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."

12 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: 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  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. 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.

  4. 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 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."
    2. 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*
  5. 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.