Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

Finland Drops EUCD For Now 123

Posted by michael from the war-overseas dept.
replicant_deckard writes "Electronic Frontier Finland just got a huge legal victory. They report the local DMCA-copy (based on EU copyright directive) was dropped today at the parliament after heavy criticism. So far just two EU nations have accepted the innovation threatening law. Campaigns go on in different European states. They need your support!" cabra771 writes "The European Commission has put up a new proposal dealing with online music piracy that appears to have slightly upset a few people."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Finland Drops EUCD For Now More

Finland Drops EUCD For Now

Comments Filter:

  • Finland Drops EUCD For Now (Score:4, Funny)

    by sweeze ( 530463 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:13PM (#5199817)
    so how many posts by people who are never going to move to finland saying "whee, i'm moving to finland" do we get to see now?

  • Copy protection schemes (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:14PM (#5199832)
    If copy-protection schemes are to succeed, they must be as undetectable as possible by the end user. I don't mean that he won't realize he's using a copy-protected format, but that his ears won't be able to tell the difference between a copy-protected one and a non-protected one.

    VHS macrovision is popular precisely because it's undetectable in how it alters visual quality. You'll hear lots of complaints by people who are unable to copy videos correctly, but you'll never hear a complaint by anyone about how macrovision has degraded their signal -- it hasn't.

    We're almost at the stage where digital watermarks are completely seamless. Ten years ago, inititives like this would've been scoffed at. Now, they're becoming reality.

    • Re:Copy protection schemes (Score:5, Informative)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:18PM (#5199866) Journal
      You hear plenty of complaints about people who plugged their new DVD player into the line-ins of their VCR because their TV has no RCA plugs. Under such a scenario, macrovision kicks in even when just playing a DVD 'through' the VCR, whether you're recording or not.

      The only recourse is a new TV, or a $20 signal booster. And I've seen many people get pretty pissed when they realized this.

      • Re:Copy protection schemes (Score:5, Interesting)

        by antibryce ( 124264 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:52PM (#5200119)
        The ultimate irony in this is when that happened to me. I went out and got one of those $20 boxes at best buy which convert rca to a coax signal, only to discover it also stripped out the macrovision BS. Now I never have to worry about it :)
    • It's not very difficult to defeat Macrovison from what i recall a couple resitors will do it. Or a 20 dollar box puchased online or at RadioShac
    • I apologise beforehand for continuing the offtopic parent topic.

      as many a man before me has noted: if signal degradation is undetectable, and that signal can be put through some device that only picks up on the important parts (in your case, the sound and vision) then it may be copied in some way.

      I also suspect that macrovision is only in place by default on videotape X, not because a company has noticed large quantities pirate of videotape X appearing. As soon as they bring in a new standard, it gets cracked and anti-piracy bodies are none the wiser until they commission a study many or so more years down the line.

      The same thing applies to digital works (albeit in a slightly more convoluted manner)

      And ultimately, what's the real point? Is it just so no pirate can *pretend* they are Blockbuster Video? (so to speak).

      I think it's obvious to the end-user that their copy of Product X is pirated: it didn't cost them as much as it would thru official channels. And that's the real reason why piracy thrives.
    • VHS macrovision is popular precisely because it's undetectable in how it alters visual quality. You'll hear lots of complaints by people who are unable to copy videos correctly, but you'll never hear a complaint by anyone about how macrovision has degraded their signal -- it hasn't.


      This is simply not true. Macrovision interferes with lots of video projectors and some TVs. The rest of the TVs shows noticable picture quality degradation on Macrovision protected material.

      And while it hits mostly legal uses of this material, people who want to copy such protected VHS tapes can buy Macrovision removal blackbox for about 50pln here -- roughly equivalent of $10.

      Robert
    • VHS macrovision is popular precisely because it's undetectable in how it alters visual quality. You'll hear lots of complaints by people who are unable to copy videos correctly, but you'll never hear a complaint by anyone about how macrovision has degraded their signal -- it hasn't.

      That is as maybe, for video. However, the ears are FAR more sensitive to dynamic content than are the eyes, and therefore watermarking schemes and the like have a *much* higher barrier to acceptance than does Macrovision...

  • Shock horror! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Neophytus ( 642863 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:20PM (#5199878)
    Government listens to citizens! Peace comes to the world!

    More seriously I am pleased that such legislation was dropped. The less 'corrupt' CDs [fatchucks.com] I see the better.
    • Shamefully, the band that reached number 1 in the album charts last week in Finland, Children of Bodom, Hate Crew Death Roll, released the CD in 2 versions, one with an extra track that was "copy protected".
      So not everything in Finland is perfect.

      YAW.
      • The key difference is that they have two versions and they tell you which is which. You don't have to just buy something that looks like a CD and hope it actually works. In fact, you can vote with your euros and not buy the crappy version!

        Nightwish did the same thing, by the way, but their crippled version was a limited edition which sold out fairly quickly. I wonder what they learned from that. (Nightwish was tainted with evil, though. They said on their website which was which but the CD package didn't mention it.)

  • A battle has been won, the war goes on (Score:5, Insightful)

    by villoks ( 27306 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:23PM (#5199901) Homepage Journal
    Hi!

    Yeah. It was a very sweet victory indeed, especially because the content industry was very confident that the proposed law would pass. :-D

    Unfortunately this is only a temporary relieve, the war against fair use will continue very soon and long as EUCD exists we are on the losing side. Never the less, the situation is now much more hopefull in Finland, because the public knowledge is now much better and also because the MPs seem to understand how important these questions are.

    Ville :-D

    • Yup, watch out! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by zonix ( 592337 )

      You're lucky, this time!

      Denmark - nearing the end of it's EU Presidency - was too preoccupied with other EU affairs, mainly integrating new member countries. It was apparently so important that this law be passed before 2002-12-22, that suddenly a massive vote against the law at the second hearing, turned to a massive vote for the law at the third hearing. One party actually "pushed the wrong voting button" - literally, and two (I believe it was two, one being the second largest) other parties had suddenly changed their minds? WTF?!

      z
      • Thank god I left that 3rd world country nine months ago. It's appaling to see how this law was mishandled by the danish gov.

        Until that law was passed it was legal to borrow and copy a CD from a friend as long as it was for personal use.

        Thank god I,m out. And the beer is better too !!!

        • Until that law was passed it was legal to borrow and copy a CD from a friend as long as it was for personal use.

          I believe it was, and still is legal for you to make backup copies of your CD's and to make greatest hits compilations of your collection for *your own personal use* - not for your friends?

          What's new is that you're not allowed to do this any longer, if it means you have to circumvent the technical measures that content providers built into a particular medium to prevent this, ie. if the CD in question is copyprotected somehow. Think CD's without af CD-logo, think Star Wars scores.

          This has a whole lot of implications, and for the CD's it may not be as big deal, but for DVD's for the time being, it means it's illegal to watch these on GNU/Linux systems because you have to circumvent technical measures (with DeCSS). Of course with a closed source and licensed DVD player, it's ok, but I believe you won't find this anywhere anytime soon for GNU/Linux. The essence of this is that EUCD conflicts with development of Free and Open Soure Software, in part because the content providers get to decide what *you* do with your *own* CD's and DVD's, etc. There's a whole lot more to the FOSS issue.

          This is just the beginning. I don't watch DVD's on my computer, but as I stated elsewhere in another comment, the interpretation of the EUCD has led to the conclusion, here in Denmark, that it's illegal to import DVD's (and CD's for that matter) from outside the EU, with the intent of selling them. Again, it's completely legal to privately import them, as I do now, but it means that all the stores where I used to buy my Region 1 DVD's are closing shop.

          In other words the EUCD makes it illegal for these stores to import *culture* for me - think about it - I mean sure I could just buy the same DVD's in Region 2, but what about Japanese Manga titles (Region 4), or really hard to come by Horror movies (mostly Retion 1).

          Anyway, Carlsberg is great, but Tuborg rules, ok! :-)

          z
    • It's not a war against fair use. It's a war against piracy. Fair use is merely collateral damage. That is, unless you consider distributing free copies to complete strangers fair use.

  • Status of the EUCD (Score:5, Informative)

    by zonix ( 592337 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:25PM (#5199922) Journal

    For a status of the implementation of the EUCD, look here [wiki.ael.be] .

    Too bad my country didn't see why the EUCD is totally bogus. I'm not allowed to buy my region 1 DVD's here in Denmark anymore, so I have to import them. My favourite DVD stores are closing. :-(

    z

    • Yes, you are right, however, Laserdisken does allow you to buy region 1 disks directly through the normal channels (I just got the last DVD in the Serial Experiments Lain series that I was missing).

      Brian (the minister of culture) has stated that the government was actually aginst the import clause of the law, but that they were powerless against the EU (an exelent example of why a lot of the entire EU concept sucks).

      This site links to three very nice pieces of "howto interpret the new law" from the ministry: digital forbruger article [digitalforbruger.dk]

      The bottom line is that you are always allowed to circumvent the copy-prevention if you do it to exersise your fair use rights (so playing dvds on Linux is still ok). Software is not covered by the law at all (so breaking copy-prevention on software is ok). You are still allowed to borrow original media from your friends (and the liberary) AND make copies AND keep the copies (you are not allowed to disitrbute copies or make copies of copies, though). DVD-jon would have gotten off under the current danish laws according to the minitry, so that's ok as well.

      The only impact on fair use is that you are not allowed to break the copy-prevention to make a copy, not even for yourself (it doesn't say what to do if you don't notice the "protection" at all).

      So we are still not as bad off as those poor americans:)

      • Ah, I've been a customer of Laserdisken's for years, since the good old LaserDisc days. Jan, where are you!? :-)

        It's true, they're going on to function as a intermediary between the Danes and the offshore distributers. Same goes for Axel Music by the way! However, what has always kept me from importing my own titles - which is even cheaper - is that with a local shop such as Laserdisken, you have the service. It's less troublesome to get a new copy of a defective disc from your local shop than it is with a shop that works overseas. Axel Music, for one, has stated that they can offer you telephone service and such, but they can't actually accept your offshore bought discs and return them for you if they are defective. This is unfortunate.

        Some offshore shops provide courier services, with 2-3 day delivery time. Now, none of us know yet what Laserdisken can bring us, even if they manage to keep the store in Copenhagen alive - but I fear they can't provide the same great service as before, compared to what you can get if you just import the discs yourself.

        I believe our Minister Of Culture has also stated that he will now work within the EU to drop the import clause, but I fear he doesn't have the time. If what you say is true about him, then I don't understand why his party voted for the EUCD - in it's current form - in the first place.

        By the way, I have already signed up with Digital Forbruger, and I encourage every Dane who is concerned with their rights in the digital age to do the same. I also do my part to get these issues heard by the people in our goverment through other means - you know, there really is such a thing as six degrees of separation! :-)

        You say:

        "you are always allowed to circumvent the copy-prevention if you do it to exersise your fair use rights"

        and also:

        "The only impact on fair use is that you are not allowed to break the copy-prevention to make a copy"

        I fear the line beteeen *circumventing* and *breaking* is a little vague. It's like coding around a patent without violating it (impossible), not that I wish to mix these matters. :-)

        z

  • "Unambitious?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheFrood ( 163934 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:28PM (#5199944) Homepage Journal
    From the article:

    The industry in a statement issued jointly by 10 organizations, including the Business Software Alliance (BSA), International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Motion Picture Association (MPA), blasted the proposal, calling it "inadequate" and "unambitious."

    Funny, I never considered it a virtue for a government regulation to be "ambitious".

    TheFrood
    • Funny, I never considered it a virtue for a government regulation to be "ambitious".

      You obviously don't have a Messianic view of the State. What's wrong with you?

  • I think its just a matter of which side is willing to fight harder and longer... Free access to information enthusiasts (pretty much the general public) or DRM enthusiasts (RIAA, companies that generate profit from licensing)
  • I know. I'm scared too. The nation that has some of the most draconian computer crime laws - hell, the way legal system's acting we're lucky to have the concept of "fair trial" - hasn't done something against the informed public's wishes!

    At this rate, Scotland are going to win the World Cup within a decade...

    -Mark

  • Sorry to disappoint people, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 00_NOP ( 559413 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:39PM (#5200027) Homepage
    The fact that only two member states have passed this into domestic law could well be a BAD thing, because the directive is now enforcible at the European Court of Justice. They may make a repressive ruling that will then automatically apply to all member states. For those from the US think of it this way - all the states have agreed to implement a law within two years - only two have done, but someone goes to the Supreme Court and seeks a ruling - that's where we are right now.
    • all the states have agreed to implement a law within two years

      I'd like to add to this, since it's something that in part escapes the attention of most people. People! These EU laws don't totally come out of the blue, and then we all get to vote on them in out respective countries, as to test us. These are carefully planned years ahead, like the EUCD (EU InfoSec Directive whatever), and are carefully negotiated amongst our elected officials in the EU. Add some heavy preassure by different Industry Organitations, and some influence by different Interest Groups, and you can see these poor bastards (the officials) take a lot of heat. :-)

      In the end, they don't propose a law unless there's a reasonable chance it'll pass in all member countries - there's just too much invested in the process. Support you local interest group, let your voice be heard!

      z

    • Not quite... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      From what I can figure, the European Court can't *make* law. Granted, they can rule that the countries haven't followed the directive, but the court still can not *implement* the directive over the head of the individual countries. And until it's incorporated into law, it's not legally binding for the citizens. I answer to norwegian law, not EU directives. Not quite sure what sanctions they do have though, probably some strong ones anyway.

      Kjella
      • AFAIK, Norway refused to enter the EU, so why do you feel concerned about EU directives? they are not relevant there.
        • AFAIK, Norway refused to enter the EU, so why do you feel concerned about EU directives? they are not relevant there.

          From the EUCD-status page:
          Norway
          * Note : Norway is not an EU member state. It is however a member of the EEA and thus has to implement the EUCD.

          Ah the liberty of being outside the EU - not....

          Kjella
      • I answer to norwegian law, not EU directives.

        As do I ... err Danish law that is.

        Not quite sure what sanctions they do have though, probably some strong ones anyway.

        Denmark recently lifted the ban [www.mst.dk] on _canned_ beer and soft drinks. Whoo, that was a big deal for the EU Commision - pending lawsuits and such. :-)

        z

      • Courts (Score:2, Informative)

        by LeftOfCentre ( 539344 )
        No court can "make law" (that's for politicians on European, member state and local level), the job of a court is to determine whether or not the law has been followed. In the case of the EU, case law and treaties dictate that the European Court of Justice [eu.int] has the final juristiction in disputes between member states where the treaties are concerned, and failure to implement EU directives as national law is breaching the treaties. Since the power to enforce the law is still with the member states, it's not like the EU Court could use force to get its will through -- but the whole framework of the EU depends on member states abiding by the rulings. Failure to do so can result in very heavy fines, as determined by the court, and the eventual exclusion from the Union.
        • Courts do make the law. That is what the rule of law is about.

          • Re:Courts (Score:1, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            No, courts only enforce the law. That is what the concept of separation of powers is about. No court in any democratic country "make the law" - that right is exclusively in the hand of the legislative (parliament, or similar). Some courts have pretty wide powers in interpreting the law, but only within the context of the legal doctrine of the country in question and taking past precedence into account.
    • The only reason a state law would be taken to the federal supreme court would be to argue it's constitutionality. Each state has it's own supreme court to decide matters of state law... so if the states agree that they will pass a law, only the states that actually pass them will have that law enforceable in their state. Of course federal law is another matter.

      I feel an odd kinship with those accross the sea who are fighting off the same bullshit that we are.. and sadly losing to apathy.

  • Benefit of disunity (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dnoyeb ( 547705 )
    And this is the negative point of the European Union. If their is one authority, their is only 1 bribe. But with multiple authorities, it becomes prohibitively expensive to get your laws passed.

    If the EU ever gets too much power, Europe will suffer heavily. As we know

    "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
    • But against this prospect, some way off at least for Europarl, if not the Commission, must be balanced the fact that WTO and related bodies are past masters of the art of 'divide and conquer'.

      For example, when seeking to prevent poorer countries producing their own AIDS drugs, the US (acting on behalf of the large pharms) threatened the likes of the Dominican Republic, India and Brazil with sanctions unless they supported the WTO's TRIPS agreements.

      Only an economic unit the equal of the USA can face down such threats, and the EU could well develop something of a spine and do so on occasion. Sometimes it pays to be part of a big club!

  • Relaxation of "Restrictions" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anubi ( 640541 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:55PM (#5200132) Journal
    So, according to the proposal at ITWorld ( http://www.itworld.com/Net/4087/030131euantipiracy / ), "Peer-to-peer file-sharing services that encourage copyright infringement and make money from advertising are commercial, according to the Commission. "That is illegal and should be stopped," the Commission said. Examples of file sharing services are Kazaa and Morpheus."

    I thought that was exactly the thing which the recording industry was so miffed about - and this legislation is nailing that one straight on.

    I still wonder about how hard they are going to hit onto what I consider "fair use". I consider placing of impediments to fair use applications to be a severe infringement of MY rights.

    This stuff telling me I can not make backup and make proper use of what it is I am purchasing.. well looks like the European Commission didn't like it much either. I wonder how the European Union recognizes it. I hope they recognize a noose when they see it.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not an unreasonable man...I am willing to compromise my position.

    If you want me to give up my right to make backups, you *must* be willing to provide me with one at any time in the future I may need one - and be willing to compensate me for my time and other losses that was incurred because I put said product in a critical position, when having backups in place would have eliminated that loss. Remember, the vendor will have to issue me the exact software I had running with whatever patches I had applied... or come in and make whatever he has work in a way that is acceptable to *me*.

    I can bend too in my belief that I am not supposed to "reverse engineer" the product to try to make it work, if the vendor is also willing to take unlimited liability in assuring me the software does what it says it does, nothing more, and nothing less. So if I get some software that sent stuff out on the net, I would have recourse to recover from the vendor whatever I valued the data it sent at. Basically the same law they had the US Congress pass for them, but directed back at them as the target of the Liability.

    I do not think I am asking anything unreasonable, its just if you want to take away my rights to try to make the thing work, you will take on that responsibility of making it work. If you want to do something behind my back and don't want me to see - you will take full responsibility for what it does.

    • The point they are upset about is that the file sharing services are targeted, and not the users of those services.

      They're complaining that the users themselves aren't punished for it - only the service.

      Of course, I don't think they share our viewpoint.
    • "I consider placing of impediments to fair use applications to be a severe infringement of MY rights."

      Just so, and I would like to see politicians stand up for our rights instead of the interests of the content producers. Hell, that's their job isn't it? The entertainment industry can implement all the anti-piracy measures and DRM they want, as long as they keep our rights in mind:

      Our rights to make copies for our own use, transpose content to different media, and play back content on (compatible) equipment of our choice, must not be abridged. Incidently that means that the old-fashioned copy protection schemes have to go as well, such as the protection on some CDs that won't let you play it on a computer, or Macrivision that won't let me play video's in the den where I have an old Amiga monitor hooked up to a VCR.

      We have the right to record, distribute and play back unencrypted, unprotected and un-DRM'ed media. Both for backward-compatibility reasons, and also so that a local band will not have to suck up to the RIAA for a private DRM key so they can press their own CDs.

      With the DMCA and all these new copyright laws, I'd like to see the rights of us citizens properly laid down for once. Ask your representative in the EU, or your political party: protecting content providers against piracy is all well and good, but where do we the people stand in all this? What about our rights?
    • I've got the perfect solution to our problems.

      Here's what we do: Stop paying taxes. Every last one of us.

      If everyone refuses to pay taxes, the government will be completely cash-starved. They can't jail all of us, right? They can't even afford the first investigation. So they'll just have to do without the money.

      This means a huge (100%) decrease in the budget. Then we tell the senators and representatives to get dayjobs, because we'll only start paying taxes again if they give up their salaries completely, and amend the constitution to make it permanent.

      Now, two things happen. First, eventually all the politicians will be poor folk like the rest of us, so they'll make laws that favor the poor folk rather than the rich--such as allowing fair use, including making backups since that's cheaper than buying a second copy of something.

      Second, eventually nobody will really want to be a career politician. Since the only people fit to rule are those who don't want to (who am I quoting? I forget the source at the moment), and there will be nobody around who wants to rule, we'll have rulers who are fit for the job, almost by definition.

      With the political parties/machines gone, people will vote for their next-door neighbors...or themselves. It'll be chaos, and I think we'll come out with a better government than we have now because of it.

      Then we get around to such things as repealing the DMCA and really skewering Microsoft.

      Finally, once again the U.S. will be a leader of the free world! No longer will we have to follow the lead of pioneering countries like Finland--we'll be the pioneers! Glory to this great nation!
    • If you want me to give up my right to make backups, you *must* be willing to provide me with one

      Don't fall into the "backup right" trap.

      Many DRM proposals try to cliam they preseve fair use by including a restricted method to create backups. It's a trap because they still deny your right to the rest of fair use.

      It is impossible for DRM to fully preserve your fair use rights until they can instal mind reading technology AND they come up with the cloning technology to include the supreme court in the DRM package.

      -
    • "I can bend too in my belief that I am not supposed to "reverse engineer" the product to try to make it work, if the vendor is also willing to take unlimited liability in assuring me the software does what it says it does, nothing more, and nothing less."
      If this is what you want, I hope you are ready for software becoming even more expensive, updates taking much longer and smaller companies simply going out of business.

      In addition to this, software could turn out to have fewer useful features because the benefit of including this incredibly useful feature doesn't outweigh the extremely long time you have to spend perfecting it before it's ready for mass-market consumption and the risks involved in including it.

      The problem is that the software doesn't just have to handle its own environment. It has to work on any insanely configured operating system if it is to be aimed at the mass-market. It has to play nice with all other software in existence, including drivers if it uses some kind of hardware acceleration or similar. And people do the weirdest stuff with their systems. If the program does mess up, is it the program's fault if it is caused by another program or by the user fouling up something else which (in)directly leads to the failure?

      I am not writing this because I don't agree with you - I do. Software is generally released too soon, but this is also due to a number of factors such as the need to release something to get money to fund further development, as well as market pressure etc. These, too, prevent software from becoming what we would like it to be: Always working, stable and without bugs.

      In the end, your wish is a good one, but it is unrealistic, and if it did happen, major changes would have to be done to the way the entire industry works. But maybe that would be a good thing...

  • If They Haven't Smacked it Down in Your Country (Score:5, Informative)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @05:58PM (#5200162) Homepage Journal
    Write to your government officials and let them know that you're against this law and point out that it's been used in the USA primarily to suppress research, stifle competition and delay innovation. Argue that since copyright infringement laws already exist (They do in most countries) this law is neither necessary nor well advised.

  • EUCD (Euro-DMCA): not so easy to get rid of it :( (Score:5, Insightful)

    by waterbear ( 190559 ) on Friday January 31, 2003 @06:32PM (#5200369)
    These stories celebrating delays or apparent abandonment of 'EUCD copies' in the EU and EEA member states, most recently Finland, are probably about celebrating too soon, unfortunately.

    The arrangements in Europe are that member states have an obligation to implement EU directives. If member-state governments drag their feet beyond the patience of the European Commission, there is now more than one way for the Commission to put a financial sting on them. The threat of open-ended financial liability may be one of the important drivers for implementing EUCD in the member-states in spite of any campaigning. This is particularly remembered in the UK, which got badly stung financially for taking unilateral action on fishing rights. So, for example, the few-months delay to about the end of March recently announced by the UK Patent Office (for review of the consultation replies, and for completing and amending the UK draft implementing regulations) will probably not be easy to stretch out much farther than that.

    The real legislative power in these matters is with the EU Commission, which deliberates in secret. How this appalling state of things came to be is another matter, but the time to lobby effectively is the stage _before_ a directive issues from the EU Commission --- at the stage after it has been made a fait accompli, it is really too late. It's too late now to do much about EUCD in its current form except to mount marginal delaying tactics, and to be vigilant in campaigning so that the member states don't change their local copies in the direction of making matters even worse -- which is what the UK's draft local copy that went out for limited consultation in 2002 would have done. I suppose there is always some faint chance to try and get the Commission to reconsider/repeal the directive, but that looks like a tough and long haul.
    • Yup.

      You are totally right. This is only a temporary delay, in the Finnish case most likely 4-5 months. But it still shows that the content industry can't anymore expect to get their all demands fullfilled. And it also shows that you can't buy all the democratic institutions.

      The next step is to take the fight to the international level. Most of current IPR-regulations are based on international treaties and the fight on national level won't help much. It gives us at most some time to prepare for the next round, that's all.

      Ville
    • "The real legislative power in these matters is with the EU Commission, which deliberates in secret. How this appalling state of things came to be is another matter"

      No surprise that the Economist said being a EU commissioner was the "cushy job of the year". Lots of power, hardly anyone to answer to, rather good pay and best of all, you work behind the scenes and largely out of the public spotlight.
  • The Slashdot story [slashdot.org] link above points to a 404 Yahoo [yahoo.com] story.

    The only ref I came across (in, we'll 5 seconds of looking. Damn that ADD) was this [wiki.ael.be] one from 2002-12-20 which states that only Greece has passed it.

    Sure be nice if the /. ed's would just inline a small detail like that instead of linking it in.

    • only Greece has passed it.

      I happen to live in greece, so let me tell you this: Nobody here gives an *fsck* about this DMCA-like law they 've passed. And more important, especialy those who have passed this foolish law are *completely* clueless about the threats that it represents. So, dear ./er,I hear you ask "why the hell did they pass the darn law in the first place?" Because they are so freakin' willing to do immediately whatever the EU directives say, that there is no time to consider the meaning of such a legislation. After all, if the european counsil said it, it must be right!
      But if you believe that a law like it can pose any kind of serious threat to the everyday activities of us Greeks I can tell you that there are literally *thousands* of colored immigrants from various african countries which make a living by selling copied cd's from all the major foreign and domestic artists, and I mean here professional works, cd covers etc. When you go anywhere for a cup of coffee or a beer (legal for any age!!!:) on average there will be at least a couple of those folks running around and asking you politely whether you want to buy a cd. Price is around 3-4 euros (3-4 $). So why go to the bloody cd-store when you can pick all the titles you like while enjoying you coffee ??:) Everybody's happy (hehe even the cops) so why bother arresting them ? After all,a little slack for everyone can be extremely productive:)

      and now, a little carma whoring: Greece, Denmark (and no-one else) make EC copyright deadline [theregister.co.uk]

  • Why it was dropped (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    EUCD was dropped because the EU was threatened under the DMCA for copying the DMCA.

    EU has very much less nukes and no proper delivery system anyway.
  • From what I understand, this is similar to a single state trying to overturn a law enacted by the U.S. Federal Government. If Michigan decided they didn't like the DMCA, nobody would really care...it wouldn't have any effect on the outcome of, well, anything. Finland's case sounds like it's different only in the specifics.
    • A US member state can't tell the US government where to stick that law. Any EU member state can.

      Of course it is illegal, but some EU directives are such that no-one cares breaking them - not even the goverments of the member states. No-one is going to invade Greece if they don't enact the cucumber directive. And even if they have a formal "cucmber law" in accord of the directive, the police and courts are most likely not interested in the crime you committed (selling cucumbers that had a too large curvature). I think our parliament has better things to do. And this does not mean the Christmas tree directive.

      EU has much less power on member states than US. Several problematic directives have never been implemented in some countries. EU is at the beginning of integration, but it is a long way to "United States of Europe". We are moving towards USE, but it is still very far away.

      EU is heterogenous and loosely bound when compared to US. Compare EU/Finland to US/Michigan. Finland and US have their own army. Michigan and EU don't. Finland has full control over Finnish police and Finnish borders. I don't know about the "normal" police, but US has FBI. I assume anyone from Michigan is free to visit Florida, without passport control.

      Finland collects taxes, just as Michigan and the US government. EU gets a share of some Finnish taxes, and a membership fee from the Finnish government. Just a few years ago, Finland had it's own currency. Now we use the Euro of EU. I assume Michigan has always used the US dollar. If US signs an international treaty, Michigan must follow. EU may sign international treaties, but if Finland does not sign, it does not apply. It is possible to be a citizen of US, or a citizen of Finland. But there is no EU citizenship (yet). And so on and so forth, but I hope you already got the point.

  • Not much to do with EFFI (Score:2, Interesting)

    by sjofi ( 307114 )
    Reason for dropping the draft is really that the Finnish parliament decided that it doesn't have enough time to finalise the legislation before the elections in march... Not exactly a "huge legal win for EFFI" as it is hyped.

    Unfortunately the EuroDMCA directive is in effect despite that not all member states have implemented the local legislation.

  • EUCD.INFO [eucd.info]. You can donate money to help, tax deducible in France.

    A proposal has been made last week to the national parliament to consider stating explicitely that data format, protocols and encryption are not technical measures of protection in the sense of the European Union Copyright Directive.

    Laurent

  • In the article about downloading:
    "The Commission estimates over 17,000 jobs are lost annually through piracy and counterfeiting in the EU."

    They don't say how this estimate came about, but at face value it seems to demonstrate a dismal lack of understanding of basic economics, I won't even introduce the fallacy of lost sales (would never have bought the disc anyway...) into the argument. I'm neither a downloader nor a big buyer of discs, yet every time I spend money it helps provide someone with a job. Exactly the same applies to people who stop buying discs and download, unless they leave the money they save in a tin box at home, which I doubt.

    I am not defending downloaders; I am demanding that the European Commission resign en bloc due to imcompetence.
  • Since I attended the 1st BB Awards Gala of EFFI, I have decided to join EFFI, but never got around to really doing it...
  • Get the full text here. [eu.int]
    The Commission also put up an FAQ [eu.int]

  • Why should EU force artists into US dominated Mkt? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aphor ( 99965 ) on Saturday February 01, 2003 @10:36AM (#5203749) Journal

    The DMCA was written to protect the interests of data distributors. The whole idea is to prevent the cost-negating distribution network called the Internet from affecting the cost of distributing data which has enjoyed high cost (fat profit margin) CD[ incl. CDROM] and DVD distribution. The cost of CD and DVD distribution is paid to an industry of distributors. They are middlemen whose economic niche has been proven obsolete by the Internet. Since artists and producers do not need them for distribution, they are playing their other card: revenue agregators. That function serves the artist/producer end of the data economy.

    Admittedly, a revenue model which pays the artists and producers for their work without involving the traditional distributors hasn't emerged. The distributors are not so confident, so they are seeking protection like tariffs. This is an age old issue rearing its ugly head in a new place, and we will eventually solve it the way we always do: the middlemen buy their policymakers and get their policy.

    In the US, the distributors dominate the world market for movies, music, and any other software. In the EU, the distributors and the artists and producers from which they distribute software are worldwide underdogs by sheer revenue. Neither the distributors nor the artists and producers in the EU will gain if they support a scheme that allows the gargantuan US companies to dictate the terms of their business.The DMCA could give US media distributors the leverage they need to control the EU market.

    What the US distributors fear is that the next Beatles will emigrate from the US to the EU where the DMCA allows the artists to dictate more of the business, and gives them access to more of the end-consumer's money...if such an economy were to pop up in the EU...

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close