Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU Parliament Debates a DMCA Equivalent

Posted by timothy on from the stakeholders-sometimes-means-wooden-stakes dept.

bs0d3 writes "Right now what is lacking across Europe is a standard law to handle notice-and-take-downs of illegal sites like the U.S.'s DMCA. Right now illegal content across Europe is subject to non-standard takedown letters, some of which include no mention of what law was allegedly infringed, nor in which jurisdiction in Europe it's infringed, or who to contact in your jurisdiction to challenge the claim, or even which company it is that is being represented by the law firm that gets in touch with the [site owner]. They need a system so that the notices would have to include information that makes them verifiable as correct." Perhaps that will change; "The EU is holding a public consultation discussing notice-and-take-down laws."

73 comments

  1. Lone small voice from somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't do it,you'll be soooooorrrry!

    1. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that voice is alone or small for long.

    2. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't DMCA analog in EU let me have all Thomas Aquinas' books taken down on account that it's Aristotle plagiarized?

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is "thomas aquinas"? Who is "aristotle"? Can't you americans realize than names cannot be translated? What kind of bizarre schools do you have in the US?

      How would you feel if italians translated the name of your president into "Baracco Obamo", or greeks into something like "Barackys Obamitys"?!

    4. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Names can and are translated. That's been common practice up to the 19th century at least.

      One example, in Italy René Descartes is mostly known as "Cartesio" (most commonly only by surname, if the name is needed Renato is used)
      This is true for many English authors too, which have a latinized or italianized name. Same goes for other latin countries.

      BTW with antique greek or arab or russian and so on you anyway would have to "alliterate" the name to the ISO-latin alphabet, otr force everyone to learn greek, arab, cyryillic alphabets. So names keep being translated or anyway adapted to other languages needs very commonly today too.

    5. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Common practice" doesn't mean "correct practice". For example, many people use very short passwords, that's a "common" practice, but it's not correct.

    6. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Golddess · · Score: 1

      BTW with antique greek or arab or russian and so on you anyway would have to "alliterate" the name to the ISO-latin alphabet, otr force everyone to learn greek, arab, cyryillic alphabets. So names keep being translated or anyway adapted to other languages needs very commonly today too.

      That's.. not really the same thing as translating it to fit a language. Translating a name to a different language may produce a differently-pronounced name. Translating a name to a different alphabet should always produce a name that is still pronounced the same.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    7. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did not state it is "correct" practice.

      Only that it's been done for centuries and nobody will stop such practice for centuries at least, so live with it.

    8. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Translating a name to a different alphabet should always produce a name that is still pronounced the same.

      History and Language show otherwise. Names are representative of an idea in some languages such as Hebrew.

      Also, there is NO standard way to transcribe names, in fact there are at least 2 ways:

      1. Transliteration -- Keep the characters (and/or meaning of the name)
      2. Translation - Keeping the phonemics

      A good example is the bastardization of words starting with a soft Y becoming a hard J in English. Quoting "Evolution of the Name > Yehoshua > Ihsous > Iesus > Jesus" http://jesus8880.com/chapters/gematria/yehoshua.htm

      Names like Iames became "James," Iakob became Jacob, and Yohan became "John."

      You can see the roots of the soft J in "hallelujah" where "jah" is pronounced identical to "yah".

      References:
      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transliteration
      * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J

    9. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      We call him Barraca Abana in Portugal!

    10. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by mpe · · Score: 1

      History and Language show otherwise. Names are representative of an idea in some languages such as Hebrew.

      Also, there is NO standard way to transcribe names, in fact there are at least 2 ways:

      1. Transliteration -- Keep the characters (and/or meaning of the name)

      Assuming that either characters or pragmatics correspond. In Latin 'V' and 'U' are the same letter. (Which is partly why 'W' is called "doubleyou" rather than "doublevee".) Also meanings do not always translate between different languages Words can easly have muliple meanings. To add more confusion meanings can change over time. Even if the set of meanings for a word is unchanged the most commonly used meaning can change.

      2. Translation - Keeping the phonemics

      Which can easily be a one to many. As well as easily affected by regional accents.

      It's also not uncommon, especially with the names of people, to pick a name in the target language more or less at random.

    11. Re:Lone small voice from somewhere... by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

      Come on. Everybody knows it's O'Bamma.

      --
      Privacy is terrorism.
  2. I have an idea... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    I wouldn't look to the DMCA for guidance on this one... It has, perhaps, inspired a slightly greater degree of verbosity in US takedowns; but it certainly hasn't done much for the legal quality of the genre. The effective pressure to get anything other than the 'this is a DMCA takedown notice' part of the takedown notice right is close to zero.

    1. Re:I have an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The EU has been asleep until it was too late and then some. The DMCA was a major leap forward for the US. I know that it's not a liked law in these circles, but without it, Youtube, Google itself and basically the whole internet would not have flourished like it has in the US. A standardized takedown procedure which, when followed, absolves hosters of all responsibility for third party content, has drastically reduced the risk for entrepreneurs. In effect, the DMCA has made more content available, even illegal copies, than would have been available without it. Its potential for abuse is far outweighed by its benefits. Without it, anything that looks even remotely infringing won't find a host, but with the DMCA, the same material can at least be hosted until a takedown notice is received, rightful or not. If the EU establishes its own version of the DMCA now, it will mostly benefit the established US companies which had a head start because of the US DMCA.

      (If you want a similar example what difference the risk of being liable for third party mischief can make, compare the availability of open wireless LANs in the US to Germany: In Germany, leaving Wifi open for anyone to use makes you liable to cease and desist if someone breaks the law through that wireless LAN. There are almost no open wireless networks in Germany. If someone comes up with a great idea that involves public Wifi, that person will not be German.)

    2. Re:I have an idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only decent part of the DMCA is that it advocates the idea that the website itself shouldn't be responsible. That's all. The actual DMCA notices that presume guilt? Those are awful. Get rid of those.

    3. Re:I have an idea... by biodata · · Score: 1

      I think it's a bit much blaming DMCA for the growth of the internet. I think other forces were probably more important.

      --
      Korma: Good
    4. Re:I have an idea... by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't look to ANY of them until there's some evidence that piracy costs the world more than making laws to fight it.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:I have an idea... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      > Its potential for abuse is far outweighed by its benefits. Without it, anything that looks even remotely infringing won't find a host, but with the DMCA, the same material can at least be hosted until a takedown notice is received, rightful or not.

      Don't you mean:

      "Its abuse is far outweighed by its benefits. Without it, anything that looks even remotely infringing won't find a host, but with the DMCA, the same material can at least be hosted until a takedown notice is received, rightful or not."

      Because it has been repeatedly abused by, in particular, the movie and music industries to take down content they don't have the rights to, and do so without any penalty whatsoever.

      And now, there is a big push on to go past the DCMA in the US, because it's too hard for big media to keep finding content they want to remove and then sending an email under the DCMA. Nevermind the backdoor agreements they've made with various sites such as YouTube that enables them to remove and/or claim as their own ANY content on those sites. And that will be the next step once they get something like the DCMA passed in Europe [say, with ACTA II].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:I have an idea... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      Across the EU there are individual countries laws some of which can cause a takedown however most cannot

      Copyright is a civil matter and so it is between the copyright holder and the alleged infringer, the ISP is not involved and have their own policies if they comply with takedown notices or not... none of this is a police matter

      Most of the takedown requests are DCMA (mostly mis-applied out of jurisdiction) or cite the wrong law or are badly worded .... so any cleanup of this would be appreciated, but a no cost DMCA like guilty until you can prove otherwise is not a good idea ....

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    7. Re:I have an idea... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Some of ye make a bigger deal of the DMCA then it really is. Here is how the process works:

      - You upload some video or audio or text to a website.
      - Some corporation or author sends a notice that it infringes their copyright.
      - You reply with "no it doesn't" and your uploaded content is restored.
      - The end

      It's a painless process that doesn't cost you anything, except maybe a few minutes responding to the DMCA notice. The alternative pre-DMCA was to have your video, audio, or text removed and No Way to have it restored.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:I have an idea... by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      Correction: "You reply with 'no it doesn't' and your uploaded content is restored [after 10 to 14 days, and only if the service provider feels like it.]."

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    9. Re:I have an idea... by Travelsonic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that only works in a perfect world - which this is not. People get stuff wrongly flagged, not always gettig it restored, companies abuse the DMCA blatantly w/o recourse.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    10. Re:I have an idea... by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      The only decent part of the DMCA is that it advocates the idea that the website itself shouldn't be responsible.

      It would be if it didn't amount to an imposition of liability in disguise. Rather like the Mafia protecting you from harm so long as you do as they say.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    11. Re:I have an idea... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      "only if the service provider feels like it".

      False. If they refuse to restore your content after you respond, "No this doesn't infringe," then they are committing a federal criminal act under the DMCA. You have the right to open a lawsuit against them. ISPs are well aware of this, which is why they never leave content permanently removed.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:I have an idea... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "It's a painless process that doesn't cost you anything, except maybe a few minutes responding to the DMCA notice."

      It is nothing of the sort.

      I notice that you neglected to mention that little part about how the provider is required by law to wait a minimum of 10 days before restoring the content.

      It is a painFUL process, that [a] puts the burden on innocent parties and [b] has been horribly abused, in order to do everything from keeping people from putting up birthday messages with (fair use) music in them, to chilling political speech.

      The DMCA take-down process is an abomination that must end.

      "The alternative pre-DMCA was to have your video, audio, or text removed and No Way to have it restored."

      Nonsense. The alternative pre-DMCA was to have infringement proven in court before it could be taken down. Which is the way it should still be.

    13. Re:I have an idea... by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>the provider is required by law to wait a minimum of 10 days before restoring the content.

      Few do. I've seen youtube yank videos & then restore them the next day.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    14. Re:I have an idea... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Few do. I've seen youtube yank videos & then restore them the next day."

      Well, that's pretty weird, because they are required BY FEDERAL LAW to do so. Just look up the language of the DMCA yourself.

    15. Re:I have an idea... by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      If they refuse to restore your content after you respond, "No this doesn't infringe," then they are committing a federal criminal act under the DMCA.

      I don't think so. All the DMCA does is hold ISPs harmless for the removal of content under the DMCA, provided they restore that content between 10 to 14 days after receiving a counter-notice. It is not a criminal act under the DMCA to refuse to restore such content, nor would they necessarily be held liable for the removal should the case end up in civil court.

      Here's the text of the DMCA:

      (g) Replacement of Removed or Disabled Material and Limitation on Other Liability.—

      (1) No liability for taking down generally.— Subject to paragraph (2), a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider’s good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

      (2) Exception.— Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider—

      (A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material;

      (B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and

      (C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider’s system or network.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
  3. Did my part. by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Well I filled out the form, unfortunately it will go under when the content-mafia activates their mechanical Turks to flood them with pro-content forms.

  4. What would you do ... by Tim+Ward · · Score: 2

    ... if as the operator of some tiny UK web site for some voluntary community group you got a letter in dubious English from some foreign lawyer accusing you of something incomprehensible?

    OK, you'd probably ignore it, and quite often, perhaps usually, that would work. But if was serious, and you were actually in the wrong, what then?

    Some EU-wide law saying that such notices have to follow certain rules might help actually.

    (Last time I saw one of these - a letter in dubious English from some foreign lawyer accusing an organisation of something incomprehensible - it turned out to be cheaper to use Google than to pay our own lawyers to respond. The author of the letter turned out to have an "interesting" history, so the letter was just kept on file, in case it turned out to be useful evidence should the person involved try again using a less "interesting" UK firm.)

  5. Make the ISPs liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make the person running the physical computer 100% liable for any infringement from their computers. It's up to them to recover costs and ensure they can recover their damages from the person they're providing services to.

    Remove all that criminal liablity cr*p, remove all the DMCA protection cr*p.

    There, fixed copyright for you.

    1. Re:Make the ISPs liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But then you need to prove that it was actually them. People are innocent until proven guilty, fortunately.

    2. Re:Make the ISPs liable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the person running the physical computer 100% liable for any infringement from their computers. It's up to them to recover costs and ensure they can recover their damages from the person they're providing services to.

      Remove all that criminal liablity cr*p, remove all the DMCA protection cr*p.

      There, fixed copyright for you.

      Congratulation! You also effectively shut down every single site with user-supplied content, including slashdot, facebook, flickr and youtube.

      The phrase "There, fixed copyright for you." is copyrighted by me and since slashdot, according to you, should be 100% liable for that copyright infringement, slashdot and I will now have to go to court because of your post.
      Slashdot might try to argue in court, that the post was made by you, not them. Unfortunately for slashdot, that doesn't matter cause, again according to you, slashdot should be 100% liable for all posts, so that argument won't help them much and I'll win the case. When that happens slashdot would probably try to sue you to get some of their money back. Those two trips to court will cost slashdot a fair amount of money and they can't even be sure they'll win the case against you.
      If slashdot want to avoid going to court (twice) for every single post, they would have to screen all comments before the comments go online. That would cost a lot of time, money and man-power, but on the plus side we might avoid "first post" and other idiotic comments.

      The same thing holds for all posts on facebook, all pictures on flickr and every video on youtube.

    3. Re:Make the ISPs liable by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      People are innocent until proven guilty, fortunately.

      On what planet?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  6. Easy, abolish takedown notices by Hentes · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A hosting site or a service provider should not be responsible for the actions of their users, nor should they be forced to prove their innocence. In a real legal state, takedown notice laws can't exist.

    1. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      That's the whole point of notice-and-notice. The service provider doesn't know or care who owns the copyright, they get a notice that something is illegal and they take it down and notify the user that put it up. The user can the fill out a form to get the content put back up, which the provider will also do. If it is put back up then the provider will notify the entity that sent the take-down notice that the content is back up, and provide the contact information for the user allowing the company trying to assert copyright to go through the courts. The service providers aren't on the hook so long as they blindly take down and put back data as requested by the forms, and the copyright holders have a simple method to get the contact info for people who are actually violating their copyright.

    2. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the whole point of notice-and-notice.

      No, the point is that you're guilty until proven innocent; service providers are legally required to take the content down without asking questions. If they don't, they could be punished. No due process. Nothing.

      Here's how it should be: the copyright holders have to go through the full legal process to get the details of the user who uploaded the content, and then take it up with them in court.

    3. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by biodata · · Score: 1

      That all sounds very expensive and time consuming for both users and ISPs, and in many cases, probably unnecessary. How about this: if someone commits a crime the police investigate, the courts prosecute, and fines are paid/jailtime is done?

      --
      Korma: Good
    4. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      That all sounds very expensive and time consuming for both users and ISPs, and in many cases, probably unnecessary. How about this: if someone commits a crime the police investigate, the courts prosecute, and fines are paid/jailtime is done?

      Last I checked, copyright violation is a civil matter, which the police don't handle.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    5. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by biodata · · Score: 1

      Even better then. Let the injured parties sue the people who post the content and leave the carriers alone.

      --
      Korma: Good
    6. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Where do you think the copyright holders are going to get the information about who posted the content? Will this require all content providers to have verified personal information about who uploads content to their servers so they can pass it on? Otherwise what solution do you envision?

      I know DMCA isn't popular here, but you want a solution that requires a little work and is occasionally abused to be replaced by a non-system that you've neither though out nor considered the far greater ramifications of. Unless of curse your solution is "Copyright holder finds infringement, no contact info, guess they're shit out of luck."

    7. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by Shagg · · Score: 1

      That's obviously the way it should be. Unfortunately, the entire point of the DMCA is to bypass the legal system. Concepts like "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" are too inconvenient.

      --
      Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
    8. Re:Easy, abolish takedown notices by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      As long as civil matters does not require guilty beyond reasonable doubt I prefer the regular courts.

  7. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU is going to be dissolved in no more than 5 years anyway.

    And for the good of all the countries involved except Germany I'd add.

    1. Re:Don't worry by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 2

      in no more than 5 years

      We'll achieve controlled fusion, etc, etc, yada-yada.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    2. Re:Don't worry by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      Not only limited to Germany, much of northern Europe has benefited from EU, Scandinavia, Germany, France, Netherlands, etc. those that has been have been adversely affected are the PIIGS groups of countries.

  8. What's missing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in other words, they don't want to have to go through that annoying thing called "due process"; instead, they just want to fire off takedown notices and the one who receives them will be legally required to take the content down (because it's deemed to be illegal by default). Under the DMCA, you're punished before anything is even proven.

  9. DMCA = "Guilty until proven innocent" by squash_me_quickly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem with the DMCA is that, in every case where I have seen it used, ones content is blocked on the internet after lawyer are involved.
    It is then completely up to the owner of the site to prove that they have no infringing content on their site.

    The process of sending a DMCA complaint was free, the last time I checked. Go to DMCA.com... and fill out a form, quote from the site "The DMCA.com Takedown claim form takes about 3 minutes to fill out."

    If one is a victim of a bogus DMCA complaint, there is no easy help to find on their site. Once one finds the correct page one can read that a counterclaim can only be sent "after the DMCA Takedown has been submitted and after the content has been removed."

    Once on sends the the counterclaim to the ISP "they must wait 10-14 days" before they may unblock the content.

    Accused = sentenced immediately :(
    Exonerated = sorry, you got to wait 10-14 days :(

    1. Re:DMCA = "Guilty until proven innocent" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in essence it's a DoS attack. Aren't there laws against that?

    2. Re:DMCA = "Guilty until proven innocent" by Kjella · · Score: 3

      Yes, I think this is a big flaw with the DMCA. If you have the chutzpah to file a signed counter-notice under penalty of perjury with your real name and address, then I say the ISP should be required to "act expeditiously to restore, or enable access to, the material" and let them battle it out in court, it's a civil matter and there should be no presumption to either side. Also you run the risk of perjury and they don't, the notice should require the "A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." to be under penalty of perjury. You might be wrong, but you must do so in "good faith" - right now you can send out anything you want as long as you don't "knowingly misrepresent" which is practically impossible to prove. If you have a stupid process with simple keyword searches and no QA you can be as reckless in sending out notices as you please and it's fully legal.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:DMCA = "Guilty until proven innocent" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>The problem with the DMCA is that, in every case where I have seen it used, ones content is blocked on the internet after lawyer are involved.

      Completely and totally
      WRONG.
      - You upload some video or audio or text to youtube or your ISP's hosting website.
      - A corporation or author sends a notice that it infringes their copyright.
      - You reply with "no it doesn't" and your uploaded content is restored.
      - The end

      This is a MUCH better process than what existed pre-DMCA when your video, audio, or text was removed, and there was No Way to have it restored. Now the DMCA provides a way to get it restored within mere days, and at no cost to you (except time).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:DMCA = "Guilty until proven innocent" by Elldallan · · Score: 2

      Personally I do not think the complaining party should have have a "in good faith" protection. If you want to take content down you better be 100% sure it is infringing and that the use is not permitted by fair use etc or you should not send the complaint.
      A counter claim should have a "in good faith protection" however because there should not be the same assumption that they know the law. And yes the content host should be required to restore the content with expediency(within 48h) if a counter claim is sent, this can then be forwarded to the complaining party who can then go to a court and have the content pulled if they still believe they have a case.

      The complaining party should have the entire burden of proving infringement and be fully liable if they were wrong, that way they cannot go on "fishing expeditions" without risking serious fines and/or damages.

  10. The damn DMCA doesn't have that either! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DMCA hasn't got any requirements for the things mentioned in the summary at all.
    The DMCA gets abused to high hell and back and everyone still gets away with it!

    All this is going to do is make things easier for abusive companies to silence ANYONE they want to.
    Beat it. Get the hell out of my continent. Take your crap system with you.

  11. WARNING by zakkudo · · Score: 2

    WARNING

    If you are playing this video game outside of the country of Japan. You are involved in a crime.

    STOP

    Use and export of this video game outside of the country of Japan is in violation of copyright law and constitues a criminal act.

    Media has said similar messages to this for at least decades. The DMCA are just another layer on top of already draconian copy right laws. It is just a case of, "First they came for, then they came for, then they came for me" type of issue. Most people have been breaking laws for years and didn't even know it. Why should the general populous care now?

    It is copyright infringment if you buy a book in France and then bring it back to the US to read it. It is copyright infringment to buy a DS game while in Japan and play it on your plane right back to the US. Why do laws like this suprise people and why are they only getting aggrivated *now* when they can't get their youtube videos?

    The quoted message is from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE1pwBApchk

  12. Public consultations by Serpents · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wonder how "public" they're going to be. During the ACTA debacle the Polish government invited representatives of all movie/music/whathaveyou industry organizations and not a single NGO, representative of an alternative point of view or somebody who actually has some idea about how the Internet works and they called it "public consultations". I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar here

  13. Lacking? Really? by arisvega · · Score: 1

    Right now what is lacking across Europe is a standard law to handle notice-and-take-downs of illegal sites like the U.S.'s DMCA

    Nah, we think we'll pass- Have a nice day.

    --
    The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
  14. This is what you have now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would slashdot remove my post on your claim? No, because being liable isn't being guilty, and they could not continue if posts could be removed on specious copyright claims. As for their costs, they are recoverable, no different from other vexatious litigation.

    The situation I describe, is what the world is NOW, where-ever the DMCA hasn't been created. Without the DMCA, the ISPs don't have the immunity, and they have civil liability for any copyright infringement their servers are doing. The contract between them and others, is the contract between them and others, it doesn't give them immunity, at best it would only allow them to pass on damages and costs.

    "You also effectively shut down every single site with user-supplied content, including slashdot, facebook, flickr and youtube. "

    And yet all of those sites operate in all of the places that DON'T give the ISPs immunity and even in juridictions where civil law has established their are liable.

  15. Re:Idiot by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

    I'm not from the US of A. And you are wrong and incorrect.

    --
    Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
  16. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't this the article (with this exact title and summary, not a dupe of another one I'm sure) that in the submission queue the submitter had added a note apologising for his mistake in saying it was being considered by the Parliament and noting that it's actually being considered by the Commission? Is there a reason it's been put on the front page without correcting that?

  17. The DMCA is an illegal site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you should call them "story-approvers" rather than "editors". "Right now, what is lacking across Europe is a standard law -- like the U.S.'s DMCA -- to handle notice-and-take-downs of illegal sites."

  18. How 'bout this? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Anyone who demands a takedown be taken out back and shot. We're supposed to fight censorship, not make it easier.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:How 'bout this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it censorship to request that others not make money off your work? The fact that the DMCA has, in cases, been abuses, does not change that the EU would be better off with a unified standard and not a couple dozen different national standards.

    2. Re:How 'bout this? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      the EU would be better off with a unified standard and not a couple dozen different national standards.

      That's right. The 'standard' should be no censorship permitted, period. But that won't happen because too many people think they have a right to tell people what they can or cannot say.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:How 'bout this? by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      I disagree that the EU would be better off with a unified standard, the EU is not the United States of Europe, the member states should have broad freedoms on how they want to write their legal framework. What the EU could and in my opinion should do is establish some sort of minimum required protection for the accused and the content provider, something which according to the article seems to be lacking in some of the less "civilized" member states, that is however not the same as a unified standard.

  19. Not EU parliament by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EU commission != EU parliament
    This is an activity of EU Commission, that's quite a difference mind you

  20. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, really? Wherever you come from, you named "Thomas Aquinas" the sicilian philosopher "Tommaso d'Aquino". "Thomas Aquinas" sounds like an italian name to you? Is that supposed to be a joke? Did you read it on the english wikipedia?!

  21. Re:Idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Uh, we are conversing on an English site, so it's kind of, you know, English centric.

    Also, the point of language is communication, you apparently know who Forty Two Tenfold was referencing. So he did a good job conveying his intended message.

    STFU & GBTW

  22. Bad Faith notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I hope they make sure to put *severe* penalties on notices sent in bad faith, i.e. for a home-made recording of birds singing outside allegedly infringing on some song.

    "oh, our automated system must have picked that up by mistake" is a textbook example of admitting to putting out a notice in bad faith (not properly verified), but somehow in the US the Lords and Ladies Rights Holders get away unpunished while they should have been hit with a $200,000 punitive damages order to be paid to the recipient of the notice.

  23. Re:Idiot by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    "Thomas Aquinas" is a Latin name. Given that the guy was a prominent theologian in a Church that made Latin its business language, it's how he signed all his works in practice. Makes perfect sense to refer to him that way.

  24. Figures by gaboalonso · · Score: 1

    "Right now what is lacking across Europe is a standard law to handle notice-and-take-downs of illegal sites like the U.S.'s DMCA..." I always suspected the DMCA site was illegal.

  25. It worked great for us. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has almost completely stifled all innovation in the US.

  26. Europe has already had a DMCA in all but name for by D4C5CE · · Score: 1

    an entire dreadful decade by now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Copyright_Directive
    No need to make it any worse.