Slashdot Mirror
EU About To Consider Stringent Anti-Sharing Law
chrestomanci writes " The Register have just posted a news item about the EU IP Rights Enforcement Bill. Theres is an editorial about the issue in PC Magazine. The bill if passed would give intellectual property holders draconian powers to enforce their IP against infringers. The powers available include sending rent-a-cops to private homes, seizing assets, freezing bank accounts, and confiscating and ISP's equipment on suspicion.
Any of these powers could be used against a 12-year-old file sharer, as easily as against a large scale commercial piracy operation
The bill has been proposed by the French MEP Janelly Fourtou, whose husband is the the head of Vivendi Universal. She has placed the bill on a 'First Reading' track that does not allow debate, and is normally reserved for bills with near unanimous support. The deadline for amendments is today.
If you are a European citizen it is time to write to your Member of the European Parliament. The final vote will be between the 8th and 11th March." (We mentioned this a few weeks ago, too.)
they told me in kindergarten that sharing was a good thing
Won't somebody please think of the children? This is exactly why we have exemptions in the law for children who murder and steal, as they should be protected. The little darlings.
"confiscating and ISP's equipment on suspicion"
I can see this being a real problem to any isp with a newsgroup server.
is that acceptance of Internet is much slower than it is in the US. It is hard to remove a perceived right in the US but in the EU most people aren't sharing files yet so it will be easier for them to implement such laws.
Disclaimer: I am a US citizen. And please don't construe this as a flame.
When the standard-issue starts kicking in my door, without a PROPER search warrant, executed and issued by a JUDGE, is when I start considering violence, and start shooting back.
When I was in the US Army years ago, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States - I am no longer in the Army, but still consider that oath to be valid.
"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the president of the United States and the orders of the Officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice.
So help me God!"
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
The bill has been proposed by the French MEP Janelly Fourtou...
BTW, Fourtou is translated in english as "fuck-all", I kid you not!
http://www.club977.com/ - The 80's Channel!
Your source for commercial free 80's music!
Kill the EU IP Rights Enforcement Bill!
Civil liberties and consumer rights groups are calling on MEPs to reject the EU Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive.
Today (3 March) is the last day that amendments can be tabled before the final debate and vote, from 8-11 March.
IP Justice, an international coalition of civil liberties groups and consumer rights activists, is organising a protest in Strasbourg to "uphold traditional civil liberties against the over-zealous enforcement of intellectual property rights". The meeting will be held outside the EU Parliament on 8 March between 4.30pm and 6.30pm.
The bill was introduced to make it easier to tackle large scale pirating operations, and to create a consistent, pan-European approach to intellectual property law. But many groups, including Campaign for an Open Digital Environment (CODE) and the EFF, are concerned about the way the bill has been rushed through the European Parliament.
The directive's Rapporteur, French MEP Janelly Fourtou, (who, incidentally, is wife of the head of Vivendi Universal) has placed it on a "First Reading". This is usually reserved for directives on which there is already unanimous agreement, and does not allow for public debate. This meant the directive could be drafted behind closed doors.
Civil rights groups want the proposal sent into a second reading, where its provisions can be publicly considered.
According to the BSA, 25 per cent of software in use in the UK is illegal. It claims that reducing this to 15 per cent would generate an extra 2.5bn in tax revenues and 40,000 jobs in the IT sector. It points out that organised crime gangs have moved into software piracy on a large scale, and argues that tough legislation is needed to stop this.
Few people would seriously oppose a law that would tackle these problems, and make it easier for industry to go after real criminals: the organised crime gangs, the people selling sub-standard software, or pirating thousands of videos.
However, this directive fails to distinguish between commercial counterfeiting, and inadvertent individual copyright infringement. This means a 12-year old P2P file sharer, or someone photocopying pages from a library text book at university, is seen as identical to a large scale piracy operation filtering money into organised crime.
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure UK (FFII-UK) proposed a set of amendments that it says would reduce the directive's harm to consumers, including limiting its scope to commercial cases.
As it stands, this directive grants some very scary powers to rights holders. Consider the Anton Piller orders: these enable rights holders to hire private police to raid a suspect's home.
This was previously restricted to very rare, large commercial infringers. The Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) points out that now, anyone who infringes copyright - even unwittingly - may have his or her "assets seized, bank account frozen and home invaded".
The bill creates a new "Right of Information" that allows rights holders to obtain personal information on P2P file sharers. An ISP's servers can be seized and destroyed with no hearing if one of their customers is alleged to have infringed a copyright.
It fails to define the term 'intellectual property rights', so interpretation will vary hugely from country to country when/if the directive becomes law, undermining one of the main objectives of the legislation: harmonising EU law.
Neither the Business Software Alliance, nor the British Phonographic Industry was able to provide any comment on the implications of this directive for consumers before we went to press.
CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
Just like a similar US story: License to Hack"
Then you can have the same powers to attack the big guys. Legally.
Ummm - who do i write to if my MEP is an ex-artist? I don't think she'd take too kindly to filesharing.
Ahem. Are you quite sure about that? And just to drive the point home: Are you quite sure about that?
I am guessing you don't live in Europe. I am constantly amused by Americans who think Europe is this backwater continent which is not quite up to date with respect to the rest of the world. It may have been true 50 years old. It's no longer the case.
...please empty your rights and privileges into the trash bin to your left, and step through the metal detector for further processing. Have a nice day!
The Eurpoean Union was a good idea when it was an economic union. Increasingly, however, European countries seem to be giving up thier individual sovereignty, and the result is legislation like this. Instead of removing economic restrictions to promote free trade, the EU is now creating new political and social restrictions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was never it's original intent, right?
I would have modded you wrong. Sadly there is no "wrong" mod so I'm replying in stead...
Please tell me where you have your information. How is internet acceptance much slower in EU than in US? 81% of the danish population have internet access at home according to Dansk Statistik.
For the most blatent example, see the "free market" sell off of the assets of Iraq, completed before its people get a chance to react.
--Mike--
Why is this not on the front page?
The police aren't the law... WE are the law. We set this government up, and WE have the right to override/revise/replace it.
--Mike--
We've got an educational system that pumps out standard model consumer units, instead of concerned Citizens. Only a few of us were fortunate enough to have a nasty childhood which had the benefit of distracting us from the brainwashing.
We unhappy few are pissed that we've got a system where the majority has been assimilated, and are willing to be sheep. We need to wake them up, or get them the hell out of the way, before this whole system implodes under its own weight... or as a last resort, figure out how to hunker down and ride out a rerun of Nazi Germany.
--Mike--
I see article after article expounding the evilness of the corporate might bullying the public for their own greedy ends. It so seems to be a losing battle, where the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many. Is this a generational thing? Are we looking at an outmoded social order whose decline can be likened to that of the Roman Empire? I dunno, except I refuse to be part of the greedy, however I can best achieve that.
Actually it wasn't true 50 years ago. It hasn't been true since the industrial revolution (which started in England and spread through Europe).
If anything, America was most recently a cultural backwater (during the late 1800's) and has only relatively recently become 'civilised'.
Worth rehashing, because this story looks more and more normal every day, until we're going to discard it with a "naturally! and what are you complaining about ?"
Excerpt from the "The Right to Read" article:
For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college--when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.
This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do.
I'm actually happy to hear how draconian this proposal is. That decreases its chances of being passed, I think. I hope. Okay, really I'm worried... Just because any rational person would vote this monster down doesn't mean any politician will.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Most European countries have a constitution that cannot allow this law to come into effect. It will , I'm sure, be an interresting debate (if there is one...).
This is really a desperate attempt, and I have a hard time believing this law will ever fly. There is no turning back the clock and these kind of asenine attempts will only estrange the general public even more from the current law. Fascism and free markets don't mix very well, since people tend to want to decide things for themselves and like to think that they have a right to freedom and prosperity. Take that away and the system breaks down.
I find the frightening part to be that a lot of lawmakers seem to be oblivous of the gravity of going against what people perceive to be "their rights". If just 5% of the public in Europe were to walk out of their place of work or even steal a candy bar, there would be horrible aftermath. This kind of legislation only provoces more civil disobedience (or something worse).
According to the BSA, 25 per cent of software in use in the UK is illegal. It claims that reducing this to 15 per cent would generate an extra 2.5bn in tax revenues and 40,000 jobs in the IT sector
Imposing an extra 2.5 billion pounds in taxes on revenues, plus an extra 25 billion pounds in costs on businesses, would be a huge minus for the economy, in particular given that a lot of those 25 billion pounds would be leaving Europe. And how is paying more money to the likes of Microsoft or Oracle going to create IT jobs? But, I suppose, those kinds of arguments may make sense to an association aptly named the "B.S. Association".
The solution, of course, is not to pirate commercial software, the solution is to dump it altogether.
I would actually be all for the most draconian enforcement of commercial licenses possible. But I fear that much of this is actually a smokescreen for hassling open source users, because the presumption will likely be that if you didn't pay for a Microsoft license, you must have pirated their software.
It fails to define the term 'intellectual property rights', so interpretation will vary hugely from country to country when/if the directive becomes law, undermining one of the main objectives of the legislation: harmonising EU law.
OK, good, so when we believe Vivendi Universal is using GPL'ed software in violation of the provisions of the license, I guess that means we can have their corporate hardware and software seized and the homes of their corporate officers searched.
Furthermore, the amount of encrypted (so-called VPN) traffic entering and leaving their site clearly indicates that they must be running a covert file sharing network and using cryptography to share illegally obtained content.
These people are still living in the intellectual dark ages, where they think that they are the only ones who hold copyrights. I think if they started becoming aware what risks they expose their own companies to, they might tread a little more carefully with such proposals.
Under the banner of "harmonization" which is a big part of how the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 was argued for (and won). It would be foolish to look at this legislation as something that happens "over there", something we don't need to educate the public about here too.
Digital Citizen
Quick! Find all the Vivendi intellectual property and put in on file-sharing systems.
When having copies of intellectual property is even more illegal, hackers will still have it. The proposed laws are just daring every hacker in the world to post everything they can find.
Those who don't like to think carefully about social problems, and have power, often say, "Let's make a law", instead of thinking.
However, someone must do the thinking, or the problem will not be solved.
If they actually want to start giving corporations police powers then we are all in trouble. The day that Vivendi can freeze your bank account or search your house cause you copied a cd for a friend is the day that smart people stop putting their money in banks and start holding on to their cash for privacy reasons. If I were an EU bank I would be worried because if people think that their money is not safe in banks the banks will start failing and the economy will tank.
The bill has been proposed by the French MEP Janelly Fourtou, whose husband is the the head of Vivendi Universal.
Let no American complain about shady dealings with Halliburton when the French can let crap like that happen.
The French used to have the right idea about how to deal with uppity rich people. In case you're unfamiliar with it, it starts with 'g' and ends with "uillotine". I do hope the French people keep in mind that the old ways are the best ways. :)
What does the 14th amendment have to do with this? Corporate personhood is a legal fiction invented by the courts in the 1886 case "Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company".
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Wasn't there a term for texts,
..Oh, right, cyberpunk.
like the article,
that describe societly where corporations rule and "Copyright infrigment" is a death penalty offence?
"667 - Neighbour of the beast"
This is just the shot across the bow. While we're all at the pub celebrating the failure of this bill, the new improved version (with 40% less national socialism, mein fueher!) will be quietly passed as a "reasonable compromise".
Mark my words!
--Grendel's mom
Dear Mr. Huhne,
Please could you use your influence to challenge the proposed EU directive on Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement which will be voted on on March 8th 2004. This directive as it stands is deeply flawed as it treats individual people who may unintentionally infringe copyright in the same way as ruthless criminals and counterfeiting gangs. Please support (on my behalf) an amendment to the directive which would target the master criminals rather than the ten year-old boy who taped his favourite song off the radio.
While I agree that copyright is an important thing to protect (as an artist, I would not like my work to be ripped off against my wishes), I am concerned that granting corporations the right to invade people's homes with private police forces is just too far into George Orwell's 1984 to belong in a free 21st Century.
I am concerned about the way in which this directive is being rushed through parliament by certain parties without proper debate. It should be altered so that measures taken are relative to the scale of infringement so as not to erode basic civil liberties nor stifle innovation.
Thanks for your time,
Malcolm Smith
[Vaguely modelled on the EFF's page]
Come on people: take a few minutes this weekend to ensure these good people have messages in their Inbox on Monday morning!
Co-operation beats competition