Slashdot Mirror
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).'"
Disney have a lot to answer for. Veto all Disney products :-)
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
You don't understand. Those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys CAVED IN to the Evil Terrorist Content Pirates[tm].
Clearly we must support our patriotic "content producers" to defeat the evildoers.
</SARCASM>
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
And technology will eventually allow for immortality. Governments should be praised for planning for the near-future.
The worst response reward goes to Barbara Boxer. When I contacted her regarding proposed legislation that was intended to further erode fair use and hand more of the public rights to the media companies I got a form letter in reply. That form letter thanked me for my letter and let me know that Barbara Boxer was listening and fully intended to support the legislation that I was writing about (and against).
I don't expect any representative to do what I wish - but it would be nice if they took a few moments to actually READ and maybe THINK a little about what the people they supposedly represent are thinking. Ms. Boxer has clearly identified herself as being on the side of further abuses by the media companies - I don't know about other "representatives" but this one clearly does NOT represent the people who elected her.
Stopping the already insane copyright system from becoming more insane is a good thing, but it is not the same as actually trying to make it less insane.
1. The copyright must be registered
2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
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)
4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
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.
7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.
8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.
And that's about the bare minimum needed to make copyright fit for the intended purpose of encouraging the science and the useful arts. It still doesn't make copyright just but it would at least make it something people would be willing to respect.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Another good reason to be reluctant to become a copyright holder.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Although this is far from as important as a vote on a EU directive, I think this is good news.
Unfortunately there is no information on exactly which amendments were rejected. In particular I was worried about amendment 80 (which TFA implies is rejected), amendment 82 (extension of protection time for related rights), and amendments 81 and 83 that looks like a requirement that educational institutions should proliferate the propaganda of MAFIAA.
As for the extension of copyright protection time: This is the same in Europe as in the USA. But in the EU the protection of recording artists and whoever makes the recording is limited to 50 years. There has been big pressure in particular in the UK to extend this, but this has been rejected as not being helpful to cultural development. I am glad that this first attempt by the copyright lobby to force EU member countries to adopt legislation they do not want has failed.
Oh, BTW here is a link to the prosed amendments voted on tuesday.
Politicians in the USA are not stupid, just uneducated and inexperienced.
...to... Islamic clergy death goDma.
... it is not a problem for US.
EU politicians serve the national interest, US politicians serve private interest.
The public/citizens hope that the national/private interest will provide some trickle-down benefits.
So, US citizens get neither national/personal security, nor economic/infrastructure stability.
Dogma4US is a sacrificial religious cult, much like Catholic
As long as you (citizen) suffer/sacrifice and not me (politician/plutocrat)
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Fuck yeah im a pirate!
all for me! scrEW EVERYONE ELSE!
i took some lessons from big business..
STEAL ANYTHING THAT IS NOT NAILED DOWN!
GREED IS GOOD!
I WANT MINE!
HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH NOTHING!
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT WORTH A DAMM!
CONTENT CREATORS ARE FOR BENDING OVER THE TABLE!
ALL THAT MATTERS IS *MY* BOTTOM LINE.
LOOT, PLUNDER, STEAL!
EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH!
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS!
So fuck you. and fuck all the companys who taught me this lesson. I know no loyalty now!
What... that wasnt the lesson i was supposed to learn from big companys? well shit. someone should tell them to change their tactics. because thats exactly what they are teaching me. And i'm a quick study.
"If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death."
Then, like most people, you can invest some of the money you make during your lifetime, from copyrighted works or otherwise, and leave that as part of your estate. Life insurance helps as well.
I still don't see how ISP filtering for copyright information would work at a technical level. Every piece of data transmitted would have to be collected, reassembled, and compared against a huge data base then cross referenced against a valid supplier list. The required computing power at all network nodes is just laughable.
First, if you offer free music on your website, people come to your website rather than The Pirate Bay to get your music for free. Then you get hits for the advertising on your site and get paid. Then, because your music is free, you get a fan base faster than you would have otherwise and sell them concert tickets, merchandise, physical CDs with liner art et al, etc.
It's nice in theory. In reality, people already do this, and all the indie bands also have day jobs.
tagsalmostaslongassummary
Anyone got a light for my sig?
You response to point 1, 4 and 5 just shows a different opinion. You think it is good that millions of trivial "works" are removed from the public domain every day. The GP (and I disagree).
Point 2 demonstrates a frighteningly narrow view of privacy. The "right" of a worker in a big corporation not to get credit for his work is equated with "all of privacy". Scary stuff.
Point 3 is fairy tale, both the person who build boats, and the person who design boats for a living, sell the boats/designs. There is no boats left for their children to inherit. If they want to secure their children, they better get life insurance. In that they are similar to the 98% of us who work for a salary. All of us get paid once for our work and skills, not the rest of our life when people use the product of our work and skills.
There is a tiny truth behind point 3, a small number of musicians can actually live by their old royalties. But even for musicians I would not recommend this as an alternative to a proper retirement plan. It is very rare.
Point 6 and 7 shows that you are unaware that standard royalties are existing practice, think music radio.
Point 6 also shows an inability to distinguish between imaginary and real property. Even if you could license the design of a Mercedes for US$ 20.000, an actual working car would be far more expensive. You cannot drive around in imaginary property, you need real property for that.
So, to summary: Unlike the GP you believe putting zillions of trivial stuff under copyright is a worthy goal in itself, you are woefully unaware of how the real world function in many aspects from boat building to royalty, and you are unable to distinguish between the real and the imaginary.
The bad thing that isn't mentioned, is that some countries in the EU already have adopted the US life+70 years term. For example in Germany, it is exactly the same rule. Making copyright law univeral across the EU would be a great success if it would decrease this term, but actually I don't think the EU has done much for its citizens in terms of copyright or ISP filters. The article is simply wrong about this because many things that are mentioned haven't actually been decided yet.
The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Of course SCOTUS admitted that perpetual copyright is unconstitutional. The enumerated powers clause is quite specific about that. They way they rationalize that a last-minute retroactive extension of copyright ownership is not "perpetual" is kind of beside the point. If doing it twice is constitutional, why isn't doing it three times, or four?