Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The EU's Answer To The DMCA

Posted by timothy on from the not-a-parody dept.

blowdart writes: "You thought the DCMA was bad? Well EU Directive 2001/29/EU is due to be passed into individual country law next year. According to an article on silicon.com, it will make it "a criminal offence to break or attempt to break the copy protection or access control systems on digital content such as music, videos, eBooks, and software", and was passed without public debate. According to silicon.com, if the directive is applied in law without changes, we in Europe may face our own versions of Dmitri Sklyarov's prosecution. It gets more draconian, legitimate copying activity, such as teachers copying materials for their students or blind people making Braille copies of their work, could also become illegal, as could encryption research. The actual directive is available in HTML. So, who knows enough about european law to tell us if we should be worried or not?"

11 of 40 comments (clear)

  1. Directive text by Huusker · · Score: 2

    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.



  2. So is Alan going to move? by Dwonis · · Score: 2

    I remember Alan Cox didn't want to go to the US because of the DMCA. Is he going to have to leave the UK now? Where can a person go to avoid this kind of crap, and still have decent net connectivity?

    1. Re:So is Alan going to move? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      Brazil and Mexico look pretty good from that perspective. And the nice thing about Brazil is: it's Brazil.

      But the US corporations will still send their lobbyists/graft goons in, like they tried to do during the Brazilian abrogation of monopoly rights to the AIDS drugs manufacturers, to quell any excess of freedom.

    2. Re:So is Alan going to move? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 2

      You still have time to prevent this from happening in Canada. We have similar connectivity to the USA and are very close in proximity. Our laws prohibit personal weapons but are much more lax in digital expression at this time.

      Check out this article on ITBusiness.ca or the government's submissions page on the issue. We're engaging in "Copyright Reform" -- submit your opinions.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  3. Did you read the text? by europrobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did you read the directive at all? I followed the provided link, and look what I found:

    (48) [...] In particular, this protection should not hinder research into cryptography.

    Article 5

    2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 [...] 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.

    3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations [...] in the following cases [...] 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.

    (End qoute)

    Which shows that neither teachers copying for students, nor Braille copies, nor encryption research will become illegal.

    Why, oh, why doesn't the submitters read their own sources?

    Also, it's important to note that the directive is not law, it's simply a template for the national lawmakers to make their own laws. It allows for considerable flexibility in interpreting, so no two coutries are likely to have the same laws anyway.

    --
    Score:-1, Wrong
    1. Re:Did you read the text? by europrobe · · Score: 2

      Ok, I hope I can make it a bit more clear like this:

      The directive is not law. It is a DIRECTIVE for the national lawmakers on how to write the law in that particular country. So, if the directive says a member state MAY include exceptions for educational purposes, it means the member state probably WILL.

      The wording MAY simply is a heads-up to the member state that it should be aware of the (unintended) effects of blindly adopting the exact wording of the directive itself, but instead phrase their national law so that these side effects are avoided. IF the member state phrases the law so that a special provision for educational (or whatever) purposes is not needed, then the state does not HAVE to include one.

      Directives are written this way since judical culture differs considerably between the member states. It will allow more flexibility between the states.

      --
      Score:-1, Wrong
  4. Scarcely news... come join the Campaign ;-) by jtjm · · Score: 2

    The UK Campaign for Digital Rights was established back in August to bring the small matter of 2001/29/EU (or the European Copyright Directive(EUCD))to the attention of the general public, after people started discussing it at "Free Sklyarov" protests in London.

    Our mailing lists (archives available from contain the meat of the discussion to date. We are currently part way through a campaign against copy protected CDs, designed to get the public thinking about the copy-protection mechanisms and legislation before we hit them with the full details of the EUCD.

    For more information about 2001/29/EU, see our EUCD issues pages.

    Come and join the party... ;-)

    Julian Midgley
    Campaign Co-ordinator
    UK Campaign for Digital Rights

  5. Look here too by musicmaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Instead of www.eurorights.org you can better look at uk.eurorights.org. The site of the UK branch is much more developped as the central site.

  6. Damnit! by blowdart · · Score: 2

    huh, I submit a story, it gets published, but not on the front page!

    It's a conspiracy! I blame the DCMA!

  7. To the moon alice! by WyldOne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    pretty soon the only place where ideas are not forbidden

    --

    make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
  8. Anything for lawful purpose permitted by Schoinobates+Volans · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and 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.

    So using Elcosoft's software for lawfull uses (transferring from one PC you own to another you own, from you PC to you PDA, ...) can not be forbidden by the copyright holder. Seem much more reasonable to me than DMCA.

    Additionally, article 5, item 1.c, specifically addresses the teacher case, 3a the scientific research case (and even putting copyrighted material in a scientific article), 3b the blind people case, ...

    Article 6, item 4 says that anti-copy protection can not prevent authorized copies (such those mentioned before)

    Read it, it is interesting, and not that long (skip the 62 "whereas"es, they are not)