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
Good post. I'd also like to see a fully transparent tax system, whereby *you* choose where the tax money you paid for goes.. you hate the road conditions where you live? direct it at that. You want a better quality play park for your kids? direct it at that.. and so on.
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
I have for a long time supported the idea that media featuring a politicians official pontifications should automatically be in the public domain so that large media players (with access to..say...the WH press room), can't hoard this stuff in an effort to pick and choose what the public should be constantly reminded of. Media businesses should be compelled to deposit a copy of the raw footage or transcript to an extended public library service (libraians are tougher than they look). I belive in some countries a similar idea was/is a requirement of running a newspaper?
OTOH: The general public needs to be more forgiving when a politcian "flip-flops", consistency is an admirable trait but impossible for a leader that is willing to listen, learn and adapt to "changes on the ground". "Sorry I fucked up" should not automatically bring calls for resignation, impeachment, ect. (BTW: Don't take this as support for anyone in particular, IMHO some of the neo-cons deserve a CIA trip to ***stan for questioning).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I sort of agree with your opinions on politicians, but I disagree with your opinion on voting.
Not voting means that you accept _any_ government that may be elected, which means that you are accepting the fact that an extreme-right or extreme-left government may win the election.
Personally, I _always_ vote, generally for the party I dislike the least, and not because I care who wins from the generally accepted parties, but simply because I do _not_ accept extreme left/right parties getting a larger share of the votes because I was too lazy to do something about it. In the end, even if an extreme government wins, atleast I tried to stop it, and that counts for something, atleast to me personally.
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.
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
PR sure does deliver weak governments and perpetual coalitions, but I think that's a good thing. Care to back up your assertion that it's "not a recipe for success" with some reasoning?
A 'strong government' is the government's way of saying a 'government that has too much power', as far as I'm concerned. Look, politics should reflect the debates people are having in real life. Laws *should* be hard to pass, coalitions *should* have to be formed to get them through; that represents a majority of people actually having to agree on something in order for it to be made law, which makes it more likely it will be a good law.
I totally don't get your assertion that PR is what's behind MEPs voting for 'silly nonsense', anyway. Are you telling me that MPs, under our current system, and *not* accountable to their parties? How do you explain whips, and backbenchers always 'towing the party line' in votes for laws that are totally unpopular with the electorate, such as ID cards, tuition fees, or contraversial NHS reforms? MPs will *always* be accountable to their parties, but this is fine, because their parties are accountable to the electorate. PR simply makes the parties a lot MORE accountable, because they know that people can and will get rid of them if they screw up, instead of voting for them out of fear that an even-worse party will get an unfair majority.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.