Slashdot Mirror
EU Proposing to Make P2P Piracy A Criminal Offense
brajesh writes "The European Commission is pushing for a proposal (.pdf) to crack down on organized piracy, which could also make indirect copyright infringement a crime across Europe, with implications similar to the recent MGM v. Grokster U.S. Supreme Court ruling. If the directive is adopted, developers who create software for file sharing that is then used for illegal ends could potentially be criminally liable in EU member countries." From the article: "The problem here is some activities, such as the creation of software, can be used for legal and illegal purposes, as is the case with Grokster...It gets really messy, because it is unclear what is legal or not legal, and it is problematic to operate with such abstract terms."
Especially the freedoms we Americans don't have.
A directive being pushed by the European Commission would, among other things, criminalize "attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting" acts of copyright infringement.
Let's ban everything that attempts, aids, or incites acts of anything. It would eliminate cars, guns, tools, computers, people, milk, water, and air.
Fuck, let's just blow up the whole earth, some corporation would likely benefit from it -- I'm sure they have a patent on the bombs, cleaning up the destruction, and cloning human life after creating the vegetation and animal life.
Let's stop making laws that only support the businesses that have endless supplies of money please.
Crowds of file-sharing enthusiasts herded into makeshift prison camps.
How nostalgic for Europe.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Disney's "all your copyrights are belong to me"?
...
SCO's "all you Linux/BSD are belong to me?"
The US version?
The Brazilian version of copyrights - I'm down with that
Or the actual current state of EU copyright, which is not quite as silly as the US version?
The devil's in the details.
[after reading the linked article, this is what I thought]
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
organized crime: monopolies and artificially inflated prices?
Two wrongs doesn't make a right (i know, three lefts do), but those corporations have no moral ground to talk about lost profits.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
What about MSN messenger? I send executable files across that all the time.
Or, heaven forbid, a floppy disk containing copywritten software on it and thrown across the room.
I am going to blame beer for making me share sex with girls that I may not have otherwise had sex with. Please governments of the world...save me!
I'm working on a good joke about your mom being
If the directive is adopted, developers who create software for file sharing that is then used for illegal ends could potentially be criminally liable in EU member countries.
I guess it sucks to be the guy who wrote mIRC or the guy who came up with the FTP protocol then....
What a dumbass, overly broad law. Wouldn't survive a court review in the US.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Messy? Unclear? Please.
If you distribute copyrighted stuff from your computer without any formal agreement with the copyright holder to perform such distribution, you're liable. If you distribute non-copyrighted stuff -- public domain, creative commons, or (gods forbid!) something you've created yourself, -- you're okey doke.
One may disagree with the scope and breadth of legal protections afforded copyright holders, but that's a different debate.
Of course, you're not liable if you download only and don't (re)distribute. You're a leech, but you're a *legal* leech.
Messy and unclear? Not at all. Sticky and socially unacceptable? Now *there's* a topic worth discussing...
The problem here is some activities, such as the creation of software, can be used for legal and illegal purposes, as is the case with Grokster...It gets really messy, because it is unclear what is legal or not legal, and it is problematic to operate with such abstract terms."
Well, let me make it easy for you! Here's a hood ... it can protect you in a snowstorm, or you can use it to rob a bank. Ban hoods!
Geez!
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
I cannot believe that with the threat to freedom from both International Terrorist Networks and Unethical International Corporations, they find time to consider this.
When the next terrorists strike, It'll be because these guys were busy playing games.
Hanging's too good for 'em!
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
What's the difference between P2P piracy and piracy?
Isn't the former just a subset of the latter?
Do we need special laws to make FTP piracy illegal too?
Usenet piracy?
IRC piracy?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Exactly, it's just too bad that in America some of the laws are precise - but rediculous.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Another stupid law. Using this reasoning any web browser manufacturer could be found criminally liable.
1. Open mozilla browser.
2. Download image and share with friend.
3. Lawyer sues mozilla because they let me do it.
If I buy a pencil and poke my neighbor in they eye with it the lumber company should not be sued either.
They should go after the actual criminals but they don't because there isn't any money in it.
This law should be called the EU Extortion Act.
Cogito Ergo Sum
I would suggest that if Bram Cohen is considering any future travel to the EU that he do so now, just in case this legislation gets passed.
Why? Because he would probably be target #1 for all of the rampant piracy that occurs via bittorrent, all despite his original intentions for the protocol/system.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Lots of companies make products that can be used for both legal ald illegal purposes. No one is going to go to jail for making some software that merely allows people to swap files. Everytime somplace tries to make a law to limit/minimize illegal file sharing people here get all antsy. If you don't share things you aren't supposed to you won't get in trouble. If you don't like the laws concerning copyright, fight to change them. Why does everyone feel they have a right to do anything they want to simply because they can?
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Wouldn't this then make Web, ftp, SMTP, NNTP, etc server software illegal? After all, way before P2P these were all being used to distribute pirated software/music/viedos/etc.
Whoever came up with the "abstract terms" locution was pretty clever; that's certainly a new twist on it. Usually, the folks who want unenforceable laws want the laws to be abstract. Now that there's so little left unregulated, they can take the gloves off and come out and say it -- "everything not compulsory must be forbidden, and everything not forbidden must be compulsory."
Kinda like making hate crime laws, when existing laws would do the trick if enforced correctly.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
But there is actually a group of international criminals that are involved in music piracy too. Why not go after them? The music piracy would not exist without them. I'm talking, of course, about the record companies and their cartels like the RIAA. I suggest that the music companies are certainly more reponsiable for music piracy than the maker of a software tool that is intended for downloading files other than music. They must be stopped from making this music that promotes piracy in the first place! Sure, it may have some legal outlets too, but they know it's being involved in piracy, and so by their own standards it must be stopped.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you lower the bar far enough, and make most everyone criminal, You can pretty much take away everyone's rights.
Once you are 'assumed' to be a criminal, just because you breathe
As well as destroy other rights you had, such as privacy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Better to err on the side of money... er, caution.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
I'm going to blame those girls for making me drink heavily the next day to forget.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
"If the directive is adopted, developers who create software for file sharing that is then used for illegal ends could potentially be criminally liable in EU member countries."
I guess they should ban the internet, and all software with networking protocols, such as Windows, Linux, OS X, and any other OS or application that has the ability to share information over a network. Hell, they might as well get rid of e-mail, too.
Nothing will EVER stop file sharing, short of getting rid of the internet, and you know that's never going to happen.
So SMTP, POP3, NNTP, FTP, and HTTP are potentially illegal as they can potentially be used to transmit and receive copyrighted material illegally. And I can potentially punch someone in the face with my fist (or both of them, if I'm lucky), so you'd better chop my hands off, just in case.
That has little to do with socialism and more to do with totalitarianism.
(Note: I'm not saying the EU is totalitarian, mind you)
I would equate this level action similar to what police do in inner city areas. You live there for years and there is a murder here and there, a few robberies a day and every once in a while some grandmotherly-type is raped and beaten. The police generally do nothing and it seems this is all just happening and nobody can do anything about it. Does this not sound like the level of copyright enforcement today?
Well, one day (actually more likely a dark night) the police come. Not just your usual two officers assigned to the neighborhood patrol car, but tens or even hundreds of cops in vests carrying all kinds of heavy weapons. Anything that gets in their way gets thrown into the paddy wagon and hauled off. Some people get shot, some by accident and some because they thought they would stand up against this invasion. Like what happened in Philly, maybe a building gets burned down as well.
Three weeks later, everything is back to normal. The drug dealers are back on the corner, the neighborhood liquor store got robbed last night and somebody gets shot and might live. The police came, put up a show of force, and left. They won't be back for a year or so.
We can expect a show of force soon over copyright. China gave up and has ceased all commercial music production. We can expect that in a few years here as well. It is almost the identical situation to the inner city - if the people don't give a hoot about it, the police (and RIAA, courts, government, etc.) can do nothing except put up a show of force. It is all just a show and it will be over soon.
Let's just ban electricity. Every act of piracy requires electricity, therefore electricity causes piracy! I love faulty logic.
If the directive is adopted, software used primarily for illegal file sharing, for example, could potentially make its developers criminally liable in one or several EU member countries.
I think this would get a little bit tricky and could cause some serious legal problems. Sure you could go after BitTorrent because people can use it for illegal purposes, but you have to realize that this is no different than most other products.
Cars are a wonderful way of getting from place to place that can be used for such illegal activities as escaping from the scene of a crime, running people over, and smuggling drugs into a country.
Guns and Bows can be used for hunting, whether for sport or food. Of course they are both also used in illegal manners such as killing people, robbing someone, and hijackings.
Explosives provide us with a nice and easy way to demolish old buildings, blast through mountains to provide tunnles, and to clear the land for whatever reason. Unfortunately, they can be used for doing very naughty things like car bombing some unfortunate soul, trying to blow up the WTC, and to forcably get into vaults.
Just about anything that serves a useful purpose to mankind has some way of being used for destructive, immoral, or illegal purposes. If we banned everything that could be used for harm and arrested the people who made those things, there wouldn't be very many people out of jail to use the very few products that were left.
I'd rather see a focused effort at the people who are commiting the crimes.
This current initiative has absolutely nothing to do with socialism, but with politicians being bought out by corporate interests.
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
same difference really. Hitler was head of the Socialist party in Germany, Stalin in Russia.
Right, the EU is considering this because of Socialism. Is socialism against filesharing? Copyright enforcement is hardly a socialist hot button.
This can only be explained by corporatism. Intellectual "property" protection protects mostly Microsofts and Disneys.
"why limit it to software for file sharing? Why not say any software that's used illegaly."
Because the recording and movie industries have deep pockets to get laws made for them. Nobody with deep pockets is trying to get rid of all operating systems because they are used to write worms.
You have to understand that these laws aren't being made because they're the "right" thing to do, these laws are bing made to appease an industry.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
For the wrongful deaths of kids shooting kids.
can be held liable for writing software that can be used for copyright infringement. I wonder if email programs like Outlook should be included. Maybe Microsoft should be found liable for copyright infringement. Or Mozilla for Thunderbird. Oh no, browsers can download copyrighted material so there is liability there too. It is a crazy proposal.
This is not unique to socialist governments by any means, nor is it necessarily good or bad (not that you implied so).
The U.S. Constitution is extremely imprecise, which used to be considered a great strength because of its flexibility to adapt to the times. Right to bear arms? We've been arguing about that one for a couple hundred years now.
Best Windows Freeware
girls that I may not have otherwise had sex with
I find that hard to believe...
-ds
And glovves for hiding their finger prints.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Riiiiight.
Cause something like this would never be pushed by a the freedom-loving government of the USA..
only in socialist europe would they try to push through silly laws to protect the profits of huge media conglomerates.
Starsucks
If you want to start making it illegal to posess software that could be used for piracy or counterfeiting then you might as well just call it quits on the whole computing age. Photoshop should be illegal since I could use it to claim credit for someone else's artwork. My soundblaster driver should be illegal because it allows me to record anything playing on it. Web browsers should be illegal because they cache copies of protected or copyright material that I can recover if I know where to look. Better get rid of my video capture functionality too, because I can record DVDs right from my Playstation with no issues other than a loss of quality. And TV-out, gotta get rid of that too, I might videotape licensed content off my computer. All chat programs are potential piracy vectors as well, for maintaining contact in 'the scene' or whatever, better get rid of those too. Where does it stop?
That part will be propsed at some point. Since its not 'trusted'.
That evil OSS stuff could be used to 'circumvent something', but your trusted OS ( i.e. windows ) will be safe, and prevent you from doing 'bad things'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What the hell is it with this unelected bunch of goons? First they do their level best to introduce patents across the EU, despite the will of the (elected) parliament, now they're sticking their noses into another area they know bugger all about.
It really is high time that the EU Commission was given the boot.
And they wonder why people across the EU are jumping at the chance to say NO to the EU constitution, which cements the Commission into place...
How on earth did we get this bunch of cretins foisted upon us, and why aren't we the people of the EC allowed to say "actually, no, we don't want them, we never have"?
Democracy? Pah!
Mmmm.... Yeaaahhh.... Then maybe manufacturing kitchen knives should be a criminal offense, too, as criminals might use them to kill people. How about bags? When thieves steal away money, they usually put it in a bag. How about cars, planes, and ships? That's how heroin gets shipped from South America to the United States. Jeez, what a paranoid waste of time combined with corporate a..-kissing.
It covers all Intellectual property crimes, including criminalizing patent infringement.
The items covered are the same as 2005/295/EC
http://wiki.ffii.de/Ipred0504En
So it would make it a criminal offence to infringe a patent. No kidding, imagine Philips Siemens, Nokia and their officers all vulnerable to a criminal infringment of some 'smiley' patent.
My understanding was that the issue in the MGM vs. Grokster case was that Grokster marketed their software to be used in an unlawful manner. But the judge clearly stated that other software (ie. IM software used to send files, web browsers, etc) and companies would not be held responsible for their tool simply being used for illegal purposes so long as the tool was not marketed to be used in that way. So whats the deal? That sounds like a logical outcome to me...
If an inventor, and that's exactly what software developers are, can be held accountable for how there creations are used by others then we are going to freeze innovation in its tracks. If someone is to invent a better engine can I sue them when a car using it hits me? How about those who invent better processors? Can I sue them because some script-kiddie uses a computer containing their invention to launch a DOS attack on my server? Of coarse I can't. An inventor can not be held accountable for improper use of his or her creations by others.
It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value. Arthur C. Clarke (1917 - )
Mom! I told you not to follow me here! GOSH!
I'm working on a good joke about your mom being
Ahem, Hitler was at the head of the National Socialist party, which is a helluvalot different from the Communist party Stalin was at the head of.
Also, please refrain from mixing Socialism and Communism, it'll enhance your chances of not looking like a complete idiot in public.
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
The other day I boarded me PC and headed out on the wide open network seas of information to find me some poor bloke's PC to board and swaggle all his mp3's for fear of me runnin' him thru with me l337 computer hacking skills. But to me su'prise, there were all sorts of bloke's wandering around the network seas INVITING me in to their cabin to rifle through their hoard of files in the hold's of their PC's! Shiver me timbers! They paid good drinkin' money for their massive hoards of music and movies and then started magically duplicatin' 'em and givin' to all us pirates FOR FREE!
Unhappy as a parrot without a shoulder, I turned me PC back around to head back to port 80, for me horn-swagglin' days of maurauding the wide open network seas were thru - for there be no one left to steal from these days!
..used by the media companies to make it morally justified to make such harsh laws.
making P2P piracy a crime is not the same as making software vendors whose product is USED for P2P piracy liable.
Piracy already is a crime. It's the whole 'facilitation' issue thats up for debate here.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Socialist governments like imprecise laws...
Maybe (and maybe not), but it's hardly relevant: as of 10th July 2005 the largest bloc in the European Parliament was not the GPES (European Socialist Party - including those notorious revolutionaries in the British Labour Party currently supporting Comrade Bush), but the EPP-ED (European Peoples Party - the conservative/Christian Democrat group): Wikipedia. Nice troll, though.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Just putting it in persepective. Yeah, it's a crazy scenario, but this is a crazily vague law too.
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
This is a proposal to attack specifically the act of INTENTIONALLY infringing or contributing to infringement. Grokster or Napster would get nailed under this because it is clear that ths software was meant to redistribute music files, they built their companies and communities on the idea of music piracy (ok... those of you who are going to say "But you could distribute your own music too!" can leave the room now. Both Napster and Grokster KNEW what was going on, they built the system to make it as easy as possible to pirate music).
When you come to technologies like BitTorrent or Freenet, you have technology platforms that are completely independent of what is being distributed. Going after BT because it allows infringement would be like going after E-Mail technology because you can send files, or FTP etc...
The wired article is a piece of FUD trying to scare up some controversy when what this proposal is calling for is to explicityly make criminal IP infringement through P2P. People love to argue that the law is fuzzy on whether or not it's criminal, so now they're clarifying it.
That's a very interesting definition of "socialist". I bet there are loads of nations you wouldn't normally think of as left wing that qualify under that analysis.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
It's simple : Ban human life.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I have an even better idea! Let's step back and look at this problem from a broader view. What are we trying to prevent here? Illegal activities! What is the primary thing that makes a person a criminal?
That's right: LAWS!
Yes, folks, we should outlaw laws that make activities illegal, because without them, there would be no crime!
I say we start by making politicians criminally liable for proposing any new law that might result in criminal activity...
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
Europe makes using the internet illegal for fear of piracy.
%cat pirated_content.tar >/dev/tcp/my.friends.hostname/some_random_port (...he's listening on with another stupid single command line)
"Here's a hood ... it can protect you in a snowstorm, or you can use it to rob a bank. Ban hoods!"
Check out this article from the 'Australian'...
"ITALY has banned Islamic burqas under tough terrorism laws that provide two-year jail terms and E2000 ($3200) fines for anyone caught covering their face in a public place.
The counter-terrorism package, passed by Italy's parliament yesterday, doubles the existing penalty for wearing a burqa or chador -- traditional robes worn by Muslim women to cover their faces -- or full-faced helmets or balaclavas in public.
Police can extract DNA samples without a suspect's consent, detain them for 24 hours without a lawyer present, and deport foreigners suspected of terrorism under the new legislation. Soldiers involved in counter-terrorism have been given the same stop-and-search powers.
The changes, approved in a rare show of bipartisanship, came as Italian police arrested a fugitive hunted by British police over the bungled bombing attempt in London on July 21. "
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
NO! You can't copy floppy's, that's wrong! See this if you don't believe me!
so, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo etc., will they all be liable? Those are also p2p apps.
You can't handle the truth.
...developers who create software for file sharing that is then used for illegal ends could potentially be criminally liable...
Why stop there? Go after Microsoft. I mean, it's their products that are allowing viruses to propagate, and in some cases, be created. Go after vehicle manufacturers because their cars can go faster than the posted speed limit, or can be used to purposely run people down. Hell, go after keyboard manufacturers because without them, it'd be pretty damn hard to write the programs that are used for illegal purposes.
Just because something is easy to do, doesn't necessarily mean that whoever provides the means to do such should be the one who is responsible for it.
Hope be with ye,
Cyan
So, what about fair use then? There are several European countries where you automatically pay a fee for each and every CD/vinyl record, each and every CD-R or other blank media, and - last not least - each and every *computer* you purchase, in order to compensate the content industry for losses they suffer due to fair use.
It seems that (unfortunately, even though understandably) the content industry would like to keep these fees while at the same time outlawing fair use.
But what exactly *is* fair use, anyway? It's not at all clear, and the introduction of criminal penalties for copyright infringement (not piracy - piracy means sailing the seven seas, bringing up other ships, stealing their cargo and keelhauling the crew) is likely to scare people enough so that they won't even exercise their fair use rights for fear of going "too far" and opening them up not only to civil lawsuits, but criminal cases as well.
But of course, it may not be a problem, since despite the fees they collect, the content industry seems to be happy to include copy-prevention measures on their media that do not just inhibit copyright infringement but also fair use.
What's more, it's been ruled in the past that despite the fact that these fees are collected, users do not actually have *right* to fair use - so the industry is free to take it away through technical means. Maybe we should just pass a law that requires us to turn over all our money to the industry - that'd save us all a lot of hassle.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Cause we all know it went to hell when we allowed that pesky VCR and damn audio cassette tapes to be used for recording. There's nothing fair about fair use when it prevents the fat cats from getting theirs.
If this proposal is passed then photocopiers, printers etc. will be illegal. They may be used for copying images and texts with copyrights. Then I wonder how the europeean commision will make their law proposals.
This world is really upside down.
A crime is transnational in Europe. If you commit a crime in any country in the EU, you are not immune because you are not in that country. The bigger a multi-national you are the more markets you are liable in and the more opportunity to infringe.
That means that any country (i.e. UK patent office) that decides to implement software patents will force them onto everyone for the whole of Europe.
Anyone that wants a software patent for their smileys will apply in the UK and file criminal charges against the company that infringes in that country.
The Commission really shows its colours here, its a straight grab for power even bigger than the Council & Parliament combined has.
What isn't right is to trying to avoid piracy using unethical methods that will damage non-pirates...
Mind Booster Noori
You missed the point entirely.
They want to criminalize what software writers create if it's used for an illegal activity, but only for a single type of software.
Virus writers do more damage than copyright infringers, but you don't see the people that create software development tools going to jail, do you? That's because lawmakers aren't being pressured by the industry to do so, so we end up with crooked laws that don't make sense... they punish a very small subset of people while other people who are essentially doing the same thing (writing software) aren't punished.
For justice to be served you should punish the people who actually do the crime. Putting software writers in jail is absurd. This law would make Bram Cohen (author of Bittorrent) a criminal even though his software is used legitimately by countless companies to distribute large files, such as Linux ISOs.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
WinXp should be illegal. I can copy stuff with it.
It's not the act, it's the meothod of aquiring it. P2P makes for a lot of needs to purchase new gear to pursue such criminals. On the whole, its likely a Fund Raising Operation. There are these crooks there who we need to buy more computer gear to chase them. They will likely get their money and move up from Pentium 2 computers.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
How come the Feds haven't sued Adobe for enabling counterfeiters all over the world? Or the makers of color image scanners, for that matter.
All men aren't pigs... we just smell that way.
P2P does a better job than their thing based distribution networks, *and that isn't going to change* regardless of legislation. In fact, it's only going to get better (underground networked bittorrent servers, i2p networks, tunneled dynamic trust based distributed file and database server networks, etc). End result? final capitulation of government to the giant inept or perhaps, if we're lucky, public knowledge of this nonsense followed by mass boycott of those involved, but most likely, such actions will result in more and more public money funneled to public-good actions, with a good amount of that going right into the pockets of those who demonize the right way of doing things. Look at the war on X where X=[drugs,terrorism,etc]. Those getting rich are the ones who are spreading fear to the masses. Drumming up support for private interest under the poison mask of public good. This can't last much longer... surely we're smarter than that.
I pay more now for media than ever before (and am getting more from it than ever before, but only due to good homebrew filter techniques). Perhaps it is our lot to filter out the worthy 5% from the rest of the dregs, be it on broadcast networks or in politics. It's too bad the percentages aren't higher and the will to move in the right direction takes a back seat to filling the pockets of the few.
You do realize why no one is trying to get rid of those systems. Because there are other pockets making money of off the existence of such malware. And entirely agree with your statement about appeasing the industry. The problem is a law this broad and open to interpertation can be used to cover all more stuff than we are currently talking about, and I can see this getting dangerous in the future, Especially if the trend contintues along such paths.
Cisco was a target of a recent article for enabling the Chinese government to filter content. Using an extension of EU's reasoning, they could be hammered for allowing content to pass through.
In the news...
The European prisons are filled with 10-25 yr olds who were arrested for using P2P software to dl illegal versions of the top 10 songs on the music charts. I'm glad we got those evil ppl out of the way..
Today the famous inventor Johannes Gutenberg was sentenced to 200 years of hard labour for creating, distributing and using machine for massive copyright violations.
Him so called "Printing Press" could produce hundreds and thousand copies of one book just for one week.
Pirates have used it in enormous proportions to execute undreamed copyright violations.
This had caused a big loss in book sells and SCWAA estimates them at 1 000 000 in gold.
This evil invention had taken the work and bread of more than 10 000 script copy writers, letting them and their families live in misery.
Guns can be used to kill people, but you don't see people taking the arms manufacturers to court do you?
Not so much precise as overbroad, I'm afraid.
"It is a good divine that follows his own instructions" - Portia, The Merchant of Venice
Doesn't Windows allow you to set up file sharing between different systems so would that make it illegal to use MS Windows?
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
Why limit it to software?
If a software manufacturer is liable for its customers illegal use of its product, then surely ALL manufacturers should be equally liable; makers of guns (murder), paper shredders (non-compliance with Freedom of Information laws), printers (forgery), matches (arson), shoes (trespassing - OK, I'll stop).
"Knowledge, sir, should be free to all!"
~Harcourt Fenton Mudd
The internet has been such a blessing. The power is in our hands now, and it's about fucking TIME.
Governments don't like that. Corporations don't like that. It's all about control and power. Those who have it don't want to lose it. Those who have it often abuse it.
Many people don't like the thought of that, but tough shit. Fact is, there isn't much anyone can do about it - and I LOVE it. We've had to endure tons of bullshit from corporations and governments throughout time, so it's time they take back a bit of what they dish out.
Don't want us to download your product? Stop fucking treating us like sheep. Want us to respect your laws and the companies that fund your elections? Stop fucking treating us like sheep.
Instead of learning from their mistakes and fixing what's wrong, they feel the need to create unnecessary laws. They're just digging their own grave.
I say bring these laws on, because if P2P becomes illegal then that will just trigger the dawn of a new era in anonymous filesharing.
What then? Oh, tsk tsk, utter loss for them.
No matter what they do to us, what laws they make, or what control they try to impose, there will be consequences and repercussions for them.
Remember that.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
The EU is being lobbied by the content producers to introduce laws which means european goverments have to pick up the tab for copyright inforcement.
Bad bit is, it appears they don't realise it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems very to the point to me.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
I'm going to do the task of torturing RIAA and MPAA employees and I expect to be paid for it! Better yet, I'm going to do the task of listening to whatever I feel like, and I expect to be paid for that too!
Two things spring to mind about this.
1) It's not reasonable to attempt to prevent the distribution of something that is so easily and widely distributed.
2) This might end up being a good thing. If we become entitled to trial by jury for copyright infringment then people stand quite a good chance of getting off. The beauty of trial by jury is that 12 good men are entitled to ignore laws that they disagree with and find people innocent.
Criminal prosecution is just the term we use to describe throwing someone in a cage. Just about the most direct and literal stripping of freedom that there could ever possibly be.
Copyright infringement is just the term we use to describe someone who isn't giving money to a copyright holder, causing a percieved loss of profit.
Since assumedly the damage of infringement will continue unless something is done, the simple choice is presented: Continue to allow piracy or throw people in jail instead. The government literally must choose between the wealth of it's citizens and the freedom of it's citizens.
By choosing to prevent the monetary loss by throwing people in jail, the government makes a choice that money is more important to it than freedom.
Just a bit of perspective.
All Hail the Maggott Show
The headline says "P2P piracy," but the summary says "organized piracy." But peer-to-peer is not organized; it is ad-hoc by definition. So which is it that the proposal is referring to?
I support P2P to some extent, but I really see no problem with cracking down on organized piracy. Unfortunately the summary's ambiguity makes it difficult to decide if I should be in opposition to the proposal.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein
That ruling was only against companies who advertised the fact that you could download illegal material (like Grokster did). If your product doesn't advertise the swapping of illegal files, you can't be held responsible (legally, anyway).
This also brings back the old argument: Don't arrest the gun company for making the gun that killed a man.
INACTIVE ACCOUNT
what "the" law says is irrelevant to what rights I choose to grant you under MY law, even if the domain of my law doesn't extend very far past my shirt right now (that WILL change)
/. -- want is not a free market, but a market where freeloaders can continually undercut prices. The free market rules, which would suggest that competition would drive prices down to marginal cost + reasonable profit CANNOT apply when the market consists of a monopolist (like U2) who carries all of the costs and risk associated with creating their product, and freeloaders who carry none of the risk or costs. U2 can never compete with the freeloaders on price as long as they have to recoup their costs before they can turn a profit. Since the costs for the freeloaders approach zero, they can always undercut the monopolist.
I, for one, welcome our Anonymous Coward overlords...
You should rightly be paid for the original act of creation or performance. Not paid over and over again a hugely inflated price for each damn-near-negligible-cost-to-produce copy thereof.
But why is this so bad? Why shouldn't the creator continue to be paid for his creation? Everyone says this is a horrible thing, but why is it a horrible thing? Is it just because YOU don't want to pay for something, or is their some grander scheme?
Copyright monopolies destroying the free market allow them to nigh-on print money, rather than their product price equilibrating near marginal cost of production with a reasonable profit as would happen in a free market.
But what does a "free market" mean in the creative world? There is only 1 U2 or Coldplay out there -- what does a "free market" mean when there is only a single source of the goods? IF there really were a free market for creative goods, that would imply that there were several U2's out there, and they would compete to provide the best product at the lowest price.
However, there is only 1 U2 out there -- with or without copyright laws, if someone wants U2 songs, there is only 1 supplier -- it's a monopoly situation, not a free market. In such a market, copyright law does NOT establish the monnopolies -- they already exist automatically -- it simply attempts to eliminate "freeloaders."
What you -- and most of the folks here on
Copyright, and other IP protections, are the only way that such a monopolist can try and minimize the problem of freeloaders. Is copyright perfect? No, but neither is "no copyright."
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
To borrow the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people" I think it's fair to say that "software doesn't infringe copyright, people infringe copyright.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Intention per se is essentially unprovable without documented evidence, and any law based around intention just results in business via conversations in remote places.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
cars, cigarettes, earthqakes, white gloves... Actually, sueing for an earthquake could be tricky... :D
Anyone with a round, black object to use against barbarians in emergency? And believe me, abuse of common sense the emergency might well make.
It's not that people haven't tried. The NRA owns more politicians than the other side. It worked with the tobacco industry, though.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Actually, you do. What you don't see is anybody winning those cases except the manufacturers.
City of Chicago v. Beretta USA Corp is but one example. There are a couple of dozen other municipalities in the US who have sued. I'm not going to look them up, but there must be hundreds of private citizen lawsuits against gun manufacturers, typically filed by victims of gun-toting, trigger-happy criminals.
..I use Excel to track my money laundering activites, will MS be held liable?
/.
Uh... not that I launder money. Really. I don't. I do, however, launder clothes, which probably puts me in the minority on
I want something like a "broadcast flag" embedded in files that tells me whether someone asserts a copyright on the material. If it says so, I can use it fairly, but I can't otherwise give a copy to someone else. A useable flag would point at some kind of "proof" that the asserter has the copyright, like a crypto hash of the file in a dated list that other people can challenge. With stiff national penalties for fraudulently asserting copyright on files not controlled by them. The flag must be informational, not enforceable automatically (like in a player chip), to prioritize fair use over fraudulent copyright assertion. So when I copy a file, I can't say I wasn't warned, but I can check it out and ignore it - and report it - if it's fraud. Probably it should be a URL to the copyright status page of the object, hosted by the owner.
Otherwise, we'll never know what the status is of the media we're consuming. We'll hold back on media we can share, and copy material we don't know we shouldn't. The vast majority of people sharing media want to do the right thing, to obey the law, to ensure the producers are compensated, that we're not ripping anyone off. Until we get an easy way to know whether we're doing that, we'll keep haphazardly doing both.
--
make install -not war
No!!!, I read the PDF and it's just too much. If this fuckup becomes law, the law I will have in disregard. Screw it.
There is a level of corruption behind which people don't respect the law. Welcome Banana EU!
Actually, there are hundreds of bands that are adequately substitutable for U2 for the average music consumer.
/.!), do you try and purchase specific CD's by specific artists, or do you shop solely on price?
I don't know about that -- when the average music consumer hears a U2 song on the radio, do they go to the music store and decide not to buy the U2 CD because there is something else "adequately subsitutable" for U2 for $.50 less? When you go to a store to buy a CD or buy from Amazon (I know, a big assumption here on
When you hear about a new book or novel, do you purchase that novel or book, or do you try and find a cheaper one, because it should be "adequately substitutable?" Did you buy Half-Life 2, or did you find some "adequately substitutable" shareware or freeware?
The point is, a lot of "creative" works that are the types of things covered by copyright (but not everything, of course) are the types of things that there really aren't adequate substitutes for, at least not until the prices get totally out of wack. I agree that if a no-name band's CD was selling for $2.00, and U2's new CD for $30.00, maybe that would be enough of a price gap to get people to buy the no-name CD (although I suspect that people would mainly just not buy the U2 CD, and not buy the no-name CD either). If you really want to hear the new U2 CD, there simply isn't an adequate substitute. That's why free market ideas don't work so well with creative works.
People don't buy music, art, books, etc., based soley on price -- price is usually an issue, of course, but the price decision becomes more of a buy-or-don't-buy decision, versus buy U2 or buy some other CD decision. That's why traditional notions of competition don't work.
Now, if more than 1 record company was selling the same U2 CD, maybe with different artwork or with some different features of something, THEN maybe you would have a true competive situation, where a consumer could purchase the U2 from whichever record label offered the best combination of price, service and features. But as long as bands, authors, artists, etc., are bound to exclusive licensing and distribution networks, this kind of competition simply can't occur.
BTW, that's also true for bands who sell their own CD's and don't go through a label, or go through indie labels -- there STILL isn't any real competition...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
Man... I think we really need to make something.
I have read some of the comments in this thread... I can see we are all pissed off about the way things are going but we are all whinging in slashdot without anything else to do...
I have read some recommendations about 'voting with your money' or 'Talking to your representative' but I think that is *really* not making any difference...
We must find a way to make the government hear us. Governments are supposed to represent the people in our countries not to serve as big companies servants allowing them to profit... We need real actions, movements, people, we need to fight again for our rights, not in UK or France or USA, but in all the world, we have the Internet which is one of the best communications tools which can be useful for us...
Big companies are using the globalization to get more and more of the markets, meanwhile squeezing the goverments are making they take our rights.
I am sure this will continue until there is something more severe, this will end in a kind of civil war but between consumers (us) and big companies... I see this as the next big war, but as they always say it will be a war of information , it will be a 'revolution' to get again our freedom, once, we fought other countries to get freemod (like Mexico from Spain or US from UK or UK from Germany)... now all the world will have to join to fight the big corporations, to get our freedom.
The sad thing is that it is a system a big system which everyone of us is making work, because it is in those big corporations where people like you and me work. Although there are just like a thousand people that controls the 80% of those and it is of they most interest to make the system work smooth, that is what we need to change, we need to break that system and install a new system a new freedom for information, all kind of information.
But then again I am here, siting in my desk just about to press the submit button and then I will continue reading the next story and then I will read my email and then I will just go to sleep waiting for tomorrow to go to work again... although my soul is shouting to go liberated... can we do somehting?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Now seriously how can they bust the P2P software vendors when companies such as Graphix have been making and selling bongs and other drug paraphenelia unabated for years.
Not that I jump up and down when a head shop is closed.. but which is contributing more to the moral decay of society, pirating music or drug use?
--
That's why they call it dope bro
Shut the smurf up mothersmurfer!
I think the only way it will stop is that they go too far, and there is some kind of revolution. Let's get on with it...
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Piracy is illegal by definition. Why make a specific law regarding P2P? piracy is illegal whatever method is used. Why should one form of piracy be worse than any other?
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
If we are going to prohibite technologies that could be used for illegal as well as legal purposes, then rule out guns (and so many other things).
Since just about any extant technology can be used to share data, such as downloading a file via http or ftp or sending attachments vial email, where exactly does this end? If a pirated music file is sent as an attachment with an email, does it suddenly make email illegal too?
P2P is simply a more convenient form of file transfer. That's all. This measure must be opposed!
...and it's called the European Commission. It's no wonder so many people in EU nations hate the concept of the EU -- its executive branch is made up of officials that A) Aren't elected, B) Can pass legislature on their own as if they WERE the legislature -- and instead it's the legislature's job to vote DOWN European Commission directives! (se e the whole software patent case where the EU Parliament saved our butts repeatedly)
...not a bunch of oligarchs.
The whole EU model needs to be scrapped and rebuilt from the ground up. =/ Either have an elected presidency or a prime minister or SOMETHING as the executive branch...
I just contacted my government to start discussing this directive. Thanks for the warning.
What the hell is it with this unelected bunch of goons? First they do their level best to introduce patents across the EU, despite the will of the (elected) parliament, now they're sticking their noses into another area they know bugger all about.
You seem to be confused about how the EU works. The commission only proposes legislation. But nothing happens unless the Council agrees with it. That means a sizeable majority of the governments of the member states. So if bad legislation is passed in the EU, you should probably be complaining to your own government.
Of course, the same ministers who approve things in the Council then turn around and tell their peoples that unpopular decisions are "Europe's" fault, thus covering their own asses.
And they wonder why people across the EU are jumping at the chance to say NO to the EU constitution, which cements the Commission into place...
The Commission has existed in this form since 1967 or so. I'd say it's quite "cemented" already. And the rejection of the constitution means that its current powers stay exactly the same.
How on earth did we get this bunch of cretins foisted upon us
Probably because our respective democratically elected parliaments decided to join the EU.
and why aren't we the people of the EC allowed to say "actually, no, we don't want them, we never have"?
Spare me the victim mentality. You're not living in North Korea. You have elections, you know.
The problem is this part of the summary: "If the directive is adopted, developers who create software for file sharing that is then used for illegal ends could potentially be criminally liable in EU member countries." Under this definition, making a web servers would be a criminal offense - web server are programs that give access to certain resources (usually files) through HTTP protocol. Web browsers aren't in the clear either, since they can certainly be used to distribute copyrighted content - for example, I could include lyrics from some song in this comment.
So either this law is interpreted literally, leading to a horrible mess of absurd lawsuits, or it will be interpreted different than it is written, which makes it unclear (since apparently even its makers didn't realize what they were doing - at least I hope they didn't and did this out of stupidity and not malice).
This is a poorly thought out and detrimental to the general public law, and therefore will propably pass.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
With the brilliance that come from making somthing illeagl just because of its potentil to cause harm would mean that any software can be illeagl. For instance, TCP, HTTP can be used to send pirated copies of software and child porn, should we now start arresting the IT people? Al Gore better watch out cause he claims to have invented all this. Its a bad day when it becomes a crime to make, build, or design anything that could be used for crime, but a good day for criminals. Criminals naturally dont follow rules, its only the law abiding that wll suffer.
Actually, it would appear that we are doing quite a bit. According to Rolling Stone magazine, sales of prerecorded CDs are falling about 5-7% a year. This is happening despite various superstar's hot new albums and mass purchases of must-have new releases. And despite that so many teeny-boppers have so much of their parent's money to spend and no political awareness whatsoever. Plus the audience of young people continues to grow worldwide and there is generally more money available for the purchase of recordings. The number of recorded music sales should be growing each year, but it is not.
Perhaps it is because we are effectively disseminating the message that there are alternatives to purchasing RIAA product on their terms and on their demanded price levels.
As for doing some kind of symbolic political action that attempts to presuade American politicians to consider a particular course of action? Forget it, symbolic political actions like marches, petitions, demonstrations, have no effect on the political process in the USA any more. You'll just end up getting sunburned, maced, tazered, arrested, and laughed at on the Murdoch-Clear Channel new outlets.
Keep quietly downloading, copying, and trading music and movies with your friends, and spending less and less on RIAA and MPAA product. It will take another 15-20 years, but eventually they will come to us to negotiate their continued existance on our terms, regardless of what stupid laws that they get their purchased politicians to pass.
These guys are having a real hard time understanding that this is the beginning of the information age and the age of the nation/state corporate or communist control of the economy is passing. In the information age, the people who create and guide the technology that distributes information have more power than the people who are able to control the systematic application of violence.
This is a long and slow transformation, but it is irreversable. Eventually the RIAA and MPAA will be on the side of the P2P designers and decentralized information distributers. They have no other real place to go. However, it's going to take a long time and there are going to be a lot of people put in prison for listening to music during the transistion. Do try not to be one of them.
>> You should rightly be paid for the original act of creation or performance. Not paid over and over again a hugely inflated price for each damn-near-negligible-cost-to-produce copy thereof.
> But why is this so bad? Why shouldn't the creator continue to be paid for his creation? Everyone says this is a horrible thing, but why is it a horrible thing? Is it just because YOU don't want to pay for something, or is their some grander scheme?
The US Constitution grants the Congress the power to enact laws to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (section 8). Note use of the word "limited". Once an author creates a work, getting paid repeatedly, indefinitely, for that work does not incent him to continue to author. If he can just take his one book (or song or invention or whatever) to the bank for the rest of his and his children's children's children's lives, what motive would he have to continue to produce?
Notice how science and art are both represented here. Consider what would happen if universities treated discoveries the same way the **IAs treated media. Research would be impossible. If no one was ever allowed to build on the research and findings of those coming before them without financially compensating hundreds of other scientists in the process, it would be too cost prohibitive to research anything, and we'd forever be living in the bronze age. Why should it be one way for science and another way for the arts?
Now Disney and the **IAs want copyrights and patents to be enforcable indefinitely, because they don't want to have to create something new which would supplant the revenues lost when their copyright protection sunsets. This does not promote or incentivize new creativity. To the contrary, it shuts the door on it.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
... different on the MGM v grokster ruling? The posters modded "insightful" have this the wrong way around. It is not something which "will" pop up in the us, this is something which HAS popped up in the us by megalomaniac judges who were legislating from the bench. The proposed EU directive is designed to implement what hollywood "THOUGHT" it received from the ruling, meaning a very overbroad implementation of MGM v. Grokster.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Is this the way things are going because our western economy are starting to struggle to keep shareholders happy thereby causing the little man to pay every penny they own to get the latest CD from HMV that they will listen to about 5 times cause they can't use the same CD on their car MP3 player?
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
> Is socialism against filesharing?
Yes.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
one would then have to consider that perhaps there was an alternate reason for establishing "hate" laws.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
According to various Irish historians, St. Colmcille borrowed a psalm book from St. Finian and secretly copied it. Someone told St. Finian and he demanded the copy. St. Colmcille refused. The high king said "to every cow its calf and to every book its copy."
St. Colmcille still refused, and so a battle was fought in 561 A.D. The armies clashed at Cooldrumman and over 3,000 men were reputed to have been slain. Colmcille built a monastery and then exiled himself in repentance.
This represents the earliest European edict in regard to copyright -- so let the battle cry ring out:
To every cow its calf, to every book its copy!
Paul Gillingwater
MBA, CISSP, CISM
The Bonus is one fell swoop they outlaw US military operatiosn in EU due to US Military actually using P2p in its infrastructure.. Genius!
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
"This Article obliges Member States to consider all intentional infringements of an intellectual
property right on a commercial scale as a criminal offence." (emphasis mine)
from skim reading the linked pdf it looks as if it's aimed people violating copyright in order to make money, and isn't infact going to make criminals out of teenagers using kazaa.
"As much as you seem to think that sadaam is a fun-loving guy that should be invited to everyone's graduation party..he killed 100's of thousands more than the U.S. invasion. But protesters seem to always forget this part."
That is so much bullshit. NOBODY likes Saddam. What a lot of people are pissed off about is that we were mislead into an unnecessary war. Iraq is NOT about terrorism. It was suppose to be about weapons of mass destruction but the Bush administration takes every opportunity to say that our troops are being attacked by "the terrorists." We invaded their fucking country and a lot of Iraq people are pissed off about that. Those Iraq people who are fighting us are NOT terrorists so let's stop justifying a war that was planned way before 9/11 and impeach the dumb son of a bitch that is the cause of over a thousand of our fine American men and women who faithfully followed the really stupid and evil orders of this administration.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Oh, goody!
That is all.
Now MS can be sued.... due to that phishing email being written in Outlook!!!!
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
>>>The reality is that ( if you are found guilty ) when the sentencing phase arrives, there may as well be a computer behind the bench, instead of a human judge. In other words, your only chance is if the jury declares you "not guilty".
>>>In case some of you cannot figure this out, this places the federal courts in the US a lot closer to fascism than any courts in western Europe.
Didn't history's great fascist regimes have ways of making sure an accused was found guilty?
In the U.S. that is up to the jury and the jury always has the power to find a defendant not-guilty, no matter what the facts.
If the punishment phase is consistent, the jury ends up taking this into account as well. For instance I've seen a jury refuse to bring in a guilty verdict on a particular charge because the likely penalty seemed too severe for the circumstances.
With the U.S. Jury system in place there is not so much need for Judicial leeway.
"We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read."
- Mark Twain
If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
"It gets really messy, because it is unclear what is legal or not legal, and it is problematic to operate with such abstract terms"
Gee, kind of like morality in general, huh?
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
I understand that's what the constitution says -- I was arguing in the more philosophical sense, because "You should rightly be paid for the original act of creation or performance. Not paid over and over again a hugely inflated price for each damn-near-negligible-cost-to-produce copy thereof" isn't what the constitution says either.
/., and that's the argument that a company shouldn't own the patents that their employees make, but the employees should own the patents and reap the benefits. Well, the current system we have for patents in these cases is essentially the pay-once system -- the employee gets a paycheck -- and people don't seem to like that. I guess maybe it's because somebody else -- the employer, in this case -- is reaping the benefits of the patent. But that's the same thing that would happen here -- if artists were paid once for their product, and that's it, then others would be free to come in an profit from their creations. Maybe its not a complete direct parallel, but I think it helps to point out some of the diverging IP arguments we have here sometimes...
Once an author creates a work, getting paid repeatedly, indefinitely, for that work does not incent him to continue to author.
But how many authors and artists can continue to make a living after publishing only one work, even though they get paid "indefinitely?"
If he can just take his one book (or song or invention or whatever) to the bank for the rest of his and his children's children's children's lives, what motive would he have to continue to produce?
Again, there aren't many authors or artists that can continue to make a living off of a single recording or novel. Maybe it happens once in a while, but most don't make that much even when there product is first printed or published -- the incentive to create another work is the same incentive most of us have every day when we get up and go to work -- to make more money.
Also, BTW, I know you didn't make this argument, but I've seen it a lot on
Now Disney and the **IAs want copyrights and patents to be enforcable indefinitely, because they don't want to have to create something new which would supplant the revenues lost when their copyright protection sunsets.
When was the last time a new album came out from an RIAA member? Don't several hundred new albums come out every year, at least? How many new movies has Disney made in the last few years? True, Disney would lose some income if copyright protection went away, but it is hard to see how Disney is NOT incentivized by the current length of copyrights, unless you want to say that Disney would produce even more movies if they didn't have copyright protections, or record labels would produce and distribute even more CD's if copyright went away.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"But why is this so bad? Why shouldn't the creator continue to be paid for his creation? Everyone says this is a horrible thing, but why is it a horrible thing? Is it just because YOU don't want to pay for something, or is their some grander scheme?"
Straw man.
Firstly, the vast, vast major of contracted musicians don't see a penny from their copyrighted works, because they don't own the copyrights -- the labels do. And the labels screw them out of whatever cash they may be entitled to. Even successful artists rarely see a dime until the second or third hit album.
And anyway, copyright and payment is not a bad thing -- if it is limited for a short time. Copyright, however, is now eternal, and the original bargain made by the Constitution's framers is dead. Until copyright is reined in, it is a Bad Thing.
"what does a "free market" mean when there is only a single source of the goods?"
You've changed the definition of the goods. There is ONE source in the world for U2 performances -- U2 itself. That's what concerts are for, to obtain that unique product that only U2 can provide.
BUT, the recordings of the songs are not provided by a monopoly - not anymore - have millions of sources available for repro, are infinitely reproducible at almost no cost, and have a street value of either retail price or free. Amazingly, a lot of people are purchasing the retail package, but free seems to be popular as well. The free market has assigned its values. That the copyright lords do not agree with the reality of the free market doesn't change the reality. The copyright holders should be shudderingly grateful that people are willing to pay anything at all for a 25 cent disc.
"U2 can never compete with the freeloaders on price as long as they have to recoup their costs before they can turn a profit."
Obviously, they can compete. Bono doesn't seem to be hurtin' for money.
Bands, as I said before, rarely make money off of their album sales because of the amazing accounting practices of the recording industry. They DO make money off of their live performances, after the labels eat their share. Live performances are the way to go if you want to eat.
As for the revenues of the labels, who give a crap. They don't give it to their artists, and if you'll recall, they almost slipped a provision into federal law that would have made ALL RECORDINGS "works for hire" -- meaning the payment the artist received for recording the work would have been the LAST payment the artist would ever see, because the copyright would have been owned by the labels forever and ever and ever. And they probably would have taken the payment back from the artists for "expenses" that only they could define.
Wrappin' it up, I can only throw in my only real, extralegal reason for tossing copyright into the trash. Copyright was a deal, a compromise in the Constitution, that let a creator make money for a limited time, and then released the work into the public domain in less than 20 years. That would insure that things like "Huckleberry Finn" would be part of the public heritage, and available for interpretation and expansion or whatever anyone wanted to do with it.
But Twain's writings are STILL COPYRIGHTED, and will be forever; they are held by an IP concern which trades in the stuff like stock certificates. This is the reality. The works of mankind are now product, never to be released.
The deal was broken in the late 20th century. WE did not break it; greedy, selfish and stupid men broke it. They killed copyright by making it eternal, and made it criminal to violate their "property", making "reading" or "copying" equivalent to "stealing". Just the semantic evil of what they've done pisses me off.
They declared war on the human race, not me.
Nah, I don't think so. Seriously, the sit-ins, the protest marches, etc. etc. What did they *really* accomplish, other than a lot of "feel good/I did my part!" stuff for those involved in all of it?
Back in the days of Vietnam, the country still went to war and got all those folks killed anyway. All that high-profile protesting and burning of draft cards didn't change a thing in the govt. policy of the day.
They only quit when they decided for themselves, as military leaders and political figures that they had no way of winning and it wasn't accomplishing any "good" for them anymore.
The best you can do is educate as many people as possible about what's going on around them, so at least they don't let things slip past them, completely unaware. In the case of technical concepts, your most receptive audience is the minority of people who write the software, use the software, and follow technology trends. That means, web sites like Slashdot, Ars Technica, etc.
I've said time and time again, short of election of an independent political party with fresh, radically different ideas of a direction to take the nation - everything else amounts to little more than "going through the motions" anyway. Do I expect the Bush presidency to pay a lick of attention to me if I gather up even 50,000 people interested in p2p sharing rights and march on the lawn in D.C.? Nope... because we're not the ones lining the pocketbooks of the senators, congressmen, and other political figures like the companies are that fund the opposing viewpoints.
...we can have legal users register with the government for legal use, and leave the illegal users to conduct their business underground!!
Private copies are legal (Berne convention).
You have the right to record braodcasts, to copy CDs for your own use. Just do it more. And encourage it more.
Alternate but flawed. If someone murders me (a white, straight, atheist, Canadian male) they should get the same punishment as someone who assaults a black, gay, jewish, Saudi woman. Right?
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Actually, the moment I hit submit I regretted it. Ideally I think my above statement is correct, but realistically if I saw a lynching I would want everyone involved to fry.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Next time you tell your little anecdote about the first copyright law, you might want to supply a bit more information.
:-) ).
That account misses some important points:
Columcille's side won the battle and the High King Diarmaid soon became an ex-High King, for starters.
If you are reading this and wondering wtf a priest was doing with a thousands-strong army, it helps to know Colum O'Donnell (Columcille was his nickname because he was associated with the church (cille) was a prince from a very powerful clan (he was a descendant of Niall of the Nine Hostages)), and thus himself potentially in line for the throne before he gave up his title and joined the church.
And Columcille didn't just "build a monastery and exile himself" - he travelled around the islands of Britannia and Hibernia, founding monasteries such as Iona dedicated in part to the preservation of ancient literature by its transcription (i.e. rampant copying
That "battle cry" does represent the first recorded instance of a copyright law in Europe. And it is nothing to be proud of. The thing to be proud of is that Columcille spotted and defeated the nascent tyranny of the first copyright law.
Look also at Columcille's defence of the Bards - does that sound like a man who "repented" of his opposition to copyright??? No - Columcille repented the great loss of life in the battle with the High King's forces, but did all he could to oppose those who would stifle the free flow of information.
Columcille was made a saint. But he was a scholar first and foremost, and a truly good man who quickly saw what I ("even" as an atheist) consider a real evil and defeated it. His legacy made Ireland a beacon of knowledge and hope in the Europe of the Dark Ages after the fall of the Roman empire, a legacy then carried to continental europe by St. Columbanus (easily confused with Columba, but a different guy...)
People think I'm crazy when I say there might yet be another war about copyright. But there might have to be, or we might not ever escape its tyranny.
Firstly, the vast, vast major of contracted musicians don't see a penny from their copyrighted works, because they don't own the copyrights -- the labels do. And the labels screw them out of whatever cash they may be entitled to. Even successful artists rarely see a dime until the second or third hit album.
And that's just as irrelevant to the argument -- if the artist felt that selling his or her rights to the record company was the best thing for them to do, why shouldn't the record company then be able to profit from it? As is noted over and over ad naseum on these boards, nobody forces the artists to sign their contracts with the labels -- they do it of their own free will.
And anyway, copyright and payment is not a bad thing -- if it is limited for a short time. Copyright, however, is now eternal, and the original bargain made by the Constitution's framers is dead. Until copyright is reined in, it is a Bad Thing.
Life + 70 years is a long ass time, I will agree, but is far short of eternal. Read Eldred v. Ashcroft (maybe you already have) to see the arguments as to why life + 70 is constitutional.
You've changed the definition of the goods. There is ONE source in the world for U2 performances -- U2 itself. That's what concerts are for, to obtain that unique product that only U2 can provide.
BUT, the recordings of the songs are not provided by a monopoly - not anymore - have millions of sources available for repro, are infinitely reproducible at almost no cost, and have a street value of either retail price or free. Amazingly, a lot of people are purchasing the retail package, but free seems to be popular as well. The free market has assigned its values. That the copyright lords do not agree with the reality of the free market doesn't change the reality. The copyright holders should be shudderingly grateful that people are willing to pay anything at all for a 25 cent disc.
So, you think that the artists should only charge for concerts, and should give away the CD's for nothing? Maybe artists shouldn't record CD's at all, and should just perform, and not allowe recording of their shows.
Obviously, they can compete. Bono doesn't seem to be hurtin' for money.
You are right, Bono isn't hurting. But would Bono be where he was today if the record company couldn't have sold cassettes and albums back when U2 started? How would anyone know whether or not U2 could sell out a small club or an arena if there was no measurement of their popularity?
How about another example -- if you are a young singer, just starting out, would you rather be playing small clubs, trying to build up a buzz and get some interest going, and giving away CD's that you paid to produce and record, or would you rather take a check up front, get your CD recorded and produced professionally, and have a record label doing the marketing, distribution, getting you airplay, getting you into videos, getting you onto SNL or Letterman, or whatever. If the record labels couldn't make money selling CD's, then you wouldn't have record labels providing the services labels do.
Now, I'm not an apologist for the labels -- but they do provide a service that an awful lot of artists seem ready and willing to take advantage of, and pay handsomely for. Who are you to tell them that the deal they are making is not a good deal just because YOU would like to pay less for their music.
But Twain's writings are STILL COPYRIGHTED, and will be forever; they are held by an IP concern which trades in the stuff like stock certificates. This is the reality. The works of mankind are now product, never to be released.
Mark Twain died in 1910. Even if he published something on the day he died, it would long be public domain by now. Huckleberry Finn was published in 1885, which means it was public domain in 1899, if I remember my old copyright laws correctly.
Wrappin' it up, I can only throw in my only real, extralegal reason for tossing copyright into the
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
I almost always go back to first principles when hearing such stuff and it seems to me that this would set a fundamental precident such that, for example: the inventor of the kitchen knife will be liable for all the murders done using his creation. This makes the creator liable for the actions taken by anyone using his creation and NOT the perpetrator him/herself. Presumably, one could then do anything one damned well pleased with no consequences to oneself so long as one used something created/invented by someone else. Lobi Wan
RUPERT! I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE BAGS! You were looking at the boys again, WEREN'T YOU.
Simple, though i cant tell you when it happened..
Now, if you stand up for your rights, you risk being jailed, detained, or just plain 'taken to the cleaners'.
The ability for the common man to rise up has been severely throttled as of late..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
how liable is Microsoft?
...unions have done it forever. "IT" people in general hold the keys to the modern way of life. IT makes the whirrled whirl. IF there was a general interest and IF you could get enough IT people to particpate, they hold more power than all the industrial labor unions combined, and then some. I have used an analogy before because it fits. Imagine a worst case y2k crash scenario. It is *possible* to approach that level merely by shutting things off, not going to work, walking away from the screen, the terminal, the control panel.. you get the picture. A "strike", a plain vanilla old fashioned work stoppage, just on a large scale, and against critical infrastructure, both utilities and business. Think about all that power. The "man" would be near powerless to do anything except bluster. What would happen if wall street ceased to function one day? The telcos? The electric grid? Public utilities, shipping, etc, etc? It's GEEKS who actually run all that stuff, NOT the bosses, NOT the politicians, NOT the CEOs, NOT the stock traders, NOT the banksters. GEEKS.
Stay apart and squabble=no power, politically impotent. This is how it is now. bitch, moan, complain,then back to the videogame.
That's why nothing ever gets fixed.
Organize to the point that you could pull off a major strike over a few key issues,(P2P, software patents, DRM, ridiculous copyright extensions, etc) then you would get noticed. They would have to deal with you because they don't have any backups.
24 hrs with civilization mostly shutdown would get you some power and respect.
That is about all that would work I think. I have thought about it a lot. it's not perfect, but everything else is a worse idea. Everything else, as has been pointed out, has failed. You STRIKE. When things get to the point that it appears you have no other options, STRIKE. Refuse to particpate in "business as usual". They can't call your bluff because THEY can't do the things necessary to even do that, let alone run everything else.
On a small scale, sure, some people here and there can be replaced, even in a no notice emergency situation. But on a nation wide (or continent wide) scale, NOPE, da *man* couldn't replace you, and they can't do the work and they depend on the work being done to stay in power.
Most of the Slashdot members say that P2P SHOULD be legal. Let's see how somebody working in the film industry sees this.
...my english also
A VERY low budget film costs around one million euros / dollars, whatever. 5 million is still low budget. Of course every film has a pretty good income, let's say our film has 100 million euros income. Around 65% remains at the exhibitor (the cinema operating company). There is 35% (35 mil) going to the distributor. 50% of this goes to the sales agent (17.5 mil) and around 85% of this goes to the producing companies (~15%). So around 15% of the gross box office reaches the producing companies, which is not that much! It is VERY rare that a 1 mil budget film has 100 mil GBO (100:1), companies are glad even with 1:1. Of course there are other income sources, such as TV sales, DVD rental and sales and many other.
The fact is that most of the European films would mean sure bankruptcy without government's subsidies. In the UK the film industry is subsidied from lottery money, in France from taxpayer's money; every country has different sources and strategies to subsidie the "seventh art".
How is this related to P2P? Don't tell me you don't know. Everbody want to watch / own their favourite films without paying a freaking buck. Divx, Xvid formats are suitable both for quick downloading, storing (6 movies on a dvd), both for home screening (computer, tv, digital projector).
It would be obvious that conclude that P2P and piracy creates the possibility that people watch all the movies at home and don't go to cinema / don't buy dvds, but... last month we released a two year old film, you could find it everywhere on the illegal market (including p2p), it was aired AT THE SAME TIME on TV and...it had pretty good addmissions! This (among other things) led us to the conclusion that people do not go to cinema to see THIS film but to go spend their free time, to go somewhere else than home. Just like coffe or beer: you can drink it at home (with or without your friends) and you can go to a much more expensive cafe or bar to drink it. And don't tell me that bars would have a lot more clients if you couldn't buy beer for home: only the number of beers drank would be much lower.
Sometimes P2P and piracy drives me mad that we have less addmissions, sometimes it makes me glad that people who wouldn't otherwise go to cinema have the possibility to watch that gorgeous film.
- yeah, i know, my englisk sucks
So what?
Ah, my mistake. I was understand the impression that a Socialist government was one where the bulk of the representatives were representatives elected by Socialists, not conservatives/Christian Democrats. Damn, and there was me bemoaning Europe's current crop of legislators as being right-wing. Silly me.
Guess I don't need to wait until the GPES are re-elected - I live in a Socialist paradise right now!
This is where the serious fun begins.
My big worry with this EU proposal was that it would not have "intent" as part of it thus making it a crime merely to do it by accident. Which in my opinion would have made the offense be treated as something more serious than murder because even for that intent must be proven to the jury.
Article 3 does I am glad to say have intentional in its current drafting. How that will translate into national laws through Europe though is another question.
Unfortunately they do refer to intellectual property and as far as I know that is quite an undefined term hence RMS getting so upset about its use as a term.
Yeah, it's not right to expect to be paid for some task or work that you perform or something you create.
... nothing, and the industry has to 'fight back' with things that can't be created by right-clicking and hitting 'Copy'. This will put them in a worse and worse position as compression gets better and average Internet connection speeds get higher, but they will always be the only ones who can mass produce original CDs.
Inevitable post, but I'll bite.
Of course you should be paid for something you create. However, if what you create is a file on a computer, I'll simply create a duplicate, and take that. Since I created it, I can even sell it on!
Obviously if this attitude was enforced, everything would fall apart. Well, with the exception (in the case of music) of live performances, merchandising, original silver CDs, original silver DVDs of concerts, and anything else they could think of. Oh, and of course the fact that digital media like MP3s simply can't compete with well priced physical alternatives, like an original CD with a nice insert with the lyrics. But let's ignore all that (not being sarcastic) for a minute.
How would you prevent endless duplication of files and the destruction the industry? Surely there must be a way? Oh, yeah, licence the product. Now, if copying a copy file is illegal duplication, surely listening to a CD over and over again is too? You are, in a way, creating a copy of the song, as until you play it, it is just a few bumps on a disk. You must pay every time you hear the song. Something like this was tried http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX.
So we have a choice: a world where inferior digital reproductions which cost nothing to create are distributed for
Or a world where everything is regulated by the companies. Which would probably eventually end up with DIVX being forcibly re-introduced, and a continuation of the 'war'.
Adding some morality to the issue on the pirate side we have people forging disks and selling them as the real thing, which is bad for everyone but the pirates. P2P, well, that doesn't really hurt the industry much. On the company side we have them making life tough for legitimate customers to get their hands on the cash, and attacking anyone who gets in their way. And let's not forget suing little girls. Won't somebody think of the children!
It suffers from the appalling abuse of piracy for one. But worse to me is the unsubstantiated argument that it is a serious threat to economies and governments. It might be but I really would like to see them cite a justification rather than justify something by pulling a statement out of the air and pretending that it is self evident.
AFAIK corporations have special rules, I think they're treated as "dead" right from the beginning.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Hitler was NOT the head of the socialist party in Germany, that was Otto Wels. Hitler outlawed the SPD in 1933.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Once an author creates a work, getting paid repeatedly, indefinitely, for that work does not incent him to continue to author. ME: place my job(autoelec) instead of author.. ive created several circuits(some now used in many ignition killers).damn does that mean i cant send a bill every year to everyone who i fitted it to their cars?? But how many authors and artists can continue to make a living after publishing only one work, even though they get paid "indefinitely?" ME:DOH apparently i should have been sending out those bills!! If he can just take his one book (or song or invention or whatever) to the bank for the rest of his and his children's children's children's lives, what motive would he have to continue to produce? ME: what the so why the hell have i been elbow deep in some citron(sp?) engine guts trying to figure out how to remove the alternator?? hmm autoelecs of the world unite-no car shall start until we get paid repeatedly, indefinitely, for the changing of a bulb!!! (TIC) but then hmmmm.......
Yeah, right.
"Well, hell yes. Ford makes cars and trucks that go faster than 75 miles per hour, even tho the speed is illegal. They are winking at the speeders. How many people die every year because of that excess capacity for speed? And Ford is not liable... why?"
WTF is this moderated as "troll"?
I know I am a couple of days late here, but in case anyone is still tuned in, the current life + 70 years is for individual authors; corporations, and authors who do not use their own name, get 120 years from the date of creation. So the fact that "corporations don't die" doesn't mean that copyrights don't die -- the current lifetimes of copyrights is very long, but even for corporations, copyrights will eventually expire.
In Twain's days, it wouldn't matter whether or not a corporation owned the copyright of not beause copyright terms were based on the date of publication, not the life of the author. It didn't matter who published it -- 14 years from publication was the length of copyrights in those days.
Finally, even if an author later sells his copyright to another person or corporation, the copyright term is based on the AUTHOR's life, not the life of the person or coporation he sold the copyright to. The 120 year term for copyrights is only for the case where a corporation itself is the author -- like software, or instructional manuals, that sort of thing.
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli