Private File Sharing To Remain/Become legal In EU

orzetto writes "Italian newspapers are reporting that the European parliament's Commitee for Legal Affairs approved an amendment presented by EMP Nicola Zingaretti (PSE, IT), that makes piracy a felony—but only if a monetary profit is made. As in the EU parliament's press release: 'Members of the Legal Affairs' committee [...] decided that criminal sanctions should only apply to those infringements deliberately carried out to obtain a commercial advantage. Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded.' The complete proposal was passed with 23 votes in favour, 3 against and 3 abstained, and is intended to be applied to copyright, trademark, design and other IP fields, but not patent right which is explicitly excluded. The proposal has still to pass the vote of the parliament before becoming law in all EU countries, some of which (like Italy) do have criminal laws in place for non-profit file sharing. A note: Most EU countries use civil law, not common law. Translation of legal terms may be misleading."

Comments

Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[mjmalone]

It's funny because this is how copyright law was generally interpreted in the United States prior to the Napster era. The first criteria (of four) that is used to determine whether something is "fair use" is related to whether the use is "of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." Today fair use in the U.S. is interpreted so narrowly that might as well be non-existent. What's doubly weird is that the EU is typically more protective of IP than the United States is. It will be interesting to see what happens if this amendment is passed by parliament.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the situation is now fundamentally different. It used to be that one person copying a tape for a bunch of friends was no big deal. Even if it was a CD that reproduced almost perfectly with data verification it wouldn't likely get that far from the original buyer. Nowadays it's to the point where one person on earth could buy a CD and then that album could be downloaded by every person with a computer in a matter of hours or days given the right sharing service. (Torrents)

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[mjmalone]

Yes, and that's a problem, but the alternative doesn't have to be so severe either. Why, for example, do I have to pay Verizon $5 to download a ringtone for my cell phone when I already own the damned CD. The ringtone industry (which is a multi-BILLION dollar industry) is the perfect example of how content owners are trying to turn the U.S. into a pay-per-use economy. There has to be a middle ground here...

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Dunbal]

Nowadays it's to the point where one person on earth could buy a CD and then that album could be downloaded by every person with a computer in a matter of hours or days given the right sharing service. (Torrents)


      Yes, we've been at that point for a while now. And yet I see there's no shortage of wealthy artists... even if their music sucks.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[jfengel]

Napster made for an interesting little fillip in the interpretation of copyright law. People were taking CDs that they bought, ripping them, and then making them available for free, without any payment to themselves at all.

The question is why. There may be a simple karmic sense; even though you don't make a direct profit, your willingness to share keeps the whole system moving, and you get to download stuff of your own (a profit to you).

There may also be a kind of stick-it-to-the-man feeling; you just paid $20 for a stupid CD and now you want to get it back. Again, you're getting kind of a "profit", albeit not a financial one.

Those who download songs rather than buy them are almost certainly getting a profit out of the situation; they have a song that they did not pay for, and which they were expected to pay for. It's not a large profit, but in aggregate it's a lot of value spread out over a lot of people.

So the "profitability" notion of fair use got smeared out. Nobody was making a profit but the labels were losing considerable potential sales. Yeah, there's the whole "free advertising" notion, but I hardly consider that worth talking about; it's like the Change Bank claiming to make a profit off of volume, and the argument is so self-serving as to be hypocritical. The exact amount of lost sales is up for debate, and it's certainly less than 100% of the number of copies downloaded for free, but it's certainly greater than zero.

And the technologies that permit what's obviously fair use (backups, taking extracts) also permit free exchange. I don't think that the proponents of fair use did themselves any favors by demanding that their fair use rights remain untouched while offering absolutely no quarter to the lost sales from the labels. It made the entire movement look like they wanted to buy one CD and then "back it up" among the entire population of the planet.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't have to. You can just not have the ringtone. Trust me, my cellphone just does something like "gonk gonk gonk" when someone calls me, and I'm doing just fine.

Blaming copyright because you bought a locked phone and a rip protected CD (which I assume to be the case, otherwise you'd just load the ringtone like a normal person) kind of misplaced blame a bit.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Falladir]

Wealthy artists are conspicuous. Many excellent artists have what aspiring artists would see as a successful career (multiple albums, enough of a living not to need another job) without becoming wealthy. The Roche Sisters, for instance.

I'm just trying to say that only a small proportion of successful artists become obscenely wealthy.

He wasn't a musician, but Robert Anton Wilson, a novelist and philosopher (check him out, it's interesting stuff) died last month in poverty.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[squiggleslash]

You don't. You pay Verizon $5 for the convenience of being able to download a ring tone without any complications on your part, using a subsidized phone that doesn't include some of the nicer features that'd make it easy too.

If you bought an unsubsidized phone, the chances are you could move across the ring tone as an MP3 or, at worst, MIDI, file via Bluetooth or USB.

And with most phones, subsidized or not, you have the option of doing what my wife did, and just using the phone's audio recorder to make your ring tone. Yes, I'm talking speaker to mike, like you did when you copied tapes at the age of 5 and 3.5mm jacks weren't available to you. Before you complain about the quality, remember it's going to be played out of a crappy over-cranked speaker. It'll probably be more than acceptable.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[EmperorKagato]

Actually you don't.

Verizon charges you for the Service of providing you to download the ringtone. If you have the CD you can upload it http://www.mixxer.com/ and download it to your phone for free.

I'm not sure about Verizon yet I'm able to do with Sprint

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[pipatron]

The exact amount of lost sales is up for debate, and it's certainly less than 100% of the number of copies downloaded for free, but it's certainly greater than zero.

Funny you should say that, because people spend more money on culture today than they did just 5 years ago. How is that? CD sales are dropping like a stone, yet people spend more money. See, the problem as that the money stream now bypass the record companies, and naturally they don't like that. Of course they want us to believe that the poor artists will starve now, but I find that a bit strange, for more than one reason.

One is that even before everyone got internet and started to share their files, they got a ridiculously small share of each record sold. If the record companies worry about the artists, they could try to cut costs and streamline their business while still making the records cheap enough so people buy them.

The other is that, as I said, people spend more money on culture. If that money does not go to the artists, then it's not the fault of the consumers, but the fault of the music industry.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[zaajats]

I believe "profit" (in the legal meaning) only implies physical, measurable, commercial advantage.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Hijacked Public]

It often happens that great artists are 'ahead of their time'. I think this often keeps them from being particularly successful in a business sense as not many people are willing to pay them while they are alive. Edward Stiechen had a decent career teaching and such, but no one paid $3 million for any of his photographs until after he died.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[jfengel]

Right. But the law was written with an understanding of the term that turns out to be insufficient. People who wrote the law figured that people probably wouldn't go to the trouble of distributing music for free if there wasn't a profit in it for them.

That turns out to be wrong, and the reasons are interesting. Either you can expand your definition of "profit", and leave the law intact, or you can rewrite the law entirely. But I don't think it's fair to say, "Hey, the law says this and should always say this" just because changing technology allows you to get stuff for free that you couldn't previously.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[jfengel]

Thing is, the artists have always been willing to sell out. I can't speak to recording artists, but I know actors; I am a professional actor myself. (Stage, not screen, and regional rather than national; you've never heard of me.) Half the questions I get asked are "How do I get famous?" Few people have any interest in how to get better, and they'd sign any contract you put in front of them if it put their faces on the screen.

So it doesn't bother me that the artists get squat out of the deal. They got famous and that's what they wanted from the labels. If all they wanted to do was make music, they're welcome to crank it out in their home studio and sell it out of the back of a van, just like my musician friends do.

Those guys don't have any music industry to blame their lack of sales on. They sell to what customers they can reach, but without a music industry to promote them, their reach is limited. And I haven't seen the customers going too far out of their way to buy the music from CDBaby or eMusic for bands they've never heard of.

I think that there's plenty of blame to go around.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Tackhead]

> Well, the situation is now fundamentally different. It used to be that one person copying a tape for a bunch of friends was no big deal. Even if it was a CD that reproduced almost perfectly with data verification it wouldn't likely get that far from the original buyer. Nowadays it's to the point where one person on earth could buy a CD and then that album could be downloaded by every person with a computer in a matter of hours or days given the right sharing service.

So? As you correctly point out: the situation is now fundamentally different.

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back."
- Heinlein, Life Line, 1939.

Maybe the right thing is for P2P to be banned. But maybe the right thing is for the content (movies, music, and yes, even software) industry to come up with a business model based on something other than the artificial scarcity imposed by the production costs of selling shiny plastic discs.

Buggy-whip manufacturers probably said the same thing when Henry Ford came out with the automobile. Meanwhile, some guy whose business was making wheels for horse-drawn carriages decided to make stronger wheels that could be bolted onto automobiles.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Dunbal]

OK, to use your very example. I have never heard of "The Roche Sisters" (and it's unlikely that many others here have).

      Therefore it's unlikely I would seek and download their music. Therefore piracy is not the cause of their lack of wealth, is it?

      In fact if you were to, say, send me a link where I could download some of their stuff, and I liked it, chances are good that I would probably buy one of their CD's. Repeat a million times with the power of the internet, and suddenly the "RIAA" and the gangsters they represent are made fairly obsolete - especially if I can buy the CD direct from the band.

      This is exactly what they are afraid of, and the reason they are grasping at the final straws before disappearing down the hall into oblivion.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Beardo the Bearded]

It still is that way.

Just because a company says something is illegal, that doesn't mean that it is. They use bullying and advertising to make you think something is interpreted differently because that's what they want you to believe.

Look at the ads. They say:

"Downloading is theft."
"Theft is against the law."

Nowhere do they say that "Downloading is against the law." They just want you to infer that it's against the law.

You're not breaking the law because the RIAA sues you. Those are CIVIL suits. It doesn't mean you've broken the law.

In either case, get a lawyer, even if you are one.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[iminplaya]

And the carriage maker just changed the shape and material to accommodate also. Blacksmiths make wrought iron patio furniture(?) I guess only the buggy whip guy was left out in the cold.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Falladir]

I didn't mean that the RIAA is good for artists. Far from it. I was just offended that you were suggesting that all the artists had so much money.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[sumdumass]

This is still how copyright law is interpreted in the US. The EU amendment did nothing to legalize file sharing copywriter works. It just says you have to profit or attempt to profit in order to be criminally prosecuted according to this law. You can still be prosecuted under civil law if the country in question has a provision for it. This is how the RIAA prosecutions work, civil and not criminal.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I don't like to speak ill of the dead, or at least the recently departed, so unfortunately I won't be telling you how unsurprised I am about the author of the crappiest book I've ever read dying in poverty.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[packeteer]

The ringtone industry (which is a multi-BILLION dollar industry) is the perfect example of how content owners are trying to turn the U.S. into a pay-per-use economy.

That is just it. DRM is not about locking down some pirates. People have been pirating music and movies for years now and the industry is doing fine.

From a business perspective all the RIAA and MPAA want to do is maximize the money they take in. What is better for maximizing the money coming in; squashing the relativly small number of pirates out there and getting them to fork over the cash for their content OR would it make them more money to simply squeeze a little more money out of the relativly large group of people who pay for their content. Of course they are going after the bigger market, they are trying to move to a pay per use market simply becuase it will make them more money. It has been known tha tpsychologically if someone pays per use they end up paying more while perceiving that they payed the same.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[cyclop]

Yes, and that's a problem

It's not a problem. It's a wonderful opportunity.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[cyclop]

It made the entire movement look like they wanted to buy one CD and then "back it up" among the entire population of the planet.

Well, that's what I'd want to do.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Kattspya]

That sounds really really weird. If you have a certain track and want to use it as a ring tone simply convert it to the correct file type and transfer it to the phone and you're done. Are you saying that you aren't allowed to do that according to law, that you can't do it because your phone is locked or because you don't have cable/IR/Bluetooth?

Sorry about the poor grammar.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Original Replica]

Post a link to their songs. If I like what I hear, I'll go to the concert. If it's a kick ass show, I'll probably even buy a t-shirt.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Score Whore]

Where are you everytime there is a story about some corporation trading in your* personal data? Thirty years ago your data was just as distributed and collected as it is now. The difference is exactly the difference that allows some hosehead to share a copy of his recently purchased CD with 500,000 of his best friends. Maybe data collection and sharing should be banned. But maybe the right thing is for the consumers to come up with a lifestyle that isn't based on anonymity and unaccountability.

It used to be that if you wanted a luxury you would work hard for it. Now the entitlement generation just bases their ethical code on the ever popular rallying cry of the two year old: "gimme! mine!"

* - Not really yours, since anything that makes it to your credit report, medical records, criminal history, etc. involves, at least, a second party.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Dunbal]

I was just offended that you were suggesting that all the artists had so much money.

      Well put it this way, I come from a wealthy family. How much doesn't matter. Grandpa and my great uncles had a construction business. It got big. They built freeways, dams, airports. 80% of the construction in a large North American city over a 20 year period was done by grandpa and his brothers.

      Eventually the companies were sold for quite a few millions. Neither grandpa, my dad, me, or my kids, have ever/will ever have to work. Lucky us.

      But grandpa was never home. He spent 40 years on the job sites. We're rich, but I'm sure any gansta rapper has a lot more money that us. Now don't get this wrong, I am not jealous by any means. However I find it curious how society attributes value. Work your ass of for your entire life building infrastructure - make a few million. Write 2 or 3 hit singles, work when you feel like it making a catchy tune that distracts people for 4 minutes - make a few million. What a strange dichotomy.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[jfengel]

Sadly, they just broke up. Partly it's the stress of not having made it yet; partly it was events that overtook some of the members.

The music is still there, though:

http://www.myspace.com/wakingstate

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[ShieldW0lf]

Regarding the article...

Doesn't this mean that "In addition to whatever laws you might have existing regarding copyright etc, we are unified in adding to that a new law that says copyright infringement for profit is a felony.", not making anything any more legal for anyone, but rather ensuring that copyright infringement for profit is treated as a criminal case rather than as a civil one?

Can't you just see a certain operating system vendor reminding local computer distributors that if they accidentally sold PCs that had some copyrighted code floating around in there, they could go to jail? That's exactly what I'd be thinking.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[ShieldW0lf]

Excuse me, you're under arrest for distributing data without permission. Come with us.

This is sick.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[jonbryce]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that the EU is typically more protective of IP than the US. Certainly, the EU were first to increase the copyright term to 70 years, but the US introduced the DMCA before the EU introduced the EUCD, and the US has software patents, something which the EU parliament has rejected.

Incidentally, this proposed directive almost certainly doesn't mean that non-commercial file sharing becomes legal in all EU countries. The directive most likely will require all EU countries to make commercial sharing an offence, but they will be free to do what they want regarding non-commercial sharing.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[logixoul]

...download some of their stuff, and I liked it, chances are good that I would probably buy one of their CD's While I'd really like to believe this, few people would spend money on something once they have already downloaded for free. Joe Average isn't going to care about supporting good artists. Not in Bulgaria anyway, is US mentality any different?

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[mrogers]

The collection and analysis of personal data shifts power from the individual to the corporation. The not-for-profit distribution of copyrighted data shifts power from the corporation to the individual. So it's not hypocritical to support both privacy rights and fair use rights.

It used to be that if you wanted a luxury you would work hard for it. Now the entitlement generation just bases their ethical code on the ever popular rallying cry of the two year old: "gimme! mine!"

People have been making that complaint since Plato ("they fill their bellies like the beasts"). I don't think it's anything new that people want to have luxuries without working for them.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Hal_Porter]

Buggy-whip manufacturers probably said the same thing when Henry Ford came out with the automobile. Meanwhile, some guy whose business was making wheels for horse-drawn carriages decided to make stronger wheels that could be bolted onto automobiles.

You realise that there's a difference between people stopping buying buggy whips because buggies become obsolete, and people downloading illegally music rather than buying it, right? In one case, the government is under no obligation to do anything. But in the other, an existing law is being broken, that against copyright infringement. The fact that technology has changed to make copying easier doesn't alter that fact.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Danse]

Blaming copyright because you bought a locked phone and a rip protected CD (which I assume to be the case, otherwise you'd just load the ringtone like a normal person) kind of misplaced blame a bit.

Actually, in the case of the rip-protected CD, copyright law is very much to blame. If it weren't for the DMCA, you'd have every right to rip that CD anyway and create your own ringtone. The DMCA makes the act of circumventing the protection a crime unto itself, even though there's no reason you shouldn't have access to the songs you purchased in order to make use of them in other ways, such as ringtones.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[Reziac]

Precisely how it works for me... trip over some artist I never heard of, either as a random download, a recommendation, or via internet radio; listen to the MP3 too many times, get addicted, hunt down and buy CDs.

Funny thing, I only buy music when I'm getting this sort of exposure. When I'm not, I just don't get sufficiently interested in anyone to buy their stuff. (In fact, I usually don't even hear 'em in the first place, so don't know they exist.)

So for me it's real simple: When I can copy or download, I buy CDs. When I can't, I don't.

It was the same when I was DJing and the exposure-and-addiction route was a library of vinyl LPs and a tape deck, rather than the internet and MP3s.

BTW, clips don't work, and have never sold me an album. They never have the same power to interest and addict that the full song does, in fact more often leave me feeling vaguely annoyed with the song.

Re:Like U.S. Copyright used to be?

[child of the abyss]

I completely agree with the idea of buying the cd directly from the artist. I know a guy who has never bought a CD in his life but chooses to send money and a thank you letter to those bands that he likes. Just because I can download or watch/listen to stuff on the net for free doesn't mean that I've stopped purchasing digital products such as DVDs and CDs in fact it has lead to me purchasing stuff that I would have never considered because the internet provides you with that try before you buy option. Here in the UK you have to have TV license by law to watch TV. I don't own a television set and am opposed to paying a license fee for a range of channels that are predominantly crap 24/7. Thankfully the internet provides me with an alternative. I normally watch new TV series over the net just as they are released and later this often leads to the purchase of the box set if I am fond of them. I fully support the idea of free P2P file sharing for non commercial purposes.

Seems sensible.

[igotmybfg]

No harm, no foul. Adobe, MSFT, et al haven't really lost "a sale" because of me, because I wouldn't buy their software no matter what (i.e. even if I was unable to get it for free, like I do now). So it makes sense that there shouldn't be any penalty. Yet another reason to move to Europe :)

Re:Seems sensible.

[mjmalone]

Oftentimes they gain a sale. Because you now know their software you're more likely to purchase it in the future (assuming it works...) That's the reason these companies give huge student discounts, and is also the reason why a "leaky" copyright system typically works the best for everybody.

Re:Seems sensible.

[drix]

That's a very specious line of reasoning. It's easy to say that you wouldn't have bought it anyways, but impossible to prove such a thing. The counterfactual world where you actually had to purchase all the software you're currently using unleashes an infinitude of alternative economic choices. What do you use Photoshop and Office for anyways? I doubt that's it's purely for kicks. Those are, by and large, business applications. So would the income you'd have to forgo by not using them outweigh the cost of the software itself? I know it wouldn't for me. Even if you are just using Photoshop to edit your personal photos, you might find a lot of disutility in having crappy, edited photos to showcase. Point being, you really can't say that you "wouldn't buy XX anyways", no matter how strongly you feel.

Re:Seems sensible.

[cdrguru]

Why would anyone with a pirated copy that is fully functional ever, ever buy a legitimate copy? Because of the greatly improved support and documentation that comes with such a copy? Or would it be because of the significant reduction in cost when purchasing upgrades later?

Face it, free is free and money is better in my pocket than someone else's. If you have the ability to get something for free you are not going to give up that privilege and run out and pay for it no matter how much you like the folks that are selling it.

Of course, you could always contribute to your favorite criminal enterprise and buy from one of these fake "OEM Software" stores. Why pay full price when you can be suckered into paying $50 for Photoshop or $20 for Vista.

Re:Seems sensible.

[cryfreedomlove]

That's an interesting moral justification you are using. Let's apply it to another situation:

I will never pay for a cable TV service. Therefore, there is no harm in me splicing some coaxial able into my neighbor's cable and then sitting back in my living room to watch TV.

In your world, that is morally OK. Right?

Re:Seems sensible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I'm practically speechless. You are truely a fucktard, you know that? Take your whiney bitch ass to Europe, faggot. It's the perfect place for hippy fags like you that fail at life. Why is it always the abject failures are the ones who want to run to Canada or some European turd world shit hole? Have you ever been to any country in Europe? They are all shit holes. Alabama has cleaner streets and a more modern atmosphere than most of Europe. It's pathetic. And Europeans are all smelly, sweaty, repulsive, non-bathing, non-antiperspirant using... God, I can't even think of what all they are they're so repulsive. And their women are UUgly with a double capital U. Jeez, here in California, the women are beautiful, like rays of sunshine but in Europe, they all, and I mean all, look like they were not just beaten but fucked with the ugly pole. So take your bitch ass there, good riddance. I'll still be here in the land of the free, low taxation, can get top notch medical care anytime I want, cheap energy having, wonderfulness that is the US of A.

And I'll always be better than you.

Re:Seems sensible.

[Dun Malg]

That's a very specious line of reasoning. It's easy to say that you wouldn't have bought it anyways, but impossible to prove such a thing. Nothing wrong with his reasoning. It's impossible to prove the converse, so we only have his word to go on anyway. I tend to believe him, as I have a university site license copy of Photoshop that I use for little more than resizing digital photos. If it wasn't free, you can bet your ass I wouldn't buy it just for resizing my crappy JPG snapshots. His argument stands to reason. The converse, that he would have bought it despite his probable limited need for it, does not.

Re:Seems sensible.

[mjmalone]

How bout when you're not paying for it? Or when your station in life changes. I'll give you two examples: 1) st I start my own business and don't want to be found liable for copyright infringement (which is actually enforced for corporations), or 2) I'm working for Acme, Inc. in their IT department and they just asked me to help decide which graphics package they should be giving to their employees...

Basically if you go from using it at an amateur level to a professional level you're likely to reassess your pirate/purchase decision...

Re:Seems sensible.

[igotmybfg]

Well, I do actually use them 'just for kicks' - Photoshop for my personal website, and Office for correspondence and other administrivia/minutiae of everyday life. I could easily switch to FOSS, which has most of the same capabilities and would work fine, although I use Photoshop and Office because imho they are better application software than the FOSS stuff. I mostly agree with you though, for people who really do need to use the real deal.

Re:Seems sensible.

[cyber-vandal]

There were some jackasses on here who justified illegitimate satellite receivers on the grounds that the "damn stuff is broadcast over my property" as if somehow the satellite company could change the laws of physics.

Re:Seems sensible.

[drix]

Nothing wrong with his reasoning. It's impossible to prove the converse, so we only have his word to go on anyway. And really, what could be more reliable when it comes to justifying one's own illicit behavior?

There can be no question that it's not worth spending $500-$800 on Photoshop if your only purpose is to resize images. Thank you for pointing that out. For the rest of us, there are a great many areas where Photoshop far and away beats the competition and which would cause us to take a long, hard look at buying it if it wasn't readily available for free. Things like ACR, 32-bit (HDR) support, web conversion, layer effects, etc. I have heard numerous photographers I know justify their pirated copy of Photoshop using exactly the logic of the parent poster, and it strikes me as utter crap. The features they've come to rely on don't exist anywhere else, and yet they're suggesting their price elasticity of demand is infinite. It's a joke.

Re:Seems sensible.

[clodney]

The harm and the foul is not just (or even primarily) to Adobe or Microsoft. By being willing to pirate (or infringe copyright if you must be pedantic) software, you are harming the market for alternatives to the Adobe and Microsoft products.

So if you aren't willing to pay for Photoshop, why aren't you looking at the competing products that cost much less? If the market leading app costs X, you would assume that a natural market exists for an app that costs X/10 (or in the case of FOSS, 0). Saying there is no harm because you would never pay X ignores that fact that you have harmed the vendor of the X/10 product.

Re:Seems sensible.

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Maybe he did look at the alternatives to Photoshop and Office and found them wanting. Not that that justifies his piracy.

Re:Seems sensible.

[SillyNickName4me]

Depending on what software you need exactly, there may be good, and at times even better alternatives that are free. I can say for sure that I wouldn't buy Microsoft software and I haven't for over a decade. I did get free *but legitimate) copies of Windows 95,98 and 2000, but even those got barely used. Why? because for almost everything I need there are very good alternatives.

Then, sure it is worth something to me to present my pictures in a nice way, but its not worth the price of photoshop to me, it is however worth the price of learning one of the other possibly less capable but still good enough tools that are more decently priced or free. Nowadays there is Photoshop Elements that might fill that place, but I already got used to the Gimp well enough that it will do the job for me.

Of course there are also situations where buying a certain expensive product can make a lot of sense, but that doesn't mean it usually does.

And no, I don't pirate software, when available I use free software, and where that doesn't do the job I'll buy something if the price is right compared to my need, and if it isn't then too bad.

Re:Seems sensible.

[Em Adespoton]

There were some jackasses on here who justified illegitimate satellite receivers on the grounds that the "damn stuff is broadcast over my property" as if somehow the satellite company could change the laws of physics.

This is called "choosing your distribution stream". They knew they were broadcasting the data when they sent up the satellite and began using it to dump data into the ether. The electromagnetic spectrum is a limited resource; for most parts of the bandwidth, people can do what they see fit with the radiation they can detect. Certain interests (Military, TV, Phone) have legislated themselves protected ranges in this resource creating an artificial monopoly in swaths of a public limited resource.

A receiver isn't illegitimate; however, the sale of such units is in some places, and some places have laws stating that you can't infringe the IP of the company who made the reference design (the broadcaster).

Just saying that it wasn't only the jackasses who were arguing along these lines. I agree with them to a degree, even though I'd never do this myself as I believe in reciprocity. If their signals ever start degrading MY signals though, you bet I'd use their signals however I saw fit.

Re:Seems sensible.

[SillyNickName4me]

There can be no question that it's not worth spending $500-$800 on Photoshop if your only purpose is to resize images.
Thank you for pointing that out. For the rest of us,

You are suggesting here you are a professional photographer. Your needs are not at all representative, with a few exceptions, "the rest of us" are making pictures for fun.

there are a great many areas where Photoshop far and away beats the competition and which would cause us to take a long, hard look at buying it if it wasn't readily available for free.


Most things "the rest of us" (that is, anyone other then serious amateur or professional photographers or graphics artists) are available from the competition and even in free software.

Things like ACR, 32-bit (HDR) support,

May be nice to have but are not needed by the large majority of people with their point and shoot cameras.

web conversion,

Is very convenient, but the functionality is available from competing software as well, abeit in a possibly less convenient way.

layer effects, etc.

Layer effects are available in many graphics editors.

I have heard numerous photographers I know justify their pirated copy of Photoshop using exactly the logic of the parent poster, and it strikes me as utter crap.

If they do in fact need the software then it might be utter crap, yes. However, most people really do not need photoshop at all, it is a 'nice to have', but not something to spend any serious amount of money on.

The features they've come to rely on don't exist anywhere else, and yet they're suggesting their price elasticity of demand is infinite. It's a joke.

Don't assume that because YOU need certain features, everyone does.

Re:Seems sensible.

[sumdumass]

No, He didn't find the wanting or lacking anything. That in it's self would justify purchasing photoshop.

He just doesn't want to spend money or effort and it all boils down to that. But seriously, If you look at alternatives to a piece of software and cannot use them because they lack one thing you "need" or "desire", then the entire theory not ever buying it in the first place is out the window. If there is a need that the other software cannot fill, and something is done to deactivate all pirated copies, then that need would dictate buying the program.

It is obvious, the only thing stopping him from buying it is the fact that he doesn't want to buy it and with pirating, he doesn't have to.

Re:Seems sensible.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, as long as you didn't use that software for ANY commercial advantage - including using it to make money, or even train yourself in the use of the software in order to acquire skills in order to get a job. Commercial advantage is not defined solely as selling the software for a profit.

Re:Seems sensible.

[cyber-vandal]

It's not so much that I'm defending the satellite broadcasters - I don't have much time for them at all - it was the idea that they should either not be in business or give away their content for nothing because they didn't have the ability to control the laws of physics.

Re:Seems sensible.

[Em Adespoton]

Personally, I believe they should give away their content, just like terrestrial broadcasters do -- by padding desired content with pre-paid content.

Re:Seems sensible.

[karmatic]

In the example you cite, there would be degredation of the signal for those who did pay, so there is some harm involved there. On the other hand, what if you could make the splice without causing those problems?

Let's see - scenario one (you don't use cable at all)
Your neighbor pays $X, and gets his service.
The cable company gets $X, and uses a portion of that to pay for their services and infrastructure.

Scenario two (you splice into your neighbors cable)
Your neighbor still pays $X. He still gets his service.
The cable company still gets $X, and uses the same portion of that to provide the same services and infrastructure.

Now, if you were going to purchase cable, and now avoid it because you get it for free, the cable company is unquestionably out the revenue. On the other hand, if you were not going to buy service anyway, and now get it from your neighbor, the cable company (and television company) still make the same revenue, providing the same services. Logistically speaking, it's no different than going over to your neighbors house and watching it there.

I believe that people should be responsible for the harm they do others, and if what you do doesn't harm me (or place me at unreasonable risk of harm), I have no right to interfere in what you do. As such, I see using some illegal drugs in the privacy of your own home in much the same way I see copyright infringement when no sale would have taken place. So I ask you, who is harmed when you copy something you would not have bought anyway?

As a practical matter, not everyone who claims they would never buy it tells the truth, and it's necessary to be able to enforce business models dependant on honest participation on both parties; fraud and deceit interfere with a free and open market. For those reasons, copyright infringement and "theft of services" must be illegal; without it, the services and goods couldn't be provided in the first place, without some radical restructuring to the way society works (patronage, etc.). My point is more of an ethical one - if one could truly demonstrate that someone would never buy a product, what harm is them in copying it? The closest answer I can come up with is not that the copied party was wronged, but rather their competition - the potential marketplace has shrunk.

Re:Seems sensible.

[chrismcb]

"Well Judge," I started. "I wouldn't buy a Ferrari no matter what." "So, no harm no foul."

Re:Seems sensible.

[DerWulf]

While your point seems plausible it completely falls apart when one considers that billions and billions can be made by selling bottled water. In most wester countires tab water is completely safe to drink and yet people choose to buy Evian. Why is that? Maybe this could also work for IP?

Consider this: if there was a site that would instantly stream any movie/music/game/show you'd ever want, legally, at the top of your bandwidth for maybe 20 bucks a month, wouldn't you subscribe?

Re:Where Is the US Government Politics??!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you explain how this is not related to right wing US politics?

Wow

[whisper_jeff]

Wow. Even up here in Canada, I can hear the RIAA's wails of terror over this news.

Good.

Re:Wow

[ArsonSmith]

this changes nothing for the RIAA and only makes it so that people that trade for cash get a civil and a criminal case against them.

I didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

..But what does "for profit" mean?

Does it mean that I am selling access to a duplicate? Or does it mean that I have a website where you download the torrent, or for that matter a search engine?

I can see this being a disaster if not done properly.

Re:I didn't RTFA...

[Anonymous Coward]

eer, I meant to say a website with ads...

Wow, somebody finally gets it

[Sylvak]

'that makes piracy a felony--but only if a monetary profit is made'

This is the most common sense I've heard in a while concerning this issue.

WOOOOOOOOOT!!!. Now if only Canada could do the same, I'de be even happier. But it has to start somewhere.

Re:Wow, somebody finally gets it

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, the Ninjas appear to have lost.

Typo in the headline

[michaelmalak]

I think the headline should have read "Pirate File Sharing to Remain/Become legal in EU". I don't think even the EU would outlaw companies' internal fileservers.

Re:Typo in the headline

[greginnj]

Ah, thanks, that clears it up. I'd imagine that very few shared files are actually about Pirates.




To the person who modded Parent 'troll': you are a clueless git. Read it again, it's a slam on bad headline writing, it's not anti- or pro-piracy.

Re:Typo in the headline

[Scrameustache]

I think the headline should have read "Pirate File Sharing to Remain/Become legal in EU". I don't think even the EU would outlaw companies' internal fileservers. And I think that when armed thugs stop commandeering ships at sea we can start allowing ourselves to use the propagandist terminology prefered by the intellectual property oligopolies.

In the meantime, I'll use "pirate" ironically when referring to file sharing.

Re:Typo in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you smoking crack again?

If it is *private* then nobody can tell whether it's used for piracy or not. So EU sais that users can have *private* networks which may or may not be used for piracy, but the govt has no business to deny the privacy in order to check piracy.

OTOH, in the states *private* networks are not allowed because they may be used for piracy and the govt wants to know all.

Re:Typo in the headline

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not like "pirate" hasn't been used for centuries to describe copyright infringement.

Still liable for damages in civil suit?

[pavon]

The summary and article aren't clear on this. Will people who distribute files still be liable for damages if found to be infringing upon copyrights in a civil lawsuit? If so, I don't think that it is accurate to call private file sharing legal, it just isn't criminal.

Re:Still liable for damages in civil suit?

[ArsonSmith]

From what it looks like and if the laws are at least similar, the civil side of copyright is still in full enforcement. This is just criminalizing for profit pirate centers.

Re:Still liable for damages in civil suit?

[WarwickRyan]

Parent is the reason that we should have +10 modding :-)

Re:Still liable for damages in civil suit?

[bloobloo]

An act is only illegal if it is criminal. If it leaves you liable in a civil action, it is unlawful. Semantics maybe, but there is a difference.

Re:Still liable for damages in civil suit?

[microbee]

Then one of us is confused. Running a red light is illegal, but it's certainly not criminal.

Re:Still liable for damages in civil suit?

[bloobloo]

It is in the UK at least.

My real question here then would be....

[Churla]

What happens if someone shares a file in Europe and someone gets it in America. (assuming the law passes).

I can already see the RIAA being very unhappy. Tides not going well for them lately.

Re:My real question here then would be....

[91degrees]

The same thing as if you offer pirate CDs to another country by mail order.

Not sure what happens there either... I imagine that the law you're offering from applies, but it's also possible to prosecute in the country you're selling to if you do a substantial amount of business there.

Wow - score one for the good guys - "thats us"

[unity100]

And us being "the people".

Re:Wow - score one for the good guys - "thats us"

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

<sarcasm> Yes, because only tyrants benefit from copyright. Those citizens who draw, write, play, compose, program or otherwise create art semi-professionally aren't really people at all, and anyway, they are few in number compared to the huge, mega-rich pop stars and the big media corps who back them. </sarcasm>

To Remain/Become legal?

[kripkenstein]

Not how I understood TFA, but of course IANAL.

What I got from it was that a new directive, aimed at harsher Europe-wide criminal punishments for piracy, will be applied only to commercial piracy. Noncommercial piracy is not covered by the new directive. However, if it was illegal in a member state before, then it remains so.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[lazarus corporation]

Like you IANAL, but I couldn't see anything in there that stated implied that if non-commercial (i.e. individual) copyright infringement was illegal in a member state then it would remain so.

In fact, the first sentence of the EU Press Release would seem to imply otherwise when it say "The first EU directive aiming at harmonising national criminal law" - if they're harmonising national criminal law then they're making it the same in all member states, surely?

I think it depends on whether you read the sentence "Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded." as referring to piracy by individuals being excluded from the legislation (and therefore defaulting to the member state's national laws), or piracy by individuals being excluded from criminal sanctions. Given that "criminal sanctions" was the subject in the previous sentence:

They excluded patent rights from the scope of the Directive, and decided that criminal sanctions should only apply to those infringements deliberately carried out to obtain a commercial advantage. Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded.

...then I'm guessing they mean the latter.

But then I always was an optimist.

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[gstoddart]

Noncommercial piracy is not covered by the new directive.

What you're describing has been known as "fair use" for a very long time.

I don't know about European Copyright law, but here in Canada (and I believe the US), I've been explicitly allowed to make a copy of an album to give to a family member or a friend forever.

It's only in the current climates that companies are trying to remove the fair use provisions in their entirety. Hence, "private, non-commercial piracy" is a misnomer -- it should remain "fair use still remains legal"; there's no piracy involved in something I already had the right to do.

Cheers

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[LarsG]

I don't know about European Copyright law, but here in Canada (and I believe the US), I've been explicitly allowed to make a copy of an album to give to a family member or a friend forever.

As far as I recall, that is also legal in many of the European countries. It certainly is for all of Scandinavia.

What isn't legal is making copies and give them away to people that are not close friends or family.

Anyway, this directive doesn't touch the legality of P2P. You can still be the target of a civil suit for sharing Metallica on ED2K (Metallica or their record label can sue you for damages). What this directive does is add criminal charges for commercial piracy (i.e., the district attorney can sue you and fine you or throw you in jail).

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[LarsG]

It seems like there is some confusion regarding criminal law vs civil law. IAAlsoNAL, I just play one on /.

Civil law is about conflicts between individuals, for example contracts or tort. One person (or organization) suing another. e.g., MPAA sues Joe Filesharer for $50000 in damages.

Criminal law is about conflicts between the state and individuals, for example speeding or murder. The state's prosecutor sues a person. e.g., State of Maine sues Bob DrunkDriver for $10000 in fines and 60 days of jail time.

From what I gather, this directive is about harmonizing the criminal law sanctions for copyright infringement. Since non-commercial is excluded, it means that the state can't prosecute and throw you in jail or fine you for P2P'ing. However, this doesn't change civil law remedies so Metallica can still go after you in a civil lawsuit and ask for damages.

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[LarsG]

Keep in mind that this is about criminal sanctions, not about civil sanctions. The government can't throw in jail or fine someone for P2P'ing, but the MPAA can still bring a civil suit asking for damages.

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[lazarus corporation]

...which is a shame in some ways: in the UK a criminal case must be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'. A civil case only has to be proved on the 'balance of probabilities'. If the Record Industry has to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' then they'd have a much more difficult time.

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[h2g2bob]

Exactly, I was confused by this too. TFA:

The plans would oblige all 27 EU countries to consider jail terms for the violation of intellectual property rights.

This directive seeks to make it a criminal offence and will not legalise anything. The EU sets a minimum legal requirement, but the member states can go further if they wish.

If you read on, even quite a few of the MEPs think this proposal is a steaming pile of poo.

Re:To Remain/Become legal?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What you're describing has been known as "fair use" for a very long time.

That's not true either legally or ethically. Making private copies for personal use (e.g., back-ups or format shifting) falls under fair use or similar exemptions in many places. However, redistribution of entire works to third parties rarely does, and in most places where it is allowed, there's some sting elsewhere (e.g., a levy on all blank media, making the whole system crooked).

How long

[vakuona]

Until the EU is part of the axis of evil. /me ducks

Re:How long

[meringuoid]

Until the EU is part of the axis of evil. /me ducks

That will take until the day the money-men are no longer holding the reins of the warmongers. The EU is very, very, very rich. Declaring it part of the axis of evil would make a lot of very rich Americans substantially less rich, and so it probably wouldn't happen even if the French navy shelled New York.

No luck for europeans, it's still illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just to apply criminal sanctions if some people are gaining money from piracy/counterfeit...big fucking deal...So we still can be fined, just no jail times~

No?

[Dan Stephans II]

I read TFA, nowhere did I see that "private file sharing" would remain or become legal. What I did read is that the EU is attempting to harmonize the criminal code around commercial piracy. This harmonization could actually be _detrimental_ to private file sharing because it introduces an element of Napster to the member states (not that the article was hugely detailed but a site like Pirate Bay -- not in the EU, just an example -- could be considered profiting from copyright infringement and be prosecuted under something like this).

Anyhow, nowhere in the article does it say private file sharing for non-commercial purposes will be legalized, it only addresses it by saying that it isn't addressing that aspect.

Not legal!

[Bogtha]

They are criminalising commercial copyright infringement. Non-commercial copyright infringement is still illegal. This means that you get sued and pay damages instead of getting arrested and going to jail.

Re:Not legal!

[alx5000]

Sorry to interrupt, but when you said

Non-commercial copyright infringement is still illegal

I guess you meant

Non-commercial copyright infringement is in no way affected

Because here in Spain, there are no civil laws against copyright infringement when there's no money involved...

Where does it say non commercial use is fair use?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I glance through the article. It says there is going to be a heavier penalty for infringement. It does not say very clearly non commercial use will not be considered piracy.

Re:Where Is the US Government Politics??!!

[esrobinson]

I'm not sure if it was moved or something, but this is pretty clearly NOT in politics.slashdot.org

But seriously.

[vakuona]

Any bets on the definition of "monetary profit".

monetary profit. 1. Spending less money than you earn.
                                  2. To avoid spending money by conducting illegal activity.

I don't trust politicians.

Re:But seriously.

[ncohafmuta]

So, let's say someone pirates a copy of XP in the EU, uses IE to get on Ebay and sell a personal possession in which they make a profit.
My interpretation is that the person can then be arrested because it's no longer non-profit.
Am I wrong?

Civil law vs Common law

[ssuchter]

In case anyone else was interested but ignorant of the meaning of: Most EU countries use civil law, not common law. Translation of legal terms may be misleading., I read a few articles online. I think that this one was the most helpful:

http://fountainoflaw.com/Vocab/commonlaw.html

What I took away (apart from the very interesting history) was that common law expects/requires judges to consider past judges decisions, so the law is a combination of legislated statute and precedent. Civil law on the other hand focuses mostly/exclusively on legislated statue. (I'm sure I'm over-simplifying, so read the article yourself!)

Commercial Advantage

[Anonymous Coward]

The way it is worded in this article, "commercial advantage", seems to leave the enforcement open to interpretation. For example if someone does contract work from home and uses a pirated copy of Microsoft Word to author and distribute the contract and invoice, would that apply? The first thing that came to mind when I read this is people making illicit copies and selling them but It seems significantly more broad based than that.
For an application, it seems that you could always obfuscate the relationship between the pirated application and dependent applications to create a case for commerical advantage (ie all other application would be dependent on a pirated os)
Legally speaking this would appear to be broad enough to change anyone who pirates software with a felony charge.

Actually, From What I Understand...

[had3l]

All this law does is make copyright infringement for commercial purposes a crime. Non-commercial copyright infringement isn't in it's scope.

What that means is that, it is NOT saying that "if you pirate a CD for personal, non-profit use, you didn't commit a crime", what its saying is: "if you make a profit from it, you are DEFINITELY committing a crime, no matter what EU country you are in".

If pirating something for personal use is a crime in your country, it probably will still be a crime after this law passes. And if it isn't a crime, this law doesn't prevent legislation that criminalizes it.

Ah, yes, the contagiousness of crime

[michaelmalak]

Crime is contagious. Or, put another way, "he was doing it first". That's a great excuse.

I'm a strong proponent of copyrights -- just the 1790 version of 14+14 years.

I'm sure a lot of people share your schoolyard mentality, though, and will use the lawlessness of our governments as an excuse to commit all sorts of crime. I look forward to observe the sociological impact of our governments' actions over the next few decades.

Do not jump to conclusions!

[Mjlner]

First of all, this is a proposed EU directive, not "federal law", a concept that doesn't exist in the EU. A directive means that member countries should implement certain requirements in the directive or there may be sanctions. It also means that these requirements may be exceeded, at the discretion of the member countries' legislative bodies. Finland is one country which already implemented a much harsher copyright law than the EUCD required and it will be free to do so in the future. Private filesharing might be excluded from this directive, but that only means that the member countries are free to legislate as they are paid^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H as they like.

Re:Do not jump to conclusions!

[Vitanova]

In the Netherlands sharing a file is already a crime. The directive will not change that. The same situation may exist in other member states of the Community.

This directive is about forcing the member states to criminalise certain behaviours. They may go further themselves. It is important to keep the directive proportional, otherwise broad criminalisation will be all over the Community (Europe), and it is impossible / very hard to turn that back.

Inciting an infringement is not an infringement, but it will be a crime, as far as the EP Legal Affairs committee is concerned.

See also: http://www.ipred.org/
http://action.ffii.org/ipred2/

Besides this all we have strict civil law.

The war between the users and the RIAA

[CannonballHead]

The interesting thing is... it seems nobody really cares about the artists that AREN'T wealthy.

I'm a classical musician. It's hard to make a living in music when you're purely musical, and not a celebrity figure like most "artists" these days tend to be.

So, the interesting thing about this little feud, to me, is that none of it really deals with the artists themselves. It seems that the RIAA is now seen as Microsoft is often seen (whether or not that's a valid vision of it or not I leave up to your discretion)... we fight it purely out of principle.

But does fighting the RIAA or opening up file sharing and making copyrights pretty much useless actually help the artists at all? I'm a composer... if there were no copyrights whatsoever, and if somebody malicious wanted to steal a work by me (presuming it was even good enough to be worth stolen, of course) and claim it as their own and make money off of it... well, it's rather nice to have laws in place to prevent that. OpenSource Composition doesn't work well. People don't often donate to composers. Copyrights are necessary in a world where people are perfectly happy with stealing other people's music and distributing it. Human nature is easily enticed to take something for free rather than pay for it.

So, what is this whole war between "private" file sharing and the RIAA doing to help the artists, whom, presumably, we all want to protect?

Because there ARE people that will steal other people's recordings and do all kinds of things with them; even among musicians, copying sheet music instead of buying it is pretty frequent (and illegal). Because, of course, we all know that all musicians and composers are as famous and rich as Spears or Shore.

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[bonefry]

Because there ARE people that will steal other people's recordings and do all kinds of things with them
Preposterous, have they no shame ?

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[Paul Fernhout]

You're probably right as far as you go.

What's the next step? It really is a choice ultimatly between police state enforced copyrights or a gift economy where you can compose as much as you want and that (among other things perhaps) is the gift you give to the world, while other things you need to feed and clothe and house yourself and your family are otherwise free to you (being gifts from others). It helps if people diminish their desires somewhat too -- and pursue a life of voluntary simplicity. Neolithic hunter/gatherers had lots of time for music, apparently:
    "The Original Affluent Society" -by Marshall Sahlins
    http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html
"Hunter-gatherers consume less energy per capita per year than any other group of human beings. Yet when you come to examine it the original affluent society was none other than the hunter's - in which all the people's material wants were easily satisfied. To accept that hunters are affluent is therefore to recognise that the present human condition of man slaving to bridge the gap between his unlimited wants and his insufficient means is a tragedy of modern times."

Using modern technology, see Bob Black's essay here on "The Abolition of Work":
    http://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whywork/abolitio n.html
"I don't suggest that most work is salvageable in this way. But then most work isn't worth trying to save. Only a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages. Twenty years ago, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that just five percent of the work then being done -- presumably the figure, if accurate, is lower now -- would satisfy our minimal needs for food, clothing and shelter. Theirs was only an educated guess but the main point is quite clear: directly or indirectly, most work serves the unproductive purposes of commerce or social control. Right off the bat we can liberate tens of millions of salesmen, soldiers, managers, cops, stockbrokers, clergymen, bankers, lawyers, teachers, landlords, security guards, ad-men and everyone who works for them. There is a snowball effect since every time you idle some bigshot you liberate his flunkies and underlings also. Thus the economy implodes. ... I haven't as yet even mentioned the possibility of cutting way down on the little work that remains by automating and cybernizing it. All the scientists and engineers and technicians freed from bothering with war research and planned obsolescence should have a good time devising means to eliminate fatigue and tedium and danger from activities like mining. Undoubtedly they'll find other projects to amuse themselves with. Perhaps they'll set up world-wide all-inclusive multi-media communications systems or found space colonies. ... What I really want to see is work turned into play. A first step is to discard the notions of a "job" and an "occupation." Even activities that already have some ludic content lose most of it by being reduced to jobs which certain people, and only those people, are forced to do to the exclusion of all else. Is it not odd that farm workers toil painfully in the fields while their air-conditioned masters go home every weekend and putter about in their gardens? Under a system of permanent revelry, we will witness the Golden Age of the dilettante which will put the Renaissance to shame. There won't be any more jobs, just things to do and people to do them."

That's the bigger picture IMHO.

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[gillbates]

You know what really gets me about the whole thing?

I'm not opposed to copyright. And I think artists and composers should be able to make a living by their craft.

But the problem is that by having copyright as an ironclad right, we only reward the greediness of the media conglomerates, who, while not actually producing the art or music, make the most money from it.

After the digital revolution, how are we supposed to get back to the former model of paying per performance? On one hand, it isn't fair to pay the artist every time you listen to their work, because they aren't performing it again. On the other hand, it isn't really fair to the artist that those who never paid for the performance can enjoy it as if they had. And then there are the rights of the listeners, who would like to enjoy the music they buy in the manner they like, without being restricted unnecessarily by DRM. And then there are the students, who cannot learn about current music because it is still copyrighted, and the teachers cannot circumvent the DMCA for any purpose.

I don't have the answer to the problem, but I know that the current copyright system is broken - the only ones who benefit are the corporations. Instead of actually enlarging the public domain and enriching culture and providing a living for the artist, today's copyright only impoverishes artists and, thanks to the DMCA, will never functionally enter the public domain. Our culture is simply lost to our fading memories. Copyright as it exists today doesn't benefit either the artist or the fan.

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

"The interesting thing is... it seems nobody really cares about the artists that AREN'T wealthy."

You are right : not even the RIAA (or comparable instances in the seperate countries) do : the brunt of the money is divided by a key that seems to favour the artists with the most air-play. That mostly means excuding you (as a classical musician, with little-to-no air-play).

"So, the interesting thing about this little feud, to me, is that none of it really deals with the artists themselves"

You're right again. Most of it does not deal with the artists. At least, when you take the ammount of money that is diverted to the artists themselves in comparision to the ammount that is withhelt, for various reasons, by the music companies.

"So, what is this whole war .... doing to help the artists at all?"

Maybe our efforts in cutting those companies back to size will eventually put a stop to their diverting of revenues that belong to you into their pockets.

"Because there ARE people that will steal other people's recordings and do all kinds of things with them"

Isn't that what this law explicitily does not include : Commercial exploitation (of your performance) ?

Besides : if you would have multiple children, would you punish all of them because one of them behaves badly (I don't think so) ?

If you would, what than would stop those good-behaving kids from becoming bad-behaving kids (their punishment does not change either way) ?

There is a saying in my country : treat someone like a dog, and he will, at one time or another, start to act like one.

Now my question to you : Why should we pay for music we are bombarded with every day.
We allmost cannot enter a public space without having to listen to some kind of "musical" entertainment.
But nonwithstanding that we (pretty-much) have to listen to much of this kadoodle we still are expected to pay top money for when we want to be able to listen to the exact same performance at a time and place of our choice.

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[Asic Eng]

It seems to me, that in a democracy it should be important to come to a common understanding about what's fair for the artists and for listeners. Our laws should then reflect that understanding. Certainly it's not fair if artists get to money for their work. Likewise it's not fair that copyright terms get extended infinitely, that companies get to dictate the usage of things after they've already sold them, that companies use lobbying to keep outdated business models alive.

I think allofmp3.com shows how a fair exchange between users and producers could work. It demonstrates that if you could buy music cheaply, online and in standard formats, then consumers would be willing to pay for it. Each artist should get a share of the sales price, and they should be paid for each song sold. There should be no contractual nonsense with exclusive contracts for a specific delivery platform, there should be no attempt to restrict the customers.

This is only one approach, there may be other models. It is - to a certain extent, up to artists to come up with ideas regarding this, and it is up to artists to get rid of the music industry as it is today - they are middle men who contribute nothing but take most of the profit. We users are no longer willing to pay for them - it's up to you guys to adjust to the world as it is today and build a business model for the mp3 era. If my job gets outsourced to India, I can't ask artists to somehow provide for my expenses - I need to find myself another job, maybe need to adjust my skill set, or move someplace else. Artists need to do the same thing, and while I grant you that it's annoying, it just needs to be done, there is no alternative. You can not legislate your way out of this, that's hopeless.

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[cpghost]

Undoubtedly they'll find other projects to amuse themselves with.

Like... making wars between themselves?

While I generally agree (a LOT of people are working day-in, day-out without generating anything useful to survival), it's not as easy as that. According to Maslow's pyramid of needs, there's more to life than mere survival. And that's the point where this "indirect economy" starts.

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[Paul Fernhout]

But why should the two economies (the material one and the status one) use the same currency?

Re:The war between the users and the RIAA

[Reziac]

The answer is probably to eliminate the "star-making machinery" entirely, and go back to a medieval-like system of direct payments and wealthy patrons, both for artists and composers (who are not necessarily one and the same, hence ASCAP). The internet makes artists more available to a wider audience (thus to more potential payments and patrons), without having to pay anyone else for that privilege.

Of course the RIAA cartel doesn't WANT to be eliminated, and doesn't WANT artists to get paid without the cartel's intervention (ie. taking all but one small cut of the pie the artist baked). And that's what the wailing over "piracy" is really all about.

Sortof like if King George didn't care if your ship sank, so long as you paid your tariffs to the crown.

Legal or illegal?

[asninn]

The fact that this directive does not criminalise non-commercial copyright infringement (I'm sorry, but I refuse to call it "piracy" - let's reserve that term for seafaring murderers) does not mean that it'll actually be/become/stay legal. Things can be illegal without being a crime, too.

Re:Legal or illegal?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

(I'm sorry, but I refuse to call it "piracy" - let's reserve that term for seafaring murderers)

Why? It's been used in the present context for several centuries, since long before anyone here was born or the RIAA was a gleam in a media executive's eye.

If you don't like the current copyright regime, by all means say so, but please argue based on some sort of ethical or legal basis, and not by playing word-games. There are enough good arguments to be made either way without those games that cluttering the debate isn't really necessary.

IPRED2?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a bit confused, but isnt it what we are talking about here?
I just thought it was funny that no one was calling it by the name a lot of people know and hate.

Re:IPRED2?

[kabniel]

(I am replying to my own cowardly self who forgot to log in) I am now sure it is in fact IPRED2 we are talking about: http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number5.6/ipred2

Wrong spin

[mikehunt]

As another poster has quite rightly pointed out: this is a new law creating certain criminal offences. Other laws, relating to civil offences are unchanged and the EU directive that all member states are already supposed to have complied with created the civil offences long ago.

MOD PARENT UP

[igotmybfg]

Excellent point.

And that's a good thing?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Yes, we've been at that point for a while now. And yet I see there's no shortage of wealthy artists... even if their music sucks.

Really? Just out of interest:

1. How do you define "wealthy"?
2. How many artists in absolute terms do you think reach this threshold?
3. What proportion of all artists who publish their work do you think this represents?

The other point you're completely ignoring is that arguing that a system where a lot of people break the law is still economically viable because some people do obey the law is disingenuous. Why should those who obey the law and respect artists' rights subsidise freeloaders?

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[ratzmilk]

Why should those who obey the law and respect artists' rights subsidise freeloaders? If you don't want to subsidies freeloaders, don't buy the products.

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

So the way to support an artist whose work I value is not to pay them for it?!

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the way to support an artist whose work I value is not to pay them for it?!

No, I think what he means is that every market has freeloaders, simply because it's not possible to control what customers actually do with the products they buy. So if you don't want freeloaders, the only way is to close the market.

Freeloaders always exist. Move on.

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[rtb61]

Why support them, let them get a job and pay for themselves. People either love to create music or they are just a bunch of greedy liars, pretending to be something they are not, performers rather than bards.

So the best way to support is to pay them nothing, starve them for their creativity, the best work has always been produced by starving artists who suffered for their work. So do the right thing to ensure the best possible works of art are produced, make the artists suffer and suffer a lot ;).

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You've got to be joking!

<glances at date>

Hey, great idea, man! :-)

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[ratzmilk]

There was a Drive-in theater we used to go to when we were teenagers that had a hill behind it where you could park your car and get a good view of the screen. This was about the same time that CB radios became very popular. The hill would fill with cars and there would be someone inside the Drive-in that would broadcast the sound.

A friend of mine one night was complaining about all the freeloaders on the hill watching the movie for free. I pointed out that the cost of the CB Radio would have paid for entry every week for the next five years, so sitting on the hill is far from free. Besides, there is nothing stopping you from buying a CB and parking up there with them. He decided it was in fact cheaper, and closer to the screen, to pay to enter. Plus, you get access to the Snack Bar.

My problem with the word 'freeloaders' is, nothing in this world is free. Blank disks, cost money and fade to the point of being unusable. I still have the first CD I ever bought and it's in pristine condition. And all the freeloaders data being transfered around the net, that ain't cheap either. Would the world need, and be paying for, the backhaul we currently have? No matter how cheap storage costs get, I still seem to never have enough. Hard drives, USB keys, mp3 players, all cost money.

So, there is no such thing as a 'freeloader'. What we are talking about is people using technology, other than that prescribed, for their entertainment. This makes the entertainment cheaper, as the artists costs are not factored into the cost of the new technology.

You are disgruntled because some are being entertained whilst paying less money than you. What about those industries that profit by not paying the artist his dues? Shouldn't they be made to pay the artist his dues? But that might mean you're paying higher internet access charges, or a five dollar per disk tax on blanks.

Even making it a crime to pay less for your entertainment hasn't stopped it. I not sure there is any evidence it has even slowed it.

Have you ever copied a tape for a friend? Did you or your friend send the artist a nickel for his dues? Ever given a copy of a TV program you have recorded to a friend that missed the airing? Did you pause all the advertising out?

Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone.

OK, I will. I have never done any of the illegal things you describe in your post, not even when I was a kid. In any case, my personal behaviour is irrelevant to the debate.

Your argument ignores the simple ideas that it would not be ethical for no-one to pay the artists for works of value, thus damaging the artists, and neither is it ethical for some to pay the going rate while others do not, thus damaging those who pay properly.

And in this case, freeloader is almost a literal term. If you're paying a flat rate for your broadband connection and ripping music from some P2P network, there is zero real cost to you.

Bottom line: just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and that doesn't change however much you dress it up in clever word games.

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. "wealthy" = every artist listed on the top 100 music page on any torrent site.
2. Zero independent artists.
3. Only the ones who were dumb (or greedy) enough to sign with Sony, Universal, Warner or EMI.

The law needs to be changed. Once enough people get behind that idea, it will be changed.

Re:And that's a good thing?!

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

1. "wealthy" = every artist listed on the top 100 music page on any torrent site.

So you're objecting to a system that makes a whole 100 artists (give or take) wealthy?

2. Zero independent artists.

So because no independent artists get wealthy, you think we should take away what protection they have and let everyone rip off their work?

The law needs to be changed. Once enough people get behind that idea, it will be changed.

Your argument doesn't support changing the law. In fact, it supports enforcing the existing law much more strongly. According to your own post, only a few people are benefiting disproportionately, while many independent artists are not achieving what they might otherwise expect to.

People still download obnoxious jingles?

[flyingfsck]

In civilized parts of the world, cell phones have vibrators.

Would you like some freedom fries with that?

[Scrameustache]

I'm sure a lot of people share your schoolyard mentality, though, and will use the lawlessness of our governments as an excuse to commit all sorts of crime. What in the hell are you blabering about???
When did I say anything about the lawlessness of anyone's government???
I said I oppose calling people bad names to make them look bad, like calling someone a pirate when they don't forcibly board ships to steal them or their cargo, but instead copied a song without paying for it. THAT is schoolyard mentality.

Re:Would you like some freedom fries with that?

[michaelmalak]

Oops. Didn't make the connection between "armed thugs" and "piracy". I thought you were talking about the story that's been the top of the news for the past week, which, depending on which side you want to take, is either about armed UK thugs boarding ("inspecting") merchant ships or about Iranian thugs taking UK hostages.

Re:Would you like some freedom fries with that?

[Scrameustache]

Oops. Didn't make the connection between "armed thugs" and "piracy". I thought you were talking about the story that's been the top of the news for the past week, which, depending on which side you want to take, is either about armed UK thugs boarding ("inspecting") merchant ships or about Iranian thugs taking UK hostages. Ah. That'll learn me to be subtle on the intertubes.

Private torrent sharing is already legal worldwide

[AxelBoldt]

Has anyone anywhere in the world ever been sued in civil or criminal court for privately sharing music or video files via torrent? Didn't think so. Until that happens, it is safe to say that the worldwide legal system does not treat private torrent sharing as an illegal activity.

Whump, whump, whump

[Lavi Dave]

Cue MAFIAA Emergency Diplomatic SWAT Team brandishing sticks and offering sweet carrots.

Not a felony

[Urza9814]

Is it just me, or is this just saying you'd probably get worse punishment if it's for-profit? I mean, I'm not sure how these things go down in Europe, but in the US, I believe they're generally civil lawsuits. Not criminal. I don't see how this law makes it 'legal'. It just says it's not a criminal action.

Complex Issue

[andersh]

Civil law on the other hand focuses mostly/exclusively on legislated statue.

The problem is that Civil Law only describes in very general terms the legal systems of not only every European country (except England/UK) but most of the world.

The difference between France and Germany are indeed many and significant - but that's only two out of 49 European countries. And then there's the rest of the world that inherited the system from their European colonial masters.

To quote the website you referred to:

Thus, in a civil law country such as Germany or France, a judge hearing a particular case does not look to the transcript or judicial opinion of a previous case to find the operable rule of law, but rather seeks out a relevant legislative or administrative statute to find the explicit text governing the point in question.

This is in fact wrong and not the whole truth. Far too often the French system is seen as representative for all of Europe - which it is not. In fact European Community law is decided in line with previous verdicts - but with greater freedom of "interpretation" that can lead to new practices.
However in each and every European country domestic law is still practised according to national traditions.

Re:The war is all about artists freedoms actually.

[Anonymous Coward]

File Sharing is free publicity.
There are countless examples - Cory Doctorow's books for one.

The DRM and anti-shaing stuff is about CONTROLLING DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS so they can ensure you get nothing even if you are successful - as the record industry has operated until now.

If people share your work it is because they like it.
They care enough about your work to risk great sanctions to let others, who might not otherwise have the opportunity, listen to it.

You'll get paid just the same as fans will still buy your music and commercial operations pay you to transmit it / use it as a them tune / commercial radio etc.

BTW Open Source is all about Copyright, copyright is what protects it from being stolen by big evil corporations.

In fact copyright was always designed to stop commercial exploitation NOT sharing.

Piracy by private persons != fair use ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes are therefore also excluded."

Something sounds malicious here : for some reason the person who said or wrote this (not neccesary the same person) seems to proclaim that what is regarded as "fair use" by the proposed law is still some kind of piracy, only now condoned (by law).

Somehow I get the feeling this is written from the perspective of the music companies (who will probably fight this law to the bitter end).

So I have a question...

[dmsuperman]

First, it says something about common law, and I didn't RTFA, so I'm not sure, but does that mean that it only applies to the few (according the above article) countries that use such a law? Or is this a blanket affect for all of Europe.
Second, when can we get this here in the US. This is by far the most sensical copyright-related law passed in the past 5 years.