$$-holes out of the way, let's just agree to say that my work sucks and is not worth publishing. There, now we can probably discuss this as adults. :)

        Here is the situation after a few decades:

        I was NOT willing to travel to New York to work for slave wages in the offices of Marvel or DC; therefore, I stayed in sunny California, got a real job that paid my bills and allowed me time to work on my "hobby".

        After several decades I have a decent retirement account built up, I have had paid vacations, sick-time (that I have periodically abused), a real career, regular decent pay checks that have enabled me to buy a very large house in the not-cheap San Francisco Bay Area. I still work on my "hobby". I hope to one day publish my work.

        On the flip side, I hear horror stories of some of the comic creators whose work I enjoyed as a child not having basic medical care in the older years. Some live in poverty!

        True, a few have made out like bandits, notably the Image comics guys (they were all guys, weren't they?). By and large though, I seem to be better off NOT having "succeeded". I get a chill trying to imagine my life if I had gone to work for Marvel of DC in the seventies or eighties.

        Copyright law did not protect the creators of my youth! In fact, the "Work For Hire" provisions FUCKED OVER people I admire and respect!

        I do NOT want to eliminate copyright, I just want FUCKING POLITICIANS to remember that copyright is a benefit We the People grant to creators for a temporary time, not for FUCKIN' ETERNITY!

    • by CrystalFalcon (233559) * on Friday January 11 2008, @09:23AM (#21998482) Homepage
      I'm sorry, but your statement has no basis in fact. Sweden is the world's third largest exporter of music.
    • by hossi19 (1199735) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:26AM (#21998518)
      That's wrong, Sweden produce, percentage, most international music of all countries in the world. Why Sweden is in the front of the filesharing debate is because we have the highest internet and computer use in the world. Every home in Sweden have at the worst a ADSL-link connected.
    • by Twisted Willie (1035374) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:34AM (#21998612)
      If you read TFA, you see that the main reason they're proposing to legalize non-commercial filesharing, is that they value the privacy rights of their citizens over the wants of the special interest groups (eg RIAA).

      We politicians have to make clear that we are not prepared to build the technology-hostile control state that would be necessary to satisfy the Antipiracy Bureau and their likes.
      So yes, it would be a net gain. There would be at least one country in the world that values its citizen's privacy.
    • by McNihil (612243) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:39AM (#21998688)
      "...little IP..."

      Ahrem... just because the country barely has 9 million people doesn't mean they have little IP. The cool thing with Sweden is that it has IP where it matters and LOADS of it.

      ABB, Ericsson, Tetra Laval... I could go on.

      That you got 5 mod points is insulting.
        • by Imsdal (930595) on Friday January 11 2008, @10:03AM (#21999052)
          As others have noted, Sweden exports far, far more music than is generally known. Sweden also has a large (compared to its size) computer gaming industry. So on a per capita basis, Sweden would have more to lose than most countries.

          OTOH, you could argue that for music, most of the money will shift to live concerts, and for gaming, most of the money will shift to on-line gaming. This would mean that a not unlikely future would create huge problems for the movie industry (where Sweden has little to lose) but less problems for the areas where Sweden is comparatively strong.

          That would be overthinking the issue from the point of view of the MP's. They just argue that civil liberties are more important than copyright infringements, and that's that. Quite reasonable, IMHO.

        • by Iloinen Lohikrme (880747) on Friday January 11 2008, @11:38AM (#22000456)
          Actually he did mean Nokia. You see Finland is just rebellious province of Sweden, lost for temporarily, but not permanently. No truly Swedish have never accepted the loss of the empire. As the time will come right the Stormaktstiden will come back! The rightful lands of Finland, Norway, Estonia and parts of Russia and North-Germany will be returned under the reborn Swedish Empire!
    • by goldspider (445116) <{ardrake79} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday January 11 2008, @09:38AM (#21998676) Homepage
      You know there is only one way this will end.

      Hi! Could you also tell me next week's Powerball numbers?

      I'm sorry, that's just bullshit. If what you speculate was anywhere NEAR the mark, the **AA's would have already coerced ISPs to block sites like Pirate Bay. That they haven't should speak volumes about your theory.

      Insightful indeed.
    • by l0b0 (803611) on Friday January 11 2008, @10:01AM (#21999028) Homepage

      I have to say, getting EU citizenship is looking more appealing all the time.

      A word of warning before crossing the pond:

      • Police won't be carrying guns at all times, so they will provide absolutely no protection.
      • You'll have to deal with a lot of people who actually know the difference between "their", "there", and "they're". And you might even have to learn a whole new language to deal with those who don't.
      • Don't plan to get rich - Even billionaires have to pay taxes here.
      • Gun-toting rednecks are few and far between, so don't expect much interesting company. And forget about monster trucks!
      • The Germans, Russians and Italians are just waiting for their chance - Don't let all this openness, good food/drink, and friendly faces fool you!
      • Most people prefer Belgian or Swiss chocolate to Mars bars, Belgian, Polish, German or Czech beer to Bud, and pasta, sauerkraut, fondue or smoked salmon to a Big Mac.
      • In rural places a lot of people don't even lock their doors, so naturally theft, rape and murder are rampant.
      • The taxpayers' money is spent on lots of useless stuff - Schools, health insurance and those too lazy to work.

      But if this is not too daunting, you're very welcome to join!

    • by pv2b (231846) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:40AM (#21998702)
      Nope.

      The Berne convention leaves a lot open to interpretation.

      Berne, Article 9, paragraph 2: It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union to permit the reproduction of such works in certain special cases, provided that such reproduction does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author.


      Rick Falkvinge (the leader of the Swedish Pirate Party) has written a great analysis of this on his blog -- unfortunately it's in Swedish :-/

      Rick Falkvinge: Sverige kan legalisera fildelning imorgon [falkvinge.com]

      There are a lot of nice quotes from various treaties that show just how much flexibility a signatory to a treaty is -- some of them in English.
    • by Hell O'World (88678) on Friday January 11 2008, @09:48AM (#21998822)
      Actually you immigrate to a country, emigrating implies going FROM a country. Use it correctly and the women flock around you at parties.
      • by HubHikari (1217396) on Friday January 11 2008, @10:03AM (#21999056)
        Actually you write it grammar, grammer implies you don't know how to spell. Use it correctly and...well, women won't flock around you at parties, but English teachers will be less inclined to hit you with bricks.
      • by ajcham (1179959) on Friday January 11 2008, @10:55AM (#21999848)
        Actually he did use it correctly. It's like the difference between come and go or here and there. You use emigrate when you are in your native country and immigrate when you are in the destination country.
    • Re:How can I... (Score:4, Informative)

      by esper (11644) on Friday January 11 2008, @11:39AM (#22000472) Homepage
      Debates over the existince and quality of Swedish pr0n aside, http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp [migrationsverket.se] is the central site for Swedish immigration information, although you may wish to contact your local embassy/consulate for more situation-specific information (as I discovered when I called to get the exchange rate to use for calculating the application fee and was told there was a separate site for US applicants that I should have been looking at for those details instead).