Slashdot Mirror

In Europe, it is, among others, legal as soon as it is for debugging or interoperability purposes, and the only means to do so. Here's the law that says it.

On 1. it may or may not be intended to mislead. It's an interesting question. I'll bet that it has to refer to part-time jobs though (then we get into definition of a part-time job!).

On 2. I have absolutely no clue. Another great question. I started to look at Eurostats which seems to have a hell of a lot of data if only I could find the time to access it. Interestingly it give the euro-zone countries an 8.5% unemployment rate as compared to the overall (15 member state) 7.8% rate.

There is data from the International Labor Organization that breaks down by country unemployment rates (again, calculated in seemingly different ways!) which shows that some heavily unionized countries (Sweden, Luxembourg) have low un-employment etc. Here's their (up to 1999!) US figures for comparison. Anyway, it's a tricky business, but I can't help suspect that French trade-union members live a better life than US casual/part-time workers!

What I want to know is: who are the politicians making all of these progressive decisions and what affect are they having in the EU Parliament? Are other European countries following Germany's lead in these type of issues?
The unsatisfactory answer is sometimes. Sometimes you get progressive politicians (from a variety of countries) pushing useful policies, but equally you sometimes get clueless politicians pushing rubbish. If you'd like to know more about what the EU is doing with the "information SOciety", try this link.

I wouldn't mind EU government if it was founded on something similar to US constitution but current EU parliament is thoroughly undemocratic.

See the following:

• Overview of the European Parliament
• Euromyths debunked
• Lots of EU factual information

There is an official pdf document called Spelling of the words "euro" and "cent" in the official Community languages . The footnote for the English spelling says: "This spelling without an "s" may be seen as departing from usual English practice for currencies." Note the "may be seen".

The Eurozone market, with a population of 300 million people, will be cashing in their Punts, Francs and Deutschmarks in favour of the new common Euro currency.

Actually, from what I have read, Germans are not cashing in their DM now--they already have. Nobody is required to accept the mark as legal tender as of Jan 1 2002, although as I understand it, stores have the option to accept the old currency for a couple of months if they wish, but are not required to.

Check out this timetable for more info. It looks as though Germans can still cash in their marks, but only at banks, not at merchants. As I understand it, merchants in other EMU countries are accepting both euros and the country's "legacy" currency for now, in a kind of "dual currency" period lasting approx. two months.

I'm in the USA, so I don't have firsthand information about all of this, it's just the best info I could glean from various sources. Can anyone confirm Germany's "cold turkey" approach to the Euro?

The canonical way to type an euro symbol is AltGr+E. Here's the official stuff.

Here is another official site with plenty of info and images.

The main and english entry to the official euro information site, with clear info and views from a lot of angles.

The main and english entry to the official euro information site, with clear info and views from a lot of angles.

There is various information at eu.int and the European Common Bank site, including pictures of the coins (both by themselves and in publicity-photo type poses), various policies (such as how you say "euro" and "euros" in various languages), and more.

NO!!! ASDF is better ASDF is better

No!!!! asdf is better according to many european studies.... ASDF is better

"EU government systems"

The EU has their Europa site running for a fair few years, but I wouldn't exactly call them a government, they have their parliaments and (largely unelected) members but their power is limited to arguing and bickering amongst themselves, they have no real impact on anybody apart from draining a few billion from the member states, but having a talking shop full of self-edifying people is cheaper than war.

The Council of Europe have quite a nice site too, it's very useful for finding out about their latest facist policies such as the cybercrime treaty. It's great for marveling how unelected groups can wield so much power. The CoE actually banned MEP's from their committies because they weren't invited to take part in forming policy, so you ban the already spuriously electec individuals from a nonelected group that decides your laws, shameless, how I love the EU.

Of course non of these sites are useful for practical matters such as paying taxes registering your child for school etc, because the EU doesn't actually do anything remotely practical apart from inventy abstract laws that are largely ignored by all member states apart from Britain or Germany.

I do however hold the technical groups such as the ETSI, Eureka in high regard.

Yeah, tell my French and Greek colleagues that... Open your eyes, man. EU legislation is changing the way we live in Europe (our part of it, at least), and though it isn't always comfortable, it is very useful, makes sense, and often means less cost, less administration (true, the EU is very bureaucratic, but think of all the national instituions that are no longer needed due to the EU's multilateral institutions) and less annoyance (e.g. I'll be able to drive 45 mins. without having to exchange currency).

Yeah, tell my French and Greek colleagues that... Open your eyes, man. EU legislation is changing the way we live in Europe (our part of it, at least), and though it isn't always comfortable, it is very useful, makes sense, and often means less cost, less administration (true, the EU is very bureaucratic, but think of all the national instituions that are no longer needed due to the EU's multilateral institutions) and less annoyance (e.g. I'll be able to drive 45 mins. without having to exchange currency).

Yeah, tell my French and Greek colleagues that... Open your eyes, man. EU legislation is changing the way we live in Europe (our part of it, at least), and though it isn't always comfortable, it is very useful, makes sense, and often means less cost, less administration (true, the EU is very bureaucratic, but think of all the national instituions that are no longer needed due to the EU's multilateral institutions) and less annoyance (e.g. I'll be able to drive 45 mins. without having to exchange currency).

The text of EU Directive 2001/29/EU is available
here. Unfortunately it is not free.

I'm amazed our friends across the pond have not squawked about this yet.

That's a lot of bullshit in very little space. I'm usually not this insulting but it really upsets me when people state their ridiculous unfounded illusions as fact.

First of all, there is no law making it illegal to use English measurements. However, given that the EU is supposed to be a single common market, vendors must also provide some other measurements. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

Secondly, as far as I know, the issue of software patents is yet to be decided upon. Even if such patents will be allowed, it hardly reflects badly upon the EU setup but on the politicians from member states that ultimately may grant the proposal.

"Its commision is unelected, and yet has more power than our sovereign government."
The commision merely makes proposals. It's up to member states' governments (Council of Ministers) and the EU Parliament to grant (or not grant) all proposals. You desperately need to learn how the EU institutions work. Please march along to the EU website and learn before you spout nonsense again.

"Although the Commission makes the proposals, all the major decisions on important legislation are taken by the ministers of the Member States in the Council of the European Union, in co-decision (or, in some cases, consultation) with the democratically elected European Parliament."

It acts as the guardian of the EU treaties to ensure that European legislation is applied correctly

As the Union's executive body, the Commission manages policies and negotiates international trade and cooperation agreements

"Although the Commission makes the proposals, all the major decisions on important legislation are taken by the ministers of the Member States in the Council of the European Union, in co-decision (or, in some cases, consultation) with the democratically elected European Parliament."

It acts as the guardian of the EU treaties to ensure that European legislation is applied correctly

As the Union's executive body, the Commission manages policies and negotiates international trade and cooperation agreements

Because hydrogen has 1/4 the energy density of the kerosene fuel currently used, we'll need lots of it. This means either flying our current planes with very few passengers (most of the cabin would be taken up by fuel tanks!).

Airbus has a project called Cryoplane which will assess the technical feasibility, safety, environmental compatibility and economic viability of using liquid hydrogen as an aviation fuel.

No one seems to be seriously pursuing the metal hydride storage route, although some research has been conducted on so-called "slush" hydrogen, which is a combination of liquid and solid hydrogen. Slush hydrogen has a lower temperature and a higher density than liquid hydrogen.

Hi, I also live in .be and was wondering what the current state is on DMCA kinde laws here
Do you have any idee ? or know where to find the information ?


We're having a DCMA sooner or later as per European Directive 2001/29/EC. Never a directive was so much lobbied in Brussels and so little talked over outside the EU parliament. You got to love the free press in Europe, which prefered to talk about either the English royals or some food scare of the month... If we are lucky we can help to limit somewhat the damages of its transcription to the national legislations, check the EuroRights site.

Hmm, you had better tell the EU then. According to their website here:

"The European Union (EU) is the result of a process of cooperation and integration which began in 1951 between six countries (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands).
After nearly fifty years, with four waves of accessions (1973: Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom; 1981: Greece; 1986: Spain and Portugal; 1995: Austria, Finland and Sweden), the EU today has fifteen Member States and is preparing for its fifth enlargement, this time towards Eastern and Southern Europe."

The part that caught my eye was at the beginning of the press release:

"The European Commission has informed Microsoft Corp. that it believes that the US software company may have violated European antitrust rules by using illegal practices to extend its dominant position in the market for personal computer operating systems into the market for low-end server operating systems."

The BBC article has a link to the EU Competition Commission. Their August 30th MS press release is here (English version). The default version is HTML, and there is no MS "Smart Quotes" damage to it. An MS Word impaired version is available, for some reason.

....Matrix Community, where even some of us participated in a official documentary on the movie.

and for clearer understanding of the metaphor of the Movie:
matrix metaphors

And a U.S. Patent Office RFC responce

And of course my response to the EU consulation on Software patents -- rue.pdf

Good thing, it'll give me more time to build this GPL project
Know Python and wanna help?

It looks like IBM thinks that the current EU standard regarding software patents should be used. (And if I am correct the EU standards are MORE RESTRICTIVE than the current US standards.)

But then again I could be worng.

"Europe" won't be doing anything in a hurry: the responsibility lies with the EPO which has its own legislative and executive bodies, not the EU, even though it is some people in the EU Commission which are giving us some concern. Patents are governed by international treaties, and remember it takes decades to change treaties. The WTO's agenda is set years in advance and software patents are very low on the priority list. For the current proposals see the report "Does the TRIPS Agreement require all member's rules on protection of intellectual property to be identical?" for an explanation.

The UK response to a recent initiative to re-look at software patents was firmly negative, and there is a Europe-wide campaigning body to ensure that it doesn't happen "by accident".

LOL, the EU has 380 Million inhabitants, about 100 million more than the US. The US does encompass 3 times the area of the EU.

Don't know where you got your idea that the measly 280 million of the US are large in the grand scheme of things. The 380 million in the EU are calculated without counting the wannabe EU members like eastern Europe (180 million) or Turkey(100 million).

Don't believe me, check this.

Europe doesn't have no DMCA.

How I wish that were true. How about looking at this April press release about the EU's latest directive on the subject, which member states now have 15-odd months to implement?

Taxes are used by many of the nations of the world. Each nation decides for itself how to collect them.

Silly person. Who would want a one world government. Oh wait. Are you one of those people.

Well I can tell you this. In America, we like our apple pie hot and steamy and our government slow and lathargic.

From the commission report page 7:

On September 25, 2000 ICANN issued a resolution providing that alpha-2 (&) codes are delegable as ccTLDs only in cases where the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency, on its exceptional reservation list, has issued a reservation of the code that covers any application of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation in the name of the country, territory or area involved . Such conditions are met by the EU code which is therefore delegable to the Community.

In other words, the delegation from the commission offered the ICANN some money, and the ICANN quickly added an exception to the ISO 3166 rule.

the AC

Here is some more information on this. It comes out of the Information Society Promotions Office, just one of the many ways us Europeans tax euros are wasted^Wspent.

[as a brief digression, fear and loathing of the dreaded DG-13, errr... ISPO, is directly proportional to the closeness to the commission. Americans have very little to fear, but I live no more than 40Kms from them, and they equal micro~1.oft for my disdain. Think "living in the shadow of the land of Mordor"]

Last year, the ISPO put out a CFP to the big-5 usual suspects, (i.e. PWC, E&Y, D&TT, AA, KPMG) about creating a new TLD, back when ICANN was asking for new TLD proposals. But the RFP was, as the norm, heavily stacked to be given to whoever bought the last round of beers. [/rant]

The proposal called for a consultant group to approach ICANN, IANA, IETF and any who might influence the decision, on how to create a .eu TLD, put in a bid, and apply pressure to the ICANN as needed to ensure success. This was part of a buzzword driven initiative called eEurope, which sprang into being just when the e-bubble burst last year.

Moving with great haste, for the commission, just one year after the idea was proposed, a report (sorry, PDF) was given to the commission, and now they are going ahead with the creation of a registry to administer the new TLD. A longer, more detailed report was submitted at the beginning of this year.

It is interesting to note they ignored calls for the registry to be run as a business (as NSI) and they want to make it "a not-for-profit organisation operated in the public interest."

the AC

Here is some more information on this. It comes out of the Information Society Promotions Office, just one of the many ways us Europeans tax euros are wasted^Wspent.

[as a brief digression, fear and loathing of the dreaded DG-13, errr... ISPO, is directly proportional to the closeness to the commission. Americans have very little to fear, but I live no more than 40Kms from them, and they equal micro~1.oft for my disdain. Think "living in the shadow of the land of Mordor"]

Last year, the ISPO put out a CFP to the big-5 usual suspects, (i.e. PWC, E&Y, D&TT, AA, KPMG) about creating a new TLD, back when ICANN was asking for new TLD proposals. But the RFP was, as the norm, heavily stacked to be given to whoever bought the last round of beers. [/rant]

The proposal called for a consultant group to approach ICANN, IANA, IETF and any who might influence the decision, on how to create a .eu TLD, put in a bid, and apply pressure to the ICANN as needed to ensure success. This was part of a buzzword driven initiative called eEurope, which sprang into being just when the e-bubble burst last year.

Moving with great haste, for the commission, just one year after the idea was proposed, a report (sorry, PDF) was given to the commission, and now they are going ahead with the creation of a registry to administer the new TLD. A longer, more detailed report was submitted at the beginning of this year.

It is interesting to note they ignored calls for the registry to be run as a business (as NSI) and they want to make it "a not-for-profit organisation operated in the public interest."

the AC

Here is some more information on this. It comes out of the Information Society Promotions Office, just one of the many ways us Europeans tax euros are wasted^Wspent.

[as a brief digression, fear and loathing of the dreaded DG-13, errr... ISPO, is directly proportional to the closeness to the commission. Americans have very little to fear, but I live no more than 40Kms from them, and they equal micro~1.oft for my disdain. Think "living in the shadow of the land of Mordor"]

Last year, the ISPO put out a CFP to the big-5 usual suspects, (i.e. PWC, E&Y, D&TT, AA, KPMG) about creating a new TLD, back when ICANN was asking for new TLD proposals. But the RFP was, as the norm, heavily stacked to be given to whoever bought the last round of beers. [/rant]

The proposal called for a consultant group to approach ICANN, IANA, IETF and any who might influence the decision, on how to create a .eu TLD, put in a bid, and apply pressure to the ICANN as needed to ensure success. This was part of a buzzword driven initiative called eEurope, which sprang into being just when the e-bubble burst last year.

Moving with great haste, for the commission, just one year after the idea was proposed, a report (sorry, PDF) was given to the commission, and now they are going ahead with the creation of a registry to administer the new TLD. A longer, more detailed report was submitted at the beginning of this year.

It is interesting to note they ignored calls for the registry to be run as a business (as NSI) and they want to make it "a not-for-profit organisation operated in the public interest."

the AC

I essentially agree with you. As a Swede and European, I would not want Hague to trample all over my rights either. The UK lacks a constitution but many of the other European countries have constitutions that while different from the US, are fully comparable in democratic strength. These constitutions surpass the US constitution in some regards, while in other regards the US constitution surpasses them.

The claim that the EU leadership answers to no one is a common misconception, though. While improvements can certainly be made, the EU consists of several internally balancing institutions. Proposals are made by the European Commision, which (like national cabinet members) are appointed as opposed to elected -- in this case by the Council (which consists of the directly elected national leaders) and then approved by the directly elected European Parliament. Proposals made by the commision must be approved by the Council and in many cases also the European Parliament. So EU leaders answer to both the elected MEPs as well as the elected member state governments. It may be perceived as an odd system but works better than most people think, and is reasonable given the history of the EU's development.

I essentially agree with you. As a Swede and European, I would not want Hague to trample all over my rights either. The UK lacks a constitution but many of the other European countries have constitutions that while different from the US, are fully comparable in democratic strength. These constitutions surpass the US constitution in some regards, while in other regards the US constitution surpasses them.

The claim that the EU leadership answers to no one is a common misconception, though. While improvements can certainly be made, the EU consists of several internally balancing institutions. Proposals are made by the European Commision, which (like national cabinet members) are appointed as opposed to elected -- in this case by the Council (which consists of the directly elected national leaders) and then approved by the directly elected European Parliament. Proposals made by the commision must be approved by the Council and in many cases also the European Parliament. So EU leaders answer to both the elected MEPs as well as the elected member state governments. It may be perceived as an odd system but works better than most people think, and is reasonable given the history of the EU's development.

• Distributed.Net, OGR project: Our current combined OGR network speed is 182.49 Giga-nodes per second
• UD Cancer Research Project: 609,178 devices, 104,791,203 hours total CPU time
• Seti@home: 3044035 users, 673412.833 years of computer time

• restricted access to the communication medium
• the need to filter out the relevant communication from a huge mass of communications taking place at the same time."

Well according to http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat/Public/datashop /print-catalogue/EN?catalogue=Eurostat&theme=3-Pop ulation%20and%20Social%20Conditions for the EU and http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/PL94-171/pl94data. exe for the US, The population counts are (for all 15 EU member states)
EU: 375346459
US: 268396514
I don't know about the relative area, but they look to be about equal on an atlas too.
As for Data sources, well... those two sites are the appropriate bodies for such things (US Census Bureau and Eurostat)

In Switzerland, for example, it is even illegal for cops to tap into the unemployments office database, since this is in no way related to their official tasks. They may tap into the DMV (equivalent) database, since this is significant for their work.

Save for th UK, which appears to be in the process of killing off any form of privacy, all European countries have similar or comparable data protection laws.

You might want to check out the European Data Protection Directive; a piece of legislation which pisses a lot of US business monsters mightily off.

Full Text Of The Directive

A few of the more heinous provisions:

Section 26: (paraphrased, full text below)
Making analog backup copies for personal use is fine. Making digi tal backup copies for personal use is not.

Section 27: (paraphrased, full text below)
Even if the media holder has a legal right to access the content, that media holder may not circumvent cryptographic protections in the medium to access the content.
IE: You must use a *licensed* player for DVDs.
IE: The use of DeCSS is illegal, even if the action for which it is used is legal.

Section 28: (paraphrased, full text below)
Lending libraries are a good thing, and should continue to exist; however, they must move their books around in meatspace.

On the upside:
Section 38: (paraphrased, full text below)
In 2 years we should sift through the wreckage.

26.
Whereas Member States should be allowed to provide for an exception to the reproduction right for certain types of reproduction of audio, visual and audio-visual material for private use, accompanied by fair compensation in certain cases; whereas this may include the introduction or continuation of remuneration schemes to compensate for the prejudice to rightholders; whereas, although differences between those remuneration schemes affect the functioning of the Internal Market, those differences, with respect to analogue private reproduction, should not have a significant impact on the development of the Information Society; whereas digital private copying is likely to be more widespread and have a greater economic impact; whereas a distinction should therefore be made between digital private copying and analogue private copying and whereas the conditions of application should in both cases be harmonised to a certain extent; whereas it is of particular importance, in the case of digital private copying, that all rightholders receive fair compensation ";

27.
Whereas, when applying the exception on private copying, Member States should take due account of technological and economic developments, in particular with respect to digital private copying and remuneration schemes, when effective technological protection measures are available; whereas such exceptions should not inhibit the use of technological measures or their enforcement against circumvention;

28.
Whereas Member States may provide for an exception for the benefit of establishments accessible to the public, such as non-profit-making libraries and equivalent institutions; whereas, however, this should be limited to certain special cases covered by the reproduction right; whereas such an exception should not cover uses made in the context of on-line delivery of protected works or other subject matter; whereas this Directive should be without prejudice to Member States' option to derogate from the exclusive public lending right in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, as amended by Directive 93/98/EEC; whereas, therefore, specific contracts or licences should be promoted which, without creating imbalances, favour such establishments and the disseminative purposes they serve;

38.
Whereas, after a period of two years following the date of implementation of this Directive, the Commission should report on its application; whereas this report should examine in particular whether the conditions set out in the Directive have resulted in ensuring a proper functioning of the Internal Market, and should propose action if necessary,

The home page of the Information Society is here

Try to find a link to the actual full legislative text however.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

The home page of the Information Society is here

Try to find a link to the actual full legislative text however.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

Spammers, imo, are people who disagree with the federal government. Come on, spammers aren't rapists or pedophiles or deadbeat dads.

I'm going to assume your first sentence is a typo, because I can't make anything sensible out of it. Spammers are people who send unsolicited bulk email.

It's true that spammers aren't violent criminals, and shouldn't be treated as harshly as, say, murderers. But that isn't an argument for letting them off easy, either.

Collectively, spammers cost us $9 billion per year. Like con men, market manipulators, perpetrators of fraud, and common thieves, they are out-and-out parasites. They did nothing to build the internet, but make their living by stealing our time, money, and attention.

Just make it illegal to forge headers, and when spammers are forced to use regular headers, we can
filter them that much more easily. And then it won't be so bad, right?

Wrong. First, you still have to pay the costs of receiving and filtering the message. Second, everybody who received email then has to make sure they have some sort of filtering just to get rid of something they never asked for. Third, it's not obvious how this would help the common problem of "whack-a-mole" spamming. Fourth, spammers have managed to work around every technical solution now in place for spam prevention; it's safe to assume that they'll do it here, too.

So yes, anti-spam laws are needed. And yes, they need criminal penalties as well as civil penalties.

The proposal of article 6/3 from 05/19/1999 reads like this:

Technological measures shall be deemed effective where the access to or use of a protected work or other subject matter is controlled through application of an access code or any other type of protection process which achieves the protection objective in an operational and reliable manner with the authority of the rightholders. Such measures may include decryption, descrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject matter.

Interesting how they changed it, now that CSS proved to be not reliable ...

Just like the DMCA, the 'EU-DMCA' is a new copyright law that is required to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty

The latest available draft of the law (which has the short and wonderful name "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society"), from 14 September 2000, is available here.

There have been a few changes to the draft, but I unfortunately don't have a complete list available. Official news about the law should be available here and here.

The draft is in many respects very similar to the DMCA, and has many of the same problems. Legal protection of TPMs that deny fair use, is computer code protected speech or illegal tool, legality of encryption research, etc.


Article 5
Exceptions and limitations

1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental, which are an integral and essential part of a technological process whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or
(b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
(a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation;
(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made for the private use of a natural person and for non-commercial ends, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage;
(d) in respect of ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be permitted;
(e) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation.

3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2
and 3 in the following cases:
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;
(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;
(c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as, whenever possible the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;
(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;
(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;
(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;
(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;
(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event;
(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;
(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;
(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;
(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;
(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.

4. Where the Member States may provide for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3, they may provide similarly for an exception or limitation to the right of distribution as referred to in Article 4 to the extent justified by the purpose of the authorised act of reproduction.

5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

Article 6
Obligations as to technological measures

1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.

2. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement for sale or rental, or possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or the provision of services which:
(a) are promoted, advertised or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of, or
(b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or
(c) are primarily designed, produced, adapted or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of, any effective technological measures.

3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.

4. Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.

A Member State may also take such measures in respect of a beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), unless reproduction for private use has already been made possible by rightholders to the extent necessary to benefit from the exception or limitation concerned and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2)(b) and (5), without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions.

The technological measures applied voluntarily by rightholders, including those applied in implementation of voluntary agreements, and technological measures applied in implementation of the measures taken by Member States, shall enjoy the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1.

The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

When this Article is applied in the context of Directives 92/100/EEC and 96/9/EC, this paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Just like the DMCA, the 'EU-DMCA' is a new copyright law that is required to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty

The latest available draft of the law (which has the short and wonderful name "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society"), from 14 September 2000, is available here.

There have been a few changes to the draft, but I unfortunately don't have a complete list available. Official news about the law should be available here and here.

The draft is in many respects very similar to the DMCA, and has many of the same problems. Legal protection of TPMs that deny fair use, is computer code protected speech or illegal tool, legality of encryption research, etc.


Article 5
Exceptions and limitations

1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental, which are an integral and essential part of a technological process whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or
(b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
(a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation;
(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made for the private use of a natural person and for non-commercial ends, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage;
(d) in respect of ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be permitted;
(e) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation.

3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2
and 3 in the following cases:
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;
(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;
(c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as, whenever possible the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;
(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;
(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;
(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;
(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;
(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event;
(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;
(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;
(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;
(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;
(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.

4. Where the Member States may provide for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3, they may provide similarly for an exception or limitation to the right of distribution as referred to in Article 4 to the extent justified by the purpose of the authorised act of reproduction.

5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

Article 6
Obligations as to technological measures

1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.

2. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement for sale or rental, or possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or the provision of services which:
(a) are promoted, advertised or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of, or
(b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or
(c) are primarily designed, produced, adapted or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of, any effective technological measures.

3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.

4. Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.

A Member State may also take such measures in respect of a beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), unless reproduction for private use has already been made possible by rightholders to the extent necessary to benefit from the exception or limitation concerned and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2)(b) and (5), without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions.

The technological measures applied voluntarily by rightholders, including those applied in implementation of voluntary agreements, and technological measures applied in implementation of the measures taken by Member States, shall enjoy the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1.

The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

When this Article is applied in the context of Directives 92/100/EEC and 96/9/EC, this paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Just like the DMCA, the 'EU-DMCA' is a new copyright law that is required to comply with the WIPO Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty

The latest available draft of the law (which has the short and wonderful name "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society"), from 14 September 2000, is available here.

There have been a few changes to the draft, but I unfortunately don't have a complete list available. Official news about the law should be available here and here.

The draft is in many respects very similar to the DMCA, and has many of the same problems. Legal protection of TPMs that deny fair use, is computer code protected speech or illegal tool, legality of encryption research, etc.


Article 5
Exceptions and limitations

1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental, which are an integral and essential part of a technological process whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or
(b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.

2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
(a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation;
(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made for the private use of a natural person and for non-commercial ends, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage;
(d) in respect of ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be permitted;
(e) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation.

3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2
and 3 in the following cases:
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;
(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;
(c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as, whenever possible the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;
(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;
(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;
(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;
(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;
(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event;
(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;
(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;
(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;
(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;
(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.

4. Where the Member States may provide for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3, they may provide similarly for an exception or limitation to the right of distribution as referred to in Article 4 to the extent justified by the purpose of the authorised act of reproduction.

5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.

Article 6
Obligations as to technological measures

1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.

2. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement for sale or rental, or possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or the provision of services which:
(a) are promoted, advertised or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of, or
(b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or
(c) are primarily designed, produced, adapted or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of, any effective technological measures.

3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.

4. Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.

A Member State may also take such measures in respect of a beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), unless reproduction for private use has already been made possible by rightholders to the extent necessary to benefit from the exception or limitation concerned and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2)(b) and (5), without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions.

The technological measures applied voluntarily by rightholders, including those applied in implementation of voluntary agreements, and technological measures applied in implementation of the measures taken by Member States, shall enjoy the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1.

The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.

When this Article is applied in the context of Directives 92/100/EEC and 96/9/EC, this paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis.

• Never buy from it - In getting rid of roaches, rule #1 is to remove their food source. Same thing here. Spammers only spam because they think it will profit them.
  
• Report it - I use SpamCop; it does 95% of the work.
  
• Automatically reject it - Tell your MTA to make use of the spammer blacklists at MAPS and elsewhere.
  
• Tell your friends - Most people don't realize that spammers inflate ISP fees and reduce service quality by clogging servers with garbage. Educate them!
  
• Tell your legislators - Some countries and US states have already outlawed spam. To help make this universal, you have to let your legal reps know how you feel. Check out The Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email.
  
• Don't do business with spamhausen - Especially if you are a network admin, don't do businesses with companies that profit from spam. Check out spamhaus.org and spamsites.org for details. And make sure to let the sales droids know why you won't buy from 'em!