Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media The Internet News

EU Proposing to Make P2P Piracy A Criminal Offense 420

brajesh writes "The European Commission is pushing for a proposal (.pdf) to crack down on organized piracy, which could also make indirect copyright infringement a crime across Europe, with implications similar to the recent MGM v. Grokster U.S. Supreme Court ruling. If the directive is adopted, developers who create software for file sharing that is then used for illegal ends could potentially be criminally liable in EU member countries." From the article: "The problem here is some activities, such as the creation of software, can be used for legal and illegal purposes, as is the case with Grokster...It gets really messy, because it is unclear what is legal or not legal, and it is problematic to operate with such abstract terms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Proposing to Make P2P Piracy A Criminal Offense

Comments Filter:
  • by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @12:53PM (#13251012)

    "Let's ban everything that attempts, aids, or incites acts of anything. It would eliminate cars, guns, tools, computers, people, milk, water, and air."

    Maybe the summary wasn't clear enough. This is an attempt to institute a standard of liability similar to that of MGM vs. Grokster. The folks behind Grokster were taking active measures to profit from piracy -- their ad campaigns and email trails showed that quite clearly. If you're not sure why Grokster fell into this category and a gun manufacturer does not, it may help to compare Grokster's business model and advertising campaign to that of BitTorrent.

    Any moron can slippery-slope this one. We're smarter than that.

  • by viperstyx ( 578360 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @01:07PM (#13251140) Homepage Journal
    My understanding was that the issue in the MGM vs. Grokster case was that Grokster marketed their software to be used in an unlawful manner. But the judge clearly stated that other software (ie. IM software used to send files, web browsers, etc) and companies would not be held responsible for their tool simply being used for illegal purposes so long as the tool was not marketed to be used in that way. So whats the deal? That sounds like a logical outcome to me...
  • Re:Imprecise Laws (Score:3, Informative)

    by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @01:13PM (#13251199) Journal

    Socialist governments like imprecise laws...

    Maybe (and maybe not), but it's hardly relevant: as of 10th July 2005 the largest bloc in the European Parliament was not the GPES (European Socialist Party - including those notorious revolutionaries in the British Labour Party currently supporting Comrade Bush), but the EPP-ED (European Peoples Party - the conservative/Christian Democrat group): Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. Nice troll, though.

  • by zootm ( 850416 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @01:54PM (#13251711)

    So my advertising is the factor that decides my culpability?

    Exactly. There's a difference between creating software that can do something, and specifically marketing it for doing that thing. Grokster sat on their site and said "violate copyright with our products". That was a prime reason they were held responsible when their users did exactly that.

  • by Mallaien ( 893024 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @03:36PM (#13252765)
    With the brilliance that come from making somthing illeagl just because of its potentil to cause harm would mean that any software can be illeagl. For instance, TCP, HTTP can be used to send pirated copies of software and child porn, should we now start arresting the IT people? Al Gore better watch out cause he claims to have invented all this. Its a bad day when it becomes a crime to make, build, or design anything that could be used for crime, but a good day for criminals. Criminals naturally dont follow rules, its only the law abiding that wll suffer.
  • by Lobi Wan ( 905548 ) on Friday August 05, 2005 @07:03PM (#13254426) Homepage
    I almost always go back to first principles when hearing such stuff and it seems to me that this would set a fundamental precident such that, for example: the inventor of the kitchen knife will be liable for all the murders done using his creation. This makes the creator liable for the actions taken by anyone using his creation and NOT the perpetrator him/herself. Presumably, one could then do anything one damned well pleased with no consequences to oneself so long as one used something created/invented by someone else. Lobi Wan

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...