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."
Stupid law... (Score:3, Interesting)
Another stupid law. Using this reasoning any web browser manufacturer could be found criminally liable.
1. Open mozilla browser.
2. Download image and share with friend.
3. Lawyer sues mozilla because they let me do it.
If I buy a pencil and poke my neighbor in they eye with it the lumber company should not be sued either.
They should go after the actual criminals but they don't because there isn't any money in it.
This law should be called the EU Extortion Act.
"Abstract Terms" (Score:5, Interesting)
Whoever came up with the "abstract terms" locution was pretty clever; that's certainly a new twist on it. Usually, the folks who want unenforceable laws want the laws to be abstract. Now that there's so little left unregulated, they can take the gloves off and come out and say it -- "everything not compulsory must be forbidden, and everything not forbidden must be compulsory."
Re:How about cracking down on another kind of... (Score:5, Interesting)
You are also free not to buy any of it.
The problems with these types of laws is that you don't always know if what you are downloading off the internet is something that is copyright'd ,and not freely re-distributable, vs something that may be copyrighted, but freely destributable (opensource software, promotional free-music, etc). You usually don't really know until you have it downloaded and can run/play it. Even then, you might not know if it's legal or not. ex: Plan 9 from outerspace was a commercial movie, but it's now being freely distributed legally.
Jail them all (Score:2, Interesting)
Didn't you see this coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would equate this level action similar to what police do in inner city areas. You live there for years and there is a murder here and there, a few robberies a day and every once in a while some grandmotherly-type is raped and beaten. The police generally do nothing and it seems this is all just happening and nobody can do anything about it. Does this not sound like the level of copyright enforcement today?
Well, one day (actually more likely a dark night) the police come. Not just your usual two officers assigned to the neighborhood patrol car, but tens or even hundreds of cops in vests carrying all kinds of heavy weapons. Anything that gets in their way gets thrown into the paddy wagon and hauled off. Some people get shot, some by accident and some because they thought they would stand up against this invasion. Like what happened in Philly, maybe a building gets burned down as well.
Three weeks later, everything is back to normal. The drug dealers are back on the corner, the neighborhood liquor store got robbed last night and somebody gets shot and might live. The police came, put up a show of force, and left. They won't be back for a year or so.
We can expect a show of force soon over copyright. China gave up and has ceased all commercial music production. We can expect that in a few years here as well. It is almost the identical situation to the inner city - if the people don't give a hoot about it, the police (and RIAA, courts, government, etc.) can do nothing except put up a show of force. It is all just a show and it will be over soon.
Re:Just end it all, please... (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened to the days when a country's movements were so offensive that people would march? That people would have sit ins and public readings and such? Words are just words people, unless any of us is willing to stand up for our rights, we're just blowing hot air.
Perhaps all of those users of P2P programs, software developers, people who feel like their rights are being encroached on should get off their asses and go to DC for a day, sit down on the captial lawn, and get some influential people to talk and unite us. I'm sure RMS would have no problem, nor would Linus or anyone; a day out of their lives to support such an important cause isn't going to hurt anyone.
I'm just tired of hearing about this on Slashdot and having no outlet than to whine about it on here. It's far past time we actually *do* something about it.
Re:Lots of tools can be used to pirate (Score:3, Interesting)
You know the difference between those two? It's only that "people" writing respectable applications like IM are actually large software and media corporations, the same ones buying this legislation; like AOL-TimeWarner, Microsoft..
Which is why internet explorer isn't classified as a piracy device, even though the main function it has is to download material from the internet without prior permission to copy it. It's supported means for authorized copying (i.e. authentication) are so lackluster, they might as well be non-existent!
PS: you don't have permission to copy this post to your cache. Pirate!
Intention is a legal minefield (Score:3, Interesting)
Intention per se is essentially unprovable without documented evidence, and any law based around intention just results in business via conversations in remote places.
I am FOR this, and all laws like it (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the only way it will stop is that they go too far, and there is some kind of revolution. Let's get on with it...
Some misconceptions (Score:3, Interesting)
What the hell is it with this unelected bunch of goons? First they do their level best to introduce patents across the EU, despite the will of the (elected) parliament, now they're sticking their noses into another area they know bugger all about.
You seem to be confused about how the EU works. The commission only proposes legislation. But nothing happens unless the Council agrees with it. That means a sizeable majority of the governments of the member states. So if bad legislation is passed in the EU, you should probably be complaining to your own government.
Of course, the same ministers who approve things in the Council then turn around and tell their peoples that unpopular decisions are "Europe's" fault, thus covering their own asses.
And they wonder why people across the EU are jumping at the chance to say NO to the EU constitution, which cements the Commission into place...
The Commission has existed in this form since 1967 or so. I'd say it's quite "cemented" already. And the rejection of the constitution means that its current powers stay exactly the same.
How on earth did we get this bunch of cretins foisted upon us
Probably because our respective democratically elected parliaments decided to join the EU.
and why aren't we the people of the EC allowed to say "actually, no, we don't want them, we never have"?
Spare me the victim mentality. You're not living in North Korea. You have elections, you know.
Re:Imprecise Laws (Score:4, Interesting)
Straw man.
Firstly, the vast, vast major of contracted musicians don't see a penny from their copyrighted works, because they don't own the copyrights -- the labels do. And the labels screw them out of whatever cash they may be entitled to. Even successful artists rarely see a dime until the second or third hit album.
And anyway, copyright and payment is not a bad thing -- if it is limited for a short time. Copyright, however, is now eternal, and the original bargain made by the Constitution's framers is dead. Until copyright is reined in, it is a Bad Thing.
"what does a "free market" mean when there is only a single source of the goods?"
You've changed the definition of the goods. There is ONE source in the world for U2 performances -- U2 itself. That's what concerts are for, to obtain that unique product that only U2 can provide.
BUT, the recordings of the songs are not provided by a monopoly - not anymore - have millions of sources available for repro, are infinitely reproducible at almost no cost, and have a street value of either retail price or free. Amazingly, a lot of people are purchasing the retail package, but free seems to be popular as well. The free market has assigned its values. That the copyright lords do not agree with the reality of the free market doesn't change the reality. The copyright holders should be shudderingly grateful that people are willing to pay anything at all for a 25 cent disc.
"U2 can never compete with the freeloaders on price as long as they have to recoup their costs before they can turn a profit."
Obviously, they can compete. Bono doesn't seem to be hurtin' for money.
Bands, as I said before, rarely make money off of their album sales because of the amazing accounting practices of the recording industry. They DO make money off of their live performances, after the labels eat their share. Live performances are the way to go if you want to eat.
As for the revenues of the labels, who give a crap. They don't give it to their artists, and if you'll recall, they almost slipped a provision into federal law that would have made ALL RECORDINGS "works for hire" -- meaning the payment the artist received for recording the work would have been the LAST payment the artist would ever see, because the copyright would have been owned by the labels forever and ever and ever. And they probably would have taken the payment back from the artists for "expenses" that only they could define.
Wrappin' it up, I can only throw in my only real, extralegal reason for tossing copyright into the trash. Copyright was a deal, a compromise in the Constitution, that let a creator make money for a limited time, and then released the work into the public domain in less than 20 years. That would insure that things like "Huckleberry Finn" would be part of the public heritage, and available for interpretation and expansion or whatever anyone wanted to do with it.
But Twain's writings are STILL COPYRIGHTED, and will be forever; they are held by an IP concern which trades in the stuff like stock certificates. This is the reality. The works of mankind are now product, never to be released.
The deal was broken in the late 20th century. WE did not break it; greedy, selfish and stupid men broke it. They killed copyright by making it eternal, and made it criminal to violate their "property", making "reading" or "copying" equivalent to "stealing". Just the semantic evil of what they've done pisses me off.
They declared war on the human race, not me.