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
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
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
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
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."
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 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.
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'
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.
>> 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.
"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!
"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.