Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Your Rights Online

IPRED2 - Open Rights Group vs. Their Rights Online 30

Posted by Hemos
Elektroschock writes "The British Open Rights Groups yells the alarm bell. Europe again. Ipred v.2, a directive proposal, will pass the Legal Affairs Committee soon. ipred2 would brand 'all intentional intellectual property rights infringements on a commercial scale' a criminal offence, thus the public prosecutor will take action and take over the role of RIAA. For commercial social communities where infringements are inevitable — think of Youtube — they expect dangerous times ahead. On the other hand life of content industrials would get a lot easier. It is difficult to imagine how the consumer would benefit. Toine Manders, Dutch MEP in that Committee, openly advocates his amendment proposal aimed to criminalize consumers. Open Rights Group suggests you to write to your Members of Parliament. Will they have any impact? Janelly Fourtou, wife of the Vivendi boss, is a member of the Committee. And she pushed through ipred number 1, so why should public action make a difference? The EFF started only this month to build up an office in Brussels. Do MEPs listen or could Sealand be an option for Web 2.1?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IPRED2 - Open Rights Group vs. Their Rights Online

Comments Filter:
  • Why is it.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robcfg (1005359) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:33AM (#17981764)
    that the politicians doesn't understand that criminalizing people is absurd. Politicians were elected to work FOR people and not AGAINST people. For me the path is clear, if the value their intellectual properties they should not sell it and keep it in a secure vault.
    • But we only cast a vote, the money comes from the industry.
    • Business drives commerce, commerce pays tax. Your consumption feeds the business whom in turn feeds your government. If you have Cable, cancel your account and ONLY utilize media online thereby forcing change on the form of media distribution.

      It's high time T.V. Got an overhaul, it's what 50 years old now. NTSC and PAL are poor standards for content and quality when compared with 720P, 1080i. So start by not consuming cable or any other syndicated T.V. for that matter, order all of your content online.
    • by Aladrin (926209)
      Yes, criminalizing people is absurd. There should be no laws and then nobody would have to get jailed for doing bad things. All those murderers, rapists, jay-walkers, and copyright infringers are all just people doing what comes natural. We shouldn't be persecuting them.
      • There IS a difference between laws that restrict a minority and serve the majority and laws that restrict a majority for the benefit of a minority.
      • by VJ42 (860241)

        jay-walkers

        Yeah, I'd say that criminalising pedestrians for crossing the road, where and when they feel like it is absurd. In fact, they are exactly

        just people doing what comes natural

        And thank god my government agrees. Say what you like about the UK government, but at least they haven't yet legislated to stop me using my brain to decide where to cross the street whenever it's convenient.

        This is exactly the same, it's a stupid law that imposes a stupid restriction on the majority (pedestrians\citizens), for the sake of a minority(drivers\corporatio

    • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

      ...the politicians doesn't understand that criminalizing people is absurd.


      When you consider that politicians are far more likely to be convicted of a serious crime than the general public, you'd think they would understand.

      Here in the 'States, between the politicians and NFL players, that's most of the crime, right there.
  • by montyzooooma (853414) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:36AM (#17981798)
    ...and while it's not exactly dense legalese it is pretty dull. Which is going to be the problem isn't it. I wrote to my MP during the main anti-EU patent campaign and it was probably an eye-opener for him when compared to the typical letter he'd receive on a weekly basis. But with software patents there are some pretty broad strokes you can paint if you want to paint a negative picture - anti-competitive monopolies, patent trolls etc. But I think we're going to have a harder time convincing our MPs that there's a good reason not to criminalise commercial copyright infringement whether it's on Youtube or selling pirate DVDs in pubs or at car boot sales.

    While I may BT the odd TV show at least I know what I'm doing is illegal. Instinctively I know that if this goes through it's the thin end of the wedge to making it not only illegal but criminal too. But I suspect my freedom to steal TV off the internet with only the threat of a fine hanging over my head is going to be a hard sell to my MP.

    • The problem could be that infringement is not the same as piracy. The FFII explains [ffii.org] where to draw the line. Their recommendation is to adopt the definitions of the Max-Planck-Institution [ip.mpg.de] .

      On the one hand civil rights group advocate to criminalise piracy and counterfeit while the proposal of the Commission actually criminalises "all infringements". Plus "incitting, abetting infringements", that is very very broad, hmm? The Open Rights Group explains it very well.

      It is not about piratebay or piracy and counte
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Halo1 (136547)

      Please have a look at a presentation [ffii.org] I gave in the EP to interested assistants and MEPs about this. Although it may not be that clear without the accompanying commentary, I hope it still can clarify some of the important points.

      Basically, the problem is that it does not only apply to commercial scale copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting, but also criminalises

  • So... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by advocate_one (662832) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:36AM (#17981800)
    just who is going to be the only person who won't fall foul of this proposed "law"... If the courts get flooded with cases, then perhaps they might just rethink things... or am I just living in cloud-cuckoo land... Personally, I'd recommend that we deliberately go to police stations and give ourselves up, all at an pre-arranged time and day as a means of protest if this stupidity gets passed.
    • I'd wager the same would happen that happens in the US today because of the clogged justice system: People are being "persuaded" to make a deal outside the court. I.e. you plead guilty and get about 2/3 of the sentence. And a lot of people will agree, guilty or not, because they can't afford good legal representation and their "mandatory" lawyer (read: crappy pay and a case you don't want) wants to get rid of them and tells them the deal's a good one.
  • by nickos (91443) on Monday February 12, 2007 @09:37AM (#17981806)
    I would like to donate money to an EU-wide organisation that will fight this sort of thing. Does anyone know which of the numerous organisations is most deserving of my cash?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Shrubber (552857)
      There is an organization out there that works hard every day to fight this!

      http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]
    • by Vitanova (715409)
      Consider the FFII: http://action.ffii.org/ipred2 [ffii.org] http://www.ipred.org/ [ipred.org]
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pieterh (196118)
      The FFII (who also fight against software patents, and for open standards) has been working to modify IPRED2 and/or get it rejected, for many months.

      The FFII's IPRED2 project needs your help. Defeating this directive requires a lot of analysis and writing of amendments, which is done by volunteers, but we also have to bring lobbyists to Brussels to do the groundwork with MEPs. That costs money - for travel, hotel, food, and in some cases, to pay people's time, because it's hard to spend months in Brussels
  • It is difficult to imagine how the consumer would benefit.

    You do know not every law has to benefit the consumer right? Or are you trying to say corporations have no rights? Sorry, the rights of consumers (or the desired rights) do no always trump corporation rights.
    (Aren't flame wars fun?)

    • by Halo1 (136547)
      Most corporations are none too happy with it either for these reasons [slashdot.org].
    • Not sure about the details of EU law, but I don't think this is (at at least it shouldn't be) about whether copyright infringement should be punished. I have a hard time arguing that posting a bootleg movie for other to download is somehow justifiable.

      The problem that I have with laws/directives like this is that they tend to encompass what should rightfully be considered fair use and are overly broadly written such that some pretty ridiculous abuses of the law result. Witness the DMCA in the US.
  • by H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) on Monday February 12, 2007 @11:03AM (#17982716) Homepage Journal

    For more information on what IPRED2 is:

  • The proposed directive seems to get in the way of commercial and academic research and development.

    Really. If we propose to redistribute someone's copyright work, we'll seek a licence before doing so. Maybe pay money, maybe trade for distribution permission of one of ours. If we propose to learn from someone's patent, then we'll licence that, too; either money, or preferably a cross-licence for something we can teach them. We have loads.

    If we infringe, it will be accidental. We don't want to go to jail. S

  • I really wish the Pirate Bay site was not moving to Sealand. All any country containing a lobby that disapproves of Sealand-based activities needs to do is deploy a single troop ship from their country's Navy. Given the flotilla's small size, I doubt it would survive more than three sufficiently large shells at most. End of story.

    If Sealand is still under the jurisdiction of the UK, then eventually its' activities will bother the EU and various other people that I could imagine Prime Minister Wormtongue
  • Will they listen? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Monday February 12, 2007 @04:03PM (#17987208) Journal

    Okay, for the americans. Say you are from one of those states no european has ever heard of, dakota or something. Now imagine if the guy in the news constantly was your senator and NOT the president of the whole United States.

    Well that is europe. We a system that can be compared a tiny bit with yours except that the level of goverment that people know about is one level lower.

    This effectivly makes the european level of goverment entirely unaccountable. Elections for the EU are nothing more then a opinion poll on the national goverment. You do NOT have EU parties. It is the local national parties that send people up for election. So it is used the same as local elections, just a way to see how the "real" national goverment is doing.

    Except for one fatal mistake the EU made. The referendum on the constitution of the EU. It was slammed down by the dutch. It was the first time the dutch really were given a change to say something about europe and the answer was NO.

    The problem wasn't even the constitution itself. It was how the politicians tried to win us over. It was downright insulting. Our prime-minister even warned us that it could lead to world war 3 if it was rejected.

    The whole tone was, that they knew best and we should just do as they say. Disconnect? Ivory tower? Insanity?

    Well whatever, it is still there, the whole thing is still on the agenda and not a single thing has been done to even attempt to find out why the dutch are so upset about europe let alone remedy it?

    What are the reasons we are so upset? Well, the euro screwed us, and all the politicians say is that we are wrong when we claim prices went up and salaries went down because of it. When shown receipts before and after the change for the same item this is not even denied. The politicians know it ain't so, and facts have nothing to do with it. Other part is that Holland pays the most contribution, granted it is a rich nation, but we also get less and less to say.

    The EU got a slap on the wrist, an important piece of legislation was refused and they did nothing.

    Do you really think they are going to give a shit what a few geeks think?

    The EU parlement is not just disconnected from the people, it is not just corrupt to the very core of its existence, it is not just ignored by those who are supposed to check it (the press), it is not just so incredibly complex that it could never work even if all the member states wanted it to work. It is all of them and then something.

    The sum of its wrongness is greater then all of its parts.

    The EU is a joke. But it is also needed. It keeps nations that hate each others guts from fighting each other. It also keeps individual nations from going to far with their local laws. For every insane EU law there are a dozen cases of people finding justice in the european courts of human rights.

    But that basic problem is that the EU goverment goes unwatched. It simply isn't on peoples radar, neither the voters or the press. So massive conflicts of interests like in this case simply go unchecked.

    Remember one thing about the human race. Democracy does not come natural to us. We tend to fall into monarchy. Human beings love to have an elite class on top that rules them and can get away with anything. Look at the US. No royalty, so elevate the rich to that class. Look at countries like france of russia, that slew their nobles in bloody revolt and were better for it, and now once again pine to have their royals back in place.

    Will the EU goverment listen? They are. They are listening to voters that don't care and a press that can't be bothered and they know they are safe to do whatever they want.

    And they are save, because it is a sure bet that it will be a long time before the next referendum is held in holland on anything, let alone the EU.

    • by Halo1 (136547)

      Other part is that Holland pays the most contribution, granted it is a rich nation, but we also get less and less to say.

      The EU is indeed not a publicly traded company where the country which "invests" most has the most to say. And every country gets less power as the EU expands, that's logical.

      That said, you're absolutely right that the EU has a huge democratic deficit, and that the NO's in the referenda on the constitution were a serious wake-up call to the member states which they are ignoring b

The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow

Working...