Erris writes "Opendotdotdot has good news about laws in the EU: 'EU culture ministers yesterday (20 November) rejected French proposals to curb online piracy through compulsory measures against free downloading ... [and instead pushed] for "a fair balance between the various fundamental rights" while fighting online piracy, first listing "the right to personal data protection," then "the freedom of information" and only lastly "the protection of intellectual property." [This] indicates that the culture ministers and their advisers are beginning to understand the dynamics of the Net, that throttling its use through crude instruments like the "three strikes and you're out" is exactly the wrong thing to do.'"
Because the weight of "evidence" required is normally zero. *drafts 3 fake copyright complaints to stonecyphers ISP*
Go back a decade or 2 and a crafted packet "ping of death" could knock someone using windows 95 off the net for a few minutes, now 3 specially crafted packets encapsulated inside envelopes can knock someone off the net for weeks or months no matter their ISP.
The complete lack of due process probably had something to do with it.
Depending on how technically inclined they are, the realization that things would swiftly move to encryption only (if only because nobody not using encryption would be left online), and that even with due process the courts would be relying on the assumption that all P2P is piracy may have played a part as well.
I think it's worse than that, most information these days is transferred over the internet.
It would be the same as prohibiting someone who made a bomb threat from ever possessing a phone or a pen again. Freedom of expression is not something that should be so trivially and easily revoked.
Because our laws know different levels of control.
Above all are the human rights, the right of information (communication) is way on top, a basic human right.
You could probably find offences that if repeated sufficiently often could warrant a reduction of this right, sharing IP as we know it is not going to be one of them.
I expect the ACTA process to include the 3-strikes again, both for the US and the EU. Trade policy is completely different and shielded against democratic influence.
I read the blog post and I find the title a litle inaccurate: the EU level clearly rejected the three strike principle to be extended as a EU directive but it is unclear if the decision will force France to back down on its national law.
It may need a directive to specify that this kind of approach is forbidden. Then, it may need a formal complain from the EU commission or a French citizen size the European Court of Justice to have the law revoked or modified.
The parent post also mentionned prison here. But the law was specifically designed to avoid sending people to prison for what is a minor offence.
Personnaly, I don't find the principle of three strikes and you are disconnected so problematic as it looks like road regulationsBUT there are some serious issues with the current implementations:
First and not least, the organisation that is in charge of monitoring and issueing warnings and disconnection order is some kind of extra judicial stuff. I believe that the final text include justice intervention but it is very thin...
Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
At the moment there is a EU directive in place that is contrary to the French proposal. This is not stopping the French government from going ahead with their proposal though. It can still become French law within a few short months.
Eventually it will be struck down through citizen's actions (suit to the European Court resulting in fines) or through a change of government. Governments can be very very stubborn.
The only hope in France is to convince a majority of French representatives that this is a bad proposal before it is voted in.
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
I think you've managed to ignore a far more important point. Why should government enforce the rights of creators? If they don't like what people are doing with their creations, then sue them. Oh, people are doing it by the millions and there's no practical way to sue them all? Tough... time for societies and content creators to adjust to a new reality, and not try to force the old one upon the vast majority of the world's citizens: people that don't want it.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday November 23 2008, @06:45PM (#25868289)
Why should government enforce the rights of creators? If they don't like what people are doing with their creations, then sue them. Oh, people are doing it by the millions and there's no practical way to sue them all? Tough...
Your ideas about about ten years ahead of where most people are and they will sound extremist to them. Many politicians still see copyright as property and therefore infringement as theft. Copyright as a government granted monopoly to create scarcity is far too complex for them. They see redressing copyright in favour of fair use as being government intervention in a free market of creativity rather than appropriate regulation of a resource to encourage economy and free speech. They still see it as balancing the majority rule with minority rights, and that copyright infringement is minority rights infringement as the mob seek to steal and in response civil rights must be suspended.
Instead it's much better to talk about fairness and the right to trial, and due process being removed by 3 strikes than anything you're talking about. Your ideas are too extreme and are not persuasive right now.
The best communication builds upon existing ideas and directs them in compelling ways. Communication is about having a sensitivity for your audience and where they're coming from. Understanding the law makers and the public is the difficult part and going too far at once will scare them off.
The difference between this and road regulations, is that breaking the road rules can result in people being killed or seriously injured, as well as significant costs to individuals. Copyright infringement on the other hand, typically only harms large corporations, and the actual level of harm it does is often massively overstated (most people would never have bought all the media they copied, simply due to cost if nothing else).
> Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.
With some regret I must point out that in the EU, this is not without precedent. Germany has banned 'hacking tools':
You've shown a great number of U.S. citizens are in jail, that's it. Unless you're going to bring concrete numbers regarding the % of people in U.S. prisons who are, in fact, there because of 3-strikes laws, you might as well vomit random numbers--what you're saying is meaningless in the context of this conversation.
Say we have a vastly more effective police force: That could account for it.
Say we have stricter (draconian?) drug laws: That could account for it.
Say we have slower due-process and the majority are merely pass-throughs: That could account for it.
I could name any one of hundreds of reasons why the U.S. prison population is so high. Yet, without demonstrating the % of those attributed to any one factor, I'm not going to jump around calling 3-strikes laws crude on the basis of that.
Say we have a vastly more effective police force: That could account for it. Say we have stricter (draconian?) drug laws: That could account for it. Say we have slower due-process and the majority are merely pass-throughs
Or, you just have more crime due to vast inequality caused by unfettered capitalism. But don't suggest that to Republican voters.
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Repeat offenders are usually tried and convicted. Not just pointed out in the street and incarcerated. Three strikes in this case means three accusations and no more internet. Not three convictions.
Many years ago? Steamboat Willie is still under copyright! The man has been dead for half a century, yet his first work, written when cars needed to be started by hand and antibiotics were even a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright! Is there ANYONE here that can stand up and with a straight face say that is fair?
People seem to forget that copyrights are a CONTRACT, one in which we get a richer and more diverse public domain in return for a LIMITED term of copyright But thanks to the outright bribery of politicians all over the globe it has long since quit being a contract and has become instead a way for evil multinational corporations to print money for all eternity. And then the greedy bastards don't even bother to pay the artists they are ripping off! Just look at how Meatloaf had to sue for nearly 20 years because the record company said "Bat out of Hell I", which to this day is still on the top 200 chart, hadn't actually generated a profit! I shit you not! Or for a more recent how Peter Jackson had to sue because they tried to pull the same shit with LoTR.
The simple fact is copyright passed being fair many years ago. Hell it passed obscene and is into disgustingly obscene now. When copyrights exist for longer than most humans lifetimes they cease to be anything more than a complete stranglehold over our entire culture. This is IMHO just disgusting. So frankly I don't feel ANY pity when someone else rips them off, because they have been ripping us ALL off for quite some time now. I don't see how even the most jaded politician can stand up and with a straight face say having a cartoon from 1925 still under copyright is fair and just.
Of course with every country seeming to trip over themselves trying to see why one can become the most fascist the quickest I don't really see anything changing anytime soon. Hell I know things have gotten so corrupt here in the US that CSPAN needs to run under the lawmakers "This politician is bought from you by:" along with the logo of whomever bought him/her off this week. Might as well let the greedy bastards get maximum returns for their dollar!
"Many years ago? Steamboat Willie is still under copyright! The man has been dead for half a century, yet his first work, written when cars needed to be started by hand and antibiotics were even a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright! Is there ANYONE here that can stand up and with a straight face say that is fair?"
I'll take that action. Here in Canada it's life plus 50 years - that's long enough for the children and grandchildren - in short, the family members who knew the creator in life - to enjoy the legacy. Then it is turned over to the public domain. And it is fair for your children and grandchildren to enjoy the fruits of your labour.
In the United States, it's life plus 70 years, if I remember correctly (it could be life plus 75). That was put into place to account for the increased lifespan...well, not quite true. It was put in place in Europe to account for the increased lifespan. It was put in place in the United States because European legislation stated that length of copyright would be determined by country of origin, and that meant that any American intellectual property would go out of copyright sooner, and make it harder for Europeans to invest into American IP (such as a movie, etc.).
"But thanks to the outright bribery of politicians all over the globe it has long since quit being a contract and has become instead a way for evil multinational corporations to print money for all eternity."
You've fallen into a common trap here - you're mistaking abuse of a law for the law itself. They are not the same thing. You're also misunderstanding the importance of copyright. So, I'll explain it here.
Copyright is a set of laws that provide a legal framework that allow creative artists to negotiate with those who would distribute their work, providing protection to both sides to prevent one from screwing over the other before a contract is signed. However, if a creative artist signs all of their rights away, they lose that protection. Hence the ability for abuse by the RIAA, etc. It's a horrifying situation, I agree, but it is not endemic to copyright. It is far more endemic to sociopathic corporations, and copyright is only one of many laws that get abused.
"When copyrights exist for longer than most humans lifetimes they cease to be anything more than a complete stranglehold over our entire culture."
Very wrong, particularly when looking at the Internet, of all places. We are drowning in content. And once something is under copyright, such as a book, or play, painting, song, etc., it is always in the best interests of the copyright holder to keep that work available as long as possible. A book that is out of print cannot generate any revenue.
What determines the availability of a book, song, film, etc., is nothing more than simple economics. It costs money to produce and publish a book (I know - I own a small publishing company). So long as the sales of the book will make money, the book will stay in print. Once the book stops making money, it comes out of print. In fact, if you go to your local bookstore and look at all of those new books, most of them will have an in-print lifespan of less than ten years.
In fact, the technology that has done more than anything else to maintain culture in the literary world and keep books available is print-on-demand technology, which means that a book can be kept available for sale without requiring warehouse space. That revolutionized the book industry. And it had very little to do with either copyright or the Internet.
To misquote Serenity, when it comes to the alarmist views of the copyright debate, nothing is as it seems. Copyright is not the grand arena, the pirates are not scrappy heroes against terrible odds, and our culture, far from being under a stranglehold, is bursting at the seams. We are drowning in content, and never has it been so easy to create. The copyright abolitionists and reformers keep referring to some mythical golden
So if a person lives to be 90, which is quite doable with today's tech, we are talking 90+50 for Canada, or 90+70 for the US. And a century and a half+ is actually fair to you? I'm sorry, but are you high? And as for the "children and grandchildren" I have a concept for them: It is called WORK! I know,it is amazing, what a concept! Give me a break!
Look, just because your grandpa did something in 1938 that didn't suck doesn't give you the right to sponge of it today, anymore than I get to sit on my ass because my grandpa built the bridges that you drive on. And in case you didn't know we already have a way to pass that legacy on to your children and grandchildren: It is called inheritance! But the simple fact is this is NOT about the artist, and you know this. A good 90+% of the artists don't have the rights to their works, because the cartels make you sign those away if you want access to their media outlet monopoly. So I am sorry, but a law that was written to be abused is an abusive law. And I am sorry but you can't honestly think 150+ years is a "fair and reasonable" term for copyrights, can you? I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the population would disagree with you. And if the public refuses to play your little copyright game then it kind of becomes moot, doesn't it?
Let us not forget one of the more sinister side effects of this: the complete destruction of large parts of our history. In all likelihood 99% of the film and audio ever shot is on rapidly decaying mediums, yet we the public have no rights to preserve it. So if the IP holders let it rot it is just gone. For an example just look at the film preservation society(can't remember their actual name,sorry). According to them a good deal of works created before 1940 have already disintegrated.
With a copyright term of 150+ years anyone who would give a damn about seeing a work preserved has long since turned to dust. Hell their kids are probably pushing up the daisies. The medium that the master played back on has been gone for many decades, those with the skill to edit and remaster on such mediums is long dead.....get the picture? Not a really nice picture, is it? For those that want to preserve copyrights I say this: go back to the way it was. For nearly 180 years we had copyrights that worked. NO COPYRIGHT SHOULD LAST LONGER THAN 25 YEARS PERIOD. This gives the author more than enough time to turn a profit on their work. if they can't even make a profit after 2 and a half decades then frankly they suck and should get into another line of work.
But again, this isn't about artists. This is about greedy, bloodsucking, multinational corporations that are holding our entire culture hostage, nothing more. If we stick with the system as it is the DVD you hold in your hand today won't be out of copyright for a century and a half AT MINIMUM. Think about THAT for a moment. Does anyone think with such an insane amount of copyright that anything that isn't a megahit will actually be preserved a century and a half from now? I am sorry to the above poster, but this is just obscene. There truly are no other words to describe it.
If AU is going with a firewall, sounds like they may be looking to merge with China.
You can see those controlling tendencies expressed through Rupert's Media outlets in USA. 'Conservative' (exploitive) capitalists in the US and AU have more in common with the dictatorship in China than most EU countries, right now. Capitalists always look to flourish where they can exploit human capital. It's not clear that capitalism can flourish if it doesn't have some underclass to exploit.
Another requirement of *E*U membership might be some continental proximity to Europe... (or be a direct dependent territory, see Reunion [wikipedia.org], which is probably the closest scrap of EU from Australia. Would Australia go back on its independence to achieve EU membership?... Dude...)
Unfortunately, the facts are that the death penalty does not work as a a deterrant as you claim.
Take for example terrorists, they would rather die and go to heaven than live in a jail.
I cant be bothered looking up the figures, but there have been many cases where DNA has taken someone out of death row. How many innocent people should be allowed to die so you can feel good about the death penalty being applied?
Executing even ONE innocent is intolerable.
In a deeply flawed justice system it is unfogiveable.
Basicly you have no clue how death penalty works out in reality.
The Soviet Union in the late '70ies introduced the death penalty for rape. What was the result? The number of rapes did not go down. But the number of rapes where the victim got murdered afterwards shot up.
People defending the death penalty often seem to be under the impression that crime in the most cases is carried out because of lenghty thoughts and careful weighing of the pros and cons. It is not. And that makes the whole "deterrence" idea void.
For a deterrence to work, you have to be able to imagine the penalty to you. It's no problem to imagine paying a penalty of $1000 (and also to imagine the stuff you can't buy instead). It's also no problem to imagine being locked in a prison for a certain amount of time and not being able to walk where you want or get up when you want and choose the clothing you want etc.pp.
But it is psychologically impossible to imagine being killed. Because then you would have to imagine not being able to imagine anymore. So the death penalty is just a big abstractum to you. It has no touchable meaning for you. As long as you can remember, you were always there, and as long as you will be able to remember, you will be there. From your experience, you seem to have eternal life.
If you actually fear the afterlife, if you really fear being in Hell or Eternal Damnation or whatever your religion defines as the Big Bad Thing that gets the evildoers, death penalty might actually work work as a deterrence. But that requires you to be deeply religious and devout. And then it can work also in reverse: You just have to imagine that your planned deed is somehow holy and just. And then instead of a deterrence, sure death might even look positive.
That's for instance why the Taliban can muster so many suicide bombers. Probably not many of them are ready to go to prison for life. But confronting them with the big abstractum works, because you can fill the nothingness that is death with anything you want, also with 72 virgins. Instead of a deterrence the death is actually attractive to them.
"Why should society pay to place a criminal in perpetual (until death) incarceration'
As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.
A quick Google will show how bad the problem is.
The ACLU also wrote: A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. ""An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,"" he said in his conclusion. ""One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.""
* Seek culture, but not at the expense of liberty
* Seek liberty, but not at the expense of truth
* Seek truth, but not at the expense of privacy
* Seek privacy, but not at the expense of life
* Seek life, and enjoy free culture.
Any business model that depends on preventing what people can do easily in the privacy of their own home is (1) impossible to maintain and (2) detrimental to freedom as it requires an oppressive legal infrastructure and a brutal enforcement mentality.
Can we get some of this "common-sense" in New Zealand please?
"Anti-piracy" 3-strikes was railroaded into our copyright law (section s92a) after select committee hearings and due process. Then the Minister had the gall to complain that all the moaners should have got involved in the process.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday November 23 2008, @05:17PM (#25867723)
In New Zealand the minister responsible for this, Judth Tizard, was kicked out the parliament after losing in the recent NZ election. Many people in the IT community worked against her.
The law will come into effect in February 2009 after a parliamentary vote so we've got until then to change minds. People against these parts of the law should join the groups working against this such as Internet NZ [internetnz.net.nz] and the NZOSS [nzoss.org.nz].
The Labour party (which she was part of) lost the last election and now the National party are in power. It remains to be seen whether they're going to do better but we can only try.
I mean come on, it should be struck down on the basis that France doesn't even play Baseball so a "3 strikes" rule is just the American Imperialism that they are always railing against.
Now a "7 Course Meal and you are out" sounds a much more French rule to have.
On the copyright side of course its quite odd that France, which has a set of music that only the French want to listen to (Manau [amazon.com] excepted) is worried about piracy, hell if more people listen to some of their artists they should be glad.
I hate to say this, but the French have excellent:
- Chansons: Edith Piaf, Serge Gainsbourg - Hip-Hop: FFF - Techno: Air - Lounge: St Germain (the artist, not the compilations - Gypsy Jazz: Paris Combo - Pop: Nouvelle Vague
And this is just my extraordinarily limited knowledge of French music. Granted, the pickings are slimmer than in the Music Export Top 3, the US, the UK and Sweden, but still there's a lot of interesting things going on there.
Same thing in Germany with people like Luna, the Notwist, Die Fantasti
Perhaps they rejected it simply because Europeans didn't understand the "3 strikes" baseball metaphor. They should adopt a "three yellow cards leads to a red card" policy.
Why? In this case, at least, the EU has shown its worth. I think the EU can be the voice of reason, much like the British house of Lords. It may introduce bureaucracy, but I will take that for protection of my human rights, privacy and a more open Europe.
The member states signed treaties that they will have to obey certain restrictions imposed upon them by the EU. If they didn't want that they shouldn't have joined the EU. They wanted the benefits, they gotta live with the downsides too. France isn't a small country and could certainly have stayed out of the EU without being bullied into joining.
Besides, France is still free to leave at any point if they feal that EU membership obligations are too burdensome. It's not like with the US states...
The EU is roughly the size of the USA in population and area.
Perhaps it is not so different to think of the EU as a large country with a number of member states?
The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over every elements of members' law, but safekeeping democracy and liberties in all of its member states is part of its charter.
This is good, no? Recently, even in highly technical areas like patents and telecommunications, European representatives have erred on the side of preserving liberties. This is amazing, not?
Because you can't be sent to prison without some kind of judicial process, usually requiring evidence and such like. That wasn't the case with the French law. If you were identified (by whom? with what level of proof? what about facing your accusers?) to be downloading copyrighted material you would be warned twice and the third time be disconnected. Ubuntu is copyrighted material - can I no longer download it using a torrent? I distribute photographs that I have taken via torrents. They are copyright
Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the weight of "evidence" required is normally zero.
*drafts 3 fake copyright complaints to stonecyphers ISP*
Go back a decade or 2 and a crafted packet "ping of death" could knock someone using windows 95 off the net for a few minutes, now 3 specially crafted packets encapsulated inside envelopes can knock someone off the net for weeks or months no matter their ISP.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The complete lack of due process probably had something to do with it.
Depending on how technically inclined they are, the realization that things would swiftly move to encryption only (if only because nobody not using encryption would be left online), and that even with due process the courts would be relying on the assumption that all P2P is piracy may have played a part as well.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because internet became a necessity for functioning in society.
The 'three-times-you're-out' rule would be the same as to prohibit rehabilitated thieves of making use of the road.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's worse than that, most information these days is transferred over the internet.
It would be the same as prohibiting someone who made a bomb threat from ever possessing a phone or a pen again. Freedom of expression is not something that should be so trivially and easily revoked.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Above all are the human rights, the right of information (communication) is way on top, a basic human right.
You could probably find offences that if repeated sufficiently often could warrant a reduction of this right, sharing IP as we know it is not going to be one of them.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I expect the ACTA process to include the 3-strikes again, both for the US and the EU. Trade policy is completely different and shielded against democratic influence.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Effective" does not mean that it's not crude. Thanks in part to the "3-strikes-you're-out" rule, The US has the highest prison population (in percentage) among developed countries [wikipedia.org]. The latest figures indicate that more than 1 in 100 American men or women are in jail [pewcenteronthestates.org].
That's 10 times more people in jail than Germany, for instance. Hell, it even leads Russia on that turf. So much for the "land of the free"...
Parent
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Informative)
I read the blog post and I find the title a litle inaccurate: the EU level clearly rejected the three strike principle to be extended as a EU directive but it is unclear if the decision will force France to back down on its national law.
It may need a directive to specify that this kind of approach is forbidden. Then, it may need a formal complain from the EU commission or a French citizen size the European Court of Justice to have the law revoked or modified.
The parent post also mentionned prison here. But the law was specifically designed to avoid sending people to prison for what is a minor offence.
Personnaly, I don't find the principle of three strikes and you are disconnected so problematic as it looks like road regulationsBUT there are some serious issues with the current implementations:
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
What are your proposal slashcrowd?
Parent
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Interesting)
At the moment there is a EU directive in place that is contrary to the French proposal. This is not stopping the French government from going ahead with their proposal though. It can still become French law within a few short months.
Eventually it will be struck down through citizen's actions (suit to the European Court resulting in fines) or through a change of government. Governments can be very very stubborn.
The only hope in France is to convince a majority of French representatives that this is a bad proposal before it is voted in.
Parent
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, I guess my karma will suffer from the opinion above but please, could someone explain we what would be a balanced approach that would enforce right of creators and freedoms of Internet users?
I think you've managed to ignore a far more important point. Why should government enforce the rights of creators? If they don't like what people are doing with their creations, then sue them. Oh, people are doing it by the millions and there's no practical way to sue them all? Tough ... time for societies and content creators to adjust to a new reality, and not try to force the old one upon the vast majority of the world's citizens: people that don't want it.
Parent
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:4, Insightful)
Your ideas about about ten years ahead of where most people are and they will sound extremist to them. Many politicians still see copyright as property and therefore infringement as theft. Copyright as a government granted monopoly to create scarcity is far too complex for them. They see redressing copyright in favour of fair use as being government intervention in a free market of creativity rather than appropriate regulation of a resource to encourage economy and free speech. They still see it as balancing the majority rule with minority rights, and that copyright infringement is minority rights infringement as the mob seek to steal and in response civil rights must be suspended.
Instead it's much better to talk about fairness and the right to trial, and due process being removed by 3 strikes than anything you're talking about. Your ideas are too extreme and are not persuasive right now.
The best communication builds upon existing ideas and directs them in compelling ways. Communication is about having a sensitivity for your audience and where they're coming from. Understanding the law makers and the public is the difficult part and going too far at once will scare them off.
Be smarter.
Parent
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference between this and road regulations, is that breaking the road rules can result in people being killed or seriously injured, as well as significant costs to individuals.
Copyright infringement on the other hand, typically only harms large corporations, and the actual level of harm it does is often massively overstated (most people would never have bought all the media they copied, simply due to cost if nothing else).
Parent
Re:Huh? Heu???? some precisions (Score:5, Insightful)
> Secondly, the ability to sue file transfer software editor is just ridiculous. It violates the principle that software is neutral and that it is individuals that perform the acts.
With some regret I must point out that in the EU, this is not without precedent. Germany has banned 'hacking tools':
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/31/1629259 [slashdot.org]
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/13/0218246 [slashdot.org]
It would appear not everyone agrees about the 'software is neutral' thing.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Say we have a vastly more effective police force: That could account for it.
Say we have stricter (draconian?) drug laws: That could account for it.
Say we have slower due-process and the majority are merely pass-throughs: That could account for it.
I could name any one of hundreds of reasons why the U.S. prison population is so high. Yet, without demonstrating the % of those attributed to any one factor, I'm not going to jump around calling 3-strikes laws crude on the basis of that.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, you just have more crime due to vast inequality caused by unfettered capitalism. But don't suggest that to Republican voters.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Why? Repeat offender laws are remarkably effective in normal crime control; what makes this different?
Repeat offenders are usually tried and convicted. Not just pointed out in the street and incarcerated. Three strikes in this case means three accusations and no more internet. Not three convictions.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Many years ago? Steamboat Willie is still under copyright! The man has been dead for half a century, yet his first work, written when cars needed to be started by hand and antibiotics were even a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright! Is there ANYONE here that can stand up and with a straight face say that is fair?
People seem to forget that copyrights are a CONTRACT, one in which we get a richer and more diverse public domain in return for a LIMITED term of copyright But thanks to the outright bribery of politicians all over the globe it has long since quit being a contract and has become instead a way for evil multinational corporations to print money for all eternity. And then the greedy bastards don't even bother to pay the artists they are ripping off! Just look at how Meatloaf had to sue for nearly 20 years because the record company said "Bat out of Hell I", which to this day is still on the top 200 chart, hadn't actually generated a profit! I shit you not! Or for a more recent how Peter Jackson had to sue because they tried to pull the same shit with LoTR.
The simple fact is copyright passed being fair many years ago. Hell it passed obscene and is into disgustingly obscene now. When copyrights exist for longer than most humans lifetimes they cease to be anything more than a complete stranglehold over our entire culture. This is IMHO just disgusting. So frankly I don't feel ANY pity when someone else rips them off, because they have been ripping us ALL off for quite some time now. I don't see how even the most jaded politician can stand up and with a straight face say having a cartoon from 1925 still under copyright is fair and just.
Of course with every country seeming to trip over themselves trying to see why one can become the most fascist the quickest I don't really see anything changing anytime soon. Hell I know things have gotten so corrupt here in the US that CSPAN needs to run under the lawmakers "This politician is bought from you by:" along with the logo of whomever bought him/her off this week. Might as well let the greedy bastards get maximum returns for their dollar!
Parent
Better to be accurate than alarmist (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of half-truths here...
"Many years ago? Steamboat Willie is still under copyright! The man has been dead for half a century, yet his first work, written when cars needed to be started by hand and antibiotics were even a dream in a doctor's eye, is STILL under copyright! Is there ANYONE here that can stand up and with a straight face say that is fair?"
I'll take that action. Here in Canada it's life plus 50 years - that's long enough for the children and grandchildren - in short, the family members who knew the creator in life - to enjoy the legacy. Then it is turned over to the public domain. And it is fair for your children and grandchildren to enjoy the fruits of your labour.
In the United States, it's life plus 70 years, if I remember correctly (it could be life plus 75). That was put into place to account for the increased lifespan...well, not quite true. It was put in place in Europe to account for the increased lifespan. It was put in place in the United States because European legislation stated that length of copyright would be determined by country of origin, and that meant that any American intellectual property would go out of copyright sooner, and make it harder for Europeans to invest into American IP (such as a movie, etc.).
"But thanks to the outright bribery of politicians all over the globe it has long since quit being a contract and has become instead a way for evil multinational corporations to print money for all eternity."
You've fallen into a common trap here - you're mistaking abuse of a law for the law itself. They are not the same thing. You're also misunderstanding the importance of copyright. So, I'll explain it here.
Copyright is a set of laws that provide a legal framework that allow creative artists to negotiate with those who would distribute their work, providing protection to both sides to prevent one from screwing over the other before a contract is signed. However, if a creative artist signs all of their rights away, they lose that protection. Hence the ability for abuse by the RIAA, etc. It's a horrifying situation, I agree, but it is not endemic to copyright. It is far more endemic to sociopathic corporations, and copyright is only one of many laws that get abused.
"When copyrights exist for longer than most humans lifetimes they cease to be anything more than a complete stranglehold over our entire culture."
Very wrong, particularly when looking at the Internet, of all places. We are drowning in content. And once something is under copyright, such as a book, or play, painting, song, etc., it is always in the best interests of the copyright holder to keep that work available as long as possible. A book that is out of print cannot generate any revenue.
What determines the availability of a book, song, film, etc., is nothing more than simple economics. It costs money to produce and publish a book (I know - I own a small publishing company). So long as the sales of the book will make money, the book will stay in print. Once the book stops making money, it comes out of print. In fact, if you go to your local bookstore and look at all of those new books, most of them will have an in-print lifespan of less than ten years.
In fact, the technology that has done more than anything else to maintain culture in the literary world and keep books available is print-on-demand technology, which means that a book can be kept available for sale without requiring warehouse space. That revolutionized the book industry. And it had very little to do with either copyright or the Internet.
To misquote Serenity, when it comes to the alarmist views of the copyright debate, nothing is as it seems. Copyright is not the grand arena, the pirates are not scrappy heroes against terrible odds, and our culture, far from being under a stranglehold, is bursting at the seams. We are drowning in content, and never has it been so easy to create. The copyright abolitionists and reformers keep referring to some mythical golden
Parent
Re:Better to be accurate than alarmist (Score:5, Insightful)
So if a person lives to be 90, which is quite doable with today's tech, we are talking 90+50 for Canada, or 90+70 for the US. And a century and a half+ is actually fair to you? I'm sorry, but are you high? And as for the "children and grandchildren" I have a concept for them: It is called WORK! I know,it is amazing, what a concept! Give me a break!
Look, just because your grandpa did something in 1938 that didn't suck doesn't give you the right to sponge of it today, anymore than I get to sit on my ass because my grandpa built the bridges that you drive on. And in case you didn't know we already have a way to pass that legacy on to your children and grandchildren: It is called inheritance! But the simple fact is this is NOT about the artist, and you know this. A good 90+% of the artists don't have the rights to their works, because the cartels make you sign those away if you want access to their media outlet monopoly. So I am sorry, but a law that was written to be abused is an abusive law. And I am sorry but you can't honestly think 150+ years is a "fair and reasonable" term for copyrights, can you? I'm willing to bet the vast majority of the population would disagree with you. And if the public refuses to play your little copyright game then it kind of becomes moot, doesn't it?
Parent
Re:Better to be accurate than alarmist (Score:4, Insightful)
Let us not forget one of the more sinister side effects of this: the complete destruction of large parts of our history. In all likelihood 99% of the film and audio ever shot is on rapidly decaying mediums, yet we the public have no rights to preserve it. So if the IP holders let it rot it is just gone. For an example just look at the film preservation society(can't remember their actual name,sorry). According to them a good deal of works created before 1940 have already disintegrated.
With a copyright term of 150+ years anyone who would give a damn about seeing a work preserved has long since turned to dust. Hell their kids are probably pushing up the daisies. The medium that the master played back on has been gone for many decades, those with the skill to edit and remaster on such mediums is long dead.....get the picture? Not a really nice picture, is it? For those that want to preserve copyrights I say this: go back to the way it was. For nearly 180 years we had copyrights that worked. NO COPYRIGHT SHOULD LAST LONGER THAN 25 YEARS PERIOD. This gives the author more than enough time to turn a profit on their work. if they can't even make a profit after 2 and a half decades then frankly they suck and should get into another line of work.
But again, this isn't about artists. This is about greedy, bloodsucking, multinational corporations that are holding our entire culture hostage, nothing more. If we stick with the system as it is the DVD you hold in your hand today won't be out of copyright for a century and a half AT MINIMUM. Think about THAT for a moment. Does anyone think with such an insane amount of copyright that anything that isn't a megahit will actually be preserved a century and a half from now? I am sorry to the above poster, but this is just obscene. There truly are no other words to describe it.
Parent
How do you get membership? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish Australia was part of the EU. Perhaps this firewall business would disappear.
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Funny)
We can get Iceland for free as an EU member state now ;-)
Parent
Merge w/chinese wall? (Score:4, Interesting)
If AU is going with a firewall, sounds like they may be looking to merge with China.
You can see those controlling tendencies expressed through Rupert's Media outlets in USA. 'Conservative' (exploitive) capitalists in the US and AU have more in common with the dictatorship in China than most EU countries, right now. Capitalists always look to flourish where they can exploit human capital. It's not clear that capitalism can flourish if it doesn't have some underclass to exploit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like all civilised countries, Australia does not have the death penalty.
To me it is the touchstone of civilization that the state does not kill its citizens.
Parent
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the facts are that the death penalty does not work as a a deterrant as you claim.
Take for example terrorists, they would rather die and go to heaven than live in a jail.
I cant be bothered looking up the figures, but there have been many cases where DNA has taken someone out of death row. How many innocent people should be allowed to die so you can feel good about the death penalty being applied?
Executing even ONE innocent is intolerable.
In a deeply flawed justice system it is unfogiveable.
Parent
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basicly you have no clue how death penalty works out in reality.
The Soviet Union in the late '70ies introduced the death penalty for rape. What was the result? The number of rapes did not go down. But the number of rapes where the victim got murdered afterwards shot up.
People defending the death penalty often seem to be under the impression that crime in the most cases is carried out because of lenghty thoughts and careful weighing of the pros and cons. It is not. And that makes the whole "deterrence" idea void.
The death penalty does not deterr crime. Period.
Parent
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problem lies somewhat deeper.
For a deterrence to work, you have to be able to imagine the penalty to you. It's no problem to imagine paying a penalty of $1000 (and also to imagine the stuff you can't buy instead). It's also no problem to imagine being locked in a prison for a certain amount of time and not being able to walk where you want or get up when you want and choose the clothing you want etc.pp.
But it is psychologically impossible to imagine being killed. Because then you would have to imagine not being able to imagine anymore. So the death penalty is just a big abstractum to you. It has no touchable meaning for you. As long as you can remember, you were always there, and as long as you will be able to remember, you will be there. From your experience, you seem to have eternal life.
If you actually fear the afterlife, if you really fear being in Hell or Eternal Damnation or whatever your religion defines as the Big Bad Thing that gets the evildoers, death penalty might actually work work as a deterrence. But that requires you to be deeply religious and devout. And then it can work also in reverse: You just have to imagine that your planned deed is somehow holy and just. And then instead of a deterrence, sure death might even look positive.
That's for instance why the Taliban can muster so many suicide bombers. Probably not many of them are ready to go to prison for life. But confronting them with the big abstractum works, because you can fill the nothingness that is death with anything you want, also with 72 virgins. Instead of a deterrence the death is actually attractive to them.
Parent
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:5, Informative)
"Why should society pay to place a criminal in perpetual (until death) incarceration'
As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.
A quick Google will show how bad the problem is.
The ACLU also wrote:
A study by Columbia University professor James Liebman examined thousands of capital sentences that had been reviewed by courts in 34 states from 1973 to 1995. ""An astonishing 82 percent of death row inmates did not deserve to receive the death penalty,"" he said in his conclusion. ""One in twenty death row inmates is later found not guilty.""
Enough reasons for you?
Parent
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:4, Informative)
No state should ever kill anyone.
The single most stupid damging human afflication is
beyond doubt 'patriotism" I have never been able to work out any useful function of patriotism.
Its just a mechanism of propaganda that allows govts to start wars.
Parent
Re:How do you get membership? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have never been able to work out any useful function of patriotism.
It allows the army to recruit more easily.
Parent
The Free Culture Principle (Score:5, Insightful)
* Seek culture, but not at the expense of liberty
* Seek liberty, but not at the expense of truth
* Seek truth, but not at the expense of privacy
* Seek privacy, but not at the expense of life
* Seek life, and enjoy free culture.
Re:The Free Culture Principle (Score:5, Funny)
Yes I think I understand how this works
* Seek rock, but not at the expense of scissors
* Seek scissors, but not at the expense of paper
* Seek paper, but not at the expense of rock
Parent
Danger to freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Any business model that depends on preventing what people can do easily in the privacy of their own home is (1) impossible to maintain and (2) detrimental to freedom as it requires an oppressive legal infrastructure and a brutal enforcement mentality.
Can we get some of that in New Zealand? (Score:4, Informative)
Can we get some of this "common-sense" in New Zealand please?
"Anti-piracy" 3-strikes was railroaded into our copyright law (section s92a) after select committee hearings and due process. Then the Minister had the gall to complain that all the moaners should have got involved in the process.
Re:Can we get some of that in New Zealand? (Score:5, Informative)
In New Zealand the minister responsible for this, Judth Tizard, was kicked out the parliament after losing in the recent NZ election. Many people in the IT community worked against her.
Getting kicked out didn't stop her from going on a radio tirade about how it was necessary to remove due process and oversight by cutting off people who *might* be infringing [theyworkforyou.co.nz]. Yes, she even says "might". She actually believes she's doing this for the good of New Zealand and many other people in power do too.
The law will come into effect in February 2009 after a parliamentary vote so we've got until then to change minds. People against these parts of the law should join the groups working against this such as Internet NZ [internetnz.net.nz] and the NZOSS [nzoss.org.nz].
The Labour party (which she was part of) lost the last election and now the National party are in power. It remains to be seen whether they're going to do better but we can only try.
Parent
France and Baseball (Score:5, Funny)
I mean come on, it should be struck down on the basis that France doesn't even play Baseball so a "3 strikes" rule is just the American Imperialism that they are always railing against.
Now a "7 Course Meal and you are out" sounds a much more French rule to have.
On the copyright side of course its quite odd that France, which has a set of music that only the French want to listen to (Manau [amazon.com] excepted) is worried about piracy, hell if more people listen to some of their artists they should be glad.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to say this, but the French have excellent:
- Chansons: Edith Piaf, Serge Gainsbourg
- Hip-Hop: FFF
- Techno: Air
- Lounge: St Germain (the artist, not the compilations
- Gypsy Jazz: Paris Combo
- Pop: Nouvelle Vague
And this is just my extraordinarily limited knowledge of French music. Granted, the pickings are slimmer than in the Music Export Top 3, the US, the UK and Sweden, but still there's a lot of interesting things going on there.
Same thing in Germany with people like Luna, the Notwist, Die Fantasti
3 Strikes? (Score:5, Funny)
"3 Strikes" Law - revised (Score:4, Interesting)
European Parliament elections (Score:5, Informative)
European Parliament elections are coming up soon, have yet to find a resource to help pick decent candidates to elect, reward these kinds of decisions...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2009 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean organizations like ... USA ?
Re:Not completly good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? In this case, at least, the EU has shown its worth. I think the EU can be the voice of reason, much like the British house of Lords. It may introduce bureaucracy, but I will take that for protection of my human rights, privacy and a more open Europe.
Parent
Re:Not completly good news (Score:5, Informative)
The member states signed treaties that they will have to obey certain restrictions imposed upon them by the EU. If they didn't want that they shouldn't have joined the EU. They wanted the benefits, they gotta live with the downsides too. France isn't a small country and could certainly have stayed out of the EU without being bullied into joining.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not completly good news (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU is roughly the size of the USA in population and area.
Perhaps it is not so different to think of the EU as a large country with a number of member states?
The EU doesn't have jurisdiction over every elements of members' law, but safekeeping democracy and liberties in all of its member states is part of its charter.
This is good, no? Recently, even in highly technical areas like patents and telecommunications, European representatives have erred on the side of preserving liberties. This is amazing, not?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Countries can't make laws contradicting treaties they've signed up to, or laws they've helped bring into being across the whole EU.
What exactly is the problem with this? It's the EU doing what it was supposed to do.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)