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.'"
I just gotta ask. What was wrong with the old copyright law that needs changing so bad?
Learn it. Know it. Be it.
In the US, the entire political system is based on money from corporations. As far as I understand, the EU isn't quite the same. Who are the companies bribing? Without money, there really is no way to 'put pressure' on anyone, so what's the tactic?
I'm sure most of the 'pressure' is coming from US companies, which begs the question, why does the EU care at all? Profits are only then to be made on selling the CDs and hosting concerts; Is there really all that much money coming through Europe to make it a big deal? In the US, every penny an artist or company makes is eventually going back into the economy, whether through buying a mansion in the Hills, or buying off a Senator. It's not like US artists are investing millions in real estate in England, and I don't think the politicians are quite so owned.
GL
Which would mean no expensive campaigns, which would make it much more difficult to bribe.
Actually quite the opposite is the case. Yes, there are no campaigns to finance, but the way the EU commission works is so opaque and convoluted that individual MEPs can be bribed, coerced or otherwise corrupted in far more safety than any normal MP. The controls are laughable, the disclosure requirements are virtually non-existant. An anonymous brown envelope stuffed with euros is a far easier and more direct way to an MEP's heart than campaign contributions could ever be.
There are more people under EU law than there are under US law, and the EU is just starting to flex its' muscles a bit more. Negotiation is the key for getting your own way, either for member states or those outside the boundaries. Trying to impose a solution (by anyone, even founder member-states) is becoming more and more difficult.
Has anyone else noticed that plain 'ole numbers are becoming more important over time ? China and India are being cited as the future powerhouses of global commerce; the US and (to a lesser extent) the EU are outsourcing huge chunks of what would have been bread-and-butter work to external countries, etc. Maybe EU expansion isn't such a bad idea after all... Perhaps it'll be Russia next :-)
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
"They won't have any way of proving possesion of the data - any sort of seizure of hdds or busts will be illegal. That means they have to prove that the defender not only downloaded the mp3, but listened to them and kept them, which would be pretty much impossible."
I'm not sure about the latter part of your comment. (Since when has copyright infringement required proof you viewed or listened to the media?)
Yeh, they would need evidence before they bring a civil court case, just as they need evidence now to get a court to order a search. But thats the point isn't it!
Its stops people using laws as a way to harrass people for what could be argued to be fair-use rights.
We had an example of harrassment-by-law recently, when the FBI raided homes of alledged 'uncapped modem' users. Sure they broke they're terms of service, but since when has the FBI enforced ISPs terms of service?
This law sounds like it's consumer-friendly, perhaps creating some much-needed balance, but it really isn't. In fact, it's a broad expansion of current law that's bad for everyone that uses any kind of p2p, for legitimate reasons or otherwise.
Copyright infringement would still be a civil crime so the content industries could still go after consumers on their own, just like they can now -- the proposed legislation would change criminal law. Also (obviously) the existing law covers copyright infringement for profit as copyright infringement for profit is still copyright infringement.
So what's the point of the new law? Read closely:
Peer-to-peer file-sharing services that encourage copyright infringement and make money from advertising are commercial, according to the Commission. "That is illegal and should be stopped," the Commission said. Examples of file sharing services are Kazaa and Morpheus.
Got it yet?
What they're saying: "Criminal sanctions only apply when copyright infringement is carried out intentionally and for commercial purposes."
What they want to dupe the public into hearing: "You can download all you want as long as no money is involved."
What they mean: "Copyright infringement through p2p services hurts the profits of companies that make large campaign contributions. P2P companies produce highly functional p2p software which has a primary function of facilitating copyright infringement because there is a financial incentive to do so (adware/spyware). This aspect of the p2p business can be used to legitimate government attacks in order to shut down those businesses."
What this means for you: Say goodbye to KaZaA and other useful (meaning large, meaning commercially-supported) networks.
Before conventional notions of "selling content" go back to where they belong, namely the rubbish bin. It's always been a rotten system, paying for art, corrupting both the artist and the viewer. The best entertainment and art are communal, created for those around you and rewarded by status and reputation. /., chatrooms, and autoporn, than they do from commercial media, is the day that the discussion becomes moot.
This is the way music and entertainment (story telling?) work in villages and it's only the urban lifestyle that's made it impossible.
It should be completely obvious that the large-scale entertainment industries are already dead, but they just don't know it. Copyright extensions... piracy laws... anti-copying technology... it's all just pissing into the river.
One example: did anyone seriously enjoy LOTRTT as much as they enjoyed the parodies of it? You see what I mean. The day when more people get their kicks from community-created content (CCCtm) like web logs,
I'm speaking from experience: I used to be a street drummer, and I can say that the kick from getting fifty random people to stop from their shopping on a sunny saturday afternoon and move their booty to insanely loud drumming beats any other form of fun except possibly (possibly) sex.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
From another board
"I wish I could record a day's work and then sell that recording over and over and over to anyone who needed that day's work done for them.
Before geeks invented sound recording, musicians sang for their supper.
Now technology has come full circle, and it's back to singing for their supper--and those pampered, bloated, overpaid Holyweird types are scared stiff they might have to work for a living!
And why not?
Technology has ruined the careers of other blue collar workers--now it's the turn of entertainers, who after all are nothing but another kind of blue collar worker."
Yeah, I suppose buying copies of Win XP for a buck or two in SE Asia gets some money to the Triads, but how is downloading an Win XP ISO from a P2P network making Osama any money?
I suppose when I installed Windows 2000 on two different machines caused some planes to smash into buildings.
--
Every time you download off a P2P network, God kills a kitten
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
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.
The reason that China and India are both seen as possible (well, India at least still has some major economic hurdles to overcome, China seems a sure thing) economic powerhouses is largely because of not only their huge populations--but their huge and POOR populations! Cheap wages. Cheap costs in general. That's it.
Subsidies and wealth of the population are actually tied together too. As countries (largely) in the West have become more prosperous overall, costs of living go up, expected wages go up, costs of doing business go up. This in turn makes certain industries more expensive to operate, and in some cases uncompetitive globally. Thus the need for government subsidies.
I believe that was the original intent of Copyright laws: To prevent you from making money of of work that was copyrighted. You could make a cassette tape of something off of the radio, and as long as you didn't try to sell it, you were fine. Same deal with using the VCR to tape something on TV. As long as you weren't making a profit off of your legally made copy, you were fine.
The RIAA member labels are just pissed because music downloading just means that they're not getting their cut. They've set insanely high prices for music CDs, and don't want to drop their prices to more reasonable levels (I'd have no problem laying down $7-10 for a CD, but $15-20 is asking a bit much). With the advent of the CD-R, the creation of a CD and the cost to do so was brought home to the consumer, and they realized that they were being gouged at the register. Until they bring the price of CDs down, file sharing will flourish. If prices are brought down to reasonable levels, then consumers would most likely download only to sample music they don't own yet, and then go out and buy the reasonably priced CD.
I know I would...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
That is the common misconception most people have. Any broadcasting station must pay license fees for every song they play.
They clamped down at the College on P2P. I used to bring a Zip Disk along and download a few samples using the lab's high speed access. I "met" all of my favorite artists that way. Example: I had no idea of who "Enya" was, but I got one of her songs on one of my kinda random downloads, I liked it. I found several more of hers. Liked them too. Next thing I know, when I was in any record store, I was looking for her CD's... I think I have her complete set now ( except for one compilation CD ). These were all purchased.
Now that I have been prohibited from sampling the music, I find something odd happening. Although I still go into the record store, there is now nothing running through my head that I want to buy. I see rows upon rows of CD's, but to me they are just so much clutter - I have no idea what they are - they may as well be in another language. I just do not see a thing I'm specifically looking for
I know what the problem is... I do not listen to the radio anymore. They would continuously play the hot list, interspersed with as much jabber as they thought I would tolerate. Problem is now its not just the "top 40" I have to choose from... its literally thousands of different titles in the store... and I don't know the slightest thing about any of the new ones.. I just remember some of the oldies from earlier years.
Yes, the store does have listening kiosks, but each only has access to maybe 5 CD's, and I am quite uncomfortable having to stand in one spot for several minutes at a time trying to listen to them. Its not at all like queueing the disk up I made at College and having it play in the background while I do my homework, then if something strikes me while listening, reopening the jukebox window to see what it was. Most of the stuff I got at College was crap anyway, but there were a few gems in it, such as Enya and others. Well, maybe not crap - because music preferences are so unique to each individual, but definitely not mine.
I remember when I used to get excited about Baseball games. Then they had a strike. During the strike, I found something else to do. Guess what, I haven't been back to a game since! Now, it seems I take just about as much interest in how far some baseball player hits the friggen ball as I suspect he cares how I did on my calculus exam. I find once I "get out of sync" with something, I lose interest in it.
Yes, I guess the **AA may have won this one on me - as not only have I not downloaded for about 4 months now, nor have I had any reason to buy any recordings either.
I am not for sure that they really wanted what they won.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
In the past, they have done several tests of their ICBMs in the Atlantic whithout notifying neither the Americans, nor the Brits. As a result quite a few people in NORAD, RAF and the Russian missile command have quite a few grey hairs more then usual.
Seeing a missile appear from nowhere off the Irish Coast and head across the Atlantic in the general Wahington direction is not funny. At all. Or at least neither the Russians nor the US and the UK found it funny in the past. Dunno about the French.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Which America is the present? Mexico? Canada? Fundamentalist right-wing Christians in the mid-West for whom terrorists are the new witches/commies?
Which Eastern economies are the future? the still backward Indian and Chinese hinterlands? Muslim fundamentalists in Indonesia?
And what happened to Africa?
How about "Intelligent, hardworking, progressive people are the future and backward, regressive, idle people are the past, provided we don't all get wiped out by a meteorite, climate change or biological warfare" ?
Or even "Tomorrow is the future, yesterday is the past".
Soundbites and spin doctors - just say no.
Well, it's almost certain that every copy downloaded without paying (i.e. pirated) would not translate into an actual sale if the download was prevented. A lot of "pirates" download mass quantities, regardless of what it is, just to have a large collection for its own sake -- they wouldn't be buying all the stuff they wouldn't normally listen to anyway, if they couldn't get it for free.
Never trust music industry claims on how much money or how many jobs are "lost" because of copying. Most of the monetary losses are due to large-scale, professional pirates who actually sell bootleg copies of the music, rather than casual Internet downloaders. Nonetheless, it's not very efficient to cripple the computer industry to prevent piracy, and it's not really efficient to be having law enforcement go after casual downloaders instead of (for example) worrying about violent crime, organized crime, etc.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased