ISP Filters & Copyright Extension Defeated In EU

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Last November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking at how culture affects the economy and recommended a 'balance between the opportunities for access to cultural events and content and intellectual property' saying that 'criminalizing consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution.' Industry lobbyists, of course, immediately sprang into action to try to turn that around, writing amendments that would set up mandatory ISP copyright filters and extend EU copyrights to match the USA's life-plus-70 term. Thankfully, the committee rejected all of those amendments: 'Clearly, they're not going to let the ITRE or the European recording industry push them around, which is great news for Europeans. Now if we could only get the US Congress to show as much spine as the French (ouch).'"

Comments

Life+70 is just obscene

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Disney have a lot to answer for. Veto all Disney products :-)

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Winckle]

It doesn't have to be an effective mechanism to annoy the end user. Nor in fact do you have to wait to see this effect, some games run perfectly in emulation or a WINE style implementation except for code governing DRM.

For example I recently tried to play red alert 2 under crossover on OS X, but every time I play, my units blow up 30 seconds in. Apparently this is a form of copy protection, one which I have no idea how to fix. I have paid for this game, admittedly, it was a few years ago, but I the only thing stopping me play this game is short sighted DRM.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Ajehals]

Parent is not a Troll, offtopic at a pinch but probably not.

You are right, it is not an evil, it is a potential problem and an inconvenience. I don't know about you but I don't have a single piece of media that I haven't paid for (or been given), primarily because I do think that people who produce things I want to see/listen to deserve to be compensated, also I would find it rather difficult to argue for copyright reform and yet ignore the law as it stands.

What I am guilty of in my previous point (and it is probably clear that this is the case given the fact its currently +4 insightful) is sensationalism, the term evil is there simply for its impact. It is a game played by politicians and in the context of any copyright debate, the media industry. I apologise for its use here, although I will probably use it again in a similar context as it does suit my purposes rather well and is probably the only method of combating the opposition if they are using the same tactics.

Now, as for having every film (or other piece of digital media) in any format you desire, well that is probably an accurate description of what I want. I want to be able to buy a film and format shift it as I see fit, mainly because when I buy a CD or a DVD I am buying a piece of media with data on it and for the first time this means that format shifting and portability are built right into the format. I do not see a problem, nor an valid argument that is persuasive in explaining why I should not be able to use any media I have purchased in any manner I see fit, as long as it is for personal use and I am not re-distributing work that is subject to copyright.

However what is happening is that artificial barriers are being put in place, primarily to encourage repeated repurchases of the same material on different (or even the same) media, these barriers have other consequences, they limit the longevity of the material purchased. sure you could argue that a VHS tape or Vinyl record are also not necessarily long lasting, but this is a problem inherent to the format, something not true of media distributed in a digital manner.

Lastly DRM really will limit the way digital material falls into the public domain. If there were no DRM at all, when $film falls out of copyright in 500 years (given the current trends... :) ) it would be possible for that to immediately be made available to everyone by anyone willing to make it available, with DRM schemes (and potentially increasingly complex and effective DRM schemes) that may not be the case, that would mean that the only way to get hold of that 'public domain' film may still be via a media cartel, who would still be perfectly entitled to protect the media with DRM. DRM is potentially a way to short circuit a transition of currently protected media into the public domain.

Anyway, I feel that this is potentially quite damaging, I also feel that it sets a trend toward corporate control of things purchased by a consumer, it shows a lack of consumer rights (albeit coupled with current consumer ambivalence and apathy), so I would say its a bad thing for us all, although, as you rightly pointed out it is not evil (The misuse of the term evil and similar terms (disaster springs to mind) probably is to blame for the fact that people are simply not aware of, or interested in current acts that really are evil, things like genocide, misleading propaganda that leads to unjustifiable war, torture and the gradual but systemic erosion of freedoms and civil liberties worldwide. As such I will try not to misuse it if I can avoid it.)

Re:show as much spine as the French

[Amorymeltzer]

...the fact that criminalising consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution. (emphasis mine)

When was the last time anyone aside from the consumer expressed that view so blatantly? When was the last time anyone in government expressed that view? The two together is just about as close to Christmas in January as you can get - and I'm not just saying that 'cause I'm a Jew...

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Rakishi]

Congratulation you just killed open source.

Re:Let me guess...

[Jugalator]

Let me guess... You don't understand how free software can be big business.

Let me make a second guess... You don't understand why indie producers make a profit on sites where you can also download their music.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Ajehals]

I wontget into a lengthy discussion of your points, mainly because I generally agree with the direction (if not the specifics). However there is one glaring problem:

3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try) Firstly I don't think that copyright should be about terms of life + X years, it should be about a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more), but short enough that material is still culturally relevant when it becomes public domain (IMHO this would be far shorter for software due to the pace of change, especially when compared to other arts, probably longest for books as they seem to endure). It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection :) .

Re:show as much spine as the French

[Ajehals]

I would suggest that (parts) of the EU, or rather elements of the apparatus that make up the Frankenstein-esque quasi-federal EU 'government' are considerably more pro-consumer and anti-monopolist than most other similar bodies. I am not surprised that this has come from the EU, it is in line with many of their better idea's (although there still appear to be quite a few stinkers hanging around in the system.)

My worry is that once the EU settles down and ceases to be about member nations haggling for power and influence, that the lobbyists and other 'usual suspects' of corporate power achieve some level of patronage and influence. The only really surprising thing is that given how unaccountable the whole EU system seems at present, that it hasn't happened already.

But then I am a pessimist, happy Hanukkah.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Bogtha]

If you think any of that kills open source, then I suspect you are confusing open source with copyleft. Even if you abolished copyright altogether, open source software would remain. It is copyleft licenses like the GPL that depend upon copyright to operate.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[mr_matticus]

Really. Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Seriously, I want to know.

If you think that you put people in office to do what you would do, then you're sorely missing the point of a republic. They're in place because we (theoretically) value their (hypothetical) decisionmaking abilities and they best reflect the () values of those electing said representative. We send people to Washington as trustees, not as mouthpieces, because the people rarely speak with one voice and the Framers were deathly afraid of the masses.

If you don't like the values of the representative, get a different representative. Don't whine about media control or interest groups or the "myth of two different parties"--if the people wanted something else, they'd have it. The fact that they don't generally give a crap is just part of the reality of our society, and in true democratic fashion, they get an equal voice for their apathy, pound for pound.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[tknn]

If they said it, the media would crucify them, being interested parties. So they don't dare say it.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[SQL Error]

1. The copyright must be registered

At present, every blog post, every comment on Slashdot, every image I use in my site design, receives copyright protection automatically. You've just destroyed that. Oh, and Creative Commons with it.

2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)

Just destroyed any right to privacy.

3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

So if I work hard building - let's say - boats, and one day I drop dead of a heart attack, my children inherit the boats and can sell them. But if I work hard designing boats, my kids starve?

4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.

Since copyright is currently extended to millions of creations every single day, this is completely untenable.

5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.

And this too.

6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.

And let's do the same for cars! Okay, Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Mercedes: All your cars now cost $20,000.

7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.

Levied by whom, and payable to whom? Currently, copyright infringement is in miost cases a civil matter, requiring the rights holder to bring suit. If you are legislating penalties, are you saying that this is now a criminal offense? Who will police it, and how?

8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.

I'm not sure what "indoctrinated fair use" is even supposed to mean.

As far as I can see, your proposal is worse than the status quo in every way imaginable.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[zoltamatron]

Yeah....I don't know why everyone on this thread is so concerned with the length and registration of copyright. That's not the problem. The problem comes from the transferral of copyright to corporations who then exploit the creators and give them nothing in return. If it wasn't legal to sign away all your rights to a creation then it would vastly change the creative landscape. You might say "Well, people shouldn't be so stupid to sign away all their rights" but when your only options from the companies that run the media are to sign away everything, or lose out on your big break, you can't really blame people for doing it. There are certain things that you can't legally sign away, like certain liabilities, so I don't see why your copyrights can't be the same.