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.
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!
You do realize that the character was named after the car, right?
Why?
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!
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.
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"
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.
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.
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:
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.
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