Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Censorship Patents News Your Rights Online

EU IP Enforcement Directive Criticized 295

Posted by michael from the just-words dept.
wiredog writes "A commentary at ZDNet UK concerning the proposed EU IP Enforcement Directive describes it as being as bad as, or possibly worse than, the American DMCA. Some snippets: 'You want to change the tyres on your 2006 model Ford Prefect? Anything other than genuine Ford tyres -- with the genuine Ford ID chip -- will disable your car. In the brave new world of the Directive, singing ... in public with your hat on the floor would be a crime,... You can imagine how much the police are going to enjoy having to cope with that.' It closes with the observation that "intellectual property is verging on thought crime."" Civil liberties groups have sent a letter to EU urging that the proposal be rejected.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU IP Enforcement Directive Criticized More

EU IP Enforcement Directive Criticized

Comments Filter:

  • From the FAQ, music and software theft (Score:5, Informative)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:42PM (#6667331) Journal
    From the FAQ, music and software theft

    Will this Directive mean that young people using file swapping software via their PCs will be held liable for IPR infringement?

    The proposed Directive would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals downloading the odd track for non-commercial purposes, though it would not stop Member State authorities from introducing and applying tougher laws.

    The scope of this proposal covers infringements carried out for commercial purposes or which cause significant harm to the rightholder.

    File swapping may be considered a copyright infringement depending on the national law in question.

    This proposal only covers illegal acts, where authorisation has not been given by the rightholder or where the appropriate remuneration has not been paid for the use of that piece of intellectual property.

    Exchanging illegal content over the internet is an illegal act, or an infringement of copyright if it relates to music files.

    Although considerable injury to rightholders can be caused by an individual via his/her computer linked to the internet, it is not in the interest of rightholders to spend a lot of time and money in litigation to catch offenders who are simply sharing a few files with a handful of friends.

    The proposed Directive aims to strike a fair balance between the interests of rightholders and legitimate users of intellectual property on the one hand and the wider opportunities the internet offers to consumers on the other, by focusing on commercial infringements or those which most damage rightholders' interests. It is not aimed at allowing the prosecution of large numbers of individuals using peer to peer (P2P) networks for casual file swapping.

    For criminal sanctions to apply, the infringement must be 'serious'. An infringement is considered 'serious' if carried out intentionally and for commercial purposes.

    Although the Directive also includes references to proportionality, i.e. for the punishment to fit the crime, it is up to national judges to decide on sentencing on a case by case basis.

    The RIAA will come in the nii-iiight!

    • Re:From the FAQ, music and software theft (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:00PM (#6667491) Journal
      See also:
      European Commission: downloading pirated material should be legal [afterdawn.com]

      However, the law is still seen as overly restrictive by many:
      The Draft IP Enforcement Directive - A Threat To Competition And Liberty [mi2n.com]
      Group warns of Europe's 'DMCA on steroids' [zdnet.co.uk]

      ... and this was also discussed in an earlier Slashdot post:
      Sweden to outlaw peer-to-peer file swapping [afterdawn.com]
      (however, it seems like there are still confusion about what the law exactly means, since this article seem to be in conflict with the first)

    • From the FAQ, music and software theft

      Will this Directive mean that young people using file swapping software via their PCs will be held liable for IPR infringement?

      The proposed Directive would not introduce tougher sanctions against individuals downloading the odd track for non-commercial purposes, though it would not stop Member State authorities from introducing and applying tougher laws.

      Interesting. Considering that a stated goal in the proposal (RTFP?) is harmonization of the laws of member stat
      • there isn't really a contradiction - the EU's purpose and power is more limited than you think.

        "Harmonising" isn't a goal in itself. The EU can only harmonise to prevent distortions of competition between member States, e.g. the UK having stronger IP enforcement laws than Spain and this mkaing it less attractive for companies to do business in Spain.

        Small-scale personal breaches of IP aren't really going to cause these kind of distortions and so the EU has no legal competence to create law in this area.
    • I like this part better:

      "Will this Directive mean that people buying a fake watch from a market stall will be held liable for IPR infringement ?

      No. The act of buying is not subject to any intellectual property right. "

      If buying illgal copies is NOT subject to any intellectual property right, how could downloading for free ever be?

  • Will it... (Score:4, Funny)

    by BMonger ( 68213 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:43PM (#6667344)
    ... stop me from putting my pants on backwards? If it does that then count me in.

  • Ford Prefect... the Car? (Score:5, Funny)

    by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <jeffwright821.gmail@com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:45PM (#6667354)
    Is it faster than Chevy's Arthur Dent or Toyotas Zaphod Beeblebrox?

    Oh well, I just hope it comes with a towel... and a pint of beer!!

  • At least europeans are being screwed too (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xThinkx ( 680615 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:47PM (#6667381) Homepage
    Hey, I'm not trying to say that no matter what the people want all of the politicians backed by funding from large corporations are going to pass this law...OK maybe I am. But, maybe when this abuse of power and creation of "thought crime" laws becomes a worldwide phenomenon, we'll have an easier time fighting it. Then again, maybe I'm too optimistic.
    • There's another way of looking at this:

      Before, many of us Americans were thinking, "Boy, if they keep creating these new DMCA-type laws, we're going to have to move to Europe to be free." But, since Europe is working to eliminate the dread spectre of freedom, the temptation isn't going to be there, and we can all relax. I'm glad THAT weight is off my shoulders! Phew...

      Hey! Waitaminnit! I just thought of something! I bet those Europeans are putting DMCA's in place to prevent us from moving over there! "Ha,

  • a good example (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Potor ( 658520 ) <farker1@gmai l . com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:49PM (#6667398) Journal
    of the dictum that if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal

    • Re:a good example (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JiffyPop ( 318506 )
      if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal

      <paranoia>
      and making everyone a criminal is the first step in creating a police state
      </paranoia>

      of course these days it seems like the police work for the corporations...

      The more I learn about the laws that are passed to "protect us from terrorism" or which "no one who is not a criminal should object to", the more healthy a dose of paranoia seems.

    • Re:a good example (Score:5, Informative)

      by Thing 1 ( 178996 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:32PM (#6668409) Journal
      a good example of the dictum that if you make enough laws then everyone can be a criminal

      Very succinctly put. I like to refer to a passage from Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" which says essentially the same thing, with more words: [angelfire.com]

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
      It blows me away that she wrote this half a century ago, and it's becoming more and more relevant. RFID tags for all!

  • OK.. My new book idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:53PM (#6667422) Homepage
    I will publish a book called "How to oppress the people", online, in a Wikipedia format. In that book I will describe and detail plans and methods for oppressing free speech, in a simple ho-to format. I will then sue any and all legislators that infringe upon my IP by writing blatent copies of my ideas.
  • Its taken a while but here we go : THE BOOK [amazon.com].

    Becoming more like the truth every single day! Welcome to the future!

    • Re:1984 (Score:3, Informative)

      by JeanBaptiste ( 537955 )
      yawn.... have you read 1984? if ford decides to modify their tires in the above prescribed way... what does that have to do with the government watching you? I dont see how the government is involved here. You could make the weak argument that what ford is doing is anti-competitive, but you still have the option to buy a different brand of car, dont you? If you dont like ford's scheme here, dont buy it. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the government or 1984.
      • "I dont see how the government is involved here. "

        You don't see the symbiotic relationship between big business and government?
        A good line from "The Best democracy Money Can Buy" is the title of one of the chapters: "Ya Dance with them that brung ya."
        The allusion is to a dance, where if someone brings you to the dance, you owe it to them to dance with them. The campaign financers, that bring the politicians to office, get thanked in kind.

        It's a lovely, mutually beneficial system, and it works.
        The only

    • Or you could just read the free, searchable online version here [online-literature.com]

  • Scary Stuff (Score:5, Insightful)

    by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [srevart.sirhc]> on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:53PM (#6667429) Homepage Journal
    I rember when the CPTEA was upheld recently, it was upheald because the US Supreme Court found that it had been Congress's intention to harmonize US Copyright Law with that of Europe, not the intent to create a perpetual term of copyright.

    As much as I am unhappy with the DMCA, I think that the criticism that the US is more unballanced in this regard than Europe is not accurate. Europe has been the leader in copyright terms.

    It seems that the EC (European Commission) is trying to create a market for patent and copyright driven businesses by suggesting that they can provide better protection than the US. The US may try to match. the fundamental problem is that:

    1: Unballanced protections such as we have today do NOT help produce innovation and will only relate to higher R&D costs which have to be passed on to the consumer and
    2: Every other nation in the world will be forced to play this game of "I can offer you at least as much protection as they can."

    This is a scary situation. I think we need to fight this one NOW.

    • Re:Scary Stuff (Score:3, Insightful)

      by BobTheLawyer ( 692026 )
      "I rember when the CPTEA was upheld recently, it was upheald because the US Supreme Court found that it had been Congress's intention to harmonize US Copyright Law with that of Europe, not the intent to create a perpetual term of copyright.

      As much as I am unhappy with the DMCA, I think that the criticism that the US is more unballanced in this regard than Europe is not accurate. Europe has been the leader in copyright terms."

      This is dead wrong. Europe extended copyright by 20 years. The US did the same, b

  • Politicians... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by xyvimur ( 268026 )
    ``Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: "Pirates and counterfeiters are in effect stealing from right holders the fair payment they deserve for their work. If we don't stamp that out, the incentives for industrial innovation and cultural creativity will be weakened. That would threaten Europe's competitiveness and its cultural diversity and dynamism. So we have to get tough with the pirates and counterfeiters and make sure they can find no safe havens in the EU.''

    I liked the part about weaken

    • Re:Politicians... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by amigabill ( 146897 )
      > If we don't stamp that out, the incentives for industrial innovation and cultural creativity will
      > be weakened.

      Hey, I've got a great idea on how to improve the safety and useful life time of a set of tires for my Ford automobile. Oh, too bad I don't have the legal right to use non-Ford approved tires and my car refuses to run so I can't test my idea on my own Ford car. Guess it's now illegal for me to have ideas on how to improve tires, so I won't waste my time with such safety innovations. Or any
    • Bunk. Give me a reason why someone who makes something does not have the right to determine how copies are made and who uses them.

      Or...give me a reason why you have a right to use what I own.
      • Because we, meaning everyone, get to decide whether or not you own it, and to what extent.

        Presumably you own your house. But we tell you that you cannot use it as an abattoir because we've decided to zone the property you own as being for residential purposes only.

        Presumably you also own your car. But we tell you that you cannot speed, operate it in an unsafe manner, etc.

        So if you are the author of some creative work, and you want everyone else in the world to refrain from copying it except for when you
    • stealing from right holders the fair payment they deserve for their work.

      Perhaps you meant to say "stealing from right holders the exorbitant payment they demand for the work of others."

  • And compromisers are the worst of the bunch. There is no compromise. IP is thought crime, it's not verging on it. In any form, it is evil.

  • First thing first... (Score:4, Funny)

    by BrynM ( 217883 ) * on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:54PM (#6667439) Homepage Journal
    From the very first words on the article page:

    "IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice."
    I guess it'll be subject to a whole lot more in the future ;)

  • The author's got her facts a bit mixed up (Score:5, Informative)

    by mkweise ( 629582 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:55PM (#6667440)
    New Euro law could make criminals of us all



    Umm, nope. From the EU site:
    The proposed Directive deals with the enforcement of intellectual property rights and so it does not deal directly with the substance of IPRs (i.e. to what extent intellectual property is protected in law). That is already covered by an existing EU legal framework.

  • Letter Mirror (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    August 11, 2003

    RE: International Coalition Urges Rejection of European Union's Proposed IP Enforcement Directive

    Dear EU JURI Committee Members:

    We are an international coalition of civil liberties groups and consumer rights campaigns concerned about the impact on civil liberties, innovation, and competition posed by the European Union's proposed IP Enforcement Directive. The proposal threatens to restrict the free flow of goods and permit giant US companies to limit consumer choice and impose price cont
    • The DMCA was actually better than this proposal. If a web site was found to hold infringing material, it was not liable if they had no direct control over posting the material, but acted promptly to remove it. This law does not offer these protections to web site owners. This is both good and bad.

      The bad: It makes more people potentially liable for infringement.

      The good: This protection has been used as a cudgel by the content industry. At least we are not handing them a "or else" weapon here. It a

  • Good thing that Ford doesn't make tyres. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kevlar ( 13509 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:56PM (#6667454)

    They don't make tires either.

    I'd be more concerned about InkJet printer manufacturers doing this... oh wait they already do... thats why I have a LaserJet...

    • They don't make tyres ...YET (Score:4, Insightful)

      by burgburgburg ( 574866 ) <splisken06.email@com> on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:06PM (#6667545)
      With this legislation they could and be assured of a captive audience to their "official" tyres for the life of the car.

      In fact, they could even have the ID chip shut off after a year, requiring people to buy new tyres from Ford on yearly basis no matter what the wear/tear/condition was.

      • In fact, they could even have the ID chip shut off after a year, requiring people to buy new tyres from Ford on yearly basis no matter what the wear/tear/condition was.

        dont be rediculous. no company would put their customers into a mandatory, pointless, yearly upgrade cycle just to sustain their profits.

        I mean, to do that, they'd have to have a monopoly.

    • Ah, but it depends on OEM agreements, doesn't it?

      When Firestone makes the tires for Ford, they place the appropriate "Ford" chip in them. These tires are then sold only via Ford dealerships and service centers.

      The reason they will give for this is that they will claim the tires were designed specifically for the vehicle, and the auto's computer, when reading the RFID tag will allow operation under the following conditions. Quite a bit of this was taken from printer manufactuers and their ink cartridges:
    • No, but firestone is the exclusive provider to ford for tires (dont know if thats still true after the rollover recall, but it was for almost 100 years) So ford could say "Firestone tires are the only tires that ford legally alows you to use on ford automobiles, any other tires will result in nonfunction of the car" Ford gets a deal on tires, and maybe a kickback from firestone, everybodys nice and cozy.
    • You don't think the LaserJet manufacturers could do the exact same thing to toner cartridges? Why not?
    • "thats why I have a LaserJet"

      LaserJet is a trademarked term used by Hewlett Packard for a product line of laser printers, it is not a term to describe laser printers in general.

  • grrr (Score:5, Interesting)

    by saskwach ( 589702 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:57PM (#6667460) Homepage Journal

    Damnit, people, stop outlawing tools which have multiple uses. Outlaw the bad uses and you don't have any issues. I want to copy software illegally. That's already illegal. Now I want to run linux on my coke can. Why should that be illegal? Because copying software is not illegal enough. Isn't legality a boolean? Does it need to be compounded by superfluous laws?

    I know the gun thing is probably overused, but let's say I want a high pressure water gun so I can soak my buddy with water. This is like outlawing this water pistol because someone else put bleach in theirs and sprayed it in the eyes of a law enforcement officer. Blinding a cop is illegal, and for good reason. Why make owning a water pistol illegal?

    [end rant]

    • Answer to your question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by siskbc ( 598067 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:15PM (#6667627) Homepage
      I know the gun thing is probably overused, but let's say I want a high pressure water gun so I can soak my buddy with water. This is like outlawing this water pistol because someone else put bleach in theirs and sprayed it in the eyes of a law enforcement officer. Blinding a cop is illegal, and for good reason. Why make owning a water pistol illegal?

      If cops had no fundamental understanding of the functioning of a water pistol, then they probably would. That's why we're having the current problem - lawmakers have absolutely no idea how these systems work, so all they have to go on is the info from industry shills.

    • Re:grrr (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gantzm ( 212617 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:32PM (#6667781)
      This is what revlolutions are for. Here in the U.S. the instructions for such are in the Declaration of Independence:

      That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
    • > Now I want to run linux on my coke can. Why should that be illegal?

      "Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
  • send law enforcement agents into your home at any time of day or night to ensure that you are not making purchasing decisions that interfere with their ability to have a predictable revenue stream? Shouldn't any distortion of current laws/regulations that they can buy with their influence be enforced to the strictest letter of the law (including capital punishment where dictated) to make sure that profits are not harmed? Why aren't you all sitting in front of your TVs watching Rollerball (the original)? The Corporate Wars have been resolved for your benefit. Jonathan! Jonathan! Jonathan!

  • I'm glad to see... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @12:59PM (#6667473) Homepage Journal
    I'm glad to see that the United States doesn't have a monopoly on half-baked, industry-sponsored, wacked-out legislation...
    • Yes we do. And don't think that this infringement of our IP will go unnoticed. You see, it has come to our attention that the evil regime of France may have undisclosed WMD and will be liberated as part of our war on terror.
    • No, not a monopoly. Just a patent. ;^)

      Soko

    • So where are all the cowboys now? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gosand ( 234100 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:36PM (#6667815)
      I'm glad to see that the United States doesn't have a monopoly on half-baked, industry-sponsored, wacked-out legislation...

      Gee, seems to me that a bunch of non-Americans were laughing at us about DMCA issues. IIRC, things like this would NEVER happen outside of the US because they weren't dominated by capitalism.

      [ sound of crickets ]

      Yeah, I thought so. Now it isn't so funny, is it? So step up and show us how it is done. Show us how to fight these types of laws. Please, prove to us how things are supposed to be done. In all seriousness, I hope you can, because I want there to be somewhere I can move to when things get totally out of control here.

  • No person creates anything except on the back of an unbroken chain of human culture, all ideas and concepts are the refinement of untold precedents, and the mere concept of defining these as the "property" of individuals or groups is a vile and sleazy attempt to create monopolies of thought.

    What we call "creativity" is in fact the process of digesting and reformulating a huge number of existing concepts, ideas, patterns, and principles. Nobody creates anything from a blank slate, indeed the concept of a human being without the cultural baggage of a million years is a joke.

    The good news is that any organization that closes itself off from the cultural mainstream becomes as relevant as an artist forever trying to protect that 'one big hit' instead of looking to create another one.

    So, while this seems an inevitable symptom of today's cozy partnership between big business and big government, it won't last. The revolution always comes from those, with nothing to lose, who have everything to gain.

  • The fear is spreading... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fr0z ( 658466 )
    I stay in Singapore, and with the recent signing of an Free Trade Agreement with the US, the biggest fear is that broad laws like the DMCA will get passed here. If Europe does something like that, then it is only a matter of time before such silly laws get passed here. Let's hope this idiocy ends soon, although I'm not too optimistic...

  • A little sensationalist? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sevensharpnine ( 231974 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:05PM (#6667532)
    It closes with the observation that "intellectual property is verging on thought crime."

    This is a rather crass assumption. "Thought crime" gives the gov't control over what you think; this ip measure is just another over-excited corporate-sponsored piece of legislation. Don't get me wrong here--I don't like this garbage any more than the rest of /. I just wish people would quit trying to make parallels to Orwell's work every time they see something that threatens their liberty. It's the intellectual equivalent of solving philosophical problems using Dr. Seuss analogies.

    I read the article, and all I found was a few sensationalist generalities coupled with unsubstantiated analysis. Why not cite some of the injustices that the American DMCA has caused? Or talk about the long-term economic impact of creating all these false barriers to entry, rather than a few vauge assumptions? Nay, it's simply Orwellian.

  • Legislative Priorities?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zipfaust ( 450804 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:08PM (#6667558)
    Is it just me? Or are lawmakers and governments abroad focussing on creating legislation that protects IP rights (read corporations) over more pressing and populist laws?

    People starve in the streets on all continents.

    Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).

    There are some seriously screwed up priorities in place by elected officials.

    The U.S. "liberates: Iraq and what is the first major undertaking shortly thereafter??

    Stabilize the country by providing policing and security to it's citizens?

    Bring in food aid?

    Nope!! Have Hilary Rosen draught IP laws ASAP for Iraq. Keep that technological world leader Iraq in check.

    So much for the Iraqi's being liberated. Not counting their oil of course.

    Oh brother...
    • Uh, dude, Europe isn't the US. It's an entirely different country. I believe it's somewhere near France.

      Thanks for ranting, though.

    • People starve in the streets on all continents.

      Antarctica?

      Seriously, I haven't heard of anyone starving on the streets of North America. Here in the US, you can get free meals, and free groceries, in every city or small town I've ever been in. That's not counting the government welfare benefits, which are still widely available.

      Or were you talking about the North Americans who are dieting?

      Tons of people not covered by a proper medicare system (U.S).

      An interesting survey I saw around 1999 said th

    • Nope!! Have Hilary Rosen draught IP laws ASAP for Iraq. Keep that technological world leader Iraq in check.
      Its more frightening than you think, the Tigris-Euphrates delta is regarded as the cradle of agriculture and thus civilisation. Give her a time machine and extendable IP duration and the rest of us would still be running after mammoths.

  • The Future of IP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ugmo ( 36922 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:14PM (#6667623)

    NOTE: I did not RTFA.

    This is a general statement about IP Laws and IP protection.

    The highly developed, rich, nations (G7 - US, Europe, Japan) are moving away from manufacturing physical products. The companies in these countries will design a product and then contract a non-G7 country to do the actual manufacturing. You get parts made in China, assembled in Malaysia etc.

    In reality any country can provide the design and the factories will make it. If the designs came from the countries that now have the factories then there would be no reason to involve the G7 countries except as markets. The value added provided by the G7 countries are the financing, original designs, and then the sales and marketing. The finacial, legal, design and marketing crap is all Intellectual Property.

    If there were no Intellectual Property Laws the "rich" countries would end up just being investors and markets into which the goods are shipped. After some years all the money would flow out of these "rich" countries to the countries that actually made stuff and there would be no more money to finance third world factories. But that would be OK the third world would finance it themselves, now being rich.

    So it is in a non-manufacturing country's best interest to accumulate as much IP as possible. Since IP is really a legal fiction (physical property can be fenced and protected) The more IP laws you have the more IP you have (in theory, in reality as you choke off the sharing of intellectual property less and less is created).

    It is in the US interest to have as many bogus patents and restrictive copyrights as possible. Any country that does not recognize US patents and copyright are denied access to our markets (the only leverage besides military action we have). If a company patents the "method of living by breathing oxygen" it is in the US interest to push that claim and help the company collect money from all the other people on Earth. The US gov. can then tax that income. If all the IP went away the US gov could only live on sales taxes for a few decades as Americans bought cheap DVD players made on the Pacific rim and then revenue would dry up.

    By then maybe we could become a source of cheap labor and a peaceful, rich, formerly third world country might locate a few factories here so we common people could actually make a living.

    If the US wants to prevent that they need to back up stupid evil companies like Microsoft as they steal money from anyone who wants to use a computer worldwide. If MS Windows went away, the US would get no revenue from a computer sale since it would probably be manufactured in a Chinese Army Prison camp using slave labor and run English Language Linux software written in India. The only income the gov would get would be from the income tax being paid by a minimum wage sales clerk at CompUSA.

    Repeat this scenario for all the other highly developed, post-industrial countries and you get the reason for all these stupid IP laws getting passed. They are frightened for their future existence.

    • While I feel you are right, I'd like to point out that this will only delay the inevitable. Soon other countries will not care about "access to our market"; moreoever, when economies begin to crumble those in actual possession of IP will find it easy to move wherever the money is.

      In other words, strong IP laws are a good short-term strategy but a lousy one for the longer term.

      • I agree with you that it is a bad long term strategy. I also do not agree with it as a strategy. I was just trying to understand the thinking that may be going on at the government level. (if any thinking is going on :)

        It is similiar to the RIAA. They know their current model is in danger but they try to use the legal system to protect themselves. In the long term they are doomed no matter what.

        In a similiar way the current governments have to let their companies ship jobs and factories overseas in order
      • Yes, but the people making the laws are old enough that they will not live to see the collapse when it happens. When it does, influence, wealth, foresight-due-to-inside-info, etc. will help the families of the political classes to relocate early, leaving the rest behind.
    • In very few years (1? 2?) the access to the retail markets of China and India (both == 2 billions of customers) will be much more important then the access to US markets (200 millions of customers). That's why US Army is trying its forces in Afganistan and Iraq: it's a training before much broader actions fixing potential problems for US markets. IP laws are necessary to bring a formal reason for such future military actions. The trueth is that US economy is a buble, like dot-com, just bigger. And that mega
    • "Since IP is really a legal fiction"

      I don't think that anything backed up by force can be considered fiction. If you have the might to enforce it, it is real.
  • Interesting:
    "Apart from the economic and social consequences, this phenomenon infringes on labour legislation, tax legislation, health legislation and the legislation on product safety."
    Reminds me of the Nazis... the jews were infringing upon their free rights as well.
    Now our side:

    "under the proposed directive, EU Member States will have to criminalise street music" This is already illegal: "COTT is entitled under the Copyright Act to charge licensing fees for the public performance of its music rep
    • "under the proposed directive, EU Member States will have to criminalise street music"

      Emphasis mine.

      This is already illegal:

      Perhaps - however, it is not a criminal offense, it's a civil one. What you're doing it turning something from a civil matter (COTT charges the appropriate fees) into a criminal one (the police charge the infringer with a crime) - this removes the burden of responsibility from the copyright holder - if they're wrong, and the alleged infringer is innocent, they haven't lost anyth

  • Now im scared..... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scalis ( 594038 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:21PM (#6667676) Homepage
    They state in the FAQ that:
    40% of software in use worldwide is believed to be pirated, and 37% in the EU (= loss of revenue of 2.9 billion euros annually).(2)
    Worldwide, 36% of all music CDs and cassettes sold are pirated (total sales of pirated goods is 5 billion units).

    The usual question I have is "how did they come up with those numbers???" At the very bottom of the page it says they are from BSA in case of software. This means that the BSA way of calculating actually is being used, THAT is scary. They also claim that 36% of all music CD's sold are pirated. Why dont they figure out the same figure of sold pirated copies of sotftware instead of just citing BSA??

  • Now all you whiny Euro-trash types here on /. can't talk about how much better and more enlightened Europe is than the good ole' USofA.

    Of course, this now means one less place to which I can flee when the fit really hits the shan here in Coporateland.

  • Ford x 2 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BMonger ( 68213 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:27PM (#6667730)
    Anything other than genuine Ford tyres -- with the genuine Ford ID chip -- will disable your car.

    Interchangeable parts - Any part you want so long as it's black... otherwise... all your tyres are belong to us!

  • It doesn't look at bad on the consumer side (Score:3, Interesting)

    by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:30PM (#6667757)
    FAQ from EU IP directive [eu.int]


    Quote :

    The proposal has a number of safeguard clauses: * the proposal restates the general principles of intellectual property rights law, namely that procedures should be fair, not unnecessarily complicated, slow or costly and should not create barriers to 'legitimate trade' * any penalties applied to offenders should be 'effective, proportionate and deterrent' i.e. the penalty should fit the crime * where the Directive allows for seizure of suspect goods for evidence, the company or person whose goods have been seized can ask for a review of the seizure. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded * where the Directive allows for a court to force someone involved in handling infringing goods to reveal who they bought the illegal goods from, this can only be done under certain conditions (e.g. where this would not incriminate the person giving the information, so-called right to avoid self-incrimination) * where the Directive allows for 'interlocutory injunctions' (an injunction in advance of a decision on the merits of the case), the company or person who has been ordered to stop participating in the suspected infringement can ask for a review of the injunction. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded. In this case, the judge can also order the rightholder to compensate the suspected offender who is found innocent for any loss they have suffered as a result of the injunction * where the Directive allows for various measures following a decision on the merits of a case (e.g. recall, destruction of goods or disposal outside commercial channels), this will not be applied where the offender has acted in good faith (i.e. neither intentionally nor through negligence) and can agree a fair settlement with the rightholder whose rights have been infringed * legal costs are awarded also to the alleged offender, if they are found to be innocent The full text of the proposed Directive is available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/i ntprop/news/index.htm [eu.int]


    IIRC, Please remark that there are already specific consumer protection law preventing abuse of such things, like enforcing the sdale of a specific tire with a chip inside it. Add it with the above and this doesn't seem so horrible as presented in the article summary above.

  • Reject the proposal? Hah! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SysKoll ( 48967 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @01:38PM (#6667837)
    Civil liberties groups have sent a letter to EU urging that the proposal be rejected.

    Fat chance. The EU is a huge bureaucracy. European don't even know the names of the EU commissars, and the Commission cultivates the virtue of secret and opacity with a success that would have made Beria jealous.

    So public opinion has really no impact whatsoever on the bureaucrats. What matters is the lobbyists. According to the Wall Street Journal, there are about 10,000 lobbyists in Brussels [ncpa.org]. (I believe this doesn't include employees of the larger lobby cabinets).

    Large companies are therefore overrepresented in Brussels. Contrary to what naive Americans can think, established companies love the thick layers of bureaucracy and the entanglements of redtape. Why? Because it allows them to:
    1. Keep startup competitors out of their business by making it too difficult to enter the field,
    2. Pass their pet legislations through coatroom deals [eu.int].

    Europeans wanted a super-state, they've got it. Oh wait... Cancel that. Nobody told the poor schmucks that they would eventually end up in a remake of the Ottoman Empire.

    -- SysKoll

  • Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bogie ( 31020 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:14PM (#6668213) Journal
    I always see people from the other side of the "pond" saying how glad they are they don't live in America. Also many times I've read how they'd NEVER live here and would move if the same thing happened there.

    Well its almost put up or shut up time. It will be interesting to see if people actually move because of this.

    Note: I'm not trolling here, I am actually interested to see what happens. There has been a lot of talk and commotion from some people about never stepping foot in America because of the DMCA.

  • Why is anyone surprised at this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PHAEDRU5 ( 213667 ) <instascreed@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:42PM (#6668506) Homepage
    The French long ago discovered they couldn't make Corporatism (Fascism dressed in Prada) work in a single country. Hence the EU, a French attempt to make Corporatism work on a single continent.

    In the French view of the world, the Government - made up of the French elite, graduates of the ENA - will control the Corporations, and the Corporations will control the consumer.

    Europe's one hope is its new Eastern European members, who well-remember German and Russian jackbooted thugs.

    Well, that's one hope. The other hope is that the US remains relatively free, so Europeans can make Linus' choice.
    • Well, that's one hope. The other hope is that the US remains relatively free, so Europeans can make Linus' choice.

      Earth to US... Earth to US... it's from you the cancer is spreading. They managed to push through the DMCA in the USA, so now they get even bolder in the EU. And next round they'll push for DMCA II in the US being even worse than the current one. RIAA and MPAA are the ones pushing the most for IP totalitarism, did you ever catch what the last A means?

      That the EU is even more disconnected from

  • Time to go underground (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @02:51PM (#6668598) Journal
    Does anyone else feel that this is the beginning of the end?

    The RIAA and MPAA are spreading their filth outwards from the US, and trying to make it legally mandatory to implement DRM at the hardware level. The big companies only product anymore is profit, and they're trying to maximise it by elimating cash-sinks like manufacturing and employees. The biggest governments are trying to restrict the movements, actions, and tongues of their citizens in any way they can, and are starting to use those sabres they've been rattling for decades. They also don't seem to believe that their lies even have to be believable or verifiable anymore.

    For nearly a quarter century (when I started following current events), I've been of the attitude that it's no worse than it's always been--that it only seems horrific because we're living through it. Now though, I don't know. Every citizen in the "Free Western World" is facing the prospect of being made a criminal, and subject to any punishment their government(s) feel like doling out that day--regardless of any of the things that have been established as basic undeniable human rights.

    Frankly, I'm scared for the first time since the Iranian Hostage crisis. I'm afraid the world WILL go out, not with a bang but with a whimper.

  • Chicken Little - the sky is falling down (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BobTheLawyer ( 692026 ) on Monday August 11, 2003 @03:25PM (#6668929)
    I have to wonder if the people scaremongering have read the Directive.

    The "technical device" rule in Article 21 is poorly drafted, but still fairly clear. It criminalises devices designed to circumvent devices which protect "elements which are manifestly identifiable by customers and consumers and which make it easier to recognise the goods as being authentic".

    So a machine for manufacturing Microsoft CD holograms would be illegal under the Directive. A machine for making no-brand ink jet cartridges would not.

    Those who are saying otherwise haven't read the directive or don't understand it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close