Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Weighs Copyright Law

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the penalties-that-obviously-fit-the-crime dept.

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."

4 of 68 comments (clear)

  1. Not sensible by cyberbob2351 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, at least they are not focused on penalizing the end users...

    Realistically however, theres only so much one can do. If ISP's start policing the nets more, it just means that the filetraders will resort to shadier and more secure methods of transport. The content distributors will rely more heavily on botnets and compromised webservers to hold the information, and we will see a higher prevalence of strongly encrypted darkets like WASTE for getting the information around.

    If anything, people will go underground with sneakernet.

    And how dare we hold hardware manufacturers accountable? Copying of information is just an inherent property of the technology. Writing implements can be used to copy written works, do we hold pencil manufacturers accountable? If sneakernet becomes the norm, do we hold ipods and portable hard drives the culprit?

    Give it up. Filetrading is here to stay, regardless of what prohibitions the governments place on it.

    --
    for sale
    I'm a self-modifying sig virus
  2. Re:Sigh..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Actually one problem with making it a civil matter is the lower standard of proof, the lack of a right to an attorney (which you do have in a criminal case) and therefore the likelihood that people who don't actually do any infringement could be stuck with large monthly bills for the rest of their lives. Even if the court agrees that they are innocent, they are stuck for attorney's fees, unless they countersue.

    The criminal system has protections for defendants that should not be ignored.

    (I write from the vantage point of the United States, but I'm sure that the EU also has better protections for defendants in criminal cases than in civil cases.)

  3. Re:Copyright is a matter of respect by j1m+5n0w · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I agree with you. I don't respect copyright law as much as I used to, for several reasons:
    • I perceive that copyright law ought to reflect my interests as a consumer as well as content owners, but it doesn't. If it did, the maximum copyright length would be much shorter.
    • Huge penalties for violation and selective enforcement.
    • Intellectual property tends to be overpriced to begin with (CDs especially).

    That doesn't mean I go out and copy everything I can off of P2P networks, I'm just saying I don't feel much outrage when other people do so - quite the opposite. I think if the government (the US government in my case) wanted to regain my respect for copyright law, they should:

    • Enact more reasonable copyright laws (this might mean leaving TRIPS).
    • Reduce penalties for infringement that isn't for commercial gain, but shut down the guys that are, for instance, making a living selling anime bootlegs from China on Ebay.
    and content owners need to
    • Reduce their prices.
    • Cater more to the "heavy tail" consumers.
    • Stop trying to control what we do with the stuff they sell us (DRM).
    The most likely way I see that these last three are going to come about is that new companies that actually want to sell the products that people want will replace the ones that don't. Some government action may be necessary to break up monopolies, I don't really understand the industry well enough to know if market forces are enough.
  4. They just can't wait to kill the internet by SpaghettiCoder · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's been their plan all along to implement something called "The Grid" - a massive centralized network including phones, computers, televisions, etc. This "Grid" would be accessible only by first giving personally identifiable info in the form of some kind of digital signature. The UK government proposed this to the telecoms industry in 1999 or thereabouts.

    IIRC, this particular legislation would, according to the masterplan, be about 2 or 3 years ahead of schedule.

    The EU is a very sinister machine. Power resides in the hands of the Council 100%. The Council proposes legislation, and submits them to the European Parliament for rubber-stamping. In most cases, the MEPs haven't read the legislation they're voting on (this isn't a piece of Slashdot bull - this is really the truth) and wouldn't be able to understand it anyway. They are there because it's a very easy way to get fat without doing anything. The European Parliament can send a piece of legislation back to the Council for amendment (and the Council usually just makes superficial changes), but the second time around it goes through (different rules regarding the majority).


    Make no mistake: the Council itself is a puppet of the G6, the Carlyle Group and other secretive friends. It's been decided the internet (in the form it is in right now) has to go down. The Council has to formulate a 5/10 year plan and direct national governments and the EU about what they have to do.