Slashdot Mirror


EU IP Enforcement Directive Criticized

wiredog writes "A commentary at ZDNet UK concerning the proposed EU IP Enforcement Directive describes it as being as bad as, or possibly worse than, the American DMCA. Some snippets: 'You want to change the tyres on your 2006 model Ford Prefect? Anything other than genuine Ford tyres -- with the genuine Ford ID chip -- will disable your car. In the brave new world of the Directive, singing ... in public with your hat on the floor would be a crime,... You can imagine how much the police are going to enjoy having to cope with that.' It closes with the observation that "intellectual property is verging on thought crime."" Civil liberties groups have sent a letter to EU urging that the proposal be rejected.

295 comments

  1. From the FAQ, music and software theft by mao+che+minh · · Score: 4, Informative
    From the FAQ, music and software theft

    Will this Directive mean that young people using file swapping software via their PCs will be held liable for IPR infringement?

    The proposed Directive would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals downloading the odd track for non-commercial purposes, though it would not stop Member State authorities from introducing and applying tougher laws.

    The scope of this proposal covers infringements carried out for commercial purposes or which cause significant harm to the rightholder.

    File swapping may be considered a copyright infringement depending on the national law in question.

    This proposal only covers illegal acts, where authorisation has not been given by the rightholder or where the appropriate remuneration has not been paid for the use of that piece of intellectual property.

    Exchanging illegal content over the internet is an illegal act, or an infringement of copyright if it relates to music files.

    Although considerable injury to rightholders can be caused by an individual via his/her computer linked to the internet, it is not in the interest of rightholders to spend a lot of time and money in litigation to catch offenders who are simply sharing a few files with a handful of friends.

    The proposed Directive aims to strike a fair balance between the interests of rightholders and legitimate users of intellectual property on the one hand and the wider opportunities the internet offers to consumers on the other, by focusing on commercial infringements or those which most damage rightholders' interests. It is not aimed at allowing the prosecution of large numbers of individuals using peer to peer (P2P) networks for casual file swapping.

    For criminal sanctions to apply, the infringement must be 'serious'. An infringement is considered 'serious' if carried out intentionally and for commercial purposes.

    Although the Directive also includes references to proportionality, i.e. for the punishment to fit the crime, it is up to national judges to decide on sentencing on a case by case basis.

    The RIAA will come in the nii-iiight!

    1. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by rkz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Portable MP3/Ogg players get better every year. While I was searching the internet for a suitable present to give my SO, I have considered purchasing an iPod, what brought it to my attention was that it costs the same as a Ruger .357. Both are lovely little pieces of engineering although with a bit of thought I realised both are bad things, instead I decided to put down my first down payment on a BMW X5. Back to the iPod, is this device legal? Will those of us who use it bring the wrath of the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) down on our heads like a corporate version of Maxwell's Silver Hammer?

      Music is a creative process. Today, when a musician publishes music, i.e., exposes it to the outside world, only a privileged set of individuals are able to use the music as they please (RIAA). However, the artist has drawn from the creativity of many other musicians and there is an existential responsibility placed upon them to give this back unconditionally, so creativity is fostered among people. This is why peoples using music how they like is imperative.

      Consider: RIAA-bought legislators are trying to get insane bills made into law. Whether or not they succeed, there are plenty of confusing copyright protection regulations out there already, and the latest tactic the music industry is using in its attempt to slow the death of their obsolete business model is to target individual users, not just commercial CD duplicators or large-scale file-sharing networks.

      There seems to be this big RIAA push to outlaw all devices that facilitate file copying. Computer operating systems, for example, all have ways to copy files, and all those new little USB memory devices are certainly handy places to stash files and give you an easy way to move them from one computer to another, even if neither computer is hooked to the Internet or a LAN.

      And then there's that MP3/Ogg player. My SO has many years' worth of legally-purchased CDs, and loves the idea of being able to transfer the music on them to a small solid-state device instead of using a portable CD player and lugging stacks of CDs everywhere. But would my Stevie suddenly become a criminal if he started ripping all his CDs?

      Apparently not. Yet. It seems the recording industry powers-that-be haven't gotten around to suing customers who transfer music (that they've paid for) from one medium to another to make personal use more convenient. But will this largesse on their part continue? Could my SO be at the beach one day and find herself tossed in the back of a police car if he has music in his possession for which he has no receipt on his person?

      (Yes, this is one of those "slippery slope" arguments, and the idea of an innocent music fan getting arrested is as farfetched as the ideas of copyright terms getting extended by Congress every time Disney?s copyright on Mickey Mouse is due to expire.)

      But it looks like the RIAA is now going after music fans who share as few as five songs with friends over the Internet.

      What if my SO hands his headphones to a young friend who may not have heard a piece of 'classic rock' he enjoys? What if he shares five songs with ten friends at a party? What if he makes a compilation CD full of MP3 or Ogg Vorbis files for a friend by using a 'copyright circumvention device' like, say, his laptop computer? So far, the nasty old Internet hasn't come into play. But if my SO emails those same files to a few friends, is he suddenly a pirate?

      I have given up trying to sort out all this music filesharing stuff. The only 100% safe solution I've come up with is to avoid owning any music whatsoever produced by RIAA member companies. If you look around a little, you can find plenty of interesting pieces, in almost all genres, sold directly by the artists or by small recording companies that aren't trying to make trouble for their customers.

      Hopefully you'll take similar steps yourself to eliminate the risk of being arrested by the FBI or other law enforcement a

    2. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1, Interesting

      A very good article. The only problem I see is that if people completely stopped buying music from the RIAA that the RIAA would use what was left of its money to go completely apeshit SCO like against anyone who ever heard one of their songs.

    3. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Informative
      See also:
      European Commission: downloading pirated material should be legal

      However, the law is still seen as overly restrictive by many:
      The Draft IP Enforcement Directive - A Threat To Competition And Liberty
      Group warns of Europe's 'DMCA on steroids'

      ... and this was also discussed in an earlier Slashdot post:
      Sweden to outlaw peer-to-peer file swapping
      (however, it seems like there are still confusion about what the law exactly means, since this article seem to be in conflict with the first)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      From the FAQ, music and software theft

      Will this Directive mean that young people using file swapping software via their PCs will be held liable for IPR infringement?

      The proposed Directive would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals downloading the odd track for non-commercial purposes, though it would not stop Member State authorities from introducing and applying tougher laws.


      Interesting. Considering that a stated goal in the proposal (RTFP?) is harmonization of the laws of member states this seems a bit misleading. (The proposal PDF, page 16.)

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    5. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by scalis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I like this part better:

      "Will this Directive mean that people buying a fake watch from a market stall will be held liable for IPR infringement ?

      No. The act of buying is not subject to any intellectual property right. "

      If buying illgal copies is NOT subject to any intellectual property right, how could downloading for free ever be?

      --

      True ravers don't need drugs
    6. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by The+Old+Burke · · Score: 1
      I must say that I like your post, especially the very insightful and coherent last section about the Punk band. Respect.

      --
      Proud patriot and republican voter.
    7. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by BadDreamer · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I was infuriated because who would buy our CD?s if they could get them online for free?

      I'm hoping this part was a joke; when you're a small band trying to get exposure, making money from CD sales is not a priority. If you feel it is, you're in the wrong business.

      The point of performing arts of all kinds is to get to perform, to have people enjoy ones work and to get it out to as many people as possible. Napster is an excellent method for this; selling CD's isn't. Not even when you're a big, well known band will CD sales take off particularly much (unless you have a juggernaut marketing machine behind you).

      I'd be positively thrilled if half a dozen people would download one of my songs from Napster. If enough people do, I can start playing the local scene for more money; I will be better known. And the real fans will still buy a CD; they're even more likely to do so if they have heard the songs already.

      Unless you don't believe in your product (bad music, lousy recording, no good production), freely available tracks are pure goood marketing, leading to exposure, more plays and more sales.

    8. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by antibryce · · Score: 1
      I was infuriated because who would buy our CD?s if they could get them online for free?


      Er, who's going to buy the Futurerama DVDs if they can download the episodes for free?


      For everyone to get the joke, go to rkz's page and read his journal entry on trolling in #slashdot (he posts links to copies of a futurerama episode.) here's a snippet:

      [rkz] i dont have a disposable income to waste on dvds of futurama
      [rkz] so i just download it
      [rkz] you are just pissed off that you needed to pay for it and i got it for free


      This guy is a troll. Mod him down.

    9. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by jtosburn · · Score: 1

      Downloading MAY be legal; perhaps you can convince the judge that you thought that because the files were available, that the copyright holder had approved it.

      It's the act of making files (esp. music) available for OTHERS to download that is totally illegal. Without question. This is publishing something you are not the owner of. Thus the RIAA goes after people who are publishing files copyrighted by RIAA members.

      Thus, in the analogy, the SELLER of the fake watch is culpable, the BUYER was deceived. Whether or not the buyer SHOULD have known better isn't relevant. Whether or not a downloader should know better probably depends on who you ask. To the RIAA, you're a leaching criminal if you merely copy a CD you own to an mp3 player.

    10. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Today, when a musician publishes music, i.e., exposes it to the outside world, only a privileged set of individuals are able to use the music as they please (RIAA)."

      No, anyone is able to use it as they like if they pay him for his work. Apparantly only the RIAA have a world-wide distribution network capable of selling the work to anyone who wants it.

      "The only 100% safe solution I've come up with is to avoid owning any music whatsoever produced by RIAA member companies. "

      That's ok if you only listen to music made by spotty little bedroom boys on their home computers. Some of us like Jazz, Classical and other music from around the world. Who's going to record that, produce and press up the CDs and distribute them in a way where the creators get at least some of the money?

    11. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      there isn't really a contradiction - the EU's purpose and power is more limited than you think.

      "Harmonising" isn't a goal in itself. The EU can only harmonise to prevent distortions of competition between member States, e.g. the UK having stronger IP enforcement laws than Spain and this mkaing it less attractive for companies to do business in Spain.

      Small-scale personal breaches of IP aren't really going to cause these kind of distortions and so the EU has no legal competence to create law in this area.

    12. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Exchanging illegal content over the internet is an illegal act, ...

      I'm always interested in how an unscrupulous web site could take advantage of such laws. This one's trivial. If you make the mistake of visiting one of my sites with javascript enabled, I can send you to jail quite easily.

      One of my js demos is of image "preloading". It's useful: While you look at my main page, JS is silently downloading the images from the rest of my pages, so that subsequent pages come up faster. But I don't have to preload images from my site; I can use an arbitrary URL and "preload" any file from any site. And none of my pages has to ever use them. Think of this for a few seconds ...

      In much of the world, having images on your machine like the goatse pic or any random pronography is illegal. So what my web page does is "preload" a whole flock of these into your browser cache. My other pages don't actually reference them, but that's not a problem. The problem comes when I use my subpoena power to find out who has been caught by my JS and now has the images on their disk. I send a tipoff to the local authorities. You get a knock on your door, they examine the directories that my note told them about, and sure enough, the images are there. So it's off to jail with you.

      Or I could use the same thing to "preload" a few commercial MP3's into your browser's cache. Then I tip off the recording company that you've downloaded them and have them on your disk.

      Hmmm ... Maybe I oughta teach this technique to a few of the more oppressive governments. They can set up "public information" pages that preload classified docs into your cache.

      Needless to say, I like to turn off JS, Active-X, and other scripting goodies before I use any browser. Or I use a browser that doesn't have them in the first place. But most users just use IE or maybe Netscape out of the box, and don't know how to configure such things. So this law, like the DMCA, makes them vulnerable to just this sort of trick.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    13. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by Gumshoe · · Score: 1
      Downloading MAY be legal; perhaps you can convince the judge that you thought that because the files were available, that the copyright holder had approved it.


      I've been wondering about that. How can a receiver of a product possibly know that something is copyrighted or not and even if it were, that it isn't licenced for free distribution.

      It's the act of making files (esp. music) available for OTHERS to download that is totally illegal.


      Not necessarily and by the same logic as above. Not all files (even music) are covered by copyright and even those that are may be freely distributable. Moreover, even if they are copyrighted and not specially licenced for free distribution, how is one to know that it isn't? I see (or hear) no copyright messages on shared music files to indicate that I can't (this is assuming that the distributor of the file hasn't created the file himself from an original, legal source such as a CD where copyright is clearly indicated) Are we therefore to assume that all music ever created is "owned" by the RIAA? That's a rhetorical question of course because the actions of the RIAA and the legislators answer in the affirmitive.

      Thus, in the analogy, the SELLER of the fake watch is culpable, the BUYER was deceived. Whether or not the buyer SHOULD have known better isn't relevant.


      True, but the analogy is flawed to begin with. The passing off of a trademarked item is an entirely different part of "Intellectual Property" law and one of the reasons why we shouldn't talk of IP but of it's constituent parts -- copyright, patents and trademarks.
    14. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by Alsee · · Score: 1

      How can a receiver of a product possibly know that something is copyrighted or not and even if it were, that it isn't licenced for free distribution.

      Right. Not a single person has ever been been able to point to any law or court case supporting any claim of downloading being an infringment.

      Some people have pointed to RIAA statements claiming the MP3.COM case says it is illegal to download, but the RIAA made misleading statements. The MP3.COM case said MP3.COM did not have the right to send the files.

      by the same logic as above. Not all files (even music) are covered by copyright and even those that are may be freely distributable.

      No, the same logic doesn't apply. The any making/distributing someone else's material is legally responsible for ensuring they have the right to do so.

      There are other problems with copyright law though.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    15. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      The last article is wrong. Sweden will not make P2P against the law - however some uses of P2P will be against the law. It's based on an journalist who made a fool of himself by writing an articla based on what the Swedish Minister of Justice said when announcing the law - instead of looking at the law proposal itself.

      The hournalist was from an news agenxy which distributed the article so got printed in way to many papers - sadly since large portions od it was not according to what the law proposal said.

      On the othere hand the law proposal is nearly 600 pages of boring text so it's kind of understandable if people do not boteher to read it.

      Got two printed copies on my desk right now - one annotated by myself.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    16. Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Thanks for finally clarifying that article for me. I saw it in swedish news too and thought it sounded too strange to be true, even for something from the EU. :-) I've asked about it, but haven't got any good answer until now.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  2. Will it... by BMonger · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... stop me from putting my pants on backwards? If it does that then count me in.

    1. Re:Will it... by magsymp · · Score: 0

      with the genuine Ford ID chip -- will disable your car. PUT ON YOU TINFOIL HUB CAPS NOW!!!

    2. Re:Will it... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I don't think this ford example applies very well here. I mean, Ford can do that, I don't really give a shit. I just won't buy Ford anymore and they will loose all (most of) their customers rather quickly (I hope).

      That's because Ford doesn't have the monopoly. RIAA is way closer to having a monopoly, so they (think they) can impose anything to their customers.

      It's going to blow in their faces pretty hard if they go on this way. Independant labels will pop out everywhere not holding these kind of restrictions. Of course RIAA members will push as hard as they can with all their (numerous) weapons to keep them down. But if society as a whole is sick of their stupid tactics, it'll pop out eventually.

      I thought the anti-trust laws were made to avoid these kind of situations.... Too bad.

  3. Re:What's a tyre? by Adam9 · · Score: 1, Redundant

    tyre ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr)
    n. Chiefly British

    Variant of tire2.


    Found here

  4. Ford Prefect... the Car? by LordYUK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it faster than Chevy's Arthur Dent or Toyotas Zaphod Beeblebrox?

    Oh well, I just hope it comes with a towel... and a pint of beer!!

    --
    This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    1. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is it faster than Chevy's Arthur Dent or Toyotas Zaphod Beeblebrox?

      You do realize that the character was named after the car, right?

      --
      Why?
    2. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by LordYUK · · Score: 1

      No, actually, I had no idea!

      I'm an American you insensitive clod!

      Seriously though... I can name quite a few fords, but Prefect is not one I've ever heard of (admittedly, I've only been around since 1980, was it prior to that?) :)

      --
      This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    3. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by joedoe · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a European-only model.

      The joke (to the British audience) was that he incorrectly determined which species was in charge, and thus, in his attempts to blend in as much as possible, named himself for a car.

    4. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dent is a singularly poor moniker for a car.

    5. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by El · · Score: 2, Informative
      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    6. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Ford Prefect was produced in the U.K. from 1938 to 1959.

      Since you're a 23 year old American, and I don't think any of these cars were ever imported, it's not surprising that you haven't seen or heard of one.

      --

      --
      the strongest word is still the word "free"
    7. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the whole joke. That Ford fit in perfectly with his surroundings on Earth except for his unfortunate choice of name.

    8. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by Colin+Douglas+Howell · · Score: 5, Informative
      Quite a bit prior to that--it was last produced in 1959.

      Unfortunately, the joke of Ford Prefect's name was lost on most Americans, myself included. I didn't even know the car existed until I read the obituary for Douglas Adams, and my dad (an Englishman old enough to remember the Prefect) mentioned the car.

      Wikipedia has a pretty good entry covering both the car and Adams' choice of the name for his character.

    9. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by mhifoe · · Score: 1
      My father owned one about 10 years ago.
      It was built in 1953 and had a 3 speed crash gearbox

      They look like this.

    10. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by mikeb · · Score: 2, Funny

      I used to drive a Ford Prefect, it was bought for me by my parents in 1970 to get me off a motorbike that they hated (a Velocette Viper).

      The worst part of the car was the vacuum wipers, driven by the manifold pressure. This meant that when you lifted off the accelerator they went berserk, but flat-out they stopped altogether. A piece of design genius that should be more widely celebrated.

      The bottom of the bodyshell finally rotted through a couple of years later and I had it scrapped.

      The engine was a sidevalve model, none of that fancy overhead-cam stuff.

    11. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by jeavis · · Score: 1

      Hah. Being a 20-something American as well, I didn't know the history of the car, either. I actually thought it was a jab at Ford Motors by intentionally misspelling the word "perfect", implying they were far from it.

    12. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

      I can name quite a few fords Ford Exploder
      Ford Expire
      Ford Excessive
      Ford Excuse

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    13. Re:Ford Prefect... the Car? by gidds · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, the joke of Ford Prefect's name was lost on most Americans

      To be fair, (much as I hate to be fair to Americans :) the joke was also lost on quite a few Brits too - myself included. It's probably an age-related thing; I was only 8 in 1980, so wasn't completely aware of the details of the second-hand car market...

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

  5. At least europeans are being screwed too by xThinkx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hey, I'm not trying to say that no matter what the people want all of the politicians backed by funding from large corporations are going to pass this law...OK maybe I am. But, maybe when this abuse of power and creation of "thought crime" laws becomes a worldwide phenomenon, we'll have an easier time fighting it. Then again, maybe I'm too optimistic.

    --
    Let's get one thing perfectly clear, I did not vote for George W Bush, and I do not endorse what he does or says.
    "
    1. Re:At least europeans are being screwed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One small thing Americans seem to forget... EU is NOT the same thing as all the countries that are a part of EU. A member country can decide not to accept it.. and thats it, sure EU has power, but not nearly as much as everyone seem to think..

    2. Re:At least europeans are being screwed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we need a world wide revolution against transnational corporations. woo hoo

    3. Re:At least europeans are being screwed too by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      There's another way of looking at this:

      Before, many of us Americans were thinking, "Boy, if they keep creating these new DMCA-type laws, we're going to have to move to Europe to be free." But, since Europe is working to eliminate the dread spectre of freedom, the temptation isn't going to be there, and we can all relax. I'm glad THAT weight is off my shoulders! Phew...

      Hey! Waitaminnit! I just thought of something! I bet those Europeans are putting DMCA's in place to prevent us from moving over there! "Ha, ha!" they're saying, "You steenking Americans get no DMCA relief HERE! Tek ZAT you silly Yankee Kniiiggggets!"

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
    4. Re:At least europeans are being screwed too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate crimes , thought crimes ... DMCA ... now just who is pushing this neo-Stalinist crap ?

    5. Re:At least europeans are being screwed too by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      But, maybe when this abuse of power and creation of "thought crime" laws becomes a worldwide phenomenon, we'll have an easier time fighting it.

      I can see the populace, both in America and in the world at large, as this big animal (think Kodiak bear) that the corporations, through our governments, keep poking with a stick.

      Eventually, this animal will have had enough, and will lash out at the stick wielder. The only thing left to question, is when? And how vilolent will it be?

      History repeatedly shows this cycle of mistreatment of the population and revolution.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
  6. a good example by Potor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    of the dictum that if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal

    1. Re:a good example by JiffyPop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal

      <paranoia>
      and making everyone a criminal is the first step in creating a police state
      </paranoia>

      of course these days it seems like the police work for the corporations...

      The more I learn about the laws that are passed to "protect us from terrorism" or which "no one who is not a criminal should object to", the more healthy a dose of paranoia seems.

    2. Re:a good example by gerddie · · Score: 1

      and making everyone a criminal is the first step in creating a police state
      As it was already pointed out here police state is a tautology.
      Besides, the state (= police) already works for the corporations ...

    3. Re:a good example by Thing+1 · · Score: 5, Informative
      a good example of the dictum that if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal

      Very succinctly put. I like to refer to a passage from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" which says essentially the same thing, with more words:

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
      It blows me away that she wrote this half a century ago, and it's becoming more and more relevant. RFID tags for all!
      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  7. OK.. My new book idea by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Funny

    I will publish a book called "How to oppress the people", online, in a Wikipedia format. In that book I will describe and detail plans and methods for oppressing free speech, in a simple ho-to format. I will then sue any and all legislators that infringe upon my IP by writing blatent copies of my ideas.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:OK.. My new book idea by borgasm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sorry, somebody already beat you to it.

      The White House

    2. Re:OK.. My new book idea by magsymp · · Score: 0

      when you say "ho-to" format, do you mean hoe-to?

      As in whoring from one place to another...

    3. Re:OK.. My new book idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's slang for "whore's too" :)

    4. Re:OK.. My new book idea by halo8 · · Score: 1

      ill be nice (just this once) and save you from a lengthy littigation try This and This first. you might also want to try reading This site as well

      --
      The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
  8. 1984 by squaretorus · · Score: 1

    Its taken a while but here we go : THE BOOK.

    Becoming more like the truth every single day! Welcome to the future!

    1. Re:1984 by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 3, Informative

      yawn.... have you read 1984? if ford decides to modify their tires in the above prescribed way... what does that have to do with the government watching you? I dont see how the government is involved here. You could make the weak argument that what ford is doing is anti-competitive, but you still have the option to buy a different brand of car, dont you? If you dont like ford's scheme here, dont buy it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government or 1984.

    2. Re:1984 by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      Or you could just read the free, searchable online version here

    3. Re:1984 by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      "I dont see how the government is involved here. "

      You don't see the symbiotic relationship between big business and government?
      A good line from "The Best democracy Money Can Buy" is the title of one of the chapters: "Ya Dance with them that brung ya."
      The allusion is to a dance, where if someone brings you to the dance, you owe it to them to dance with them. The campaign financers, that bring the politicians to office, get thanked in kind.

      It's a lovely, mutually beneficial system, and it works.
      The only problem being the pesky proles, who occasionally kick up a fuss, but they're generally easily placated by a bit of an income tax cut or something (slapping it on again in unfair taxation elsewhere, where the dumb mud-shovellers won't notice, is always good.)

      I mean, why do you think this opressive law is being written in the first place? To benefit whom?

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:1984 by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      This has everything to do with the government if they're the ones enforcing the laws. After I buy something, nobody should be able to tell me what I can do with my private property (short of harming other people). The fact that I could choose something other than Ford is irrelevant here; the law just stinks.

    5. Re:1984 by squaretorus · · Score: 1

      yawn... if you dont see Ford as a government of motoring and AOL as a government of IT then your a bit in the dark my friend. It doesnt take a leap of doublethink to tie these together.

      Governments no longer make laws, they ACCEPT and RATIFY laws presented to them by lobbyists. And who lobbies most about motoring? The car companies.

      Have YOU read 1984?

  9. Scary Stuff by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I rember when the CPTEA was upheld recently, it was upheald because the US Supreme Court found that it had been Congress's intention to harmonize US Copyright Law with that of Europe, not the intent to create a perpetual term of copyright.

    As much as I am unhappy with the DMCA, I think that the criticism that the US is more unballanced in this regard than Europe is not accurate. Europe has been the leader in copyright terms.

    It seems that the EC (European Commission) is trying to create a market for patent and copyright driven businesses by suggesting that they can provide better protection than the US. The US may try to match. the fundamental problem is that:

    1: Unballanced protections such as we have today do NOT help produce innovation and will only relate to higher R&D costs which have to be passed on to the consumer and
    2: Every other nation in the world will be forced to play this game of "I can offer you at least as much protection as they can."

    This is a scary situation. I think we need to fight this one NOW.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Scary Stuff by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I rember when the CPTEA was upheld recently, it was upheald because the US Supreme Court found that it had been Congress's intention to harmonize US Copyright Law with that of Europe, not the intent to create a perpetual term of copyright.

      As much as I am unhappy with the DMCA, I think that the criticism that the US is more unballanced in this regard than Europe is not accurate. Europe has been the leader in copyright terms."

      This is dead wrong. Europe extended copyright by 20 years. The US did the same, but made it *retrospective* so that Disney got another 20 years on Mickey Mouse. The law in Europe didn't do this (and indeed couldn't have). It was a shameful piece of influence-peddling by the US media lobby.

    2. Re:Scary Stuff by danila · · Score: 1

      Every other nation in the world will be forced to play this game of "I can offer you at least as much protection as they can.

      May be some of the countries will be smart and play the opposite game? The one called "We can offer you much more right then they can". Most people don't realise that there is only one country that benefits from stronger IP laws - the US. Being the largest economy AND the leading producer of software, movies and music, the US govt need the laws to protect these industries (or at least the industries can persuade the govt that it's necessary). Portugal will not benefit from stronger laws, because even if they would have large software/movie/music industries, they would have to get most of the revenues from abroad where stronger domestic laws have no effect at all.

      Of course, 25% of all people are idiots and there are definitely a lot of idiots in the governments of EU member states and the EU administration.

      On a related note, there is a wonderful place in the world where many Hollywood masterpieces, including Bamby, Godfather and Space Odyssey are public domain.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  10. Politicians... by xyvimur · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ``Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: "Pirates and counterfeiters are in effect stealing from right holders the fair payment they deserve for their work. If we don't stamp that out, the incentives for industrial innovation and cultural creativity will be weakened. That would threaten Europe's competitiveness and its cultural diversity and dynamism. So we have to get tough with the pirates and counterfeiters and make sure they can find no safe havens in the EU.''

    I liked the part about weakening the creativity and innovation. Bleh. Political ``new-speach''.

    1. Re:Politicians... by xyvimur · · Score: 1

      And the worst thing is that probably such law will be passed in nice-looking `wrapper' - only good sides will be emphasized while bad will be reduced. Then when it shall come to real life use problems will start. A bunch of institutions will be created, stupid employees knowing nothing about IT market will be employed to `supervise' the execution of that law.
      Maybe above is the dark scenario. But in such cases it's better to be very cautious and pessimistic. Once such kind of law will have been setup - it would be hard to change it.
      So for now I think it's time to support European group protesting against it and inform as many people as possible about the situation.

    2. Re:Politicians... by amigabill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > If we don't stamp that out, the incentives for industrial innovation and cultural creativity will
      > be weakened.

      Hey, I've got a great idea on how to improve the safety and useful life time of a set of tires for my Ford automobile. Oh, too bad I don't have the legal right to use non-Ford approved tires and my car refuses to run so I can't test my idea on my own Ford car. Guess it's now illegal for me to have ideas on how to improve tires, so I won't waste my time with such safety innovations. Or any ideas for other products/markets/industries either. As a chip designer, am I going to be arrested every time I think of a way to improve an electronic product?? I'm not allowed to get sick of my cheesy universal TV remote, gut the curcuitry and put in an entirely new circuit that better suits my needs, because I put it in a plastic remote "case" made by RCA or some other big company like that? Will that plastic shell radio in to the mothership that I replaced the circuit board and order a set of lots of guys with big guns to take me in for re-educationing?

      Yea. This law is going to be great for innovation!!!!!!

    3. Re:Politicians... by NortWind · · Score: 1
      stealing from right holders the fair payment they deserve for their work.

      Perhaps you meant to say "stealing from right holders the exorbitant payment they demand for the work of others."

  11. IP of any type is evil. by Thinkit3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And compromisers are the worst of the bunch. There is no compromise. IP is thought crime, it's not verging on it. In any form, it is evil.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  12. people care to much on the other side of the pond by lostinchicago · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    they outlaw guns, itunes, and now they cant just leave ip's alone

  13. First thing first... by BrynM · · Score: 3, Funny
    From the very first words on the article page:

    "IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice."
    I guess it'll be subject to a whole lot more in the future ;)
    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
    1. Re:First thing first... by flibuste · · Score: 1
      I learned Business on /.. As a result, I am a poor insensitive clod that will likely go in jail for copyright infrigement sooner or later

      ...and I'm still trying to compile that kernel .sig

  14. The author's got her facts a bit mixed up by mkweise · · Score: 4, Informative

    New Euro law could make criminals of us all



    Umm, nope. From the EU site:
    The proposed Directive deals with the enforcement of intellectual property rights and so it does not deal directly with the substance of IPRs (i.e. to what extent intellectual property is protected in law). That is already covered by an existing EU legal framework.

    --
    Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!
  15. Letter Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    August 11, 2003

    RE: International Coalition Urges Rejection of European Union's Proposed IP Enforcement Directive

    Dear EU JURI Committee Members:

    We are an international coalition of civil liberties groups and consumer rights campaigns concerned about the impact on civil liberties, innovation, and competition posed by the European Union's proposed IP Enforcement Directive. The proposal threatens to restrict the free flow of goods and permit giant US companies to limit consumer choice and impose price controls in the Single Market. The proposed Enforcement Directive's scope is overbroad, encompassing any industrial property right, and it creates a legal regime that favors foreign intellectual property owners while ignoring the traditional due process rights of intellectual property defendants in Europe. We urge the Commission to reject the current proposal in favor of measures that provide for the enforcement of intellectual property rights and that also protect the consumer rights of Europeans and promote competition among European businesses.

    One of the IP Enforcement proposal's most invasive provisions, Article 9, creates a "Right of Information" that grants intellectual property owners broad subpoena powers to obtain personal information about European citizens. Besides violating consumer privacy rights, this provision unreasonably burdens universities, Internet service providers, and other innocent third-party intermediaries who must respond to massive numbers of subpoenas and turn in customers for prosecution.

    Similarly broad subpoena powers found in the controversial US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) are consistently abused by the Recording Industry Association of America to obtain personal information on thousands of users of file-sharing software. We urge the Commission to reject Article 9's "Right of Information" in favor of less burdensome enforcement provisions that respect the privacy rights of European citizens.

    We are also particularly troubled by Article 21 of the proposed IP Enforcement Directive, which forbids using, making, importing, and distributing "illegal technical devices" that can circumvent technologies designed to protect any industrial property right. Disregarding the fact that many unauthorized uses of intellectual property are perfectly lawful, Article 21 erodes the public's fair use (fair dealing) and freedom of expression rights by outlawing all technologies, including software, that are capable of bypassing technical restrictions.

    Also similar to the US DMCA, the EU IP Enforcement proposal's ban on circumvention devices is so broad that it permits intellectual property owners to extend their monopoly into separate markets, such as players, readers and other interoperable devices. Article 21's ban on technical devices is ripe for abuse by intellectual property owners to prevent competition and stifle innovation in the market for goods and adjacent devices. Article 21 is a misguided attempt to outlaw a broad category of legitimate technologies and should be reformed to protect consumer rights and promote competition policy.

    Because of the many threats to Europeans' civil liberties, innovation, and competition posed by the proposed EU IP Enforcement Directive, we respectfully request the rejection of its overbroad provisions at the EUROPARL Committee on Legal Affairs and Internal Market hearing on September 11, 2003 in Brussels.

    Cordially,

    Associacao Nacional para o Software Livre
    (National Association for Free Software - ANSOL) ~ Portugal
    http://www.ansol.org/ansol.en.html

    Association Electronique Libre (ASBL/NGO AEL) ~ Belgium, Luxemburg
    http://www.ael.be/

    Association Francophone des Utilisateurs de Linux et des Logiciels Libres
    (French speaking Linux and Libre Software Users' Association AFUL) ~ France
    http://www.aful.org/

    Association pour la Promotion et la Recherche en Informatique Libre
    (Association for Promotion and Research in Libre Computing -

  16. Re:Tyres? by SamBC · · Score: 2

    It's the British spelling, primarily, although from what I understand of patterns of UK vs USA English, it is probably quite likely used in many/most English speaking countries.

    I think it's fairly obvious from the pronunciation, really.

  17. Directive Date - Bad Taste by Liselle · · Score: 1, Troll

    Look at the date when this monster is going in front of the European Parliament: September 11th.

    Should we laugh, or cry?

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    1. Re:Directive Date - Bad Taste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IP Justice has set up a campaign website to help Europeans contact the EU members who will be discussing this proposal. Check out: http://www.ipjustice.org/code.shtml

  18. Good thing that Ford doesn't make tyres. by kevlar · · Score: 4, Interesting


    They don't make tires either.

    I'd be more concerned about InkJet printer manufacturers doing this... oh wait they already do... thats why I have a LaserJet...

    1. Re:Good thing that Ford doesn't make tyres. by rworne · · Score: 1

      Ah, but it depends on OEM agreements, doesn't it?

      When Firestone makes the tires for Ford, they place the appropriate "Ford" chip in them. These tires are then sold only via Ford dealerships and service centers.

      The reason they will give for this is that they will claim the tires were designed specifically for the vehicle, and the auto's computer, when reading the RFID tag will allow operation under the following conditions. Quite a bit of this was taken from printer manufactuers and their ink cartridges:

      1. If the RFID model number and serial numbers on each of the four tires are on the "approved" list in the firmware of the ECU. (yes, four approved tires must be present)
      2. The serial numbers of the tires on the car are checked with the date they were manufactured (embedded in serial number) and first installed on the vehicle. If the tires are old (too long after manufacture), or worn (in usage too long) the ECU will disable the vehicle.

      All this will be done in the name of safety, not profits - even though the non OEM version of the tire will be available for substantially less money then the "Ford" version.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    2. Re:Good thing that Ford doesn't make tyres. by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      No, but firestone is the exclusive provider to ford for tires (dont know if thats still true after the rollover recall, but it was for almost 100 years) So ford could say "Firestone tires are the only tires that ford legally alows you to use on ford automobiles, any other tires will result in nonfunction of the car" Ford gets a deal on tires, and maybe a kickback from firestone, everybodys nice and cozy.

      --

    3. Re:Good thing that Ford doesn't make tyres. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd be suicidal to do it, though, as they would take direct responsibility the next time a batch of Firestone tires goes boom at 60mph, killing all involved.

    4. Re:Good thing that Ford doesn't make tyres. by heli0 · · Score: 1

      "thats why I have a LaserJet"

      LaserJet is a trademarked term used by Hewlett Packard for a product line of laser printers, it is not a term to describe laser printers in general.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    5. Re:Good thing that Ford doesn't make tyres. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know he doesn't have a LaserJet(TM)?

  19. grrr by saskwach · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Damnit, people, stop outlawing tools which have multiple uses. Outlaw the bad uses and you don't have any issues. I want to copy software illegally. That's already illegal. Now I want to run linux on my coke can. Why should that be illegal? Because copying software is not illegal enough. Isn't legality a boolean? Does it need to be compounded by superfluous laws?

    I know the gun thing is probably overused, but let's say I want a high pressure water gun so I can soak my buddy with water. This is like outlawing this water pistol because someone else put bleach in theirs and sprayed it in the eyes of a law enforcement officer. Blinding a cop is illegal, and for good reason. Why make owning a water pistol illegal?

    [end rant]
    1. Re:grrr by gantzm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is what revlolutions are for. Here in the U.S. the instructions for such are in the Declaration of Independence:

      That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

      --


      Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
    2. Re:grrr by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      > Now I want to run linux on my coke can. Why should that be illegal?

      "Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    3. Re:grrr by flibuste · · Score: 1
      Isn't legality a boolean?

      Booleans should be illegal.

      I'm such an insensitive clod .sig

    4. Re:grrr by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      I was thinking about whether there is a new 'new world'.

      Seems to me that every force in the world starts out as strong, with the intent to be more advanced than those that went before, as a result become economically stronger, and then eventually become lazy, corrupt and divided.

      Seems to me that China or India are the places of the future. Probably India.

    5. Re:grrr by kcbrown · · Score: 1
      This is what revlolutions are for.

      Revolutions are no longer reasonably possible. Back when revolutions against major powers (e.g., the American Revolution) happened, the firepower of the average soldier was only a little higher than the firepower of the average armed citizen, after accounting for all the military support infrastructure, weapons, etc.

      Today, the average soldier commands a thousands-to-one advantage over the average armed civilian because of all the advanced weapons he has access to (either directly, as is the case with his assault rifle, or indirectly, as is the case with artillery and air support).

      When it takes weeks of planning and preparation for a civilian (Timothy McVeigh) to build a bomb big enough to take down a medium-sized building, no civilian population can win a revolution against a military that can routinely take down the same building, and we haven't even talked about the advanced weapons the military has access to such as nukes.

      This is why it's so incredibly important to kill issues like the one we're discussing here before they have a chance to gain any sort of foothold -- because there is no other alternative, and the governments of the world know this. That's why they're so willing to whore themselves to corporations: they know they are in no real danger from the civilian population because of the huge difference in firepower between them and us.

      It means that we, the people, had better get used to being slaves, because that's where the world is headed.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  20. But shouldn't corporations be allowed to ... by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Funny

    send law enforcement agents into your home at any time of day or night to ensure that you are not making purchasing decisions that interfere with their ability to have a predictable revenue stream? Shouldn't any distortion of current laws/regulations that they can buy with their influence be enforced to the strictest letter of the law (including capital punishment where dictated) to make sure that profits are not harmed? Why aren't you all sitting in front of your TVs watching Rollerball (the original)? The Corporate Wars have been resolved for your benefit. Jonathan! Jonathan! Jonathan!

    1. Re:But shouldn't corporations be allowed to ... by taybin · · Score: 1

      I got all of that except for the "Jonathan! Jonathan! Jonathan!" part. What's that from?

    2. Re:But shouldn't corporations be allowed to ... by rworne · · Score: 1

      I watched the original Rollerball a few months ago on DVD (yeah, I'm a DVD whore so shoot me) and was surprised at how accurate the movie is getting nowadays. Much better than the tripe they did for the remake.

      Please rise for the Corporate Anthem!

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  21. Directives by Datasage · · Score: 1

    would the prime directive overrule this? "No matter what, don't let your society interfere with the evolution of another society unless the two can possibly be federated as members of a larger society."

    Oh wait... never mind *goes back to star trek*

    --
    In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
    1. Re:Directives by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny

      would the prime directive overrule this? "No matter what, don't let your society interfere with the evolution of another society unless the two can possibly be federated as members of a larger society."

      Hmm, I thought the prime directives were:

      1. Serve The Public Trust
      2. Protect The Innocent
      3. Uphold The Law

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Directives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the one about not arresting senior members of OCP or whatever...

    3. Re:Directives by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Or the one about not arresting senior members of OCP or whatever...

      Haha, yeah, the secret 4th directive. :-) I knew I had forgot something!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Directives by edbarrett · · Score: 2
      Hmm, I thought the prime directives were:

      1. Serve The Public Trust
      2. Protect The Innocent
      3. Uphold The Law


      I like what you did with point #1 up there. It's a plausible and friendly opener. The rest of you list seems to have a few problems -- #2 seems to be missing a question mark or two and #3 definately does not say profit.

      Could you fix those last few things up for me and submit a new post? Thanks!
    5. Re:Directives by shades6666 · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the 'new' ones (partial list)
      No. 233-Restrain hostile feelings
      No. 234-Promote positive attitude
      No. 235-Suppress aggressiveness
      No. 236-Promote pro-social values
      No. 238-Avoid destructive behavior
      No. 239-Be accessible
      No. 240-Participate in group activities
      No. 241-Avoid interpersonal conflicts
      No. 242-Avoid premature value judgments
      No. 243-Pool opinions before expressing yourself
      No. 244-Discourage feelings of negativity and hostility
      No. 245-If you haven't got anything nice to say don't talk
      No. 246-Don't rush traffic lights
      No. 247-Don't run through puddles and splash pedestrians or other cars
      No. 248-Don't say that you are always prompt when you are not
      No. 249-Don't be oversensitive to the hostility and negativity of others
      No. 250-Don't walk across a ballroom floor swinging your arms
      No. 246-Don't rush traffic lights
      No. 254-Encourage awareness
      No. 256-Discourage harsh language
      No. 258-Commend sincere efforts
      No. 261-Talk things out
      No. 262-Avoid Orion meetings
      No. 266-Smile
      No. 267-Keep an open mind
      No. 268-Encourage participation
      No. 273-Avoid stereotyping
      No. 278-Seek non-violent solutions

    6. Re:Directives by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

      Remember police work has been outsourced to omnicorp.

      1. Make a robocop that has following directives.
      1.1 Serve The Public Trust
      1.2 Protect The Innocent
      1.3 Uphold The Law

      2.Replace real cops with the robocop, to save big bucks.

      3. Profit.

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
    7. Re:Directives by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the slashdotification. I knew I should have thought twice before posting a numbered list here.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  22. I'm glad to see... by BJZQ8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm glad to see that the United States doesn't have a monopoly on half-baked, industry-sponsored, wacked-out legislation...

    1. Re:I'm glad to see... by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 1

      Yes we do. And don't think that this infringement of our IP will go unnoticed. You see, it has come to our attention that the evil regime of France may have undisclosed WMD and will be liberated as part of our war on terror.

    2. Re:I'm glad to see... by forinti · · Score: 0

      Havent they filed a patent on that??

    3. Re:I'm glad to see... by Soko · · Score: 1

      No, not a monopoly. Just a patent. ;^)

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
  23. "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron by heironymouscoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No person creates anything except on the back of an unbroken chain of human culture, all ideas and concepts are the refinement of untold precedents, and the mere concept of defining these as the "property" of individuals or groups is a vile and sleazy attempt to create monopolies of thought.

    What we call "creativity" is in fact the process of digesting and reformulating a huge number of existing concepts, ideas, patterns, and principles. Nobody creates anything from a blank slate, indeed the concept of a human being without the cultural baggage of a million years is a joke.

    The good news is that any organization that closes itself off from the cultural mainstream becomes as relevant as an artist forever trying to protect that 'one big hit' instead of looking to create another one.

    So, while this seems an inevitable symptom of today's cozy partnership between big business and big government, it won't last. The revolution always comes from those, with nothing to lose, who have everything to gain.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
    1. Re:"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ""Intellectual property" is an oxymoron"

      I guess you have never tried to make a living by being a writer or a musician.

    2. Re:"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron by heironymouscoward · · Score: 1

      "I guess you have never tried to make a living by being a writer or a musician."

      Funny you should say that, since I am a musician (drummer) and a writer (short stories and long stories). I'm sure I create when I write, and yet - as when I play my rhythms, I know that I'm only spinning words from the threads created by the generations before me. To pretend pure creation from a void is to show an amazing arrogance.

      Presumably you treat the last stage as the "creative part" and the million years before as just "the tools". But imagine if the "concerto" was patented by some Baroque composer. It's an incredible concept, to name an intellectual domain as "property".

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature
    3. Re:"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      ""Intellectual property" is an oxymoron"

      I guess you have never tried to make a living by being a writer or a musician.


      Every note you play has been played by someone else before, as every word you write has been written by someone else before. Very little if anything can be created today that does not rely on someone else's work.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  24. That's awfully frightening by __aavhli5779 · · Score: 1

    at least from the sounds of ZDnet's review, but I doubt myself or many others are going to take the time to read through the EU's whole document. Are there any other summaries/reviews of this proposed legislation available?

    What really behooves me about all this is that up until recently, I counted myself among the advocates of the European way of dealing with IP, and pointed to the flow of software/hardware innovation out of the US as an example of that 'superiority'. Now it appears that through harmonizing their laws with ours (or even being more restrictive, it seems), they will lose the advantage myself and many others have been touting.

    1. Re:That's awfully frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IP Justice has published a White Paper that unmasks the IP Enforcement Directive:
      http://www.ipjustice.org/ipenforcewhitepaper.shtml

      And there is much more info about this Directive at the CODE campaign site (Campaign for an Open Digital Environment) - the group that organized the letter to the EU:
      http://www.ipjustice.org/code.shtml

  25. The fear is spreading... by fr0z · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I stay in Singapore, and with the recent signing of an Free Trade Agreement with the US, the biggest fear is that broad laws like the DMCA will get passed here. If Europe does something like that, then it is only a matter of time before such silly laws get passed here. Let's hope this idiocy ends soon, although I'm not too optimistic...

    --
    Never underestimate the predictability of human stupidity...
    1. Re:The fear is spreading... by Mryll · · Score: 1

      Should workers in Singapore have a competitive advantage over workers in other countries if their companies don't pay the legitimate costs of doing business?

    2. Re:The fear is spreading... by fr0z · · Score: 1

      That comment stings of a baseless accusation. If I read you correctly, your message translates to "These pirates have no shame!" Are you american? Because if you do then perhaps you do not understand the DMCA or laws like it. The DMCA began life as a law to protect copyright and IP holders, but when companies like Adobe used it to prosecute people who exposed vulnerabilities in their proprietary software (Sklyarov, remember?), it doesn't quite limit itself to "protecting" the IP/copyright holder, it extends to limiting the ability to reverse-engineer or research or innovating for better products. If I found a flaw in your product, then you are obliged to fix it; else the public should know and if your business suffers, then you deserve it. If I make a better product than yours, I should be allowed to sell it. And a competitor should strive to make a better product in order to beat the competition. These kind of laws serve to prevent that; all the incumbent needs to do is to sue their competitors, and they'll have no competition. Is _that_ what you want? And here in Singapore the government is almost fanatical in protecting IP and copyright holders. Get your facts right. It's one major reason why so many tech companies have their regional headquarters here, and not in some other cheaper locale like Malaysia or China. M$, Oracle, Siebel, Sun are some examples. I felt the need to clear this up before everyone here on /. thinks Singapore are filled with pirates who don't care about IP/copyrights, even though you might be a troll getting your paycheck from M$. (I hate to get angry before I get my triple espresso to begin the day...)

      --
      Never underestimate the predictability of human stupidity...
    3. Re:The fear is spreading... by Mryll · · Score: 1

      It was a question. It is interesting how people get the angriest about leading questions - tends to elicit serious response, though sometimes emotional.


      Regarding America, I currently live here and have citizenship. I was not born here.


      I don't defend the DMCA, I find it to be an incredibly overzealous and potentially unconstitutional piece of law. I do, however, believe in IP, and I'm sick to death of the atrocious business ethics in respecting it. World-wide. (Yes this includes the U.S. - companies profit here as well by pirating software that they use to produce product.)


      Can you provide more facts about the Singapore government's defense of IP? Your view does not coincide well with what I've been told by friends who have visited and lived there.

  26. Re:Tyres? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Tyre" = the rubber bit that goes around a wheel. And the stones in the road flew out beneath our bicycle tyres - Mary Chapin Carpenter.

    "Tire" = wear out, become weary. Aren't you tired after that?

    Whilst I am prepared to accept that the Founding Fathers had needs that rather precluded the taking of a dictionary to the New World, I am equally convinced that the opportunity to correct this small omission presented itself a long time ago.

  27. Ideas and influence by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    Not everything is the product of influence. What about idiot-savant musical geniuses, who compose with little training?

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:Ideas and influence by spun · · Score: 1

      Compose on what, pray tell? An instrument made by someone else, maybe? Do you really believe that anyone, even idiot savants, create without first experiencing something? Try this: raise a person in an empty box with no stimulus, see what they create. Oh wait, you can't, because your subject would DIE rather quickly. It's been tried, some nutjob thought German was the "natural language of humanity" and anyone raised in such a box would naturally speak German.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  28. A little sensationalist? by sevensharpnine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It closes with the observation that "intellectual property is verging on thought crime."

    This is a rather crass assumption. "Thought crime" gives the gov't control over what you think; this ip measure is just another over-excited corporate-sponsored piece of legislation. Don't get me wrong here--I don't like this garbage any more than the rest of /. I just wish people would quit trying to make parallels to Orwell's work every time they see something that threatens their liberty. It's the intellectual equivalent of solving philosophical problems using Dr. Seuss analogies.

    I read the article, and all I found was a few sensationalist generalities coupled with unsubstantiated analysis. Why not cite some of the injustices that the American DMCA has caused? Or talk about the long-term economic impact of creating all these false barriers to entry, rather than a few vauge assumptions? Nay, it's simply Orwellian.

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." -Voltaire
    1. Re:A little sensationalist? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      "Thought crime" gives the gov't control over what you think; this ip measure is just another over-excited corporate-sponsored piece of legislation.

      I haven't read the EU directive, but it has been described as a super-DMCA. The DMCA does create "thoughtcrime" in it's anti-circumvention provision. Can anyone confim/refute whether the EU directive has an anti-circumvention provision?

      The DMCA anti-circumvention clause says it is a crime to descramble DRM no matter how you do it. And any descrambling that can be done by a computer can also be done entirely mentally merely by thinking through each of the steps/calculations. It would be slow and laborous, but you can illegally read a DRM'd book in this manner.

      You can go to federal prison for ten years for the crime of sitting motionless and thinking certain prohibited thoughts.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:A little sensationalist? by radja · · Score: 1

      >This is a rather crass assumption. "Thought crime" gives the gov't control over what you think;

      or (as in this case) a COMPANY gets control over YOUR knowledge, your thoughts, and even your creations. That's IMO even worse than government: at least I have some theoretical direct influence on goverment (if in a democratic country), yet I have no control whatsoever over a company.

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    3. Re:A little sensationalist? by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      That was a terrific point and one I hadn't thought of. This needs to be modded up!

  29. They don't make tyres ...YET by burgburgburg · · Score: 3, Insightful
    With this legislation they could and be assured of a captive audience to their "official" tyres for the life of the car.

    In fact, they could even have the ID chip shut off after a year, requiring people to buy new tyres from Ford on yearly basis no matter what the wear/tear/condition was.

    1. Re:They don't make tyres ...YET by Darth · · Score: 2, Funny

      In fact, they could even have the ID chip shut off after a year, requiring people to buy new tyres from Ford on yearly basis no matter what the wear/tear/condition was.

      dont be rediculous. no company would put their customers into a mandatory, pointless, yearly upgrade cycle just to sustain their profits.

      I mean, to do that, they'd have to have a monopoly.

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    2. Re:They don't make tyres ...YET by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      Another thing is that tyre makers are major players with known brands, not like some small guys making duplicate Lexmark cartridges.

      If a car manufacturer got into bed with 1 tyre maker, the attack on that car maker would come from:- - rights groups - other tyre makers - other car makers

      Because people seem to report news about cars far more than about PCs (joe public understands them more), it would be major news. The public mostly wouldn't buy it, unless there was a good reason.

      In the UK, there was plenty of coverage of the Tesco/Levis case, but almost nothing about copy protected CDs.

    3. Re:They don't make tyres ...YET by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the process face one of the largest class-action lawsuits in history. Gimme a break!

  30. Re:Tyres? by ChiefArcher · · Score: 1

    Next on the kernel mailing list,
    Tire vs Tyre in the embedded car control device code.

  31. Legislative Priorities?? by zipfaust · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it just me? Or are lawmakers and governments abroad focussing on creating legislation that protects IP rights (read corporations) over more pressing and populist laws?

    People starve in the streets on all continents.

    Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).

    There are some seriously screwed up priorities in place by elected officials.

    The U.S. "liberates: Iraq and what is the first major undertaking shortly thereafter??

    Stabilize the country by providing policing and security to it's citizens?

    Bring in food aid?

    Nope!! Have Hilary Rosen draught IP laws ASAP for Iraq. Keep that technological world leader Iraq in check.

    So much for the Iraqi's being liberated. Not counting their oil of course.

    Oh brother...

    1. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by zipfaust · · Score: 1

      Great source!! NOT!!!

      From the folks who brought you War for Oil..... we now proudly present....Iraqi Freedom!!

      Funny how the "liberators" have become and occupying force? Haven't you noticed that Iraqi's, now free, do not want the U.S. in their country any longer??

      They have removed a dictator and the end result will be a theocracy; just like Iran.

    2. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Show some evidence to support your claims. Not here though. This is getting off topic. I have added a place in my journal.

    3. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by update() · · Score: 1
      Uh, dude, Europe isn't the US. It's an entirely different country. I believe it's somewhere near France.

      Thanks for ranting, though.

    4. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by zipfaust · · Score: 1

      I know where Europe is. No problem on the ranting. ;) My pleasure.

      My first point was more general. I just find it odd that so many governments around the world are making IP laws their top priority when there are truly better things to worry about.

      Cheers.

      Z

    5. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      People starve in the streets on all continents.

      Antarctica?

      Seriously, I haven't heard of anyone starving on the streets of North America. Here in the US, you can get free meals, and free groceries, in every city or small town I've ever been in. That's not counting the government welfare benefits, which are still widely available.

      Or were you talking about the North Americans who are dieting?

      Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).

      An interesting survey I saw around 1999 said that 3/4 of USians surveyed said that ``inadequate health care was a major problem in the US''. The survey also said that 3/4 of the USians surveyed said that their healthcare was quite adequate. US healthcare is a great story, and sells a lot of papers, unless you look at the facts.

      We don't have a ``proper medicare'' system here; that's why a lot of Canadians (who have a single payer system, which I guess is a ``proper medicare system'') go down there to the US to pay for the medical care which they could get free in Canada. Someday. Maybe.

    6. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by spun · · Score: 0

      I volunteered with Food Not Bombs for a while. People actually do starve to death in America. Not frequently, but it happens. Usually, there are other contributing factors involved like exposure, but not always. They don't always starve to death on the street either. Sometimes it's little old grannies starving to death in their apartments.

      As for the Canadian vs. American health care system, most Canadians I have talked to much prefer their system, and far more Americans try to go to Canada for health care than vice versa. The Canadians coming to America are usually looking for plastic surgery, not basic health care. Quite spreading false rumors.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
      Nope!! Have Hilary Rosen draught IP laws ASAP for Iraq. Keep that technological world leader Iraq in check.
      Its more frightening than you think, the Tigris-Euphrates delta is regarded as the cradle of agriculture and thus civilisation. Give her a time machine and extendable IP duration and the rest of us would still be running after mammoths.
    8. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
      Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).
      Ok, care to back this up ?

      Now don't go citing people who don't pay into the "insurance" business, or the ponzi scheme that the US government pushes onto the elderly... I want actual case studies of people needing genuine medical treatment and are turned away from doctors and hospitals without treatment for their life critical needs. How many cases of this are there a year amongst a base population of 1/4 billion ?
      Now lets talk facts. People don't like insurance companies, or having to pay insurance companies (including the least efficient US Government plans). There are many "uninsured" folks that in reality are self insured, they prefer to take the risks themselves rather than pay someone a profit to take the risks for them. That said it is a sick environment where large monopolies (read insurance companies and the government) force health care providers to sell them services at a massive discount, then these providers turn around and charge the general populace higher rates so they can negotiate %off rates with the insurance companies.

      Why not force the government/insurance companies to pay the same rates as providers charge to people that prefer to pay cash to their providers rather to a for profit entity to pay to the provider.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    9. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).

      The irony here is that the uninsured end up getting their healthcare totally paid for by the insured in the form of increased costs and higher premiums because they don't have to contribute anything to the system.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    10. Re:Legislative Priorities?? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      I've helped with food banks several places in the US, and driven nighttime cab. I've gotten to know a lot of alcoholics and junkies and crazies.

      Yes, people do starve here. They are usually drug addicts or far gone in senile dementia. The remainder are simply insane. I've watched some of these folks slide downhill. The law says that no one can force them to accept food or shelter. As you say, usually these people don't live long enough for starvation to actually kill them.

      People who are compos mentis are usually willing to be helped. They do just fine here. The ones who hide from potential helpers we can't do much for.

      Remember, in the US, the surest sign of poverty, low income, and low education is morbid obesity.

      As for the Canadian vs. American health care system, most Canadians I have talked to much prefer their system, and far more Americans try to go to Canada for health care than vice versa.

      As for the Canadian vs. American health care system, everyone prefers the familiar. I know that Canadians go South for elective surgery. That's big business along the border. They also go South for unimportant things like diagnostic MRI's. I think that healthy Canadians like their system, as long as they don't think about the reason for their high taxes. When they get sick, and find that the legislature didn't budget enough to take care of them, so they have to wait six months or more for diagnosis, and perhaps longer for treatment, they don't like it so well. Providing medical care (not just plastic surgery) to Canadians is big business in the border states.

      I know that medical care in Canada is cheaper than in the US. I've gone there myself, for exactly that reason, to get fillings and such. If I get sick, though, I go to a doctor here.

  32. Thought police anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your thought are belong to us.

  33. This is really a SuperDMCA in many ways by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The DMCA was actually better than this proposal. If a web site was found to hold infringing material, it was not liable if they had no direct control over posting the material, but acted promptly to remove it. This law does not offer these protections to web site owners. This is both good and bad.

    The bad: It makes more people potentially liable for infringement.

    The good: This protection has been used as a cudgel by the content industry. At least we are not handing them a "or else" weapon here. It also makes this easier to fight.

    As an aside: Anyone else find it strange that a stated purpose of this proposal was stopping the sale of counterfit automobile spare parts?

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  34. Brain power wasted on "IP" idiocy... by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    When these stupid "Intellectual Property" laws are abolished, what will slashdot do? Maybe have interesting stories on math and science.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:Brain power wasted on "IP" idiocy... by crazyphilman · · Score: 1

      You kidding? With all the time we'll save, we'll be able to address the REAL problem facing geeks today: GETTING LAID! Why, I bet with all the research we'll have time for, we'll be getting laid once a year -- or more!!! W00t!

      --
      Farewell! It's been a fine buncha years!
  35. Re:What's a tyre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a tyre?
    and what color are they?


    It's the non-bastardized/americanized form of "tire". ;-)

  36. The Future of IP by Ugmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NOTE: I did not RTFA.

    This is a general statement about IP Laws and IP protection.

    The highly developed, rich, nations (G7 - US, Europe, Japan) are moving away from manufacturing physical products. The companies in these countries will design a product and then contract a non-G7 country to do the actual manufacturing. You get parts made in China, assembled in Malaysia etc.

    In reality any country can provide the design and the factories will make it. If the designs came from the countries that now have the factories then there would be no reason to involve the G7 countries except as markets. The value added provided by the G7 countries are the financing, original designs, and then the sales and marketing. The finacial, legal, design and marketing crap is all Intellectual Property.

    If there were no Intellectual Property Laws the "rich" countries would end up just being investors and markets into which the goods are shipped. After some years all the money would flow out of these "rich" countries to the countries that actually made stuff and there would be no more money to finance third world factories. But that would be OK the third world would finance it themselves, now being rich.

    So it is in a non-manufacturing country's best interest to accumulate as much IP as possible. Since IP is really a legal fiction (physical property can be fenced and protected) The more IP laws you have the more IP you have (in theory, in reality as you choke off the sharing of intellectual property less and less is created).

    It is in the US interest to have as many bogus patents and restrictive copyrights as possible. Any country that does not recognize US patents and copyright are denied access to our markets (the only leverage besides military action we have). If a company patents the "method of living by breathing oxygen" it is in the US interest to push that claim and help the company collect money from all the other people on Earth. The US gov. can then tax that income. If all the IP went away the US gov could only live on sales taxes for a few decades as Americans bought cheap DVD players made on the Pacific rim and then revenue would dry up.

    By then maybe we could become a source of cheap labor and a peaceful, rich, formerly third world country might locate a few factories here so we common people could actually make a living.

    If the US wants to prevent that they need to back up stupid evil companies like Microsoft as they steal money from anyone who wants to use a computer worldwide. If MS Windows went away, the US would get no revenue from a computer sale since it would probably be manufactured in a Chinese Army Prison camp using slave labor and run English Language Linux software written in India. The only income the gov would get would be from the income tax being paid by a minimum wage sales clerk at CompUSA.

    Repeat this scenario for all the other highly developed, post-industrial countries and you get the reason for all these stupid IP laws getting passed. They are frightened for their future existence.

    1. Re:The Future of IP by johannesg · · Score: 1
      While I feel you are right, I'd like to point out that this will only delay the inevitable. Soon other countries will not care about "access to our market"; moreoever, when economies begin to crumble those in actual possession of IP will find it easy to move wherever the money is.

      In other words, strong IP laws are a good short-term strategy but a lousy one for the longer term.

    2. Re:The Future of IP by Ugmo · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that it is a bad long term strategy. I also do not agree with it as a strategy. I was just trying to understand the thinking that may be going on at the government level. (if any thinking is going on :)

      It is similiar to the RIAA. They know their current model is in danger but they try to use the legal system to protect themselves. In the long term they are doomed no matter what.

      In a similiar way the current governments have to let their companies ship jobs and factories overseas in order to compete with other countries that are doing so.

      How can I complain? Before this sort of thing was done most consumers goods were expensive and badly made, not so much because they were made in America but because there was no competition between manufacturers and no interest in making better goods (e.g. Detroit cars). Imagine what a DVD player would look like and cost if it was developed, designed, and manufactured in the US by one or two companies. It would probably weigh a half ton, cost a half million and only be sold to TV studios.

      But by letting companies get away with this sort of thing the governments are undermining themselves. Eventually the whole planet will be an EU type free trade zone and there will be groups of individuals that have no national or territorial allegience that control all the wealth and move it from place to place in order to avoid local gov from using it. Those not in the group will suffer from crumbling infrastructure , low government investment and declining standards of living. Wait did I say this would be in the future? It is happening right now in a lot of places.

      I do not have the answers to make it right. We can only hope the worldwide quality of life evens out as companies move manufacturing from place to place looking for cheaper countries. Eventually we will all be equal at a lower standard of living (except for the oligarchy). Our best hope is that the future worldwide base standard of living will be an enjoyable one. (e.g. I wouldn't mind if we all had to give up having two cars or even any cars. Maybe telecommute or bicycle to work, worldwide, as long as we have work.

    3. Re:The Future of IP by axxackall · · Score: 1

      In very few years (1? 2?) the access to the retail markets of China and India (both == 2 billions of customers) will be much more important then the access to US markets (200 millions of customers). That's why US Army is trying its forces in Afganistan and Iraq: it's a training before much broader actions fixing potential problems for US markets. IP laws are necessary to bring a formal reason for such future military actions. The trueth is that US economy is a buble, like dot-com, just bigger. And that mega-bubble is very unstable.

      --

      Less is more !
    4. Re:The Future of IP by heli0 · · Score: 1

      "Since IP is really a legal fiction"

      I don't think that anything backed up by force can be considered fiction. If you have the might to enforce it, it is real.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    5. Re:The Future of IP by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the people making the laws are old enough that they will not live to see the collapse when it happens. When it does, influence, wealth, foresight-due-to-inside-info, etc. will help the families of the political classes to relocate early, leaving the rest behind.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    6. Re:The Future of IP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when was Europe a nation?

    7. Re:The Future of IP by Saeger · · Score: 1
      Your doomsday analysis leaves out a huge development on the horizon: molecular manufacturing. This "desktop manufacturing" will mean the end of most international trade and conflict over resources. An economy of abundance means that all people can afford to be Basically Good, and share the commonwealth, instead of having to be greeding and fuck the next guy over in order put food on the table.

      You're right that the short-term future doesn't look to bright though.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  37. Answer to your question by siskbc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I know the gun thing is probably overused, but let's say I want a high pressure water gun so I can soak my buddy with water. This is like outlawing this water pistol because someone else put bleach in theirs and sprayed it in the eyes of a law enforcement officer. Blinding a cop is illegal, and for good reason. Why make owning a water pistol illegal?

    If cops had no fundamental understanding of the functioning of a water pistol, then they probably would. That's why we're having the current problem - lawmakers have absolutely no idea how these systems work, so all they have to go on is the info from industry shills.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  38. FUD from both sides? by phloydphreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting:
    "Apart from the economic and social consequences, this phenomenon infringes on labour legislation, tax legislation, health legislation and the legislation on product safety."
    Reminds me of the Nazis... the jews were infringing upon their free rights as well.
    Now our side:

    "under the proposed directive, EU Member States will have to criminalise street music" This is already illegal: "COTT is entitled under the Copyright Act to charge licensing fees for the public performance of its music repertoire by users. Further the charge is always against the promoter of the event or the proprietor of the premises accordingly." [COTT]

    This article may seem to indicate that street bands will be prosecuted: only if the proprietor of the store is charging for playing. In Chicago, street musicians do not charge for their covers of other bands, they are given alms. The comments made on both sides are made to instill fear. Please dont get spun by /. or by the suits. Make your own mind up with research. (and no, i didnt mean to say make up your own mind.)

    --
    "And suddenly you realize you were looking in the wrong place."
    --Radiohead--

    --
    "this is the gloaming"
    radiohead
  39. Re:What's a tyre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pfft bloody American arsewipes polluting OUR language. ;)

  40. Now im scared..... by scalis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They state in the FAQ that:
    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).


    The usual question I have is "how did they come up with those numbers???" At the very bottom of the page it says they are from BSA in case of software. This means that the BSA way of calculating actually is being used, THAT is scary. They also claim that 36% of all music CD's sold are pirated. Why dont they figure out the same figure of sold pirated copies of sotftware instead of just citing BSA??

    --

    True ravers don't need drugs
    1. Re:Now im scared..... by Vedanti · · Score: 1
      These guys haven't heard of price elasticity of demand. If 10 million CDs were sold at $3, they assume same number would have been sold at $15. How rediculous.

      BTW, the same big labels and their subsidiaries sell the same cassettes for $3 in India and $9 here.

      --
      karma : former act as leading to inevitable results
    2. Re:Now im scared..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How rediculous

      Oh man. What is it with this word and Slashdot?

      The word is RIDICULOUS! rIdiculous! See the 'I's? There are two of them! One more time: RIDICULOUS!

      (taking my meds now... ahhh... much better)

  41. Now all you whiny Euro-trash types here on /. can't talk about how much better and more enlightened Europe is than the good ole' USofA.

    Of course, this now means one less place to which I can flee when the fit really hits the shan here in Coporateland.

    1. Re:Ha! by CausticWindow · · Score: 1

      It only proves that are our politicians are as worthless as yours.

      Our general opinion of the average American still holds.

      --
      How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
  42. Ford x 2 by BMonger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anything other than genuine Ford tyres -- with the genuine Ford ID chip -- will disable your car.

    Interchangeable parts - Any part you want so long as it's black... otherwise... all your tyres are belong to us!

  43. It doesn't look at bad on the consumer side by aepervius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    FAQ from EU IP directive


    Quote :

    The proposal has a number of safeguard clauses: * the proposal restates the general principles of intellectual property rights law, namely that procedures should be fair, not unnecessarily complicated, slow or costly and should not create barriers to 'legitimate trade' * any penalties applied to offenders should be 'effective, proportionate and deterrent' i.e. the penalty should fit the crime * where the Directive allows for seizure of suspect goods for evidence, the company or person whose goods have been seized can ask for a review of the seizure. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded * where the Directive allows for a court to force someone involved in handling infringing goods to reveal who they bought the illegal goods from, this can only be done under certain conditions (e.g. where this would not incriminate the person giving the information, so-called right to avoid self-incrimination) * where the Directive allows for 'interlocutory injunctions' (an injunction in advance of a decision on the merits of the case), the company or person who has been ordered to stop participating in the suspected infringement can ask for a review of the injunction. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded. In this case, the judge can also order the rightholder to compensate the suspected offender who is found innocent for any loss they have suffered as a result of the injunction * where the Directive allows for various measures following a decision on the merits of a case (e.g. recall, destruction of goods or disposal outside commercial channels), this will not be applied where the offender has acted in good faith (i.e. neither intentionally nor through negligence) and can agree a fair settlement with the rightholder whose rights have been infringed * legal costs are awarded also to the alleged offender, if they are found to be innocent The full text of the proposed Directive is available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/i ntprop/news/index.htm


    IIRC, Please remark that there are already specific consumer protection law preventing abuse of such things, like enforcing the sdale of a specific tire with a chip inside it. Add it with the above and this doesn't seem so horrible as presented in the article summary above.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  44. Good. by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Most big animals thrash around a lot as theyre dying.

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  45. Re:I BELIEVE IN GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well at least you have the balls to put your name on your post. confidence in your opinion must rock!

  46. britspeak by siskbc · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Pfft bloody American arsewipes polluting OUR language. ;)

    It's called phon-ics, you snaggle-toothed uglies. ;)

    And if you jackarses (see! I can speak Brit!) would have decided to spell things in the 1600's, before we told you where to stick your tea tax, none of use would have this problem.

    As it is, you have some arsehole trying to throw you in gaol just because, when attempting a tricky manouevre in your car, your arse-coloured tires are a bit off-centre and run up on the kerb, hitting the lorrie in front of you, and mucking your bonnet.

    And don't even ask me about the time I requested a napkin at a restaurant. ;)

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

    1. Re:britspeak by usotsuki · · Score: 1

      No, it's "jackass". "Arse" is a completely separate word; "jackass" is a type of ass==donkey.

      -uso.

      --
      Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
    2. Re:britspeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, it's "jackass". "Arse" is a completely separate word; "jackass" is a type of ass==donkey.

      I know. That was the joke.

  47. Re:Directive Date - Bad Taste - WHAT ??? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a magazine in the UK called 'Private Eye'. One of the things it does is called 'Warballs', which is basically sending up anyone who references 11/9 inappropriately as a comment or justification for some action. Your comment is deserving of submission.

    Do you expect the world to stop just because of an atrocity on your soil ? How arrogant can you get ? If you look long enough back in time, you'd probably be able to come up with a sufficiently-bad atrocity on every day of the year. You need perspective.

    Yes, September 11th was "a bad thing". Yes, you should try to prevent it from happening again. Yes, you should mourn those who died. Yes, you should get on with your lives, and No, you should not try and associate anything you don't like with such an atrocity. Frankly, you cheapen it by doing so.

    I don't particularly think this comment will get anywhere on Slashdot - it's a mostly-US board after all. It still needed saying.

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  48. [MOD PARENT DOWN]Re:From the FAQ, music and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is so obviously a troll. He can't seem to decide if his SO is male or female and he won't buy an iPod because they might be illegal one day? This is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

    Although he was in a punk band, so stupidity is not completely out of the question. But for christ's sake, mod this dork down. It's not insightful or even remotely intelligent. The RIAA tried to shut down portable mp3 players back when Rio came out with the first one and they failed because they are not illegal!

    And here's a clue for Mr. Emo Punk...people already can get your album for free! Things like Napster and Kazaa just give smaller bands more exposure and will actually increase your record sales. For an emo/punk person you sure seem comfy relaxing with the status quo.

  49. more of a QueensRyche - Op MindCrime? Re:1984 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know simoniker wanted to say it, thought crime means that someone was thinking. What they want is mind control, and for the powers that be to own it all.

    Hey, it's my algorithms, not the company I work at. Let's see if without me they can make anything work. Outsource this. :)

    Maybe it's time we all got our MacOSx and made them change, instead of it always being us. :)

    -Anonymous (while I still can be)

  50. LaserJets by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    You don't think the LaserJet manufacturers could do the exact same thing to toner cartridges? Why not?

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:LaserJets by __past__ · · Score: 1

      Sure they can. But currently they do not. Unlike certain inkjet printer manufacturers. So, if you need a printer, the best you can do right now is to buy one which doesn't require some fancy chips in the ink cartridges for no reason but getting rid of competition.

  51. So where are all the cowboys now? by gosand · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I'm glad to see that the United States doesn't have a monopoly on half-baked, industry-sponsored, wacked-out legislation...

    Gee, seems to me that a bunch of non-Americans were laughing at us about DMCA issues. IIRC, things like this would NEVER happen outside of the US because they weren't dominated by capitalism.

    [ sound of crickets ]

    Yeah, I thought so. Now it isn't so funny, is it? So step up and show us how it is done. Show us how to fight these types of laws. Please, prove to us how things are supposed to be done. In all seriousness, I hope you can, because I want there to be somewhere I can move to when things get totally out of control here.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    1. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Gee, seems to me that a bunch of non-Americans were laughing at us about DMCA issues.


      Links? Was the parent poster one of these non-Americans? I doubt it.

      IIRC, things like this would NEVER happen outside of the US because they weren't dominated by capitalism.


      Well they were wrong then as they clearly are dominated by capitalism.
    2. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by Cassius105 · · Score: 1

      Your right

      iv learnt a valuable lesson

      never ever underestimate the incompetance of politicians - no matter were you live

    3. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, I thought so. Now it isn't so funny, is it? So step up and show us how it is done. Show us how to fight these types of laws. Please, prove to us how things are supposed to be done. In all seriousness, I hope you can, because I want there to be somewhere I can move to when things get totally out of control here.


      There's always Japan. It remains a geek's paradise: gadgets, giant robots, anime, and hot asian honeys
    4. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by spun · · Score: 1

      Fee movement of labor between countries hurts corporate profits. What makes you think they will let you move after things get totally out of control here?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by Baki · · Score: 1

      Revolution?

      I used to be a decent conservative capitalist. Still with an income of over $200k/year I still should be one (yes the IT crises has not yet struck everywhere). But even I am being turned by greedy and absurd laws like these into a potentional revolutionary, getting an ever deeper hate for "the system". I'm sure I am not the only one, wait till the masses see what has happened to their "rights".

      It could provoke such a counter effect (including violence) that the corporations that bought politics might very much regret they ever did! And those that let themselves be bribed (I have no other words for these "politicians") better be prepared to flee. I want revenge against those that threw our democracy away for personal gain and favours.

      Grrrrr.

    6. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Bzzzt. Wrong. Free movement of labor let companies push salaries down, because the pool of available workers with the right skills increase. Why do you think free movement of labor has been one of the corner stones of the EU since the start, despite the EU's start as a purely economic cooperation to further European industry?

    7. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by spun · · Score: 1

      What a load of hogwash. The EU is a fortress, with the wealthy members protected from outside labor by the junior partners. It may be easy to move within the EU, it is very hard to get in from outside. For a multinational, the pool of available workers is all the workers anywhere in the world. Why let them emmigrate to countries where they can expect higher pay when the multinationals can pay them less where they are now? Look at how many companies are outsourcing their IT to India. There's a big pool of workers with the right skills, and low wages.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      But they criminalized magic mushrooms last year.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by alizard · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I thought so. Now it isn't so funny, is it? So step up and show us how it is done. Show us how to fight these types of laws.

      They have one advantage we don't. Public campaign financing. Our corporations in general are not paying off their politicians and bureaucrats.

      If they are, some public spirited Europeans should find out who and get that info and evidence to the news media.

      So all they really need to do is organize into a constituency big enough to persuade the politicians to pay attention, and get people who understand politics on board.

      • Does this threaten the development of new technology in EU?
      • Does this threaten jobs?
      • Does this directly benefit anybody other than the cartel providers?

      The question the politicians and bureaucrats need to be asked are:

      • WHERE IS THE PROFIT FOR EUROPEANS IN THIS?.
      • If there is no profit, why are we supposed to pay for this?

      They do not need millions of Euros to get the ball rolling. All they need to do is... political organization. The Europeans are allegedly good at this.

    10. Re:So where are all the cowboys now? by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      The big problem, I think, is that most people don't know enough about technology to realize why these ideas are bad. The average citizen will swallow whatever the politicians say, believing these laws are necessary for competing with the US and for safeguarding European industry and jobs (very misguided thinking, of course). I'm sure the combined geeks of the EU would be a formidable force but maybe not big enough for politicians to pay much attention to.

  52. Reject the proposal? Hah! by SysKoll · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Civil liberties groups have sent a letter to EU urging that the proposal be rejected.

    Fat chance. The EU is a huge bureaucracy. European don't even know the names of the EU commissars, and the Commission cultivates the virtue of secret and opacity with a success that would have made Beria jealous.

    So public opinion has really no impact whatsoever on the bureaucrats. What matters is the lobbyists. According to the Wall Street Journal, there are about 10,000 lobbyists in Brussels. (I believe this doesn't include employees of the larger lobby cabinets).

    Large companies are therefore overrepresented in Brussels. Contrary to what naive Americans can think, established companies love the thick layers of bureaucracy and the entanglements of redtape. Why? Because it allows them to:
    1. Keep startup competitors out of their business by making it too difficult to enter the field,
    2. Pass their pet legislations through coatroom deals.

    Europeans wanted a super-state, they've got it. Oh wait... Cancel that. Nobody told the poor schmucks that they would eventually end up in a remake of the Ottoman Empire.

    -- SysKoll
    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    1. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by sita · · Score: 1

      Europeans wanted a super-state, they've got it. Oh wait... Cancel that. Nobody told the poor schmucks that they would eventually end up in a remake of the Ottoman Empire.

      Naw, we are not finished yet. It is time to make it a parliamentary democracy. That is, pass all the legislative power of the union to the European parliament.

    2. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      You were doing well up until the last paragraph. It should be painfully obvious that we 'euro schmucks' are suffering from the same problem that you 'yankee schmucks' are suffering from. Gratuitous insults are not helpful.

      Note also that the reference to the Ottoman Empire is often used by those who wish to smear the EU as an 'islamist' entity.

      Of course, I'm sure that was not your intention.

    3. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Personally I think it looks more like they are trying to end up in a remake of the USA. Still got a few civil liberties to abridge before we get there, but if Bush doesn't get reelected next time around perhaps we'll manage to close in.

    4. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
      Europeans wanted a super-state, they've got it. Oh wait... Cancel that. Nobody told the poor schmucks that they would eventually end up in a remake of the Ottoman Empire.

      You make it sound a bit more... oh... Byzantine perhaps.

      --
      My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    5. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by SysKoll · · Score: 1
      Interesting. The lack of accountability is turning EU into a banana republic and your remedy is to...

      ...suspense roll...

      ... DECREASE accountability further and compound the cause of the problem.

      Please tell me you are joking. PLEASE.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    6. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by SysKoll · · Score: 1
      How are you so sure I am a Yankee? Did it cross your mind I might not? Did it cross your mind I might have been one of these hopeful Europeans who, in the 70s, watched the very first European Parliament election and believed the BS about how it was going to make Europe a superpower and a nicer, gentler republic?

      Of course, this is Slashdot, so click submit first and think later, right?

      As for the reference to the Ottoman Empire, students of history know that it is the foremost model for an overwhelming administration that excelled in regulating trivial aspects of its subjects' lives while letting nepotism, corruption, crime and civil unrest run rampant. (If you flunked History, take a look at this timeline, written by a very lenient source, the Office of Turkish Tourism!). This omnipresent yet powerless state depicts the evolution of EU quite accurately.

      I am not aware of accusation of the EU being "islamist", do you have a source? And more precisely, a reason?

      You, sir, should refrain from flinging needless accusations.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    7. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by SysKoll · · Score: 1

      That's the optimistic hypothesis. You'll note, though, that they already took care of avoiding the equivalent of the First Amendment in the EU "constitution" draft.

      It's not a coincidence that the worst EULA and the most stringent DMCA-type laws are in the European Commission books, not even as laws voted by the EU parliament, but as "directives", which are meant to be executed without discussion.

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    8. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by SysKoll · · Score: 1

      Byzantine... Your comparison is way too unflattering for Byzantium. I think the Basileus would spin in his tomb if we compared the EU even to besieged Byzantium.

      The model for the EU would be a Byzantium which is not only regulating the number of angels that are allowed to dance on a pinhead (while being provided adequate handicap parking space and health insurance for their undertermined-yet-same-sex partner), but it's also subsidizing a door-opening and moat-filling contest.

      Not to mention that the Ottomans had to *fight* to turn Byzantium into Constantinople. The EU bureaucracy is fighting only against people who wants to slow down its crazy expansion. (As an amusing parallel, Turkey is a candidate to the Europen Union.)

      -- SysKoll
      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    9. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      The EU commision doesn't have the final say -- the member state governments, and often the EU parliament, can veto these things. The problem is convincing them that the commision's proposal is bad.

    10. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by SysKoll · · Score: 1
      That's very true. And good luck to convince them. I don't remember a single occurence where the euro parliament has vetoed a directive. National governments can delay the application of the directives, but these stalling tactics are not viable.

      Moreover, 80% of the European legislative corpus is now coming down under the form of directives, which were supposed to be only a very small percentage at the inception of the EU. The Commission is constantly enlarging its scope and reach at the detriment of the Parliament.

      So the bottom line is: 80% of the EU regulations are directives. The directives are anonymous, undebatted, unchallenged, and almost impossible to undo. They are mostly prepared by lobbyist cabinets which number about as many employees as the EU itself (there were 22,000 EU functionaries in Brussels when it was composed of only 12 countries. God only knows what the count is now.)

      This means the Commission is not a democratic institution anymore, but a lobbyist dream. No wonder big corporations love it!

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    11. Re:Reject the proposal? Hah! by replicant108 · · Score: 1

      I assumed that you were not European because in your final paragraph you referred to Europeans
      a) in the third party ('they')
      b) in a derogatory fashion ('schmucks')

      Also, this was in the context of an American message board, where anti-European comments are common-place. If you aren't American, then I apologise for assuming that you were.

      Since we're on the topic, I think that you might also apologise to me for referring to my friends and family as 'schmucks'.

      Cheers!

  53. Re:Directive Date - Bad Taste - WHAT ??? by Liselle · · Score: 1

    The reason I posted wasn't my personal reaction: I hold the same opinion as you do (we agree, it cheapens it).

    But the choice of the date appears to be a ploy to confuse the issue, and appeal to morality by making a sideways connection between the Euro DMCA and Terrorists. THAT is the part that I find revolting. Not because seeing 9/11 (or 11/9, I'm such an insensitive clod) written somewhere makes somebody teary-eyed.

    --
    Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  54. Re:Directive Date - Bad Taste - WHAT ??? by flibuste · · Score: 1

    Insightful

  55. Not so Scary Stuff by harriet+nyborg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The US may try to match...

    actually, it seems that the EU is trying to keep up with the US.

    it is beyond dispute (even on this board) that the US is the envy of the world when it comes to technology so it makes sense that the EU - and many other countries - will move in the direction of the US when it comes to writing their own intellectual property laws.

    despite the anti-IP rhetoric of the "free beer" crowd, the cold hard truth is that the strength and breadth of US IP law are among the prime factors for the technological leadership of the US.

    laws like the US DMCA are designed with the intent that the US should maintain this world leadership so it should be no surprise that the rest of the world will follow suit with similar laws of their own.

    when north korea becomes the world leader in technology, then the US and ROW can consider the weak IP laws favored by stallman, lessig, perens, and their comrades.

    until then, following the lead of the United States of America when it comes to IP would seem to this observer to be the smart thing to do.

  56. Standard procedure for Beauracracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    All these IP laws won't matter in 5 years. All these laws are SOP's for any civilization in decline.

    The gov't and the lawyers in any civilization expand to the very limits of the wealth available, until it is no longer sustainable. We've already passed this "Sustainability Point", as witnessed by shockingly massive budget deficits throughout America, Europe and Japan. These IP laws are the some of the last signs before the bitter economic collapse. In 5 years we'll all be worrying more about food than this nonsense.

    For a good "thesis" on all this, read the last 3 books in the Dune series. Herbert warned of such massive expansions. It always ends badly...

    1. Re:Standard procedure for Beauracracies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For a good "thesis" on all this, read the last 3 books in the Dune series. Herbert warned of such massive expansions. It always ends badly..."

      There are so many Dune books and prequels Dune books that you might have to list their names for your comment to make sense. I went to a Dune web site and couldn't figure out which were the "last" 3 books.

  57. Re:Directive Date - Bad Taste - WHAT ??? by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    Fair enough :-)

    If they attempt to make the link, they should be impeached. Has anyone else ever noticed how hard it is to get rid of X once they're in power. Maybe that's the fundamental flaw in our "democracies", wherever they may be in the world.

    I'm all for oratory and impassioned argument to make a case - I draw the line some way before we get to FUD though.

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  58. These are the types of directives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that will make governments fall

  59. Chicken and Egg by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This proposal "Leapfrogs" the DMCA in a number of significant ways by targetting many areas outside the scope of copyright law (spare auto parts for example).

    The CPTEA was a US attempt to keep up with the EU, this is an attempt by the EU to keep up with the US (DMCA) but also establish a leadership position in the "We can protect your rights."

    Also notice that I said that "unballanced protections" are not helpful for innovation. Some protection is very helpful, but let me ask you: what is the difference in software IP value if it is protected for 100 years (under the CPTEA) rather than 80? Will be ever get to the point that we are building *any* sort of intellectual or creative commons as envisioned by the framers of the US COnstitution?

    despite the anti-IP rhetoric of the "free beer" crowd, the cold hard truth is that the strength and breadth of US IP law are among the prime factors for the technological leadership of the US.

    I disagree. Lets look at the key inventions of the 20th century and see when they were made:
    1: Radio
    2: Telephone
    3: Television
    4: Computer
    5: TCP/IP

    TCP/IP is an open standard. The computer was developed independently by US and German sources but was only militarily used by the US (the original Z-1 was even destroyed by teh Nazi's iirc). Most of the early computer research was publically available.

    Radio, television, and telephones (including early electrokenetic switches) were all invented in the US at a time when patent laws were considerably weaker than they are today!

    The rational for the extension of patent and copyright terms has to do with the idea that this allows companies to invest larger sums of money in R&D or equivalent processes and pay them off over a longer period before their rights expire.

    This does not favor "more research" although it does favor "bigger projects and expenditures." So rather than research and develop in incriments, the corporations research bigger projects. And they move where they can milk more money from the system (so in that sense you have a point).

    BUT-- the US became the world leader in technology because of the free flow of information-- that even a farmhand could read about electronics in the early day and understand the problems involved to the point of being able to invent the scanning system used by televisions.

    Your point about North Korea is completely off-base. North Korea has neither the resources nor the education to do that. Here is a better example:
    When Iceland becomes the world leader in Geothermal energy technology.... Oh, wait, they are :-P

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:Chicken and Egg by mikeb · · Score: 1
      I don't normally rise to this kind of bait, but suggesting that the computer is a US and German innovation, first used by the military is to say the least, controversial.

      Those in search of more light on the debate might care to look into the work done on cracking the Enigma and other cyphers by Alan Turing and others at Bletchley Park with firstly mechanical and then electronic computing devices.

      Who you think created the first computer depends to some extent on how you define a computer of course, so the debate will never have a 'final' resolution.

    2. Re:Chicken and Egg by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Those in search of more light on the debate might care to look into the work done on cracking the Enigma and other cyphers by Alan Turing and others at Bletchley Park with firstly mechanical and then electronic computing devices.

      Fair enough. I am admit that the Z-1 falls outside my normal definition of a computer, except that it actually had logic gates and iirc could actually be programmed.

      Enigma, like the old Difference-Machine ideas, is more of a dedicated mechanical computing device and lacks any sort of programmability that I consider to be the hallmark of computing. I guess that is sort of arbitrary, and means that a difference machine is not a computer either.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:Chicken and Egg by hughk · · Score: 1
      The Bombes used to crack Ultra (the intercepts that were encoded on the Enigma machine) were indeed electromechanical. The ones used to attach Fish (a stream cipher from the Lorenz teletype devices) were somewhat more electronic and were called Colussus. Both were designed on Turing's concepts, but the electronics for the second were by Tommy Flowers, a PO telecoms engineer.

      Colussus was hardwired and its only electronic memory was a shift register. However the work on Colussus gave the basis for the Pilot Ace developed at the National Physical Laboratory in 1946. Around the same time ENIAC appeared in the US, initially for ballistic calculations.

      The Manchester Mark 1 (fully electronic design) was created at Manchester University in the late forties and by 1951 it had been made and sold as a product by Ferranti for research use.

      Also in 1951, the Lyons Tea and Cake company produced the first commercial electronic computer which in turn was based on EDSAC, a research computer built at the University of Cambridge. This system was a real computer and by 1953 was running the payroll.

      What is interesting is that all of the British inventions fed off each other. Although the work of the cryptographers at Bletchley park was a state secret for some 30 years, many of the top mathematicians had worked at Bletchley during the war were aware of at least some of the principles. Pilot Ace, the first British computer openly produced had staff members that worked at Bletchley. Ideas bounced around without any major issues of IP. Some individual parts may have been protected by patents (such as the WIlliams Tube), but not concepts like the ALU which would have killed development.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  60. Re:Tyres? by raistphrk · · Score: 1

    That's GNU/Tyres!

  61. Some call it evil, scary, a bad idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Whilst corporate board members call it creating value for shareholders, or producing a return on an equity investment.

  62. Interesting by bogie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I always see people from the other side of the "pond" saying how glad they are they don't live in America. Also many times I've read how they'd NEVER live here and would move if the same thing happened there.

    Well its almost put up or shut up time. It will be interesting to see if people actually move because of this.

    Note: I'm not trolling here, I am actually interested to see what happens. There has been a lot of talk and commotion from some people about never stepping foot in America because of the DMCA.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  63. Precrime by AlexCV · · Score: 1

    In other news, the IP Precrime unit was formed today in Brussels. Using sophisticated technology and anonymous tips provided by shadowy agents referred to as "precogs," this new enforcement branch of the EU IP registry will prevent potential IP offenders from committing their crimes and thus abusing the poor and defenceless IP owners.

    I'll probably get arrested for ripping Minority Reports off now.

  64. No, what this WILL mean is: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will this Directive mean that young people using file swapping software via their PCs will be held liable for IPR infringement?

    People using PCs, period, will be held liable for IPR infringement.

  65. This will get blasted but why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've said it before and I'll say it again.

    Capitalism->Socialism->Communism

    You are now seeing where socialism is sliding from the want to "help" to the want to control every aspect of your lives.

    1. Re:This will get blasted but why not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalism->Socialism->Communism

      You are now seeing where socialism is sliding from the want to "help" to the want to control every aspect of your lives.


      Whereas the USA decided to skip that "socialism" step altogether, right?

  66. Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

    Bunk. Give me a reason why someone who makes something does not have the right to determine how copies are made and who uses them.

    Or...give me a reason why you have a right to use what I own.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Bunk by xyvimur · · Score: 1

      ``how copies are made and who uses them''
      In that there is no problem - but isn't the example with ``genuine Ford tyres'' suggestive.
      If ones purchased something (i.e. car) he can destroy it with a hammer - and that's ok..
      Another example that comes to mind mind are ink-jet producents fighting with the refilling (why? because its their primary source of revenue). But if I want to put ink from my fountain pen into my printer - why not?

    2. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      If Ford won't let you put non-Ford tires on an Escort, don't buy a Ford.

      If you don't want to get locked into buying one brand of ink jet refiller, don't buy that brand of ink jet printer. Or, any ink jet printer.

      The biggest weapon people have against products that they believe infringe on their rights is to simply stop buying those products. Turning to legislation to impose your beliefs on society simply empowers the other side to do the same.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    3. Re:Bunk by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      Because we, meaning everyone, get to decide whether or not you own it, and to what extent.

      Presumably you own your house. But we tell you that you cannot use it as an abattoir because we've decided to zone the property you own as being for residential purposes only.

      Presumably you also own your car. But we tell you that you cannot speed, operate it in an unsafe manner, etc.

      So if you are the author of some creative work, and you want everyone else in the world to refrain from copying it except for when you give us permission to -- it's just not going to happen unless everyone else feels that it is in their own best interests to agree with you. And even then, we may decide that in some cases it's still best to ignore what you want and do what we want. In fact, we're always doing what we want.

      For example, if you want a copyright on your work so as to prevent parodies from being made, we're going to tell you that it's tough luck, but we like parodists better than you, so you have no power to stop them. We could even require you to adhere to certain formalities to get any protection on your work, or even be of certain nationalities. (for a long time US copyrights were only granted to Americans, for example)

      Ownership of anything (though it's really not the right word for copyrighted works) is a social construct that depends entirely on people respecting your desire to own a given thing. If they don't, you really can't own it no matter how much you'd like to. So it boils down to you having to show everyone else that allowing you to own something is in the best interests of everyone else.

      This is true for real and personal property, it's just much more pronounced for copyrights, patents and trademarks. (Trade secrets are not a thing at all, really -- regulations in that field of law revolve around the METHODS by which a secret is discovered, since some methods are considered unfair. Think of it as being similar to prohibitions on insider trading or marketplace collusion)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:Bunk by xyvimur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``The biggest weapon people have against products that they believe infringe on their rights is to simply stop buying those products.''
      Maybe I'm too pessimistic about it, but I think it won't be that easy. You may say that if one doesn't like a product - then he can buy from different producent. But what if most of producers applies this prohibitive policy? And there is no manufacturer of similar product with no such `feature'. Of course there is possibility of ``magic-hand-of-market'' effect, and such manufacturer will appear... but bear in mind one of the important sentences: ``corporations are evil'' :)

    5. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >>
      Ownership of anything (though it's really not the right word for copyrighted works) is a social construct that depends entirely on people respecting your desire to own a given thing.


      That's fundamentally wrong, although I'm sure you believe it to be true. So be it. Marx thought he was correct, too.

      Society, by expressing its will via a democratic government, has the right to determine how property -- intellectual and physical -- is used, but society does not have the right to assume or transfer ownership of an individual's property. If I create or author a work, all rights to that work belong to me and any rights to it enjoyed by others are, definition, the rights I transferred to them.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    6. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Simple. If no one makes a product you like, don't buy any of them. Why would you deliberately buy something you don't want?

      No, corporations are not "evil". And, yes, if there's money to be made selling something, odds are someone will make and sell it. Remember, though, that your personal distaste for a product doesn't equate to society's distaste for that product.

      For instance, I don't like to wear ties, but every clothing store I walk into sells ties. So, it must be a conspiracy of evil corporations that keeps forcing other people to buy ties, right?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    7. Re:Bunk by badasscat · · Score: 1

      Society, by expressing its will via a democratic government, has the right to determine how property -- intellectual and physical -- is used, but society does not have the right to assume or transfer ownership of an individual's property.

      No? Tell that to all the people who were evicted by the government (landlords and tenants alike) when the WTC was built. That's just one example.

      Skip down to the part about eminent domain if you must.

    8. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Presumably, that was via eminent domain. That's not equivalent to society assuming ownership of something I made.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    9. Re:Bunk by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      If Ford won't let you put non-Ford tires on an Escort, don't buy a Ford.

      If you don't want to get locked into buying one brand of ink jet refiller, don't buy that brand of ink jet printer. Or, any ink jet printer.


      OR... you could buy a Ford, and then use fake Ford ID chips in the replacement tires, so that you can have your Ford and drive it too. Ford has every right to put such chips in its tires to try and prevent you from using any other brand of tires, but just the same, you have every right to do anything you can to get around it. After all, you bought the car... and you own it.

      As I understand them, these laws would make attempting to bypass such restrictions illegal, and that is what is wrong with them.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    10. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Sure, but if the proposal becomes law, then using the fake chips becomes illegal. Then, your right to do "anything you can" to bypass Ford's restrictions also carries with it your obligation to accept punishment if you're caught.

      Too many people confuse the right to disagree with or oppose a law as immunity from penalty for breaking that law.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    11. Re:Bunk by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Then that law is wrong. If you buy something, you should have the right to do anything you want with it. Any law that opposes this is draconian, and a sign of a totalitarian government.

      See this post for an example of why this is so bad.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    12. Re:Bunk by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Society, by expressing its will via a democratic government, has the right to determine how property -- intellectual and physical -- is used, but society does not have the right to assume or transfer ownership of an individual's property. If I create or author a work, all rights to that work belong to me and any rights to it enjoyed by others are, definition, the rights I transferred to them.

      All the rights to your work belong to you only because society says they do. If the will of society changes then, via the democratic process, your rights can change too.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    13. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >> Then that law is wrong.

      That's an opinion. Maybe the majority opinion. But it doesn't absolve you of your obligation to obey the law. If you feel morally compelled to violate a law, why should you escape punishment? Someone who violates the law for simple criminal gain faces punishment, so why does the fact that you have an opinion oblige society to treat you differently?

      >> If you buy something, you should have the right to do anything you want with it.

      No, you don't. If you think for a minute, I'm sure you will recall many examples of potential criminal behavior using one of your possessions. For example, buying a telescope does not give you the right to use it to look in my windows. Or, buying a television does not give you the right to modify it to get free cable.

      >> Any law that opposes this is draconian, and a sign of a totalitarian government.


      Again, that's your opinion. I disagree.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    14. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >> All the rights to your work belong to you only because society says they do.

      Nope. Our rights exist because we exist, not because society gave them to us. As the Declaration of Independence says, everyone is endowed with rights. Society is obligated to respect and honor those rights, but they cannot bestow rights on anyone. (Society can, however, prevent someone -- a criminal, typically -- from exercising his rights. That's a restraint of behavior.)

      A belief that rights flow to an individual from society is very dangerous, because it leads to the belief that society can take away those rights. The usual pattern, especially in European history and thought, has been for the state to claim it is synonymous with society, and that, therefore, all rights flow from the state. That way lies totalitarianism, as the last century taught us.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    15. Re:Bunk by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      ...doesn't absolve you of your obligation to obey the law...

      Nor did I say it should. My point in its entirety was that the law is wrong.

      ...criminal behavior using one of your possessions. For example, buying a telescope does not give you the right to use it to look in my windows. Or, buying a television does not give you the right to modify it to get free cable etc etc

      Those break existing laws, though, that are arguably not wrong. I'm not sure the telescope example actually breaks any laws (I think it might be a civil matter but I'm not sure) but I do get your point.

      My point, however, was not that you should be able to, say, buy a brick and then use that brick by throwing it through someone's window. That breaks existing laws. There's no need to introduce a new law stating, for instance, that when you buy bricks, you can only use them as the manufacturer states, and if they state that you can't use them to build a building without paying them $1 million, then you can go to jail for violating that... That is essentially what these laws are stating. The only real difference is the type of product involved.

      Look at it this way. Companies have every right to try to use technological means to force you to use their products their way. But there's no reason that these technological methods should be enforced by law, too. If people can use technology to circumvent their restrictions, and not violate any existing sane laws, there's simply no reason any new law should prevent them from doing that.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    16. Re:Bunk by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Nope. Our rights exist because we exist, not because society gave them to us. As the Declaration of Independence says, everyone is endowed with rights. Society is obligated to respect and honor those rights, but they cannot bestow rights on anyone. (Society can, however, prevent someone -- a criminal, typically -- from exercising his rights. That's a restraint of behavior.)

      So, when a missionary is arrested for preaching Christianity on the streets of Mecca all he has to do is hold up a copy of the Declaration of Independence to avoid punishment? Saudi society would say no. The Declaration of Independence only holds creedence because US society says it does.

      A belief that rights flow to an individual from society is very dangerous, because it leads to the belief that society can take away those rights. The usual pattern, especially in European history and thought, has been for the state to claim it is synonymous with society, and that, therefore, all rights flow from the state. That way lies totalitarianism, as the last century taught us.

      Free and open societies are a pretty recent development, and not even the global norm. The bulk of human governmental history is in fact totalitarist and continues to be so today. Whether it be alpha male, tribal chief, high priest, king, or dictator the masses have been playing follow the leader since the dawn of time.

      To assume that rights are natural is the real danger here. It leads to people forgetting that it is in fact the society that they live in that determine what rights they have, and makes it easier for the powers that be to take them away.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    17. Re:Bunk by reallocate · · Score: 1

      No, the missionary in Mecca is in danger because Saudi behavior is driven by a rejection of the fact that all people are created equal and, by virtue of their birth, have certain rights. In other words, the Saudis would be wrong.

      It isn't the Declaration of Independence, or any other document, or any government, society or state that gives people those rights. We have those rights because we exist. Whether or not someone is American is irrelevant. Saudis living in Mecca have the same rights. If they cannot exercise those rights it is because they live in a society that represses them, and, sadly, because they choose to participate in their own repression.

      Societies may or may recognize those rights, but they certainly don't endow people with them. Your notion that societies -- human creations -- give people their rights is both fundmantally wrong and fundamentally dangerous. Such a belief is the foundation of every philosophy that asserts the individual owes his life to the state and to society. In other words, that belief is the basis of facism and totalitarianism. That the world still suffers from it is attributable to people who, apparently like you, divide people into "the masses" and the "leader".

      Don't forget to click your heels on the way out.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    18. Re:Bunk by EzInKy · · Score: 1

      Societies may or may recognize those rights, but they certainly don't endow people with them. Your notion that societies -- human creations -- give people their rights is both fundmantally wrong and fundamentally dangerous. Such a belief is the foundation of every philosophy that asserts the individual owes his life to the state and to society. In other words, that belief is the basis of facism and totalitarianism. That the world still suffers from it is attributable to people who, apparently like you, divide people into "the masses" and the "leader".


      No, I don't divide people into "the masses" and "the leader", but most societies do. Thankfully we both live in a society that does grant people their rights, at least for now. If I believed, as you do, that these rights are natural I wouldn't be as concerned about the possibility of society taking them away as I am now.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  67. Why is anyone surprised at this? by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The French long ago discovered they couldn't make Corporatism (Fascism dressed in Prada) work in a single country. Hence the EU, a French attempt to make Corporatism work on a single continent.

    In the French view of the world, the Government - made up of the French elite, graduates of the ENA - will control the Corporations, and the Corporations will control the consumer.

    Europe's one hope is its new Eastern European members, who well-remember German and Russian jackbooted thugs.

    Well, that's one hope. The other hope is that the US remains relatively free, so Europeans can make Linus' choice.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
    1. Re:Why is anyone surprised at this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other hope is that the US remains relatively free

      Bwaaa haaa haaa ....

      oh. you were serious.

      seriously deluded....

    2. Re:Why is anyone surprised at this? by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that's one hope. The other hope is that the US remains relatively free, so Europeans can make Linus' choice.

      Earth to US... Earth to US... it's from you the cancer is spreading. They managed to push through the DMCA in the USA, so now they get even bolder in the EU. And next round they'll push for DMCA II in the US being even worse than the current one. RIAA and MPAA are the ones pushing the most for IP totalitarism, did you ever catch what the last A means?

      That the EU is even more disconnected from the individual citizens than in the US made the job so much easier for the american IP thugs, also called lobbyists. US corporations want to patent and copyright Everything(tm) permanently and thus control the world economy, just look at all the stupid patents the USPO accepts. Not to mention how important it was to get the "proper" IP laws in Iraq before the people gets a say in it.

      Actually I put a lot of faith in Eastern Europe too - they may still have more sense when it comes to copyright, unlike the West and most of all the US which appears to be boiled like a frog already.

      Kjella

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Why is anyone surprised at this? by vidarh · · Score: 1
      What do you mean "remains relatively free"? I wouldn't ever consider moving to a country where people can be held without legal representation, without charge and without a civil trial indefinently with no legal protections, and where you already have a law almost as excessive as this directive in place (the DMCA).

      Keep in mind that this is a directive that first have to be approved by EU centrally, then it has to be enacted in local legislation, which leaves plenty of time to get rid of it or at least tone it down (via creative interpretations in the adaptations to local law).

      The US is already stuck with the DMCA in effect, and a long string of "security" measures limiting your "freedom" to a level that starts to make even several dictatorships look more and more free by the day.

      One can say a whole lot of bad things about the governing bodies of the EU, but I could say a whole lot worse things about the current US government, most of which are not suitable even for Slashdot :-)

    4. Re:Why is anyone surprised at this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Please, open an History book ASAP. Thanks.

      France, like many other countries (including Germany, Russia, ...), always had a fight between central state power and feudal-like powers (among them standing corporations).
      The main difference with the US, is that in the US (like in the UK), central power tend to support corporations, and opposition to this block tend to come from "average" people uniting together (like for those famous tea parties thet are done in Boston).
      The ENA-centered(or other such feudal systems) system in France has be broken down first by De Gaulle, then by the European Union, and is now slowly dying, weak, and very unlikely to come back strong (actually, the power in France stands now in labour unions hands, giving a de facto socialist system -rather a kind of communism without centralized administration-, and that is slowly ruining the country). The French are very aware of all the bad things that come out of planified, centralized and administrated economy, and they are also coming slowly aware of the cons of that socialist system.
      Then, Corporatism is the way Germany's economy works. It simply means that managment and labour unions work together to create wealth, both being responsible for creating wealth, this being grouped along the different sectors of the economy. This is very very unlikely to ever happen in France. Moreover German Corporatism is dying, because of economic crisis. This is very obvious in the metallurgical industry: IG-Metal is now fighting for several years the managment of big companies that are moving their factories to less-costing countries.

    5. Re:Why is anyone surprised at this? by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as you're not a towel-head with an AK-47 or a Boeing 757 flight manual, you ought to be safe.

      As for the DMCA, it'll go eventually. Once the European equivalent of DMCA happens in Europe, you'll be stuck with it.

      As for not suitable for Slashdot, hey, it's in the land of the free and the home of the brave, so fire away

      --
      668: Neighbour of the Beast
  68. That's my beat yo! by wondering+eyes · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that rap artists can be held liable for stealing James Browns' beats?

    --
    Just an observation, not a value judgement. -Me
  69. Re:What's a tyre? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    aww, shut up already.. You make me tire

  70. Time to go underground by swordgeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone else feel that this is the beginning of the end?

    The RIAA and MPAA are spreading their filth outwards from the US, and trying to make it legally mandatory to implement DRM at the hardware level. The big companies only product anymore is profit, and they're trying to maximise it by elimating cash-sinks like manufacturing and employees. The biggest governments are trying to restrict the movements, actions, and tongues of their citizens in any way they can, and are starting to use those sabres they've been rattling for decades. They also don't seem to believe that their lies even have to be believable or verifiable anymore.

    For nearly a quarter century (when I started following current events), I've been of the attitude that it's no worse than it's always been--that it only seems horrific because we're living through it. Now though, I don't know. Every citizen in the "Free Western World" is facing the prospect of being made a criminal, and subject to any punishment their government(s) feel like doling out that day--regardless of any of the things that have been established as basic undeniable human rights.

    Frankly, I'm scared for the first time since the Iranian Hostage crisis. I'm afraid the world WILL go out, not with a bang but with a whimper.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Time to go underground by isorox · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm afraid the world WILL go out, not with a bang but with a whimper.

      Well, lets make sure it will go out with a bang then! Vote Bush in 2004!

  71. unrelated distraction by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    Making an instrument and composing music are entirely different things. That person in a box thing is interesting...do you have information on it? Language clearly is a dumb thing to expect (especially something like German). But drop a piano in there and you might just get the "Mary had a little lamb" tune.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:unrelated distraction by spun · · Score: 1

      I did a google search on it, no luck. I saw it on a PBS documentary a while ago. I do know that the experiment lead to a long string of isolation experiements on monkeys.

      One question: where do ideas come from, if not from recombination of actual experience?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  72. Rollerball (1975) by burgburgburg · · Score: 1

    James Caan plays the character of Jonathan E., a Rollerball champion in a game designed to have no champions, no individuals. Corporations rule and control the masses through Rollerball.

  73. Re:FUD from both sides? - no, please re-read. by schon · · Score: 1

    "under the proposed directive, EU Member States will have to criminalise street music"

    Emphasis mine.

    This is already illegal:

    Perhaps - however, it is not a criminal offense, it's a civil one. What you're doing it turning something from a civil matter (COTT charges the appropriate fees) into a criminal one (the police charge the infringer with a crime) - this removes the burden of responsibility from the copyright holder - if they're wrong, and the alleged infringer is innocent, they haven't lost anything (which will lead to more people being accused of copyright infringement).. And to top it all off, the innocent party gets hosed, and the public is left footing the bill.

  74. Chicken Little - the sky is falling down by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have to wonder if the people scaremongering have read the Directive.

    The "technical device" rule in Article 21 is poorly drafted, but still fairly clear. It criminalises devices designed to circumvent devices which protect "elements which are manifestly identifiable by customers and consumers and which make it easier to recognise the goods as being authentic".

    So a machine for manufacturing Microsoft CD holograms would be illegal under the Directive. A machine for making no-brand ink jet cartridges would not.

    Those who are saying otherwise haven't read the directive or don't understand it.

    1. Re:Chicken Little - the sky is falling down by vidarh · · Score: 1
      Which means you miss the problem entirely. If it is illegal to make a machine for making tyres that can identify themselves as Ford tyres, then exactly how can a consumer prevent his Ford car from refusing to start when tyres don't identify themselves as Ford tyres?

      If you allow anyone to make any machine readable identification without either expressly forbidding them to use it to limit consumer choice OR expressly allow the identification to be cloned, you ARE opening for exactly what the "people scaremongering" have suggested.

      We've seen this clearly enough illustrated with the lawsuits against clone inkjet cartridge makers, where the printer manufacturers have hid behind the DMCA, trade secrets and patents to try to limit consumer choice.

    2. Re:Chicken Little - the sky is falling down by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. You need to read the Directive.

      Article 21 prevents the use of devices that enable goods to be passed off as authentic *to the consumer*. If you make Ford-compatible tyres that are clearly labelled as being made by you then you are not in breach of the Directive. Even if your tyres fool my car into thinking they are made by Ford (and so the car starts), they are not fooling the consumer and hence are not in breach.

      The DMCA is quite different and much wider: it criminalises all copy-circumvention technology

  75. The more complex the plumbing... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    This to me sounds wonderful! I mean... if a Ford can only use Ford tagged tires, and if this are radio tags... it sounds like... to me, that you can disable any car you choose just by broadcasting the wrong information.

    Law enforcement would have another tool at their disposal, and we can have that brave new world that we've been dreaming of.

    Not only do I object to being forced to buy a multi-purpose part from a specific company who doesn't even make the part, but it seems to me that you create yet another way your car can break down. I have this mental image of military people pushing their cars off-base because their personal cars won't operate due to their extensive use of radar.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  76. except you can't vote them out... by feepcreature · · Score: 2, Insightful
    These are the types of directives that will make governments fall

    Unfortunately, this DMCA-style Directive is a European Directive, so voters won't blame their own governments. And there is simply no way to vote out "the Administration" in Europe. You can't even get rid of them when it turns out they are corrupt, for goodness sake!

    --
    Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
    1. Re:except you can't vote them out... by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

      You can vote your EU MEPs out, or the national governments... and they are the ones who have the final say over this legislation. The commision's proposal is just that -- a proposal. They alone don't have the power to pass this rubbish. The trick is getting our local and national politicians not to buy into what the commision is saying.

    2. Re:except you can't vote them out... by feepcreature · · Score: 1
      It's a proposed directive, so if passed at the EU (where effective scrutiny is rare), it will be binding on member states. What normally happens instead of scrutiny is that controversial measures are used as bargaining counters in a "horse trading" session, where they are granted in exchange for a concession on something else (like fishing quotas, beef subsidies, EU enlargement or closer political union). Sadly, proposals are too rarely examined on their actual merits.

      And while you can vote out an individual MEP, MEPs are not the Administration. It's next to impossible to get rid of the Commission as a whole, or of individual commissioners.

      Lobbyists, on the other hand, have very good access to the levers of power within the commission and the EU as a whole. Which is why we see proposals which favour the interests of special interest groups over those of the electorate.

      Then again, you're right about one thing. The only way to oppose it starts with, as you put it: "getting our... politicians not to buy into what the commision is saying". But due to the perceived remoteness (and actual unresponsiveness) of the EU, that's not easy. And then you have to go beyond that, and get them to do something about it...

      --
      Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
  77. Re:Directive Date - Bad Taste - WHAT ??? by Lifewolf · · Score: 1
    But the choice of the date appears to be a ploy to confuse the issue...

    As those decidedly non-American folks from NTK put it:

    A perfect date for adequate scrutiny and news coverage, of course.
    --
    "Be Happy or Die." -- AoN
  78. Tea tax by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1
    Hey, the tea tax was eliminated before the boston tea party. Well on the most important tea company anyway :-)

    Still the USA would never try protectionist tariffs to favour local companies would it? :-)

  79. frikkin' tarrifs by siskbc · · Score: 1
    Still the USA would never try protectionist tariffs to favour local companies would it? :-)

    Nah. 'Course not. Well, only industries that are prominent in election swing-states. Like, say, steel.

    You can thank the electoral college system for that steel tarrif, btw.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  80. Thanks by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Thank you for quoting this. That book is a wonderful, wonderful book.

    1. Re:Thanks by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Yer welcome. It brought tears to my eyes, how he was treated.

      OTOH, /. karma is very easy: every time I've quoted that passage in response to government encroachment, I've gained a +5. I suppose it's because /. is full of libertarians (small-l), or perhaps they've never seen it before and are amazed that someone half a century ago could think that way. Either way, it's almost guaranteed karma!

      Now let's see what happens next time I post it. ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  81. Wilderness of Arctic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In all seriousness, I hope you can, because I want there to be somewhere I can move to when things get totally out of control here.

    How about the farthermost northwest wilderness of Canada, or Alaska, or perhaps even Siberia? Up there, the laws of survival pretty much makes all others a moot point.

  82. Re:Directive Date - Bad Taste - WHAT ??? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
    Wake up!

    The whole point is that if you pass a bill on a date like September 11th, you are (to quote Jo Moore) "burying bad news".

    Similarly, the UK government published bad unemployment figures on the day of a royal wedding, and passed a law on lowering the age of consent for gay men to 16 on the same day as a major England World Cup football game.

  83. This is almost ~exactly~ what I said could happen by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    except apparently it can't happen in the states YET.

    I said it right here:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=74169&c id=6658 353 :(

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
  84. I wouldn't worry too much about it by seraph93 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whoa there, Chicken Little. A couple more IP laws != Orwellian Nightmare. The good old gov't might be trying to restrict its citizens, but such things have been tried in the past and all have failed, because the masses will happily break any law that they don't agree with. The more the government undermines its credibility, the fewer people will listen to them. We're all criminals already; who cares? And more IP laws might even be a good thing for all us ruthless criminal types.

    It's been said that "information wants to be free", but it's closer to reality to say that information cannot be effectively controlled. Another poster mentioned that you can put a fence around physical property to protect your rights to said property. But if enough people jump that fence, then where are your property rights? All of this legislation amounts to nothing more than a fence that can be jumped with the click of a button. The public is contesting the corporations' right to their IP by wantonly breaking whatever laws get passed concerning it. Did Prohibition stop anyone from drinking? Did the War on Drugs make it any more difficult to purchase whatever recreational chemical you desire? No and no.

    This legislation will most likely accomplish the same thing that Prohibition and the War on Drugs did: It will create a thriving black market where people can buy what they want to buy at prices that they think are fair. The fact that it's illegal will stop only the tiny percentage of people who get caught. I say the IP lords should pass as many laws as they possibly can. They'll turn piracy from a small difference in quarterly profits to a booming industry that will outcompete them at every turn. The less legal piracy is, the more profitable it will become. Already in Malaysia, a pirated CD costs around one-fifth what an official copy costs, and of course the pirates have much better sales than the manufacturers.

    And as far as DRM is concerned, I wouldn't worry about that either. There will be a way around it, even if the hardware required is prohibitively expensive. Nobody had any reason to spend money on a still until Prohibition came around and turned stills into profit machines. Nobody owned private chemical labs until the War on Drugs made chemistry a profitable hobby. DRM will just give hardware hackers a way to print money. I'm sure that Palladium is uncrackable in the same way that the Titanic was unsinkable.

    So relax! These laws just give the industry enough rope to hang itself with, and the black marketeers a reason to start selling audio and video media. I for one am looking forward to all those cheap CDs and DVDs I'll be able to buy.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
    1. Re:I wouldn't worry too much about it by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Well now, that's about where I was headed.

      We may be headed towards the biggest worldwide anarchy we've seen in three hundred years. That's a bit scary.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:I wouldn't worry too much about it by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      because the masses will happily break any law that they don't agree with

      Quite true. And as far as the US government is concerned, this is not any great difficulty. Hence the 2,000,000+ prison population and the blind embrace of more laws making more felons of just about everyone. Can we take the chance that the politicians will happily toss the 3.5 million users KaZaA says are online in jail too?

      You may note that while the War on Drugs is indeed beginning to polarize politically (not just socially as it always has been), there is _huge_ inertia towards keeping it running, both in terms of image (tough on drugs = good PR) and bureaucratic selfishness (DEA's funding drops by 90% if drugs are legalized). And quite frankly, most of the people in charge still honestly believe that the whole charade is worth the time, money, effort, freedoms, and human lives they've squandered on it (either that or they just won't admit they're full of crap, which amounts to same thing).

      The only way to fix this will be to replace all the politicians in support of uber-IP laws, which requires a massive popular backlash against them, which requires things to get much worse before they get better. I doubt anyone 60 years ago imagined that every year we'd arrest enough people to form a large city (800,000 people) for nothing more than having in their posession a naturally occuring plant. And yet here we are.

      I'm with the parent on this. I'm well aware that every generation preceding mine has though the sky is falling, but The Powers That Be seem to be so powerfully and ignorantly set on destroying everything to protect their own little fiefdoms. Valenti isn't going to ever 'get it'. He'll keep bribing congresscritters and telling them that VCRs and PVRs and the Internet are costing the MPAA members billions of dollars lost sales every minute until the day he dies. The DEA was started on a basis of lies, racism, and general bullshit (actual 1930's Congressional quote: "Marijuana causes violent behavior in the degenerate races"); they'll _never_ turn around and say, "Oh yeah, our bad". I'm not sure enough people in charge will be willing or able to stand against the tide before the US legislates itself to third-world status in the next few decades.

      And it could happen! It's pure speculation of course, but can you imagine the effects US and EU IP laws would have on a world of Star Trek replicators or cheap nano? If corporations are cringing at the new lack of scarcity of information, they'll go berserk if it applies to the physical. And if past performance is any indication, our elected officials will happily kowtow to them and try to legislate it out of existence.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
    3. Re:I wouldn't worry too much about it by seraph93 · · Score: 1

      2,000,000+. That's a hell of a lot of prisoners. But I'm not in prison, you're not in prison...there are an awful lot of people who aren't in prison, especially considering how many of us are criminals nowadays. I even know several people who were charged with drug possession who didn't get sent to prison.

      Can we take the chance that the politicians will happily toss the 3.5 million users KaZaA says are online in jail too?

      There's no chance of this. None. We don't even have enough room and budget for the 2M+ prisoners we have, much less 3.5M more of them. You use the War on Drugs as an example of the Man's eagerness to put everyone behind bars. True, there are a lot of people doing time for drug offenses, but those people are there for big drug offenses, like running a heroin smuggling ring, or owning a meth lab, or getting caught with a couple hundred pounds of marijuana. You'll notice there aren't too many people in there for small drug offenses. You don't do hard time for getting caught with a joint; you pay a fine and the cops smoke your doobie. Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of crimes you can commit that won't get you imprisoned. I'm sure trading copyrighted files will remain one of those crimes for quite some time.

      The Powers That Be seem to be so powerfully and ignorantly set on destroying everything to protect their own little fiefdoms.

      Yeah, so? It's been that way for all of recorded history. And probably all of unrecorded history as well. Sooner or later, all of those little fiefdoms finally collapsed. I'm sure that this one will fare no differently.

      So, to sum up: Relax already! Maybe a little piece of the sky did fall, but so what? Just brush it out of your hair and move on.

      --
      Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
    4. Re:I wouldn't worry too much about it by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1
      There's no chance of this. None

      I wish I had your confidence. But as you say, wholesale violence by governments far in excess of what could reasonable be required to maintain order is nothing new. Why should we techies be immune? I mean, c'mon, 2 million people? Pick 100 adults; 1 of them is behind bars right now and one or two more are doing nothing but paying for his upkeep. That image, though sickening and revolting to you and I, does not appear to faze some of our legislators in the slightest. 2 million prisoners and what's their answer? Let's make some more felons! Having a plant isn't dubious enough, we'll put copying bits and even talking about copying bits in the same category as wholesale murder. As some glib tongues on /. have pointed out, I could blow up a schoolbus full of kindergartners and get a lighter sentence than what I would be entitled to for clicking the checkbox on KaZaA that says to share my C drive.

      Yeah, so? It's been that way for all of recorded history.

      Oh, certainly. My concern is that in the process they're going to royally fuck up my life and the lives of nearly 300 million citizens and countless people abroad beforehand. Like I said, things will get worse before they get better, and who wants to live through that? Love my country, fear my government, right? Well, I do love my country and it just breaks my heart to think it may be run through the meat grinder by its own shortsightedness.

      Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of crimes you can commit that won't get you imprisoned

      Oh not at all. I sat down, pulled up some legal-oriented websites, and researched this very topic one day; I stopped counting my 'criminal behavior' when I got to 5 felonies warranting prison time. It's a great argument to use against the kneejerk-"There ought to be a law"-mentality.

      I know, I know, I know. Relax. Today's a bad day. On good days I actually have a fairly high opinion of my fellow man and _know_ that the shrill cries of Valenti and Rosen and the various Disney reps will eventually get them the duct tape gag they so richly deserve.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  85. pathetic and weak by whittrash · · Score: 1
    I would posit that you are not so much paranoid as you are fearful of your own sloth, weakness, paralysis, flatulance and inability to act against what you see as organized injustice. Any smart group of people can shut down any city, anywhere, until they get what they want; as long as they are willing to endure the wrath of the authorities. Just go stand in the middle of a highway with a road flare and watch the traffic jam grow, do that for 6 weeks and you will be noticed. Nobody said freedom or justice or democracy was cheap. You want it! FIGHT FOR IT. Otherwise sit in your cozy job and wait for them to chain you to the wall and force consumer culture up your ***. Cattle and sheep is all I see, where have the eagles gone!
    1. I don't care because you don't care.
    1. Give me convenience or give me death
    1. Re:pathetic and weak by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      You're right, which is why I've abandoned the corporate culture. Of course, this means I have to eat ramen every day and live with my parents, but what the hell it's fighting "the man."

      OTOH, quoting that passage is almost guaranteed +5 karma. /.ers must be mostly libertarians (small-l), or perhaps they've never heard it before and are amazed (as I am) that someone 50 years ago had these thoughts. Before "big government" really made the headlines. But whatever; learn from this: whenever government is encroaching, you can post this quote and gain karma.

      Now let's see what happens next time I post it. ;-)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  86. the EU is a dictatorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't even vote on what goes in to our laws, we can't even vote the people out who make these crazy laws, the EU is a dictatorship growing.

    The UK needs to get out, then when Europe messes itself up again we'll have to come in for the billionth time and sort it out.

  87. Simplistic thinking by robogun · · Score: 1

    I'd agree with you if you were right. If everything was black and white -- if they did all this overnight -- then you would be correct.

    Unfortunately, this has been slowly building, over some period of time, in incremental fashion.

    It is the government's use of increnemtalism that prevents such outbursts as you propose. By using incrementalism, the revolution is prevented entirely, or at least postponed far into the future. Only when the sum of those changes reaches the point of intolerance, will people look up from their playstations and take to the streets.

    And please read Ayn Rand with an open mind. Even if you do not believe in the basic goodness of mankind, as she does, it is refreshing and something to hope for.

    1. Re:Simplistic thinking by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      You hit the nail on the head. To boil a frog, you put him in lukewarm water and slowly raise the temperature. Putting him in boiling water, he'll jump out immediately. But water that slowly gets hotter, he'll just sit there and take it.

      So too our American public. The USA is far more totalitarian than Russia was "back in the day" but we don't have McCarthy around to point fingers any more. "If you're not with me, you're against me" and thus you can be thrown into jail to rot for eternity because you're a "terrorist" and won't get released within 48 hours.

      It's really scary where we've ended up. I won't report you as a terrorist if you don't report me!

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  88. There's one way to deal with stupidity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill everyone responsible for this trash.
    I'm serious. Start killing the idiots that lobby for this shit. Start killing the idiots that sign this shit into law.

    Whack a few dozen or so and things will change..

  89. You give them too much credit by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1
    The politicians typically only look as far as the next election e.g.: will this keep me on my seat?

    Do you really think that Bush thiks 10 years in advance when he bleeds the economy dry? Making record deficits in a period of slow economy is either:
    - stupid : the coutry will be hung to dry by the banks when the debt covers all the country's worth;
    - brilliant: see the Keynesian Economic Theory

    IM(not so)HO, Bush does not know about the theory which he seems to be applying to some extent*.

    IANAE (I am not an economist) but I play one on Slashdot!

    *: Keynes prescribed spending in things such as public works, which creates value for the society, as well as jobs.

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  90. I'm sure IP will stop China and India cold.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eventually these countries will achieve a critical mass and tell the rest of the world to take it's IP and stick it up it's ass... In fact I think China has been playing both sides for a while now...

  91. Not even an iota of a scintilla of an atom of bunk by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1
    No, I've got it right.

    Property rights aren't an inherent human right, outside of perhaps things that you can carry with you at all times. Everything else basically involves common agreement. But people do agree, because they recognize that it's generally in their best interests to do so, at least to a certain extent.

    This is true as well with regards to copyrights -- I'll thank you not to continue using the term 'intellectual property' if you're going to use it wrongly (it's a bad term anyway) -- but this is an easier example because copyrights only sprung up so recently.

    Now, I do believe in inherent human rights, and I encourage people who don't believe in them to at least pretend that they do since it is safer. But that doesn't mean that every stupid little thing, such as property rights, are inherent.

    Doesn't mean it isn't useful either. I think that property rights and copyrights -- if done properly -- are extraordinarily useful and oughtn't to be mucked about with. But their utility doesn't make them inherent either.

    Let's look at Jefferson. I would imagine that he probably had some idea about the concept that there were inherent human rights which should be recognized and safeguarded. Although you should be a little worried, because he's the same guy that cribbed Locke when writing about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" ... except that Jefferson put in the Happiness thing. Locke had property, and Jefferson didn't feel that to be appropriate. This might be telling, but let's continue.

    Jefferson wrote a letter about patents which I feel is quite relevant here. This is going to be a rather long quote, but I enjoyed the language so much that I really did not want to sully it with various ellipses.

    It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

    Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as a

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  92. Re:It doesn't look at bad on the consumer side by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Add it with the above and this doesn't seem so horrible as presented in the article summary above.

    Chuckle. That FAQ is written by the same people who are pushing it. You may as well read the TCPA FAQ written by the TCPA council.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  93. it's up to you EU residents now by alizard · · Score: 1
    Earth to US... Earth to US... it's from you the cancer is spreading. They managed to push through the DMCA in the USA, so now they get even bolder in the EU. And next round they'll push for DMCA II in the US being even worse than the current one. RIAA and MPAA are the ones pushing the most for IP totalitarism, did you ever catch what the last A means?

    Americans can indeed be blamed for the DMCA. The geek community could have put together a political action committee capable of raising money to buy enough politicians to make the DMCA political suicide. Unfortunately, nobody with the cash required to get one off the ground (est: $1M USD to set up infrastructure) was willing.

    American politicians are basically 0wn3d.

    The *AA organizations are not buying EU politicians that I ever heard of. If they are, I'm sure there are EU newspapers who'd be happy to tell the public that American corporate interests are buying the EU and national governments.

    Given public campaign financing, it shouldn't take horrendous amount of money to put together pressure groups capable of making themselves heard both at the national and the EU level, you only need people willing to take the time to do the organizing and some in-person lobbying.

    A letter from civil rights organizations isn't enough. You guys need to turn up numbers. Target key people and make sure they get thousands of letters. Get people to write and talk to their MPs and EU Parliament representatives.

    These laws will protect USA corporate interests at the expense of EU technological development. Your nations will be able to build new technologies the US won't be able to if these laws go into the toilet they oozed out of, that means a stronger technological base and more jobs and money floating around.

    BTW, this is probably a better argument than civil liberties with respect to attacking this kind of law. Politicians care about businesses making money, that they can extract taxes from them.

    Whining about the evil American political system does NOT get you off the hook for doing what you can to protect your own freedom.

  94. so what if they don't? by alizard · · Score: 1
    They don't make tires either.

    Exclusively licensing a single tire vendor to be Ford's "official" tiremaker wouldn't exactly be difficult.

    Hmmm... IIRC, some of the EU countries told some of the printer vendors that third party vendors must be allowed to make printer cartridges for their printers. Wonder how many national consumer protection laws will be nullfied by this proposed law?

  95. Darmstadt got blitzed on sept 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it was pretty bad. the RAF tested a new method of setting fire to an entire city in a controlled (ahem) or horseshoe technique... we are talking 50,000 civilian burned alive. Like Kobe and plenty of other bombings that all together amounted to way more than the Nagazaki or Hiroshima single bomb thing.

    So do we not use sept 11 also elsewhere? Nope, people forgot anyway.

    Been so many wars where civilians got hit that humanity lost count.

    You knew most of Japan cities were bombed with incendiary bombs, did you?

    Read more of it. Visit Germany and try to find a real historical building that was left standing... I'm not a German, I'm not japanese, my step dad was a USAF bomber flight engineer. They "never told him" if you take his words.

    A very scary notion.

  96. hey, this is the EU we're talking about by alizard · · Score: 1
    The EU citizens are disarmed, the rationale being to protect them from "bad guys".

    They've rationalized this for generations on the basis that they live in democratic countries whose governments would never threaten their civil liberties.

    To be more precise, they've bet the future of their democracies on this and unknowingly, bet their economic future on this as well.

    The future of technology is going to come from places whose technologies don't have to be approved by the Hollywood entertainment cartel.

    This is one of the reasons why I do not believe that the US will be able to sustain the technology lead required to be "the lone superpower". If the governments of the EU want to follow America down the drain, we can all watch our new technologies come from India and China and other places industrializing out of Third World status.

    Someday, maybe I'll have time to find out how they were persuaded to buy into the wrong end of a sucker bet.

    I'm seeing a lot of complaints from Europeans here saying they're basically stuck with the European government.

    I've also heard them boasting of their democracies.

    I think it's time for the people around here from the EU to tell us. . . well, do you or don't you have a democracy? And if you do, why aren't you working on pressuring it to represent you?

  97. if the EC is bent on long-term suicide by alizard · · Score: 1
    What really behooves me about all this is that up until recently, I counted myself among the advocates of the European way of dealing with IP, and pointed to the flow of software/hardware innovation out of the US as an example of that 'superiority'. Now it appears that through harmonizing their laws with ours (or even being more restrictive, it seems), they will lose the advantage myself and many others have been touting.

    If this crap goes through, those of us who want to stay in technology in the long run will have to move to India or China or elsewhere in the Third World, and the cutting edge of technology in the former world leaders like the US and the EU will be importado and black-market only.

    Technological leadership on both sides of the Atlantic is getting ceded to India, China, and other countries... in exchange for a few million dollars of political campaign contributions given to US politicians.

    Whether our political leaders have figured it out or not, long-term military leadership means long-term technological leadership.

    Our political leaders have been bought by the Hollywood entertainment cartel.

    What's the excuse of EU political 'leadership'?

  98. If you live there.... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    ... you have bigger problems than copyright issues.

    A fake democracy or perfect dictatorship comes to my mind.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:If you live there.... by fr0z · · Score: 1

      A fake democracy or perfect dictatorship comes to my mind.

      To which I only have one response: have you lived here before?

      It boggles the mind as to why people in the US always think our democracy is an elaborate stage act, or that we live under a dictatorship. Such absolute terms in politics are no longer applicable in this day and age.

      Come over; I'll show you that at least here, we cannot buy our politicians. And that to me, is good enough.

      Disclaimer: I believe in Machiavellian theories, so you probably will disagree with me.

      --
      Never underestimate the predictability of human stupidity...
  99. Another concentration camp guard heard from. by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    Put on your Jesus boots and go back to gallumphing around Tuscany with the rest of your SS brethren.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  100. Man, you're pretty ignorant. by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    Here's the difference between European and American government:

    In Europe, all power is vested in the Monarch (or Central Government), who doles out just enough to keep the peasants from revolting.

    In American, all power is vested in the individual, who doles out just enough to allow government to function.

    This fundamental difference guarantees that Europe will always be dealing with its Francos, Mussolinis, Hitlers, and Milosevics, while Americans will remain fat, dumb, happy, and pretty contemptuous of Europeans.

    If you think French bureaucracy is going away, I pity you: you should a complete failure to grasp how French government works, or what French government wants out of the EU (a term, incidentally, first coined by the Nazis).

    I am glad to see that you grasp the problems of socialism in France and Germany. What you fail to see is that the French and the Germans are trying to extend the life of their socialist systems by trying to extend their reach: if you can't get socialism to work in one country, maybe it'ss work in one continent. This was what drove the old Soviet Union to its expansionism, and when it could expand no further (thank God for Ronald Reagan!), it collapsed in on itself, leaving a country of 300 million people with an aconomy about the size of Denmark's. That's what Europe is looking at: a union of 300 million people, with an economy the size of Idaho's.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  101. Good points, all of them by seraph93 · · Score: 1

    I'm not so worried about going to prison right at the moment, or all the felonies I'm supposedly guilty of (there are new ones introduced every day). What I worry about is the whole "things getting worse before they get better" bit you mentioned. I worry about that fated day when everything not forbidden is finally compulsory, and everything not compulsory is finally forbidden. If the Powers that Be keep it up, eventually they *will* push Joe Sixpack too far, to the point where not even quality television can calm him down. It's hard to keep your stock prices up when a rioting mob has burned down corporate headquarters and lynched your CEO. It's hard to enforce draconian laws when the population has realized that they outnumber the police.

    And what then? Anarchy, chaos, and eventually small-time despotism as the people with the most guns set up their little regimes. Sounds like even less fun than our current Orwellian bullshit. But it's not here yet, and maybe it'll never happen. And if it does happen, maybe we'll have a chance to bring back that country that we love, the one that got lost somewhere in the paperwork. For now, though, I'll just kick back, open up a beer, and let the End Times roll.

    --
    Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  102. From the house's mouth about "repressive" by LeftOfCentre · · Score: 1

    From the EU IP FAQ (my underline):

    Does this Directive overprotect intellectual property by taking on board the most repressive legislation found in EU Member States?

    It is not right to say that the proposal simply takes on board the most 'repressive' legislation of each EU country. The Directive takes on board the best measures already adopted in various EU countries. Those are not always the most draconian and there are a number of measures currently available in certain EU countries which have not been included.


    Translation: Yes, this law is pretty damn repressive... but we could have made it even more repressive, so it's okay! {insert mandatory Orwell reference}

  103. I am one of the "shmucks" by SysKoll · · Score: 1

    Actually, I am one of these low-life dime-a-day Europeans working in the US and taking the job of a decent red-blooded American, being grateful not to be quicked out of the country and accepting a petty pay that no Yankee with my seniority and experience would even consider.

    Referring to my own group in a derogatory way is called self-deprecating humor. I don't think an apology is in order since I just insulted myself and my family, but let me know if you think otherwise!

    Thanks,

    --SysKoll
    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/