Slashdot Mirror
EU Approves New Stricter Anti-Piracy Directive
A Pirate writes "The European Parliament has voted for the new report submitted by Italian parliament member Nicola Zingaretti that criminalize even attempts to infringe on copyrights. Even if the new directive excludes end-users from the law it will still criminalize sites like YouTube and practically all P2P services, and even the developers of these services. The exceptions beside the end-users' personal use, includes studies and research. While the European Parliament apparently describes the new directive as a an attempt to harmonize the copyright laws of the European Countries others have been describing it as a lobby directive."
From the fine article
The EP.....decided that criminal sanctions should apply only to infringements deliberately carried out to obtain a commercial advantage. Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes is therefore
I see a lot of commentary around the web that YouTube's only valid business model is due to turning a blind eye to uploaded copyrighted clips. Having seen how my stepsons use YouTube and similar sites I am not at all convinced that this is the case. They are quite happy with the user generated content.
A Prayer to the Omnipotent FSM
Funny how politicians go up for election claiming this, that and the other - usually things like tax, education, health and transport. Then suddenly once they're in, enforcing draconian controls on digital media is what's important - would they get in if that's what they said up front?
I want a new directive. One that bans all member states from making any new laws for the next ten years.
Think about this for a second, think of one piece of legislation passed in the last ten years that has positively impacted anyone you know in the first world? I can't think of a single thing, not one, nothing. Maybe this is a failure of imagination on my part but on the whole laws in the last ten years have been mostly negative.
Maybe voting is declining in Britain not because of athapy, per se, but because people like myself our realizing the truth. Our politicians are powerless - they can't do a thing to change the plight of the average person on the street. They can raise taxes, lower taxes, pass all sorts of laws but they can't stop the dickheads burning people's bins or the fourteen year olds buying cider to vomit up on the street.
In short, what's the point in voting when both parties are equally as corrupt and when the decisions taken there never effect you? It's a powerful argument but not one I personally agree with. I vote not for myself but because a great many lives were lost trying to defend that vote. The tragedy is that this generation has come to find that their vote would be more productively used as toilet paper than a means of expressing your opinion.
We need a new sort of politics. A politics where local issues and common people are listened to. A politics where the career of the politician matters less than serving their constituents. A politics where issues are not decided based on the party your belong to but what improves the lives of the people of the country. We need a politics where an honest politician is not considered an oxymoron. We need a rupture from the past and we need it more urgently than ever before.
Simon.
"Harmonizing" only means that laws in different EU countries are brought to par so that every country has the same law. Now, lobbies have more or less power in various countries. In general, you can be fairly certain, though, that companies that invested a lot of money into laws in one country won't allow this to change and get more lenient, thus the politicians of the countries with a lot of lobby influence tend to be quite vocal to get their law pushed up to EU levels.
I mean, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Makes sense, doesn't it?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
attempt to harmonize the copyright laws
That's the lie that has continupously been used to increase copyright law for copyright holders. That's why copyright term was extended in the US - "to harmonize" with german/european law. They needed to "extend it" because the nazis suspended copyright during WWII. So th US law had to be extended to match their term length.
However, if you notice, copyright law was not suspended in the US during WWII.
I think they should also criminalizes voyeurism. While the victims don't actually lose anything physically, the offenders do gain something from the action.
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
Inciting or abetting or aiding a copyright infringement is also a crime.
Windows contains a CD ripper, there is no fair use in EU law, you are not allowed to rip CD, Windows is a commercial product, this fits the commercial scale aiding of piracy. It is no different from any other copying device. So how about we demand the criminal prosecution of Microsoft?
BSA was a strong backer of this law, essentially to protect Windows. So it would be fitting if we could get Microsoft as it's first victim. Nokia next, their phones can play MP3s. They also backed this law.
You may have difficulty getting enforcement, since this is a dipshit law and the policemen know it, but you can often file Ombudsman complaints against the police if they fail to enforce the law in some cases but not others.
This is a golden time, every major backer of this law is guilty of some infringement of it. You don't even need to be the copyright holder to file a complaint under this law! How cool is that? A law so vague every MP3 makers, duplicating machine maker, computer maker, phone maker, search engine maker, is guilty of violating it.
Now maybe Europeans will start making music and movies and writing books. Until now nobody there had any reason to produce art -- it would just have been pirated, so what would have been the point?
I fear the day that someone develops a nice killer app that turns out (entirely unexpectedly and unintentionally) to fuel piracy.
It could be a blog software with a vulnerability that some dev has no time to fix, or it could be some new secure p2p IM service with a casual file transfer built in. Any other software manifestation that carries with it honestly wonderful intentions can be construed as criminal in the hands of its users.
How does the opensource community, comprised of software authors with no legal protection, manage to protect their continued activities? Does anyone else fear the implications this has for entire opensource OS's and kernels that could somehow be construed as having code that "aids piracy" in some remote fashion? Softmac support in the form of people on wifi hotspots is one example I can think of.
for sale
I'm a self-modifying sig virus
The FFII and the Vrijschrift.org Foundation tell us some more about how bad it could be.
The big one as far as I'm concerned is ``incitement to infringe'', which could open software writers to massive problems.
So you could potentially go to jail for violating the GPL?
In the name of providing video sharing services or Search engines, these sites indulge in mass copyright violation that requires the owners of copyrights (server admins) to set things like robots.txt etc.
Having said that, I can see where you are coming from in that such sites do enable the uninformed or unconcerned to infringe on others' copyrights. However such sites also have a legitimate use as venues for user generated content. The UGC on such sites may not interest you but, to judge my stepsons behaviour and that of their friends, there is an upcoming generation that does appreciate it and is more willing to create content rather than just be a passive consumer. As far as I'm concerned this is a positive thing and criminalising the video sharing sites to protect the rights of big business is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
There are always those looking for a free ride. You do what you can to reduce such attempts so that whatever you are doing is worth while and live with the rest. (Unless you work for big media businesses in the 21st century in which case you try to buy politicians and laws to put budding competitors out of the picture.)
A Prayer to the Omnipotent FSM
Nice try with the poll, RIAA goon.
Nobody to speak of except big multinational corporations want draconian copyright legislation, and yet said copyright legislation is exactly what the EU is passing.
What more proof do you need that the EU is bought and paid for just like the US? Individual freedom and self-determination don't matter any more in the face of corporate profits there any more than in the US (which is to say, not at all).
And with Russia and China both either already totalitarian or damned close to it, there is hardly any place in the world where individual freedom is cherished.
Soon, there won't be any place left on the globe where individuals are free. So enjoy what freedom you have. At this rate, you won't have it for long.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I'm all for legalizing free, noncommercial share of copyrighted information (that is, what it's called "end user piracy" today). As far as TFA says, it seems Europe now explicitely protects the end user right to share copyrighted information: something that previous Italian legislation, for example, explicitely *criminalized*, instead.
It seems to me that the law bans commercial, money-making piracy (that's OK for me). As for the "banning p2p software", I've not found clear references. Can someone explain me better?
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
It's not illegal in my country, yet. I can download copyrighted materials because it's my right to get a private copy as long as there is no profit motive.
I meant "voting for their directive", of course.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
I don't know who flamebait'd you, but they don't understand sarcasm.
The claim is that stronger IP laws are needed to encourage people to make things.
His sarcasm is that, obviously we've been making all kinds of art, so these laws won't suddenly increase the amount of it. More likely they'll decrease a lot of new stuff.
How long will it be until thoughtcrime becomes a punishable offense?
Excepting end-users doesn't alleviate this at all, especially since almost all end-users also upload copyrighted material in todays P2P networks (hence the acronym).
Since anyone can write a simple P2P system in a few hours and using just a few hundred lines of code, and since such a client could be applied for all kinds of legal and sensible uses like distributing patches, podcasts, etc, I find it a horrible idea to potentially send people to prison for writing such a system.
I agree that copyright infringement should be punished, but in light of the high usage of P2P systems no government acting in the interest of its people should criminalize such huge percentage of the people it represents. There has to be a real compromise between the content creators/owners and the end-users in whose interest governments should ultimately act. And sending people to prison or fining them many thousands of euros for illegally downloading digital content just doesn't seem that interest-protecting for the people to me!
As the realization that their values are being compromised by an inundation of inbred, Windows-using yahoos spread today, the Mac community began to rise up and demand action.
"In order to protect our vital cultural heritage as Mac users, we ask that the Mac community be sealed off until futher notice," said a statement issued by a collection of commenters on this site.
Recognizing a vital voting bloc in this year's mid-term election, politicians raced to pander to Mac users.
President Bush today vowed to build a 150 mile collection of fences around Apple Stores in an effort to keep Windows users from migrating to the Macintosh. Republicans in Congress pressed for stricter measures that would require former Windows users to switch back.
House Democrats, meanwhile, proposed a tepid reeducation program that would help Windows users acclimate to the Macintosh community by teaching them some of the basics of good taste.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, "Many Windows users simply don't know, for example, that War At Home is really a horrible, horrible show.
"Truly awful. Abysmal. Absolutely unwatchable."
For most Mac users, however, none of this pandering was satisfactory.
"I won't be happy until Windows users are shot before they come within thirty feet of a Macintosh," said columnist Andy Ihnatko.
"I'm kind of a stickler that way."
Many were concerned that an influx of Windows users would mean fewer Macs for those who bleed six colors.
"Macs for Mac users!" a collection of protestors shouted unironically outside the flagship Fifth Avenue Apple Store.
Apple declined to comment for this story other than to repeat "'Macs for Mac users'?"
When I hear the word "harmonise", I usually think of things being harmonious... however, what happens in looney Euroland is that harmonisation of laws results in things becoming equally bad for everyone... things never become less restrictive, they always manage to find a way for all the most restrictive laws to be kept and amalgated into the new "harmonised" version...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
The answer in *most* cases is 'only in the past'.
I don't tend to pirate software any more, as there's simply no need. There is an OSS tool for just about every job, and many of them are getting to the point (finally) where they're actually up to the standard of commercial software.
The only commercial software I need tends to be small utilities (which usually have an honest developer who deserves the money) and Windows (It's too much like hard work to pirate it and keep it up to date anyway)
Music - rips are very often bad quality or difficult to get hold of - if it's available on iTunes for 99p then I'm willing to pay that to save the hassle.
Which just leaves anime. I must admit, although fansubs are technically illegal (presumably) I greatly prefer them to dubs. And the easiest way to get 'em is to download 'em. If Jump were to supply downloadable subs of Naruto themselves (translated in a proper fan-like fashion, not a dub-like one i.e. I don't want to read "Believe It!" every 10 seconds) then by all means the money would be theirs.
They have voted to pass it on it's first reading. It still has some way to go yet before it becomes an actual directive, and there is still plenty of opportunity for it to be rejected or heavily ammended.
I would point out that most member states of the EU already crimialize "comercial" copyright infringment, and thus this could be seen as an attempt to "harmonizing" EU wide law. I would also point out the proposed directive would require member states to ensure fair use rights, something several member states don't do, starting with the U.K.
i agree 100% but the slashdot kids from moms basement have voted you a troll because they cant think for themselves. its pathetic.
If a person who decides that they should be an Open Source advocate they really should stop pirating material.
I know most of you feel that software should be free and by pirating it you force the other guys to give you free software, but in the long run it doesn't help. If you are going to be an Open Source advocate you really should try as much as possible to use the Open Source and free alternatives as much as possible, if no Open Alternative exists that fits your needs either make it yourself or more realistically Purchase the software that does what you need giving preference to companies who are more Open Source Friendly, or who make software that is more Cross Platform friendly, after you have legally purchased the product and it does what you need. Don't upgrade it to the next version unless your needs have changed.
When trying to influence companies to go more Open Source or become more Open Source Friendly they will go much further if the company knows you have been a customer in the past vs. someone who pirates their material. Most companies listen to their Customers not from people who steal their products. If you want people and companies to respect your views on software freedom you should also respect their views even if you disagree with it.
The only type of pirating I can justify is abandon ware where there is an application that is so old the companies has went out of business or doesn't maintain the product line anymore.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
the wrong word for it, family corruption probably would be the better word.
The head of this whole thing is Janelly Fortou, which coincidentally is the wife of the Vivendi CEO.
Or in other words, this is a lex vivendi!
It still has been pushed somewhat into saner waters, the original proposal would have been desastrous, even patent infringements would have been included (just to satisfy some pharma companies), even pro patent lobbyists like Microsoft (which do a lot of lobbying over here for pro software patents, so go figure how long they will be calm and not suing everyone left and right), tried to get rid of those clauses in the proposal.
This is the reply I received from my Lib Dem MEP, Graham Watson, who is leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, to an email I sent him urging him to support amendments to the directive. I think he has quite a good grasp of the issue, and when they failed to get all the amendments included, they voted against.
Interestingly, my UKIP MEP, Roger Knapman, also voted against...
Thank you for your email of 23rd April 2007 regarding the directive on
criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property
rights. The infringement of intellectual property rights, such as
counterfeiting and piracy is a growing phenomenon which has a serious
economic effect on the global scale. The Commission proposed this directive
to offer additional provisions to strengthen and improve the fight against
systematic infringement of intellectual property rights.
Although I am not a member of the Legal Affairs committee which has
discussed this directive, I am indeed aware of the matter and share a number
of your concerns about its current drafting. There is general agreement to
remove patents from the scope of the directive, and I believe it should be
further restricted. To this end, my Liberal Democrat colleague Sharon Bowles
MEP tabled a number of amendments for the vote in the European Parliament
which are concurrent with the aims of the Librarians', Consumers' and
Innovators' Coalition amendments.
I understand that Sharon has sought to address the current wording of
Article 3 which stipulates that "Member States shall ensure that all
intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial
scale, and attempting, aiding of abetting and inciting such infringements,
are treated as criminal offences". In its place, Sharon proposed that
"Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an
intellectual property right on a commercial scale, or wilfully and
specifically aiding of abetting or inciting such infringements, are treated
as criminal offences when there are aggravating circumstances of organised
crime, counterfeiting, piracy or serious risk to health or safety". This
clarifies that innocent or unknowing assistance to infringe is not covered
and also restricts the scope of offences to which criminality could apply.
A second concern is one of definitions. Although I gather the Librarians',
Consumers' and Innovators' Coalition amendments have done a fair job at
establishing definitions, I do believe it far better to remove the
definitions from the text completely. This to my mind is safer and allows
judges to dismiss cases that might otherwise be caught by specific
definitions. For this reason I supported Sharon's amendment which eliminates
definitions.
Unfortunately, in the vote in the European Parliament on Wednesday 25th
April, a number of these amendments did not pass and subsequently the Group
I lead voted against the directive. But, realistically I believe there is
some way to go before we will know the final shape of this legislation as
this is just the first reading but I hope this answer is reassuring that
Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament take your concerns seriously.
Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you require further
information.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Watson MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar
and Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
...what is purerly civil matter?
:(
This is complete nonsence and incompetent law again introduced by clueless politicians who are doing NOTHING useful to countries and people they represent. How usual these days
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
In Europe, the loser generally pays for the legal costs of the prevailing party. So, good luck taking on Microsoft or Nokia in Europe as an individual; they can throw tons of lawyers at this, and you'll be bankrupt first time you lose, which will be rather quick.
There are some important parts there, that helps to clarify and protect private copying, while harmonizing the legislation among the members states to fight the real threat that this legislation aims: counterfeiting of real world trademarked and copyrighted goods. Here are some important parts of this amendments:
Now, again, let's comment on that. How is that bad for fair use, private copying, etc? It is exactly THE OPPOSITE of what is being stated in the summary of this article, it defines explicitly fair use, right to private copying and creates a legal framework for the IP holders to be able to assert their rights, while protecting the citizens against baseless suits.
And, as a side effect of that, it legalizes the legal parallel importing of goods, making the ones like Lik Sung (sic) to be able to operate on E.U. territory. See below:
About 10 years ago I bought an SF Novel by K.W Jeter called "Noir", the background of the story was a world where copyright theft was punishable by death, if you were lucky.
0
http://www.amazon.com/Noir-K-W-Jeter/dp/055357638
The book itself was good but I thought that copyright crime as a capital offence was a fun idea but just a step too far away from reality to be believable.
Not now. Science Fiction can tell the future and it's not one I like.
The European commission and parliament is turning into a bureaucratic corporate playground.
I wish that those that posted these types of news would tone down the sensationalism and hysteria. "EU bans this and that" type of news are becoming quite common on slashdot while having little support in reality. The political process in the EU is a complex one and decisions are sculpted from various compromises for a long time. Subsequently radical laws are very rare. So when you hear news like this one, be sceptical. Chances are good that it's just the first draft - and they tend to be preposterous in order to allow room for compromise.
1. Make a directive that "harmonise the laws". The directive must be as strict as the strictest of the laws, and the new laws must be as strict as the directive, or stricter.
2. At least one member makes a law that is stricter than the directive.
3. Back to 1.
(In the separate process): profit!
(I am European and while by no means an expert, I'm taking a EU Law course)
A EU directive is quite different than "a simple request" to EU member states, though you are partly right. A directive is binding for all the member states to which it is addressed (in this case; all member states), but it does not specify the measures that should be taken, only the goals. Thus, the member states are obliged to implement measures in their own national law that will achieve the goals set in the directive.[1]
[1] Mathijsen, P., (2004). A Guide to European Union Law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Firehed - Unfortunately, thanks to medical breakthroughs, common sense is not as common as it once was.
> there is no fair use in EU law, you are not allowed to rip CD,
This is simply wrong. You do not need a law to allow you something, as long as nothing is there to forbid it. I can only talk about the legal situation in Germany: Here, it is legal to rip an (original) CD you own, or even one you just borrowed from a friend! There has been an exception introduced a few years ago, you may not copy any CD which contains copy protection. This legal situation is not widely known here, though, since most people just don't care.
No, pathetic is replying to your own message pretending someone agrees with you.
I've seen a few excellent posts drawing attention to the fact that this law is target not at end users and one highlighting how anti-piracy is good for open source movements - I agree fully with both these.
I would like to say, however, that I am in favour of criminalising copyright infringement. It is theft, right?... well thats what the BPI/RIAA keeps telling me... Just think about the implications for it though; if it is a crime then there needs to be (unless they make it strict liability) mens rea and actus reus elements strictly defined. The mens rea would have to be set at at least subjective recklessness, which means the prosecution would first have to PROVE (beyond all reasonable doubt) that you thought that the work might have been copyrighted but downloaded it anyway ("oh, i'm sorry officer, I had not given it any thought at all as to whether or not it was copyrighted" would be a good enough defense - see R&G 2003 [HL] for the abolishon of objective recklessness). Then they need to PROVE that it was you who did the act ("well, it is just an ip address, that proves nothing - and I can show you that..." would be a good enough defense)...
And if that doesn't work at least the jails are too full to put anyone away, couple that with judges distaste for being told what to do by anyone (and the fact that most wouldn't see it as a "real" crime) we can expect sentences like "conditional discharge" or "£50 fine and £25 court costs"...
Bring on the criminal charges!
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
The big problem, the aiding, abetting or inciting remains:
"Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial scale, and attempting, aiding or abetting and inciting such infringements, are treated as criminal offences."
Note that only the infringement needs to be intentional. *Unintentionally* inciting, aiding or abetting an *intentional* infringement is a crime under this wording.
Most here will be making websites and software tools, and commercial websites and tools at that, they are likely to hit this secondary liability via the aiding abetting inciting clause.
It's secondary liability, no different than if I make axes and some axe murderer. Sure I know that axes will be used by axe murders but it doesn't mean I should prevent it since my axes are also very useful for chopping trees.
Secondary liability sucks.
They should have removed this, particular the 'inciting' part. Freedom of speech is a basic liberty, and I have repeatedly encouraged people to infinge copyright where the copyright holder has DRM'd their product. Incitement = the act of encouraging, which is about as broad as it gets.
At the very least they should have reduced it to 'intentionally abetting and intentional infringement'. There should be no penalty for accidently making something that someone else uses for commercial infringement. It's sloppy wording.
...defender of the consumers!
Check it out for yourselves: Nicola Zingaretti, the current secretary for the DS party (the main spinoff from the former Communist Party, now part of prime minister's Prodi coalition) in the Rome region, is also a member of the European Parliament's Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Yep, you read it right - "Consumer Protection" committee.
- Nicola!- Yes, comrade?
- The workers in Hollywood are exploited! Consumers refuse to pay each time they want to read, watch or listen to anything they have already bought!
- Darn capitalists! I'll see what I can do to help Hollywood workers against those revisionist consumers, comrade! I think I'll join... the Consumer Protection Committee!
- Bright idea! I'll forward it to the RIAA Plenum and see how they can help.
- Thank you, comrade!
The unfortunate reality is that with the typical electoral system in the west, each election is decided on the basis of a very small number of very high profile issues. Things like economics, "defence", healthcare, and crime are tried and tested. Trendy issues — currently it's anything environmental over here in the UK — can also register significantly. However, minor things that still affect many people every day are rarely even considered. This is how things like IP and road traffic laws can reach a point where a very significant proportion of the population are criminalised for doing something that a majority of the population does not believe to be ethically wrong.
This will probably continue as long as we have this bizarre idea that politicians can predict before the election what will happen throughout their entire term of office. That simply isn't possible, unless their policies are never going to change depending on context. Consider the unpredictability of a world stock market crash or a plane flying into an iconic building, and unsurprisingly the reality doesn't always match up. It is silly to expect that it ever will, and we would do far better if political manifestos set out the principles and values supported by the each candidate, and reserved concrete policies for examples: "Under the current circumstances, I would therefore support this measure to provide further financial support to that group." We also need to get over this idea that any politician who changes his or her position on an issue is "doing a U-turn" and doesn't know what they stand for. Maybe the circumstances just changed? Maybe they came across better information, and revised their opinion in light of it? These are good things for politicians to do, as long as their actions are consistent with the principles and values for which they stood at election time. The idea that all politicians should have evaluated all information on all issues comprehensively before every decision they are asked to make is simply unrealistic, and I would rather vote for someone who acknowledged this and made a genuine effort to dot the right thing than someone who pretended they were omniscient and used this to attack their more considerate opposition.
Of course, such a principled election system would also show up some other problems with "representative" democracy in places like the US and UK today. As far as I can see, the major political parties in these countries are so closely aligned on many issues that someone who is fairly central but tends towards individual responsibility and capitalism rather than socialism and a large government simply has no-one to vote for who will argue their case. Given the barriers to entry in starting a new political party, this means a significant proportion of the population's voice is never heard.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
THIS IS IRRELEVANT
Since Microsoft's CD ripper also permits commercial ripping of CDs this is completely irrelevant, since fair use is not a defense.
"You do not need a law to allow you something, as long as nothing is there to forbid it. "
Copyright law is the law that forbids unauthorized copying. Fair use is the CLAUSE in copyright law that says it's OK for x,y,z. Thats the missing part in most copyright laws across Europe.
Maybe /. needs to publish who modded a post...
So your defence is that Microsoft CD ripper is only used for fair uses copying in Austria?
Good luck with that one!
It's certainly used for commercial infringing purposes too, both in Austria and beyond.
It's certainly used for infringment which would be classed as fair use, in Europe as a whole.
Remember that the wording doesn't require Microsoft be complicit in the infringement, it only needs to abet that infringementm, and commercial scale infringement it certainly is.
Yet another reason to tell those muppets in Brussels where they can stick their laws and cancel membership. That our limp wristed government pour over £115 million into this corrupt totalitarian gravy train makes me sick. No to the EU. We are a sovereign nation and if anyone is going to tell me what I can and can't copy it should be *my* people, not some tosser in Belgium.
Democracy Now - No to EU
Better off out
Does the European Parliament ever actually do anything non-fascist?
If they have, can someone tell me about it? I'm starting to get an extremely negative impression of them, here.
Everything is justified by "harmonization" in the EC/EU. Meaning that everything is levelled to the worst.
I was in favor for the EC/EU many years ago and even voted in favor of my country's entry. In the meantime, "EU" is synonymous for corruption, lobbyism and the like. A MUCH too small group of people decides over us 300M+ "sheep".
-- The Online Photo Editor - http://www.phixr.com
The irony is that honest politics that, for example, dramatically simplified the tax system in my country, really would save a fortune. The infrastructure costs of implementing all those special cases, with their separate collection and enforcement mechanisms, are significant. Just doing away with all of that and going to a system with a few, transparent taxes collected via a very small number of mechanisms would save a fortune in both personal taxes and business overheads. Pretty much everyone would benefit from this, it's just that some people would benefit more than others depending on how the current mess of hundreds of different taxes and credits treats them.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This directive is about copyright and related intellectual properties ... and such it includes Patents.
... especially when the patent offices have issued some stupid patents in the past, like [url=http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/aus pac/07/02/australia.wheel/]the legendary wheel[/url].
...
... just like the DMCA in the USA.
I am not concerned about copyrights as much as I am concerned for patents, especially about software patents
I know, that happened in Australia, but with software patents numerous obvious ideas are patented instead of actual implementations because one could argue that an idea in a software application is a technique to do a task.
For example none of the useful open-source applications we have today would have existed if it where for this kind of laws to be passed sooner.
MySql would have been destroyed by Oracle, Gnome would have been crushed by Microsoft or Apple, etc
Even if this law was passed with good intentions (counterfeit drugs are a real problem for example) it opens a whole world of possibility for abuse
Does it strike anyone odd at all that politicians want to lock down access to information?
People like to break down economies on a national level or a federation of nations level. That's fine and very useful to look at. Another way, though, to look at an economy is by sector.
In many regions, the economy of a certain type of good or service breaks out ahead of the economy as a whole. Other parts of the economy get pegged to that commodity and are traded against it. The economy of that one sector can be said to be healthier than the economies of other sectors. Sometimes a sector itself is dominated by a single good or service.
You get trading blocks and cartels instead of nations. People can be part of a national group and also be participating in the sector-based trading blocks. The politicians in governments like to use their power in the government to ensure their success in the trading blocks in which they have heavily invested.
Lots of ways to deal with issues in a sector arise. Adding to your own access into a sector while diminishing someone else's is the quickest way to build a fortune. It's certainly quicker than making sure you do better work than the competition.
When the strongest economies in the world were agricultural, the people in power made sure they had most of the land rights. When the strongest economies were those of traveling merchants, they made sure to control roads, seaports, and shipbuilding. When the strongest economies were determined by mineral mining, they all invested in mines. When industrial might was the fastest way to wealth, they were all invested in factories. When oil was strongest (and still had a clear future), it was all about oil. As oil gets replaced as a power source, look for big investments in those new technologies by politicians and new laws that protect those assets more stringently.
Now, much of the world has invested in what's called an 'information economy'. So guess where the politicians in regional power want to put their money. Guess what they want to make sure has limited access. Much of the money to be made these days is in information. Buying, selling, trading, encrypting, decrypting, co-mingling, mapping, storing, retrieving, analyzing, abstracting, formatting, presenting, and archiving data is how fortunes are made quickly right now. So politicians will use their power in regional governments to further protect their investments in information-related assets.
It's really no surprise that politicians want to curtail access to information. It's actually surprising to me how much lobbying it takes in the US and the EU to get the people's rights undermined by the information companies. It must be that many of the politicians are indeed interested in what's best for the people. Otherwise, there'd be no debate since self-interest dictates to get in on the cornered market of the day and corner it some more.
What about option 5, I only pirate from CowboyNeal?
First post = troll. Cleverly worded post designed to enrage others = flamebait.