Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

UK Prepares Own Version of the DMCA 226

Posted by michael from the bow-to-the-inevitable dept.
philkerr writes "I've just been informed by the UK Patent Office, below, that the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive, the equivalent EU legislation to the DMCA) consultation paper has been released. It's important that we give feedback to the UK government that this legislation will have a chilling effect on the software industry." NTK has a few choice words on the subject as well. We've done several articles on the EUCD before, and Alan Cox has been campaigning against it, but it appears that the fix is in: Europe is going to get DMCA-like laws implemented in each nation by the end of 2002.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Prepares Own Version of the DMCA More

UK Prepares Own Version of the DMCA

Comments Filter:
  • More copyright crap, eh? Ah well. Ease your mind. [beryllium.ca] Pretend each bad guy is a lawyer.

  • Interesting follow-up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alefbet ( 518838 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @06:36PM (#4042867) Homepage
    This development is, IMHO, a very interesting follow-up to this posting [slashdot.org] about an article on the Register.

  • Can these laws be repealled (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @06:38PM (#4042877) Journal
    In the US the dmca can be repealled if found unconstitutional or if the house decided to kill it.

    Could a European more familiar with EU laws comment on this?

    • I am not a European, however, I believe the point is to try to stop having these bills passed in the first place. Enough restriction of information and freedom via over-reaching copyright and patent laws is going to eventually threaten *real* innovation and progress. Sometimes it reminds me of the way many established powers baulked at the printing press. What we need is a new Renaissance -- balancing appropriate intellectual propertry rights with the freedom needed for advancement and enjoyment. One more reason to support organizations like the EFF...

      Speaking of which, is there a European counterpart to the EFF or does the EFF handle European issues as well?
    • Look at it this way: Britian's House of Commons is like the US House, plus some Scotch Whisky. Anything is possible...
    • Laws in the EU must be passed by the Council [eu.int] (governments of the member states), and sometimes the European Parliament [eu.int], in order to come into effect.

      In this case, the EUCP was already passed on European level last year, and member states are required to implement it in their own legislation.

      The EU equivalent of the US constitution are the treaties that formed it, and other treaties that have been approved. There are a handful of them. Member state laws and EU laws can be challenged in the European Court of Justice [eu.int] (the EU equivalent of the US Supreme Court) on the grounds that they conflict with the treaties. For example, a far-reaching EU ban on tobacco advertising was challenged and thrown out on the grounds that the Commision did not have the juristiction to pass such a law.

      The treaties are long and complex. No normal human being reads through them so I am not aware to what extent the EUCP may conflict with the treaties. Even if the EU as such can not pass it, there is nothing preventing the heads of state of the individual governments from coming together outside the EU and deciding to collective (try) to get this directive passed in each and every state (assuming the national legislatures agree).

      The European Court of Justice, comprising judges from each member state [eu.int], is traditionally used by member states or institutions to sue other states or institutions. It is rare that individuals challenge laws, but to the best of my knowledge this is possible -- I think recent case law confirms that.

      There is also another possibility: some 40-50 countries of Europe are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, which has its own court. If the EUCP happens to violate any of the freedom of speech and freedom of expression guarantees found there, I imagine a motivated individual with the proper legal assistance may be able to try this as well.
    • Maybe is the DMCA is repealed this will fail, but since our prime minister dances to Bush's tune he'll just blindly follow whatever the US does. It's sad really that we have such a pathetic bunch of losers to choose between when we get the rare chance of putting a X in a box.
  • I think its time to move to a new country now. Anyone else up for buying a island somewhere and declaring it a independant state? At least tehn we could have a actual say in what laws we live under.

    • Re:Name a country, any country... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jaaron ( 551839 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @06:51PM (#4042941) Homepage
      Definitely a tempting thought...

      However, why should *we* be the ones to move out? Huh? Both the US and the UK are (supposed to be) democratic nations. Isn't that the point of establishing a democracy in the first place? So that we don't have to leave, but instead can change the nation and government to better suit the people?

      Maybe I'm too idealistic, but it seems to me that too many have given up on democracy really working (including myself often). The real test is that countries can change. That has happened in the past, if it can no longer happen, I think the fault lies more with the citizens than with the elected officials.

      Just my $0.02

      • Re:Name a country, any country... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Gossy ( 130782 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @07:24PM (#4043103)
        You assume that because we're both meant to be democracies, that the general public knows what is good and right, and that they will vote accordingly.

        I don't think that the general public are really going to take much notice about this - perhaps it seems elitist, it probably is - but I doubt they'd realise the implications or care in the slightest.
      • However, why should *we* be the ones to move out? Huh? Both the US and the UK are (supposed to be) democratic nations. Isn't that the point of establishing a democracy in the first place? So that we don't have to leave, but instead can change the nation and government to better suit the people?


        Maybe I'm too idealistic, but it seems to me that too many have given up on democracy really working (including myself often). The real test is that countries can change. That has happened in the past, if it can no longer happen, I think the fault lies more with the citizens than with the elected officials.


        You make a very important point, but I personally have not lost faith in pure democracy. Rather, I have lost faith in:

        1) Our paticular democratic implementations. ( Which are NOT pure democracy, but rather a democratic republic. )

        2) My countrymen. ( Most of whom still think that digital watches are a pretty neat idea. )

        Also, it is my humble opinion that the larger a democratic country is, the more disgruntled it's population will be on the whole. This is because decisions can be made with only a fifty-one percent majority ( in most cases ). In smaller countries, this only leaves the potential for 49 people, or 49,000 people, etc, to not get thier way. In larger democracies, like ours, you have the potential for millions to be 'in the minority'. I don't believe that the opinions and beliefs of 101 million should supercede those of the other 99. If we were split into smaller countries, or more independant states ( 5 points to the American who can tell me where we've heard THAT before ) then each side will get what they want, without trampling over what millions of others want.

        Of course, this will never happen, because we Americans ( I can't speak for Europe ) have become soft, fat, and lazy. As long as there's plenty of Hostess Snack Cakes in the cupboard, and something mind-numbingly violent is on the boob tube ( to keep us from thinking about how mind-numbingly useless our paticular cog in the machine is ), then we shant lift a finger.

        Warning: This is not a flame, this is an opinion, which just so happens to be mine. This also isn't an entry for the national spelling bee. So unless your response is insightful or informative, kindly fornicate yourself with a sharp iron stick. ( This warning was meant for the public at large and is not directed at the parent of this post. )

        Go Robo
      • Maybe I'm too idealistic, but it seems to me that too many have given up on democracy really working (including myself often). The real test is that countries can change. That has happened in the past, if it can no longer happen, I think the fault lies more with the citizens than with the elected officials.

        That would be true in an ideal world. But before you really believe that, consider this:

        1. One of the big reasons for using a representative democracy, instead of a direct one, is that people simply don't have time to vote directly on every little issue that comes up. It's much more efficient for them to elect someone to represent them, someone whom they believe best represents their interests. To demand that everyone keep up with all the issues is to negate one of the biggest reasons for electing representatives instead of simply voting directly on issues to begin with.
        2. That said, people can only vote based on what they know. And what they know is controlled by the very corporations that have managed to pollute our entire political system. It's ingenious (in an evil way) how they've done it, really: in order for a politician to be elected he has to have wide, popular exposure. In order to get that, he has to pay a lot of money to the media. The costs today are high enough that only corporations have enough money to give to make a politician's election possible. But the media is owned by the very corporations that give the politican the money to spend on his own election!! In any case, the end result is that people only vote for those people they know something about (you can't vote for someone whose existence you're not aware of, can you?), and the only source of information that is widespread enough to make election possible is the mass media, which is owned by the very corporations that are the root of the problem to begin with. So the only politicians that can get elected are the ones that the large corporations want to be elected.

        So it's not the fault of the citizens that things are the way they are. They really don't have much of a choice: the large corporations have arranged things in order to ensure that.

        It looks to me like there is no solution to this problem short of violent revolution. There is simply no way to get "there" (a government that listens and responds to the actual wants and needs of the people and not those of the corporations) from "here", because the system itself has feedback mechanisms (see above) in place that make such a direction impossible.

        This is why a corporate-run police state is inevitable, at least in the U.S. It's why the average person in the U.S. today has (as far as I know) longer hours and less real vacation (a "vacation" in which you take your cellphone and laptop "just in case" the office calls is not a real vacation!) than anywhere else in the first world (people who work harder have less time to think about politics, so it's obviously in the best interests of the corporations both from the standpoint of overall profits and from a political standpoint to give the working people as little free time as possible).

        Sorry for the rant, but we really are falling into a bottomless pit and it sure looks like there isn't a damned thing any of us can do to stop it.

      • A nice $.02 it was too.

        Of course the fault lies with the citizens. To take an example from the US, only something like 35% of *registered* voters actually voted in the last major election (I can't remember the actual numbers, but I know they were much lower than 50%). How many of those are uninformed and/or believe everything they hear on TV instead of actually researching what they are voting on and who they are voting for? Maybe 50%? So, only ~17% of the registered voters in the US made informed decisions as to how are government would be run for the next 2-4 years.

        Now how many of the other 87% of the *registered* voters sit and bitch about how messed up the government is? How many of the eligible, unregistered voters in the US bitch about it? Now, does the fault lie entirely with them?

        Hell no. It's not just the responsibility of every free eligible citizen to register and vote, but it's the responsibility of those of us that are registered and informed to *educate* the rest as to the issues and promote their involvement. I for one will come down hard on ANYONE with the audacity to bitch about government and laws when they have not voted or have voted without doing their homework first. If you can't pay attention in class, do your homework, or even show up, you have no right to complain about failing.

        If a teacher doesn't teach, only lets the students hang out and play in class, and never gives a test, he has no right to complain about having uninformed students.

        For all those that have failed to do anything about these things, despite being informed about them, I say you have no right to open your mouth and complain about them, but you DO have the right to do something NOW.

        For those that still fail to pay attention and still do nothing, though you be perfectly capable, I say you deserve what's coming (whatever it may be), but I pity the rest of us all the more.

        PGA
        • Of course the fault lies with the citizens. To take an example from the US, only something like 35% of *registered* voters actually voted in the last major election (I can't remember the actual numbers, but I know they were much lower than 50%). How many of those are uninformed and/or believe everything they hear on TV instead of actually researching what they are voting on and who they are voting for? Maybe 50%? So, only ~17% of the registered voters in the US made informed decisions as to how are government would be run for the next 2-4 years.

          It's quite possible that a proportion of those who do not vote do so because they are informed. If all of the candidates have a position opposed to that of the voter which candidate should they vote for?
          • If they feel that strong about it, then THEY should run for office. Seriously, if you don't like your options, make new ones. Or collaborate with others to make new ones. Until those steps are taken, I don't see how those who refuse to vote have any right to complain when things obviously don't go the way they would prefer.
      • Hmm.. ya know, you're right. In that light, I suggest an alternative: Let the RIAA and MPAA (and anyone else in love with DMCA-type laws), who can bloody well afford it, buy an island and move there en masse. Then they can enact and enforce whatever laws they please without infringing on *our* freedoms. They can also keep their valuable digital material in a vault at the bottom of the ocean, where only *real* pirates can find it.

      • Well I'm in the UK and no, I don't think it's much of a democrasy. I mean, what power do the people really wield? We get to put a X in a box once every 5 years. That's it. Even then, your choice is of "Self serving, power-hungry, ignorant glutton A" or "Self serving, power-hungry, ignorant glutton B". Some choice.

        I don't vote, along with a growing number of my fellow countrymen so the stats would suggest. I don't like to encourage the tossers in Whitehall into thinking anyone actually respects anything they do.
    • I would definately support a cause like this. A new nation, formed by geeks, open source geeks for that matter. I think we should look at Madagascar. It's close enough to Europe, and Africa, and it has the size to support a substantial population. I think the climate is pretty nice too. A one time citizenship fee of 100K US or so (this is less than the cost of a home for most people)would help go to pay whomever we bought it from. Once there we could start setting up a government, infrastructure and an economy. The whole process would take some time, but with enough support I really think this could be done.
    • The libertarians who found an underwater atol close to the surface in the tropis, and then built an island on top of it to get out from under the yoke.

      Oh yeah... they failed, when the U.S. paid the Tongan Navy $1M to go plant a Tongan flag on it to keep it from happening.

      Richer people than you have tried...

      -- Terry
    • Anyone else up for buying a island somewhere and declaring it a independant state?

      And we could use Slashdot polls to determine our dictator!

      Seriously though, there's no where to run, and no reason to run. Even if you moved somewhere else, what good would it do? Until you invent a superior system of government that is more immune to corruption and ensures equality for the poor and non-majority opinions, you're going to have the same things happen over and over, anywhere there are people.

      It's not the country that's to blame, it's our ideologies which are insufficient to protect us from ourselves.

  • UK Courts and Police (Score:4, Funny)

    by T-Kir ( 597145 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @06:40PM (#4042893) Homepage

    Well if it does become implemented, it'll take a while longer for the Police and Courts to catch on, especially in light of how they enforce the current RIP bill (Jack Straw's little ugly baby).

    If I remember rightly, in Computer Weekly stories were coming through of how the Police would come into a company and virtually request 'the internet', them not knowing they were enforcing... giving a whole new meaning to "'ello 'ello 'ello, wot's goin on 'ere then?"

    Time will tell I suppose.

    • Does this mean that we'll cease seeing comments like:

      1) "Europe is the land of the free, The US is fascist"

      2) "When will the US realize that its laws are not relevant elsewhere in the world"

      3) "Why do I need to worry about the DMCA...I don't live in the US"

      And etc., etc., etc.

      Now that we'll get beyond smug retorts and ignoring serious issues, perhaps we can work to solve them.

      P.S. I wonder where Alan Cox is going to move now.

      • Well I doubt it'll make much difference to points 2 and 3, and as for 1: Which country is still holding hundreds(?) of Afghan people in a concentration camp, who are treated as less than human and have yet to have been found guilty of anything? Funnily enough, the reporters who were captured by the "Forces of Evil" have stated they were treated with dignity and respect, and allowed to leave as soon as their innocence was proven.

  • The same European patent office employee who got his iterview pulled from /.

  • We should support them (Score:4, Funny)

    by Hamstaus ( 586402 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @06:44PM (#4042909) Homepage
    If the EU is so eager to follow the laws of the US despite all the obvious flaws, then the US should give them some starter tips as a gesture of goodwill. Someone send them a fat guy to sue the fast food companies.
  • I wonder if this explains why John Savage was forced to pull back his Slashdot interview. [slashdot.org]

  • Did anyone here read "1984"? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wackybrit ( 321117 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @06:48PM (#4042928) Homepage Journal
    Remember that in 1984, the main character believed that a true revolution against an evil government could not be started by a small gang of intellectuals, but that it would have to be the 'dumb masses' (known as the 'proles') who could summon the power to do it?

    To be honest, I can't see the point in fighting this. It's a bad way to go, sure, but a fistful of academics and computer scientists isn't going to sway the supposed 'ideals' of modern government. Keeping track of citizens is seen to be a good thing, and the only way we can stop governments bringing in draconian laws like these is to get millions of *common people* to rebel against it.

    This isn't going to happen. I've had discussions with people, and asked them what they thought about losing their privacy, and they generally believe that if you're doing nothing wrong, then who cares?

    The proles are useless, and they are not going to help in this fight. Stupid laws like the DMCA, IR35, RIP, terrorist Acts, will continue to pass through while governments preach that they'll improve your security.

    Sure, they might improve security, but for every bit of assured security you gain, you lose a bit of assured freedom too.
    • Very interesting point. I'm not sure if that justifies not attempting to oppose the legislation though (but I doubt that's your intended point).

      Actually, instead of 1984, I was thinking of "Atlas Shrugged" where the one washington scientist points out the Rearden that the laws which had been passed were not intended to be followed, but passed with the intention that people would not be able to continue unless they broke them, thus putting everyone in the power of those who pass and control the laws.
    • There is no such thing as "assured security". If a bad guy kicks in your door, rapes your wife, steals your stereo, and then blows your house up do you think you can sue the police? I don't think so. Protecting your home (and your person) is your job. Figuring out who the bad guy is and attempting to prosecute them (should you fail at YOUR job) is what the police do. Laws, in general, do very little to improve security.
      • Actually, you are right about the assured security thing, I was using it loosely. However..

        Protecting your home (and your person) is your job. Figuring out who the bad guy is and attempting to prosecute them (should you fail at YOUR job) is what the police do.

        This might be the case in Texas, but it's not in most of the world. Let me speak from a UK standpoint here, as I'm more familiar with those laws..

        In the UK, if someone breaks into your house, and injures themselves by falling on a step or some sort of 'trap' you have devised (such as electrifying door handles, etc).. you can be prosecuted, and the intruder can sue you for damages. This happens.

        You are not legally allowed to protect your property in any way you want, and if you harm any intruder, you are likely to be in front of a judge pretty quick. This is why it's illegal to carry knives or guns even if they're only for 'self protection'. Self protection is not a concept that is really recognised in UK law. If you injure someone, you're in the shit, simple as that.
        • The same applies here in the states... electrified door handles would count as "mantrapping", which is usually illegal. Here, if you feel that you have to defend yourself, you kill the attacker. This serves several purposes: first, the bad guy is dead so he isn't trying to kill you anymore. Second, the bad guy is dead so he can't sue you (although his family could). And no, you can't just shoot him in the knee because not only is that "malicious wounding", a criminal charge, but the bad guy can sue you too. The general solution is to be well armed, and if you have absolutly, beyond all doubt, NO CHOICE, then kill the son of a bitch. If you live in the UK, similar common law applies... but they don't let you have guns, so substitute "shoot" with something more civilized like "smite on the brainpan with a nail-studded bat", if that's still legal where you live. Or get a good cast iron skillet. Personally, I like my 12 gauge.
    • I guess the trick would be to find the right blaance between privacy and protection..but that's no easy task.
    • The problem is that they don't understand the true relevance of these laws to their own lives. The minimal attention paid to these issues (in U.S. media, anyway) is never sufficient to fully explain the pros and cons, and typically tout these laws as fighting a small undesirable segment of society rather than hindering our rights as a whole. DMCA fights pirates, the Patriot Act fights terrorism, etc.

      It is essential that the average citizen understands the true impact of these laws, and that the government receives arguments from every side of the issue. A fistful of academics and computer scientists certainly can provide meaningful support to the public interest, but only if they engage the public and the government about the issue in terms that they can understand.

    • To be honest, I can't see the point in fighting this. It's a bad way to go, sure, but a fistful of academics and computer scientists isn't going to sway the supposed 'ideals' of modern government.

      I'm reminded of one of the most insightful quotations I've ever heard.

      "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." --
      Margaret Mead
  • So is Alan Cox going to boycott [newsforge.com] EU conferences too? Are non-EU software engineers unsafe in EU nations? Maybe Alan needs to move to Taiwan or some place like that, where copyright laws are very lax. Or maybe he just needs to admit that his whole resignation deal was to push his political agenda (which is perfectly fine), not that he truly believed that he would be in danger if he came to the US.
    • Maybe Alan needs to move to Taiwan or some place like that, where copyright laws are very lax.

      Apologies to all my Taiwanese friends, but despite the fact that Taiwan and "places like that" have lax copyright laws, they are still not as free as the UK or the USA. Trading ten freedoms for the one freedom that gets you out from under the DMCA ain't a very good deal.

  • This is good for the US! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you're in a race, you don't want to be the only one who shoots himself in the foot. It's good to see that the Europeans are going to nobly handicap themselves to match our stupid mistake.
  • If you try and circumvent any the copy protection (or, in the case of computer programs, explain how to do so to anyone else), you can be punished as much as if you were pirating the data yourself... Heck, if you even try to remove any of the tracking spyware, you'll be in equal amounts of trouble.
    While the DMCA-like first provision is as bad as the U.S. law, what the heck give content producers the enforceable legal right to spy on me 24/7?

    Bear in mind that - just like RIP - our poor legislators are hurrying this through by Christmas. They'll consult, but be done by October 31. To save time, they won't listen to any complaints about the original EUCD document. And the raft of provisions that they've chosen to omit (like the generous but eminently ignorable list of fair use rights in the original directive) aren't up for discussion either.
    That's nice. We've let countries get into a game of one-upsmanship over the strictness of their fair-use-prevention laws, and they're not even going to let their citizens have a say in the process. What do we do when we wake up in 2003 and find it's 1984?
  • The amusing thing, of course, being that NTK occasionally brings down little sites. Guess the medium fish eat the little fish, and are in turn eaten by the big fish, until /. jumps in the pond and splashes out all the other fish.
  • As a European citizen, I highly detest laws like these. In fact, the absence of laws like these in the country I live in make me proud to be a dutchman.

    So the U.K. decides to implement this law, eh? Well, they dind't play along with the Euro initiative, I just hope we don't play along with the limeys here.

    Blair may spew about european unity all he likes, the UK still has pounds sterling, while almost everybody else has the euro.

    Good thing publicly protesting and picketing actually has value here in Europe. If a law like this _ever_ appears in my country, you betcha I'll be inside the 'Binnenhof' with a large picket sign and a bunch of flyers. That way one actually has a chance of talking to a politician and conveying your opinions directly to them. Beats sending a letter to your rep anytime, that. At least you can call that person names in his/her face if he/she decides to ignore you. :)

    The UK gov can keep their island mentality. As long as they don't bother us mainlanders with it .

    • We are all in the s**t if this happens. If Blair goes ahead, it will affect us all. We need unity,
      it is no good trying to isolate Brits, we do not all agree with our government. Take a leaf from Alan Cox. We in the open source movement surely have an international aspect on governments.
      Stick together!!!!!

  • Your views CAN have an impact..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mickwd ( 196449 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @06:58PM (#4042975)
    For all you cynics out there that think you can't do anything to stop this:

    1) The UK Patent Office undertook a consultation exercise into extending European patent law to cover software and business methods in the same way as in the US. They only had 285 responses - 241 individuals and 44 organisations. See their conclusions [patent.gov.uk] from the exercise. In particular:

    "To extend patentability so that these developers have to divert time and effort into making sure they are not infringing patents, and seeking and enforcing them, would impose a major burden. The necessary case for believing that a significant extension of patentability would increase innovation in this field simply has not been made. In fact, as many respondents suggested, it could have the opposite effect."

    They will have an influence on the European patent office. Other influences may prove stronger - the battle is not yet over.

    2) A couple of months ago, the government in the UK was planning on making everyone's phone records (including mobile phone location data) and internet data (URLs visited and emails sent and received (header details, I think - not sure) available to many government departments, local councils and even private utility companies. There was a large outcry here. People were encouraged to fax and write to their MPs. What happened? The legislation was withdrawn, and the minister responsible, David Blunkett (a SENIOR government minister) even apologised about it.

    Yes, these ARE different issues. But when a change in the law like this is being proposed, if you go about it in the correct manner you can have a (small) influence on what happens. If enough people get involved, you can have a major influence.
    • The extensions to the agencies able to request data under the RIP Act was withdrawn after David Blunkett's *son* explained to him that it was a bad idea. See for example this BBC article [bbc.co.uk], paragraph 13 or so.

      I'm not saying that we can't make a difference, but I remember the outcry about the RIP Act when it was first proposed. That got us nowhere.

      By all means, make your voice heard - I will be. Just don't expect it to make any difference - Tony et al are too much in thrall to the US and US big business.

      • we did get somewhere with RIP (Score:3, Informative)

        by ntk ( 974 )
        I hear this all the time - that somehow all the protests over RIP were a miserable failure.

        As a matter of fact, the final form of the act that passed was substantially improved on the original proposal. The *original* bill was going to demand key escrow: that's to say, you'd have to hand over you PGP keys to a third party before you could use them.

        Widespread protest by businesses and individuals stopped that.

        As a fix, the government introduced the idea that if you didn't hand over your password, it would be presumed that you were hiding it. That's to say, reversing the burden of proof. People protested about this to, and the final form of the Act goes a long way to mitigating this issue.

        There's a lot that's wrong with the RIP Act - but to describe the fight against it as a series of defeats is just as bad. You can make a difference. If you protested against RIP, perhaps you already have.


    • If you can get the press to be, 1) interested, and 2) on your side (as they were WRT your second point) then you'll stand a chance. Without that support you can forget it. The currently UK government have proven time and again that they assume they know better than the man on the street, and are quite willing to ride rough shod over or completely ignore anyone who doesn't hold any power over them. Between elections, we don't.

      Case in point: the petrol strikes that threatened to bring the country to its knees (last year?). The government initially responded with a smear campain - then dug in and sat it out, knowing that public opinion would evapourate when public fear for the future eclipsed sympathy. Today, nothing has changed, and the only powers capable of taking on government and winning, are the press.
      • Weren't the price rises that caused those petrol strikes the responsibility of the market price of oil going up due to the actions of that wonderful cartel OPEC, rather than any action of the UK government?

        If that's the case, WTF is the government supposed to do about it? Lower fuel taxes when its own costs are going to go up (cos the government has to buy fuel too)?

  • UK Prepares Own Version of the DMCA
    You mean the UK version will allow consumers to actually "own" the products they purchase? Wow, I'd better start packing...
  • It goes even further than the US DMCA, in that it EXPLICITLY makes publishing information (not just code) for circumventing copy protection illegal. Guess without a 1st amendment, they didn't have to pussyfoot around.

    • It goes even further than the US DMCA, in that it EXPLICITLY makes publishing information (not just code) for circumventing copy protection illegal. Guess without a 1st amendment, they didn't have to pussyfoot around.

      Darn. I guess we'll just have to fall back on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights [hri.org] instead. That's the one guaranteeing freedom of expression, yada yada.

      There is an exemption they'd probably argue for, where they can make it illegal to distribute information that would be used in the commission of crimes, but the burden of proof seems to be pretty much with them. You could (morally and legally) make an argument against distributing cracking software with that exemption. OTOH, they'd have to risk a very serious court case to try to stop things like academic study and the disclosure of vulnerabilities in software to sysadmins for security purposes.

      • Article 10 is a weak shadow of the US First Amendment. The US version says that the rights "... shall not be infringed." The EU version takes away in the second part what it gives in the first:

        "The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

        So, let's see... the copyright proponents will argue that protecting copyright will:

        - prevent crime
        - protect the rights of others

        • I'm aware of the textual differences between the two pieces of law. But the point is not what the law says, but what you can do with it. Given that the US is currently arbitrarily suspending all sorts of constitutional "rights" because its overly beligerent president has started a "war" (which is nothing of the sort by pretty much any definition but his) and then given himself all sorts of powers because you're "at war", you're hardly in a position to complain about the ECHR (which has had several high-profile successes) on the basis that your own constitution is stronger.

  • .. and an explanation of the law, they'll be silenced by their supervisors [slashdot.org].
  • We've got a Brit loon telling us how fsked we are for having the DMCA and another Brit loon gvmt agency pushing for their own DMCA. Get all your shit in one basket please!
  • Wasn't Bill Thompson writing just today in The Register that Europe should have its own private Internet [slashdot.org] due to the U.S. lawmakers and politicians' abuse of the net?

    Maybe the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on this kind of thing.
  • When we we're jailing Dmitry Sklyarov, people outside the US protested at our embassies. Where/how could people in the US (or other non-european countries) hold a similar protest? It would be nice to let the EU know that people who live under these kinds of laws suffer and are scared. It would also underscore the track record of such laws.
  • You can download the directive itself as a pdf file from here [eu.int]
    here. This could help you comparing the actual Ideas of an government with the possibilities of interpretation.

    In Germany the implementation of this directive is nearly finished. The Government already agreed to it. Now it's up to the parlament to modify it.

  • WTO + WIPO = DMCA (Score:5, Informative)

    by Khalid ( 31037 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @07:20PM (#4043079) Homepage
    DMCA is alas just the implementation in local laws of the WIPO recommandations. So it's just a matter of time until all the countries that have adhered to WTO (i.e nearly all) implement similar law. Have a look at this intersting FAQ http://anti-dmca.org/faq.html

  • On another message board, I have an ongoing tongue-in-cheek argument with some people about who has the best nation to live. Now, at least I won't feel so bad about having to argue with the English folks, or those saying "if it gets worse, I can always move to england".

    Really though, what motivation is there to pass such a law? Has it increased sales, security, standards, or anything in the U.S. by any measurable degree above pre-existing laws? Has it really has any impact on large-scale piracy, or given anyone any tools to make the U.S. a better place to live for the average person?

    Can a meaningful "life" stand on it's own as "liberty" and "the pursuit of happyness" become completely controlled by costly beaurocracy, both corporate and governmental? :^)

    Ryan Fenton
  • So now Alan will have to make snippy comments in his diary about how he can't explain what security holes have been fixed, because British read his site?
  • Maybe isolating Europe [slashdot.org] isn't so bad after all. I can only manage being violated by one DMCA at a time, thanks.
  • The only good thing I can say about this is, at least it will put an end to all the Euro-weenies who keep bragging about how they don't "have laws like that here."

    :)

    MjM

    Hint: The smiley means it's a joke

  • If this is a "European Directive" why is the UK the only ones do it?

    -- Coops


  • Remedy where effective technological measures prevent permitted acts

    (1) Where the application of any effective technological measure to a copyright work other than a computer program prevents a person from benefiting directly from [reference will be made here either to articles 5.2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 3(a), 3(b) or 3(e) of the Directive or to provisions of the Act covering the exceptions permitted under these articles] in relation to that work then that person may issue a notice of complaint to the Secretary of State.

    (2) The Secretary of State may, following receipt of a notice of complaint, give to the owner of that copyright work or an exclusive licensee such directions as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite or expedient for the purpose of--

    (a) establishing whether any voluntary measure or agreement relevant to the copyright work the subject of the complaint subsists; or

    (b) (in the event it is established there is no
    subsisting voluntary measure or agreement) enabling the complainant to benefit from [those articles or sections] referred to in subsection (1) to which the complaint relates.




    I think, in plain(er) English, and filling in the cross-references, that they are proposing for the legitimate recipient of a copyright work to have a right to demand they are able to perform 'permitted acts' with a copyright work if a technological measure prevents it. Under this wording this implies playing a Region 1 DVD on a Region 2 player, playing US and Jap-released games on a chipped Playstation could be the subject of an official complaint, the latter implying the reverse of a recent ruling against a mod-chip maker in the UK!



    Unfortunately, 1) I don't understand a fscking word of this document, but wonder whether they're trying to head off criticism through this addition, and 2) they've specifically excluded computer software from this!



    Unfortunately also, the EU Copyright Directive is as good as law, and the comments they are inviting are specifically on the required UK implementation of this directive. However, given this state of affairs, this paragraph could be an interesting spanner in the works for UK copyright owners seeking to impose unreasonable restrictions, and could prove a foil against existing anti-'fair use' technologies.



    I'd be interested to hear a more complete analysis of this paragraph and its practical upshot: after all, almost everything containing a microprocessor could be argued to contain copyrighted computer software these days.

  • So much for this guy's rant [theregister.co.uk] from 3 or 4 articles back, "A Private European Internet?" -- yeah, it's the US alright that is screwing up the Internet, with its lawyers, politicians and corporations. Weasels live everywhere, Mr. Thompson.
    • Your point is valid as far as it goes: the UK & Europe have plenty of companies, lawyers & politicans who are as bad as those in the US. However the UK was legally compelled to implement this law as a result of European union directive 2001/29/EC. In turn the Directive had to be implemented because of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. Who was responsible for the WIPO Copyright Treaty?
      Yes you guessed - it was created as a result of ultra heavy lobbying and smoozing by the US IP rights holders groups: *IAA etc. So he is right, ultimately it is US corporate interests aided by for-rent US politicians that are responsible.
  • And I was going to move to Britain too, to not live in a country with that very same law they are now passing. Oh well....Anyone know of any non-DMCA'ed countries where English is a primary language? *Gets out Spanish dictionary* No policio, yo no tengo una computadora!

  • Sign the petition against the EUCD (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sign it! [www.ael.be]

  • 1984 (Score:3, Informative)

    by hysterion ( 231229 ) on Friday August 09, 2002 @08:02PM (#4043309) Homepage
    Just yesterday I was making an innocent post on usenet, and noticed that comcast is now adding a humongous X-Trace in the headers, plus this (see for yourself) [google.com]:

    X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net
    X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
    X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly

    Chilling...
  • Now will this be enforced on the World Wide Internet or just the European one?

    Brian Ellenberger

  • Sad feeling (Score:3, Informative)

    by warmcat ( 3545 ) on Saturday August 10, 2002 @02:06AM (#4044487)
    I am active in the X-Box Linux effort, and based in the UK, it makes me very sad to read the summaries of this law here [patent.gov.uk].

    King Canute-style the people who make money from restricting availability of digital content have gotten more bad law made. As there is no technical fix for the erosion of their ability to overcharge, they instead try to bludgeon their customers into lying still.

    The resources of the state, including the unique powers to punish and deprive citizens of money and liberty will soon be being applied to individuals in the name of enriching the copyright holders. This is so inappropriate its ludicrous.

    I admired Janis Ian's second article reminding the legislators that they are voted in. But look at the incestuousness between these 'copyright holders' and the media that politicians need to influence the masses that vote for them! How far would a party get if it stood on a platform of de-emphasising these laws (I say that because no one country can strike them from the books, this being an EC law).

    However, there is one bright light untouched by this. Linux, GPL software in general, stands as the opposition to this IP world. At the cost of 'dropping out' from using programs and media that is not free, you can still get by. So my prediction is that this historic force of giving hugely excessive power to copyright holders across the world will polarize people all the more and give the whole free knowledge philosophy a huge boost, turning many of us into mini-Stallmans.

  • Lack of media coverage (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ford Fulkerson ( 223443 ) on Saturday August 10, 2002 @05:14AM (#4044872)
    The thing that really scares me about the EUCD is the total lack of media coverage that this las has recevided here in Sweden. I don't know about the rest of Europe but here I've never seen it mentioned in any newspaper or on television. All information I have found about it has come from reading Slashdot and other independant online sources.
  • I suggest that other software professionals do
    as I am doing and vote with their feet. Simply
    leave those countries which enact similar
    legislation. I'm going to China, where I will
    telecommute to my U.S. job, pay no taxes, and
    hire experienced software engineers for pennies
    on the dollar to comparably skilled westerners,
    as well as getting (speculatively) a lot of hot
    asian action.

    To those of you remaining behind: Farewell
    suckers!

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close