The new Ândsverkslov or intellectual property rights law here in Norway is one of the things I clearly should be paying attention to but have no time or energy for. NRK has lots of articles about it, and one that makes me feel even guiltier about not paying enough attention is the one that argues that that suggestion that it would be illegal to break the copy protection on a CD you legally bought in order to transfer the music to your own mp3-player (remember?) was just a publicity gimmick that worked: the tabloids and everyone picked that up, heck, the young socialists dressed up as iPods and demonstrated in front of parliament, and we got so upset about this patently ridiculous suggestion that we didn’t notice all the other far worse aspects of the law.

Anyway: the NRK article suggests that consumers are getting a far worse deal (making it legal for rights owners to browse our personal media collections? really?) yet the rights holders are screaming because, for instance, the new law allows non-profit use, for instance by councils, which sounds kind of weird in a way.

Are there any informed bloggers discussing this? I checked EFN’s website, but there’s nothing much there. I assume there is in their mailing list, but oh dear, I should, but I don’t have time…


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “copyright law in Norway

  1. Lars

    Eirik Newth has been following this for a while. I suppose he counts as an informed blogger… some links to other sources in the comments.

  2. Jill

    Oh of course. And yes, Eirik Newth is definitely an informed blogger 🙂

  3. Johan

    Gisle Hannemyr is not really a blogger, but he is quite informed and has put something on the web: http://folk.uio.no/gisle/essay/indexno.html

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.