Single European Copyright Title On the Horizon 94
presroi (657709) writes "It has been 13 years after the last harmonization effort of copyright within the European Union and this period might soon be over. After the election of a new European Parliament in May this year, Jean-Claude Juncker has been nominated to become the new President of the European Commission. He has named a unified copyright his top priority, a statement repeated today at a hearing before the Greens/EFA group in the European parliament (transcript of the question by MEP Julia Reda and his answer in German, Video recording). These statements are coinciding with the upcoming release of a report by the General Directorate in charge of copyright, of which an advanced draft has been already leaked to the internet. The report analyzes four possible policy options, one of which is the introduction of a Single EU Copyright title."
Skimmed through (Score:5, Informative)
These are the most annoying parts, translated as best I can from Politician:
3.2.6: Extend the blank media levy to Europe-wide, rather than country-by-country.
3.3.4: Proposes increasing 'due diligence' burden on 'all actors in the value chain.' I think this means increase ISP liability for internet piracy so they are forced to preemptively block sites providing infringing content. It also specifically talks about the role of financial institutions in ensuring infringing services are unable to do business.
Just to get through the misleading stuff: (Score:5, Informative)
After the election of a new European Parliament in May this year, Jean-Claude Juncker has been nominated to become the new President of the European Commission
Basically, all of EU 's administration that matters is chosen by the running governments of the member-states: all administration is merely an assembly of the guys already in charge. The European Parliament has had very little to say on administrative issues, and this is the first term that the European Parliament's members will presumably have the power to block EU directives (something that remains to be seen how it works out): and this is the only part that they will have in the law-making process --the European Parliament DOES NOT have the power of legislative initiative.
FYI, so you do not get carried away by flashy designations and think that this is an actual parliamentary representative democracy akin to national parliaments: it is not.
Disappointing (Score:5, Informative)
I took part in the copyright consultation (along with about 10000 others), and like many other members of the general public I pointed out the need for reducing the scope and duration of copyright, and to actually try to measure what effects copyright has rather than blindly assuming that it will have its intended consequence of increasing the production of works. I also pointed out that much cultural production, perhaps the majority if you count by the number of authors, is currently illegal due to unauthorized use of copyrighted works. This would disappear if the law as it is were consistently enforced, and gives us a glimpse of the cost of the current system.
After reading parts of the leaked white paper, I am disappointed by the European Commission's response. They give lip service to these issues ("the need for an evidence-based approach", for example), but only in passing. In their "way forward" suggestions, they always choose either to do nothing, or to move according to the wishes of large publishers. They also assert, without evidence, that the dynamic, meditum-to-longer-term effect of reducing copyright would lead to a faster rate of obsolecense of copyrighted material, which would then lead to less incentive to create new works. That's stated as if it were self evident, just a single page after they emphasized the need for an evidence-based approach. In fact, I think a stronger case could be made for exactly the opposite conclusion: When copyright doesn't last forever, you have an incentive to create new works to benefit from.
I did not expect much from the consultation, but I hoped that they would at least discuss the issues raised there, and argue against parts they disagreed with, rather than just ignoring them.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Skimmed through (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, IIRC the DMCA *does* have penalties for false take-down notices, they're just never enforced. Make enough of a nuisance of yourself to the big players though and I imagine they'll make sure that changes.