All digital devices are required to be DRM enabled.
The sound/video cards will be required by law to not display/play anything that isn't DRM'd.
Using uncompliant hardware (and software) will lead to a minimum of 10 years in prison.
Compliance of hardware/software is checked automatically via the required network conection in every household. The police and/or copyright holders can legally check every household for compliance.
There will be a compliance police/taskforce just for this.
There will be a compliance enforcement tax.
Maybe this sounds far-fetched now. But this is where it seems to go. Maybe it'll take a few years and each step on the way will be just below the threshold to stir resistence.
I said it many times before: What the western world is moving towards is a kind of information-feudalism with powerful information-landlords who control the legislative process and information-peasants.
According to Yahoo, SCOX' market cap is 46.86 Mio.
I'm surprised a company that has no chance to sell anything ever again (after all who would buy anything from a company that is known to sue its customers) is still worth that much. In fact I'm surprised that SCO has any customers left at all.
And I sincerly hope that all the stock gamblers who bet on this frivilous lawsuit lost a shitload of money.
I just read an article about how the nature of law and the severity of punishment for certain crimes changed over time. As it turns out: In times when a small class of people owned most of the land and goods, theft was punished the most severly. Apparent the rich could not bear to change any or their wealth.
Money wrote the law books then, it still does, and humanity never learns it seems. It will be a same all over again with small class of information owners that "writes" the laws and large "consuming" class without rights. Already copying copyrighted content via P2P carries penalties in the same ballpark as rape, something more severe.
I'm sure the G8 have no more pressing topics to cover like maybe health, poverty, wars, etc.
That is the whole point. How do you know what's right for the chinese people? Do you have any studies that show that westeners with free(er) access to information are happier.
Are you happier with more CNN? More Fox News? Where do you draw the line?
Neither am I saying the chinese firewall policy is the correct way to go about it. But rather then breaking foreign law we should to bring about change.
In some (western) countries certain drugs are legal. Is it ok if they try circumvent US law to "free" people here?
I didn't expect anybody to agree with my initial statement (the "Troll" moderation just confirms that) since we all belief so strongly that all of our values are right and correct, and so much more valid than everybody else's.
Where does the arrogance come from that entitles us in the western world to defeat any setup (legal or physical) in foreign countries based on *our* values?
We would be offended if China would try to defeat US or EU labor laws, immigration policy, or othther domestic or international policies.
Helping someone to break a law is in itself illegal.
"Illegal" is what violates the law. It's a definition rather than something that's natural or given. Hence it does not have to be accepted unexamined. It's not necessarily right, just because it is a law.
These things are legal in Sweden. You don't like it? Build a big firewall around the US to keep "illegal" content/information out.
I sure would like to see your reaction if some US TV station is raided because some broadcasted content is viewable in - say - Iran and deemed illegal there.
How about "laws" like: "Jews have to wear Star of David", "Raped women have to marry their rapist", "Speaking up against the government is forbidden", etc, etc? These were/are laws in some countries... Does that mean one has to follow them? Hell no.
dissenting from the general concensus
Whose consensus? Yours? Last I heard most folks in this country don't approve of long jail terms (sometimes longer than for rape) for copyright infringement.
In the US, you have Miranda rights, proper search warrants (that have to be shown to the suspect), standars of admission for evidence (i.e. illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in court)
So you have some pretty, shiny laws, that's very nice...
Doesn't the constitution also state that all (wo)men are equal? Yet there was segregation. How about "Innocent until proven guilty"? Tell that to the folks imprisioned at various Military camps for terrorist charges. The FBI/NSA/whatever can do secret wiretapping, or subpoena library records at will, etc.
Laws that can be (and are) broken whenever convenient are worth exactly... Well, nothing!
The is the funny thing with some Americans, from young age on they are brainwashed to believe they live in the "Land of the Free", dutyfully perform their "Pledge of Allegiance" every morning, and taught how their great forefather-heros colonized the country... To the extend that it does not matter what actually happens, they believe what they were told.
Sun has been very reticent to actually "Open Source" (note the caps) Java because of the problems they had with Microsoft. Had Microsoft not abused their contract with Sun all those years ago, Sun might still be releasing only a reference implementation for others to build their own JVMs against.
This is just complete and utter nonsense. Microsoft is free to implement whatever language they want. Whether it's based on Sun's code or not is completely beside the point. What they can't do is calling it Java unless it *is* Java, and that was the subject of the lawsuit.
Java is a specification. Period. Sun has an implemantation of that specification, it is that implementation that they may open source; it was never the question wether somebody can code up an independent implementation of the specification, but if it does not pass the TCK than you cannot call it Java.
Currently Java *is* fragmented. There's the Sun implementation, and there are all the Open Source/Free implementations (since it does not make to implement something as Free/Open Source that requires a non-free runtime). And that is also why Motorola is pushing towards to Open Sourcing the J2ME implementations, to *reduce* fragmentation.
The fork-argument is specious (at best). Broad forward by Sun to keep control of Java.
How many forks are there of Apache, Tomcat, JBoss, Linux, KDE, Gnome, X (there's XFree86, but they are compatible), FireFox, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Eclipse, Netbeans, OpenOffice, Emacs (there's XEmacs), GCC, etc, etc, etc?!
Most of these adhere to common standards better than any commercial software I have ever seen, since attempting vendor lock-in is not an issue with these projects.
Sun has no obligation to Open Source Java. They invested a lot of money in it, and they are free to do with that investment whatever they please. But the forking argument just does not hold any water.
a) The Community is too dense to grasp that Java source code has been available for years, no matter how many times it's explained to them and
It seems somebody is too dense to grasp the difference between Open Source and just having the source code available without rights.
Repeat after me: Source code that you only look at but not modify (and be allowed to redistribute the new binaries) is useless. It may interesting to study the code, but that is it.
$150.000 per song, 160.000 distinct song offered per month... That $24.000.000.000 in potential damages. I think this day can be mark as the day when the RIAA finally lost it.
No, terrorists cannot route packets to foreign computers and back.
No, terrorists have not heard of proxy servers.
No, terrorists can't steal cellphones, or setup phony account to make calls.
No, terrorists have no other means of communication.
Come on, they are terrorists, they are dumb, right? The only reason why they attack anybody is because they are evil, right? Plluuuueeeaaasssee.
I'd be surprised if with all this data retention and spying (both US and EU) there will be single terrorist caught *before* the act.
Guess how many terrorists have been caught by the London camera network - which was installed to track down terrorists. If you guessed "zero" you'd 100% correct. Instead that very camera network is now used to keep track of every vehicle that enters the inner city on London.
Somehow through the EU politicians get away with things that would be doomed to fail in any memberstate - well, maybe except Great Britain.
I wish we would gather the same kind of energy to fight poverty, and other more pressing social issues.
maybe this will finally be seed of the realization that a market with broad patent monopolies is not a free market at all.
Now of course big corporations are not interested in a free market but society in general is/should be.
With free I mean a market in which companies can compete, not a completely unregulated market. IMHO, collections of patent should be subject to anti-trust scrutiny.
One may wonder how come the elections in the USA normaly end up this way.
I think this is due to the "Winner takes it all" mentality. If only one party can win and every other vote is completely lost (for all practical purposes), people will naturally organize in groups that together can win. So naturally the groups are aligned along major "opinion-faultlines"... anti-abortionists with anti-guncontrol, etc.
In Europe that used to be different since governments are typically built from coalitions (so you get your "fault-line" groupings later in the process, but at least the vote is not completely lost). As opinions become more polarized (and people more narrow-minded and uninformed) we'll see many more close votes in other countries as well.
save me - and my poor, helpless children - from all the nasty sex out there. We have nothing else to worry about.
Please, somebody... Explain to me what is sooo bad and truly horrible about sex.
Nobody requires a rating on violence, war, hate speech, false patriotism, religious dogmatism, etc (not that I would be in favor of any such rating, but why single out sex?)
It is ok to display all forms of violence, but sex (which typically is a pleasure) is somehow outlawed.
Apparently the patent is about being able to record a show while watching the beginning of the recording.
So if I sold some software that wrote an MPEG stream to the harddrive and allows to read the resulting file from the beginning to view the stream before the write is finished, I would violate a patent.
Please!
As much as I like TiVo, there's nothing novel in that justifies creating a monopoly. If another company can come up with a better (or at least competing) product... All power to them, this is what a free market is all about and it is good for the consumer. If TiVo wants to be profitable they simply have to have the best product, rather than pointing at others for "patent violation".
Hmm... Does MSSQL support MVCC (Multiversion Concurrency Control)?
Both PostgreSQL and InnoDB use MVCC internally. MVCC let's you deal with concurrent updates far more efficient (by keeping multiple versions of the same tuple around) than most other schemes (which are mostly lock-based), but comes at the expense that unqualified count(*) are slower (other count(*) with a where clause will use indexes as appropriate). Also, for performance reasons, PostgreSQL does not store the current tuple visibility (per transaction) in the index, and hence even if there was a unique index on the table it count not use the index to get (an unqualified) count(*). I know Oracle can use a unique index in some cases (if NULLs are not allowed).
In a nutshell, how much performance penalty in other areas are you willing to accept to speed up the single case of unqualified count(*) queries?
If you really need fast count(*) one could envision keeping track of the number of tuples by using some triggers.
Try count(*) on an InnoDB or BerkeleyDB table... Same thing. Or try anything that does not count the entire table (in that case every database has to do a table or index scan).
Either you want transactional safety or you don't. If you don't use MySQL with MyISAM tables and have fast count(*), if you do use InnoDB (or better use PostgreSQL), but then there's no single count(*) that can be stored with the table since every transaction may see a different count(*).
The cool think about MySQL is that you do have the option (with Table-Engines). The cool thing about PostgreSQL are its advanced featured... One example: Hands up, who here knows what a partial index is?
In PostgreSQL you can setup indexes that only cover a part of the table (for example if you have an active flag on a table and most queries are on active entries, you can have a partial index only on rows that have active=true, and this can speed up things *significantly*); alas most folks even have not even heard about partial indexes, and that is why they do not appreciate PostgreSQL.
The auto-vacuum for quite a while, which is actually treating table based on statitics about how these table were modified.
Now compare that to the InnoDB tablespace that will never(!) shrink. Sure you do not have to vacuum the InnoDB tablespace and it will internally re-use freed space, but the file itself will never shrink (which is the same as Postgres). MyISAM may be different, but if you want transactions you are actually worse off than with PostgreSQL (with auto-vacuum enabled).
You can't start and stop it at runtime. If you've ever tried to profile a web application with hprof, you know what I'm talking about!
This is a common problem with badly designed software. Software should be designed so that all parts can be unittested - and hence profiled - independently. Not only will such a design facilitate better and easier testing, it also makes the code more readable, extendable, and reusable.
Exactly. Somebody involved with the process told me that MySQL had their code scanned ahead of time, fixed the problem, and then had the "official" scan done. Oh well.
I also wihed MySQL would reduce the marketing spin a little. Two examples:
Not being able to update rows in Archive-Engine tables... Apparently they couldn't figure out how to do that (after all since the tables in the Archive Engine are compressed you'd have to store is chunks, find the right chunk, uncompress, update, and recompress). Oracle did figure it out... On the MySQL website they painted that as an *advantage* that MySQL has over Oracle.
Partial Indexed... Postgres (and others) have Partial Indexes. These allow you to restrict an index to a subset of the rows in a table (for example if you have an active flag and most queries are for tuples with the active flag set, you'd have a partial index restricted it to the rows where flags='t'). In MySQL they call indexes on varchars where you also use the index for any prefix of the varchar a "partial index" (all databases support that)... So in various press releases you read about MySQL supporting partial indexes, which is misleading.
(These are just two examples.)
Don't get me wrong, I actually do think MySQL is good database and it is getting better with every release. These half-truths are just not conducive for building trust with their users.
This maybe slightly offtopic, but this is essentially the same idea as Software Patents, where the claimed IP is not in a particular expression but in the general idea.
It's ironic, I have been using this argument against Software Patents, by likening patents on software to patents on general plotlines for books and TV shows... Seems that our collective legal insanity is racing right past me...
Perhaps any half-decent lawyer can have the patent invalidated
That is exactly one of the issues. You have to hire a lawyer to protect you from frivolous patent. You have to pay the lawyer. You won't get reimbursed for you expenses and hence you carry a big part of the legal risk; and it does not matter how ridiculous the claim is.
Frivolous patents are only one facet of the problem, if the losing party would have to pay for the other parties legal costs (as in most other countries on this planet) there would be far fewer useless patents and other unreasonable legal claims. Alas, it would mean less income for most lawyers since it would mean fewer lawsuits.
The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that the movie industry lost $5.4 billion last year due to piracy.
$5.400.000.000?! I sure would like to see the math behind this estimation. It's probably the old non-sensical #copied movie * $$/movie.
Let's say the average DVD price is around $20, that means 270.000.000 movies have been copied? Yeah right!
And it assumes:
All of the people who pirated a movie would have bought otherwise.
None of the people who pirated later went and bought the movie.
I'm getting quite tired of these MPAA calculations.
The opposed feature in these players is most likely the ability to disable the country-code in these players (via a hidden menu) so that non-US DVDs - in fact all DVDs - can be played in the players. I for one never understood why I shouldn't be able to watch DVDs that I bought in Europe because I *cannot* get them here.
Oh well... In the end the MPAA will succeed convincing enough politicians who will pass more and more stringent laws, copyright will be extended to 500 years, and in a decade or so the movie industry will be facing bancruptcy and wondering why nobody is buying their super-duper-extra-high-definition-drm-secured-DVDs -of-dumb-holywood-crap anymore.
As I mentioned somewhere before: Instead of land-owners and peasants without rights and property we'll have information-owners and rightless masses of consumers... Information-Feudalism.
Slashdot Mirror
- All digital devices are required to be DRM enabled.
- The sound/video cards will be required by law to not display/play anything that isn't DRM'd.
- Using uncompliant hardware (and software) will lead to a minimum of 10 years in prison.
- Compliance of hardware/software is checked automatically via the required network conection in every household. The police and/or copyright holders can legally check every household for compliance.
- There will be a compliance police/taskforce just for this.
- There will be a compliance enforcement tax.
Maybe this sounds far-fetched now. But this is where it seems to go. Maybe it'll take a few years and each step on the way will be just below the threshold to stir resistence. I said it many times before: What the western world is moving towards is a kind of information-feudalism with powerful information-landlords who control the legislative process and information-peasants.I'm surprised a company that has no chance to sell anything ever again (after all who would buy anything from a company that is known to sue its customers) is still worth that much. In fact I'm surprised that SCO has any customers left at all.
And I sincerly hope that all the stock gamblers who bet on this frivilous lawsuit lost a shitload of money.
I just read an article about how the nature of law and the severity of punishment for certain crimes changed over time.
As it turns out: In times when a small class of people owned most of the land and goods, theft was punished the most severly. Apparent the rich could not bear to change any or their wealth.
Money wrote the law books then, it still does, and humanity never learns it seems. It will be a same all over again with small class of information owners that "writes" the laws and large "consuming" class without rights.
Already copying copyrighted content via P2P carries penalties in the same ballpark as rape, something more severe.
I'm sure the G8 have no more pressing topics to cover like maybe health, poverty, wars, etc.
Are you happier with more CNN? More Fox News? Where do you draw the line?
Neither am I saying the chinese firewall policy is the correct way to go about it. But rather then breaking foreign law we should to bring about change.
In some (western) countries certain drugs are legal. Is it ok if they try circumvent US law to "free" people here?
I didn't expect anybody to agree with my initial statement (the "Troll" moderation just confirms that) since we all belief so strongly that all of our values are right and correct, and so much more valid than everybody else's.
We would be offended if China would try to defeat US or EU labor laws, immigration policy, or othther domestic or international policies.
"Illegal" is what violates the law. It's a definition rather than something that's natural or given. Hence it does not have to be accepted unexamined. It's not necessarily right, just because it is a law.
These things are legal in Sweden. You don't like it? Build a big firewall around the US to keep "illegal" content/information out.
I sure would like to see your reaction if some US TV station is raided because some broadcasted content is viewable in - say - Iran and deemed illegal there.
How about "laws" like: "Jews have to wear Star of David", "Raped women have to marry their rapist", "Speaking up against the government is forbidden", etc, etc? These were/are laws in some countries... Does that mean one has to follow them? Hell no.
dissenting from the general concensus
Whose consensus? Yours? Last I heard most folks in this country don't approve of long jail terms (sometimes longer than for rape) for copyright infringement.
So you have some pretty, shiny laws, that's very nice...
Doesn't the constitution also state that all (wo)men are equal? Yet there was segregation. How about "Innocent until proven guilty"? Tell that to the folks imprisioned at various Military camps for terrorist charges. The FBI/NSA/whatever can do secret wiretapping, or subpoena library records at will, etc.
Laws that can be (and are) broken whenever convenient are worth exactly... Well, nothing!
The is the funny thing with some Americans, from young age on they are brainwashed to believe they live in the "Land of the Free", dutyfully perform their "Pledge of Allegiance" every morning, and taught how their great forefather-heros colonized the country... To the extend that it does not matter what actually happens, they believe what they were told.
This is just complete and utter nonsense. Microsoft is free to implement whatever language they want. Whether it's based on Sun's code or not is completely beside the point. What they can't do is calling it Java unless it *is* Java, and that was the subject of the lawsuit.
Java is a specification. Period. Sun has an implemantation of that specification, it is that implementation that they may open source; it was never the question wether somebody can code up an independent implementation of the specification, but if it does not pass the TCK than you cannot call it Java.
Currently Java *is* fragmented. There's the Sun implementation, and there are all the Open Source/Free implementations (since it does not make to implement something as Free/Open Source that requires a non-free runtime). And that is also why Motorola is pushing towards to Open Sourcing the J2ME implementations, to *reduce* fragmentation.
The fork-argument is specious (at best). Broad forward by Sun to keep control of Java.
How many forks are there of Apache, Tomcat, JBoss, Linux, KDE, Gnome, X (there's XFree86, but they are compatible), FireFox, PostgreSQL, MySQL, Eclipse, Netbeans, OpenOffice, Emacs (there's XEmacs), GCC, etc, etc, etc?!
Most of these adhere to common standards better than any commercial software I have ever seen, since attempting vendor lock-in is not an issue with these projects.
Sun has no obligation to Open Source Java. They invested a lot of money in it, and they are free to do with that investment whatever they please. But the forking argument just does not hold any water.
It seems somebody is too dense to grasp the difference between Open Source and just having the source code available without rights.
Repeat after me: Source code that you only look at but not modify (and be allowed to redistribute the new binaries) is useless. It may interesting to study the code, but that is it.
$150.000 per song, 160.000 distinct song offered per month... That $24.000.000.000 in potential damages. I think this day can be mark as the day when the RIAA finally lost it.
Come on, they are terrorists, they are dumb, right? The only reason why they attack anybody is because they are evil, right? Plluuuueeeaaasssee.
I'd be surprised if with all this data retention and spying (both US and EU) there will be single terrorist caught *before* the act.
Guess how many terrorists have been caught by the London camera network - which was installed to track down terrorists. If you guessed "zero" you'd 100% correct. Instead that very camera network is now used to keep track of every vehicle that enters the inner city on London.
Somehow through the EU politicians get away with things that would be doomed to fail in any memberstate - well, maybe except Great Britain.
I wish we would gather the same kind of energy to fight poverty, and other more pressing social issues.
No further comments.
Now of course big corporations are not interested in a free market but society in general is/should be.
With free I mean a market in which companies can compete, not a completely unregulated market. IMHO, collections of patent should be subject to anti-trust scrutiny.
I think this is due to the "Winner takes it all" mentality. If only one party can win and every other vote is completely lost (for all practical purposes), people will naturally organize in groups that together can win. So naturally the groups are aligned along major "opinion-faultlines"... anti-abortionists with anti-guncontrol, etc.
In Europe that used to be different since governments are typically built from coalitions (so you get your "fault-line" groupings later in the process, but at least the vote is not completely lost). As opinions become more polarized (and people more narrow-minded and uninformed) we'll see many more close votes in other countries as well.
Please, somebody... Explain to me what is sooo bad and truly horrible about sex. Nobody requires a rating on violence, war, hate speech, false patriotism, religious dogmatism, etc (not that I would be in favor of any such rating, but why single out sex?)
It is ok to display all forms of violence, but sex (which typically is a pleasure) is somehow outlawed.
So if I sold some software that wrote an MPEG stream to the harddrive and allows to read the resulting file from the beginning to view the stream before the write is finished, I would violate a patent.
Please!
As much as I like TiVo, there's nothing novel in that justifies creating a monopoly. If another company can come up with a better (or at least competing) product... All power to them, this is what a free market is all about and it is good for the consumer. If TiVo wants to be profitable they simply have to have the best product, rather than pointing at others for "patent violation".
Both PostgreSQL and InnoDB use MVCC internally. MVCC let's you deal with concurrent updates far more efficient (by keeping multiple versions of the same tuple around) than most other schemes (which are mostly lock-based), but comes at the expense that unqualified count(*) are slower (other count(*) with a where clause will use indexes as appropriate). Also, for performance reasons, PostgreSQL does not store the current tuple visibility (per transaction) in the index, and hence even if there was a unique index on the table it count not use the index to get (an unqualified) count(*). I know Oracle can use a unique index in some cases (if NULLs are not allowed).
In a nutshell, how much performance penalty in other areas are you willing to accept to speed up the single case of unqualified count(*) queries?
If you really need fast count(*) one could envision keeping track of the number of tuples by using some triggers.
Either you want transactional safety or you don't. If you don't use MySQL with MyISAM tables and have fast count(*), if you do use InnoDB (or better use PostgreSQL), but then there's no single count(*) that can be stored with the table since every transaction may see a different count(*).
The cool think about MySQL is that you do have the option (with Table-Engines). The cool thing about PostgreSQL are its advanced featured... One example: Hands up, who here knows what a partial index is?
In PostgreSQL you can setup indexes that only cover a part of the table (for example if you have an active flag on a table and most queries are on active entries, you can have a partial index only on rows that have active=true, and this can speed up things *significantly*); alas most folks even have not even heard about partial indexes, and that is why they do not appreciate PostgreSQL.
This is just one example.
Now compare that to the InnoDB tablespace that will never(!) shrink. Sure you do not have to vacuum the InnoDB tablespace and it will internally re-use freed space, but the file itself will never shrink (which is the same as Postgres). MyISAM may be different, but if you want transactions you are actually worse off than with PostgreSQL (with auto-vacuum enabled).
This is a common problem with badly designed software. Software should be designed so that all parts can be unittested - and hence profiled - independently. Not only will such a design facilitate better and easier testing, it also makes the code more readable, extendable, and reusable.
I also wihed MySQL would reduce the marketing spin a little. Two examples:
- Not being able to update rows in Archive-Engine tables... Apparently they couldn't figure out how to do that (after all since the tables in the Archive Engine are compressed you'd have to store is chunks, find the right chunk, uncompress, update, and recompress). Oracle did figure it out... On the MySQL website they painted that as an *advantage* that MySQL has over Oracle.
- Partial Indexed... Postgres (and others) have Partial Indexes. These allow you to restrict an index to a subset of the rows in a table (for example if you have an active flag and most queries are for tuples with the active flag set, you'd have a partial index restricted it to the rows where flags='t'). In MySQL they call indexes on varchars where you also use the index for any prefix of the varchar a "partial index" (all databases support that)... So in various press releases you read about MySQL supporting partial indexes, which is misleading.
(These are just two examples.)Don't get me wrong, I actually do think MySQL is good database and it is getting better with every release. These half-truths are just not conducive for building trust with their users.
It's ironic, I have been using this argument against Software Patents, by likening patents on software to patents on general plotlines for books and TV shows... Seems that our collective legal insanity is racing right past me...
That is exactly one of the issues. You have to hire a lawyer to protect you from frivolous patent. You have to pay the lawyer. You won't get reimbursed for you expenses and hence you carry a big part of the legal risk; and it does not matter how ridiculous the claim is.
Frivolous patents are only one facet of the problem, if the losing party would have to pay for the other parties legal costs (as in most other countries on this planet) there would be far fewer useless patents and other unreasonable legal claims. Alas, it would mean less income for most lawyers since it would mean fewer lawsuits.
$5.400.000.000?! I sure would like to see the math behind this estimation. It's probably the old non-sensical #copied movie * $$/movie. Let's say the average DVD price is around $20, that means 270.000.000 movies have been copied? Yeah right!
And it assumes:
I'm getting quite tired of these MPAA calculations.
The opposed feature in these players is most likely the ability to disable the country-code in these players (via a hidden menu) so that non-US DVDs - in fact all DVDs - can be played in the players. I for one never understood why I shouldn't be able to watch DVDs that I bought in Europe because I *cannot* get them here.
Oh well... In the end the MPAA will succeed convincing enough politicians who will pass more and more stringent laws, copyright will be extended to 500 years, and in a decade or so the movie industry will be facing bancruptcy and wondering why nobody is buying their super-duper-extra-high-definition-drm-secured-DVDs -of-dumb-holywood-crap anymore.
As I mentioned somewhere before: Instead of land-owners and peasants without rights and property we'll have information-owners and rightless masses of consumers... Information-Feudalism.
Actually the EU constitution would have assigned more power to the parliament, so it would most certainly have solved this problem.