Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Poised to Attack P2P File-Sharers

Posted by timothy on from the all-fronts-engaged dept.

Robin Gross of IP Justice writes "The EU is about to vote on a controversial piece of legislation that targets P2P file-sharing and other non-commercial infringements. The EU Intellectual Property Rights Directive creates a 'nuclear weapons' of law enforcement tools for intellectual property holders. It combines the most extreme enforcement provisions found throughout Europe and imposes them collectively onto all of Europe, for example England's Anton Pillar orders that permit recording industry executives to raid and ransack the homes of alleged users of file-sharing software or it's Mareva injunctions that freeze a defendant's bank accounts without a hearing. The vote in the EU plenary will likely be March 11, 2004 - watch the CODE site for developments."

49 comments

  1. America the beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    for example England's Anton Pillar orders that permit recording industry executives to raid and ransack the homes of alleged users of file-sharing software or it's Mareva injunctions that freeze a defendant's bank accounts without a hearing.

    Whew, thank goodness I live in America, LAND OF THE FREE, where our mighty Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us from this kind of unchecked government abuse and corporate favoritism! Silly Europeans!

    (No seriously, we did have a constitution, I saw it once.)

    1. Re:America the beautiful by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 3, Funny

      (No seriously, we did have a constitution, I saw it once.)

      Its still around, though you have to go hunting through sewage after John and George used it to wipe their collective asses.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    2. Re:America the beautiful by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Have the Beatles ever apologized for that particular incident?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:America the beautiful by Mork29 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, the constitution was a great idea once. It didn't entirely work though. Slavery was legal under it. We had to add stuff in to make that illegal. It was a great idea, and a framework, but I don't think it was quite detailed enough. I think it was more of a great and grand idea thought up by our fore-fathers, and we were supposed to uphold the ideal of the constitution, not "interpret the wording" and all of that fun stuff. It's an idea, and it's an idea that's been perverted for the past 200 years or so.

    4. Re:America the beautiful by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many of the founding fathers wished to outlaw slavery, but they knew they'd never get a constitution with that. It'd be kind of like today if you tried to put a "ban abortion" plank in the constitution (please don't draw inferences from this.) If that was tried, it would never happen. They had to sacrifice a limb to save the body, and they did. I give them more credit for that than strict adherence to a futile goal. At the time, everyone was very aware the Constitution had limitations. One of the outcomes of that was the bill of rights.

      As for perverting it, I'd say the biggest examples of this are excessive federalization of what clearly are state issues; and judicial fiat, which is probably the biggest threat our constitution has. Other than that, we've been on a steady and fairly unbroken course of realizing the constitution not only as the founding fathers intended, but even further toward its philosophical ideal.

    5. Re:America the beautiful by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I do agree with most of what you wrote, there is one place where I deviate.

      judicial fiat, which is probably the biggest threat our constitution has.

      If you look at our past, rarely has the legislature, lead strongly on the case of civil rights for all. Judicial fiat, gained us many things that our mostly self serving representives were too afaid to stand up for. The addoption of the idea of "Separation of church and state", while originally put forth by Thomas Jefferson, was addopted early on. During the 60's "separate but not equal" doctrine was adopted through judial fiat. More currently, the outlawing of Texas's anti-sodomy laws was done by judial fiat.

      IMHO as long as our legislature is beholden to fear of reprisal, real positive change on behalf of minority groups will just not happen if it were not for the judial branch.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    6. Re:America the beautiful by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      It's power is also what makes it the most dangerous, in my opinion. It's been used for a lot of good, but its wide open to rampant abuse. It's actually abused far more frequently and severely at the state level, I'd say. I'm thinking specifically in cases where courts are handing down rulings on things that aren't even court cases. That's just abusing authority.

      While not exactly referring to judicial fiat, things like mandatory sentencing legislation are in direct response to courts just doing whatever they want. people complain about mandatory sentencing taking away discretion from judges without pausing to think why people are so interested in this legislation to begin with. I see this the same way. Juducial fiat is either a strong defense against the tyranny of the majority, or its a flagrant abuse of possibly the most powerful branch of government. if they use it too much, they are going to lose it, and thats worse in the long run for everyone.

    7. Re:America the beautiful by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking specifically in cases where courts are handing down rulings on things that aren't even court cases.

      I'd be curious to hear what cases you're thinking of. As far as I know that would not merely be an abuse of authority, it would be a non-existant authority.

      possibly the most powerful branch

      An interesting argument can be made for any of the three branches. One of the major limitations placed on the judicial branch is that it's only power is to rule on genuine contoversies they are brought to it by someone else. Unless I'm sorely mistaken they do not have the ability to hand down any ruling on anything that is not a court case. They are also limited to ruling based on the law that is written (and can be re-written) by the legislative branch - with the Constitutional being the highest such law.

      The exectutive branch is the only branch commanded by a single individual. It is the only branch with "real" power - the other two branches only have the power to push paper around. It commands the army and all law enforcement agents, and has the ultimate power of marcial law. The interpretation of any law in any situation is initially (and perhaps most importantly) made by the executive branch in choosing whether to make an arrest or not. No law has any effect unless enforced/carried-out by the executive branch.

      However it is usually the legislative branch that is probably most often cited as the most powerful. That is is exactly why legislative power is divided across vastly more people than the other branches. The executive branch is ultimately under the power of a single person. The judicial branch is ultimately under the power of the nine member Supreme Court. Legislative power is spread across some six-hundred-odd people. They get to write/alter/eliminate the laws. Every act of congress is pure fiat. The legislative branch also holds ultimate power of the purse, no branch can do anything without money earmarked to pay someone to do it.

      Personally I kinda like the judicial branch. It's the only branch that gives a rats-ass about protecting the public and people's rights and saying "NO, the government cannot X". (Can't do it, short of a constitutional amendment lifting the prohibition against doing X of course.)

      Anyway, I was curious what rulings you were thinking of "on things that aren't even court cases".

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    8. Re:America the beautiful by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 1

      It's power is also what makes it the most dangerous, in my opinion.

      I would disagree with the most dangerous. Generally they cannot take action on something that has not been submitted to them. The executive branch can issue executive orders without the vetting of either the Judiary or the Legislature.

      It's been used for a lot of good, but its wide open to rampant abuse.

      It definately could be abused, but on the whole, the job of Supreme Court Justice is one of the most vetted in all of public service. As for lower circuit courts, they are overseen and overturned when well out of line. The 9th circuit, while most controveral is the most overturned. IMHO this shows that the system of internal checks and balances of just the judiary works.

      It's actually abused far more frequently and severely at the state level, I'd say.

      At the state level, there is a process of challenging those rulings. The only place where judial fiat is truely dangerous is at the level of the supreme court, as the only remedy is altering the constitution or waiting until one retires to change the make up.

      I'm thinking specifically in cases where courts are handing down rulings on things that aren't even court cases. That's just abusing authority.

      Can you site an example? Generally unless it is a court case any judiary cannot go anywhere near it.

      While not exactly referring to judicial fiat, things like mandatory sentencing legislation are in direct response to courts just doing whatever they want. people complain about mandatory sentencing taking away discretion from judges without pausing to think why people are so interested in this legislation to begin with.

      Mandatory sentancing is a result of public frustration at the system in general, not at just judial activism or incorrect judment by judiaries. Basically if you look at the time a person is arested to the time they hit the street after being sentanced, the time for most is much more influenced by plea bargining and parole hearings then activist judges.

      To be truthful, madatory sentancing is much more dangerous to society then any activist judge. Mandatory sentancing is ripe for abuse by district attornies to coerse plea bargins from people who would otherwise take their chances with a trial, since certain levels of sentancing will be garenteed.

      Our criminal justice system is a complete failure when it is used as a political tool which is what mandatory sentancing is.

      Juducial fiat is either a strong defense against the tyranny of the majority, or its a flagrant abuse of possibly the most powerful branch of government.

      The issue is when its claimed to be flagrant abuse, typically it is not at the cost of oppressing the majority, which is how that statement positions itself. More often then not it is the other way around. Ultimately if the supreme judiary were truely to be come a rogue court, then amending the constitution could be used to rein them in.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
  2. Innocent by Andy+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Check my posting history to see how ANTI-piracy I am but...

    Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental requirement of justice.

    Any law that assumes guilt can play no part in the provision of justice to all. Justice is not solely about punishing the guilty, it is as much about NOT punishing the innocent.

    1. Re:Innocent by trezor · · Score: 4, Interesting
      • Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental requirement of justice.

      Oh.. In case you missed it, that is totally irellevant. You see, you are facing the recording industry here, not any agancy of legal investigation.

      That they now seem to be given even more powers than these agencies, is however quite disturbing.

      Now, I'll have to flee Europa as well.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    2. Re:Innocent by ichimunki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Check my posting history to see that I don't approve of copyright law in the first place but...

      Innocent until proven guilty is not at issue here. The write-up is totally misleading. Things like Anton Pillar orders are not license to "ransack" they are there to assist in finding infringing material. The orders cannot be issued without a court approval and there are oversight measures in place to ensure that things are done properly.

      As far as I can tell this would be completely legal in the U.S., where the 4th amendment protects against "unreasonable" search and seizure, but does not say who is to conduct those searches. In some sense, what the government is doing here is deputizing the plaintiff temporarily and for a specific purpose.

      If you can stand for the fairly arbitrary seizure practices that already exist vis-a-vis the drug war, then this is hardly a problem by comparison. In the case of the drug war, they redefine your property as the spoils of ill-gotten gains (i.e. drug-selling) and then seize them and resell them. In the case of Anton Pillar orders, the seizure is infringing materials themselves (or tools of infringement, I suppose, like computers or whatever).

      The point is to preserve evidence of guilt through trial. Which makes sense.

      The problem here is not the enforcement tools but the underlying notion that ideas are somehow a form of property (which is what the Berne convention changed in contradiction of the U.S. Constitution). So your ANTI-piracy attitude is behind this a lot more than some willing ignorance of constitutional/human rights is.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    3. Re:Innocent by darien · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'll have to flee Europa as well.

      You live here? Yeah, I'd probably flee too, before the RIAJ caught me...

    4. Re:Innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is with this "Europa" business? Europa is a moon. The continent you are referring to is called Europe in English.

    5. Re:Innocent by trezor · · Score: 1

      Err... My bad. It's written Europa in Norwegian :) Must have slipped by my sight.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
  3. You americans... also have problem! by kompiluj · · Score: 5, Informative

    When I saw in Lessig's blog what presidential candidate Mr Kerry has to say about enforcing IP rights I really shuddered.
    Look at: Lessig blog entry and Kerry about technology

    --
    You can defy gravity... for a short time
  4. Shred gtk-gnutella before 01 May 2004? by dimss · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does it mean that I have to shred my gtk-gnutella and dcgui before my country becomes part of EU? Now I don't see any positive sides of EU.

    1. Re:Shred gtk-gnutella before 01 May 2004? by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does it mean that I have to shred my gtk-gnutella and dcgui before my country becomes part of EU?

      Naw just don't use it after your country becomes EUified...Switch to FreeNet, well until using encryption becomes illegal...

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
  5. Nice, fortunally europe != country by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Informative
    There is a lot of EU laws like this that get proposed and never are passed. Even fewer that ever get adopted by the individual countries.

    The EU is even more extreme in its introduced laws then the US because of the far greater number of political parties. Fortunally we also got far more parties that will therefore be opposed to the more extreme proposals. Not like the US were at times one or the other party is supposed to be in control.

    So yes we should be worried about this proposal but if democracy still works then it will fail as with similar proposals before. Europe may not get much done but they have succeeded so far in getting a lot of things not done. Including people not getting sentenced because the european of human rights overturns national laws that slipped through. And given its track record so far that court would never hold up a case based on this. Long live the lawyers eh.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  6. Constitution vs. freedom by trezor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fsck your holy constitution, we used to have freedom in Europa.

    Now that golden era seems to be fading.

    Strange thing... No really! "Suffering" artists forced to live lifes of "only semi-luxery" *pun intended* seem to take away more freedom and legal protection from people worldwide these days, than anything else. "War on terror" included.

    I'm afraid of a corporative appocalyptic future these days...............

    --
    Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    1. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fsck your holy constitution, we used to have freedom in Europa.

      Hmmm odd. That was what the comment was refering to...At a point in the not to distant past our "holy constitution" was the stick that was used to maintain some level of freedom, here in the states.

      Strange thing... No really! "Suffering" artists forced to live lifes of "only semi-luxery" *pun intended* seem to take away more freedom and legal protection from people worldwide these days, than anything else. "War on terror" included.

      I am no fan of any of the RIAA(subsitute local version). My personal take is the if they cannot adapt to the changing world, let them die. The fact that this type of legislation goes well and above what we in the states currently are dealing with, I feel for you. If you are really opposed, put your money were your text is...Contribute to action groups in your locality that are opposed to such power grabs. I can say my self here, I contribute to the ACLU, EFF, along with various other defence funds as they pop up.

      I am completely dismayed at our current presidential canidates, on one hand we have the menace to the free world, Bush, and the human weather vane, Kerry. Its obvious that Bush is a criminal and most of his administration should be thrown in jail. Kerry on the other hand has taken more special interest money then any senator in congress...Gee what a great selection. I have no doubt in the next four years things are not going to get better unless the little folks become a power block.

      "War on terror" included.

      The "War on terror" is nothing more then a political football, used to keep people afraid and in line. Its currently being used as a smoke screen for the internationally illegal action in the middle east. The fact that Bush and his cronies have held the folks in Guentanemo for nearly two years with zero due process is sickening...You are correct, the "War on Terror" is nothing but a war on feedom...

      I'm afraid of a corporative appocalyptic future these days...............

      Afraid of corperations!?! They have nothing on governments.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    2. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by trezor · · Score: 1
      • The "War on terror" is nothing more then a political football, used to keep people afraid and in line.

      Thats why I used quotes when I referred to the "War on terror". I also believe it's balgoney, but alot of nasty things are justified by it. Thus, worthy a writeup in my last comment.

      Even if it was a real war on terror, it still be as doomed as the war on drugs. It's kinda like trying to cure the syndromes, and not going for the underlying decease.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    3. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by drokus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Fsck your holy constitution, we used to have freedom in Europa."

      How many American soldiers lost their lives in WW 1 and WW2 to protect/return that freedom you speak of?

    4. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even if it was a real war on terror, it still be as doomed as the war on drugs.

      Nothing can be that doomed...:-)

      Terrorism isn't really something both parties willingly recieve or want; where as in most cases drugs are.

      It's kinda like trying to cure the syndromes, and not going for the underlying decease.

      Or in the case of drugs, going after something that is not in some cases a desease. Marajana has been proven to have viable and in some cases superior medicinal value then some pharma drugs. The real war on drugs is all about pharma companies making sure their profit margins aren't affected at the cost of sick people. Also its pretty sickening that in the US, more then 50% of imates in our prisons are there on drug convictions, most for mere possesion.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    5. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by trezor · · Score: 1

      Well... How many Europeans died in WW1/2, how many Russians? I'm not sure. I'm not even going to go for a full bodycount here, because that's really not the real issue here at all.

      In my fsck-that statement, I was reffering to that printed words mean nothing. It's the actual freedom that counts.

      --
      Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
    6. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by ReaperOfSouls · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that had more to do with the attack on pearl harbour than the europeans.

      Actually Roosevelt was secretly aiding Britain prior to Pearl Harbor.

      And how many Japanese had to die for you to try out your new toy?

      Its a tough one, but you could make a strong argument that more lives were saved by dropping said toy twice, then would have come about by a full scale land assault on main land Japan. Even after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese Govt. was not convinced that the US had the capability to produce more.

      --
      Shameless self promotion : The Misadvetures of the in
    7. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by cyborch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In my fsck-that statement, I was reffering to that printed words mean nothing. It's the actual freedom that counts.

      How so? There are countries where you would not be allowed to write the above statement. Is that freedom? Are you truely free if you are not allowed to print your thoughts? In some countries censorship extends to the level that you would not even be allowed to write the sentence you just wrote. Living on such a country might change your view on whether or not freedom of speech is a part of freedom.

    8. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by yosemite · · Score: 2, Interesting

      check out this
      scrolling down we get this list,

      The country-by-country medians for military personnel killed in the war are:

      * USSR: 10.0M
      * Germany: 3.5M
      * China: 2.05M
      * Japan: 1.5M
      * USA: 0.4M
      * Romania: 0.3M
      * Yugoslavia: 0.3M
      * UK: 0.28M
      * Italy: 0.23M
      * France: 0.21M
      * Hungary: 0.14M
      * Poland: 0.125M
      * TOTAL: 19.0M

      looks like we all owe stalin a big fat thank you.

    9. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      Fsck your holy constitution, we used to have freedom in Europa.

      Was that before or after the Lucifer detonation?

      ALL THESE MOONS ARE YOURS... EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    10. Re:Constitution vs. freedom by AndrewRUK · · Score: 1

      I think you may have missed the point being made, which is that a written document saying you have certain rights is not what is important, it is that you do (or do not) actually have those rights which is important. If the printed words are ignored, they may as well not exist, and you can have the freedoms without haveing the printed words saying you have them.

      For example, a law saying "An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) [for police to use special ant-terrorism powers] may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism." (Section 44(3) of the UK's Terrorism Act) is irrelevent if it is ignored, and police are allowed to use those powers to harrass peaceful protestors (see the link in my sig, or this page.)

  7. Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country by anarxia · · Score: 2, Informative
    Worried yes, but it isn't as bad as the poster made it sound.

    Quoting the article:

    According to reports of EU negotiations, the directive will no longer attempt to exceed its jurisdiction by creating criminal law sanctions (Article 20) and the right of information (Article 9) will be limited to "appropriate court cases" to ensure that a case has been filed before personal information is forcibly disclosed. Together with an exclusion of (Article 21's) ban on technical devices, these changes would mark an improvement in the directive's overall handling of consumer rights.
  8. Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country by GerritHoll · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The EU is even more extreme in its introduced laws then the US because of the far greater number of political parties.

    This is bound to become much, much worse in the coming years. There may be weird parties in the EP (European Parliament) already, but with middle and north-eastern europe getting into the EU soon, it is very likely that extremely conservative, extremely royalist and stalinist parties will join the European Parliament. I can already see an extremely-communist party from Poland or similar wanting to ban Microsoft from Europe altogether (which would not be such a bad idea after all ;-)

  9. Troll by Dayflowers · · Score: 0

    I believe Flamebait would be a more suitable adjective for this particular post.

    --
    I am a speak english. Do you not? - Saroto
  10. Howcome only i can read it ? by moro_666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If any of you "american patriots" would know a thing about
    how EU works and even read a few lines from the article
    pointed out you would see that it will only be a directive
    not a law itself.

    In pure English said like that : your country problaly(,
    we think and hope,) should make a law that somehow enforces
    the idea of the directive.

    Don't jump into conclusions too quickly, the EU has far
    more important problems with economy and extending itself
    than doing anything about the P2P software.

    I live in a country that will soon be in EU, and i don't
    worry about this directive for 5-6 years i think. At least
    so long will it take to make it affect all the countries
    in EU.

    Besides, most good p2p clients we know are virtually dead
    already.

    Even if the laws are ever made in the countries there are
    going to be clients who encrypt the data being sent to
    eachother and are considered as private as e-mailing or
    instant messaging, so none has really anything to say
    about it.

    Nowadays even a msn bot is writeable which would work like
    some kind of p2p file sharing program, e.g. the bot reacts
    to questions like searchfile:name and sendmefile:name , do
    your really think the EU can forbid us the msn
    connections ?

    dont't think so.

    Keep up the hope brothers, P2P will not die.

    --

    I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    1. Re:Howcome only i can read it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EU Directives can supersede domestic law. Each country is supposed to enact laws to implement the directive, but those laws can be overturned or ignored if they conflict with the directive (depending on whether the directive is enabling or prescriptive - "you can do X" vs "you must do X"). Happens all the time.

    2. Re:Howcome only i can read it ? by moro_666 · · Score: 1

      lol, it doesn't have an affect when EU has very strong
      directives about dining places, cafes and so on in the
      southen parts like italy and spain, but they should
      supersede in P2P ? come on peopel, the EU has no
      global resources to waste on these kind of operations.

      come on, even you don't believe that , do you ?

      the fact is, directives are not laws, and not for
      fulfilling directives the blame gets the country,
      and not the person himself. at least until now
      it has worked liked that imho.

      [e.g. germany as a country gets a financial hit if it
      doesn't make laws which are pursued by a directive, not
      the german people who break the directive.]

      --

      I'd tell you the chances of this story being a dupe, but you wouldn't like it.
    3. Re:Howcome only i can read it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not the same AC as the previous one, but I'll concur: you don't know the whole picture of the EU procedures. It is a fact that the European Court of Justice functions as a sort of supreme court on issues of European law and treaties. If a country does not adopt a directive in its legislation by three years after the directive is established (the exact deadline may be changed within the process leading up to the directive), then two things happen:

      1) the EU commission sues the country for violation of its treaty obligation in the EU Court of Justice, usually resulting fines for the government, and a court order to adopt the directive by a new deadline.

      2) The directive becomes EU law regardless, and is required to be taken into account by national courts as well as the European Court Of Justice. If a country has adopted its own version of the directive in its legislation, then that is what is applied; otherwise the generic directive applies.

      Individual citizens or corporations can sue on the basis of EU law, even if the national law contradicts EU law. I am not sure how things work elsewhere, but in Finland contradictions between EU law and Finnish law are usually resolved in favour of Finnish law in lower courts, but in case either side appeals up to the Finnish supreme court, on matters of EU law the supreme court is required to ask for a decision by the European Court of Justice, which can find Finnish laws unenforceable. For example, last year a lawsuit by an individual car importer resulted in Finnish customs regulations having to be rewritten to make them conform to EU law.

  11. Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country by tilk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For Polish government, communism is the root of all evil. I didn't heard of any Polish communist party, so "an extremely-communist party from Poland" surely will not join the Europarl. The idea of "banning Microsoft" also will not come from Poland - our government is a bunch of stupid Microsoft-lovers, that don't see (or don't know of?) any alternative and wastes A LOT of public money for Microsoft products (and Poland isn't a rich country).

    Anyway, Polish politicians surely ARE bunch of assholes, that care more for their own wallets, than for their country. EU, beware!

  12. Complacency by metamatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a lot of EU laws like this that get proposed and never are passed. Even fewer that ever get adopted by the individual countries.

    You know, that's exactly what people told me when I was campaigning against GATT and the formation of the WTO.

    It's also exactly what people said when the even-more-extreme EU version of the DMCA was passed.

    Guess what? Both pieces of legislation were adopted wholesale by the UK government; one by a Conservative government, the other by the "opposing" Labour government.

    There are always plenty of complacent fools who sit around and say "Oh, it's just some EU law, it'll never actually happen." They were wrong then, they're wrong now.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
  13. Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country by GerritHoll · · Score: 1
    Congrats, you have proven that I lack any knowledge ;-)

    It seems the czechs do have a communist party, but I don't know their views. The same is true for Slovakia. To be honest, I've always thought all (ex-)communist countries had communist parties, and a pendulum democracy, but apparantly they don't. But I shudder to have someone like Simeon II having power over my legislation - but Bulgaria is only joining in a few years anyhow.

    Rating: -1, offtopic

  14. EU != Europe by ffub · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The EU Intellectual Property Rights Directive creates a 'nuclear weapons' of law enforcement tools for intellectual property holders. It combines the most extreme enforcement provisions found throughout Europe and imposes them collectively onto all of Europe

    Or maybe it just applies them to the EU?

    1. Re:EU != Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite: it would also have to be ratified in EEA (European Economic Area) countries outside the EU, namely Norway, Switzerland and Iceland. I also believe that the miniature states surrounded by the EU (Andorra, Monaco, Vatican) follow EU laws for the most part. This leaves out then Liechtenstein, Albania, Croatia, Serbia & Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia, Romania, Bulgaria, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, the Caucasian countries, and the European parts of Russia and Turkey. Those amount to something like 40% of the European population.

  15. Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    So yes we should be worried about this proposal but if democracy still works then it will fail as with similar proposals before. Europe may not get much done but they have succeeded so far in getting a lot of things not done. Including people not getting sentenced because the european of human rights overturns national laws that slipped through. And given its track record so far that court would never hold up a case based on this. Long live the lawyers eh.

    Umm... whether or not the courts uphold this, it allows some incredible pre-emptive actions by copyright holders without the courts getting involved at all.

  16. Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country by tilk · · Score: 1

    Well, after some googling I found KPP ("Communist Party of Poland"), but I never heard about them before - they never were in the parliament, their election campaign must have been quiet, if they had any. Even Samoobrona ("Self-defense"), a "farmer's party", is in parliament now, and their leader, Andrzej Lepper, is widely known (mainly for his stupidity). But communists? In post-communist Poland communists never were a strong force.

  17. Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's true with Czechs with their Social Democratic Party (30%) and Communist Party (almost 20%). But with Slovakia, it's exactly opposite. Right now, we have right wing government composed from conservative, christian and liberal parties. Communists gained only 6% and I strongly doubt they'll be in the parliament next term (there is 5% boundary). Besides, nobody wants to talk to them. Everybody ignores them :) We are applying very pro-market oriented reforms one by one which is also in the opposite direction from Czech Republic where they spend money like there is no tomorrow.

    Therefore if you are conservative, christian or
    more to the right from center, you WILL GAIN by new presence of Slovakia :) If you are left oriented (which you probably aren't due to your attitude to communists) or bigot atheist, you'll probably be less happy after May..

  18. Fuck the EU by ksemlerK · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'll propably get modded down for this, but I don't really give a flying fuck. I am sick of the EU thinking that they are so fucking great, just because they have many countries that are members that span a contident. They have made thier oown cross-country currency called the Euro, (what an original name, NOT), but that is not a bad thing. Personally, I think it would b a lot better if there was only 1 currency worldwide just primaily for the ease of cinversion. But that is not what I am bitching about.

    What I am bitching about is that the EU wants to become the next world power. One question, How the hell are they going to manage this, unless the individual countries lose thier soverntey, and become like states in the US with a centeral govonrment? I think that this is the next step, and it is going to suck. All signs point to "yes" for this happening. The EU took on MS, but that is usually the private domain of an individual country, not a conglomeration of shitheads. Plus, how long so you think that this stability will last? Not too long. The UN was founded on the same idea of nations joining together for the good of them all, but have we ever had peace among all nations involved in it? NO! Did the Versillis treaty prevent WW2? NO, did the Warwaw pact get anything useful done? NO! Communism failed, as it is a flawed system. so why o people think that the EU will succeed? History has shown that "unionised" countries are not very productive. What's next? A worldwide religion containing all the major beliefs from all of the religions except Christianity? Plus, the US has more tactical nuclear weapons than all of the european contident, within 45 miniutes, we could destroy every life form on the planet, and render the EU radioactive for 10000+ years. Eat Shit EU! We dont need you!

    --
    Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!