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.

Comments

Ford Prefect... the Car?

[LordYUK]

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!!

Re:Ford Prefect... the Car?

[Colin Douglas Howell]

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.

At least europeans are being screwed too

[xThinkx]

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.

a good example

[Potor]

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

Re:a good example

[Thing 1]

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!

Scary Stuff

[einhverfr]

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.

grrr

[saskwach]

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]

I'm glad to see...

[BJZQ8]

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

"Intellectual property" is an oxymoron

[heironymouscoward]

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.

Reject the proposal? Hah!

[SysKoll]

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