Slashdot Mirror
Finland Drops EUCD For Now
replicant_deckard writes "Electronic Frontier Finland just got a huge legal victory. They report the local DMCA-copy (based on EU copyright directive) was dropped today at the parliament after heavy criticism. So far just two EU nations have accepted the innovation threatening law. Campaigns go on in different European states. They need your support!" cabra771 writes "The European Commission has put up a new proposal dealing with online music piracy that appears to have slightly upset a few people."
so how many posts by people who are never going to move to finland saying "whee, i'm moving to finland" do we get to see now?
If copy-protection schemes are to succeed, they must be as undetectable as possible by the end user. I don't mean that he won't realize he's using a copy-protected format, but that his ears won't be able to tell the difference between a copy-protected one and a non-protected one.
VHS macrovision is popular precisely because it's undetectable in how it alters visual quality. You'll hear lots of complaints by people who are unable to copy videos correctly, but you'll never hear a complaint by anyone about how macrovision has degraded their signal -- it hasn't.
We're almost at the stage where digital watermarks are completely seamless. Ten years ago, inititives like this would've been scoffed at. Now, they're becoming reality.
Government listens to citizens! Peace comes to the world!
More seriously I am pleased that such legislation was dropped. The less 'corrupt' CDs I see the better.
Hi!
:-D
:-D
Yeah. It was a very sweet victory indeed, especially because the content industry was very confident that the proposed law would pass.
Unfortunately this is only a temporary relieve, the war against fair use will continue very soon and long as EUCD exists we are on the losing side. Never the less, the situation is now much more hopefull in Finland, because the public knowledge is now much better and also because the MPs seem to understand how important these questions are.
Ville
For a status of the implementation of the EUCD, look here .
Too bad my country didn't see why the EUCD is totally bogus. I'm not allowed to buy my region 1 DVD's here in Denmark anymore, so I have to import them. My favourite DVD stores are closing. :-(
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
From the article:
The industry in a statement issued jointly by 10 organizations, including the Business Software Alliance (BSA), International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association (MPA), blasted the proposal, calling it "inadequate" and "unambitious."
Funny, I never considered it a virtue for a government regulation to be "ambitious".
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
The fact that only two member states have passed this into domestic law could well be a BAD thing, because the directive is now enforcible at the European Court of Justice. They may make a repressive ruling that will then automatically apply to all member states. For those from the US think of it this way - all the states have agreed to implement a law within two years - only two have done, but someone goes to the Supreme Court and seeks a ruling - that's where we are right now.
You're lucky, this time!
Denmark - nearing the end of it's EU Presidency - was too preoccupied with other EU affairs, mainly integrating new member countries. It was apparently so important that this law be passed before 2002-12-22, that suddenly a massive vote against the law at the second hearing, turned to a massive vote for the law at the third hearing. One party actually "pushed the wrong voting button" - literally, and two (I believe it was two, one being the second largest) other parties had suddenly changed their minds? WTF?!
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
I thought that was exactly the thing which the recording industry was so miffed about - and this legislation is nailing that one straight on.
I still wonder about how hard they are going to hit onto what I consider "fair use". I consider placing of impediments to fair use applications to be a severe infringement of MY rights.
This stuff telling me I can not make backup and make proper use of what it is I am purchasing.. well looks like the European Commission didn't like it much either. I wonder how the European Union recognizes it. I hope they recognize a noose when they see it.
Don't get me wrong, I am not an unreasonable man...I am willing to compromise my position.
If you want me to give up my right to make backups, you *must* be willing to provide me with one at any time in the future I may need one - and be willing to compensate me for my time and other losses that was incurred because I put said product in a critical position, when having backups in place would have eliminated that loss. Remember, the vendor will have to issue me the exact software I had running with whatever patches I had applied... or come in and make whatever he has work in a way that is acceptable to *me*.
I can bend too in my belief that I am not supposed to "reverse engineer" the product to try to make it work, if the vendor is also willing to take unlimited liability in assuring me the software does what it says it does, nothing more, and nothing less. So if I get some software that sent stuff out on the net, I would have recourse to recover from the vendor whatever I valued the data it sent at. Basically the same law they had the US Congress pass for them, but directed back at them as the target of the Liability.
I do not think I am asking anything unreasonable, its just if you want to take away my rights to try to make the thing work, you will take on that responsibility of making it work. If you want to do something behind my back and don't want me to see - you will take full responsibility for what it does.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Write to your government officials and let them know that you're against this law and point out that it's been used in the USA primarily to suppress research, stifle competition and delay innovation. Argue that since copyright infringement laws already exist (They do in most countries) this law is neither necessary nor well advised.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Owww! My Brain hurts! This it TGIF, this is America!
No, actually, this is Europe...
What does this crap have to do with me?
All this crap was explicitly designed to make you realize the world is much more than the US of A.
From what I can figure, the European Court can't *make* law. Granted, they can rule that the countries haven't followed the directive, but the court still can not *implement* the directive over the head of the individual countries. And until it's incorporated into law, it's not legally binding for the citizens. I answer to norwegian law, not EU directives. Not quite sure what sanctions they do have though, probably some strong ones anyway.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
These stories celebrating delays or apparent abandonment of 'EUCD copies' in the EU and EEA member states, most recently Finland, are probably about celebrating too soon, unfortunately.
The arrangements in Europe are that member states have an obligation to implement EU directives. If member-state governments drag their feet beyond the patience of the European Commission, there is now more than one way for the Commission to put a financial sting on them. The threat of open-ended financial liability may be one of the important drivers for implementing EUCD in the member-states in spite of any campaigning. This is particularly remembered in the UK, which got badly stung financially for taking unilateral action on fishing rights. So, for example, the few-months delay to about the end of March recently announced by the UK Patent Office (for review of the consultation replies, and for completing and amending the UK draft implementing regulations) will probably not be easy to stretch out much farther than that.
The real legislative power in these matters is with the EU Commission, which deliberates in secret. How this appalling state of things came to be is another matter, but the time to lobby effectively is the stage _before_ a directive issues from the EU Commission --- at the stage after it has been made a fait accompli, it is really too late. It's too late now to do much about EUCD in its current form except to mount marginal delaying tactics, and to be vigilant in campaigning so that the member states don't change their local copies in the direction of making matters even worse -- which is what the UK's draft local copy that went out for limited consultation in 2002 would have done. I suppose there is always some faint chance to try and get the Commission to reconsider/repeal the directive, but that looks like a tough and long haul.
No court can "make law" (that's for politicians on European, member state and local level), the job of a court is to determine whether or not the law has been followed. In the case of the EU, case law and treaties dictate that the European Court of Justice has the final juristiction in disputes between member states where the treaties are concerned, and failure to implement EU directives as national law is breaching the treaties. Since the power to enforce the law is still with the member states, it's not like the EU Court could use force to get its will through -- but the whole framework of the EU depends on member states abiding by the rulings. Failure to do so can result in very heavy fines, as determined by the court, and the eventual exclusion from the Union.
EUCD was dropped because the EU was threatened under the DMCA for copying the DMCA.
EU has very much less nukes and no proper delivery system anyway.
Reason for dropping the draft is really that the Finnish parliament decided that it doesn't have enough time to finalise the legislation before the elections in march... Not exactly a "huge legal win for EFFI" as it is hyped.
Unfortunately the EuroDMCA directive is in effect despite that not all member states have implemented the local legislation.
The DMCA was written to protect the interests of data distributors. The whole idea is to prevent the cost-negating distribution network called the Internet from affecting the cost of distributing data which has enjoyed high cost (fat profit margin) CD[ incl. CDROM] and DVD distribution. The cost of CD and DVD distribution is paid to an industry of distributors. They are middlemen whose economic niche has been proven obsolete by the Internet. Since artists and producers do not need them for distribution, they are playing their other card: revenue agregators. That function serves the artist/producer end of the data economy.
Admittedly, a revenue model which pays the artists and producers for their work without involving the traditional distributors hasn't emerged. The distributors are not so confident, so they are seeking protection like tariffs. This is an age old issue rearing its ugly head in a new place, and we will eventually solve it the way we always do: the middlemen buy their policymakers and get their policy.
In the US, the distributors dominate the world market for movies, music, and any other software. In the EU, the distributors and the artists and producers from which they distribute software are worldwide underdogs by sheer revenue. Neither the distributors nor the artists and producers in the EU will gain if they support a scheme that allows the gargantuan US companies to dictate the terms of their business.The DMCA could give US media distributors the leverage they need to control the EU market.
What the US distributors fear is that the next Beatles will emigrate from the US to the EU where the DMCA allows the artists to dictate more of the business, and gives them access to more of the end-consumer's money...if such an economy were to pop up in the EU...
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...