EU Passes Nasty IP Law

FireBreathingDog writes "This BBC report details a new European Union law that 'allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.'" Like any bit of controversial legislation, it can change massively just before being voted upon. This legislation, which originally had DMCA-like provisions (protections for technical protection measures on copyrighted works), seems to have lost them prior to passage. (I'm sure they'll be back in some new piece of legislation.) However, it does make "regular" copyright enforcement much more aggressive in the EU, with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement. More information: IP Justice, FFII, FFII background.

Comments

How do they decide which companies can do it?

[MrRTFM]

from the article: But late amendments added to the law limited who intellectual property owners could take action against and what penalties they could apply.
This would be just great if companies like SCO get to have this power. The average politition may not realise what their new 'core business' consists of, and give them the keys to the IP city. In 16 months time will it be a common sight to see 'SCOrm Troopers' busting through windows of offices and razing them?

It's bad enough with the government departments doing this, but profit based companies? Shit, this is scary stuff

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[The_Mr_Flibble]

Welcome to the UK, how may we abuse you ?

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Krach42]

It looks like this wouldn't be Germany, as German courts have been ruling in very anti-sco^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hignorancially-challenged descisions.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[nacturation]

Here's Section 8 of the FFII legislation:

Article 8
Measures for protecting evidence

1. Member States shall ensure that even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits of the case the competent judicial authorities may, on application by a party who has presented reasonably available evidence to support his claims that his intellectual property right has been infringed or is about to be infringed, order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement, subject to the protection of confidential information. Such measures may include the detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure of the infringing goods, and, in appropriate cases, the materials and implements used in the production and/or distribution of these goods and the documents relating thereto. These measures shall be taken, if necessary without the other party having been heard, in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the right holder, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

Where evidence-protection measures have been adopted without the other party having been heard, the affected parties shall be given notice immediately after the execution of the measures at the latest. A review, including a right to be heard, shall take place upon request of
the affected parties with a view to deciding, within a reasonable period after the notification of the measures, whether the measures shall be modified, revoked or confirmed.

2. Member States shall ensure that the evidence-protection measures may be subject to the applicant's lodging of an adequate security or equivalent assurance intended to ensure compensation for any prejudice suffered by the defendant as provided for in paragraph 4.

3. Member States shall ensure that the evidence-protection measures shall be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect upon request by the defendant, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed, if the applicant has not instituted legal proceedings
leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the competent judicial authority within a reasonable period, to be determined by the judicial authority ordering the measures when the law of a Member State so permits or, in the absence of such determination, within a period not to exceed 20working days or 31calendar days, whichever is the longer.

4. Where the evidence-protection measures have been revoked, or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of any intellectual property right, the judicial authorities shall have the authority to order the applicant, upon request of the defendant, to provide the defendant with appropriate compensation for any injury caused by these measures.

5. Member States may take measures to protect witnesses' identity.

So from paragraph 1, it seems as though the applicant (the one wishing to do a raid, for example) will need to demonstrate to "competent judicial authorities" that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed. Additionally, as per paragraphs 2 and 4, applicants will also need to provide assurance that, in the event the defendent is found not to be infringing, compensation for injury caused by whatever actions taken is provided.

Basically, SCO could use something like this, but it better have some significant cash on hand to reimburse any raided companies for downtime and losses incurred. Not quite as draconian as the summary would have you believe. But then, posting controversial summaries is Slashdot's hallmark. :)

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[SphericalCrusher]

Amen.

I believe we are humans after all and we deserve rights. If someone came busting into my house, I'll just shove that USB harddrive of mine right up my ass and run! GO FIND MY STASH, OFFICER!

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a (very small) company. SCO has been using my IP. Can I break down their doors now, and freeze their assets? Of course, I won't show any evidence of this, until, if ever, it gets to court. Just trust me on this. =)

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[BlueUnderwear]

Ironically enough, Germany is one country where the people may successfully fight this new law (and European lawmaking in general) on constitutional grounds.

Article 146 of the "Grundgesetz" stipulates that the Grundgesetz may only be changed via a decision by the people (referendum), which did not happen when the Grundgesetz was subordinated under the European laws (specifically the passus that European right overrides national right). This is a non-trivial change in constitution which was not approved by the people (because the people was not asked!). Thus, it can be argued that any directive that must be transcribed in national law is unconstitutional, because the people never relinquished this kind of authority to the European Institutions. (Not to mention that this particular directive flies flatly in the face of free expression, due process, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure, etc.)

Moreover article 20.4 of the Grundgesetz grants the right of "resistence" for the case where institutions become corrupt, and no longer act in the spirit of the constitution:

Art. 20 Grundlagen staatlicher Ordnung, Widerstandsrecht

(1) Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist ein demokratischer und sozialer Bundesstaat.

(2) Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus. Sie wird vom Volke in Wahlen und Abstimmungen und durch besondere Organe der Gesetzgebung, der vollziehenden Gewalt und der Rechtsprechung ausgeubt.

(3) Die Gesetzgebung ist an die verfassungsmaBige Ordnung, die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung sind an Gesetz und Recht gebunden.

(4) Gegen jeden, der es unternimmt, diese Ordnung zu beseitigen, haben alle Deutschen das Recht zum Widerstand, wenn andere Abhilfe nicht moglich ist.

In summary:

1. The Federal Republic Germany is a democratic and social Federal State
2. All power of States is rooted in the People. This power is exerced by the people in Elections and Votes, and by special institutions of the legislative, executive and judicial branch.
3. The legislative is bound by the constitutional rules, the executive and the judicial are bound by law and justice.
4. All Germans are entitled to exerce resistance against anybody who sets out to remove this order, if no other resort is possible

It can be said that this article is roughly equivalent with the US second amendment, except that unlike the second amendment it doesn't unfortunately provide the tools to exerce this right to resistance.

Consequently, some of the more vocal participants in the heise.de boards have called for more drastic ways to show their disapprovment.

For those of you who read German, here is a more detailed analysis: GG Art. 20 - der deutsche Bundestag untergrabt seine eigene Legitimation!.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[tiger99]

It actually means that the FSF, Linus and other copyright owners can raid SCO because they are distributing GPL code, their right to do so having terminated when they attempted to illegally sell licences for GPL code.

I hope that they will do so, it should be sufficient to put an end to SCO and their illegal behaviour.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[doctor_oktagon]

This would be just great if companies like SCO get to have this power. The average politition may not realise what their new 'core business' consists of, and give them the keys to the IP city. In 16 months time will it be a common sight to see 'SCOrm Troopers' busting through windows of offices and razing them?


Sorry, you're well off the mark - the "Late ammendments" phrase meant it limited who the copyright owners could take action against, not allow them to take any action they want.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it, I'm moving to Germany just in case.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who decides whether any particular judicial authority is competent or incompetent? Someone must, otherwise the word "competent" is redundant and para 1 would just say "... judicial authority...".

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Nexus7]

>> It can be said that this article is roughly equivalent with the US second amendment, except that unlike the second amendment it doesn't unfortunately provide the tools to exerce this right to resistance.

Unfortunately this doesn't seem to have impeded the passage of the DMCA, Patriot Act, etc etc.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[zangdesign]

The first time a corporation busts through my window will be the last time that individual stormtrooper breathes on his/her own. I'm not a violent person by any means, but turning over law enforcement functions to private companies is not right and I won't tolerate it.

You want to arrest me? Fine, send the regular police. No problem there. Federal agents even.

Private corporations? Never.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[scrytch]

> You want to arrest me? Fine, send the regular police. No problem there. Federal agents even.

Silly, you think corporations are going to send their own troopers after you? They will send the Feds, just ask the BSA, who has the real badge-carrying police kick down doors and bust locks.

The cops work for the corps. Not for you.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[dave420]

It isn't the companies themselves who do the raiding, but the police... I don't think we'll be seeing any accountants breaking doors down or anything. They mean companies can get the local law enforcement agencies to raid properties that are infringing on their copyrights.

If it was the companies themselves, the cost of training and accountability would be prohibitive.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

So much for due process. Now we have companies hiring sharpshooters, and raiding homes .... hmmm . . . Think I saw this in a bad late night movie once . . .

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yep, exactly.

It sounds to me like the German provision is actually closer to the Tenth Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") It's a beautiful idea, the very definition of federalism ... and it has consistently been ignored or overridden by the US federal government almost since the ink was dry.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

That answers the question I was just thinking about at that very moment.

Laws like this are clearly going to violate fundamental rights in some, if not all of the member nations. If this kind of conflict occurs, I don't see how EU has the right, even in their own imagination, to tell member nations their fundamental rights are summarily overridden by EU legislation. If the member nations really did agreee to give the EU this kind of power, then I have to ask, what the heck were they smoking? As a cousin post says, ignoring the rights of states in the US has made a big enough mess over here. What's going to happen when this subversion of rights is repeated on a continental scale?

It's good to see that they won't stand for it in Germany.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[angulion]

So from paragraph 1, it seems as though the applicant (the one wishing to do a raid, for example) will need to demonstrate to "competent judicial authorities" that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed.

Competent - like the people at USPTO should be? Still we see all these ridiculous patents.

Additionally, as per paragraphs 2 and 4, applicants will also need to provide assurance that, in the event the defendent is found not to be infringing, compensation for injury caused by whatever actions taken is provided.

I have a problem with this, what happens when you have a company that is like SCO - they won't be in buissness anymore when the "compensation for injury" part kicks in?

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Atroxodisse]

Really, this is scary. I beat this new law down with the '1984' stick. Are we moving towards a world where the corporations run everything? Oh wait they already do.

If some jackass tries to come into my home or business because he 'thinks' I'm using his IP I'm gonna shove my fist down his throat. Luckily I don't live in Europe.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Ozan]

Ironically enough, Germany is one country where the people may successfully fight this new law (and European lawmaking in general) on constitutional grounds.

The German constitution grants the EU legislative rights in Art. 23. The constitution was changed to make this possible, also perfectly legal in accordance to Art. 79(1), which asks for 2/3-majorites of both chambers to change the constitution.

Article 146 of the "Grundgesetz" stipulates that the Grundgesetz may only be changed via a decision by the people (referendum),

This is one common but yet completely wrong misconception. All the article says is that the constitution is superseded at the very moment that another one is chosen by the german people - which is completely redundant since a new constitution always supersedes the old one.

which did not happen when the Grundgesetz was subordinated under the European laws (specifically the passus that European right overrides national right). This is a non-trivial change in constitution which was not approved by the people (because the people was not asked!).

It was trivial since no fundamental changes to legislative, jurisdiction or executive were made. Furthermore even it it wasn't trivial Art. 79 grants the chambers full rights of changes, as long as they are in accordance of Art. 79 (3) which makes changes to the democratic principles of Art. 1 and Art. 20 illegal, in which case you would have the right to resistance acc. to Art. 20(4).

Oh and thank you for not bringing up the tale that the whole existence of the FRG was illegitime since the former constitution of the Third Reich never "officially" ceased to exist and no "official" peace agreement was made. Supporters of this theory apparently want Hitlers signature on a revocation of some sort to believe otherwise.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problems with it, if Germany decided to re-occupy France. Go ahead. That could give them more bargaining power against the EU.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[WorkerAnt]

A quick glance at the directive, particularly Article 8, suggests that it is just codifying an enforcement mechanism that has existed for many years in common law countries (eg. UK, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong). Due to the relative ease with which evidence regarding IP infringement can be destroyed, the Courts will often grant what's known as an "Anton Piller" order, which authorises a surprise raid on the premises of the person/company suspected of infringement. This type of order was used recently in the raid on Kazaa's offices by Australian authorities. The rationale behind the order (and this general notion of court-authorised surprise raids) is that if you had to go through the normal court procedure to obtain evidence of the alleged IP infringement, it would take months (sometimes years), giving the alleged offender plenty of time to cover their tracks. In practice, it's hard to get such an order from the court - you have to present some pretty convincing evidence - so it's unlikely that this directive will lead to weekly raids. The main difference is that it may extend this remedy to civil law EU countries that don't have it at present.

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[dcam]

I like the image of the door knocker and the caption: "Music firms might come knocking if you are swapping pop". Swapping pop, why on earth would you want to do that? Don't you want to swap music you want?

Re:How do they decide which companies can do it?

[JPMH]

So from paragraph 1, it seems as though the applicant (the one wishing to do a raid, for example) will need to demonstrate to "competent judicial authorities" that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed.

Umm, no. That was more or less what the original EU Commission text proposed.

But if you re-read paragraph 1 carefully, it now says that the orders shall be granted "in particular" under those circumstances.

What it actually requires is that judges must be allowed to grant such orders at their own discretion, "on application by a party who has presented reasonably available evidence to support his claims that his intellectual property right has been infringed or is about to be infringed".

The directive in fact overrules existing safeguards which say that the orders can only be granted when there is irreparable harm or destruction of evidence likely.

We're slow

[Anonymous Coward]

The US of A were at least original, we're just lagging behind but not at all wiser.

Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Krach42]

*knock knock knock*

Who's there?

Goons... Hired goons.

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[kfg]

I'm sorry, but Goon is the IP of Paramount Studios. Prepare to be boarded, matey. I hope you ate your spinach today.

KFG

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

I don't remember ordering any goons...?

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

KFG making unfunny posts... not a good start to my day.

Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote

[kfg]

Sorry, it was the end of my day, laregely spent reading Moby Dick, an act prone to put one out of humor, and yep, I ran out.

KFG

More information

[Underholdning]

Here's some more information.

Unless I'm mistaken..

[Anonymous Coward]

this only applies to people who try to make money out of piratism. Not individual persons (the ones who download music to listen to it).

Re:Unless I'm mistaken..

[Magada]

It doesn't apply to anyone, yet, nor will it in its current form. The Ministers will never sign such BS. Move along people, nothing to see here

Re:Unless I'm mistaken..

[Anonymous Coward]

All references to commercial piracy have been removed. It does apply to non-commercial copyright violations now.

Re:Unless I'm mistaken..

[Savage650]

[..] The Ministers will never sign such BS [..]

You mean .. just like the European Parliament .. they should not have ratified that BS after the Commission not only ignored their earlier comments (no "pure software" patents) but sneaked in even more draconic measures?. Dream on!

Lets face it, politicians will pass just about anything into law and let the courts (if any) sort it out. This has nothing to do with the actual contents of the bills in question; politicians pass law after law because thats how they understand their job. They just dont want do be seen as lazy or unproductive.

So why should they rock the boat by dismissing the work of commissions and lobbyists? Especially if they want lucrative (post-parliament) careers with the very same people ...

Re:Unless I'm mistaken..

[panxerox]

It's already been ruled in the UK that not for profit pirates do have a financial gain, they don't have to buy the software. I'm sure this could apply to mp3s as well.

Re:Unless I'm mistaken..

[The I Shing]

Piratism?

That's not a word!

What you meant to say is "piratry." Heh heh.

Really, though, isn't it about time that the media stop referring to people sharing music files online as "piracy"? Selling it on the streets is piracy. Granted, sharing it online for free may be illegal, but if the sharer makes no money how can that be piracy?

If that's piracy, then there must have been pirates in the 18th Century that would go to all the trouble of taking over an enemy ship and then give all the gold, jewels, and spices away.

"Y'ar, we'll be givin' away these doubloons to anyone what wants 'em, 'cause we be pirates. Y'ar."

GPL violations

[ajagci]

with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement.

Maybe one can use this against GPL violations. What does the legislation say about when, oh, Phillips or Vivendi might be violating GPL terms? Can we have their assets frozen?

Re:GPL violations

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. Don't be silly. Now get back in your cage, maggot!

Re:GPL violations

[BiggerIsBetter]

What if you accused the government?

Re:GPL violations

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe one can use this against GPL violations. What does the legislation say about when, oh, Phillips or Vivendi might be violating GPL terms? Can we have their assets frozen?

If you believe there is imminent threat of the destruction of evidence, then yes. But if they're shipping a GPL-derived product without source, then I don't think there's any chance seizing their assets would protect any evidence, as many people would have copies. So the courts wouldn't allow that circumstance.

Re:GPL violations

[OwlWhacker]

What, and risk getting assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald?

Re:GPL violations

[Krach42]

Of course there's an imminent threat of destruction of evidence. Microsoft has a nice little button installed in Gates's room that automatically deletes every file that has had GPL-taint in the entire Microsoft campus.

So, you see, we need to be able to break into his office before he can even realize it, and keep him away from the magic button, so we can demonstrate to the courts that they've been using GPL code all along.

Re:GPL violations

[mattjb0010]

Maybe one can use this against GPL violations. What does the legislation say about when, oh, Phillips or Vivendi might be violating GPL terms?

Violations of GPL are violations of contractual terms, not copyright, so it probably says nothing.

Re:GPL violations

[AaronGTurner]

If a party was found in a court of law to be infringing the GPL, this would presumably allow the copyright holders to subsequently seek restitution for violation of their copyright if the defendant continued to use the code. But the first court case would need to be won before this could be done.

Re:GPL violations

[dunkelfalke]

as far as i know, gpl is not valid in germany. so it would be a violation of copyright here.

Re:GPL violations

[Tomun]

Eben Moglen says :
We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."

One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."

But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond.

Full text at Groklaw

Re:GPL violations

[nickos]

"gpl is not valid in germany"

Blimey, isn't it? How come?

Re:GPL violations

[tiger99]

No, the GPL is a licence, which allows you to do certain things, provided you do not do certain other things, mainly to do with limiting the rights of others. If you violate the terms of the GPL, it no longer applies to you (as far as the affected code is concerned), if you are copying without the licence, you are in breach of simple copyright law.

I don't know about any allegations against Philips or Vivendi (haven't even heard of Vivendi), but if they have broken the terms of the licence, their actions in copying the code clearly become a simple matter of copyright violation, which in some countries, since these organisations are businesses, is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment (if appropraite) of company directors etc. In the UK this could easily result in several years in prison. It is also a civil offence, damages could be claimed in court, but I don't know how they would be assessed.

I would like to see such a case persued through the couts in the UK, it would teach the global monopolists to behave, or at least withdraw the offending products from the UK market, which would be a start.

Re:GPL violations

[tiger99]

I hope that this little button deletes all M$ code. The world would be a far better place if the Criminal Monopoly had never existed.

Re:GPL violations

[mattjb0010]

No, the GPL is a licence

? It is still a contract.

If you violate the terms of the GPL, it no longer applies to you

It's still a legally enforcable contract.

Re:GPL violations

[mpe]

Maybe one can use this against GPL violations. What does the legislation say about when, oh, Phillips or Vivendi might be violating GPL terms? Can we have their assets frozen?

No doubt big business either has some kind of exemption or can play corporate ownership games to ensure that their "piracy devision" has no assets at all.

Re:GPL violations

[SillyNickName4me]

Not true. The GPL is indeed a contract but one that gives you permission to do things that are forbidden by copyright law. Not accepting it means being bound by copyright law.

This means that as a first step, taking someone to court over copyright infringement is the way to go. Is the defendant goign to use the GPL as defense? good, that means they have now in front of a judge claimed to accept it, and you can sue them over it, no longer havign to worry about if the court is going to accept the contract as valid or not, the defendent already agreed it is.

Re:GPL violations

[Jaysyn]

Having permission from an author to change a book, as long as the changes are availible for everyone to see, isn't forbidden by copyright law. It is/would be very unusual under copyright law, but not forbidden.

By your same reasoning it would be forbidden for Microsoft (or anyone else) to give their code to 3rd parties, under their own restrictions.

Jaysyn

Re:GPL violations

[SillyNickName4me]

Uh? I never said that copyright forbids the author to grant that permission, but lacking that permission from the author, copyright forbids you from making such copies.

The thing that gives that permission in this case is the GPL. Not acceptign that GPL does not mean you cannot get that permission in other ways from the author, but there is no default right to copy.

I suggest you reread my original post.

Re:GPL violations

[Jaysyn]

I suggest you do the same.

And I quote "The GPL is indeed a contract but one that gives you permission to do things that are forbidden by copyright law."

Your point isn't very clear. It looks like you are suggesting that copying or changing *period* is forbidden by copyright law.

Jaysyn

Re:GPL violations

[SillyNickName4me]

No, I am suggesting that not contract law but copyright law is the first approach to take when dealing with violations of the GPL. Why? because untill the GPL has actually been upheld in court, you are in a far better position when having the defendent accept the GPL explicitly instead of trying to fight it.

Re:GPL violations

[mav[LAG]]

? It is still a contract.

No it's not. There is a large difference between a license and a contract. A license just gives you permission to do something you wouldn't ordinarily be allowed to do - like distribute someone else's copyrighted work (the GPL) or say, go fishing in a private dam (a fishing license). If you ignore or transgress the terms of the license, you have no contractual obligations between you and the licensor which must be fulfilled - you will just be asked to stop what you are doing. If you don't then other laws apply which you are breaking by not having a license - copyright laws in the case of the GPL or trespassing in the case of fishing.

If you violate the terms of the GPL, it no longer applies to you

It's still a legally enforcable contract.

It is a legally enforceable license - big difference. It's legally enforceable because it's backed up by copyright law - which normally forbids anyone but the copyright holder to modify, distribute or make derivative works from someone else's copyrighted work. But there are no contractual obligations in the GPL, no agreements which both parties sign and agree to beforehand about monies or services rendered for goods or services delivered. You don't sign a contract with New Line Cinema in order to view LoTR on DVD - you receive a license to do so along with your box - a fairly restricted license that forbids most uses of the work other than home viewing. GPLed software is the same thing - you are granted a license (should you choose to distribute the software) to copy, modify, distribute and make derivative works as long as you adhere to its terms. No contract anywhere in sight.

Re:GPL violations

[hummassa]

Repeat with me:
1. a license is not a contract;
2. a license is not a contract; ...
1000. ...

contract: two entities agree in something that generates rights and obligations to both of them. it's enforceable, and the contract can stipulate fines or other penalties for the non-fulfilling of the obligations for some of the entities (a.k.a. parties of the contract).

license: one entity (a.k.a. licensor) does waive its legal rights to other entity (a.k.a. licensee), maybe conditionally, like the GPL.

this means the licensee has no obligations to the licensor (as in a contract), but he can get his license rescinded (if it's conditional and he does not fulfill his obligations); once his license is rescinded, he is infringing copyrights, which, in many jurisdictions, may face civil and criminal penalties.

In few words: if you don't fulfill contractual obligations, you are at fault with the other party. he can sue, fine you, all in a civil court; if you don't fulfill license conditions, you are at fault with the society (copyright infringement) and you can be brought (potentially) to a criminal court.

Re:GPL violations

[Bombcar]

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

From the License itself. It is not a contract, as it is not signed. But without it, you have no rights, so there is no need to sign it.

Re:GPL violations

[Anonymous Coward]

• license: one entity (a.k.a. licensor) does waive its legal rights to other entity (a.k.a. licensee), maybe conditionally, like the GPL.

...or expand them?

Re:GPL violations

[hummassa]

The copyrights owner has the right that no-one besides it copies its work. Period. You want to copy its work? Get a license (it will waive to you the right to copy its work, *provided* you also do such and such)

Highlights

[222]

Since your not going to rtfa, ill drop the highlights.


["Before the vote, critics said the law was flawed as it applied the same penalties to both professional counterfeiters and consumers." But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home."]

["The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal. "]

["One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use."]

Re:Highlights

[Krach42]

My lazy clicking finger thanks you.

Re:Highlights

[BiggerIsBetter]

["The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal. "]

And there you have it.

Nice to see politicians (are MEPs even elected?) have *our* best interests at heart.

Re:Highlights

[akiro]

Yes they are elected, and at least here in Finland people seem to vote for the most annoying politicians to become MEP:s, so they get rid of them for 4 years ;-) (The European Parliament is in Brussels, long way from Finland)

Re:Highlights

[222]

This also made my stomach turn. When i was younger, i believed that corporations had an invisible influence over the workings of certain governments. The older i became, the more i realized that there was nothing covert about it.
I've spent a lot of time wondering where the blame should go.
Is it apathetic voters that simply dont have time to research what potential canidates have done?
Is it an abusing lobbying system that wont change because the people that receive the money are also the ones that make the laws?
Is it what ive heard Noam Chomsky refer to as "Institutional Control"? IE, your more than welcome to discuss the US involvement with Uzbekistan in your political science class, but expect your govt funding to be terminated shortly...
At any rate, I agree with your sentiment.

Re:Highlights

[absolut_kurant]

["Before the vote, critics said the law was flawed as it applied the same penalties to both professional counterfeiters and consumers." But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home."]

This is NOT TRUE, just a spin! Only 3 parts of the directive are limited to "commercial scale", i.e. freezing of bank accounts, getting bank information and trying to get background information on the copying organization. So the stormtroopers can still your house.

Re:Highlights

[turgid]

are MEPs even elected?

Yes, they are, however in the UK, we as a nation are so insular and xenophobic, the turn-out at the elections for MEPs is routinely below 20%. I think it was about 13% last time IIRC. It's pathetic. People think that because it's "Europe" it doesn't affect them. At least my radical vote counts more because there are fewer total votes :-)

Re:Highlights

[sangdrax]

Well the creation and passing of these laws as well as the laws against smoking in public areas certainly got my attention.

But maybe that was the main point of passing them in the first place: there's more were this came from! Vote against us or die :P

Re:Highlights

[BlueUnderwear]

here in Finland people seem to vote for the most annoying politicians to become MEP:s, so they get rid of them for 4 years

Here in Luxembourg, the European election is on the same day as the national election. Of course, the same candidats are on both ballots. Result: those with the most votes take a national seat (considered to be more important...), leaving the european seats to the losers!

Re:Highlights

[term8or]

are MEPs even elected?
Yes. But they're like local councillors, very few people bother to vote.

Re:Highlights

[kahei]

It's not because you're insular (which you are) or xenophobic (which you aren't) -- it's because most UK cits realize that what they think and do matters not at all to European politicians.

In other words, they (the apathetic sheep) have a reasonable and correct worldview whereas you are kind of cute but sad, like a little mouse that says it will protect its parent mice from the evil cat.

Now hush up and give us all your fishing rights -- oh, you already have.

Re:Highlights

[Kirth]

Learning to code in assembly is like learning to fight with a sword. Wow, swords are cool.

Actually, swordfighting is more like C. Easy to start with when you have some advice (otherwise you will end up with fencing or pascal, but not swordfighting), but hard to master.
--

Re:Highlights

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you even know how the fishing rights were decided? After hours and days of debate, more debate, arguments and more debate. No agreement could be accepted. Therefore they took a hat, put in pieces of paper with all the numbers between the Brit's and spanish's ideal number, mixed it up and pulled it.

There we go, your politicians at work for your best interest.

It is useful having parents in the EU council and Commission. Most of the stuff I get from my parents on the tchnical side would make slashdotters sick to the core (Such as turning off and throwing away "old" servers before checking they weren't actually being used...oops)

Re:Highlights

[Anonymous Coward]

woohoo! can you post every story?

Re:Highlights

[GypC]

Score:-1, Chomsky Reference.

Re:Highlights

[tiger99]

MEPs are elected, but the system is absolutely rotten with corruption. Almost every one of them is cheating big-time on their expenses for a start. Most people in the UK don't even know who their MEP is, so their chances of being unseated at elections are practically nil.

Most thinking people in the UK don't want the present Socialist State of Europe.

Re:Highlights

[turgid]

In other words, they (the apathetic sheep) have a reasonable and correct worldview whereas you are kind of cute but sad, like a little mouse that says it will protect its parent mice from the evil cat.

Thanks! I'm officially cute now :-) Don't worry, though, my last glimmers of idealism and hope have almost been beaten out of me and I can just about claim to be a proper adult :-) Next I'll be voting Tory.

Re:Highlights

[Toy G]

MEPs are elected, and by the way a new European general election is due this year. Hope that french people won't forget "Ms. Vivendi", but I must say I'm sceptic. Not because they are French, but because I am Italian (we have the worst politicians you can find east of Haiti, and we quietly keep electing them for 60 years running...)

Re:Highlights

[Aceticon]

Think of it the other way around:

Imagine that the turn-out for the next European Parliament elections was 10%
And you were one of the ones did vote

Did you notice that your vote would count for you plus 9 of the people that didn't vote?

Maybe checking out which of UK's EU parliament members voted for this law and which voted against ... and casting your vote accordingly would be worth it!??

Re:Highlights

[kahei]

Do you even know how the fishing rights were decided?

I do. Since your parents seem not to, here's a link:

http://www.bullen.demon.co.uk/cibcfp.htm

(Facts are correct but writer seems generally somewhat pro-British)

Basically Heath gave the UK's fisheries away to the other EEC (as it then was) countries as a bribe, but without telling his actual people. Nice even by EU standards.

Re:Highlights

[Anonymous Coward]

IDNRTFABICA (I did not read the fscking article but I'll comment anyway)...

What does "in good faith" mean? And could an evil megacorp ("entity") propose that an indivdual was not downloading music "in good faith".

As an example, victory_is_mine downloads a music sample off of a bands website. Good faith? Probably.

But perhaps victory_is_mine is using some p2p app for acquiring music. Is that good faith?

Also, how hard would it be for entitys to hire outside people to place "evidence" in advance on rivals machines? It doesn't matter if it's likely. Could they do it? Would they do it?

Re:Highlights

[kisak]

Sounds like you are the apathetic sheep believing what the british tabloids tell you to believe.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were sitting in a nice castle in the Hollywood hills, I don't think I would complain about piracy. Or maybe I would, simply because I could. Those who complain are usually those who already have more than enough.

Pop

[BrookHarty]

Music firms might come knocking if you are swapping pop

Guess I won't be busted for sharing my Australian didgeridoo, german barbershop quartet or christian gangster rap collection.

Re:Pop

[tomknight]

Music firms might come knocking if you are swapping pop

But you might ask what they have to do with the soft drinks industry.

Tom.

Re:Pop

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess I won't be busted for sharing my Australian didgeridoo, german barbershop quartet or christian gangster rap collection

yo homes,

i be ownin' da copyright on dat shit biatch!

Thanks michael!

[zegebbers]

From the submitter :
'allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.'
From michael
with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement.


thanks!
wouldn't have known otherwise!

Very American Indeed....

[tomknight]

Note that we're learning from the Americans in more ways than one....

"The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal."

Tom.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Anonymous Coward]

One cultural difference though: in the USA, it's money that's used to corrupt; in Europe, it's sex.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Such incisive wit, I can barely move for fear of shitting myself with laughter.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Bambi Dee]

Thanks, but I'd rather keep brushing my own instead.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[dreamchaser]

Maybe for once you should take responsibility for what your own government does *without* trying to blame it on the U.S. That song is getting very old...

Re:Very American Indeed....

[tomknight]

Apologies for any confusion I've created - I'm not trying to blame anything on the US, I'm merely saying we're just as bad as the US ;-)

Sadly I have no say in what this MEP does, as I'm British and she's French. Now, I've made it perfectly clear to my MP what my views are, and if I ever find out who the hell my MEP is I'll do the same there too.

Tom.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[kir]

Ohh... you're blaming all Americans. I thought you were just going to blame Bush. That's sort of the modus operandi around here.

Also, your quote isn't very appropriate. What from that quote shows what "you've" learned from Americans? Are you suggesting America invented the special interest group? Are you mad? Vivendi is a French company, run by a French man (Jean-Rene Fourtou) who's married to a French MEP (Janelly Fourtou). WTF else do you think is going to happen?

Are you a troll or a tool?

And why the fuck is the parent +4, Informative?

Re:Very American Indeed....

[tomknight]

What I meant is that the US isn't the only place that passes laws based on the desires of the corporations. The difference here is that the tie between the corporation and the politician isn't money but marriage.

Neither a tool or a troll, just someone who reads the article and thinks about it. I guess I shouldn't be on /. really.... ;-)

Tom.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[dreamchaser]

Thanks for the explaination. Of course, I was modded as flamebait for what at the time was a legitimate gripe, but you'll have that :-)

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Jaysyn]

Yup, the US government has had a "spine-removal" black-ops squad over in Europe since after the great war. I*t *must* be our fault.

Jaysyn

Re:Very American Indeed....

[tomknight]

Can't you actually think for a change, instead of assuming I'm blaming the US. For fucks sake, how many more people will think this? Ye gods, I was merely saying that EU politicians can be just as much in the pockets of corporations as US politicians. Read my comment, think about it, read my replies to people accusing me of blaming the US and then just, oh just fuck off.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[tomknight]

Oops, my mistake. Apologies. I must be lacking in laugh today, I'll try harder tomorrow.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have to assume that you're blaming the US. You said it plainly yourself with the phrase, "Note that we're learning from the Americans..." That is not the same as saying that EU politicians are also corrupt. The modifier "from the Americans" changes the meaning entirely and says that it's America that's doing the corrupting. (Note many of the stupid restrictions in US copyright law were actually adopted so that the US would conform to the Berne Convention - a EU initiative). People are responding to what you wrote, not what you thought you wrote dumbass. So why don't you go learn English.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Jaysyn]

Damn, got us both modded down. Oh well.

Jaysyn

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Flamebait? Guess you dumbass mods don't know what M2 is for.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[kir]

If you read the article and actually thought about it, then you are right -- you should not be on slashdot. ;-)

I'm still trying to figure out why I keep coming back. Boredom I guess? It's always fun to read the article, post a comment, and then get modded down to shite for not conforming with the vocal minority.

Sorry for the tool/troll comment. All the other bash America comments got me a little wired I guess. Still, you did infer that the EU is somehow copying America as if America invented abuse of a government body by non-governmental entities. That's been going on since before there was an America.

Re:Very American Indeed....

[Anonymous Coward]

Good grief.
You sir, are an illiterate cunt, sir.

personal legislation

[Vega043]

The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal.

Nice to see that you can pass pas EU legislation by marrying the right person.

Re:personal legislation

[saigon_from_europe]

Nice to see that you can pass pas EU legislation by marrying the right person.

Even better, you can pass the law sending your wife to EU parlament.

Re:personal legislation

[Elektroschock]

Get informed!

EP IPRED Vote 2004
The European Parliament is set to vote on the IPR Enforcement Directive. Some members are asking for our opinions and analysis.
Current Status and Dates
The Fourtou report on the Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive passed today as the rapporteur wished. This means that the package proposed by Janelly Fourtou (and supported by the conservatives, socialists, liberals) after unofficial meetings with the Council working party and the Commission was adopted in it's entirety.

All amendments - those from Greens, GUE, Cappato group and EDD - were defeated. The majority in all the roll call votes was of the order 300-350 with Fourtou, 100-200 against. Among the opposing votes were some national groups of the large parties, e.g. french socialists, austrian conservatives.

The result means:

The directive is very unclear, greatly divergent national implementations are likely. In general the result will be harsher enforcement all kinds of "intellectual property rights" (the scope of this term being unclear). The directive has no effect on substantive law (i.e. on what is patentable or otherwise ownable) and provides no special means to enforce digital property titles in the context of modern peer-to-peer networks.
Only 3 parts of the directive are limited to "commercial scale". This means that the provisions of Articles 7(1), 8 and 9 can potentially be used against consumers. In the US this kind of legislation has been used to target, amongst others, children and their parents for downloading music.
Internet service providers can, depending on implementation, be attacked for "providing" the means to download content which is protected by copyright.
Patents are included within the scope of the directive. This is of serious concern to all companies in the patent system and outside it (including software, generics etc), given that patent litigation is regularly fraught with legal insecurity.
During the voting session, Neil MacCormick, scottish professor of law and MEP for Greens/EFA, raised the issue of family connections in relation to conflicts of interest. This is in the light of numerous recent articles highlighting Mrs Fourtou's husband being CEO of Vivendi Universal. EP president Pat Cox indicated that this would be raised in the Parliament Bureau.

The results of roll call votes have not yet been published; however, it is clear that most conservative, socialist and liberal delegations voted against all amendments and in support the Fourtou/Council package.

Final vote was 330 to 151 with 39 abstentions.

On the key amendments:

Am 77 (Art 2.1: Scope of the directive)
307 to 185, 7 abstentions
Am 58 (Recital 13: Patents)
193 to 310
Am 59 (Recital 13a: Commercial Scale)
198 to 305
The vote where we got the most support was on the Greens amendment 59, to restrict all parts of the Directive to commercial scale.

James Heald, coordinator of FFII UK who had been leading FFII's work on this directive, summarises:

We were only just over 50 MEPs away from success.

It's not over. More than for almost any other directive, what this directive will actually mean will depend on how it is implemented, member state by member state.

It could allow surprise raids on teenagers in the middle of the night by private security firms on the flimsiest of evidence; -- or alternatively, such operations could be allowed only in the most exceptional conditions, only by official authorities, and only on the basis of the highest standards of evidence.

We tried to write the safeguards into the directive itself. We failed.

So over the next two years, we need to make absolutely sure that safeguards are written into every single one of the 25 different national implementations instead.

Voting Result on Amendment 59
Votes in Favor of Limitation to Commercial Counterfeiting
EDD
Abitbol, Andersen, Belder, Bernii, Blokland, Bonde, Booth, Butel, van Dam, Esclopi,

Re:personal legislation

[danila]

A political leader, whom I can trust to take both Mrs. and Mr. Fourtou and execute them both without a trial, would get my vote. Jefferson said that "The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants", but I think blood of corrupt thieves is just as necessary.

Yes, such cure is as dangerous as the illness, but the democratic system of checks and balances simply doesn't work fully. Eventually it is corrupted by people who game the system. The only solution, IMHO, is to have an outside shock from time to time. It's like Starcraft - you can rely on in-game anti-cheat systems only for so long, but at some point you simply need to disable some cd-keys permanently and irreversibly.

It`s not a law It`s a directive

[mocm]

which gives the member states a framework for new laws that have to be put into legislation within a certain time frame (2 years). So there is still hope that individual states will have less stringent laws than the directive calls for. Although there may also be states that will have far more stringent laws.

Re:It`s not a law It`s a directive

[Anonymous Coward]

And as is common in the EU some states enforce the laws to the detriment of their population and others ignore them completely to their benefit.

See cod fishing, agriculture, immigration, mining, energy production, etc etc

Re:It`s not a law It`s a directive

[nilsjuergens]

So there is still hope that individual states will have less stringent laws than the directive calls for.

A big chunk of the directive (e.g. the raiding part) is going to be against the constitution in a lot of EU countries.
But the fact that it is in there is worrysome to say the least.
Someone had an agenda and that someone has to do with vivendi.

Re:It`s not a law It`s a directive

[nutshell42]

From the article:
"It *could* allow surprise raids on teenagers in the middle of the night by private security firms on the flimsiest of evidence; -- *or alternatively*, such operations *could* be allowed only in the most exceptional conditions, only by official authorities, and only on the basis of the highest standards of evidence." (I did the emphasizing)

In other words no reason to panic but time to write your MP why a stricter interpretation of the directive is in his/her best interest

Screw, you, EU...

[Channard]

.. this was my idea! You stole it from me! Right - prepare to be living on whatever you've got in the office canteen - I'm suing and freezing your account. Now.. what's the dialling code for Brussels?

So exactly who has rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

So exactly *why* are private parties given these rights? Shouldn't they be reserved for the "authorities" after a claim has been acertained as legitimate? What would this mean for a company like SCO that seems to have no real evidence for a claim of IP violation? Could they just use this bill against anyone they *claim* violated IP?

Re:So exactly who has rights?

[nomadic]

It's a directive, not a law, which means it mandates generally what the member states must do. The actual individual laws could look quite different, with a lot more safeguards.

Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[kcbrown]

Looks to me like the EU (and, by extension, European countries) is 0wz0r3d by big corporations just like the U.S.

Looks to me like there's no escaping the soul-crushing, draconian corporate police state that's almost (if not already) here in everything but name.

Isn't there any country out there with the balls to refuse to give in to shit like this that isn't already a police state of some kind??

:-(

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[Krach42]

I think China does... but then, they don't exactly let corporations exist for the most part.

Of course, I'd probably settle for this daconian coporate environment where at least I get to choose which fast food joint I'm going to spend all my money at.

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[PingKing]

Sealand is a small platform off the east coast of England. It claims to be an independant country, and hasn't signed the Berne Convention on copyright. Theoretically you could distribute copyrighted material from there. Handily, it is home to HavenCo, a hosting company.

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to say China, till i saw the last line ... so ... erhm nope, unless you consider antartica a country ?!

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[bhima]

The pendulum must swing quite a ways before it swings back. I expect the back lash to quite amusing, if the law is enacted, or enforced, or if anyone is actually prosecuted with it.

Still though, I wouldn't want to be the example or the trial case...

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[Krach42]

Crap! I guess I didn't read all his post... Oh well...

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[kfg]

Traditionally that country would have been America. Go figure.

However, as long ago as 1870, when Jules Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, he had Captain Nemo note that the only place left free in the world was 30 feet under the surface of the sea, as even the sea's surface was no longer safe from police states.

Nowadays, of course, all the police states have hunter submarines.

KFG

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[DigiShaman]

If your smart and have the means to do so, I suggest you travel to another star system and lay claim to your own planet. Hell, there are millions of them just ripe for the picking.

But again, getting there is just a *small* problem.

BAM BAM BAM.. "whos that". It's SCO, you are in violation or our IP by running unauthorized Linux. You are now required to be our slave and lick our nuts. BLAM!! I uphold the 2nd admendment, so fuck your IP and say out of my house.

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[geminidomino]

BLAM!! I uphold the 2nd admendment, so fuck your IP and say out of my house. I was just going to post the same thing. Welcome to my "Friends" list. ;)

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[Anonymous Coward]

It think the way things are going is terrible!

Did Magna Carta die in vain!?

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[Moraelin]

RTFA, lemming.

What the directive says is _not_ that some company's private stormtroopers can bash your door in, whenever they see fit.

It basically says that, given reasonable suspicion that you're running a wholesale counterfeiting opperation, the company can call upon the authorities (i.e., police, courts, government agencies) to take action. And those authorities can take whatever steps are necessary to prevent you from destroying the _evidence_. Including, yes, taking that evidence into custody.

It also says that the company will have to pay for your inconvenience, if you were unjustly accused.

So my questions are:

1. What the **** is so outrageous about that? The police could already do that for non-IP crimes. E.g., if you were accused of stealing 2000 hard drives, the police, yes, could always come confiscate them as evidence. It's just a simple extension of what the existing laws said.

2. How the heck does that justify the generalized whine across 200 different posts about allowing companies to do their own raids? Nowhere does the directive say that. The whole directive just says, basically, in layman's terms "the countries will each provide their own details about how this will be done, but we ought to treat massive scale IP theft as seriously as we already treated any other theft of that scale." (Which I don't find unreasonable at all.)

Rest assured that not many politicians in the actual countries would fill in those details as "duh, just hire your own stormtroopers and do what you damn please." That's the beauty of having 4 or 5 political parties and elections where the "winner" has 40% or less of the seats: none of the parties wants to commit political seppuku like that.

Rest assured that whatever raids will be done, will be done by the police and will involve a warrant. _Not_ some masked private corporate stormtroopers kicking in your door and shooting your TV and dog, like in cheap Hollywood crap.

3. Ditto for the whine about how it lets them harrass innocent citizens. It doesn't. Any company wanting to go on a mass harrassment spree, damn better have very deep pockets to pay reparations to all the unjustly raided.

4. That is, assuming they could even get that many warrants. More likely they'll have to show some damn convincing proof that it's all one huge smuggling and counterfeiting ring or some such, or they'll get jack squat.

5. "0wz0r3d by big corporations just like the U.S"? Oh please. If I remember right, in the USA the RIAA and stuff needed no warrant whatsoever to bully people around. I also think that the mostly USA companies in the BSA ever thought of asking for a warrant first, and much less of compensating someone for their wasted time if one of their raids found nothing wrong. By comparison, I'd say that this directive lays out a much more reasonable framework.

Ah well... I guess it would be too much to ask for, that on Slashdot someone actually does at least some _minimal_ research before posting highly inflamatory falsehoods as a summary. Doubly so when expecting someone to actually RTFA before going into the usual "Waaah! Corporations suck! The government sucks! Heellpp!!!" mode.

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[Decameron81]

"What the directive says is _not_ that some company's private stormtroopers can bash your door in, whenever they see fit."

I get a feeling I will get modded down: but isn't this a problem of slashdot rather than a problem with it's readers? Shouldn't the headlines we read on the front page give us enough to understand (or nearly understand) what happened without having to go through all of the links posted? AFAICR slashdot should be "news for nerds" and not "links for nerds".

From the news item:

"...a new European Union law that 'allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.'"

While the quote is not WRONG, it sounds quite misleading to me. It would make you think that corporations can just knock on your door an seize your stuff. But the company still has to show proof that such infringement may have taken place, and the final decision is made by a court.

Diego Rey

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[multimed]

Do you really believe that? I'd like to believe it, but I just can't say that I do. This is still an issue that probably 70% of the people on the planet don't even know about and maybe 5% (at best) of the people actually intellectually understand and/or care about. Intellectual Property is an abstract concept, and it's extremely difficult to explain to some one who doesn't get it, that a person can't own an idea. I don't see any way of educating enough of a critical mass to care enough to force a change from a grass roots level. And at least here in the US, where the Supreme Court has ruled money is speech and real campaign finance reform is unconstitutional, the content owners and distrubuters will continue to get the laws they pay for. So while it's nice to envision a return of some sort of balance to the copyright laws that benefit all of society like the framers hoped for, I just don't see it happening. I'd be grateful to anyone who could convince me otherwise.

Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free?

[Moraelin]

Hence my remark that "I guess it would be too much to ask for, that on Slashdot someone actually does at least some _minimal_ research before posting highly inflamatory falsehoods as a summary." Yes, I won't argue with you there. The summary on the front page did make it sound like the four horsemen of the apocalypse are already on our collective doorstep, and their horses are crapping on the lawn.

Still, you know. I've had enough of lemming readers rushing to proclaim that the EU is owned by the corporations, or (in another thread) that the EU would never fine its own corporations, or other such.

Or seeing a whole sub-thread about the trivia that one of the politicians involved was, indeed married to a recording media bigwig. But missing the point that it's a rather reasonable directive nevertheless. Or it would have been shot down by the other polticians. If nothing else, to look good to their voters. You can't push a law with just one politician on your side, no matter how biased or even corrupt she may be.

Wholesale CD counterfitting wasn't legal before either, and a court could already do all that. Confiscating evidence is AFAIK standard police procedure in criminal cases on both sides of the Atlantic.

Briefly: When there'll be some actual news that private corporate stormtroopers actually kicked someone's door in, _then_ I'd start proclaiming that the EU as a whole is bought. But then I strongly suspect that the next news you read would be a bunch of ministers resigning, and some changes to the law being voted in a hurry. _No_ party wants to go down in history as having actually supported that kind of thing.

Use the law against itself

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

"During the debates, the directive was widened to cover any infringement of intellectual property.

The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen."

Time to get some obscure patents or copyrighted material, let it find its way into commercial and government use, and then use the law to raid the business and government offices and seize their assets.

*Companies*!?!

[sonamchauhan]

The article states:
The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.

Is this correct? Are companies going to be granted powers that had been restricted to law-enforcement (for good reasons) up until now?

Will Kodak be able to raid Sony to protect it's intellectual property?

There should be one penalty for both the little guy and the big guy - the law should not be a respecter of persons.

Re:*Companies*!?!

[Sumocide]

Let me quote from the directive, Article 8:

1. Member States shall ensure that [..] the competent judicial authorities may [..] order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement [..]

That's all. Nowhere is mentioned who shall take the measures. But since raids by companies would be unconstitutional in all member states the 'raid by companies' bit was pulled out of the editor's ass.

Re:*Companies*!?!

[jellomizer]

Wow man I am glad that is law is not in the U.S. There is so much room for abuse.

I am going to use AOL as an example. Just because I think it is one of the easiest situations.

Scan all your IM Messages and see who is using IM on an operating system that doesn't support their IM.
This could be like someone writing "Yea right now I am running OpenBSD it is cool"

Oh Oh someone is using something that may be using their IP but not threw them.

Lets Freeze their bank and raid their house. Force them to get a windows box with their IM so they can send out their advertisements. Or go threw out a long court battle until the issue is resolved.

Secondly if the Company Raids the house and not law enforcement. What powers will these people have. Although in europe they have more flexibility for gun control but many of their citizens still do. You think a every citizen will go by and just allow their house to be ransacked by a company. or will it be like.

Knock Knock. This is MegaCorp I come here to raid your house.
Martha Get my gun.

Re:*Companies*!?!

[sonamchauhan]

{Mod parent up!}
Thanks for the clarification!

Re:*Companies*!?!

[KDan]

Not likely. AOL is a public company that cares (or should care) about its image. They have a strong IM product, but hardly a monopoly, given the alternatives (MSN, Jabber, Yahoo... and even ICQ, still). If they sue people who make AIM clones, Joe Blow isn't going to care. If they start suing users they'll just scare everyone off within a year or two and lose AIM as a (not purely AOL-bound) product.

Remember AIM is a network which people use to talk. Consider that if you lose one person in the network because they get sued, all their friends will hear about it, and they'll all get off AIM illico presto. And most of their friends's friends. And a large percentage of their friends' friends' friends... etc. Once large numbers of people are moving off AIM, even AOL users will end up installing some rival product so they can keep talking to their friends.

So, overall, a very bad move for AOL. Even AOL execs will be able to see that.

Daniel

Re:*Companies*!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

But since raids by companies would be unconstitutional in all member states the 'raid by companies' bit was pulled out of the editor's ass.

Exactly who is speaking out of his ass? At least some of the member states don't have a "constitution", so I guess you are just making that bit up, right?

Re:*Companies*!?!

[jtwJGuevara]

Who are they gonna send? Terry Tate?

Re:*Companies*!?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is EU _directive_. It doesn't have a law status until implemented in member states.

The problem is that this directive is more vague than most, which will mean very different implementations from country to country.

Re:*Companies*!?!

[Net_Wakker]

But since raids by companies would be unconstitutional in all member states the 'raid by companies' bit was pulled out of the editor's ass.

Right. From the BBC-article:

The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.

From the IPjustice-link:

It also provides for Anton Pillar orders or 'midnight knocks' that permit private citizens' homes to be raided by recording industry executives, and Mareva injunctions, which freeze consumers? bank accounts and other assets without the need for a court hearing.

From the FFII link:

It could allow surprise raids on teenagers in the middle of the night by private security firms on the flimsiest of evidence;

That's a lot of editors' asses. On the other hand, the Directive (and yes, I've read it completely and it IS ugly, if only because of the legalese) does seem to leave raidingpower etc in the hands of (OXYMORON-ALERT)competent judicial authorities, even though it looks as if they're supposed to act at the whim of the IP-rights holders.

Re:*Companies*!?!

[JPMH]

The only European countries which currently provide for such orders are the UK, Ireland and France.

In these countries the orders are indeed granted directly to the plaintiffs, in secret, without the defendants' case being put, authorising the plaintiffs themselves to go ahead.

Here's what a standard thousand-page textbook on UK Intellectual Property law has to say about such measures, called "Anton Piller" orders (Cornish & Llewellyn, 5e, 2003: section 2-43, page 82):

As a measure of "privatisation" the order is remarkable: a non-State agency is employed in the direct infarction of personal liberties; and more than that, those executing the order act for the very person who can least be expected to preserve a measure of objectivity and sense of proportion...

Although the reassurance was at first given that the orders would be rare [22], the procedure is regularly used, and it has considerably increased the speed and effectiveness of civil process. Yet it raises the spectre which in former times made the court so fearful of the general warrant to search. The proceedings turn on the plaintiff's evidence alone, and they occur in camera. If a single judge is satisfied prima facie that there is an infringement and a likelihood of serious injury, the plaintiff through his solicitor is empowered to launch his own attack on the defendant. Those executing the order are likely to believe that right is on their side and that they must put on a show of aggression if they are to secure what their client needs and deserves. In the tensions generated by the surprise service of the order, a defendant will need considerable temerity if he is to seek legal advice and challenge the basis on which the order was made.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[turgid]

So if someone rips off my LGPL'd code, I can march into their property, breaking down the door, and walk off with all their kit :-) w00t! I feel a BIG beowulf cluster coming on :-)

We already have a Euro-DMCA

[e6003]

It's called the European Union Copyright Directive and it was enacted into the national law of many member states last year. Imagine the fun if the worst provisions of this Directive get adopted into national law (they may not necessarily be so enacted) and the EU caves in over software patents - could a programmer's bank account be frozen and his house be raided at midnight for unkonwingly infringing a trivial and obvious patent? As has been remarked round these parts, George Orwell was right but out by 20 years...

Using the law against those who wanted it...

[pehrs]

I have not read the full suggestion yet, but all these laws that allows a company to take police actions makes me begin wondering... What would happen if I created a recording company, published a single song and began raiding political offices and homes as we have "Proof" of them sharing our intellectual property? And raiding ISP to take their servers? This seems to me like they are writing away an important part of the legal security and this is something to be very very affraid of when it begins happening. Giving a company the power of the police (intrusion etc) is never a good thing.

Re:Using the law against those who wanted it...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should know better than to go by the slashdot blurb. Your company would not get the right to do anything more than apply for the police to do the raid. And if it turns out that there was no IP infringement after all, your company must compensate the raided party for the losses caused. Good luck using this to harass anyone.

Is this normal in the EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this something that happens in other laws in the EU? Companies being allowed to perform as cops? Breaking into buildings to sieze evidence?!?

Man lately I'd been feeling that living in the US was getting pretty Draconian but at least I havn't heard anything about Microsoft getting the rights to do a midnight raid on my house to see if I have liscenses for all my software.

Of course knowing our overlords they've probably been able to do this for a while have kept the fact well hidden.

France are belong to us

[Anonymous Coward]

The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal.

Et VUla!

Vive la France! And thanks for the help, Europa.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

umm,and how the hell would they have their "castle in the hollywood hills" if they let everyone pirate their software?

can't have your cake and eat it too.

age of enlightenment

[Anonymous Coward]

Age of enlightenment and the free view upon information and knowledge that even the ancient world knew of, apparently is not good enough for our "modern" society.

Re:age of enlightenment

[Anonymous Coward]

How much for enlightenment? How much if I want redistribution rights, too?

Wait for the First Prosecutions

[The Brain Murderer]

If there is any sanity left in the world, the outcry at the rough handling that is bound to ensue (bullies never do things gently do they?) will have these 'laws' modified or repealed.

In the mean time, feel free to vote out politicians that seem to only remember to represent your views in their pre-election pamphlets...

(I live in the UK)

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

that is actually damn right, but unfortunately, now we have giant corporations, like sco and now kodak, abusing these ip laws.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[hyphz]

> What is it like to create and then have your
> creation ripped off and given away for free?

Like signing a distribution deal?

Good news

[trezor]

This has no relevance to parent post whatsoever, but it needs to be said and read.

These new laws, which probably will be passed, may have some nasty DMCA like tendencies, but there are good news as well.

It will outloaw technological measures to prevent free trade (like DVD-zones). It's not all to the record/movie-business.

Even if this law, I must admit, is the lowest I've ever seen the EU crawl for the industry.

Re:Good news

[KDan]

This amendment seems decent enough:

One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use.

If it basically restricts the suing to professional pirates, ie people who download music or movies to sell it on the street, then I don't see anything wrong with it. That's what copyrights were meant to do - protect artists/publishers from other publishers (and not from consumers).

If that's what this law is, it seems pretty sensible after all!

Daniel

Re:Good news

[Jane_Dozey]

but its open to abuse. Large corporations don't seem to be above that kind of thing. And shouldn't it be left up to the police to sort this type of thing out?

Re:Good news

[KDan]

If you're talking about the raid stuff, it is. See this other post.

Daniel

Re:Good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright is needed, but civilian storm troopers with the right to raid private premises is ridiculous. This is what most countries have police for!

Re:Good news

[Lodragandraoidh]

Companies don't do that sort of stuff anyway - they lobby for laws that support their view, and let the federal government do all the dirty work:

Companies = lawyers + civil suits

Government = law enforcement (i.e. the raiding and confiscation activity) + criminal prosecution (judiciary and prosecutors)

Companies have no power to confiscate documents or subpeona witnesses - only the court can order these actions and will either depend upon the parties to provide said documentation or order federal agents to accomplish the confiscation via a search warrant (unless the crime is considered a 'homeland security' issue - at which point the U.S. Attorney General can bypass the courts and make that call - seizing evidence, tapping communications lines, and holding people indefinitely without recourse to habeas corpus).

Re:Good news

[Catbeller]

The problem is simple: the interpretation of "good faith" is up to the raiding corporation.

Scientology is going to LOVE this. Anywhere, anytime, in they come through the windows! Frozen bank accounts! Jail! And all they have to do is ASK?

Yeah, you can take them to court. After all your stuff is gone, your bank accounts locked up, and your person seized.

Does no one remember alt.scientology.war in Wired magazine? Time magazine? Arnie Lerma? The first spam assault back in 97-98, with over 1 million spam messages and forgeries posted to alt.religion.scientology?

They were the first copyright abusing corporate entity, and the first to use spam as a weapon. And they are still #1 for suppressing coverage of their activities. Does no one remember what they did when they didn't have the law on their side? They were raiding THEN.

No one can stand up to the Hubbardites in Europe anymore if even a fraction of this insanity becomes law. Xenu.net will have its hosting ISP's doors kicked in the week after this passes. It'll be illegal in real terms to talk about their "secret" teachings on the internet. This is an eternal gag order.

Music? Movies? That's kiddy stuff. The nuclear strength copyright maniacs are what we have to worry about.

Re:Good news

[dave420]

Calm down, dude!

First of all, as has been previously stated - these are directives, not laws. Secondly, the directives says companies can't sue home users, who are using infringing material in "good faith", basically limiting the effect of the directive to commercial pirates, not you and I.

Unlike America, we don't wan't to sue people. When people have to sue, something's gone horribly wrong, and suing more isn't going to help. :-P

Re:Good news

[cayenne8]

Would it not be better to specifically state that commercial pirates are the target instead of the vague 'good faith' part?

Re:Good news

[Brandybuck]

We don't want to sue in the US either... except for the lawyers and those they've suckered into being clients. Oh, and those that watch Oprah, read the Enquirer. Er, and those who live in Orem, Pedukah and Simi Valley...

Come to think of it, you may be right.

Re:Good news

[spells]

And they are still #1 for suppressing coverage of their activities How do you know? :)

Re:Good news

[WorkEmail]

Exactly. A company has nothing to gain by stopping the average consumer from downloading music.

I don't know if any of you are like me or not, but if it was not possible to download music, I wouldn't buy any of it. I would rather not have any music than have to pay $15.99 for a cd with two good songs.

Not to mention, artists need to put on more and better live performances. They should not be able to spend two weeks in a studio and rake in millions and millions. People like Jennifer Lopez, who are essentially recording artists, and do their album, and hardly ever a live performance after are ridiculous. They are most often the ones who complain about consumer downloading. I have no problem paying 50 or 60 dollars to see a good concert, but I refuse to pay over about 7 dollars for a CD.

Re:Good news

[gcaseye6677]

I'd rather be wrongfully sued than have private gestapos be able to raid my home and take my stuff, all without a court order. Then, to get my stuff back, I'm sure I'd have to sue them. Constitutional protections really are a good thing, and because of these protections this type of law has never been proposed in the U.S. and I highly doubt it ever will be.

Anarchy in the EU

[OwlWhacker]

It actually sounds as if the EU is welcoming anarchy.

I accuse Microsoft of copyright infringement, I'm sure that there must be a whole pile of GPL code hacked into Windows. Can I go ransack all of the Microsoft offices in Europe now?

Re:Anarchy in the EU

[cozziewozzie]

I'm not sure you know the meaning of word anarchy. How can a union of 25 governments passing laws which limit freedom be considered anarchy, when anarchy is the absence of government and laws? More information in the Anarchist FAQ.

Yes, I know that people (ab)use the word 'anarchy' when they actually mean 'chaos', but using fancy words does not make your point stronger if you don't know what they mean. If you mean 'chaos', then say 'chaos'.

Re:Anarchy in the EU

[OwlWhacker]

I don't know about fancy words making my point stronger, I was just thinking about the Sex Pistols.

I didn't say that these laws have produced anarchy, but that the EU seems to be welcoming it.

If you have a law that almost beckons people to cause chaos, surely this goes against laws and government? What will the end result be? Anarchy perhaps? This was my point.

Fancy words. Honestly, what do you think I am? Somebody that likes to show off their superiority?

Re:Anarchy in the EU

[cozziewozzie]

Sorry, the fancy words part was more of a general comment, not related specifically to your post. Anarchy is just one of those concepts which get thrown around by many without being understood.

I see where you're going with your comment about chaos going against laws and government, but in practice, this chaos only reinforces the need for strong authority which can in turn defeat chaos and restore order. As such, it is contrary to the idea of anarchy, which seeks to reduce the amount of authority in a society. Anarchy cannot be achieved through chaos, anarchy can only be achieved as a consequence of a society where authority is not needed.

Anarchists sometimes confront the system (police, military and such), but this is an attack on the instruments of power and, as such, are working towards reducing their authority in a society. People and companies raiding each others while the government sits on top and is above such laws can only strengthen the hierarchical structure of society.

That's why I disagreed with your post :-)

Re:Anarchy in the EU

[KDan]

What you mean is chaos, not anarchy.

The two are not always equal.

Daniel

Re:Anarchy in the EU

[OwlWhacker]

I see. Very good point.

Maybe the EU is just participating in some devious trick, where it appears to welcome anarchy in an attempt to gain more control.

Perhaps, in order to combat the chaos it has caused, everybody will agree that the government should have more authority.

Re:Anarchy in the EU

[OwlWhacker]

NO!

I mean anarchy!

ARRGH!

I mean that the EU seems to be happy to let everybody do as they please, with a kind of "If it feels right, do it" attitude. It's almost like creating a law that encourages 'lawless' behavior, if you know what I mean.

It could start off with a couple of companies waging war against each other, the next thing you know everybody is taking everybody elses stuff, people are eating each other, and the economy is crumbling. Greed prevails. Everything is brought to a stand-still. Politicians are burnt at the stake. Albatrosses are beheaded. That type of thing.

If only the Sex Pistols had named their song "Chaos in the UK", then I probably wouldn't even have posted this in the first place, and we'd all be much happier.

:)

Re:Anarchy in the EU

[KDan]

What's wrong with a more laissez-faire way? If you compare Europe and the US, I think the "let everybody do as they please" is wildly more successful at creating a place where it's enjoyable to live!

However, that's not anarchy, far for it. It's called "liberalism". You should try it - it works. ;-)

Daniel

This is the final straw!

[Cooper_007]

I'm moving to America!

Oh wait...

Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -

Re:This is the final straw!

[l0wland]

Me too, but at this very moment US-authorities are still investigating my fingerprints, creditcard-payments and medical info. After that, I can... oh wait...

Re:This is the final straw!

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be a sad, sad day if China ever becomes the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

Re:This is the final straw!

[Barto]

Don't worry, there's always Canada ay-buddy!

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have a couple of houses and enough money to live a luxurious life from interest, you (morally) lose the right to complain about piracy when your CDs still cost $18. If someone on MTV cribs ever honestly complains about piracy, there's going to be a revolution in which people will die.

Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.!

[OldManAndTheC]

Lucky for me I live in that bastion of individual freedom: the U.S. of A.!

Hang on, someone is knocking at the door...

Re:Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.!

[Charcharodon]

Yeh, but we tend to answer the door with a twelve gauge.

Man this stuff is funny. EU politians need to lay off the drugs.

Re:Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.!

[idamaybrown]

Don't worry, they are trying to take that right away also.

Re:Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.!

[TiggsPanther]

Yeh, but we tend to answer the door with a twelve gauge

If we did that over here, we'd get charged with possession of an unlicensed weapon. Even if the guy/gal we opened the door to was about to rip us off.

Man this stuff is funny. EU politians need to lay off the drugs

Nah. They need to get on the drugs. Relax. Chill out. And just leave us alone.

Tiggs

Re:Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man this stuff is funny. EU politians need to lay off the drugs.

No, move the EU parliament to Amsterdam and see how things work out. Visit a coffeeshop and the red light district, you'll feel much better :)

Re:Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.!

[poot_rootbeer]

Lucky for me I live in that bastion of individual freedom: the U.S. of A.!
Hang on, someone is knocking at the door...

One of the nice things about life in these United States is that when non-police Copyright Goon Squads bust down the door to your home, you're within your rights to grab your shotgun and open fire on them...

(Laws my vary by locale)

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

You may not be aware of it, but a large fraction of the slashdot frequenters with a job are in fact in the content creation business. Specifically, they are creating copyrighted software for money.

More info

[l0wland]

Here

I wonder if local authorities will allow non-official parties to enter your house without official government permission. The EU can decide this, but local authorities can still overrule it, AFAIK. But, IANAL.

Illegal File Sharing

[DaneelGiskard]

So, a company holding the copyright on a movie/mp3 could raid the home of an end user if he illegaly downloads movies through some sort of P2P system for example? And confiscate his computer? Sounds nasty, I'm sure some companies in the USA would love to be able to do so as well ;-)

Re:Illegal File Sharing

[TEB_78]

How about reading the article?

From the article: But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home.

One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use.

Re:Illegal File Sharing

[jellomizer]

There 4 words why why USA companies will try not to do that.
"Margie, Get My Gun." Because right now I am sure that the corprate goons will not be able to obtain a license to kill like the police have.

Re:Illegal File Sharing

[DigiShaman]

File sharing is like smokeing pot. More people do it then the general public will admit.

I just hope they raid the house of a polition because their little johnny or jane was caught downloading MP3z. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Re:Illegal File Sharing

[DaneelGiskard]

Sorry, I should have read the article...but had no time for it due to work, so I guessed I'd just leave an uneducated comment instead ;-)

Re:Illegal File Sharing

[rollie_tyler]

ATM guards have guns in the US. Why can't "IP Guards?"

Re:Illegal File Sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

"One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use."

If you download via a P2P connection, then by definition, people will then *upload* it from you.

*poof*

That's the sound of your legal "good faith" disappearing. Next sound is the thud of your door crashing down.

All because of a frigging pop song.

I think this is just a lie to appease idiots who don't understand what this really means.

HM Customs can do this already in the UK

[Moderation abuser]

Have been able to do it for hundreds of years. Their powers are greater than those of the Police. Nothing like the threat of a bit of tax evasion or smuggling to have the government breaking down your doors freezing your bank accounts and seizing your assets.

The reason I mentioned customs is that they handle fakes, counterfeiting etc here.

Re:HM Customs can do this already in the UK

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, anyone can already do it in the UK (and Canada, Australia etc) with a court order in exactly the same way as this directive applies.

*Mareva injunction: freezes bank accounts
*Anton Piller order: allows you to search homes and offices.

Getting one of these orders takes less than 20 minutes in front of a High Court judge.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Those slashbots are typically not the owners of the copyright and have no direct, vested interest in the content itself. It is of almost no consequence to them if someone were to rip off the content. As long as the paycheck is steady, most employees (ie. content creators) couldn't care any less about their product.

Human rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read the article (yet), but this caught my eye in the post:

with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement

This seems to breach a basic human right - that of being innocent until proven guilty. I'd argue that that type of action can't be taken until they are more than accused, there would have to already be a significant amount of evidence to allow that sort of action.

Re:Human rights?

[Mjlner]

This seems to breach a basic human right - that of being innocent until proven guilty.

You will find that some EU member states do not agree with you about what is a basic human right, eg. Belgium and the Netherlands.

Re:Human rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please elaborate.

Accusing the Gov

[Un0r1g1nal]

They have themselves protected by having veto options on all EU directives, so if you did find out they were breaking some infringment then as soon as you brought the hired goons in they would veto the law.

Then you had better damn well hope that you could run fast and hide well .. because they would come after you, and your family, and your pet dog pingo, and even your goldfish goldie. .. no mercy

Re:Accusing the Gov

[tiger99]

The UK government (assuming Tory B. Liar to be still in power) would simply find a judge who is about to retire, secretly double his pension, and employ him to conduct a public enquiry.

Re:Accusing the Gov

[Anonymous Coward]

Which would not fit the requirements of the directive. As such a judge would be an "Incompetent" judicial authority, not a competent one as required.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

so what you're saying is, that once you have earned a certain amount of income from selling something, you should then just stop and give it away for free?
regardless of whether that means you are going to go broke 5, 10, 20 years down the track?

a moral issue? if you ask me, it's a moral issue from the point of view of people who are *pirating* the products.

you give the music ind. as an example (mtv); i know small-time bands in the music ind. it's not just huge corporations. do they not deserve support for making their music?

the record companies are taking 90% of the profits, no shit; but that's just how it is - should they stop making music?

Nice

[Simple-Simmian]

I am glad this got some editors attention. I submitted it yesterday afternoon. Now Hollowood and the recording business can smash some doors down in th EU too. Bastages. If I was in the EU I would be getting worked up plenty over this DMCA style crap.

One important point...

[RonnyJ]

One important detail that seems to have been missed out of the summary... (from the linked BBC article)

"But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home."

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

And what if you create something, give it away for free, and some scumbag SCO comes along and rips it off, (thieving, white collar criminal litigious bastards that they are), does that mean I can raid SCO for stealing my comment lines in the code they use? =) They are, after all, also covered under copyright.

It's more than likely

[Trurl's Machine]

Being an European myself, I'm not surprised. Europe as such had always less serious approach to habeas corpus than America. In many European countries, police needs no warrant to search & seize private property. Police is not obliged to read the arrested person "his Miranda". When you are arrested in Europe and you'll say "hey! I have a right to make a phone call", the policeman is quite likely to say "no, you don't - you're watching too much American flicks". And he might be right. Of course, one can name many violations of individual freedom in the USA (especially in the past), but they are a violation of something that exists at least in theory. In Europe, it might not even be in theory, not to mention reality. Heck, Great Britain doesn't even have a constitution, so if you'll ever say "buddy, you violate my constitutional rights" to a British policeman, you will probably give him a good laughter.

One cannot forget that many European states had experiences with fascism, communism and other authoritarianisms. The lawmakers and administrators creating the democratic Germany and Austria had often Nazi or even SS past - like the infamous Theodor Oberlander or Kurt Waldheim. But similar affairs of the "Vichy past" were striking the French public life, and actually the Spanish "Guardia Civil" is exactly the same formation known as "death troops" during the Franco regime - they didn't even bother to change the name. The authoritarian past in Europe is not that distant - Spain, Portugal and Greece ended their dictatorships as late as in mid-1970's. Now Europe accepts fresh crop of authotirtarians from the post-communist states. The people who once sent other people to gulag and confiscated their "bourgeois property" will be the lawmakers in Strasbourg and Brussels. Along with the people who sent other people to "gaskammers" and confiscated their "Jewish property".

Yes, I am exaggerating (and maybe even flamebaiting ;-)), but that's because I am very much concerned by the direction the EU is turning to. But I want to emphasize the fact, that while "hey, it's against habeas corpus!" is still a valid argument in the USA (even if it will be overruled by the "what's good for RIAA/MPAA is good for everyone", also known as the Zero Amendment) - in Europe it might not even be a valid argument at all.

Re:It's more than likely

[Krach42]

I'd just like to point out to some degree that in general Germany's had a pretty good (or bad depending on which way you look at it) record for restricting the strength of ultra-right, and ultra-left.

First of all, look at the whole Scientology fiasco. They're all mad at Germany for not recognizing it as an acceptable religion, then they forget that the Germans were under the tyranny of an ultra-right facist government that just happened to catch the eye of the public long enough to get power.

They're generally not into letting that happen again. (As I'm sure they're aware that if they start WW3, there's going to be a whole lot of people that are gonna be PISSED).

But like you said, you're hyperbolizing for effect.

Re:It's more than likely

[Elektroschock]

Policemen act according to the legal standards. Your article is a flamebait.

"The people who once sent other people to gulag and confiscated their "bourgeois property" will be the lawmakers in Strasbourg and Brussels. Along with the people who sent other people to "gaskammers" and confiscated their "Jewish property"."

Sounds a little bit paranoid. These are crimes of the past and the persons who did it are dead. Crimes against humanity in the past were a good lesson to change the system. Legal standards in Europe are known to be high.

However, the executive branch does not make the laws. It's the lack of lobbying and citizen's representation on the EU level.

Support organisations who are in the debate by donations, give them attantion, forward their news. It is a a power case. the Music industry lost a lot of money, so they invested into lobbying. Don't hate the lobby, be the lobby.

Re:It's more than likely

[AaronGTurner]

"Being an European myself, I'm not surprised. Europe as such had always less serious approach to habeas corpus than America. In many European countries, police needs no warrant to search & seize private property. Police is not obliged to read the arrested person "his Miranda". When you are arrested in Europe and you'll say "hey! I have a right to make a phone call", the policeman is quite likely to say "no, you don't - you're watching too much American flicks".

On the whole we do have something very close to those rights, enshrined in the national law of many EU nations before, and now further protected by the (non-EU) convention on human rights. It is possible to temporarily opt out of the convention, though.

Certainly UK law proscribed various forms of search and seizure (and the US law sometimes allows it, against most interpretations of the Bill of Rights) even prior to the convention, and those arrested must be read their rights and are entitled to legal representation during questioning.

Does the USA have a specific right to a phone call? I thought the right was to contact a lawyer to arrange representation rather than specifically a requirement to allow a phone call, in which case UK law is very similar.

Re:It's more than likely

[Krach42]

I personally think it's important to have someone play the devil's paranoia. It gives you a nice outlook on "what-if" cases.

Like, what if the framers of the constitution went, "well, wait... if we leave no restrictions on arms, some crazy kid might eventually get his hands on a large stash of weapontry, and cause havoc, killing a lot of people."

Maybe we wouldn't have the 2nd amendment in that case. Not that that would necessarily be outright better... I'm not even certain if this country could have kept itself together without it.

Re:It's more than likely

[Krach42]

I'm not entirely certain myself, as I've never been arrested.

But generally the "one phonecall" is to get ahold of someone who can bail you out, so you can contact a lawyer outside of jail.

Re:It's more than likely

[hyphz]

> Heck, Great Britain doesn't even have a
> constitution, so if you'll ever say "buddy,
> you violate my constitutional rights" to a
> British policeman, you will probably give him
> a good laughter.

The UK doesn't have a constitution, but it *does* have habeas corpus; one of the few countries in the UK that does. (Although it's been threatened by some of the laws on terrorism.)

However, it's also had enough stupid cases of home-owners being jailed for assaulting burglars while defending their property that I can't see this being good.

I guess the next step is for the burglar to use a public recording booth to record himself singing "'ere we go" or whatever, take the CD with him when he breaks into someone's house and if he's caught, quickly throw down the CD, claim it was there before, and that he's only entered the house to investigate this unauthorised use of his IP..

Re:It's more than likely

[kfg]

The authoritarian past in Europe is not that distant - Spain. . .

I once had the lovely experience of being held under armed military guard for attending a religious service in Spain - in 1973. The military was aware of our service because, of course, we had to apply to the government to be allowed, otherwise we would have all gone to prison instead of being guarded, and then "released." You may be exagerating, but it was a bit of an eye opener for an American, and obviously part of my living memory.

I have no doubt there are still some here and there in Spain who think of those times as "the good old days," but I'd posit they're in the minority.

Still, it bears keeping a watchful eye when I begin to suspect that like events might one day soon be taking place in America if we aren't very, very careful.

KFG

Re:It's more than likely

[Trurl's Machine]

These [the Holocaust] are crimes of the past and the persons who did it are dead (...) However, the executive branch does not make the laws.

But the executive branch often initiates the laws and passes the proposed bills to the parliament. Just check the case of one Hans Globke, the guy who wrote the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 - these laws were actually the legal framework of the Holocaust. They allowed to gather Jewish citizens in ghettos and subsequently eliminate them, all according to the law (the Nuremberg Law). The very same Hans Globke was appointed Staatssekretaer (State Secretary of the Federal Republic of Germany - the highest administrative post in Germany) in 1953 and he was one of the people shaping the federal German state as we know it today. So of course you're right pointing, that he's dead but... this is the country he has shaped. Many leading public officials of the whole Adenauer era had similar skeletons in closets (technically, not exactly skeletons but rather their Nazi uniforms back from the "good old days"). Therefore there was nothing strange in the fact, that in 1963 German state police seized the office of an indepented weekly magazine - just because it was investigating a corruption case. Yes, I know that the Spiegel Scandal eventually ended in a triumph of democracy - but please observe how lightly the aspect of private property and individual freedom was treated in this case. In Germany it can't happen as well today - this is the same state with the same law. Co-written by Hans Globke and alike.

Re:It's more than likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, one can name many violations of individual freedom in the USA (especially in the past), but they are a violation of something that exists at least in theory. In Europe, it might not even be in theory, not to mention reality.

Yes, in some European countries, some of the rights that the USA lay down in law are assumed rather than explicitly granted.

But you can't generalise that to all rights. For example, over here in Europe, most countries have data privacy laws. The USA doesn't have these types of laws, but that doesn't mean that we are automatically superior any more than the opposite makes you superior.

One cannot forget that many European states had experiences with fascism, communism and other authoritarianisms.

We don't want to forget, and we don't consider what our ancestors did to reflect badly on our current society. I'm sure people from the USA don't want to be judged as genocidal land-grabbers (you mostly aren't native Americans you know).

Re:It's more than likely

[Anonymous Coward]

"We taught them a lesson in 1918 / And they've hardly bothered us since then."

-- Tom Lehrer

Re:It's more than likely

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still nice to live in a country where I have a absolute right to LIVE.

In US state can take that often overlooked 'human right' away. Or somebody can kill you rightfully for standing in a wrong place (their property). For me it seems the right to property is then stronger than right to live.

EU is still more humane I think

Re:It's more than likely

[Anonymous Coward]

" It is still nice to live in a country where I have a absolute right to LIVE."

And jews had the right to live as long as they built roads, or supplied the 3rd reich with war material and labor. Then they legally were not allowed to live.

The right to LIVE in and of itself is meaningless. If I strip you of your rights and property, you wouldn't care much about living anymore.

You don't even have a constituional right to speak. You're more worried about "human dignity". A marvelous way to restrict free speech. You probably even agree with it.

You should just put on a white wool sweater, go on all 4's and start bleating "BAAAAH". It would save us all a bit of time.

Re:It's more than likely

[cpghost]

Now Europe accepts fresh crop of authotirtarians from the post-communist states.

Why are you assuming that people from post-communist states would elect more authoritarian regimes, therefore skewing the political mainstream? It may be exactly the opposite: people who directly experienced dictatorship (as opposed to just have heard about it in the media) are much more sensible to authoritarian behaviour. They may very well be less tolerant of facistoid tendencies than the average west european (who wouldn't care).

The problem with our democracy is not that it is being "invaded" from authoritarian outsiders. We are the ones who are neglecting democracy. We fail to preserve it, be it out of laziness, ignorance or whatever else. It comes to no surprise that authoritarian politicians emerge out of this.

Re:It's more than likely

[cpghost]

Policemen act according to the legal standards.

Even policemen in dictatorships (normally) act according to legal standards. They follow the legal rules just like our cops do. It's just not our laws, but the laws of a country under dictatorship. For instance, if they have a law that allows torture, policemen torturing their victims are acting within their legal framework. There's nothing a court could do about it.

Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that it is legitimate.

Re:It's more than likely

[Krach42]

... I'm talking specifically since World War 2, which is true. They run a very moderate country in general now.

Take the Iraqi war, they weren't for it, but when we presented our evidence (the nature of which after-the-fact is disputable) they were like, "Woah... um... ok... let's uh, see how we can do this the right way."

Unlike the Flaming French, the Ragging Russians, and the Chattering Chinese, who were basicly like, "We don't care WHAT evidence you have, you won't go in there." ... Of course, we learn that they had huge oil investments in the old Iraqi regiem... Nah, that was just coincidence.

But anyways, I'm getting highly offtopic. For the most part the Grundgesetz of Germany has a similar protection from illegal search and seizure as the US, so I'm hoping (as I'll be there shortly, and for a few years) that they'll not be stupid.

Really, sometimes I wonder how I can have faith in things, and yet still be so cynical.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[kfg]

Oooooooo, low blow. :)

"One reason for the bustle was that over large parts of the continent other people preferred to make money without working at all, and since the Disc had yet to develop a music recording industry they were forced to fall back on older, more traditional forms of banditry."

-- Terry Pratchett

KFG

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I think the greed needs to stop, or we will make it stop. There have been revolutions, there will be revolutions. They can only take what they take now because copyright law is completely out of proportion. Nothing Britney Spears (to give the prototypical example) has ever done in 20 something years is worth so much more than what a teacher or a nurse do their whole life. If you really find a way to go broke with eight figures in your bank account, you deserve to have to work again.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[91degrees]

Actually, a lot of deals have a negative net value. You sell the rights to your music for what amounts to a loan. They give you an advance, but that, and things like marketting, recording studio time, CD pressing costs, and breakages (calculated from the losses caused by records breaking) are deducted from the bands cut of the royalties. A lot of people will find themselves in debt to a record company after a fairly succesful album.

Re:Can the "Sealand" stuff, please

[91degrees]

What about Antarctica?

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Elektroschock]

Thsi si not what the directive or the criticism is about. Read the the sites carefully.

The directive will be dangerous for persons or orga on a commercial scale that are infringing on intellectual property. Also for BONA FIDE infrigenment, infrigement that you are not aware of. Measures designed for combating criminal product privacy will also apply.

And the directive reduces the legal standards.

A free Gun for SCO and Patent privateers.

A company is not a policeman

[filekutter]

Here in the states that would be impersonation of a police officer and highly illegal. I get an image of thousands of corporate armies, each independently operating with their own objectives, restrictions, and initiatives... and THAT is scary as hell. We've already seen what can happen with abuses of authority by law enforcement agencies that must answer to the public, but where is the accountability in a board room? For more, read Huxley's 'Brave New World'.

Re:A company is not a policeman

[Krach42]

It would only be impersonation of a police officer if you actually claimed to be the police.

Now if they knock on your door and say, "We're with SCO, we'd like to see your harddrive." then they're not impersonating an officer. Doesn't mean it's any more legal, as it's tatemount to stealing, and theft.

But it's definately not impersonating an officer.

Re:A company is not a policeman

[MImeKillEr]

How quickly you forget this (covered here on slashdot, though I couldn't find it).

Quoth the link:

Though no guns were brandished, the bust from a distance looked like classic LAPD, DEA or FBI work, right down to the black "raid" vests the unit members wore. The fact that their yellow stenciled lettering read "RIAA" instead of something from an official law-enforcement agency was lost on 55-year-old parking-lot attendant Ceasar Borrayo.

Looking like and acting like an officer of the law would warrant being detained (if not outright arrested) by a cop if Joe Average did the same.

I know there's at least one cop that reads /. If you're reading this thread, please chime in?

Re:A company is not a policeman

[Krach42]

Hm... I'd have to say that yes, the described situation would be impersonating an officer. Because just because the items are "obviously" fake, if they are presented as authority of an officer, then they're real.

Like how you can get booked for selling Marajuana even if it's only oregano. (Because you were selling Marajuana, but you were cheating people and not giving them what they paid for)

Now, I'd like to say that it's possible to perform a raid without looking like a police officer. I suggest bright orange traffic vests, and that orange yellow camo that S&R uses. Come up to the door, and knock saying, "This is ____, we'd like to come in an see what you have in there." Then when the person shouts "No!" You shout back, "Pretty please, with sugar on top?"

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[chthon]

I was waiting for a question like this. I have been browsing some lawsites, specific for my country (Belgium).

It seems that in all countries which signed the Geneva convention, everybodies workings are automatically copyrighted, this means also yours and mine.

I think that somewhere in there lies an opportunity to hollow out current copyright legislation, because the Geneva convention is besed upon the premise of industries and old, expensive IT systems.

Everybody is now capable of delivering original content. Can this be used to cause IP inflation, creating more IP which is less worth ?

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

great point, and one i think worth pointing out.

i consider myself a gnu/linux advocate and slashdot addict, and for a living, i develop software (Perl) for what has now become a mulit-million dollar internet company.

the company of course holds the software rights and also several patents.

i *hate* the patent abuses that we see happening and i hate what sco and others like it are doing with regards to ip.
but these people are *abusing" and exploiting the situation.
they should be stopped, but it doesn't mean that no-one or no company deserves the right to earn a living from developing their product they've worked so hard to create.

Re:Very Orwellian?

[Chalybeous]

And that, I think, is what we Brits call "taking the piss"... ;-)

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, again, how would they have the 8 figures in the first place?

i *agree* with your britney and it's a good one, but that is the fault of the masses that *buy* it.

if no-one supports the upcoming, underground, whatever bands; if everyone pirates them; they will not get money they so *dearly* do deserve, and we will not have any music.

i agree; i don't buy britney spears shit. but i do buy music i like. that's all i'm trying to say. there really is a difference.

This law is terrible even so

[FreeUser]

"But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home."

One important detail got left out of your post.

This applies ONLY to freezing bank accounts and doing background checks.

They CAN still break down your door for suspected copyright infringement at the personal level. This includes trading cassette tapes, as college students have been doing for thirty years.

I predicted that, in the day of the Internet and digital media, either the copyright and patent regimes would have to weakened if not scrapped, or draconian laws that would make the former Soviet Union look liberal would have to be enacted.

Looks like we've chosen the stalinist route: Communism^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Capitalism over Freedom.

Nice going Europe. Scratch another place to move to ... which brings up the ultimate goal of these disgusting cartels. If and when they get their way, there will be no place for us to move to. We'll all be equally beneath their heel.

Re:This law is terrible even so

[Pofy]

Still, it would have to be a copyright infringement to start with. Trading cassette tapes (or CDs) with friends is not nessecarilly copyright infringement in some countries. Even with the new proposed copyright laws here in Sweden, you can copy for example music for close friends and family.

Not a law

[roalt]

Although the story title suggests otherwise, the thing passed is a directive and not a law: Member states are encouraged to implement this guideline, and they can do this with modifications, according to This (Dutch) article.

This same article says that no action may be taken against consumers who act in "good faith" and download music. Of course, we must see how this works out...

Making legislation to protect copyright rights is okay for me, making legislation to limit the use of legally licensed (equals bought) copyrighted material is what's really wrong.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

To restate my main point: Those who complain loudest are those who already have more than enough. You rarely hear a garage or semi-pro band complain about piracy. These people were giving some of their stuff away on mp3.com. I know I would have one heck of a bad conscience pirating the music which they don't offer for free.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[cherokee158]

I know exactly what it feels like. I am a practicing illustrator, and copyright is my bread and butter. Until computers transformed anyone with a copy of Photoshop into an "artist" and anyone with an HTML editor a "publisher", your could not exist as a professional without a firm understanding of copyright law. There were few abuses as a result. Since the revolution, theft of images is commonplace. However, as a fledgling illustrator with little to lose but my pride, I braved the web early and learned a lot about intellectual property and business. I learned:

1) Most people are decent and generally ask permission before reproducing my graphics
2) Many people are ignorant of copyright law altogether, but they are not the ones you need worry about
3) Contracts don't mean dink unless you can afford a good attorney
4) The best protection from those who steal intellectual property is your intellect itself. That is, I feel secure that I will survive as an artist even if one of my pieces is reproduced illegally. I can, after all, always make create more work. So I am not militant about copyright enforcement. Trespasses are rare, and do as much to promote my work as they diminish it.
The crooks, on the other hand, need to keep stealing to survive. Those with the most interest in copyright are the non-creators, whose only substinence is their parasitical relationship with creative people. They deal in commodities, exploiting the works of others, and without copyright protection they have no product at all.
Copyright is useful to an artist in the sense that it can permit us to make enough money to do our work full-time. A copyright is actually a bundle of rights, which can be parcelled out to various publishers for far more money than any one publisher is likely to pay. But copyright laws that are two restrictive can also hamper creativity and induce laziness. Personally, I'd love to see the stupid Sonny Bono act (the name says it all) repealed. There is no value in copyrights that last for decades...not to their creators, anyway.
Has it happened to me? Yes, and the law offered me no protection at all. Justice in this country goes to the highest bidder.

Like most parasites, though, I think those who would exploit the creativity of others will soon learn that a good parasite does not suck it's host dry and survive. Already, the RIAA is feeling the backlash of consumers fed up with manufactured music and strongarm tactics. Local animation houses have learned that if Americans can't get quality animation here, they will import it. (Animators are a very exploited breed of artist, who traditionally work long hours for low wages.) Disney is biting at it's own wounds after unwisely deciding that they had no use for traditional artists anymore (Pixar hired most of them...guess whose laughing now?). I think the MPAA and the endless guilds in Hollywood will soon learn that the Independents are numerous, talented and fully capable of distributing their own films, thankyou.

So, how does it feel? It feels lousy, but not nearly as bad signing those rights away to some exploitive corporation who may never get around to cutting you a check anyway.

Screw copyright. Only criminals need rules for morality spelled out on paper.

"good faith" and oversight

[nuggz]

You say no action may be taken against consumers who act in "good faith".

If there is no oversight by the courts, who determines "good faith" the recording companies?

Freezing someones assets is a drastic measure, it terrifies me that my assets could be frozen by a company on a mere accusation, without any court oversight.

Re:"good faith" and oversight

[roalt]

You're absolutely right, here in Holland a politician already said that the record industry proved time on time that if you gives the means to protect their copyright they will try to stretch that means.

The same politician also said they don't want situations like in the USA where they prosecute a 12-year old.

maybe not as bad as we think

[tonythepony]

Its important to note that this legislation is not so much law as it is a framework for law. See this letter.

who do we vote for?

[samhalliday]

this is one thing that really annoys me about the EU... don't get me wrong, i love the idea of it, but when they do something stupid like this, we all realise how little power the people have over the leaders. if a local party were to try and pass this... they would be voted out quicker than you could say goodbye. but, what do we do here?

there is one politician in my area who has a small voice in the EU, and he has pretty much the ideas that everyone has on slashdot when IP is mentioned. but he is a memeber of a controversial party and i am not sure if i agree with their other policies; but i think i will have to compromise my other views as this is much more important to me. but what difference would it make if that guy even got back next year :-/ not much.

seems that the bigger the powers get, the less sense they see... and the more dafties start voting!

Re:who do we vote for?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only party, speaking constantly with a sane voice in a european level regarding copyright and patents, are the Green ones. It is really funny that this party is currently the only sane one when it comes to preserve the small company structure of the european it industry and to preserve the privacy of its citizens!

Vote for them and please vote, otherwise we never will get those money suckers like Fortou and McCarthy out of the parliament.
The conservatives and Social democrats basically are in the bed with the lobbyists, even if they say they are not going to vote for this and that at home (not to upset the local companies and people) they usually go after the fast buck on the EU leven and sellout their own local economy.
(happened here with the conservatives who basically did that regarding software patents, at the last voting)

Re:who do we vote for?

[samhalliday]

well, what we also got to consider is "what are their chances of other people voting for them as well?", and unfortunatley, the green party don't have much of a base where i live. or anywhere, really in the UK.

i am not sure about how the MEP stuff works... but i know that most voters don't realise that certain candidates are up for EU election and think to themselves "i like the tories, im voting for this guy" when in actual fact thta candidate maybe never be doing a thing in his local area.

the local candidate i was refering to in edinburgh was this guy, i have emailed him several times, and he has known every little detail about aeverything and has always already begun forming an initiative against mad IP moves the EU makes. unfortunately he is a scottish nationalist, and seperation from england is their big thing... coming from northern ireland, i would be really annoyed if scottish people started coming over and voting for one of the hard-line parties without knowing the full score. so i feel guilty voting for him. but he does share my views on the copyright battles in the EU, and he stands every chance of getting in every year. (and ironically, was knighted by the queen)

Re:who do we vote for?

[Halo1]

Like the AC above says, in general the Greens at the European level are indeed the best as far as copyright, patents and in general the concerns of the people (as opposed to big companies) are concerned. However, there are also several national delegations of other parties which are very good, such as the Finish conservatives (Kauppi), some independents (Cappato, Italy), liberals (Boogerd-Quaak, The Netherlands), socialists (all Flemish socialists), ...

For the software patents directive, you can see the score of each individual MEP here. A similar table will be made for the IPR-vote, though you can expect a lot more red :(

Re:who do we vote for?

[Halo1]

coming from northern ireland, i would be really annoyed if scottish people started coming over and voting for one of the hard-line parties without knowing the full score. so i feel guilty voting for him. but he does share my views on the copyright battles in the EU, and he stands every chance of getting in every year.

You're right that Sir Neil MacCormick is really great as far as the software patents and IPR-stuff is concerned. He even mentioned the conflict of interest of Janelly Fourtou (wife of CEO Vivendi-Universal, who guided the IPR-directive through parliament) in the plenary session.

This time, choose right!

[villoks]

Well, this time it is possible to make a informed decision: results In short Finnish Greens and Conservatives (Piia-Noora missed the vote because of a traffic jam but she persuaded the rest to vote against..) + Seppanen + Thors voted against and SDP and Center party for the directive.

Re:This time, choose right!

[villoks]

Correction:

Also Paasilinna ja Myller from SDP voted against the directive. (so actually the majority of Finnish MEPs were against! =)

SCO FORCE

[essreenim]

GI Joe - SCO MAN - in stores.. ..now

Reply from a press officer

[chrestomanci]

The Register, have reproduced a letter to them from Adrian McMenamin, the Press Officer of the European Parliamentary Labor Party.

The letter contains the the particularly juicy quote:

I see the development of OSS being halted - I should know, I have written several Linux kernel modules. Claims that the DMCA is coming to Europe are ridiculous.

A grep for his name in the 2.6.3 linux source tree does not return anything, so I suspect he may be lying about his kernel modules, just like he is lying about DMCA in Europe. (The EUCD, which is like the DMCA, but stricter in some areas, was ratified in the UK a few months ago).

Does anyone know anything about Adrian McMenamin?. Has he in fact made any useful contribution to OSS?

Re:Reply from a press officer

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Google: Sega Dreamcast sound patch

Lourens

with companies able to raid

[Anonymous Coward]

with companies able to raid

Most unlikely. If companies can raid my home and rape my wife. Then watch me (the individual) how I can fly a plane into the company building.

End of story.

Re:Can the "Sealand" stuff, please

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? What about it? It's not a country.

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[kfg]

Actually, this has worked to my advantage. I've had the interesting experience of learning my own songs from someone else.

Had other people not valued them and preserved them they would have been lost. I consider the fact that other people valued and preserved them as reasonable evidence that they were worth a certain amount of preservation, even though I myself had negelected them.

KFG

Yikes!

[cherokee158]

Looks like Lucasarts will be able to reuse those old stormtrooper uniforms, after all...

EU citizens

[kisak]

It just shows why EU citizens should participate in the elections for MEPs to the European Parlament.

Re:EU citizens

[l0wland]

This is my biggest complaint against the whole EU as we know it: Citizens have nothing to tell about what happens in the EU. The EU is being led by politicians who often have a bad reputation in the countries were they had a local position. Like friends the old politicians point influencial posts to eachother. And these politicians often make decisions that will profit themselves, and damage the rights of regular citizens.

As a European citizen I thought I could be proud on a real democracy, as opposed to the model that is used in the USA (and which IMHO is NOT a democracy). Unfortunately, we are the playing field of politicians who are the puppets of big companies, just like the US is.

This indeed was my thought too

[Anonymous Coward]

That small companies will be raided by the big ones as soon as swpats are enabled, speaking of 99% of all european software business consists of small companies and upstarts, this is the perfect weapon to outlaw an entire industry which has been flourishing.
I for one currently am on a wait and see loop on how the whole situation develops, but, if in summer SPATs are enabled over here in europe, I am off back to the university for another two years to learn something different.
Its not a nice thing of being shot out of your career with 33 but it is not as bad as it looks because at that age and with a good education leven you easily can move off to something different, where you can avoid the death grasp of the corporations (for now)

This is stupid

[cbmeeks]

If they freeze my bank account, how can I afford a lawyer? They would be taking my ability to defend myself.

Re:This is stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

But Mr Anderson, what good is a lawyer when you can't afford to pay them?

Not true

[NigelJohnstone]

"will need to demonstrate ....that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed"

Not true, this was one of the things I didn't like. Its worded loosely here:

", in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm right holder, OR where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed"

Note the 'OR', its enough to show that a delay is likely to cause irreparable harm. They don't have to show there is a risk of evidence being destroyed.

Re:Not true

[Eskarel]

Yes, they have to show that either the evidence will be destroyed or that it will cause irreperable harm to their company. There's not a whole lot which can cause irreperable harm to a copyright holder since pretty much anything can be repaired by money, and if you're doing something which can actually cause such irreperable harm then you probably deserve to have your stuff siezed because you're doing something I can't even think of at this moment, though if Microsoft could have somehow proven that whoever released the windows sourecode was going to do so in advance(not people distributing it later) that might, I say might, have qualified.

Odds are the risk of evidence being destroyed is much more likely to be the provision which is used and abused since it's a much easier thing to prove or speculate on.

Libre Manifesto: A warning...

[locarecords.com]

LibreSociety.org Manifesto

-- David M. Berry & Giles Moss

A constellation of interests is now seeking to increase its ownership and control of creativity. They tell us that they require new laws and rights that will allow them to control concepts and ideas and protect them from exploitation. They say that this will enrich our lives, create new products and safeguard the possibility of future prosperity. But this is a disaster for creativity, whose health depends on an ongoing, free and open conversation between ideas from the past and the present.

-- In response, we wish to defend the idea of a creative field of concepts and ideas that are free from ownership.

1. Profit has a new object of affection. Indeed, profiteers now shamelessly proclaim to be the true friend of creativity and the creative. Everywhere, they declare, "We support and protect concepts and ideas. Creativity is our business and it is safe in our hands. We are the true friends of creativity!"

2. Not content with declarations of friendship, the profiteers are eager to put into practice their fondness for creativity as well. "Actions speak louder than words" in capitalist culture. To display their affection, profiteers use legal mechanisms, namely intellectual property law, to watch over concepts and ideas and to protect them from those who seek to misuse them. While we are dead to the world at night, they are busily stockpiling intellectual property at an astonishing rate. More and more, the creative sphere is being brought under their exclusive control.

3. The fact that the profiteers are now so protective of creativity, and jealously seek to control concepts and ideas, ought to rouse suspicion. While they may claim to be the true friends of creativity, we know that friendship is not the same as dependency. It is very different to say, "I'm your true friend because I need you", than to say, "I need you because I'm your true friend". But how are we to settle this issue? How do we distinguish the true friend from the false one? In any relationship between friends we should ask, "Are both partners mutually benefiting?"

4. The profiteers' insatiable thirst for profit clearly benefits from their new friendship with the creative. Through their use of intellectual property law - in the form of copyright, patents and trademarks - concepts and ideas can be transformed into commodities that are controlled and owned. An artificial scarcity can then be established. But, unlike physical objects, concepts and ideas can be shared, copied and reused without diminishment. No matter how many people use and interpret a particular concept, the creators' use of that concept is not surrendered or reduced. But, much money is to be made when creative flows of knowledge and ideas become scarce products to be traded in the market place. Thus increasingly, intellectual property law is providing profiteers with vast accumulations of wealth. Indeed, immaterial labour (based on information, knowledge and communication) has now replaced industrial manufacture as the main producer of wealth in the age of technological capitalism. As such, the relationship codified in intellectual property law between creativity and profit can be seen as a core element of this wider structural transformation of the productive processes.

5. For many of us, the thought of intellectual property law still evokes romantic apparitions of a solitary artist or writer seeking to safeguard his or her creative work. It is therefore unsurprising that we tend to view intellectual property law as something that defends the rights and interests of the creative. Perhaps, in some removed and distant time, there was a modest respect in this specious notion. But this romantic vision of the creative is certainly ill at ease with capitalist 'reality'. Creators have become employees and each concept and idea they produce is appropriated and owned by the employer. Profiteers are using intellectual property law to amass

Use the google :-)

[Golthar]

link 1

link 2

Unless somebody else used the same name of course, but this does lend some credibility to his claims

Euro-parliament elections coming up

[Aceticon]

July 10 i believe

If you're an european citizen now's the time to make your vote count.

Check the FFII site for the list of members of parliament that voted for and against the amendement 59, then cast your vote accordingly.

(I just checked that my personal favorites voted for amendement 59. I didn't vote last time around, but this time they've get my vote!!!)

the corporate wars have begun...

[jeff13]

... all the artists have gone underground.

In the US we shoot intruders

[pair-a-noyd]

Too bad though, most EU civilians now are forbidden to own weapons.

When cops enter your home by "dynamic entry", that's one thing, but when CIVILIANS (which is what those private raiding parties are over there) break into your home by force, then they should be SHOT DEAD ON THE SPOT.

Maybe they can get some sharp sticks and skewer a few of them. When some of them get killed pulling these bullshit raids they'll back off..

Note to those thinging of this here: This is the USA, we are ARMED. Don't try it. You've been warned.

Re:In the US we shoot intruders

[jeff13]

You are naive if you think owning a gun keeps 'The MAN' out of your house. Trust me, the cops will just shoot you!

Re:In the US we shoot intruders

[Anonymous Coward]

And personally I'm very happy to live in a country where you cannot KILL anybody just because he is standing in a wrong place or to protect what you own.

I think a right to kill for protecting property is absolutely disgusting.

Price of a human life in USA is WAY too low.

Re:In the US we shoot intruders

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of CIVILIANS did you not understand??

Re:In the US we shoot intruders

[ttsalo]

Too bad though, most EU civilians now are forbidden to own weapons.

Yeah - without a permit. Let's take Finland, a peaceful Nordic country, for an example. 5 million people and over 2 million licensed guns. High-powered hunting rifles, semi-auto AK clones, shotguns, semi-auto pistols, and over 2000 full-auto weapons.

So where does this "civilians in the EU have been disarmed" come from? Or is Finland really an oddity in the EU?

CIVILIANS (which is what those private raiding parties are over there) break into your home by force

There aren't going to be any civilians breaking anywhere. The BBC is writing nonsense. What the directive says is that the infringed party can present evidence of a crime to a court and that the court can order a raid to seize evidence. The directive doesn't actually say who would perform the raid, but it would have to be the authorities, since they're the only people who have the right to do anything like that. This is, I believe, pretty much the situation now in most countries, including the US. I'm pretty sure I've heard the police going in with a warrant and seizing stuff over there.

--

Re:In the US we shoot intruders

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the people in Waco... Oh, you can't

They had plenty of guns. Guns just give you a false sense of security.

Re:In the US we shoot intruders

[Anonymous Coward]

Civilians: (n, obs) See: Collateral damage.

Re:Can the "Sealand" stuff, please

[tiger99]

And it is controlled by international treaty, basically to protect the environment, and so it can't be claimed by one country, which is quite reasonable. However, there is increasing disregard for this. You could probably get away with setting up a server farm if it could be passed off as part of a serious research project.

There are other small islands in the far south which are uninhabited, and might not have had sufficient occupation to legally belong to anyone. The weather may be terrible, some are volcanic.....

If the country which most recently claimed ownership is very far away and sufficiently non-belligerent, it might be possible to simply acquire such an island, and declare independence.

Not such good news?

[feepcreature]

One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use.

If it basically restricts the suing to professional pirates, ie people who download music or movies to sell it on the street, then I don't see anything wrong with it.

Does the exclusion extend beoynd downloading, to prevent raids and seizures for other "infringing" actions (like, in the UK, copying your CDs onto cassette so you can listen to them in your car)?

It may yet be worse than you think...

Paul

The Bright Side

[Karl-Friedrich Lenz]

It would have been nice to stop this proposal, since there is no reason awarding special favors to plaintiffs in intellectual property cases as opposed to everyone else.

On the other hand, there is a bright side even to this unfortunate development. The Directive says nothing about penal sanctions. Contrary to the original Commission proposal, there is nothing left of Article 21 on the circumvention of technical measures. The article on damages has also been reduced, there are no damages at the amount of double license fees.

Since this is a Directive, the fight is far from over. It will now move on to the 25 stages of national legislation.

WTO involvement

[nurb432]

Wont this now migrate across the pond to the US due to the WTO's 'least common denominator' way of looking at inter-country commerce laws?

South America, Brazil?

[KjetilK]

Hm, I'm from Norway, and while I feel relatively free at the moment, have gotten a bit more faith in the legal system, and feel that I have some influence on the local government, I still see the situation deroriating rapidly. Even if Norway is not a member of the EU, we will most likely have to make this a law anyway, so much for democracy...

Actually, I'm looking towards South America, specifically Brazil.

Brazil seems to be improving rapidly, still, Lula seems to keep his eyes open and doesn't take in whatever comes from the large nations and corporations like most do. Brazil also seems to have quite a few good hackers allready, so it has a good start.

He's probably being told from the large ones that he has to enact draconian laws to encourage economic growth, and he is probably to some extent forced to do it through international treaties and bilateral "trade agreements".

If we could convince a nation's leader that, to the contrary, to encourage growth, you have to let go of stringent laws and foster creativity, then we could have a free country. Furthermore, if geeks would move there en masse and create the greatest brainpool anywhere, encouraging the whole society to become creative, then it would lead the way for the rest of the world. Right now, I think Lula seems to be the leader most likely to be convinced this can be the case.

With a free country getting some real mindshare, it could easily take the lead...

I'd really like to hear what the brazilians here have to say about it.

Re:South America, Brazil?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Brazil as in the country where landowners get FINED for having slaves work on their land?

Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun?

[lonesome phreak]

So, if the corp can come in your home, can they hire someone else to go do it for them? Like...a team of Shadowrunners? Yeah, it may be just a game, but there is a reason the genre is called "futureshock". I can see a corp hiring some ex-Gulf vets from Iraq to head up part of their "IP aquisition" team.

If I was in europe, and a corp stormed my house, I wonder if I could shot them. It's not like their police. In the US, the BSA usually comes with Federal Marshalls.

This is bad bad stuff. Like I told my 20 year old stripper girlfriend: "Every time I'm around you I feel I need to get my leather trench lined...with a nice tight kevlar weave."

Clinton!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, in the USA, sex is not used to corrupt, it is used to impeach. Oh, wait, that was not sex in any biological meaningful sense!

We should move the EP to Nurenberg

[ArseneLupin]

... it has an easyer to remember area code!

Stupid

[sledgehys]

Its all stupid anyway. How can companies ever expect to inact a "watch dog" task force without ever breaking the bank? The resources necessary to perform are going to be either not enough to make a difference or will break them.

Create your future! Kill politicians!

[Anonymous Coward]

Martha Get my gun.

Indeed. As the saying goes, " Zukunft schaffen, Politiker toeten"

democracy's fatal flaw...

[adamofgreyskull]

I truly believe that it's better for uninformed voters to stay the fuck away from the ballot boxes, for exactly this reason.

How many times

[pjt33]

Just because the British constitution isn't contained in a single document doesn't mean there isn't one.

Re:How many times

[Trurl's Machine]

Just because the British constitution isn't contained in a single document doesn't mean there isn't one.

Well, in my original post I have provided a link to an extensive discussion of the British situation. Lack of a written constitution leads to a situation where the prerogatives of the legislatory power are unclear. For many years the Britons acted according to an unwritten rule: an act of parliament can do no wrong. How dangerous this approach is, can be well illustrated on the example of the Ulster/Northern Ireland conflict. In 1970's the British forces committed many obvious crimes in Northern Ireland, including manslaughter of unarmed civilians. Yet until the very latest days, this crime went unpunished, and Northern Ireland was put under the direct rule from Westminster for more than twenty years. The habeas corpus was virtually suspended. Should there be any written constitution, the British government and the British parliament could not just suspend civil liberties whenever and wherever they find it convenient.

You are a fool and deserve what you get

[HarveyBirdman]

I think a right to kill for protecting property is absolutely disgusting.

There is no absolute right to kill. People who shoot intruders under anything less then clear circumstances of a serious threat are often put on trial and have a tough time.

Price of a human life in USA is WAY too low.

The ignorance about what life is really like in the USA is WAY too high.

Look, in the middle of the night, you don't know the intruder's intent, and he's not going to have a little sit down to discuss it. Mere robbers will generally case a house (insert RFID comment here) and wait until it is unoccupied.

I will defend myself and my family to the fullest extent to which I am capable, and use whatever tools I am legally allowed to have (and a few I am not, but that's a different thread). I will take my chances with the legal system rather than the judgement of someone who has broken into my house.

Re:You are a fool and deserve what you get

[Talence]

I pretty much agree that if someone took the route (willingly or not) to be a serious threat to other people, then the only person to blame for that person's demise it the person him/herself.

Re:You are a fool and deserve what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your point. I was reacting to a post where someone was bragging with his rights to kill a intruder. That is disgusting.

Moreover I have studies the statistics for capital punishment in US, and I found that US states execute hundreds of people every year. Now I can manage the thought of protecting your life or the life of your family in the actual situation. But government killing for punishment after the situation is very strange. The system is not flawless and innocent people get killed afterwards.

Taking life as a public revenge is nothing short of barbaric.

Re:You are a fool and deserve what you get

[Anonymous Coward]

>The ignorance about what life is really like in the USA is WAY too high.

Maybe this has something to do with the ignorance that those living in the USA has about the rest of the world?

Did you know that 60% of americans wouldn't eat "a tomatoe that contains a gene"?
Actual study. Go figure.

Quote actually "_Nor_ do I see..."

[pjt33]

As subject.

Not really anything new

[V_M_Smith]

This just sounds like the EU formalizing the common-law parctice of the Anton Piller order, which is basically a civil (as opposed to criminal) search warrant. In general, Anton Piller orders are very difficult to get and I imagine these would be too.

Not surprising. Money and power as usual.

[hkmwbz]

This is not surprising at all. Politicians fraternize with the rich and famous, so that's who their friends are, and that's who they marry. And since corporate leaders are rich and sometimes quite well known, they will fraternise with politicians, and they will produce offspring together.

Seriously, "corruption" is a mild word. Our politicians are actually befriending the bosses of megacorporations that work actively to take away our rights. You rub my back and I'll rub yours.

One almost hopes that John Titor is not a hoax, and that a new civil war followed by a third world war will wipe out this "gentleman's club", and put an end to the inbreeding going on among the powerful, rich and famous, and the politicians.

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

GNAA ARE FAILURES

Obligatory attempt to confuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Goons... Hired goons.

Raise the drawbridge!

splash

He's fallen in the water!

You rotten swines you! I've been deaded!

Re:License to Kill

[A55M0NKEY]

Only self defense of yourself or the defense of someone else against an attacker gives you the right to kill. Also, in the US, you have the obligation to retreat if possible so that duels are not legal.

However, you can for practically all intents and purposes, shoot a stranger in your house as long as they die so there are no witnesses, and especially if they have no reason to be there and have been convicted of burglery before. As long as you stuck to your story that you thought they were reaching for a weapon, no court would convict you of anything. ( I don't know if their family could still sue you for depriving the burgler of their civil right to life. They would only have to get a jury to believe that it was 51% likely that you killed the burgler knowing they were not intent on hurting you )

I can think of many interesting legal/ethical conundrums regarding the right to kill though:

Imagine if there are 100 people about to be killed and the only way to save the other 99 is to shoot one of the 100. Is that legal? Maybe it would be since the 1 was dead meat anyway, but then again we are all dead meat in the long run.

What about if there are 100 people about to die and the only way to save them is to kill an innocent bystander 300 meters away by shooting them? ( maybe they were deaf an facing away, but their body will fall in such a way as to unplug the heavy piece of machinery that is about to crush the 100 people. ) This is probably the most ethical thing to do, but I don't know if it is legal. I wouldn't do it for 100 strangers because I wouldn't want to face the legal issues involved. But were I altruistic enough to sacrifice my own life for 100 strangers ( and some people are ) then I would probably be altruistic enough to kill the innocent bystander and face murder charges myself. If there was someone I cared alot about among the 100 I might do it too.

I suspect killing an innocent bystander to save 100 people is illegal, but what if there were 1000 people in certain to die without a blood sacrifice? 10000? 10,000,000 about to be blown up by a thermonuclear bomb? Would the murder of one innocent be immoral? Illegal?

If you buy that killing one innocent bystander is justified to save New York City from being obliterated by Tsar Bomba, then what about organ transplants? If you know someone's hematocrit etc, you can assemble a list of five or six people who will die soon unless you shoot that innocent person in the head and steal their organs... At how many people is the cut off? Exactly how many bricks does it take to make a Heap of Bricks?

The equivalent in the Netherlands....

[hughk]

is the state water authority. Something that always amused me, but logical if you have a large amound of country below sea-level so they have their entry powers. This is why they were given the duty to collect VAT there.

That's what you get...

[Anonymous Coward]

Europeans didn't learn anything from history, and they have willingly given their lives over to large governments. They deserve whatever they get. If they get peace and prosperity, so be it. But I think rather it will be ugly, and will require a revolution across Europe to fix.

Not "FFII legislation"!

[QuickshotIV]

Please note that
FFII: "Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure".
The directive was passed by the european parliament.

Holger

Re:I am not for these laws at all

[Anonymous Coward]

Berne convention

Stupid!

[lasermike026]

Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! The world is run by greedy morons.

No infringement required; allegations are enough

[FreeUser]

Still, it would have to be a copyright infringement to start with. Trading cassette tapes (or CDs) with friends is not nessecarilly copyright infringement in some countries. Even with the new proposed copyright laws here in Sweden, you can copy for example music for close friends and family.

No. There need only be the accusation of copyright infringement. The DMCA is used at least as often to silence criticism as it is to take down actual, infringing material. It, like this law, has no requirement for due process: the accusation is sufficient to have a web site silenced and an account revoked. The same is true of this law: the accusation is enough to have your door broken down, and the accusation of organized copyright infringement (what defines "organized" I wonder? Participating in a p2p network with thousands of other users might qualify as "organized" to many ... which puts us right back where we started, with assets seized and frozen for downloading a song via a P2P protocol) is enough to have your assets frozen and seized, and your physical self imprisoned.

This law is a trajedy for Europe. I do not think most Europeans realize just how many of their basic freedoms and rights they have lost with this one piece of ill-considered legislation.

This gets back to the argument I made years ago. Capitalism doesn't work in a world of plenty. It doesn't work with ideas, it doesn't work with expression, and it most assuredly doesn't work with digital information. To make it work, you have to enact and enforce profoundly draconian laws: laws that run counter to every human impulse with respect to sharing (information, knowledge, expression, you name it) in order to create an artificial scarcity where in reality none exists. This will work no better than communism's attempt to impose a communist economic system on a domain where it wasn't applicable (a domain of scarcity), and the result will be the same draconian government, the same lack of freedoms, the same invasive government that will make no one safe, even in their own homes.

Farewell enlightened democracy in the west. We've chosen an outmoded economic system over the ideals of our forefathers. I hope we're proud of ourselves ... our forefathers, spinning in their graves at what we've done, certainly are not.

Re:License to Kill

[Jerf]

I can think of many interesting legal/ethical conundrums regarding the right to kill though:

This type of ethical conundrum is typically a waste of time because no real-world situation can be cleaned up to a one-sentence question, and most of them are so unlikely to happen as to not be worth basing a philosophy on. For instance,

Imagine if there are 100 people about to be killed and the only way to save the other 99 is to shoot one of the 100.

In the entire history of humanity, has there ever been an instance where this actually happened and the choices were that clear cut, shoot or don't shoot? (Even if there have been one or two, that's still nothing.)

In this case, the reason the "answers" are hard is that the questions are unreasonably hard. In real life, the question of defending one's home with lethal force is not an easy one, but it is at least constrained by the realities of the situation. Nobody is going to break into your home and threaten to kill ten strangers unless you allow them to kill your spouse. And even if they did, the odds of them being truthful aren't worth worrying about anyhow.

Bring your guns

[Anonymous Coward]

Any corperation tries to invade my home is going to meet some strong resistance.

NR

Extremely Worried

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday I made a post about an article which quoted Blake Stowell (SCO's director of public relations) who replied, when asked the question "will you also sue European firms?" his reply was "Not in the next few days."

I have this horrible feeling that what was meant by that reply is that they were going to see if this was passed or not.

At the moment there is a lot of talk about the high probability of SCO looking to sue companies here in the UK and Europe in general, and to be honest they must like what they see now and if anything will make it more likely.

Its going to be harder to fight them here too. With the US cases, if a company is sued they can at least bring forward the fact about the IBM case and wish to put a hold on the lawsuit untill a decision has been made.

Unfortunatly here we may not have that ability. Where it seems common sense to take the US IBM lawsuit into account and as always it is down to the courts discretion as to whether this is granted or not. But the fact that the trial is overseas makes this a lot less likely.

This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

Er no

[Anonymous Coward]

The defence of downloading "in good faith" will be acceptable for home users. Thus I think it unlikely a judge will award a warrant unless some actual counterfeiting activity can be identified (European judges are not nearly as warrant-happy as their US counterparts btw).

Yes, you're exagerating!

[Anonymous Coward]

I.e: spanish "Guardia Civil" was created in 1844 and has nothing to do with Franco Regime (1939-1975). Of f course It was used by Franco, but that has happenned with every dictatorship in the world.

Not quite right...

[mattbroersma]

There are a few inaccuracies floating around here.

1) But late amendments added to the law limited who intellectual property owners could take action against and what penalties they could apply. The amendments the parliament refers to are actually a compromise reached between parliament and the council of ministers (representatives of EU national governments) earlier in the process. The amendment says, in the preamble (not the main body of the text) that some (not all) of the harshest sanctions, such as freezing bank accounts, should only apply to 'commercial' violations. However, this is very broadly defined as a violation that gives someone an 'economic advantage', which could be applied to, say, someone who downloads a song off the Internet for free. For more information see this story.

2) This legislation, which originally had DMCA-like provisions The provisions banning circumventions of copy-protection technology were passed in the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, and according to a recent study, EU member nations are implementing these sanctions in full, without including protections to researchers and business competition, which they are allowed to do. See this story.

3) with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement This is accurate: these surprise raids are known as Anton Pillar orders, and in civil cases, they allow companies themselves to carry out the raids, hopefully overseen by their solicitors to make sure they keep within the rules of the order. More information on these orders here. In criminal cases, which are the only kind in which most countries allow Anton Pillar orders, the raids are carried out by police. In the UK the raids are allowed in civil IP cases, but only for large-scale piracy or counterfeiting. The new IP directive could make these raids available for any civil IP case. The recent raids on Sharman Networks and others in Australia were authorised by Anton Pillar orders.

It is true that the directive must still be interpreted by member states and implemented in their national laws, and this could represent an opportunity for the directive's harsher aspects to be limited. But it will now be a matter of making this happen in 25 different member countries (post-enlargement of EU) rather than on a Europe-wide level. Additionally, the experience of implementation of the EUCD (see above) suggests that member states won't automatically limit bizarre and repressive directives, no matter how controversial they are.

This is partly because, when they're debating laws like this at a national level, they tend to talk to the parties directly affected -- in this case, people like the BSA and the IFPI (Euro-RIAA); ordinary citizens have to work harder to be included in the process.

Matt Broersma, ZDNet UK

these laws are just the begining of Corprate run

[the_2nd_coming]

governments.

now that corperations can get police powers from a judge, but not have to follow maranda (or the equivelent in the EU) we are near approaching a corprate dictatorship.

Re:No infringement required; allegations are enoug

[quantum bit]

This gets back to the argument I made years ago. Capitalism doesn't work in a world of plenty... This will work no better than communism's attempt to impose a communist economic system on a domain where it wasn't applicable (a domain of scarcity)

Hey! Stop reading my mind :)

DON'T PANIC

[zoney_ie]

There's a whole lot of hullaballo by people who don't quite get the picture here. It's an E.U. DIRECTIVE. Not the same as a law. It's a bunch of orders which should be implemented in State law as the governments see fit. (They only have to follow the broad thrust of the directive, and not clash with it).

If a government decides to implement this in a draconian way - then it is that government who should be lambasted, NOT the E.U. This is the usual E.U. bashing from Euroskeptics who are having the wool pulled in front of their eyes by their own national government. Governments all over the E.U. tend to blame the E.U. for unpopular decisions the GOVERNMENT have made.

Don't expect to see national governments implementing powers of search and destroy for anything other than suspected mass counterfeiters. They'll be out on their ear sooner than you can say "general election".

Piracy here in Ireland is CERTAINLY financing terrorists in Northern Ireland. It HAS to go. These measures outlined in the directive ARE badly needed on an E.U.-wide basis to counter-act mass counterfeiters.

Re:DON'T PANIC

[cayenne8]

Yes, but, doesn't it seem a little bad to ever suggest that harse measures like these even be considered by the governments in the EU?

Re:DON'T PANIC

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

My understanding is that EU member governments are obliged to adopt EU directives into their national laws. Maybe I am thinking of something else.

As to NI Terrorists, the Provisional IRA has declared a permenant ceasefire and have been sticking to it for a few years now. Are you talking about them, Real/continuity or the UDA fractions?

Yes, I know that the IRA are involved in some criminal stuff (and some 'punishments'), I just wondered.

Corporate "rights"

[sgage]

The rights that Corporations currently have, at least in the US (I'll admit that I don't know how things are done in the EU), are way WAY over the top already.

The idea of private corporate entities having the "right" to actually physically invade homes and businesses because they "believe" someone might be violating their IP is a hideous travesty of freedom and of polity. Any politician in any country that would vote for such a thing is a corporate tool, period, and should be dumped ASAP.

If a corporation thinks that the law is being broken, they can call the cops, get a warrant, whatever. But if someone shows up at my home who is not a duly accredited representative of the law with a search warrant, and insists they are going to search my home and property, they are going to be in for a very rude surprise.

For fuck's sake people, wake up! Battle lines being drawn, to coin a phrase.

"allows companies to raid homes"

[DynaSoar]

I was hoping that was a misrepresentation. Apparently not. I'm looking forward to seeing life insurance companies refusing to pay off on the company employees who got involved in these raids and ran up against someone who protected themselves from a forced invasion into their home by other than law enforcement officers.

Re:"allows companies to raid homes"

[Warlok]

The only problem with that is that European countries have already disarmed their citizenry with anti-gun legislation. The chances of finding an armed home-owner defending themselves in Germany, England, or France is much lower than in the U.S. I don't have the exact stats, but I'm sure any compentant corporate actuarial would be able to bless a company's raid, as well as give acceptable loss numbers...

IP an Idiot Magnet/?

[madchris]

Just the idea that one can own an idea seems to draw the strangest, most selfish idiots to try to *make it so*.

I think we need a little less greed and a lot more thoughtful helpfulness in our world if we are to be successful as a species. We need to smarten up and and start to play nice with each other.
The maggots of the world salivate as they watch us - hoping we make a wrong move: all those yummy corpses!

Nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup!! Seems like the place Iimmegrated (away from) 5 years ago

No, You're not flame baiting

[Simonetta]

No, You're not flame baiting. You're telling an uncomfortable truth. Europeans have a LONG history of coming up with endless new ways to justify killing and imprisoning each other and stealing the property of people whom they place in group categories invented by them for this purpose.

The European Parliment seems from a distance to be just a revision of feudalism through bureaucrats instead of genetic aristrocrats. This law seems to be just a way to remove a social problem from being addressed through the legal process where it should be addressed.

There is only one example of the European people coming together to form a mutually beneficial political union that lasted over a long term. That's the USA, folks. Formed by people who were basically tossed out of Europe by their 'superiors'.

Re:No, You're not flame baiting

[Lars T.]

No, You're not flame baiting. You're telling an uncomfortable truth. Europeans have a LONG history of coming up with endless new ways to justify killing and imprisoning each other and stealing the property of people whom they place in group categories invented by them for this purpose.

Yeah, quite unlike the US.

Re:No infringement required; allegations are enoug

[Pofy]

Yes, but you can't accuse someone on copyright infringment for sharing cassettes/CDs with friends as was the example in the post I replied to.

eu law

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never trusted the EU but this is really going way too far now, its a joke in fact!

So a home user with a few lousy britney or beenie man mp3s is to be targeted and their pc removed?

Does copied cassetes qualify or copied videos off the tv?

I feel that as usual, theyre targeting the individuals freedoms, and letting the criminals CARRY ON!

Me hopes for a referendum for britain, and after this, the sooner the better.....!

jesus, can you imagine...

[maxpublic]

...if this law were passed in America? Corporate troopers breaking down the doors, and if you resist they can just shoot your ass. Speak ill of any corporation and all of a sudden 'evidence' will be manufactured, er, provided to 'competent law enforcement agencies' that you're a copyright evil-doer.

Perhaps you'll eventually be exonerated - that is, if said 'evidence' doesn't mysteriously appear on your computer *AFTER* it's seized and hauled off to corporate headquarters - but you'll have to wait years to get back your property, your money, and recover what's left of your life.

If shit like this comes anywhere close to passing in the U.S. I'm moving to Canada.

Max

Spring here

[tandr]

Hey guys, I would like just to remind you that it is spring time over here, in Canada...

Re:Spring here

[Zoolander]

Yeah, we've talk about that for some time.
Maybe this is the last straw...

Underachiever

[Anonymous Coward]

"And personally I'm very happy to live in a country where you cannot KILL anybody just because he is standing in a wrong place or to protect what you own."

And where would that be? Is there some place where the laws of physics take a vacation? There's NOTHING preventing any one of use from killing anyone else at any time. You're just saying that you're not applying yourself.

"I think a right to kill for protecting property is absolutely disgusting."

So you shouldn't be able to gun down someone intent on blowing up your house? Even if that's his sole intent? You weren't even supposed to be home for hours but happened to come in early to find a guy setting a bomb to blow 10 minutes from now? I guess you just leave together and grab a coffee or something, it's only property after all.

"Price of a human life in USA is WAY too low."

Duh. Have you seen some of these people? The price of a human life in the US is approximately the negative value of a box of condoms. The sad reality is that the value of human life does vary from person to person, whether you like it or not. And if someone eliminates a career criminal from the mix before he cane get far along or go one to breed more crooks, mores the better.

Why should I care?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a frog, anyway...

Re:idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice, sit back and watch some idiot rape your wife, and i'll bet you'll change your mind

Re:License to Kill

[HarveyBirdman]

However, you can for practically all intents and purposes, shoot a stranger in your house as long as they die so there are no witnesses,

Have a large, evil looking hunting knife on hand that you paid cash for to place in the intruder's hand if necessary. Check for the location of a wallet or a watch or something to see if the deceased was left or right handed, but that's not completely necessary. People carry things in both hands. You can also wrap both hands around it and then place it on the floor so it looks like they held it in both hands and dropped it when they met the Lead Slug gang.

That's a valubale tip for you, kids.

This is so cool!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gonna register a company and copyright spamming, software bugs and corporate evil.

Who wants to sign up as an "enforcer"?

What about GPL?

[OrangeTide]

Does this mean when a company violates the GPL in the EU, we can go and raid thier offices, computers, warehouses and shutdown bank accounts to find all thier violations? Sweet!

In the uk..

[t_allardyce]

if i remember right the Metro in London said that the new laws make the US versions - dmca etc look like playschool. Its really nice to wake up to read something like that, makes your whole day knowing that your last few rights are dripping down the drain. Think im gonna make that stealth-ram-drive i was planning

Jury nullification

[Anonymous Coward]

In all the scenarios you posit, the act of killing would meet the legal definition of murder. A grand jury or a jury if it got past the grand jury might refuse to indict or convict respectively given the right circumstances. This is one of the reasons why we have jury trials.

Interestingly, it's much safer legally to do nothing. It is legal for a person to do nothing to help someone in mortal danger unless there are prior existing legal responsibilities that oblige that person to do so. If I saw a blind and deaf man about to cross the street and a truck was barrelling down on them, I could simply do nothing as he was run over. It wouldn't be moral but it would be legal. (Which is one of the reasons why the last episode of Seinfeld sucked). If you were that blind and deaf person's guardian, nurse, parent, et al then you would be legally responsible for their safety. You would also be screwed if you communicate to the blind person that it's safe to cross the street then that's manslaughter at least.

Would you save those 100 lives at the expense of an innocent person if those 100 were all pedophile murderers?

time to buy a gun?

[plinius]

Seriously, if corporatism and socialism haven't just merged in Europe, I don't know what the hell I just read.

Corporations: the new socialistic force.

Wow, looks like EUCD got it on steriods

[ducomputergeek]

Well time to watch karama go bye-bye.

In December of 2002 I got to give a presentation over IP rights and the EU to members of the German Parliment and other officials from several soon to be EU members' Embassies as well as officials from the United States and the UK. *now for the karama hit* I was arguing that while technology allows easier infringement, people's copyrights, patents, etc. need to be respected and that they key wasn't in new laws, but enforcement of existing laws.

At that time the EUCD was "Supposed" to be in effect by the 23rd of December 2002, if I remember correctly. For some reason people think of the Internet as something "new" that requires "new" laws for a "new" time, and that is the false primise that I brought up in my 30 minute presentation, well I hope...German is a second language to me and far from perfect, however the professor advising said I did fine.

The Worldsofends.com paper/site whatever it is brings up the very point of what the Internet is: a method of transmission of data. The internet itself is designed to route data packets and that's about it. (that's my summation of their main point anyway...RTFA make sure I'm not smoking anything)

Right now I am doing a study for the local chamber of commerce and downtown development agency about collecting sales tax for internet transactions at least in the United States and basically my arguement is this: A company that uses an online catalog (shopping cart) to facilitate sales of goods that are shipped between state lines is not any different that an existing mail order/catalog business. The only difference is that the paper printed catalog has been replaced by the innovation of an online shopping cart. There is no need for "new" laws, simply enforcing existing laws that govern this industry.

Once you explain it in those terms, people begin to understand that business on the internet is no different than brick and morter. Don't get me wrong, there are some other pressing international issues that are still being worked out like the old Yahoo! Vs. France (9th Circus of Appeals case).

Copyright is really is no different. All that needed to be said in the DMCA and the EUCD or now EUIPsomethingsomething was: "The internet, or anyother electronic transmission method is still subject to the laws of international copyright".

Geesh, maybe after my masters degree, I should start some foundation that attempts to advise people, hold seminars, charge $500 a head and make a lot of money.

Legel?

[tmillard]

If the us was to have somthing like this, the Constution would be vilated.
Not a nice picture.

Re:Pedophile Murderers

[Anonymous Coward]

I would save 100 pedophile murderers. Murdering pedophiles ain't so bad....

Re:License to Kill

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Giving people right to kill leads to inpenetrable jungle in ethics.

Where the blame should go.

[MickLinux]

Quite simply, the government is a battleground for different powers, be they the populace, wealthy individuals, wise counsel, charismatic leaders, or whatnot.

Traditionally, each of these powers has created its own government, which lasted for a short while. When recognized by a government, the power is controlled, and you don't have illegitimate control over the government by that power.

However, when a power isn't recognized, then it can overwhelm the government, and cause it to fall in a characteristic fashion.

Ignore the populace, and you get a French-style revolution. (We have Congress).

Ignore the charismatic leader, and you get a coup. (We have the President).

Ignore the wise counsel, and you get civil disorder (we have the supreme court).

Ignore the press, and you get a government that loses its grip on reality. (We have a press).

Ignore groups of like-thinking individuals, and you get balkanization (we have the Senate, though it used to function better when economic interest varied more by state than by profession).

Ignore money, and you get essentially bribery undermining every part of the government.

We have nothing to recognize money.

Thus, money is undermining our government.

The solution, perhaps, is to have a 3rd house of Congress, one in which the seats are auctioned off, one per year for a full year, to be filled by a citizen of the choice of the winner, and which has its own power of veto.

But until you have something like that, yes, money is going to undermine your government.

Re:No infringement required; allegations are enoug

[MickLinux]

Relax. Learn to garden. Stay out of the cities.

These companies are full of managers who think that they are able to circumvent natural law. Like the person who is conviced they can fly, and jumps off a cliff, they can circumvent natural law.

But in the end, things are going to fall apart. Meanwhile, that's a good time to know how to garden, for two reasons: (1) you can stop using the companies' products when it seems advisable to do so, because gardening can be quite entertaining in and of itself, and (2) you don't depend on the companies to live.

Meanwhile, aside from that, do your best to live as justly and peacably as you can, both with your neighbors and with strangers. You never know when the dividends will pay off.

Pass that shit

[whereiswaldo]

Somebody's smokin' some goooood crack over there! I can't hardly wait till Europe passes the crack pipe over to US lawmakers after this doozie passes... maybe Canada will take a puff, too.

Raids, corruption as a New business plan

[SgtChaireBourne]

Now you can get ahead by monkeywrenching your competitors, even if you can't get ahead through better products or marketing. You only have to look at the difficulties that Steve Jackson Games had over ten years ago. Being able to cause that much economic damage to your (smaller) competitors through a simple phone call will be too much of a temptation.

It was bad enough that the directive slid in as a "fast track". The directive needs to be cancelled, perhaps so does the "fast track" program itself seeing as the woman who initiated this directive did so despite conflict of interest.

BTW While y'all are fussing about SCO and other MBA monkey business, there is an attempt to change how U.S. laws are interpreted, which is much more harmful that just changing the laws themselves.

Keskusta and SDP are assholes

[Quietti]

..who are just about to pass yet another reform of the Immigrations's act that will essentially make it impossible for anyone to immigrate to Finland; no more refugees, no more political asylum, no more immigration... nothing except other EU citizens. Add to this increased police surveillance of foreigners (under a presumption similar to the American "all Muslims are suspects" one-liner) and you've got a nice police state that stands proud of its Soviet heritage. Finlandization at its best. *sigh*

Like USA inviting Al Queda to crash planes

[Quietti]

...and then using this as an excuse to conquer any Muslim country out there, on the basis of "preventing and fighting terrorism".

1. Provoke CIA-trained former ally.
2. Former ally retaliates by crashing plane in WTC towers.
3. Launch a war "against terrorism" to get even with former ally; kill his sons, rape his daughters and take over his (petroleum-filled) land.
4. ??
5. Proffit?

*sigh*

Is there any friggin' free country left out there, which is not under the influence of the drug known as the World Trade Organisation? Hint: USA is not such a free country.

Re:License to Kill

[trmcdougle]

I can think of a possible case that it a lot less fantastic: There is a hijacking; the sky marshal and the hijacker kill each other. One of the passengers panics and tries to escape by opening an outside door whilst you are still at 30000 feet. You see this panicked person and yell "stop him" pointing at him but no one near him hears you. You are too far away to get to him to stop him. But you are next to the body of the sky marshal or hijacker. And their gun. Leaving it to the last possible minute, yelling all the time, you pick up the gun and shoot the panickee (you are a good shot so know you will hit him and not puncture the wall of th airplane). It might not qualify as self defense as you could survive just by strapping yourself down and using the emergency oxygen (and you thought of that). It should be argued that you were stopping a manslaughter. What if the panickee opening the door was a 40 year old that has a mental age of 5 and had no possible conception of the results of his actions (and you know this person well)?