Slashdot Mirror
German Publishers Want Monopoly On Sentences
Glyn Moody writes "You think copyright can't get any more draconian? Think again. In Germany, newspaper publishers are lobbying for 'a new exclusive right conferring the power to monopolize speech e.g. by assigning a right to re-use a particular wording in the headline of a news article anywhere else without the permission of the rights holder. According to the drafts circulating on the Internet, permission shall be obtainable exclusively by closing an agreement with a new collecting society which will be founded after the drafts have matured into law. Depending on the particulars, new levies might come up for each and every user of a PC, at least if the computer is used in a company for commercial purposes.' Think that will never work because someone will always break the news cartel? Don't worry, they've got that covered too. They want to 'amend cartel law in order to enable a global "pooling" of all exclusive rights of all newspaper publishers in Germany in order to block any attempt to defect from the paywall cartel by a single competitor.' And rest assured, if anything like this passes in Germany, publishers everywhere will be using the copyright ratchet to obtain 'parity.'"
Dying creatures thrash about as they go to meet their doom.
News at 11 (please don't sue me gemany)
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
The Germans can have the right to that particular "word order".....
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
The lawyers would love it. Hell, they already do. It's a license to print money.
Unless we do something to encourage lawyers from doing so, that is. Would be shame if something happened to them; and all that. With today's corruption and blatant disregard for citizens in politics, this seems to turn into the only way left for the people.
You do realize you're riffing on Ayn Rand, right? Not saying that's good or bad, but few people realize that was her principle point.
Even fewer people realize the difference between principle and principal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"What will you do when more people are breaking your law than obeying it?"
The same thing we do with drug prohibition: expand the police force and increase the power that the police have, and then go ahead and incarcerate millions of people.
Palm trees and 8
The article is right about about the "copyright ratchet", but it's extremely short-sighted and, frankly, wrong when it says that it is the US pushing its laws onto the rest of the world. It has recently been driven by the US - things like the DMCA and Sonny Bono act and such, but most of the draconian copyright laws did not exist in the US until the 60's, where we were the ones who were "ratcheted up" to the rest of the world's standards, which had already been ratcheted up by the French (who still have the most restrictive copyright laws in the world, in my opinion). The French still give far more rights to author's/artists than the US does, so to say it is US driven is a little disingenuous, or at the very least completely ignorant of history. It also goes squarely against the articles main point: that copyright harmonization is any different than any other harmonization. There are swings back and forth.
The real difference between copyright harmonization and other types of harmonization is copyright law affects everyone every single day, where most laws only affect a few people at any given time. Yet only a very small number of people are involved in the decision making process. Our supposed representatives are too easily swayed by lobbyists, they aren't considering the people any more.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller