New EU IP Law Deemed Harmful 165
JPMH writes "The Register is reporting on this alert from FFII about a new EU Directive on IP enforcement due to go to the Parliament legal affairs sub-committee on Monday, and full Plenary in two weeks time. The detailed text of the measure was only published on Tuesday. FFII says that without better defined safeguards the Directive will lead to a far more agressive, lawyer-driven legal environment for creative businesses. Having seen how similar legislation is used in the United States, FFII fears that it will provide the perfect means for agressive litigators holding dubious intellectual property rights to "pull a SCO" and use the powers of the Directive to seriously harass and damage small open-source projects and innovative businesses. FFII has a list of MEPs to contact here." The law has been described as a DMCA on steroids. We've reported on this before, but it bears repeating...
Was just thinking about this. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://yro.slashdot.org/~hyc/journal/
Re:Was just thinking about this. (Score:1)
Re:Was just thinking about this. (Score:1, Informative)
International Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:International Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:International Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
There was a point in time where the far right opposed any multinational government. "Get us out of the U.N." was one of their chants. My how times have changed.
SeaWorld (Score:3, Funny)
It's been said before, but there are many third world countries that can ill afford the western conception of intellectual property. Seaworld embraces conterversy openly.
I'm glad you brought this up. SeaWorld is a breeding ground of discontent and anarchy. One of its leading citizens, Shamu, [seaworld.org] is particularly notorious for his open disdain of intellectual property.
Re:International Solution (Score:5, Informative)
Re:International Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:International Solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:International Solution (Score:2)
Re:International Solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:International Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what we are in the process of acquiring.
That is the problem.
KFG
Re:International Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, end of rant. But, I do think harmonization is dangerous for the reasons stated at the beginning of the post, and I don't even know if people realize that's what happens. Oh well.
Re:International Solution (Score:2)
Off key is even worse.
What would you do
if I sang out of tune
Would you stand up
and walk out on me...
Re:International Solution (Score:2)
good old fashioned snake oil (Score:5, Insightful)
The draft Directive is a result of pressure brought by Hollywood and the music industry to crack down on music copying, and by luxury brand owners such as Yves Saint Laurent to crack down on counterfeiting. However, it is now apparent that the main result will not be a reduction in music copying, so much as a reduction in competition and in traditional usage rights. They seem to answer their own questions regarding stemming counterfeiting, yet they still intend on bringing out the laws. Amazing.
There will be significant adverse effects on economic growth and innovation; the European Single Market will be undermined; and liberty will suffer in many ways. What I don't understand is, if they're seeing all of this in their own words (source for the italics [fipr.org]), then why on earth would they bring down the house of cards.
Third, the winners are a small number of large organisations (AOLTimeWarner, Bertelsmann, Microsoft, Sony, Honda, Yves Saint Laurent...) who have been able to coordinate their activities and lobby internationally Personally I think someone/somegroup should ban together and create an international ban on those corporations who are threatening the liberties, and rights of others for their own gain. It would be nice to see the geekcommunity come together via some form of petition, but sadly I could see trollers messing things up/
Anyone care to draft up a legal go to hell for the overseers, I'll glady append the signature to it.
sample petition (Score:5, Interesting)
Intellectual Property template petition [politrix.org]... I know someone can throw something together a hell of a lot better. Instead of critisizing it though, just do it. Sure it may sound lame, maybe banners should be posted, or something to signify that everyone can come together and have a voice against this type of bs. Yes I know sounds trollish to an extent, but hell an international group making noise is a lot more than a few people locally. Demographically this could affect everyone. Besides if thousands can come together under a free kevin like cause, certainly we all could come together for something more important.
Re:sample petition (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:good old fashioned snake oil (Score:3, Informative)
There is enough information on here to do a decent letter, just add in the politness that is required when dealing with MEP's.
If you think IP is a bad idea DO something about it. Don't wait until someone writes a letter that you can just copy and paste. Send a letter, an email if a letter is too much hassle. But do something.
I've just written to my MEP Arlene McCarthy, arlene.mccarthy@easynet.co.uk, she'
Harmful (Score:1, Redundant)
This doesn't sound good (Score:3, Insightful)
These new 'laws' which are being brought forth are further restricting our privacy and fundamental rights as citizens. As soon as any form of government censorship is instituted on the web bad things happen. Look at China for example and all of the problems which are resulting due to the increasing control of the government. Officals there have realized how the Internet brings forth free speech and are attempting to control it. This goes against the fundamental principles which the web was built upon.
I fear that the western world is headed down this path of censorship and corporate/government control.
/remove tinfoil hat
Outsource!! (Score:1, Redundant)
Innovation [noun] - the different ways that one may file a patent and/or sue for profit.
Re:Outsource!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Outsource!! (Score:1)
Patent 9433043: The method by which nerons are stimilated to discharge ... (pause) ... electrons.
Patent 9433044: The method by which pressing ordered objects causes a letter to appear on a display
Patent 9433045: The method of for ( ;; ) { ... }
Re:Outsource!! (Score:2)
Re:Outsource!! (Score:2)
Re:Outsource!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want an example of bad practice... just look at how EMI are coming down on DJ Danger Mouse for his remix of Jay-Z's Black Album and The Beatles White Album... they've had plenty of time to milk revenue from the Beatle's work... in fact most of the revenue now doesn't go to the former Beatles at all but to service Michael Jackson's Bank Of America Loan...
Re:Outsource!! (Score:2)
Further, copyright protection expiring does not automatically mean you can not sell your stuff any more. You just can't force others not to do the same; they are free to try to sell it too, if they can get copies to sell. Pharmaceutical companies have to live with similar situation (although instead of 7 years it's 20).
I mean, it should
This (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm writing my MEP as soon as possible. (Yes, I am in Europe. Yes, I am in Britain. Yes, I do like Europe.)
hey i live in britian too! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:This (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This (Score:2)
Re:This (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU puzzles me to be honest and I find myself stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea regarding Britain's actions within it.
On the one hand you have Munich, the IBM/SuSE deal and a claim to further Open Source in government and on the other you have Arlene McArthy et al apparently preparing the tools to nail FOSS. The fact that a Labour MEP should be heading this one is no suprise though as the UK gov has bent over backwards to befriend big business in the same way that a wimpy little twat at school will kow tow to the school bully in order to boost his position in the pecking order ( a sure sign of deep personal insecurity).
I don't think that the EU could be accused of tearing MS apart either because a 100,000,000 euro fine is pissing in a lake as far as MS are concerned. I suspect that it's more a shot across the bows designed to frighten MS into thinking what could happen if they don't drop the arrogant attitude and start behaving more like a partner instead of the dictator that their monopoly allowed.
I too like the concept of Europe. Unfortunately though the leaders of the member countries always seem to be trying to bend the rules for their own nation's benefit rather than looking at the big picture.
With a UK government run by people that are really turned on by being seen with the rich and famous while having no understanding of the concepts of ethics, morality or, for that matter, shame, I can't see things improving.
Re:This (Score:2)
Me too - I just sent an e-mail to the Lib Dem MEP overseeing this legislation. Let's see whether we get a reply.
Lawsuit Driven Environment (Score:5, Insightful)
I read "lawer-driven" as "company X has no viable business plan, and will sue the ass off anyone who crosses their line of sight."
What pisses me off the most is how it is business that has become it's own worst enemy. Do you really think the companies pushing this type of legislation care about an economy free of arbitrary government control. Fuck no! They want the government throwing it's weight around, only as long as the government is on "their side." Dammit!
Yeah, well, in the real world (Score:2, Funny)
Welcome to capitalism, grab your ankles.
When will it stop? (Score:5, Insightful)
When will the European governments realise that software patents are/were a bad idea to implement? Will it be after their IT economy crashes? Or, several years after?
Re:When will it stop? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:When will it stop? (Score:1)
This still won't stop people stealing other companies/people's intellectual property.
I
Re:When will it stop? (Score:5, Informative)
SO FFII and all the others (AEL, EF Finland ecc.) defend the current corrected former swpat directive [ffii.org].
The IRP enforcement directive is about enforcement, giving power to the rights owner, orginally against product privacy some persons introduced DRM, TCPA ecc. This was already removed. The problem is as so many different spheres of law are comprised by the unscientific, unjudicial term Intellectual property rules that apply well for product privacy cause much trouble for patent enforcement. FFII UK explains this very good on their site [ffii.org.uk].
There are several groups that critizise the directive, FFII [ffii.org] has a moderate position as they are in favour of copyright. I suggest you to read the current council draft of the directive by yourself [ffii.org.uk] and look for problems. You can easily see in the proposal that it is premature. The language used is often inappropriate and infringes on certain legal standards.
Good news: DRM and TCPA was deleted, most groups were concerned about this, so the directive already failed from the viewpoint of those who drafted it. We won! So let's get rid of the ugly rest.
"Article 21
Legal protection of technical devices
Deleted"
But this does not mean that it will not be reintroduced by MEP amendments ecc. Criticism of the directive goes trough all parlamentary groups.
What FFII wants get out is that the directive also apply for patent legislation. Because patent infringements are very easy and criminal sanctions against patent legislation may be a danger for business. This is also the industry position. FFII is no mayor player in the IPR Enforcement debate. Most was done by IPjustice [ipjustice.org] or other DRM activists. FFII was very busy with the swpat directive, so they could not devote time to the IPr enforcement directive or ENISA.
Re:When will it stop? (Score:1)
The legal validity of software patents isn't my problem. My problem involves future software designers/programmers who are unable to write programs that may impose upon existing software patents. In turn, this will adversely affect EU and their IT economy.
Linus has been quoted as worrying more about EU patents than SCO and the McBride crisis. I recon he's right, but I hope you're right in t
Re:When will it stop? (Score:2)
Sure it is:
My problem involves future software designers/programmers who are unable to write programs that may impose upon existing software patents. In turn, this will adversely affect EU and their IT economy.'
There are 2 different directives
* swpat directive (says swpats are invalid)
* IPR enforcement (if patents are valid they can be enforced with the stronger new rules targeted to pcombat product privacy)
FFII was focussed on the f
Re:When will it stop? (Score:5, Informative)
True, but there are still 30,000 granted software patents in Europe, and the industry giants are pushing very hard on the EU Council of Ministers to reverse the Parliament vote. The implications are potentially very frightening, if the sort the enforcement measures proposed in this Directive become available for use by any agressive litigation company acting on the basis of a dodgy software patent. So I think Aurix's comment connecting this with software patents is right on the mark.
As to FFII's position: FFII is strongly in favour of copyright, and FFII is strongly against piracy.
We think copyright is the right way to build a fair information infrastructure. We are vehemently against commercial software being ripped off and placed on warez networks; and we are vehemently against GPL software being ripped off by closed source companies. But there has to be a balance between the interests of supposed rightsholders (often very powerful) and the interests of other creative companies against wrongful claims of infringement.
It's not just about patents. We're also very concerned about the possibility of these measures being used in disputed copyright cases, disputed trademark cases, disputed cases about claimed confidential information... etc, etc, etc. Under Article 2, the Directive could be applied to "any [claimed] infringement of intellectual property rights as provided for by Community law and/or by the national law of the Member State concerned" -- ie at the moment the whole of Intellectual Property law could be grounds for initiating these measures.
That is why we believe it would be safest if the directive were to be sharply reined in, and apply only to commercially organised, knowingly intentional copyright and trademark infringement.
Re:When will it stop? (Score:2)
Perhaps you should also mention the conference of FFIi in brussels where we all can discuss the current legislation.
I assume that the IPR directive will be postponed as it is too controversial, even within the parties.
It has to be pointed out that IPR enforcement and swpat directive are not quite the same and it is also difficualt to get for some persons why FFII is now in favour of the corrected Parlaments' swpat directive.
Re:When will it stop? (Score:1)
In my part of the EU we're rather short of people and need more to immigrate here to fill the vacant jobs. Rather than 'biting', unemployment isn't really a an issue that worries us right now.
Perhaps the users of fark.com would be interested to hear your views on intellectual property and the global economy however?
Watch closely... (Score:5, Insightful)
As time goes by it will be useful to observe how people will cling to an increasingly abusive state, and to see how many of them will turn on their own friends and relatives to ensure the safety of their own skin.
Meanwhile, for those of us who brave the -1 threshold I'm not even remotely surprised that this topic is being trolled to death. The corporatists have an agenda, and people trying to discuss their options threaten to interfere with their desire for unquestioned authority.
Good Luck Europe.
GPL Patents? (Score:5, Interesting)
I relize that Patents are different from Copyright in that patents must be defended to remain valid.. But does it prevent any $0 licence?
People have claimed most patents are obvious.
Re:GPL Patents? (Score:5, Informative)
Patents do not necessarily need to be defended to remain valid. In fact the presumption is that they do not. It might even be fair to say that the way things are right now most patents aren't defended. They just sit in the vault until the time is right.
You'll find many of the morally offensive legal battles going on right now are over patents that sat latent for years before the holder decided to file a suit against someone with money.
However, a good many patents are also given a public license, a $0 grant of use. The idea is not only valid but widely used.
But, patents are not like copyright which simply exist from the moment of creation. Obtaining a patent is a legal process which is time consuming and costly. While it is practical for a rich corporation with a flock of its own patent attorneys to file patent claims by the wheelbarrow full, the independent inventor may not have the means to file a single patent, even on a very lucrative invention.
And then yes, holding a patent is pointless if you can't defend it. Obtaining a patent might only cost a few hundreds to thousands of dollars. Defending one against Sony or Microsoft might well cost millions.
It's a sticky wicket I'm afraid.
KFG
Re:GPL Patents? (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, defending a patent is not necessarily expensive, because most alleged infringers would rather settle than litigate. Litigation costs millions for the defendant as well as the plaintiff, and the infringer can have huge potential liability (otherwise, the patentee wouldn't have gone to trial), say tens of millions of dollars.
Re:GPL Patents? (Score:4, Interesting)
Out to get us or just clueless? (Score:2, Interesting)
what difference does it really make? (Score:5, Insightful)
What?!?!??! (Score:1)
The new EU version of the DMCA harmfull????
Surely you are jesting, Sir!
now, what about this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:now, what about this? (Score:2, Insightful)
regulations to fall in with the US/EU model.
Australia seems to be doing the same.
Europe is about to expand to 25 nations. That
basically leaves Russia, China, the Middle East
(not my first choices of location), countries
in Africa with no IT industry, or Brazil.
To be honest only India (short term) and Brazil
look plausible.
Re:now, what about this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Countries like the US, Australia and Japan already have or are passing such laws.
Third-world countries and/or totalitarian states aren't exactly attractive alternatives for other reasons, so that eliminates much of Asia, Africa, the Middle-East, South America etc.
What's left? Canada and New Zealand, I guess... What if they cave in to industry pressures, as well?
Re:now, what about this? (Score:1)
One solution would be to actually give the Scientists and Engineers in Europe higher salaries and larger funding... but that would be a to easy solution.
However, my point being that most Engineers give crap about what laws are in effect to threaten their freedom, they just fo
Help us to stop this in Australia as well (Score:5, Interesting)
I've begun a political party here in Australia called Net Effect [neteffect.org.au], which is based on the internet. Right now we only have 10 people who have decided to become members. We need 500 to become a registered federal political party, so we can get on the ballots and fight our recently agreed to Aus-DMCA thanks to the new FTA our government signed with the US.
If you're Australian (anywhere, not just living here), please visit and make your views known in our forums, and if interested become a member.
If you are another nationality, you can still be a forum participant and advise us on how we should go forward to fight this sort of thing. We want to harness good ideas from everywhere, not just our own country, and in return give those same ideas to everyone else who wants to use them. Open source politics, as it should be.
Re:Help us to stop this in Australia as well (Score:2)
The IP enforcement directive has nothing to do with DMCA, software patents etc: it's purely about effective copyright enforcement. This works for open source community as well: it can more effectively pursue actions against abusive uses of the GPL and related licenses.
Re:Help us to stop this in Australia as well (Score:2)
These are the Good Old Days (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:These are the Good Old Days (Score:1)
Re:These are the Good Old Days (Score:5, Interesting)
Religious wars (30 years war) had a philosophical backslash in the following years, which caused modern science the diversion of government and church and democracy, the absolutism ended in the french revolution and founding of the United States and the French Republic.
The dictatorial communism ended in the collapse of the system because it was no longer carried by the people.
And what we are running into here seems to be the end of the corporate capitalism.
It would be more of a wonder than anything else if major corporations like they exist now will still be existing in about 100 years, if they dont change their way.
Probably it could be the end of the monetary system at all, depending on the problems we run into by the current situation.
From everything which had a major failure in the past people have turned away from at least for a few hundred years after the experiment failed.
I see corporate capitalism going the way of the Dodo, all it needs is going down further down the current road, and a bunch of people (who will arise), with new ideas on a countersystem which could work!
For instance going back to micro companies with open borders so that every country has the chance to produce and the wealth can be shared instead of being grabbed by a few corporations and the people behind it!
Alternative? (Score:4, Insightful)
Disputes about patents and trade secrets/confidential information taken out of the scope of the directive altogether. The draconian measures being discussed are completely inappropriate for such complex disputes.
So does the FFII believe that these kind of disputes should be left to the legal systems of individual member nations then or would the FFII prefer to have the EU draft some other directives to handle them uniformly? Or would any directive on this kind of dispute be too draconian according to the FFII?
It's fine to oppose something on principle but the FFII's alert doesn't seem to be proposing any alternative solution, other than "not what you've got", which weakens their stance IMHO. If they want to make a stand on IP, then they should do so instead of just being naysayers.
Re:Alternative? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alternative? (Score:1)
Re:Alternative? (Score:3, Informative)
The problem from the FFII and industry side is: the directive mixes up different intellectual property rights and let stricter enforcement targeted to product privacy apply for
Re:Alternative? (Score:5, Interesting)
Europe isn't entirely a legal black hole, you know.
It's worth noting Article 2.1:
Recitals 4 and 5: and Article 20: The point is, that this directive goes far beyond what was agreed at TRIPS in promoting the interests of supposed rightholders. (It is "TRIPS-plus" in the jargon, or "the DMCA on steroids", according to Ross Anderson in Cambridge).The other point is that it is absolutely against any idea of good lawmaking for rightsholders to try to crash this through all its remaining Parliamentary stages in three weeks flat.
It's fine to oppose something on principle but the FFII's alert doesn't seem to be proposing any alternative solution, other than "not what you've got", which weakens their stance IMHO. If they want to make a stand on IP, then they should do so instead of just being naysayers.
You might like to look at the amendments being canvassed by Andreas Dietl of European Digital Rights (EDRi), which you can find on the FFII website [ffii.org.uk].
Non-UK Europeans? (Score:2)
Re:Non-UK Europeans? (Score:1, Informative)
another link gone to pieces (Score:1)
Request Failed
We were unable to process your request at this time.
Error occured while accessing
"/ep5/owa/p_meps2.repar tition"
at Sat Feb 21 12:10:55 2004
OWS-05101: Execution failed due to Oracle error -20004
ORA-06502: PL/SQL: numeric or value error: character to number conversion error
ORA-06512: at line 5
PL/SQL Cartridge SERVICE: EUROPARL5PlsqlProd/ep5
PROCEDURE: p_meps2.repar tition
PARAMETERS:
===========
ILG:
EN
Please try again later
Re:Non-UK Europeans? (Score:2, Informative)
List of members [eu.int]
FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
The FFII is putting out a lot of FUD about this directive. It merely harmonises law across states: it does not increase it (except for those states that have poor IP law).
The alert is couched in the kind of rhetoric that does nothing to establish civilized debate (they used terms like "pull an SCO", "nuclear weapons" of IP law enforcement, etc) but you usually find with FUD.
The "anton piller" orders (i.e. search and seizure) they get so upset about are already available in many jurisdictions (e.g. the UK), all the directive is doing is making sure that the same procedures can be used across all EU member states, otherwise copyright infringers are able to locate their activities in a low-enforcement-quality state and make copyright law ineffective elsewhere in the EU.
It's total FUD by the FFII that "In Europe these kinds of investigatory procedures are more usually associated with criminal proceedings with a much higher standard of proof": anyone with legal training (i.e. someone like me) will tell you that these orders are routinely used in civil actions, they are not "more usually" associated with criminal proceedings. There is already a very high standard of proof required by judges for anyone trying to use these orders: in fact, the proof and consequences are such that most lawyers will tell you that wherever possible try to avoid them, only use them when they are really needed: the whole purpose of these orders is to prevent an infringer from dumping evidence (e.g. flushing it down the toilet).
So when FFII blocks this directive, and then we find a commercial company operating out of a new EU member state where enforcement is not harmonised that's abusing the GPL, and no one can take action to prevent that GPL abuse, then we'll find out how happy FFII about the state of IP enforcement. I would think that it's in the interest of the open source community to look for more effective IP enforcement measures, but to prevent any IP protection measures that stifle open source. These kind of enforcement harmonisation has no negative effect on open source: in fact, it goes some what to helping the situation.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Since you don't tell us one goddamn thing about what your issues with the FFII's statements are-- you just say "it's FUD", but don't bother justifying this at all-- I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're hiding one hell of a lot of stuff behind those nine words there.
Maybe the idea here is that the FFII's idea of "good IP law" and your idea of "poor IP law" happen to coincide, and what you call "poor IP law" is exactly what the FFII is trying to preserve?
So when FFII blocks this directive snip gpl abuse
This is a rediculous thing to say. The GPL requires a very minimal concept of copyright in order to operate. Essentially, in order to prevent abuse of the GPL, all that is necessary is for the law to say that you can't legally redistribute another person's copyrighted work without their consent.
If you're honestly stating that there's some area where the copyright law doesn't say that, well screw it, that means that persons in that area can make derived works of the GPL in that area and give them to other persons in that area without supplying source. That also means that persons in that area can make as many copies of Adobe Photoshop as they want and give them out to anyone. I think you're going to find very few GPL advocates complaining about this situation. I also think you're going to find these countries perfectly capable of concluding this is an unacceptable situation and fixing it completely of their own accord without the EU implying this from outside by force and with extra conditions added.
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Strangely enough, this is just what Janelly Fourtou told us in Strasbourg last week, just after she tried to persuade MEPs that we were talking about an out-of-date draft of the Directive -- which we weren't; and just before she told us that she too has been trying to take patents out of the Directive -- which, according to minutes of recent 'Trialogue' meetings, she hasn't. (Mme Fourtou is the MEP who is steering this through the Europarliament, and entirely coincidentally happens to be the wife of the CEO of Vivendi-Universal)
It simply isn't true.
Anton Piller orders are currently only available in the UK and France ("saisi-contrefacon"). These secret court authorisations of raids for evidence carried out by the plaintiff's own agents are not available in any of the other states of the EU.
Furthermore, after very strong criticism from the most senior judges, in the UK a strict new code of practice was brought in in the early 90s which cut the number of applications granted by a factor of ten. (See this page [ffii.org.uk] for references to the detailed cases). The judge who led that criticism, Lord Scott, was subsequently head of civil justice for five years, and is now one of the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords -- the most senior court in the UK. He now chairs the House of Lords scrutiny committee which has refused to clear this legislation. If he is concerned about the detailed text, then we all should be.
We are talking about unannounced dawn raids by private security firms, piling in with legal authority and seizing entire computer systems and filing cabinets full of documents. That is a terrifying and destructive experience for a small firm.
That is why FFII is arguing that such measures should only be available in the most extreme circumstances, and where there is clear evidence of a deliberate knowing intent to infringe for commercial gain on a commercial scale. Such measures are totally inappropriate where there is no such deliberate piracy, and no such emergency, in cases as complex as those in patent law and disputed ownership of confidential information/trade secrets, which routinely can take five years in court. Such measures should not become automatic standard procedure in all IP disputes.
Furthermore, we think it is simply insane to try to crash through such a major change in the civil justice system -- a truly massive change in the whole legal IP environment for most firms in Europe -- in three weeks flat from publication of the detailed text to final vote in Plenary, short circuiting all the normal three readings procedures of the Parliament, and before even first publication of the results of the UK consultation and the UK impact study.
No, this is not just FUD.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
If that is what the FFII is arguing (and your points are very well informed and valid), then why doesn't FFII explain that in its press releases rather than going for the loaded jargon in a way that seems to argue for dismissal of the entire law. As far as I can see - your points are not FUD, but the press release certain smells of it.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the thing most people fear the most IMHO. And they're right. C'mon. This can't be true. You (allegedly) did a bit of file-swapping and "they" come and do a house search?! WTF?! Politics for the citizens? For whom? Many, many many do file-sharing. Just
Re:FUD (Score:4, Informative)
I qoute:
The IP Enforcement directive is very important legislation. It should give businesses a familiar single legal landscape for IPR enforcement issues right across Europe; and stamp down hard on organised criminal counterfeiting and piracy.[..]This is very sensitive legislation. The directive represents a once-in-a-generation change to the legal landscape that companies have to deal with on Intellectual Property Rights - copyrights, trademarks, patents, confidential information etc etc. Hardly a single company of any size will not be affected in some way. It is of fundamental importance that this legislation is got right first time.
FFII view
FFII fully supports firm action to crack down on organised counterfeiting and piracy. But FFII is very concerned by the danger of unscrupulous operators "pulling a SCO" with groundless claims of IP infringement, and misusing the very powerful measures contained in the directive to unfairly harass and damage legitimate companies. FFII believes that the best course would be for the directive to be limited to its original proposed scope, namely commercially organised, fully intentional copyright and trademark infringement.
Re:FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
It merely harmonises law across states: it does not increase it (except for those states that have poor IP law).
This sentence is incredibly persuasive: it is not contradictory (except for the parts that are contradictions.)
The "anton piller" orders (i.e. search and seizure) they get so upset about are already available in many jurisdictions (e.g. the UK), all the directive is doing is making sure that the same procedures can be used across all EU member states, otherwise copyri
Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Europe Section (Score:5, Interesting)
Recent developments in politics have had significant impact on the rights and liberties of citizens. Where hackers have traditionally chosen to stay away from politics, these developments force hackers to be aware and stand up for their rights.
Slashdot has done a good job of reporting and fostering discussion on political issues in the USA. However, much of the badness that happens in the States, because of flawed laws and a flawed legal system is threatening to happen in Europe as well, as a result of introducing similar laws, without people being adequately aware that this is happening. Many slashdot readers know about the DMCA and its pitfalls, but awareness of the EUCD is much lower, even among European readers. Any discussions concerning the Rest of the World tend to be overshadowed by discussions about the USA.
The source of the problem appears to be the US-centric nature of slashdot. To salvage this, europeans could turn to their own sources for news and discussions concerning them, but I do not believe this is the Right Thing. It separates the communities, which favors alienation over mutual understanding, and makes both sides miss out on insightful and interesting comments made on the other side. Instead, I advocate that slashdot add sections for different parts of the world, so that readers from each part can get news concerning them, while still participating in global discussions and having the option to join discussions concerning those in other parts of the world.
Note that, although I have written this post from a very Europe-oriented perspective, the arguments apply equally well to other parts of the world, e.g. China.
Re:Europe Section (Score:2)
K
Re:Europe Section (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Europe Section (Score:4, Interesting)
I fully agree with you that there should be a Europe section on ./. After all, although ./ is US-centric, it's not that US-centric: about
a quarter [slashdot.org] of the readers are Europeans.
I do also agree with you that not separating the communities is a good idea: sure, we could start slashdot.eu (or slashdot.nl, since most of Europe's internet connectivity to the US seems to pass through the big relays in Amsterdam), but that would make two different communities.
OTOH, I also think that the "Europe" section should be confined to, say, yro-europe, since most other subjects are pretty international.
My EUR 0.02
Re:Europe Section (Score:2)
They will launch DotEU soon.
I would like to see a EU version of slashdot.
Re:Europe Section (Score:2)
There are good arguments to be made for more location-specific sections. For example, availability of a certain product in Europe could also be grouped under the European section. Nothing prevents people from different regions from reading the European news, and stories that are considered interesting for anyone can make it into the global section, in addition to any r
Let's start the initiative then! (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, see my earlier reply [slashdot.org] to this message:
Let's start the initiative then: sign this petition [slashdot.org] and add it to your sig.
I'll try to keep you posted on the progress.
This is about stiffling competition.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The EU isn't 'united', it's a bunch of countries trying to equalize everything while milking the ones with some money left, Germany and France come to mind here (why these countries have to pay more than they get while being punished for not meeting the deficit criteria is beyond me). Europe is dictated by the individual interests of the members, e.g. you cannot afford to buy a decent banana from South-America in the EU because France made sure the imports from around the world except their old colonies are heavy taxed.
My point here is, since everybody is eying all others who might have an advantage, all members are easy prey for the lobbyists. The EU Commission is constantly under fire for not getting the needs of the people but ruling in favor of the big companies exporting the jobs to some Third-World country. Voting this year won't make a difference because regarding IP laws, the lobbyists where faster and have deeper pockets. Remember last year when EU-Citizens annoyed the politicians by demanding things while not paying for a free lunch at the same time?
my 2 cents
Re:This is about stiffling competition.... (Score:1)
Re:This is about stiffling competition.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Special Treatment (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if there were any good reason for such special treatment, it comes at the cost of duplicating Member States' civil procedure and damage calculation rules, making them much more complicated.
The correct way to do this would be to work within the framework of EU contract law harmonization.
I have a few more comments on my blog, but generally I agree with all proposals to limit the damage from this harmful legislation project.
Re:Special Treatment (Score:3, Interesting)
Intellectual property rights is used as a term but nowhere defined. see Art 3.
It is a law written by radicals and lobbyists, but horrible from a law system perspective. I found t
Btw. another note you can vote those people out (Score:4, Interesting)
I urge all the readers from france and GB
to vote people like McCarthy (responsible for last years assault against the patent status quo regarding Software)
And Fortou (the wife of the Vivendi boss, she is responsible for this bill) out of the office!
Please first of all go to the EP elections this year.
And please vote for people and parties who are against Software Patents and against this Copyright bill!
There are some in the EP those need to be strenghened. People like McCarthy, Fortou, and Wuermeling (the german pusher for US like patent laws) heve to be kicket out of this institution by their real bosses.
Givcen the fact that there usually is a very low voting quote at the EP elections, a few hundred thousand people really can kick those corrupt bastards out!
Self-defence (Score:1)
VERY IMPORTANT: 91/EC/250 is quoted (Score:4, Informative)
specifically, interfaces between software-software, software-hardware and hardware-hardware are EXEMPT from copyright law.
whereas number 15.
it says that the new directive is "without prejudice" to 91/EC/250.
The reason behind... (Score:1)
Bad example (Score:2)
Re:What everyone needs to do is (Score:4, Insightful)
The new alchemy, the new "philosopher's stone", is more like it.