Slashdot Mirror
E.U. Commission Suggests Permissive Copyright Rule
An anonymous reader submits "ITworld.com is reporting: 'The European Commission on Thursday presented a draft directive that punishes copyright infringement for commercial purposes, but leaves the home music downloader untouched, infuriating the entertainment industry.'"
Copyright infringement still comes under CIVIL law, the record companies can sue if they want.
This is only about EU law, which is eventually enforced by national police forces. i.e. its criminal law.
So all the EU are saying is that for it to be a crime under national law there has to be a commercial gain behind the copyright infringement.
The normal copyright CIVIL laws are still there exactly as before.
This is quite reasonable. If the guys ripping off their stuff for profit, the police can intervene, if hes making copies for his friends, they have to take him to court.
No. they only want to stop the p2p people who make money off it all. The same ones who install spyware with their installers
Learn it. Know it. Be it.
The FAQ proposed on the site of the European commission does provide much more information than the linked article...
FAQ on proposed directive
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The press release is here (in various languages). Don't forget to read it, and the draft directive, in detail before entering into uninformed discussion based upon a possibly incorrect third-party news article.
Try looking at The EU official website
The EU-15 zone is currently some 378.5 million people. There are another 10 countries currently under consideration for membership which will add a further 74.5 million people. This would make the US approximately 60% of the size.
Even Britain (approx the size of an averaged USA state) has some 59 million people...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
the USA has around 260million people. That's a lot for europe or other places to compare to
If you check the US Government figures for population by country you'll note that whilst USA is third on the list (albeit a distant third to China and India) that if you go down the list a bit, adding up Germany, France, UK, Italy, Spain... that combined they surpass the USA rather easily with more EU countries (smaller ones) still to be counted, and more joining too.
Which isn't to suggest that population is some sort of ultimate metric for the comparison of countries (in any event the EU and the USA are very different in nature, at least at present) just that 260 million isn't as many as you seem to think it is.
I have actually (Oh horror!) read the directive.
The directive does not legalise filesharing, or any other activity illegal under present copyright law. It deals solely with the enforcement of copyright law. A few highlights (or should i say lowlights?):
EU states must give anti-piracy alliances the right to apply for raids where they can seize infringing copies and related evidence. These raids can be granted without the presence or knowledge of the defendant, "in the event of an actually committed or imminent infringement"
It also demands that you must divulge information on the recievers and suppliers of "infringing goods" if you have yourself been pointed out as "a link in the network" of infringers.
Furthermore EU members must allow injunctions against "intermediar[ies] whose services are being used by a third party to infringe a right" (I wonder what exactly you'll have to do to prove that the resources you put the disposal of others will not be used for piracy...)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
No, in fact, the UK did not join Europe at first, indeed because of french lobbying. But not for farm subsidies reasons : the agriculture was not covered by the Rome treaty.
:
The reason France didn't want the UK is best summarized by Gen. De Gaulle, french president at the time
>
Which, translated, is something like England is the US' submarine. Meaning that building a strong, independant, Europe was, in his mind, impossible with the UK in it.
Sadly, he was right.
This directive ensures copyright/trademark holders a minimum toolbox of legal attacks on copyright infringers. National law is explicitly left alone in so far it is "more favourable for right holders". It is clear that the industry is lobbying to make sure that copyrights are very strictly enforceable all across the EU along the way sneaking in injunctions against services used for infringement by "third parties".
The proposal may very well still be amended on its way through the Euro-parliament.
The EU countries already have laws in place for punishing copyright infringement. (And the copyright laws are also harmonised by directives) What's new is that the enforcement of these laws is harmonised.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I find it interesting that you refer to the EU taking a stand against American protectionism. As an example, check out French farm subsidies. Pretty interesting comparison
Actually the Common Agricultural Policy("CAP" - which includes the French subsidies) is terrible and many member states are trying to get it changed. It results in farmers in certain states being paid not to grow on some of their land. The problem is that many grow crops on it any way and claim the subsidies. The French government is, or chooses to be, powerless against their farmers who are radical and will bring transport to a halt if they have a grievance. So the policy remains.
40% of software in use worldwide is believed to be pirated, and 37% in the EU (= loss of revenue of 2.9 billion euros annually).(2)
Worldwide, 36% of all music CDs and cassettes sold are pirated (total sales of pirated goods is 5 billion units).
Can this be debunked?
The same should be asked of the numbers on p. 10 of the directive (pdf)
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
> Because a lot of European states, including the UK, do not have any meaningful right of Fair Use for consumers.
In Germany, IRC, it is (or was) not only allowed to make copies of CDs, it is even allowed to give them to people you have a close relationship with. It is (or was) even explicitly allowed to circumvent copyright measurements for personal uses.
The downside is, that in Germany you pay a certain fee for every blank media (CD-R, cassette, MD: 6/h of recording time) and device (CD-Burner, tape-deck, MD-player) to compensate the artists for the estimated losses.
I'm not quite sure about the current situation, therefor "(or was)". I've found some an article, which mentions Germanys copyright legislation.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Exactly the same as in The Netherlands.
> [...] but the way the EU commission works [...] that individual MEPs can be bribed [...]
You are aware, that the European Commission and the European Parliament are two different entities?
The commission is appointed by the member states (the national goverments) and aproved of the parliament. They are usually not MEPs, but former minister of some national goverment. (source)
But, you are right with the laughable controls over the MEPs.
Still, in past, the parliament has been quite in favour to consumer rights.
(Maybe because they don't have any real power)
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
and to avoid paying taxes
Kind of ironic, considering how much we pay in taxes now...
Anyway, a large part of those taxes were taxes that were being levied only on the Colonies, and were designed to apparently put the colonies firmly in the pocket of a conglomerate of businessmen. Most of the taxes (like the tea tax, which led to the Boston Tea Party) were designed to force purchase of a "minimum amount" of English goods, so the owners of those companies could get much richer, without having to worry about any 'vocal opposition', as the colonies had no representation in the House of Lords or House of Commons. (You might recall "No taxation without representation". It doesn't mean that they were against all taxes. It's just that they wanted to have as equal a voice as any other citizen of England in the taxes that were being levied on them.)
The net result of the revolution was that the government that was to be formed was ostensibly to be different from the British one. Didn't succeed all that well though...
Kierthos
(Yes, yes, insightful, but off-topic as hell...)
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
traditionally copyright law was no different to patent law - if someone infinged on your copyrights it was up to you to sue 'em.
IE copyright was traditionally only a part of civil laws.
Really the addition of copyright provisions to the criminal statutes is only relatively recent (post 1970?). All that's being suggested is that copright law should teturn to its traditional status in regards to infringment by individuals for personal reasons.
Even if this suggestion became law, record companies would still have the right to sue individual non-commercial copyright infringers in the civil courts
Actually..
The taxes in the American colonies were roughly a twentieth of those in England, and were spent primarily on the defence of the colonies.
The Boston Tea Party was organised by smugglers,who were upset that duty had fallen, and their profitable smuggling trade was no longer viable.
The representation for the colonies in the House of Commons was as good as the representation of the average British Citizen in Liverpool or Manchester. Although that probably was more closely related to the main issue.
The House of Lords doesn't represent any specific area, so nobody is represented (except perhaps the church, and landed gentry).
Still, the basic point is correct. The people of the colonies felt that they should have their own local government determining taxation. A lesson learnt by the British Empire, allowing Great Britian to hang on to Australia and Canada simply by giving them their own assemblies.