Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Euro Parliament Warns Against Overzealous IP Enforcement

Posted by timothy on from the death-to-whistlers-of-beatles-tunes dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Days after New Zealand dropped its support for the 'three strikes and you're out' approach for terminating Internet subscribers, the European Parliament has now similarly rejected the proposed approach. Today the EP adopted a new report on security and fundamental freedoms on the Internet that expressly rejects disproportionate measures for IP enforcement and the use of excessive access restrictions placed by IP rights holders."

48 of 73 comments (clear)

  1. Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There seem to be a huge number of governments, agencies, corporations, and people who are carefully measuring how abusive they can be to the Internet. It's the old story: The powerful want to make money or get more power by restricting someone else's freedom.

    Piracy is a serious issue. But the bulk of the problem with individuals doing piracy seems to be that there is often no good option to buy music and videos. Once companies bring themselves into modern thinking and modern ways of commerce, piracy will be less of a problem.

    1. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Chemosabe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good to see that the European Parlament is in tune with what the pirate bay generation already know; that there is a change in the rules of the game.

    2. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

      Piracy is a serious issue.

      Indeed, but copyright is a fucking joke.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Bullshit, no one ever wins the game.

    4. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by coretx · · Score: 1

      They are NOT in tune. But it is what they want you to believe, or so it seems. Have you forgotten about IPRED, FRA etc ?

    5. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by haeger · · Score: 1

      I don't see copyright as a joke at all. I do believe it does have a place in modern society. I don't have a problem with the fact that people who make things get paid for them, even if what they make is an intangible thing.

      Painter, writers, programmers, actors and others deserve to be paid, no argument there.

      I do however see the internet as a great equalizer. If the difference between what someone makes from copyright is too large compared to what other people make doing something else then the law loses its meaning for most people. They will reject the law as it is seen as unjust.

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    6. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      The powerful want to make money or get more power by restricting someone else's freedom.

      I used to think that was the point of the fight, but now I really have the impression that it is the clueless desperately trying to give the image that he is in control.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're assuming that copyright is the "right way" to ensure that people who make IP get paid for it - indeed, authors already get paid for the "right to publish" their work (which amounts to selling their IP rights to someone else), which would be possible analogously (just not uploading the master to anyone until they pay you) without copyright, strictly. Of course, the incentive to buy those rights would be reduced, but...

      The main problem with copyright, though, is that it has been strengthened and extended far too much over the last century, such that now it doesn't do what it was originally intended to do - encourage production of works *which enter the public domain after the copyright expires*. For several classes of content, copyright effectively never expires now, which removes the important second component of the feature.

    8. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Chatterton · · Score: 4, Interesting

      copyright is a fucking joke by it's length of 95 years after the death of the author. 1) Tell me how a dead artist is compelled to create new content after his death by this income. 2) The copyright are generaly owned by corporation that can't be dead because they are already living dead soul suckers... If they decide to go back a little back on the length of the copyright and who can own a copyright, well then will I see it as an useful tool again.

    9. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by smoker2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't have a problem with copyright either. I do have an issue with limited copyright protection lasting 70 years after the authors death. I don't care how much they make from their creation, I do have an issue with how long they expect to keep making money from old work. If an artist, say a pop star, makes $10M in 2 years, from one hit album, then expecting society to protect their work from copying for more than 100 years is complete and utter greed. If an artist ,ie. a painter, creates a work, then they can sell it. There are no copyright issues lasting 100 years (not allowing for prints). Either they get paid or they don't. If they want to make more money they have to paint another work and sell it. It's time to stop these assholes who believe they are owed a lifetime monopoly for pretty minor contributions to society. I bet the pop star doesn't send money back to their English teacher, or their music teacher, or the town council or the innumerable other people who made their specific contributions to the success of that one artist. No, despite having all that help, once they make some money it's a case of "mine all mine".

      People also tend to forget that a work being out of copyright, does not prevent the original author making money from it. I find it amusing that the fall in the standards of new music is paralleled by the rise in the length of copyright terms. Extended copyright terms leave new artists with nowhere to go. Which is precisely the opposite of what copyright was intended to achieve.

    10. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Andy_R · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Corporations dying or not is irrelevant, the right expires 95 years after the author dies, not the owner. The original reason for copyright extending beyond the author's life time was that back in the days before it was common for women to have jobs and for diseases to be curable the wives and children of authors would suffer a double blow if the author died, they would be widowed and deprived of their income, while the publishers would get a big financial bonus because they would no longer be paying royalties.

      Given the way that pop records sell vastly more copies on the tragic death of the musician, coupled with the RIAA's known tendency towards evil, I really don't think that they should have a large financial incentive to encourage artists to become the next Tupac/Cobain/Hendrix/Joplin etc.

      Personally, I'd go for 'copyright last x years after first publication, rights sold to coporations revert to the author if the work is not commercially exploited, rights reverted to the author expire quickly if the work is still not commercially exploited', and I'd say x should be around 30 to 50 ish.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    11. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by neomunk · · Score: 1

      I did.

    12. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      I hear this argument all the time.

      Since when did people not have a way to get paid without copyright? Why should we give someone a monopoly for being so idiotic that they can't monetize their own creations, and interpret it so loosely as we had for the last 20-25 years?

      Oh, right, so they don't innovate again and sit on the one single thing they create is a hit and never make anything else again. Oh, and re-release whatever it is into movies, action figures, tv series, etc, and sue into oblivion anyone who makes anything even close.

      This applies to all of the above categories.

    13. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Why should we give someone a monopoly for being so idiotic that they can't monetize their own creations

      Sometimes it's not a matter of idiocy but of resources and recourse. Let's assume that there was no copyright law. Let's also say that tomorrow I wrote a book and shopped it around to various publishers. Publishers A-D refused publication, but small-publisher E made a limited run of my book. It became a hit and less-than-scrupulous Publisher B decides to cash in. They take the manuscript copy I gave them when applying and publish it, raking in the profits for themselves. (They do put my name on it, but don't send me any money.)

      Now, there's no copyright, so I can't sue them saying that they misappropriated my book for their own profits. I might be able to get a lawyer to send Publisher B a threatening note, but I would have no real legal legs to stand on. And once they see the money Publisher B is making, Publisher's C and D might jump on board. Soon, the book released from Publisher E (the one that actually gives money to me) is pushed off the shelves. My book is selling thousands of copies - but no money goes to me.

      I'm not saying that copyright needs to last for as long as it does, the length of copyright today is a sick joke, but there is a place for copyright. If copyrights were scaled back down to 14 years plus a one time 14 year renewal, they would protect released works for 14-28 years just as well as they do today. The major difference would be that the work would go into the Public Domain after a relatively short period of time instead of remaining in copyright and making the author virtually nothing. How many books, songs, movies, games, etc actually make money 28 years after they're released? For every Star Wars, there are at least a hundred that don't make anything anymore. So we shouldn't eliminate copyright, just restrict the time span of it.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    14. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 1

      I also agree with the concept and spirit of copyright, but disagree with the implementation of it. Copyright by its nature should be none transferable. Meaning if John Doe wrote a piece of literature, you shouldn't say the the company xyz that bought the copyright wrote it, nor should the company package a group with the same name but fire the original authors and claim the packaged group wrote it. Further more, in no cases should any company bar the original author from using their own work. What it comes down to, and I ask this without reservation, is "why does copyright protect business entities more than authors?" Even in cases of work for hire, the work is only the way they are because of the authors. In that case, the contracting entity should be a co-owner of the copyright rather than sole owner.
      A second part of the problem would be the length of the copyright. Why is length of the copyright longer than a patent? It makes absolutely no sense that something which has no practical use would receive more benefits than something that does have practical benefits. What are the governments trying to say? That we should spend more of our time doing things that will not bring physical improvements to our daily lives? That is absolutely ridiculous.
      I think that copyright is about giving credit where credits' due. So, even when work fall into public domain, they still should hold certain restrictions. Meaning that all work that copied from others should be required have a work cited section, and this requirement should last forever; but economic perks such as distribution, public performance, and modifications should be time limited.

      --
      Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    15. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      i think we're talking about contract work here, which is how classical music developed anyway. if a work is only performed once or a very limited number of times (which was the usual state for classical music), there's no point in having copyright.

    16. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      They also control 99% of all wealth, so that seems to be a reasonable tradeoff.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    17. Re:Abusers turn their attention to the Internet. by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      ...they would be widowed and deprived of their income,...

      Which still happens to spouses and children of people who do not produce IP (like plumbers, drivers, builders, managers). He's dead -> does not work anymore -> does not get paid.

      So why are families of IP producers different? The person died, he no longer works and no longer gets paid. If he had some brains, he put some of the money he earned in a bank or invested it, so he has something to leave for his family. Just like every other person.

      Personally, I'd go for 'copyright last x years after first publication, rights sold to coporations revert to the author if the work is not commercially exploited, rights reverted to the author expire quickly if the work is still not commercially exploited', and I'd say x should be around 30 to 50 ish.

      I'd agree with that. If the company or author stops selling their product and the author does not want to sell it either or is dead, then the copyright should expire.

  2. Nothing to do with IP by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meh, these power grabs weren't even anything to do with "IP".. they were attempts to circumvent the legal system which has already rejected the nefarious claims of the music companies.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Edits much? by BLT2112 · · Score: 1

    Hey, can we spot the typo in the summary?

  4. The case of PearC by Budenny · · Score: 1
    the use of excessive access restrictions placed by IP rights holders

    Will this, one wonders, apply to the case of PearC, who are installing OSX on x86 machines in Germany? Will it have a bearing on any reaction Apple may make to EFI-X?

  5. Re:wonderfull news! by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are. The Council can quite effectively ignore the EP by afgreeing to implement the measures as part of national policy.

    It's a shame. The EP is the only democratically elected part of the organisation, and the genuinely seem to have our best interests at heart.

  6. Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Report by Antidamage · · Score: 1

    Rabid shit like this convinces me that he's a good, decent, worthy president. If the crazies hate him, he must be great.

  7. Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by coretx · · Score: 3, Informative

    Intellectual Property is no "Property" IP is a goverment granted temporary monopoly, that was created in the 19th century, when publishing was expensive, and represseing books was verry cheap. This was done in order to save the business model and stimulate new productions. Nowadays, online publishing costs nearly nothing. And publishing in general has become dirt cheap in comparison. Where as "property" is a basic human right protected by law. People confuse "IP" with real property and react acordingly, as if it is a human right, wich it is not. If we ever wish to change this, and make rational decissions, we should stop useing the words "Intelectual property"

    1. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What method do you use to distinguish human rights from other rights? And how does this method detect normal property rights as human rights, but "IP" rights as other rights?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by Sique · · Score: 1

      Human rights are the rights you have independently of the local laws. Laws that infer to your human rights are considered unenforcable or unconstitutional. The U.S. even from time to time invade regions with other legislation (e.g. other countries) under the premise to reinstitute the human rights.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by Teun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems you mix up the rights of the author and the printer.
      Although I don't at al agree with the silly in excess of life time awarding of rights to authors and their successors I do wish to give them a chance to benefit from their often years of work.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      You didn't answer my question. How did you determine that (normal) property rights are human rights? And how did you determine that "IP" rights are not?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Human rights are the rights you have independently of the local laws.

      If the local laws say you don't have those rights, then people who live there don't have those rights, no matter how much anyone thinks they should have them.

      The U.S. even from time to time invade regions with other legislation (e.g. other countries) under the premise to reinstitute the human rights.

      So the whole world has to live by US law? Don't think so.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by Sique · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the big differences is that you can actually have a border around your property. You can't have a border around your "intellectual property", because even in the most original Works of Art there are layers and layers of cultural knowledge, environmental influences and ideas from other people.

      As an easy example: "Which part of '42' is public knowledge, and which part is the intellectual property of Douglas Adams (Estate)?" (To make it more simple for you, using 42 in any circumstances is completely free to everyone, but nearly everyone at least on Slashdot associates 42 with Douglas Adams).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      One of the big differences is that you can actually have a border around your property.

      I cannot have a border around my life, my health, or my freedom of speech. Therefore I conclude life, health and freedom of speech are not human rights?

      Note: I didn't ask you about the differences between property and "IP" (I know those), I asked you about why you think property is a human right, and "IP" isn't.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by Sique · · Score: 1

      I didn't. I just wanted to point out that there is a concept of "human rights", that stands above legislation.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    9. Re:Useing the word "IP" is ovezealous. by coretx · · Score: 1

      "IP" is not property. It is a temporarily given monopoly, given because of outdated reasons. And human rights can be read here: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html It does not mention "IP" anywhere, so it is not a human right :)

  8. Re:wonderfull news! by coretx · · Score: 1

    What planet do you come from ? The EP is one big corrupt mess. And nearly no one knows what they do. They even create and talk about new laws, out of the public vieuw. ACTA is a nice example. It got leaked @ wikileaks.Check it out for your self.

  9. Free Vs Copyright/DRM... by Jawdy · · Score: 1

    All those corporate types who think that Piracy is the "bane of society" or similar unsupported claims need to only look at these people, and how by changing the way they release their products they've done incredibly well (some even better than when they were with the large organisations):

    Trent Reznor/NIN - he releases all his albums for free with a "pay what you think it's worth" mentality.
    Radiohead - they released an album under the same idea as NIN, and they profited wildly from it
    Cory Doctorow - releases all his books for free, and seems to sell more because he reaches a greater audience.
    Sins of a Solar Empire - they released their game completely DRM free, which definately made it easier to pirate... but at the same time reached a greater number of gamers and probably increased their sales accordingly.

    I know the list keeps going, but the thing is that those who recognise the Internet as a valid medium and adapt their sales tactics to suit it achieve more. As opposed to those who want to change the Internet to suit their old and outdated business models.

  10. Re:wonderfull news! by Teun · · Score: 1
    Of the 27 member of the European Union there are exactly two that have historically and are presently blocking full parliamentary rights to the EP.

    Most prominent and unashamedly the UK and to an extend France.

    In the case of France it's weird because they belong to the original 6 founding members, in the case of the UK it's weird because UK press and politics complains most about this lack of democracy.

    So lets stop complaining about the EP and instead ask the UK and French governments what their (espective, joint?) problem with democracy is.

    btw, the European Council members are appointed by the elected governments of the member states, a lot more democratic than say the British House of Lords...

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  11. Re:wonderfull news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are you sure you know what you're talking about? The European Parliament is not the same thing as the Commission, the European Council or the Committees.

    The European Parliament is relatively transparent, and it does not negotiate international treaties like ACTA.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement#European_Parliament

  12. Re:wonderfull news! by coretx · · Score: 1

    i DO. Not a single MEP did something against this entirely lobby written document. And this is not the first time this happens.

  13. Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Report by Antidamage · · Score: 1

    Nope, still sounds like bullshit, even from half a world away.

  14. Re:wonderfull news! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    "The European Parliament is relatively transparent, and it does not negotiate international treaties like ACTA."

    Alas, not all is well in EUville... But still, I would trade EC for EP any day.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  15. truncate immedately visible post length by unity100 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    this spam is going way too far. we are having to scroll for pages until we can get to any valid comment. truncate immediately visible post length to a paragraph or something so that we wont need to scroll the hell outta page before getting to comments through spam. when we want we can read the full comment by clicking read more anyway.

    --
    Read radical news here
  16. reject disproportionate measures for IP enforcemnt by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

    What, no executions?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  17. @EDITORS: It is EU or European Parliament by NoSuchGuy · · Score: 1

    Dear Editors,

    It is called European Parliament or EU Parliament because of the European Union (EU).
    The Euro is the official currency of 16 out of 27 member states of the European Union (EU).

    --
    Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
  18. Re:Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Report by Antidamage · · Score: 1

    I think the point you should be focusing on is that you've chosen to push your message in the same way the GNAA does. Somehow I doubt you have anything of value to say.

  19. Re:wonderfull news! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    So lets stop complaining about the EP and instead ask the UK and French governments what their (espective, joint?) problem with democracy is.

    I know half the answer. As for the other half, presumably there's a French equivalent of the Daily Mail.

  20. Re:wonderfull news! by o'reor · · Score: 1

    I live in France -- for now -- and I can tell you that we are seeing major changes about the meaning of the words "democracy" and "freedom". And those changes are certainly not making France a better place to live in.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/henry_samuel/blog/2008/12/01/how_free_is_the_french_press
    http://www.infowars.com/sarkozys-police-state-database/
    http://www.telospress.com/main/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=289

    --
    In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
  21. Re:reject disproportionate measures for IP enforce by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    "Now, either you all give yourselves up now and let us beat you up a bit, though not very much of course because we are firmly opposed to needless violence, or we blow up this entire planet and possibly one or two others we noticed on our way out here!"

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  22. Re:wonderfull news! by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

    You're thinking of the Council of Ministers. They're unelected representatives of the national governments, and are generally secretive, underhand and otherwise responsible for behind-closed-doors things like ACTA. They're one of the least democratic parts of the EU.

    The parliament on the other hand, is directly elected, and while not perfect, is generally pretty transparent. We can also thank the parliament for things such as striking down software patents in europe, in opposition to the Council of Ministers.

    If you've a gripe to pick with the EP, pick up the phone and give your MEPs a call - they at least listen to their constituents. Good luck trying to get through to the Council of Ministers - they represent the governments' agendas, not the general public.

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.