EU Approves New Stricter Anti-Piracy Directive 163
A Pirate writes "The European Parliament has voted for the new report submitted by Italian parliament member Nicola Zingaretti that criminalize even attempts to infringe on copyrights. Even if the new directive excludes end-users from the law it will still criminalize sites like YouTube and practically all P2P services, and even the developers of these services. The exceptions beside the end-users' personal use, includes studies and research. While the European Parliament apparently describes the new directive as a an attempt to harmonize the copyright laws of the European Countries others have been describing it as a lobby directive."
Don't forget the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
From the fine article
The EP.....decided that criminal sanctions should apply only to infringements deliberately carried out to obtain a commercial advantage. Piracy committed by private users for personal, non-profit purposes is therefore
I see a lot of commentary around the web that YouTube's only valid business model is due to turning a blind eye to uploaded copyrighted clips. Having seen how my stepsons use YouTube and similar sites I am not at all convinced that this is the case. They are quite happy with the user generated content.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Don't forget the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not to say that I haven't used youtube to watch whole TV series, but if all the copyrighted content were to disappear, I agree that they wouldn't be much affected.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it is not just those who are taking commercial from copyright infringement but those who do so on a scale which is considered commercial, file sharers for example, the notion that inciting copyright in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how these kind of laws never appear to be used against the likes of SCO or TV stations rebroadcasting other channels without proper acknowlagement.
Re:Don't forget the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who whine about this shit don't understand that it just isn't that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. A very small amount of the population stands to lose, while more of the population stands to gain. But I think that if you get 3 years for copyright infringement and 1 year for beating your wife or six months for aggrivated assault, then there is something seriously wrong with the system. It means that the money being lobbied is more important than the welfare of the people in a country.
Nothing new in our modern civilized societies though. Ick... that sounded bitter.
Re:Don't forget the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
"The people who whine . .
Yeah, one minor law isn't that big of a deal. Then the next little restriction is trivial, and a further one is insignificant . . . etc. We call that frog soup.
"A very small amount of the population stands to lose, while more of the population stands to gain . .
That's a very dangerous line of thinking. The same philosophy would apply if we murdered the richest 1% of the population, confiscated their wealth, and then divided it up equally among the remaining 99%. Who could possibly object to a policy that affects so few and benefits so many?
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright as an election issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Copyright as an election issue (Score:4, Insightful)
And in addition to that, would even the laws themselves ever be approved if they weren't enforced selectively? If developing file sharing apps is now criminal, they should start their lawsuits here [ssh.com].
I wonder what they'll try to pull when everyone switches to encrypted and friend-routed sharing...
Re:Copyright as an election issue (Score:4, Funny)
Jesus! You mean I'm going to need friends now? Those fascists at the **AAs have found my weakness...
Re: (Score:2)
Filesharing can be done with MSIE, at least the downloading side of things. Perhaps they should go after Microsoft?
Actually, filesharing would be a lot harder if it wasn't for the TCP/IP stack. And if TCP/IP were to be banned, practically every ISP on the planet would be against such a move.
Re:Copyright as an election issue (Score:4, Interesting)
OTOH: The general public needs to be more forgiving when a politcian "flip-flops", consistency is an admirable trait but impossible for a leader that is willing to listen, learn and adapt to "changes on the ground". "Sorry I fucked up" should not automatically bring calls for resignation, impeachment, ect. (BTW: Don't take this as support for anyone in particular, IMHO some of the neo-cons deserve a CIA trip to ***stan for questioning).
Sadly, it wouldn't make a difference (Score:4, Insightful)
The unfortunate reality is that with the typical electoral system in the west, each election is decided on the basis of a very small number of very high profile issues. Things like economics, "defence", healthcare, and crime are tried and tested. Trendy issues — currently it's anything environmental over here in the UK — can also register significantly. However, minor things that still affect many people every day are rarely even considered. This is how things like IP and road traffic laws can reach a point where a very significant proportion of the population are criminalised for doing something that a majority of the population does not believe to be ethically wrong.
This will probably continue as long as we have this bizarre idea that politicians can predict before the election what will happen throughout their entire term of office. That simply isn't possible, unless their policies are never going to change depending on context. Consider the unpredictability of a world stock market crash or a plane flying into an iconic building, and unsurprisingly the reality doesn't always match up. It is silly to expect that it ever will, and we would do far better if political manifestos set out the principles and values supported by the each candidate, and reserved concrete policies for examples: "Under the current circumstances, I would therefore support this measure to provide further financial support to that group." We also need to get over this idea that any politician who changes his or her position on an issue is "doing a U-turn" and doesn't know what they stand for. Maybe the circumstances just changed? Maybe they came across better information, and revised their opinion in light of it? These are good things for politicians to do, as long as their actions are consistent with the principles and values for which they stood at election time. The idea that all politicians should have evaluated all information on all issues comprehensively before every decision they are asked to make is simply unrealistic, and I would rather vote for someone who acknowledged this and made a genuine effort to dot the right thing than someone who pretended they were omniscient and used this to attack their more considerate opposition.
Of course, such a principled election system would also show up some other problems with "representative" democracy in places like the US and UK today. As far as I can see, the major political parties in these countries are so closely aligned on many issues that someone who is fairly central but tends towards individual responsibility and capitalism rather than socialism and a large government simply has no-one to vote for who will argue their case. Given the barriers to entry in starting a new political party, this means a significant proportion of the population's voice is never heard.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) You have 100$ which is tax income
(2) You have two constituent groups which are both 50% of the population
(3) Your task is to divide the funds fairly between them
Now, the inexperienced politican promises them 50$ each, and if against all odds win gives it to them.
The experienced politicans will do the following:
(1) Through a series of veiled inconsistencies promise both 60$, to be delivered in healthcare or education or lower taxes or whatever. You'll f
Sometimes, honest and simple really is best (Score:2)
The irony is that honest politics that, for example, dramatically simplified the tax system in my country, really would save a fortune. The infrastructure costs of implementing all those special cases, with their separate collection and enforcement mechanisms, are significant. Just doing away with all of that and going to a system with a few, transparent taxes collected via a very small number of mechanisms would save a fortune in both personal taxes and business overheads. Pretty much everyone would benefi
Re: (Score:2)
I think my idea of good government would be closer to yours than to what we have today.
The big problem with an approach such as you describe is who provides the checks and balances? If it is to be illegal for the administration to act other than in accordance with the principles for which the people voted, then some degree of judicial oversight must be involved to decide when they have crossed the line.
Now, you basically have two options. You can have another round of elections to decide who gets to hav
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really what I mean, though. In fact, with only two choices, it's hard to see how a system could even get close.
If you reduce political principles to a straight a-vs-b choice, then pretty much the only distinction you could usefully make would be between individualism and collectivism. That is certainly a very important principle, which underlies many social, economic and political issues. But in the US, both major parties are so far towards the individualist end of that spectrum that they offer
Re: (Score:2)
No more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I want a new directive. One that bans all member states from making any new laws for the next ten years.
Think about this for a second, think of one piece of legislation passed in the last ten years that has positively impacted anyone you know in the first world? I can't think of a single thing, not one, nothing. Maybe this is a failure of imagination on my part but on the whole laws in the last ten years have been mostly negative.
Maybe voting is declining in Britain not because of athapy, per se, but because people like myself our realizing the truth. Our politicians are powerless - they can't do a thing to change the plight of the average person on the street. They can raise taxes, lower taxes, pass all sorts of laws but they can't stop the dickheads burning people's bins or the fourteen year olds buying cider to vomit up on the street.
In short, what's the point in voting when both parties are equally as corrupt and when the decisions taken there never effect you? It's a powerful argument but not one I personally agree with. I vote not for myself but because a great many lives were lost trying to defend that vote. The tragedy is that this generation has come to find that their vote would be more productively used as toilet paper than a means of expressing your opinion.
We need a new sort of politics. A politics where local issues and common people are listened to. A politics where the career of the politician matters less than serving their constituents. A politics where issues are not decided based on the party your belong to but what improves the lives of the people of the country. We need a politics where an honest politician is not considered an oxymoron. We need a rupture from the past and we need it more urgently than ever before.
Simon.
Re: (Score:1)
Party politics is a bastardisation of democracy.
I'll vote for anybody who promises to introduce a "None of the above" option in Britain... or I would if I believed them!
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:No more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
The general public has a tendency to not want to spend money on anything that doesn't directly effect them, so they won't care if the police department looses its funding unless they've recently been robbed, they won't care about the money going to schools unless they currently have or plan on having kids in the immediate future, they won't care about the parks unless they live by them. This would only pose more problems in the long run unless the general public suddenly becomes smart, which I don't think can happen.
As the T-shirt reads, "Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re: (Score:2)
I have had thoughts along these lines. I was thinking... maybe 10% of your taxes could be directed where you wanted? Even if all those 10% went to something really stupid (like sports), the other parts would only be hurting, not destroyed. And by that hurting, the general populace would probably learn what it means not to have the police around, or the police would learn to be important to have around.
I agree going all the way in one step would be silly. Maybe in a hundred years ;)
Privately, I hope this w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I rather think that would just end up lowering the taxes 10%. Such cuts would have to be financed... and while I'd happily point out where those 10% could be saved, I don't think my suggestions would be applauded by the broad populace :)
However, directly allocating just the 10% might get more people interested in national finance, and kill some of the current loathing of politicians and apathy that is poisoning our democracies. On the other hand, it might not, of course.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
well, i like this one [wikipedia.org]
this one [wikipedia.org] is also very good. unfortunately the member states prefer to ignore this one.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is where most people here completely misunderstand the EU. Member states implement EU directives via laws introduced by their own parliaments, with the wording of law therefore very much down to the individual country (with the exception of directives relating to the Common Agricultural Policy). A member state can't completely ignore an entire directive indefinitely, but they can water-down or tighten-up a directive as they see fit (the word "di
Re: (Score:2)
remember the story with the airline passenger data transfers?
the data was transferred although it was unlawful and everybody knew that.
the european court of justice has decided, after two years, that it was unlawful.
the eu countries still transfered data after that.
remember the story with the german policeware.
it is unlawful and everybody knows that.
but the politicians don't give a damn - the polic
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No more laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know I like a lot of what the Lib Dems stand for, but I just can't see what is so good about proportional representation. As far as I can see it would lead to:
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to our current system with 2 virtually identical parties vying for the politically-correct centreground, closing their minds to many new ideas for fear of losing votes from certain sectors? The current system is worse than coalitions would be. Whatsmore, at least with coalitions, there would be a lot more small parties in the commons that could
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for replying. You make a lot of points, and I hope you'll forgive me if I go through them one by one - I'm not so much disagreeing with you as articulating some long held doubts about proportional representation.
I'd say the current consensus is simply where British politics is at the moment -
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Had Labour not had the ridiculous majority they still enjoy, nothing like as many bad reforms would have been put through, we'd be less close to Europe (because of UKIP's influence), taxes would be lower (Gordon Br
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A 'strong government' is the government's way of saying a 'government that has too much power', as far as I'm concerned. Look, politics should reflect the debates people are having in real life. Laws *should* be hard to pass, coalitions *should* have to be formed to get them through; that represents a majority of people ac
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not voting means that you accept _any_ government that may be elected, which means that you are accepting the fact that an extreme-right or extreme-left government may win the election.
Personally, I _always_ vote, generally for the party I dislike the least, and not because I care who wins from the generally accepted parties, but simply because I do _not_ accept extreme left/right parties getting a larger sha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A big problem would be working out how many non voters are "don't care" and how many are "none of the above". Unless these are explicit on the ballot.
A low voter turnout robs the government of legitimacy.
It could also be a sign of things such as lack of diversity amongst candidates. Which makes it more likely that a voter will be unable to find any candidate who actually represents his or her views.
In my opinion null votes should count towa
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately this will never be possible in western society : such a system would destroy any status-quo that enables a ruling class of those-more-equal-than-the-others to maintain power.
Re: (Score:1)
It would seem that way. Most laws are designed to cement the illegality of things that would otherwise be immoral, or directly associated with other illegal activities. Ergo, the the
Re: (Score:2)
Well on the 3rd of May I'll have the choice of at least seven parties on the regional list, all with a reasonable chance of being elected. But the constituency vote is the same old nonsense where I have to vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out. I think there's room for improvement here...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can. For those specific problems, for instance, they could make more money available to the police for recruitment and training and cut the amount of paperwork they have to do, targets they have to meet, et
Re: (Score:2)
Now this anti-fair use law, and the whole 24x7 police monitoring thing in the UK from a few weeks back.
Maybe I'm dwelling on the negative, but when was the last time we saw some legislation(not a court ruling) in Europe
"Harmonizing" usually is a lobbying issue (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, don't bite the hand that feeds you. Makes sense, doesn't it?
The great lie (Score:1, Insightful)
That's the lie that has continupously been used to increase copyright law for copyright holders. That's why copyright term was extended in the US - "to harmonize" with german/european law. They needed to "extend it" because the nazis suspended copyright during WWII. So th US law had to be extended to match their term length.
However, if you notice, copyright law was not suspended in the US during WWII.
Criminalization (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Inciting, Aiding Copyright Infringement a crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Windows contains a CD ripper, there is no fair use in EU law, you are not allowed to rip CD, Windows is a commercial product, this fits the commercial scale aiding of piracy. It is no different from any other copying device. So how about we demand the criminal prosecution of Microsoft?
BSA was a strong backer of this law, essentially to protect Windows. So it would be fitting if we could get Microsoft as it's first victim. Nokia next, their phones can play MP3s. They also backed this law.
You may have difficulty getting enforcement, since this is a dipshit law and the policemen know it, but you can often file Ombudsman complaints against the police if they fail to enforce the law in some cases but not others.
This is a golden time, every major backer of this law is guilty of some infringement of it. You don't even need to be the copyright holder to file a complaint under this law! How cool is that? A law so vague every MP3 makers, duplicating machine maker, computer maker, phone maker, search engine maker, is guilty of violating it.
Re: (Score:2)
you think they didn't think of this? (Score:2)
Great! (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I think he just forgot the <sarcasm> tags.
It's easily done. I do it all the time
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know who flamebait'd you, but they don't understand sarcasm.
Looks like they came back as well.
Has nasty implications (Score:4, Insightful)
It could be a blog software with a vulnerability that some dev has no time to fix, or it could be some new secure p2p IM service with a casual file transfer built in. Any other software manifestation that carries with it honestly wonderful intentions can be construed as criminal in the hands of its users.
How does the opensource community, comprised of software authors with no legal protection, manage to protect their continued activities? Does anyone else fear the implications this has for entire opensource OS's and kernels that could somehow be construed as having code that "aids piracy" in some remote fashion? Softmac support in the form of people on wifi hotspots is one example I can think of.
Re: (Score:2)
Some other links (Score:2, Informative)
The FFII [ffii.org] and the Vrijschrift.org Foundation [ipred.org] tell us some more about how bad it could be.
The big one as far as I'm concerned is ``incitement to infringe'', which could open software writers to massive problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha (Score:1)
I don't understand: isn't this good? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all for legalizing free, noncommercial share of copyrighted information (that is, what it's called "end user piracy" today). As far as TFA says, it seems Europe now explicitely protects the end user right to share copyrighted information: something that previous Italian legislation, for example, explicitely *criminalized*, instead.
It seems to me that the law bans commercial, money-making piracy (that's OK for me). As for the "banning p2p software", I've not found clear references. Can someone explain me better?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't understand: isn't this good? (Score:5, Informative)
So now E.U. citizens have the explicit right to make private copies for personal non-profit usage (something in line with the Betamax decision on U.S.), but infringement, complicity and incitement to infringement on commercial scale now holds harsher penalties. Slashdot groupthink like to imagine that they are the center of the world, and every piece of legislation is there to restrict their freedom, is aimed to them but in fact, this legislation main target is not even technological "IP" infringement, but good and old school counterfeiting of goods like clothes, bag and perfumes, that happens to be a big issue to France, for instance.
I'm all for both freedom for private personal copies and jail penalty for petty criminals that sell counterfeit CDs, DVDs and Dolce&Galbanna clothes on flea markets. The fact that this legislation could be interpreted as bad for the likes of YouTube is purely incidental, a side effect that can or cannot be interpreted this way. Now, cut this "MPAA bought E.U." bullshit. You nerds are not the center of the world, and pointing fingers to Venezuela, China, Brazil, E.U., Iran will not make U.S. problems go away.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Thanks for the link. In fact, it seems the legislation is not that bad. For example the justification of Amendment 3:
It should be made clear that the involvement of injured parties in investigations carried out by the police or public prosecutors' offices must not jeopardise the neutrality of those state investigation agencies. Maintaining objectivity and neutrality is part and parcel of the rule of law.
states basically that MPAA and RIAA cannot go berserk ignoring the neutrality of laws.
Amendment 16
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not what this means. It means it isn't a criminal offence for them to do so; they can still be sued by the copyright holder, they just aren't going to prison for it.
Do it on a commercial scale, and you end up in prison. This is already the case in most EU countries, I think, so I'm not sure what the directive changes. The FIPR objects [fipr.org] on the grounds that it extends criminal liability to intentional
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody is talking but nobody read the actual legislation. I know, I know, I'm not that new here on Slashdot, but it is still amazing the ammount of ignorance that can be derived from so few people.
On ThePirateBay case (and other trackers), as on ot
Re: (Score:2)
(I am European, but not an expert in Europolitics but...)
IIRC, this is a "directive" and, as the word suggests, is simple a request that the European member nations create the relevant laws to implement them. The EU has no power to make laws (yet), so only when this directive is implemented in law in the country you live in are you protected.
Clarification of the term "directive" (Score:1)
A EU directive is quite different than "a simple request" to EU member states, though you are partly right. A directive is binding for all the member states to which it is addressed (in this case; all member states), but it does not specify the measures that should be taken, only the goals. Thus, the member states are obliged to implement measures in their own national law that will achieve the goals set in the directive.[1]
[1]
Re: (Score:2)
Here are a couple of consequences of the text [ffii.org] as voted by the EP. This directive was not and has never been about piracy (although some lobby organisations have tried to hijack it for that purpose). It is only about EU competence extension [edri.org].
And fwiw, it does not exclude private users from criminal sanctions. The approved amendment reads:
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we have to wait actual implementation in member states.
Never (Score:1)
thoughtcrime (Score:3, Insightful)
Excepting end-users doesn't alleviate this at all, especially since almost all end-users also upload copyrighted material in todays P2P networks (hence the acronym).
Since anyone can write a simple P2P system in a few hours and using just a few hundred lines of code, and since such a client could be applied for all kinds of legal and sensible uses like distributing patches, podcasts, etc, I find it a horrible idea to potentially send people to prison for writing such a system.
I agree that copyright infringement should be punished, but in light of the high usage of P2P systems no government acting in the interest of its people should criminalize such huge percentage of the people it represents. There has to be a real compromise between the content creators/owners and the end-users in whose interest governments should ultimately act. And sending people to prison or fining them many thousands of euros for illegally downloading digital content just doesn't seem that interest-protecting for the people to me!
Harmonise??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly restricted to the EU, especially in the context of copyright, is there even one example of a copyright treaty which resulted in a r
Piracy of what? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't tend to pirate software any more, as there's simply no need. There is an OSS tool for just about every job, and many of them are getting to the point (finally) where they're actually up to the standard of commercial software.
The only commercial software I need tends to be small utilities (which usually have an honest developer who deserves the money) and Windows (It's too much like hard work to pirate it and keep it up to date anyway)
Music - rips are very often bad quality or difficult to get hold of - if it's available on iTunes for 99p then I'm willing to pay that to save the hassle.
Which just leaves anime. I must admit, although fansubs are technically illegal (presumably) I greatly prefer them to dubs. And the easiest way to get 'em is to download 'em. If Jump were to supply downloadable subs of Naruto themselves (translated in a proper fan-like fashion, not a dub-like one i.e. I don't want to read "Believe It!" every 10 seconds) then by all means the money would be theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Exception: I've been known to copy rental DVDs for personal use. Even then there's no point really as I very very rarely get around to re-watching anything. Anything t
Vault Disney (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I refer back to my point on anime in the previous post. Ironically, it seems that the one I was talking about (Naruto) is available from first glance although I think it has to be imported from the US (bleh) and I have a feeling it'll have the "Americanized" subtitles (if you see what I mean, i.e. over-translated). Plus it's shockingly expensive to buy a full series!
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming the material in question is available on DVD in the first place. Even if it is you may be faced with spending plenty of time, trouble and money to get hold of a DVD only available somewhere else in the world.
Being able
First reading only (Score:3, Informative)
I would point out that most member states of the EU already crimialize "comercial" copyright infringment, and thus this could be seen as an attempt to "harmonizing" EU wide law. I would also point out the proposed directive would require member states to ensure fair use rights, something several member states don't do, starting with the U.K.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
I wish that those that posted these types of news would tone down the sensationalism and hysteria. "EU bans this and that" type of news are becoming quite common on slashdot while having little support in reality. The political process
Open Source Avocation + Pirating = Bad (Score:2)
I know most of you feel that software should be free and by pirating it you force the other guys to give you free software, but in the long run it doesn't help. If you are going to be an Open Source advocate you really should try as much as possible to use the Open Source and free alternatives as much as possible, if no Open Alternative exists that fits your needs either make it yourself or more re
Re: (Score:1)
Lobby directive is (Score:2)
The head of this whole thing is Janelly Fortou, which coincidentally is the wife of the Vivendi CEO.
Or in other words, this is a lex vivendi!
It still has been pushed somewhat into saner waters, the original proposal would have been desastrous, even patent infringements would have been included (just to satisfy some pharma companies), even pro patent lobbyists like Microsoft (which do a lot of lobbying over here for pro software paten
Liberal Democrat MEP's views (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly, my UKIP MEP, Roger Knapman, also voted against...
Thank you for your email of 23rd April 2007 regarding the directive on
criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property
rights. The infringement of intellectual property rights, such as
counterfeiting and piracy is a growing phenomenon which has a serious
economic effect on the global scale. The Commission proposed this directive
to offer additional provisions to strengthen and improve the fight against
systematic infringement of intellectual property rights.
Although I am not a member of the Legal Affairs committee which has
discussed this directive, I am indeed aware of the matter and share a number
of your concerns about its current drafting. There is general agreement to
remove patents from the scope of the directive, and I believe it should be
further restricted. To this end, my Liberal Democrat colleague Sharon Bowles
MEP tabled a number of amendments for the vote in the European Parliament
which are concurrent with the aims of the Librarians', Consumers' and
Innovators' Coalition amendments.
I understand that Sharon has sought to address the current wording of
Article 3 which stipulates that "Member States shall ensure that all
intentional infringements of an intellectual property right on a commercial
scale, and attempting, aiding of abetting and inciting such infringements,
are treated as criminal offences". In its place, Sharon proposed that
"Member States shall ensure that all intentional infringements of an
intellectual property right on a commercial scale, or wilfully and
specifically aiding of abetting or inciting such infringements, are treated
as criminal offences when there are aggravating circumstances of organised
crime, counterfeiting, piracy or serious risk to health or safety". This
clarifies that innocent or unknowing assistance to infringe is not covered
and also restricts the scope of offences to which criminality could apply.
A second concern is one of definitions. Although I gather the Librarians',
Consumers' and Innovators' Coalition amendments have done a fair job at
establishing definitions, I do believe it far better to remove the
definitions from the text completely. This to my mind is safer and allows
judges to dismiss cases that might otherwise be caught by specific
definitions. For this reason I supported Sharon's amendment which eliminates
definitions.
Unfortunately, in the vote in the European Parliament on Wednesday 25th
April, a number of these amendments did not pass and subsequently the Group
I lead voted against the directive. But, realistically I believe there is
some way to go before we will know the final shape of this legislation as
this is just the first reading but I hope this answer is reassuring that
Liberal Democrats in the European Parliament take your concerns seriously.
Please do not hesitate to get in touch should you require further
information.
Yours sincerely,
Graham Watson MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar
and Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
How they can *criminalize* anything... (Score:2)
This is complete nonsence and incompetent law again introduced by clueless politicians who are doing NOTHING useful to countries and people they represent. How usual these days
If by "stricter" it means "more relaxed" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some important parts there, that helps to clarify and protect private copying, while harmonizing the legislation among the members states to fight the real threat that this legislation aims: counterfeiting of real world trademarked and copyrighted goods. Here are some important parts of this amendments:
Now, again, let's comment on that. How is that bad for fair use, private copying, etc? It is exactly THE OPPOSITE of what is being stated in the summary of this article, it defines explicitly fair use, right to private copying and creates a legal framework for the IP holders to be able to assert their rights, while protecting the citizens against baseless suits.
And, as a side effect of that, it legalizes the legal parallel importing of goods, making the ones like Lik Sung (sic) to be able to operate on E.U. territory. See below:
Re: (Score:2)
The explicitly excluded patents from this directive, on its whole body. Now, what were you talking about again?
Btw, I agree that software (and ideas, in general) should not and must not be patentable. But STFU and read the legislation first, com
Science Fiction coming true (Score:1)
http://www.amazon.com/Noir-K-W-Jeter/dp/0553576380 [amazon.com]
The book itself was good but I thought that copyright crime as a capital offence was a fun idea but just a step too far away from reality to be believable.
Not now. Science Fiction can tell the future and it's not one I like.
The European commission and parliament is turning into a bureauc
first thoughts... (Score:2)
I would like to say, however, that I am in favour of criminalising copyright infringement. It is theft, right?... well thats what the BPI/RIAA keeps telling me... Just think about the implications for it though; if it is a crime then there needs to be (unless they make it strict liability) mens rea and
Politics as a method of investment (Score:2)
People like to break down economies on a national level or a federation of nations level. That's fine and very useful to look at. Another way, though, to look at an economy is by sector.
In many regions, the economy of a certain type of good or service breaks out ahead of the economy as a whole. Other parts of the economy get pegged to that commodity and are traded against it. The economy of that one sector can be said
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In the name of providing video sharing services or Search engines, these sites indulge in mass copyright violation that requires the owners of copyrights (server admins) to set things like robots.txt etc.
Re: (Score:2)
However, in contrast to the US the EU seems to be less about money and more about talking and (mis)information - the advantage is that non-corporations can play that game, too.
Correction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom in society means absolutly NOTHING
Only if you believe that freedom is a digital, on or off, affair.
If you think that there can be degrees of freedom, or even separate conflicting axis of freedom then the idea of freedom in society is not such a meaningless concept.
At the risk of upsetting the Merkins, only "absolute freedom in society", or indeed "absolute freedom" is an oxymoron.