EU Passes Nasty IP Law 375
FireBreathingDog writes "This BBC report details a new European Union law that 'allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.'" Like any bit of controversial legislation, it can change massively just before being voted upon. This legislation, which originally had DMCA-like provisions (protections for technical protection measures on copyrighted works), seems to have lost them prior to passage. (I'm sure they'll be back in some new piece of legislation.) However, it does make "regular" copyright enforcement much more aggressive in the EU, with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement. More information: IP Justice, FFII, FFII background.
How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be just great if companies like SCO get to have this power. The average politition may not realise what their new 'core business' consists of, and give them the keys to the IP city. In 16 months time will it be a common sight to see 'SCOrm Troopers' busting through windows of offices and razing them?
It's bad enough with the government departments doing this, but profit based companies? Shit, this is scary stuff
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:2, Funny)
Good news (Score:3)
This has no relevance to parent post whatsoever, but it needs to be said and read.
These new laws, which probably will be passed, may have some nasty DMCA like tendencies, but there are good news as well.
It will outloaw technological measures to prevent free trade (like DVD-zones). It's not all to the record/movie-business.
Even if this law, I must admit, is the lowest I've ever seen the EU crawl for the industry.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use.
If it basically restricts the suing to professional pirates, ie people who download music or movies to sell it on the street, then I don't see anything wrong with it. That's what copyrights were meant to do - protect artists/publishers from other publishers (and not from consumers).
If that's what this law is, it seems pretty sensible after all!
Daniel
Re:Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Informative)
Daniel
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
Scientology is going to LOVE this. Anywhere, anytime, in they come through the windows! Frozen bank accounts! Jail! And all they have to do is ASK?
Yeah, you can take them to court. After all your stuff is gone, your bank accounts locked up, and your person seized.
Does no one remember alt.scientology.war in Wired magazine? Time magazine? Arnie Lerma? The first spam assault back in 97-98, with over 1 million spam messages and forgeries posted to alt.religion.scientology?
They were the first copyright abusing corporate entity, and the first to use spam as a weapon. And they are still #1 for suppressing coverage of their activities. Does no one remember what they did when they didn't have the law on their side? They were raiding THEN.
No one can stand up to the Hubbardites in Europe anymore if even a fraction of this insanity becomes law. Xenu.net will have its hosting ISP's doors kicked in the week after this passes. It'll be illegal in real terms to talk about their "secret" teachings on the internet. This is an eternal gag order.
Music? Movies? That's kiddy stuff. The nuclear strength copyright maniacs are what we have to worry about.
DON'T PANIC (Score:3)
If a government decides to implement this in a draconian way - then it is that government who should be lambasted, NOT the E.U. This is the usual E.U. bashing from Euroskeptics who are having the wool pulle
Re:DON'T PANIC (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good news (Score:3, Funny)
Come to think of it, you may be right.
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:2)
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:5, Informative)
So from paragraph 1, it seems as though the applicant (the one wishing to do a raid, for example) will need to demonstrate to "competent judicial authorities" that there is a clear and present danger of evidence being destroyed. Additionally, as per paragraphs 2 and 4, applicants will also need to provide assurance that, in the event the defendent is found not to be infringing, compensation for injury caused by whatever actions taken is provided.
Basically, SCO could use something like this, but it better have some significant cash on hand to reimburse any raided companies for downtime and losses incurred. Not quite as draconian as the summary would have you believe. But then, posting controversial summaries is Slashdot's hallmark.
Not true (Score:5, Informative)
Not true, this was one of the things I didn't like. Its worded loosely here:
", in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm right holder, OR where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed"
Note the 'OR', its enough to show that a delay is likely to cause irreparable harm. They don't have to show there is a risk of evidence being destroyed.
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope that they will do so, it should be sufficient to put an end to SCO and their illegal behaviour.
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to arrest me? Fine, send the regular police. No problem there. Federal agents even.
Private corporations? Never.
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Silly, you think corporations are going to send their own troopers after you? They will send the Feds, just ask the BSA, who has the real badge-carrying police kick down doors and bust locks.
The cops work for the corps. Not for you.
Re:How do they decide which companies can do it? (Score:5, Informative)
Article 146 of the "Grundgesetz" stipulates that the Grundgesetz may only be changed via a decision by the people (referendum), which did not happen when the Grundgesetz was subordinated under the European laws (specifically the passus that European right overrides national right). This is a non-trivial change in constitution which was not approved by the people (because the people was not asked!). Thus, it can be argued that any directive that must be transcribed in national law is unconstitutional, because the people never relinquished this kind of authority to the European Institutions. (Not to mention that this particular directive flies flatly in the face of free expression, due process, freedom from unreasonable search & seizure, etc.)
Moreover article 20.4 of the Grundgesetz grants the right of "resistence" for the case where institutions become corrupt, and no longer act in the spirit of the constitution:
In summary:- The Federal Republic Germany is a democratic and social Federal State
- All power of States is rooted in the People. This power is exerced by the people in Elections and Votes, and by special institutions of the legislative, executive and judicial branch.
- The legislative is bound by the constitutional rules, the executive and the judicial are bound by law and justice.
- All Germans are entitled to exerce resistance against anybody who sets out to remove this order, if no other resort is possible
It can be said that this article is roughly equivalent with the US second amendment, except that unlike the second amendment it doesn't unfortunately provide the tools to exerce this right to resistance.Consequently, some of the more vocal participants in the heise.de boards have called for more drastic ways to show their disapprovment [heise.de].
For those of you who read German, here is a more detailed analysis: GG Art. 20 - der deutsche Bundestag untergrabt seine eigene Legitimation! [heise.de].
Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Who's there?
Goons... Hired goons.
Re:Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:4, Funny)
KFG
More information (Score:5, Informative)
GPL violations (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe one can use this against GPL violations. What does the legislation say about when, oh, Phillips or Vivendi might be violating GPL terms? Can we have their assets frozen?
Re:GPL violations (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Accusing the Gov (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:GPL violations (Score:2, Insightful)
Violations of GPL are violations of contractual terms, not copyright, so it probably says nothing.
Re:GPL violations (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GPL violations (Score:4, Interesting)
We will say to the judge, "Judge, Mr. Defendant has used our copyrighted work, copied it, modified it and distributed it without permission. Please make him stop."
One thing that the defendant can say is, "You're right. I have no license." Defendants do not want to say that, because if they say that they lose. So defendants, when they envision to themselves what they will say in court, realize that what they will say is, "But Judge, I do have a license. It's this here document, the GNU GPL. General Public License," at which point, because I know the license reasonably well, and I'm aware in what respect he is breaking it, I will say, "Well, Judge, he had that license but he violated its terms and under Section 4 of it, when he violated its terms, it stopped working for him."
But notice that in order to survive moment one in a lawsuit over free software, it is the defendant who must wave the GPL. It is his permission, his master key to a lawsuit that lasts longer than a nanosecond.
Full text at Groklaw [groklaw.net]
Re:GPL violations (Score:3)
Blimey, isn't it? How come?
Re:GPL violations (Score:3, Informative)
No it's not. There is a large difference between a license and a contract. A license just gives you permission to do something you wouldn't ordinarily be allowed to do - like distribute someone else's copyrighted work (the GPL) or say, go fishing in a private dam (a fishing license). If you ignore or transgress the terms of the license, you have no contractual obligations between you and the licensor which must be fulfilled - you will just be asked to stop what you are doing. If y
Re:GPL violations (Score:2, Funny)
So, you see, we need to be able to break into his office before he can even realize it, and keep him away from the magic button, so we can demonstrate to the courts that they've been using GPL code all along.
Highlights (Score:5, Informative)
["Before the vote, critics said the law was flawed as it applied the same penalties to both professional counterfeiters and consumers." But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home."]
["The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal. "]
["One amendment said action should not be taken against consumers who download music "in good faith" for their own use."]
Re:Highlights (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Highlights (Score:5, Insightful)
And there you have it.
Nice to see politicians (are MEPs even elected?) have *our* best interests at heart.
Re:Highlights (Score:5, Insightful)
I've spent a lot of time wondering where the blame should go.
Is it apathetic voters that simply dont have time to research what potential canidates have done?
Is it an abusing lobbying system that wont change because the people that receive the money are also the ones that make the laws?
Is it what ive heard Noam Chomsky refer to as "Institutional Control"? IE, your more than welcome to discuss the US involvement with Uzbekistan in your political science class, but expect your govt funding to be terminated shortly...
At any rate, I agree with your sentiment.
Where the blame should go. (Score:4, Interesting)
Traditionally, each of these powers has created its own government, which lasted for a short while. When recognized by a government, the power is controlled, and you don't have illegitimate control over the government by that power.
However, when a power isn't recognized, then it can overwhelm the government, and cause it to fall in a characteristic fashion.
Ignore the populace, and you get a French-style revolution. (We have Congress).
Ignore the charismatic leader, and you get a coup. (We have the President).
Ignore the wise counsel, and you get civil disorder (we have the supreme court).
Ignore the press, and you get a government that loses its grip on reality. (We have a press).
Ignore groups of like-thinking individuals, and you get balkanization (we have the Senate, though it used to function better when economic interest varied more by state than by profession).
Ignore money, and you get essentially bribery undermining every part of the government.
We have nothing to recognize money.
Thus, money is undermining our government.
The solution, perhaps, is to have a 3rd house of Congress, one in which the seats are auctioned off, one per year for a full year, to be filled by a citizen of the choice of the winner, and which has its own power of veto.
But until you have something like that, yes, money is going to undermine your government.
Re:Highlights (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they are, however in the UK, we as a nation are so insular and xenophobic, the turn-out at the elections for MEPs is routinely below 20%. I think it was about 13% last time IIRC. It's pathetic. People think that because it's "Europe" it doesn't affect them. At least my radical vote counts more because there are fewer total votes :-)
Re:Highlights (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not because you're insular (which you are) or xenophobic (which you aren't) -- it's because most UK cits realize that what they think and do matters not at all to European politicians.
In other words, they (the apathetic sheep) have a reasonable and correct worldview whereas you are kind of cute but sad, like a little mouse that says it will protect its parent mice from the evil cat.
Now hush up and give us all your fishing rights -- oh, you already have.
Re:Highlights (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine that the turn-out for the next European Parliament elections was 10%
And you were one of the ones did vote
Did you notice that your vote would count for you plus 9 of the people that didn't vote?
Maybe checking out which of UK's EU parliament members voted for this law and which voted against
Re:Highlights (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Highlights (Score:2)
Here in Luxembourg, the European election is on the same day as the national election. Of course, the same candidats are on both ballots. Result: those with the most votes take a national seat (considered to be more important...), leaving the european seats to the losers!
This time, choose right! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Highlights (Score:5, Informative)
This is NOT TRUE, just a spin! Only 3 parts of the directive are limited to "commercial scale", i.e. freezing of bank accounts, getting bank information and trying to get background information on the copying organization. So the stormtroopers can still your house.
Pop (Score:4, Funny)
Guess I won't be busted for sharing my Australian didgeridoo, german barbershop quartet or christian gangster rap collection.
Re:Pop (Score:2)
But you might ask what they have to do with the soft drinks industry.
Tom.
Very American Indeed.... (Score:5, Informative)
"The European law was shepherded through the European Parliament by MEP Janelly Fourtou, wife of Jean-Rene Fourtou who is boss of media giant Vivendi Universal."
Tom.
personal legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
It`s not a law It`s a directive (Score:5, Informative)
Screw, you, EU... (Score:4, Funny)
So exactly who has rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't there ANY place that's free? (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks to me like there's no escaping the soul-crushing, draconian corporate police state that's almost (if not already) here in everything but name.
Isn't there any country out there with the balls to refuse to give in to shit like this that isn't already a police state of some kind??
Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free? (Score:2)
Of course, I'd probably settle for this daconian coporate environment where at least I get to choose which fast food joint I'm going to spend all my money at.
Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Still though, I wouldn't want to be the example or the trial case...
Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free? (Score:4, Funny)
However, as long ago as 1870, when Jules Verne wrote 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, he had Captain Nemo note that the only place left free in the world was 30 feet under the surface of the sea, as even the sea's surface was no longer safe from police states.
Nowadays, of course, all the police states have hunter submarines.
KFG
South America, Brazil? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I'm looking towards South America, specifically Brazil.
Brazil seems to be improving rapidly, still, Lula seems to keep his eyes open and doesn't take in
Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free? (Score:3, Funny)
What the directive says is _not_ that some company's private stormtroopers can bash your door in, whenever they see fit.
It basically says that, given reasonable suspicion that you're running a wholesale counterfeiting opperation, the company can call upon the authorities (i.e., police, courts, government agencies) to take action. And those authorities can take whatever steps are necessary to prevent you from destroying the _evidence_. Including, yes, taking that evidence into custody.
It als
Re:Isn't there ANY place that's free? (Score:2)
Use the law against itself (Score:5, Interesting)
"During the debates, the directive was widened to cover any infringement of intellectual property.
The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen."
Time to get some obscure patents or copyrighted material, let it find its way into commercial and government use, and then use the law to raid the business and government offices and seize their assets.
*Companies*!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
The directive allows companies to raid homes, seize property and ask courts to freeze bank accounts to protect trademarks or intellectual property they believe are being abused or stolen.
Is this correct? Are companies going to be granted powers that had been restricted to law-enforcement (for good reasons) up until now?
Will Kodak be able to raid Sony [slashdot.org] to protect it's intellectual property?
There should be one penalty for both the little guy and the big guy - the law should not be a respecter of persons.
Re:*Companies*!?! (Score:5, Informative)
1. Member States shall ensure that [..] the competent judicial authorities may [..] order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement [..]
That's all. Nowhere is mentioned who shall take the measures. But since raids by companies would be unconstitutional in all member states the 'raid by companies' bit was pulled out of the editor's ass.
Re:*Companies*!?! (Score:3, Informative)
In these countries the orders are indeed granted directly to the plaintiffs, in secret, without the defendants' case being put, authorising the plaintiffs themselves to go ahead.
Here's what a standard thousand-page textbook on UK Intellectual Property law has to say about such measures, called "Anton Piller" orders (Cornish & Llewellyn, 5e, 2003: section 2-43, page 82):
Re:*Companies*!?! (Score:2)
I am going to use AOL as an example. Just because I think it is one of the easiest situations.
Scan all your IM Messages and see who is using IM on an operating system that doesn't support their IM.
This could be like someone writing "Yea right now I am running OpenBSD it is cool"
Oh Oh someone is using something that may be using their IP but not threw them.
Lets Freeze their bank and raid their house. Force them to get a wi
Re:*Companies*!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember AIM is a network which people use to talk. Consider that if you lose one person in the network becau
We already have a Euro-DMCA (Score:5, Interesting)
Using the law against those who wanted it... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the final straw! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait...
Cooper
--
I don't need a pass to pass this pass!
- Groo The Wanderer -
Re:This is the final straw! (Score:2)
Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.! (Score:5, Funny)
Lucky for me I live in that bastion of individual freedom: the U.S. of A.!
Hang on, someone is knocking at the door...
Re:Thank goodness I don't live in the E.U.! (Score:3, Funny)
Man this stuff is funny. EU politians need to lay off the drugs.
More info (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if local authorities will allow non-official parties to enter your house without official government permission. The EU can decide this, but local authorities can still overrule it, AFAIK. But, IANAL.
Illegal File Sharing (Score:2)
HM Customs can do this already in the UK (Score:4, Informative)
The reason I mentioned customs is that they handle fakes, counterfeiting etc here.
One important point... (Score:4, Informative)
"But a late amendment limited them to organised counterfeiters and not people downloading music at home."
This law is terrible even so (Score:5, Informative)
One important detail got left out of your post.
This applies ONLY to freezing bank accounts and doing background checks.
They CAN still break down your door for suspected copyright infringement at the personal level. This includes trading cassette tapes, as college students have been doing for thirty years.
I predicted that, in the day of the Internet and digital media, either the copyright and patent regimes would have to weakened if not scrapped, or draconian laws that would make the former Soviet Union look liberal would have to be enacted.
Looks like we've chosen the stalinist route: Communism^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Capitalism over Freedom.
Nice going Europe. Scratch another place to move to
No infringement required; allegations are enough (Score:3, Insightful)
No. There need only be the accusation of copyright infringement. The DMCA is used at least as often to silence criticism as it is to take down actual, infringing material. It, like this law, has no requirement for d
It's more than likely (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:It's more than likely (Score:2)
First of all, look at the whole Scientology fiasco. They're all mad at Germany for not recognizing it as an acceptable religion, then they forget that the Germans were under the tyranny of an ultra-right facist government that just happened to catch the eye of the public long enough to get power.
They're gene
Re:It's more than likely (Score:4, Insightful)
"The people who once sent other people to gulag and confiscated their "bourgeois property" will be the lawmakers in Strasbourg and Brussels. Along with the people who sent other people to "gaskammers" and confiscated their "Jewish property"."
Sounds a little bit paranoid. These are crimes of the past and the persons who did it are dead. Crimes against humanity in the past were a good lesson to change the system. Legal standards in Europe are known to be high.
However, the executive branch does not make the laws. It's the lack of lobbying and citizen's representation on the EU level.
Support organisations who are in the debate by donations, give them attantion, forward their news. It is a a power case. the Music industry lost a lot of money, so they invested into lobbying. Don't hate the lobby, be the lobby.
Re:It's more than likely (Score:3, Interesting)
But the executive branch often initiates the laws and passes the proposed bills to the parliament. Just check the case of one Hans Globke [wiesenthal.com], the guy who wrote the Nuremberg Laws in 1935 - these laws were actually the legal framework of the Holocaust. They allowed to gather Jewish citizens in ghettos and subsequently eliminate them, all according to the law (the Nurembe
Not a law (Score:5, Informative)
This same article says that no action may be taken against consumers who act in "good faith" and download music. Of course, we must see how this works out...
Making legislation to protect copyright rights is okay for me, making legislation to limit the use of legally licensed (equals bought) copyrighted material is what's really wrong.
Reply from a press officer (Score:3, Interesting)
The Register, have reproduced a letter to them [theregister.co.uk] from Adrian McMenamin, the Press Officer of the European Parliamentary Labor Party.
The letter contains the the particularly juicy quote:
A grep for his name in the 2.6.3 linux source tree does not return anything, so I suspect he may be lying about his kernel modules, just like he is lying about DMCA in Europe. (The EUCD, which is like the DMCA, but stricter in some areas, was ratified in the UK a few months ago).
Does anyone know anything about Adrian McMenamin?. Has he in fact made any useful contribution to OSS?
Use the google :-) (Score:3, Informative)
link 2 [geocrawler.com]
Unless somebody else used the same name of course, but this does lend some credibility to his claims
Yikes! (Score:3, Funny)
Euro-parliament elections coming up (Score:4, Informative)
If you're an european citizen now's the time to make your vote count.
Check the FFII site for the list of members of parliament that voted for and against the amendement 59, then cast your vote accordingly.
(I just checked that my personal favorites voted for amendement 59. I didn't vote last time around, but this time they've get my vote!!!)
In the US we shoot intruders (Score:5, Insightful)
When cops enter your home by "dynamic entry", that's one thing, but when CIVILIANS (which is what those private raiding parties are over there) break into your home by force, then they should be SHOT DEAD ON THE SPOT.
Maybe they can get some sharp sticks and skewer a few of them. When some of them get killed pulling these bullshit raids they'll back off..
Note to those thinging of this here: This is the USA, we are ARMED. Don't try it. You've been warned.
You are a fool and deserve what you get (Score:5, Insightful)
I think a right to kill for protecting property is absolutely disgusting.
There is no absolute right to kill. People who shoot intruders under anything less then clear circumstances of a serious threat are often put on trial and have a tough time.
Price of a human life in USA is WAY too low.
The ignorance about what life is really like in the USA is WAY too high.
Look, in the middle of the night, you don't know the intruder's intent, and he's not going to have a little sit down to discuss it. Mere robbers will generally case a house (insert RFID comment here) and wait until it is unoccupied.
I will defend myself and my family to the fullest extent to which I am capable, and use whatever tools I am legally allowed to have (and a few I am not, but that's a different thread). I will take my chances with the legal system rather than the judgement of someone who has broken into my house.
Re:License to Kill (Score:5, Interesting)
However, you can for practically all intents and purposes, shoot a stranger in your house as long as they die so there are no witnesses, and especially if they have no reason to be there and have been convicted of burglery before. As long as you stuck to your story that you thought they were reaching for a weapon, no court would convict you of anything. ( I don't know if their family could still sue you for depriving the burgler of their civil right to life. They would only have to get a jury to believe that it was 51% likely that you killed the burgler knowing they were not intent on hurting you )
I can think of many interesting legal/ethical conundrums regarding the right to kill though:
Imagine if there are 100 people about to be killed and the only way to save the other 99 is to shoot one of the 100. Is that legal? Maybe it would be since the 1 was dead meat anyway, but then again we are all dead meat in the long run.
What about if there are 100 people about to die and the only way to save them is to kill an innocent bystander 300 meters away by shooting them? ( maybe they were deaf an facing away, but their body will fall in such a way as to unplug the heavy piece of machinery that is about to crush the 100 people. ) This is probably the most ethical thing to do, but I don't know if it is legal. I wouldn't do it for 100 strangers because I wouldn't want to face the legal issues involved. But were I altruistic enough to sacrifice my own life for 100 strangers ( and some people are ) then I would probably be altruistic enough to kill the innocent bystander and face murder charges myself. If there was someone I cared alot about among the 100 I might do it too.
I suspect killing an innocent bystander to save 100 people is illegal, but what if there were 1000 people in certain to die without a blood sacrifice? 10000? 10,000,000 about to be blown up by a thermonuclear bomb? Would the murder of one innocent be immoral? Illegal?
If you buy that killing one innocent bystander is justified to save New York City from being obliterated by Tsar Bomba, then what about organ transplants? If you know someone's hematocrit etc, you can assemble a list of five or six people who will die soon unless you shoot that innocent person in the head and steal their organs... At how many people is the cut off? Exactly how many bricks does it take to make a Heap of Bricks?
WTO involvement (Score:3, Interesting)
Cyberpunk 2020/Shadowrun? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I was in europe, and a corp stormed my house, I wonder if I could shot them. It's not like their police. In the US, the BSA usually comes with Federal Marshalls.
This is bad bad stuff. Like I told my 20 year old stripper girlfriend: "Every time I'm around you I feel I need to get my leather trench lined...with a nice tight kevlar weave."
Not really anything new (Score:4, Interesting)
Not quite right... (Score:4, Informative)
1) But late amendments added to the law limited who intellectual property owners could take action against and what penalties they could apply. The amendments the parliament refers to are actually a compromise reached between parliament and the council of ministers (representatives of EU national governments) earlier in the process. The amendment says, in the preamble (not the main body of the text) that some (not all) of the harshest sanctions, such as freezing bank accounts, should only apply to 'commercial' violations. However, this is very broadly defined as a violation that gives someone an 'economic advantage', which could be applied to, say, someone who downloads a song off the Internet for free. For more information see this story [zdnet.co.uk].
2) This legislation, which originally had DMCA-like provisions The provisions banning circumventions of copy-protection technology were passed in the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, and according to a recent study, EU member nations are implementing these sanctions in full, without including protections to researchers and business competition, which they are allowed to do. See this story [zdnet.co.uk].
3) with companies able to raid, confiscate and freeze the bank accounts of those accused of copyright infringement This is accurate: these surprise raids are known as Anton Pillar orders, and in civil cases, they allow companies themselves to carry out the raids, hopefully overseen by their solicitors to make sure they keep within the rules of the order. More information on these orders here [freedomfight.ca]. In criminal cases, which are the only kind in which most countries allow Anton Pillar orders, the raids are carried out by police. In the UK the raids are allowed in civil IP cases, but only for large-scale piracy or counterfeiting. The new IP directive could make these raids available for any civil IP case. The recent raids on Sharman Networks [zdnet.co.uk] and others in Australia were authorised by Anton Pillar orders.
It is true that the directive must still be interpreted by member states and implemented in their national laws, and this could represent an opportunity for the directive's harsher aspects to be limited. But it will now be a matter of making this happen in 25 different member countries (post-enlargement of EU) rather than on a Europe-wide level. Additionally, the experience of implementation of the EUCD (see above) suggests that member states won't automatically limit bizarre and repressive directives, no matter how controversial they are.
This is partly because, when they're debating laws like this at a national level, they tend to talk to the parties directly affected -- in this case, people like the BSA and the IFPI (Euro-RIAA); ordinary citizens have to work harder to be included in the process.
Matt Broersma, ZDNet UK
jesus, can you imagine... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you'll eventually be exonerated - that is, if said 'evidence' doesn't mysteriously appear on your computer *AFTER* it's seized and hauled off to corporate headquarters - but you'll have to wait years to get back your property, your money, and recover what's left of your life.
If shit like this comes anywhere close to passing in the U.S. I'm moving to Canada.
Max
Wow, looks like EUCD got it on steriods (Score:3, Interesting)
In December of 2002 I got to give a presentation over IP rights and the EU to members of the German Parliment and other officials from several soon to be EU members' Embassies as well as officials from the United States and the UK. *now for the karama hit* I was arguing that while technology allows easier infringement, people's copyrights, patents, etc. need to be respected and that they key wasn't in new laws, but enforcement of existing laws.
At that time the EUCD was "Supposed" to be in effect by the 23rd of December 2002, if I remember correctly. For some reason people think of the Internet as something "new" that requires "new" laws for a "new" time, and that is the false primise that I brought up in my 30 minute presentation, well I hope...German is a second language to me and far from perfect, however the professor advising said I did fine.
The Worldsofends.com paper/site whatever it is brings up the very point of what the Internet is: a method of transmission of data. The internet itself is designed to route data packets and that's about it. (that's my summation of their main point anyway...RTFA make sure I'm not smoking anything)
Right now I am doing a study for the local chamber of commerce and downtown development agency about collecting sales tax for internet transactions at least in the United States and basically my arguement is this: A company that uses an online catalog (shopping cart) to facilitate sales of goods that are shipped between state lines is not any different that an existing mail order/catalog business. The only difference is that the paper printed catalog has been replaced by the innovation of an online shopping cart. There is no need for "new" laws, simply enforcing existing laws that govern this industry.
Once you explain it in those terms, people begin to understand that business on the internet is no different than brick and morter. Don't get me wrong, there are some other pressing international issues that are still being worked out like the old Yahoo! Vs. France (9th Circus of Appeals case).
Copyright is really is no different. All that needed to be said in the DMCA and the EUCD or now EUIPsomethingsomething was: "The internet, or anyother electronic transmission method is still subject to the laws of international copyright".
Geesh, maybe after my masters degree, I should start some foundation that attempts to advise people, hold seminars, charge $500 a head and make a lot of money.
Re:Unless I'm mistaken.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I am not for these laws at all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anarchy in the EU (Score:2)
Yes, I know that people (ab)use the word 'anarchy' when they actually mean 'chaos', but using fancy words does not make your point stronger if you don't know what they mean. If you mean 'chaos', then say 'chaos'.
Re:I am not for these laws at all (Score:2, Funny)
> creation ripped off and given away for free?
Like signing a distribution deal?
Re:I am not for these laws at all (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I am not for these laws at all (Score:2)
The directive will be dangerous for persons or orga on a commercial scale that are infringing on intellectual property. Also for BONA FIDE infrigenment, infrigement that you are not aware of. Measures designed for combating criminal product privacy will also apply.
And the directive reduces the legal standards.
A free Gun for SCO and Patent privateers.
Re:I am not for these laws at all (Score:2)
It seems that in all countries which signed the Geneva convention, everybodies workings are automatically copyrighted, this means also yours and mine.
I think that somewhere in there lies an opportunity to hollow out current copyright legislation, because the Geneva convention is besed upon the premise of industries and old, expensive IT systems.
Everybody is now capable of delivering original cont
Re:I am not for these laws at all (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Most people are decent and generally ask permission before reproducing my graphics
2) Many people are ignorant of copyright law altogether, but they are not the ones you need worry about
3) Contracts don't mean dink unless you can afford a good attorney
4) The best protection from those who steal intellectual property is your intellect itself. That is, I feel secure that I will survive as an artist even if one of my pieces is reproduced illegally. I can, after all, always make create more work. So I am not militant about copyright enforcement. Trespasses are rare, and do as much to promote my work as they diminish it.
The crooks, on the other hand, need to keep stealing to survive. Those with the most interest in copyright are the non-creators, whose only substinence is their parasitical relationship with creative people. They deal in commodities, exploiting the works of others, and without copyright protection they have no product at all.
Copyright is useful to an artist in the sense that it can permit us to make enough money to do our work full-time. A copyright is actually a bundle of rights, which can be parcelled out to various publishers for far more money than any one publisher is likely to pay. But copyright laws that are two restrictive can also hamper creativity and induce laziness. Personally, I'd love to see the stupid Sonny Bono act (the name says it all) repealed. There is no value in copyrights that last for decades...not to their creators, anyway.
Has it happened to me? Yes, and the law offered me no protection at all. Justice in this country goes to the highest bidder.
Like most parasites, though, I think those who would exploit the creativity of others will soon learn that a good parasite does not suck it's host dry and survive. Already, the RIAA is feeling the backlash of consumers fed up with manufactured music and strongarm tactics. Local animation houses have learned that if Americans can't get quality animation here, they will import it. (Animators are a very exploited breed of artist, who traditionally work long hours for low wages.) Disney is biting at it's own wounds after unwisely deciding that they had no use for traditional artists anymore (Pixar hired most of them...guess whose laughing now?). I think the MPAA and the endless guilds in Hollywood will soon learn that the Independents are numerous, talented and fully capable of distributing their own films, thankyou.
So, how does it feel? It feels lousy, but not nearly as bad signing those rights away to some exploitive corporation who may never get around to cutting you a check anyway.
Screw copyright. Only criminals need rules for morality spelled out on paper.
Re:A company is not a policeman (Score:2)
Now if they knock on your door and say, "We're with SCO, we'd like to see your harddrive." then they're not impersonating an officer. Doesn't mean it's any more legal, as it's tatemount to stealing, and theft.
But it's definately not impersonating an officer.