ISP Filters & Copyright Extension Defeated In EU

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Last November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking at how culture affects the economy and recommended a 'balance between the opportunities for access to cultural events and content and intellectual property' saying that 'criminalizing consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution.' Industry lobbyists, of course, immediately sprang into action to try to turn that around, writing amendments that would set up mandatory ISP copyright filters and extend EU copyrights to match the USA's life-plus-70 term. Thankfully, the committee rejected all of those amendments: 'Clearly, they're not going to let the ITRE or the European recording industry push them around, which is great news for Europeans. Now if we could only get the US Congress to show as much spine as the French (ouch).'"

Life+70 is just obscene

[Finallyjoined!!! (1158431)]

Disney have a lot to answer for. Veto all Disney products :-)

Human lifespans will soon double.

[by Anonymous Coward]

And technology will eventually allow for immortality. Governments should be praised for planning for the near-future.

Re:

[fm6 (162816)]

Actually, it's not the lengthy term that's obscene. That's just irritating. The real problem is that every time some valuable copyrights threaten to expire, congress extends the term. And here's what's obscene: the Supereme Court's inability to grasp that endless extensions abrogate the Constitution's requirement that copyrights be "for limited times".

But here's some good news: more and more old books and music will go public-domain in Europe, and will be available for order at a reasonable cost — or

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Ajehals (947354)]

I wonder what current/future legal/technical restrictions will prevent the movement of material that is public-domain in one jurisdiction but under copyright in another will appear. There are already issues surrounding Australia (which IIRC at least up until recently had a more limited copyright term).

My greatest fear however is still that an effective DRM mechanism will add massively to the usual problems involved in the long term accessibility of culturally relevant material. After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects.

Re:

[Finallyjoined!!! (1158431)]

Just to give a taste of the potential confusion etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy#Copyright_status [wikipedia.org]

It can only get worse.

Re:

[Jesus_666 (702802)]

I think Disney would favor a two-pronged approach to copyright:

- Author's life + 70 minutes for everyone who isn't Disney
- Author's life + 70 centuries for Disney

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Winckle (870180)]

It doesn't have to be an effective mechanism to annoy the end user. Nor in fact do you have to wait to see this effect, some games run perfectly in emulation or a WINE style implementation except for code governing DRM.

For example I recently tried to play red alert 2 under crossover on OS X, but every time I play, my units blow up 30 seconds in. Apparently this is a form of copy protection, one which I have no idea how to fix. I have paid for this game, admittedly, it was a few years ago, but I the only thing stopping me play this game is short sighted DRM.

Re:

[Ajehals (947354)]

DRM is a part of that evil, it is an arbitrary and generally pointless (as you said it can be broken) method of preventing access. I would suggest that an archivist having to maintain not only data reliably, but also DRM circumvention for a long period would be an added burden (that is if there is a requirement to store things in their original format, i.e. with the DRM). In cases where an archive breaks the DRM and stores DRM free copies, well that adds a whole additional process before storage.

Now for a n

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Ajehals (947354)]

Parent is not a Troll, offtopic at a pinch but probably not.

You are right, it is not an evil, it is a potential problem and an inconvenience. I don't know about you but I don't have a single piece of media that I haven't paid for (or been given), primarily because I do think that people who produce things I want to see/listen to deserve to be compensated, also I would find it rather difficult to argue for copyright reform and yet ignore the law as it stands.

What I am guilty of in my previous point (and it is probably clear that this is the case given the fact its currently +4 insightful) is sensationalism, the term evil is there simply for its impact. It is a game played by politicians and in the context of any copyright debate, the media industry. I apologise for its use here, although I will probably use it again in a similar context as it does suit my purposes rather well and is probably the only method of combating the opposition if they are using the same tactics.

Now, as for having every film (or other piece of digital media) in any format you desire, well that is probably an accurate description of what I want. I want to be able to buy a film and format shift it as I see fit, mainly because when I buy a CD or a DVD I am buying a piece of media with data on it and for the first time this means that format shifting and portability are built right into the format. I do not see a problem, nor an valid argument that is persuasive in explaining why I should not be able to use any media I have purchased in any manner I see fit, as long as it is for personal use and I am not re-distributing work that is subject to copyright.

However what is happening is that artificial barriers are being put in place, primarily to encourage repeated repurchases of the same material on different (or even the same) media, these barriers have other consequences, they limit the longevity of the material purchased. sure you could argue that a VHS tape or Vinyl record are also not necessarily long lasting, but this is a problem inherent to the format, something not true of media distributed in a digital manner.

Lastly DRM really will limit the way digital material falls into the public domain. If there were no DRM at all, when $film falls out of copyright in 500 years (given the current trends... :) ) it would be possible for that to immediately be made available to everyone by anyone willing to make it available, with DRM schemes (and potentially increasingly complex and effective DRM schemes) that may not be the case, that would mean that the only way to get hold of that 'public domain' film may still be via a media cartel, who would still be perfectly entitled to protect the media with DRM. DRM is potentially a way to short circuit a transition of currently protected media into the public domain.

Anyway, I feel that this is potentially quite damaging, I also feel that it sets a trend toward corporate control of things purchased by a consumer, it shows a lack of consumer rights (albeit coupled with current consumer ambivalence and apathy), so I would say its a bad thing for us all, although, as you rightly pointed out it is not evil (The misuse of the term evil and similar terms (disaster springs to mind) probably is to blame for the fact that people are simply not aware of, or interested in current acts that really are evil, things like genocide, misleading propaganda that leads to unjustifiable war, torture and the gradual but systemic erosion of freedoms and civil liberties worldwide. As such I will try not to misuse it if I can avoid it.)

 

Re:

[fm6 (162816)]

Of course SCOTUS admitted that perpetual copyright is unconstitutional. The enumerated powers clause is quite specific about that. They way they rationalize that a last-minute retroactive extension of copyright ownership is not "perpetual" is kind of beside the point. If doing it twice is constitutional, why isn't doing it three times, or four?

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Gideon Fubar (833343)]

According to this [wikipedia.org], the white dots you're seeing are likely an artifact of the way your TV renders the image.

If you're really interested in preserving those tapes, i'd suggest using a TV tuner/video capture card.. an old SD card will do fine.. you just have to be able to make sure that you can manually configure (or disable) the gain control. Of course, i imagine some cards will just ignore the macrovision system..

unfortunately, YMMV Wildly... I recommend reading this [biline.ca].. should help a bit.

show as much spine as the French

[sconeu (64226)]

<SARCASM>
You don't understand. Those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys CAVED IN to the Evil Terrorist Content Pirates[tm].

Clearly we must support our patriotic "content producers" to defeat the evildoers.
</SARCASM>

Re:show as much spine as the French

[Amorymeltzer (1213818)]

...the fact that criminalising consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution.

(emphasis mine)

When was the last time anyone aside from the consumer expressed that view so blatantly? When was the last time anyone in government expressed that view? The two together is just about as close to Christmas in January as you can get - and I'm not just saying that 'cause I'm a Jew...

Re:show as much spine as the French

[Ajehals (947354)]

I would suggest that (parts) of the EU, or rather elements of the apparatus that make up the Frankenstein-esque quasi-federal EU 'government' are considerably more pro-consumer and anti-monopolist than most other similar bodies. I am not surprised that this has come from the EU, it is in line with many of their better idea's (although there still appear to be quite a few stinkers hanging around in the system.)

My worry is that once the EU settles down and ceases to be about member nations haggling for power and influence, that the lobbyists and other 'usual suspects' of corporate power achieve some level of patronage and influence. The only really surprising thing is that given how unaccountable the whole EU system seems at present, that it hasn't happened already.

But then I am a pessimist, happy Hanukkah.

Re:show as much spine as the French

[ppanon (16583)]

The unaccountable segments of the EU, the EU commissioners, are the ones that keep putting forward the motions to "harmonize' copyrights with the USA entertainment lobbies' demands. The accountable MPs are the ones who, so far, have been shooting the law proposals down.

Up until now, the xIAA thought to save money by just lobbying the commission. I expect that during the next EU parliamentary elections, the entertainment lobbies will try to shift the power balance in the elected parliament to get their way. It remains to be seen if they will succeed.

The local European movie industries aren't as interested in DMCA restrictions: the DMCA is about controlling distribution and the MPAA member corporations' grip on US and European theatre and distribution channels has smothered local production in many countries. The MPAA don't do enough European filming to have the associated fiscal/employment clout they do in North America. Let's face it, the US Dollar doesn't go as far as it used to either, so that's not going to help either situation. The music business has similar issues outside of England.

Because there isn't as much justifiable financial European interest in copyright changes as there is in the US, MPs who support those changes will be vulnerable to charges of corruption by US interests. The US is currently perceived quite disfavourably by many in Europe, so that's likely to limit change for quite a few years even if a Democrat gets elected President and starts undoing the damage done by the Bush Administration to the USA's overseas reputation.

On the other hand, there's always hope that, before the European political landscape can shift, the financial clout of the RIAA and MPAA will be much diminished.

Re:

[init100 (915886)]

The unaccountable segments of the EU, the EU commissioners, are the ones that keep putting forward the motions to "harmonize' copyrights with the USA entertainment lobbies' demands.

I agree, although the commission also does a few good things. After all, they are the ones usually involved in complaints about Microsoft abusing its monopoly powers.

Re:Let me guess...

[Jugalator (259273)]

Let me guess... You don't understand how free software can be big business.

Let me make a second guess... You don't understand why indie producers make a profit on sites where you can also download their music.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

Fuck yeah im a pirate!

all for me! scrEW EVERYONE ELSE!

i took some lessons from big business..

STEAL ANYTHING THAT IS NOT NAILED DOWN!
GREED IS GOOD!
I WANT MINE!
HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH NOTHING!
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT WORTH A DAMM!
CONTENT CREATORS ARE FOR BENDING OVER THE TABLE!
ALL THAT MATTERS IS *MY* BOTTOM LINE.
LOOT, PLUNDER, STEAL!
EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH!
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS!

So fuck you. and fuck all the companys who taught me this lesson. I know no loyalty now!

What... that wasnt the lesson i

As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Whuffo (1043790)]

I've contacted my representatives regarding the attempts by the media companies to make their continued existence and profitability a legal requirement. The responses I've received are less than useless.

The worst response reward goes to Barbara Boxer. When I contacted her regarding proposed legislation that was intended to further erode fair use and hand more of the public rights to the media companies I got a form letter in reply. That form letter thanked me for my letter and let me know that Barbara Boxer was listening and fully intended to support the legislation that I was writing about (and against).

I don't expect any representative to do what I wish - but it would be nice if they took a few moments to actually READ and maybe THINK a little about what the people they supposedly represent are thinking. Ms. Boxer has clearly identified herself as being on the side of further abuses by the media companies - I don't know about other "representatives" but this one clearly does NOT represent the people who elected her.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[mr_matticus (928346)]

Really. Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Seriously, I want to know.

If you think that you put people in office to do what you would do, then you're sorely missing the point of a republic. They're in place because we (theoretically) value their (hypothetical) decisionmaking abilities and they best reflect the () values of those electing said representative. We send people to Washington as trustees, not as mouthpieces, because the people rarely speak with one voice and the Framers were deathly afraid of the masses.

If you don't like the values of the representative, get a different representative. Don't whine about media control or interest groups or the "myth of two different parties"--if the people wanted something else, they'd have it. The fact that they don't generally give a crap is just part of the reality of our society, and in true democratic fashion, they get an equal voice for their apathy, pound for pound.

Re:

[webmaster404 (1148909)]

Next time I see a senator wanting copyright reform I will be sure to vote for them. However almost none will state their stance on the issue. Writing to them doesn't ever seem to get a clear answer and most are swayed by what the **AA says. So far no congressman has really ever been a solid freedom supporter.

Re:

[tknn (675865)]

If they said it, the media would crucify them, being interested parties. So they don't dare say it.

Re:

[mr_matticus (928346)]

You're still missing the point.

The only representative that shares your policy positions on all the issues is yourself. The chances of finding an "ideal" candidate are slim to none. Candidates will seek the broadest base of support they can find, both to maximize fundraising and to seek an electoral mandate. As a result, the issues candidates take positions on are the ones most important to the electorate mixed with those most important to the nation (insert your own conspiracy theory about what guides g

Re:

[Lost Engineer (459920)]

Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for?

Apparently the one who's funding her next campaign. I mean all of 5 people must have contacted her supporting forever-copyright.

Moreover, having a lot of constituents does not justify sending them form letters. Ignore them quietly if you wish, but sending them a load of propaganda only works on... the kind of people that voted her into office. Ok, point made, but it's still insulting.

Re:

[mr_matticus (928346)]

All of them. Every last one. And if she can't meet the standards

Unfortunately, God isn't available. As long as there is a constituency of two, it's impossible to do as you require.

The problem is, your republic is a piece of shit

Actually, it's working exactly as designed.

What you need is a representative democracy.

Yeah, because that is not only (a) realistic and (b) would fix anything...oh, haha, I forgot we lived in the real world for a minute there. It's much simpler than that. What we "need" is informed participation. Without that, no government system is going to make any difference.

You are unspeakably naive.

On the contrary, you're simply a vacuous sophist.

In short, you're [sic] entire way of thinking is part of the very problem we face. Have some ambition.

It's not a questi

Congress? Phooey.

[ScrewMaster (602015)]

When it comes to (gagh) "intellectual property" our Congress is either on the take, or just doesn't care.

Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG (50515)]

Stopping the already insane copyright system from becoming more insane is a good thing, but it is not the same as actually trying to make it less insane.

1. The copyright must be registered
2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.
7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.
8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.

And that's about the bare minimum needed to make copyright fit for the intended purpose of encouraging the science and the useful arts. It still doesn't make copyright just but it would at least make it something people would be willing to respect.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Rakishi (759894)]

Congratulation you just killed open source.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Bogtha (906264)]

If you think any of that kills open source, then I suspect you are confusing open source with copyleft. Even if you abolished copyright altogether, open source software would remain. It is copyleft licenses like the GPL that depend upon copyright to operate.

Re:

[Rakishi (759894)]

I realize the difference and I should have said something else, I need more sleep so sorry.
Also even the BSD takes advantage of copyrights for both keeping the original authors listed and removing liability. People don't often make their work public domain or with truly no strings attached. It would kill what people nowadays consider to be open source software in most regards and not replace it with anything equivalent.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Ajehals (947354)]

I wontget into a lengthy discussion of your points, mainly because I generally agree with the direction (if not the specifics). However there is one glaring problem:

3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

Firstly I don't think that copyright should be about terms of life + X years, it should be about a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more), but short enough that material is still culturally relevant when it becomes public domain (IMHO this would be far shorter for software due to the pace of change, especially when compared to other arts, probably longest for books as they seem to endure). It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection :) .

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more),

And therefore, by your own justification for the duration of the term, it should expire when the person dies - or, for that matter becomes unable to produce more works of the same type, by say:

1. they lose their mind
2. are imprisoned
3. go missing

or even, that they are so damn rich that a profit motive is unlikely to be effective anymore.

Re:

[Ajehals (947354)]

No, quite simply a 5 - 10 - 15 year term would be just that, if the creator dies the copyright stands, any royalties could be paid to the heirs or a foundation for promoting whatever arts were being produced by the creator, or they could go to a charity nominated at the time the copyright was registered, hell for all I care they could be used to fund copyright enforcement, the point at which something becomes or ceases to be culturally significant will not be impacted significantly by the creators death (al

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die? Did you even think about that before you wrote it?

Here, I'll make your argument for you: if working on science and the arts will most likely result in a revenue stream for your heirs then people who care greatly for their heirs future riches will stop working 'normal jobs' and take up working on science and the arts, therefore promoting it, which is the goal of copyright.

To which I have to ask, will the number of people switc

Re:

[OECD (639690)]

It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection :) .

Plus it just complicates figuring out if the content is in or out of the public domain. You have to determine if the creator is still alive, after all. Dates are much more reliable.

Also, if there must be additional registration periods (bad idea, see above) the fee should increase exponentially each time, to discourage sq

Re:

[mouko (1187491)]

3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

Yeah? What about Tupac?

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

What about him? You and Rakishi should get together and have some training on making an argument.

Re:You obviously have no children

[Vincman (584156)]

As much as I agree with the fact that current copyright-laws are too restrictive and ridiculously long, the fact is that we do not live forever and achieve immortality through our children. If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death.

One thing I believe about the law is that is should follow nature, and it is natural to extend copyright beyond a lifetime (though not necessarily longer than a few generations (ca. 30 yea

Re:You obviously have no children

[TheDugong (701481)]

"If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death."
Then, like most people, you can invest some of the money you make during your lifetime, from copyrighted works or otherwise, and leave that as part of your estate. Life insurance helps as well.

Why must copyrights be life insurance?

[tepples (727027)]

If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death.

Why should this not also be the case for patents, which currently expire 20 years after filing, with no consideration given to the life of the inventor? If you want life insurance, buy life insurance, possibly with the royalties you derive from an invention under a 20-year patent or from a work under a copyright with a fixed term after publication.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[SQL Error (16383)]

1. The copyright must be registered

At present, every blog post, every comment on Slashdot, every image I use in my site design, receives copyright protection automatically. You've just destroyed that. Oh, and Creative Commons with it.

2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)

Just destroyed any right to privacy.

3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

So if I work hard building - let's say - boats, and one day I drop dead of a heart attack, my children inherit the boats and can sell them. But if I work hard designing boats, my kids starve?

4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.

Since copyright is currently extended to millions of creations every single day, this is completely untenable.

5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.

And this too.

6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.

And let's do the same for cars! Okay, Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Mercedes: All your cars now cost $20,000.

7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.

Levied by whom, and payable to whom? Currently, copyright infringement is in miost cases a civil matter, requiring the rights holder to bring suit. If you are legislating penalties, are you saying that this is now a criminal offense? Who will police it, and how?

8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.

I'm not sure what "indoctrinated fair use" is even supposed to mean.

As far as I can see, your proposal is worse than the status quo in every way imaginable.

Re:

[zoltamatron (841204)]

Yeah....I don't know why everyone on this thread is so concerned with the length and registration of copyright. That's not the problem. The problem comes from the transferral of copyright to corporations who then exploit the creators and give them nothing in return. If it wasn't legal to sign away all your rights to a creation then it would vastly change the creative landscape. You might say "Well, people shouldn't be so stupid to sign away all their rights" but when your only options from the companies

Re:Rather than abuse of Copyright

[QuantumG (50515)]

Another good reason to be reluctant to become a copyright holder.

Re:

[QuantumG (50515)]

It's actually much harder than that. You have to figure out when the work was created and where, and when the creator died, and then there's exceptions for different types of work in some countries.

For the US see:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm [unc.edu]

Provocative Video

[explosivejared (1186049)]

This past November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking in earnest at Europe's cultural products and heritage as an engine for economic growth.

I came acrossthis video [google.com] the other day. It talks about the economics of culture. I found it thought provoking and figure it will add to the discussion.

Disclaimer: the lecturer is an Austrian School follower and the talk was held by the von Mises Insitution, so most people, including myself, will disagree wi

Good news

[Husgaard (858362)]

Although this is far from as important as a vote on a EU directive, I think this is good news.

Unfortunately there is no information on exactly which amendments were rejected. In particular I was worried about amendment 80 (which TFA implies is rejected), amendment 82 (extension of protection time for related rights), and amendments 81 and 83 that looks like a requirement that educational institutions should proliferate the propaganda of MAFIAA.

As for the extension of copyright protection time: This is the same in Europe as in the USA. But in the EU the protection of recording artists and whoever makes the recording is limited to 50 years. There has been big pressure in particular in the UK to extend this, but this has been rejected as not being helpful to cultural development. I am glad that this first attempt by the copyright lobby to force EU member countries to adopt legislation they do not want has failed.

Oh, BTW here is a link [europa.eu] to the prosed amendments voted on tuesday.

USCongress::EUParliment as Kindergarten::College

[OldHawk777 (19923)]

Politicians in the USA are not stupid, just uneducated and inexperienced.

EU politicians serve the national interest, US politicians serve private interest.

The public/citizens hope that the national/private interest will provide some trickle-down benefits.

So, US citizens get neither national/personal security, nor economic/infrastructure stability.

Dogma4US is a sacrificial religious cult, much like Catholic ...to... Islamic clergy death goDma.

As long as you (citizen) suffer/sacrifice and not me (politician/plutocrat) ... it is not a problem for US.

technical problem

[RichMan (8097)]

I still don't see how ISP filtering for copyright information would work at a technical level. Every piece of data transmitted would have to be collected, reassembled, and compared against a huge data base then cross referenced against a valid supplier list. The required computing power at all network nodes is just laughable.

tagging

[gaderael (1081429)]

tagsalmostaslongassummary

Re:

[Kjella (173770)]

Seriously, what the fuck is up with this shit? Can't we do something about these 'nigger' trolls OTHER than reading at +1 only?

Believe it or not, but this is what most online forums look like. The only difference is that most other forums have a "report this" button with moderators that'll nuke it. Not editors mind you, usually some kind of recruited user moderators and that brings a whole new level of noise as well. I like the fact that the worst you can do with a comment on slashdot is mod it to -1, which means there's still a chance people will see it. Still, I'm sure there's way to tweak it, maybe differentiating mod points fo