Slashdot Mirror
EU Weighs Copyright Law
Braedley writes "Some members of the European IT industry are unhappy with a proposed law that would penalize various parties, from software companies to ISPs, to even some hardware manufactures, but not the end users for infringing on intellectual property. Penalties for this aiding and abetting could include jail time for employees if found guilty."
Historically, prohibiting use of something does little to stop its use. In order to actually do something about it, you need to go after the supply.
Of course, what the bill totally ignores is that there is no technological solution. You can disguise your copyright infringement as any kind of other activity you like.
As such, there is no way for ISPs to prevent their systems being used for copyright infringement but to prevent all use, thus destroying the internet. Or at least, the ability of residents of nations adopting an idiot law like that one to access it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We need to get back to the system where copyright infringement is a civil matter and not a criminal matter. Then if the "pirates" are bad enough, the companies can sue them in civil court and quit suppressing our freedoms for the sake of their profits and then we can stop footing the bill to protect their corporate interests.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
Far from serving citizens, all the governments of the world are all competing to create the most attractive country for businesses to trade at the cost of criminalising many of their residents.
Maybe it's time in the evolution of things for copyright to go away. Yes alot of people's job's rely on them, but then again alot of people relied on factory positions that vanished because of technological progress, too. Where do they go? What do they do? I can't say for sure, but (IMHO) I imagine future job growth will be in services and tangible goods, things that can't be freely distributed across the globe.
We are all just people.
All the talk about rich corporations out to squeeze the last dime from the consumer is just a smoke screen. What it comes down to is can people rely on patents, trademarks and copyrights for a livelihood.
Then why aren't these individuals pushing for change rather than the corporations? It is pretty clear that corporations want to use the law by any means needed to increase their profit margin. That is what they pay their legal experts and lobbyists to do.
To think otherwise is absurd.
Personally, I think you would be hard pressed to find a person who makes their livelihood based solely on intellectual property (in fact of the three you mention I would be shocked if an individual made a living on nothing but trademarks *coughs*).
In order to make a living, the artist or scientist often bring their materials to market often requiring them to give up their rights and hand them over to larger entities which makes the argument a moot point.
Often times these persons have to do secondary work (as in provide services) such as either live performances or perhaps technical troubleshooting service in the case of the patent in order to really make their end's meat.
The only people who really make a complete living off of intellectual property are of course corporations (and of course say... IP lawyers who didn't come up with the material themselves) and have a desire to appease shareholders so they maximize profits by paying their employees to do their best to change no only their company but consumers and of course law.
Like it or not... That is how things are really done. We could ban lobbying but that wouldn't really solve the core of the problem with the debate.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Flippant answer: Who says we're not?
Serious answer: We are, but the corporations have much more money and private armies of lawyers, so they get noticed a lot more.
Whether or not large corporations abuse today's copyright framework to become rich middle-men doesn't change the fact that copyright also protects many smaller artists. Contrary to what you describe in your post, I work in a high-tech city and know many people who make their living solely through developing intellectual property, generally in the form of software, as sole traders or in small, privately-owned companies.
I hesitate to post this -- the last twice I entered discussions on Slashdot and disagreed with the popular "copyright = bad" sentiment I was systematically hit with (-1, Overrated) mods for several days -- but sometimes you just have to tell it like it is. In this case, I agree with you that corporations do abuse copyright and lobby for beneficial laws, but that doesn't imply that there are no little guys benefiting from the laws working as they were originally intended.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.