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.
of the dictum that if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
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