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!
... stop me from putting my pants on backwards? If it does that then count me in.
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.
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.
"
of the dictum that if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal
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
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
``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''.
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
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
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!
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 -
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.
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...
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]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!
I'm glad to see that the United States doesn't have a monopoly on half-baked, industry-sponsored, wacked-out legislation...
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
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...
It closes with the observation that "intellectual property is verging on thought crime."
/. 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.
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 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
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.
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.
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...
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!
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
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.
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
Interesting:
/. or by the suits. Make your own mind up with research. (and no, i didnt mean to say make up your own mind.)
"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
--
"And suddenly you realize you were looking in the wrong place."
--Radiohead--
"this is the gloaming"
radiohead
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
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!
FAQ from EU IP directive
i ntprop/news/index.htm
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/
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
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!
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.
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/
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).
:-P
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
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
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
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
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.
``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''
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.
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"
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!
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
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.