EU Poised to Attack P2P File-Sharers 49
Robin Gross of IP Justice writes "The EU is about to vote on a controversial piece of legislation that targets P2P file-sharing and other non-commercial infringements.
The EU Intellectual Property Rights Directive creates a 'nuclear weapons' of
law enforcement tools for intellectual property holders. It
combines the most extreme enforcement provisions
found throughout Europe and imposes them collectively onto all of
Europe, for example England's Anton
Pillar orders that permit recording industry executives to
raid and ransack the homes of alleged users of file-sharing software or
it's Mareva injunctions that
freeze a defendant's bank accounts without a
hearing. The vote in the EU plenary will likely be March 11, 2004
- watch the CODE site for
developments."
America the beautiful (Score:5, Funny)
for example England's Anton Pillar orders that permit recording industry executives to raid and ransack the homes of alleged users of file-sharing software or it's Mareva injunctions that freeze a defendant's bank accounts without a hearing.
Whew, thank goodness I live in America, LAND OF THE FREE, where our mighty Constitution and Bill of Rights protects us from this kind of unchecked government abuse and corporate favoritism! Silly Europeans!
(No seriously, we did have a constitution, I saw it once.)
Re:America the beautiful (Score:3, Funny)
Its still around, though you have to go hunting through sewage after John and George used it to wipe their collective asses.
Constitution vs. freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Fsck your holy constitution, we used to have freedom in Europa.
Now that golden era seems to be fading.Strange thing... No really! "Suffering" artists forced to live lifes of "only semi-luxery" *pun intended* seem to take away more freedom and legal protection from people worldwide these days, than anything else. "War on terror" included.
I'm afraid of a corporative appocalyptic future these days...............
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm odd. That was what the comment was refering to...At a point in the not to distant past our "holy constitution" was the stick that was used to maintain some level of freedom, here in the states.
Strange thing... No really! "Suffering" artists forced to live lifes of "only semi-luxery" *pun intended* seem to take away more freedom and legal protection from people worldwide these days, than anything else. "War on terror" included.
I am no fan of any of the RIAA(subsitute local version). My personal take is the if they cannot adapt to the changing world, let them die. The fact that this type of legislation goes well and above what we in the states currently are dealing with, I feel for you. If you are really opposed, put your money were your text is...Contribute to action groups in your locality that are opposed to such power grabs. I can say my self here, I contribute to the ACLU, EFF, along with various other defence funds as they pop up.
I am completely dismayed at our current presidential canidates, on one hand we have the menace to the free world, Bush, and the human weather vane, Kerry. Its obvious that Bush is a criminal and most of his administration should be thrown in jail. Kerry on the other hand has taken more special interest money then any senator in congress...Gee what a great selection. I have no doubt in the next four years things are not going to get better unless the little folks become a power block.
"War on terror" included.
The "War on terror" is nothing more then a political football, used to keep people afraid and in line. Its currently being used as a smoke screen for the internationally illegal action in the middle east. The fact that Bush and his cronies have held the folks in Guentanemo for nearly two years with zero due process is sickening...You are correct, the "War on Terror" is nothing but a war on feedom...
I'm afraid of a corporative appocalyptic future these days...............
Afraid of corperations!?! They have nothing on governments.
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:2)
Thats why I used quotes when I referred to the "War on terror". I also believe it's balgoney, but alot of nasty things are justified by it. Thus, worthy a writeup in my last comment.
Even if it was a real war on terror, it still be as doomed as the war on drugs. It's kinda like trying to cure the syndromes, and not going for the underlying decease.
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing can be that doomed...:-)
Terrorism isn't really something both parties willingly recieve or want; where as in most cases drugs are.
It's kinda like trying to cure the syndromes, and not going for the underlying decease.
Or in the case of drugs, going after something that is not in some cases a desease. Marajana has been proven to have viable and in some cases superior medicinal value then some pharma drugs. The real war on drugs is all about pharma companies making sure their profit margins aren't affected at the cost of sick people. Also its pretty sickening that in the US, more then 50% of imates in our prisons are there on drug convictions, most for mere possesion.
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:1, Insightful)
How many American soldiers lost their lives in WW 1 and WW2 to protect/return that freedom you speak of?
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually Roosevelt was secretly aiding Britain prior to Pearl Harbor.
And how many Japanese had to die for you to try out your new toy?
Its a tough one, but you could make a strong argument that more lives were saved by dropping said toy twice, then would have come about by a full scale land assault on main land Japan. Even after the first bomb was dropped the Japanese Govt. was not convinced that the US had the capabili
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:2)
Well... How many Europeans died in WW1/2, how many Russians? I'm not sure. I'm not even going to go for a full bodycount here, because that's really not the real issue here at all.
In my fsck-that statement, I was reffering to that printed words mean nothing. It's the actual freedom that counts.
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
In my fsck-that statement, I was reffering to that printed words mean nothing. It's the actual freedom that counts.
How so? There are countries where you would not be allowed to write the above statement. Is that freedom? Are you truely free if you are not allowed to print your thoughts? In some countries censorship extends to the level that you would not even be allowed to write the sentence you just wrote. Living on such a country might change your view on whether or not freedom of speech is a part of
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:2)
For example, a law saying "An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) [for police to use special ant-terrorism powers] may be given only if the
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:2, Interesting)
scrolling down we get this list,
The country-by-country medians for military personnel killed in the war are:
* USSR: 10.0M
* Germany: 3.5M
* China: 2.05M
* Japan: 1.5M
* USA: 0.4M
* Romania: 0.3M
* Yugoslavia: 0.3M
* UK: 0.28M
* Italy: 0.23M
* France: 0.21M
* Hungary: 0.14M
* Poland: 0.125M
* TOTAL: 19.0M
looks like we all owe stalin a big fat thank you.
Re:Constitution vs. freedom (Score:1)
Was that before or after the Lucifer detonation?
ALL THESE MOONS ARE YOURS... EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:America the beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:America the beautiful (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:America the beautiful (Score:4, Insightful)
judicial fiat, which is probably the biggest threat our constitution has.
If you look at our past, rarely has the legislature, lead strongly on the case of civil rights for all. Judicial fiat, gained us many things that our mostly self serving representives were too afaid to stand up for. The addoption of the idea of "Separation of church and state", while originally put forth by Thomas Jefferson, was addopted early on. During the 60's "separate but not equal" doctrine was adopted through judial fiat. More currently, the outlawing of Texas's anti-sodomy laws was done by judial fiat.
IMHO as long as our legislature is beholden to fear of reprisal, real positive change on behalf of minority groups will just not happen if it were not for the judial branch.
Re:America the beautiful (Score:1)
While not exactly referring to judicial fiat, things like mandatory sentencing legislation are in direct response to courts just doing whatever the
Re:America the beautiful (Score:2)
I'd be curious to hear what cases you're thinking of. As far as I know that would not merely be an abuse of authority, it would be a non-existant authority.
possibly the most powerful branch
An interesting argument can be made for any of the three branches. One of the major limitations placed on the judicial branch is that it's only power is to rule on genuine contoversies they are brought to
Re:America the beautiful (Score:2)
I would disagree with the most dangerous. Generally they cannot take action on something that has not been submitted to them. The executive branch can issue executive orders without the vetting of either the Judiary or the Legislature.
It's been used for a lot of good, but its wide open to rampant abuse.
It definately could be abused, but on the whole, the job of Supreme Court Justice is one of the most vetted in all of public servic
Innocent (Score:5, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental requirement of justice.
Any law that assumes guilt can play no part in the provision of justice to all. Justice is not solely about punishing the guilty, it is as much about NOT punishing the innocent.
Re:Innocent (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh.. In case you missed it, that is totally irellevant. You see, you are facing the recording industry here, not any agancy of legal investigation.
That they now seem to be given even more powers than these agencies, is however quite disturbing.
Now, I'll have to flee Europa as well.
Re:Innocent (Score:2, Funny)
You live here [nasa.gov]? Yeah, I'd probably flee too, before the RIAJ caught me...
Re:Innocent (Score:1)
Err... My bad. It's written Europa in Norwegian :) Must have slipped by my sight.
Re:Innocent (Score:2, Insightful)
Innocent until proven guilty is not at issue here. The write-up is totally misleading. Things like Anton Pillar orders are not license to "ransack" they are there to assist in finding infringing material. The orders cannot be issued without a court approval and there are oversight measures in place to ensure that things are done properly.
As far as I can tell this would be completely legal in the U.S., where
You americans... also have problem! (Score:5, Informative)
Look at: Lessig blog entry [lessig.org] and Kerry about technology [johnkerry.com]
Shred gtk-gnutella before 01 May 2004? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Shred gtk-gnutella before 01 May 2004? (Score:2, Funny)
Naw just don't use it after your country becomes EUified...Switch to FreeNet, well until using encryption becomes illegal...
Nice, fortunally europe != country (Score:5, Informative)
The EU is even more extreme in its introduced laws then the US because of the far greater number of political parties. Fortunally we also got far more parties that will therefore be opposed to the more extreme proposals. Not like the US were at times one or the other party is supposed to be in control.
So yes we should be worried about this proposal but if democracy still works then it will fail as with similar proposals before. Europe may not get much done but they have succeeded so far in getting a lot of things not done. Including people not getting sentenced because the european of human rights overturns national laws that slipped through. And given its track record so far that court would never hold up a case based on this. Long live the lawyers eh.
Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country (Score:2, Informative)
Quoting the article:
According to reports of EU negotiations, the directive will no longer attempt to exceed its jurisdiction by creating criminal law sanctions (Article 20) and the right of information (Article 9) will be limited to "appropriate court cases" to ensure that a case has been filed before personal information is forcibly disclosed. Together with an exclusion of (Article 21's) ban on technical devices, these changes would mark an
Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bound to become much, much worse in the coming years. There may be weird parties in the EP (European Parliament) already, but with middle and north-eastern europe getting into the EU soon, it is very likely that extremely conservative, extremely royalist and stalinist parties will join the European Parliament. I can already see an extremely-communist party from Poland or similar wanting to ban Microsoft from Europe altogether (which would not be such a bad idea after all ;-)
Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, Polish politicians surely ARE bunch of assholes, that care
Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country (Score:1)
It seems the czechs do have [electionworld.org] a communist party, but I don't know their views. The same is true for Slovakia [electionworld.org]. To be honest, I've always thought all (ex-)communist countries had communist parties, and a pendulum democracy, but apparantly they don't. But I shudder to have someone like Simeon II [electionworld.org] having power over my legislation - but Bulgaria is only joining in a few years anyhow.
Rating: -1, offtopic
Re:Nice, fortunally europe != country (Score:1)
Complacency (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, that's exactly what people told me when I was campaigning against GATT and the formation of the WTO.
It's also exactly what people said when the even-more-extreme EU version of the DMCA was passed.
Guess what? Both pieces of legislation were adopted wholesale by the UK government [patent.gov.uk]; one by a Conservative government, the other by the "opposing" Labour government.
There are always plenty of complacent fools who sit around and say "Oh, it's just some EU law, it'll never actually happen." They were wrong then, they're wrong now.
Howcome only i can read it ? (Score:2, Interesting)
how EU works and even read a few lines from the article
pointed out you would see that it will only be a directive
not a law itself.
In pure English said like that : your country problaly(,
we think and hope,) should make a law that somehow enforces
the idea of the directive.
Don't jump into conclusions too quickly, the EU has far
more important problems with economy and extending itself
than doing anything about the P2P software.
I live in a country tha
Re:Howcome only i can read it ? (Score:1)
directives about dining places, cafes and so on in the
southen parts like italy and spain, but they should
supersede in P2P ? come on peopel, the EU has no
global resources to waste on these kind of operations.
come on, even you don't believe that , do you ?
the fact is, directives are not laws, and not for
fulfilling directives the blame gets the country,
and not the person himself. at least until now
it has worked liked that imho.
[e.g. germany as a country
EU != Europe (Score:1, Insightful)
The EU Intellectual Property Rights Directive creates a 'nuclear weapons' of law enforcement tools for intellectual property holders. It combines the most extreme enforcement provisions found throughout Europe and imposes them collectively onto all of Europe
Or maybe it just applies them to the EU?