Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
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?
["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.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
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?
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??
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
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.
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.
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.
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
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.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
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.
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?
Silly rabbit
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.
Think of it the other way around:
... and casting your vote accordingly would be worth it!??
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
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.
--- Ban humanity.