European Record Industry Goes After Personal Computers 228
yfarren sent us this: "According to this(free reg required, or try here)new york times article European copyright holders are trying to force consumers to pay them whenever they buy any equipment that might be used to copy music. What I want to know is, if I do pay somone when I buy equipment that enables me to copy copyrighted Items, do I gain rights to do so? If not, what am I paying for?" That's a good question - wish there was an answer. CNN has a very bland article about changes in European copyright law which seem to parallel the DMCA, but I haven't been able to find a good write-up in English - please post below if you have one.
I'll go one better... (Score:1)
Robert X. Cringely article on similar topic (Score:1)
The current Pulpit [pbs.org] has an interesting related analysis.
OpenSourcerers [opensourcerers.com]
Re:Just like Canadian CD's and CD for Consumer med (Score:2)
It is to be paid by any a) media manufactured for sale in the country, and b) media imported for sale. Canadians are free to import media from the US without paying the levy.. it only applies to import for sale.
That's why it makes no perceptible difference in the consumer price, like everyone thought it would.
Who gets the money? (Score:1)
Wow! What a scam! (Score:3)
Quick! Everybody release a copyrighted CD of themselves singing in the shower and ship it off to Europe!
I smell EASY MONEY!!
scanners (Score:1)
Pens & paper next... (Score:2)
All this sort of stuff sucks, and here's why (Score:3)
(Meanwhile, order all your stuff from contries that don't do this.)
--
Re:Music Companies (Score:1)
Of course, in the meantime, I feel strongly tempted to head over to the US and start an oil lamp company - and then campaign to restrict the trade of the power utilities there on the grounds that they're putting me out of business. Or possibly start a buggy factory (as in, horse-drawn buggy) and then sue the Ford motor company. Times change. Business models have to change with them. Sadly, at the moment, the RIAA in the US, and other such institutions around the world are under the impression that with sufficient funds, they can stop tomorrow from arriving. Sadly, enough judicial and legislative types in the US appear to agree with them to make the attempt worthwhile.
In the meantime, time moves on around them, and their customers take note. I doubt I'd be able to find a buyer for oil lamps, or horse-drawn buggies. Sooner or later (probably sooner) enough musicians are going to start dealing direct with their customers over the internet, selling MP3s directly from websites, and the need for big, centralised clearinghouses for music will be much less.
Re:Music Companies (Score:2)
It wouldn't be a problem for them to think this, as long as the politicians didn't buy it. But they do. Almost any politician thinks: jobs == good, loss of jobs == bad. Keeping people busy even if they aren't producing anything is for some reason interpreted as being "good for the economy" (even though it actually hurts the economy). And since only socialists (e.g. Bush, Gore, Nader) can get a significant number votes, then doing things "for the good of the economy" has become government's purpose. :(
---
Re:Rights and Responsibility. (Score:3)
You have this backward. The natural situation is that everyone has the right to copy anything they damn well feel like. Restrictions on the right to copy are the artificial creation of the government. The people who have been irresponsible are the ones who have abused their government granted monopoly on the right to copy music to charge 500%+ markup on CDs, ignoring the nominal purpose of the copying restriction- to reward the creators of the music. Now that the real cost of music duplication has gone through the floor thanks to the elimination of the need for a permanent physical medium, they're engaged in pointless and idiodic whining about alleged lost profits. Those who would prevent others from copying music need to start being responsible.
Re:A perfect system, no? (Score:1)
I'm not interested in 95% of the 'music' that's published these days. I do have 600+ blank CDR disks in storage and a 10x CDRW drive, but it's not to burn the kind of crap that's 'pop musick' these days. Count me out on your music tax, guys.
Re:Rights and Responsibility. (Score:1)
A human being has rights, exactly like animals do. As civilized beings, it is our duty to grant them those rights.
Re:A typical socialist policy (Score:2)
This is a typically European and socialist approach to the "problem" of piracy, whereby everyone pays for the negative actions of a few rather than directly forcing these people to pay.
What, you don't think the same sort of thing happens in the good ole' US of A? Hell we charge more for audio CDRs even though there is no difference between them and 'plain ole' CDRs. Stop screaming that it is a socialist activity, this has nothing to do with socialism. The way you use socialism seems to imply negativity; even though you seem to have little knowledge of its meaning.
Re:Why Europe sucks... (Score:1)
And I agree with the other response: paying a bit more for blank media is definitely preferable (and far less regulation) to the DMCA shit you have in the USA.
Re:Good Music Supports Itself (Score:1)
Re:Your question (Score:1)
Frankly, I'd want to see very clear and convincing numbers the prove specific amounts of lost sales directly related to sales of CR-R media et al. Until I see those, it may not be socialism per se but you can call a corporate handout whatever you want.
Re:The solution is... (Score:1)
A while ago i had a great idea about how to fix copyright. Instead of having copyright law have copywrong law. Everytime someone copies and distributes somerthing that is utter trash they will be forced to pay a fine to RIAA. I feel this is a much better way for RIAA to make money.
The muscians are irrelevant to all this since they are supposed to be poor bastards anyway.
Another reason not to go to Europe... (Score:1)
Presumption (Score:1)
WTF?! (Score:1)
Ecuse me as I buy a foam bat and head for Germany. This guy desperately needs to be beaten about the head and shoulders with something. "The problem is the professionals"? Then why are you punishing everybody? Why are you levying unfair taxes on people for using everyday items when you know any criminal smart enough to set up a massive pirating operation is going to be smart enough to get around paying them?
All you're doing is bleeding everyday people for what a select group of criminals is doing to you! How the fuck is that fair? What the fuck is wrong with German people?!
AARRRRGH!
Where's the closest foam bat store?!
--Brogdon
Re:It's a tax. It'll never get used for intended g (Score:1)
Professional bootleggers (Score:2)
"The problem isn't the individuals who get one of our CD's, copy it on a CD-burner and give it to a friend," he said. "The problem is the professionals, who are organized and do it in a huge way and have factories."
This comment seems to shoot more holes in their argument than anything else. If the fee/royalty is because of proffesional bootleggers then who does this apply to a burner here and a home computer there? I would think pro bootleggers would be using more than just a presario w/an ide burner otherwise it would seem they aren't to professional. If this is the problem perhaps they should focus more on cd pressing equiptment and leave consumers the hell alone.
Of course I don't believe him at all and it really comes down to "how to maximise profits" and control the media market. The worst thing is 90% of these poor artist that have been suckered into supporting this fee will never see a dime of what is collected.
Re:You are talking out of your arse (Score:1)
Yes - at least in Canada (Score:2)
The answer (in Canada, at least) is yes - you do gain the rights.
The catch is that you can make a recording, but someone else can't make it for you.
It's legal to borrow an audio CD (from a friend, for example) and make a copy of it, but it would be illegal for your friend to make a copy and give it to you. (I know, the end result is the same, but that's the way the law is worded, and that's the way the copyright board interpreted it [neil.eton.ca].)
Re:Where have I seen this before? (Score:1)
Nazgul's == Lawyers ?
Cheers.
boycott (Score:1)
And therin lies the problem (Score:1)
--
Re:A typical socialist policy (Score:1)
Thank God that our country has rejected such centralist madness.
Huh?
Re:Rights and Responsibility. (Score:2)
Likewise, children are clearly not responsible, so human rights do not apply to them. The U.S. Already recognizes this to some extent (children cannot vote), but we must take further steps to further this fundamental principle. First, we must repeal the child-labor statutes. Second, we must explicitly legalize the beating of children. How can children expect to avoid punishment for all of the myriad inconveniences they cause because of some liberal concept like "children's rights". No, it is clear that until children can get a job and support themselves, they do not have the right to protection from beatings and the like. Free Tony Lamont Bragg Sr. [lumthemad.net]!
<
CDs, Markham, Denny's, and Canadian Tire Money (Score:2)
CD's here are cheap. we buy them in bulk (80) for under $1 CANADIAN a piece.
Yeah! They're really great, you buy them on the big spike in a Markham computer store, and they come pre-scratched!
If Canada didn't have the blank media tax, the $1 blank CDs might have recognizable brand names and might not be pre-scratched.
You americans are dumb sometimes. What's next? we all have Uber-Overclocked cpu's because we live in igloos and have no need for external cooling?If I lived in Baffin Island, that would probably work. As it is, I have some novel CPU cooling systems of my own. My many American friends love to hop across the border and come up to Toronto to see my latest creation.
As soon as I get the Quickcam to work under FreeBSD, I'll invite Slashdot to the party, too.
Re: dumb Americans. No, Americans are not, as a whole, stupid. The United States wouldn't be the world's one remaining superpower if Americans were. Though, it's nice to know that I've got friends who, in Niagara Falls, NY, paid at Denny's using Canadian Tire Money.
(Canadian Tire is a big and very poor quality department store that uses very official-looking paper "money" [canadiantire.ca] as an incentive to come back. The "currency" bears the name "Canadian" [tripod.com] and has lots of cool pictures of snowtires and a stereotype Canadian dressed up against the winter.)
Are you calling me a criminal? (Score:3)
When I was at highschool the local shop complained that the majority of theft was being done by school-age children. They told the school and at the next assembly it was announced that if any boy from my school was seen in a local shop they would be considered to be stealing and delt with accordingly. My mother was one of the many parents totally outraged by this decision and by the next week's assembly the decision had been reversed.
How is this levy any different from my old school's stunt? And why isn't everyone similarly outraged?
--
Re:Bizarre Trend (Score:2)
A tax on blank audio tapes is not new. Most european countries have a tax like that.
On a related note, the music industry tried to make 'double decker' cassette players illegal.
However, I can't see where this is going to end, and I don't like where it looks like it's heading.
It is a slippery slope. Once recordable digital media is taxed, what is going to stop them adding an xDSL and Cable tax? Or taxes on general network equipment.
The main argument against a copyright tax on digital recordable media is that a CD-R or a hard drive can be used for many different purposes, not just storage of music and movies. Which is very different from blank VHS and audio tapes.
I would, however, be willing to accept a tax like that if the alternative was a draconian TPM-law like the DMCA. The problem is that the media monopolies want it both ways.
The next target... (Score:4)
Why Europe sucks... (Score:2)
Now, we could blame the French for this--the British have been doing that for years. Truthfully, though, I don't think they deserve all the blame. Lots of it, yes, but...
I'm well aware Canada does many of the things I'm criticizing about Europe. Don't get me wrong--stuff sucks here, too.
I doubt it (Score:2)
Just because you gave them money, doesn't mean they're going to give anything back.
Woo hoo!! Soon they'll be charging you at the moment of your new child's birth. This is just in case your child should ever grow up to pirate anything. That way they're covered.
I'm getting real tired of everything cropping up because of copyright... it is apparent to me that the copyright system does not work well in the "digital age". But how does one go about changing an old system like that, and what do they change it to???
Here's Some Better Articles (Score:4)
"European Parliament Approves Rules Granting Greater Copyright Protection. [quicken.com]" (from Quicken.com)
"EU Parliament approves draft copyright law to fight high-tech piracy [mercurycenter.com]" (Silicon Valley News)
Also, y'all might want to check out Prof. James Boyle's editorial [ft.com] ("Whigs and hackers in cyberspace") in London's Financial Times the other day dealing with the foolishness of re-creating a European version of the American DMCA.
Also, I went to the European Parliament's web site and poked around for some primary documents. Here's a fairly thorough summary [eu.int] of what transpired inside the hallowed halls of the EU Parliament. However, I noticed that the embedded link (supposed to wisk one away to the actual text of the report) seemed to re-direct me to an unrelated discussion about energy in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Has anyone actually found the text the the EU Parliament's Copyright decision?
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
Re:Bill Gates == Sauron? (Score:2)
Bill Gates == Morgoth
Re:I doubt it (Score:2)
A smaller profit is not a loss. A loss is when you have money and it goes away
They're probably going use it to make you pay for everyone else that steals music, whether you steal it or not.
It is not theft, it is copyright infringement.
Rich
TROLLED??? I GOT TROLLED!!!!! (Score:2)
Seriously, though...I thought at one time Canadian disks were more expensive... (granted, I haven't burned a boot for a Canadian in about two years) - and I know that CD for Consumer Media - like those used in early Phillips CD burners was a rip. (3-4 Dollars for one disk) They were used to pay off music copyright holders.
I was 50% right. Better record then any politician, lawyer, or weather forcaster.
Using it as a legal defense? (Score:2)
Now I strongly suspect that the law isn't interpretated this way (at least in most countries, Canada being the only exception I know of), but would it be possible to have a smart lawyer to argue this viewpoint?
Re:The bleak future (Score:2)
Then I reverse-engineer their Magic Decoder ring, go down to Radio Shack, pick up a breadboard and some assorted components, build my own Magic Decoder ring and do whatever the hell I want with the hardware. I've done it before with stupid vendors who "secure" their stuff with "dongles" or some other nonsense. Then I post a HOWTO about the Magic Decoder ring and others can do it as well.
That having been said, I've never done it without a ligitimate reason. In college I worked for a radio station which was an AP affiliate. One day we were moving our workstations around and someone bashed the dongle attached to the back of a machine and broke it. Since we needed this to be able to broadcast our news, I ran across campus to the lab(where I was a lab assistant) and built a replacement dongle on an experiment board which we kept in place until the replacement arrived from AP customer service. I also replicated dongles for a digital design tool we had purchased for the lab but the vendor had sent fewer dongles than we had liscences. My makeshift dongles were removed once we had the permanent ones in place.
If the courts become so enamored of Big Business that they actually _do_ begin to crack down on individuals who do this, then I'll leave the country. I won't use my tax dollars to support a country which won't support my rights to use my own property as I wish. Anyone who views me as a thief by default and taxes me based upon the hardware I own which "might" be used to violate other people's intellectual property will not get any support from me, fiscal or otherwise.
A copy of this post and the relevant sections of the article and earlier postings will be CC'ed to both my Senators, Congressman, and state representatives.
Steven
Re:Where have I seen this before? (Score:2)
Think of it: if you stop posting these articles just because most people already spoke their mind once or twice on the subject, then you are silencing the voice that is (IMHO) most important, the voice of the 'loyal' opposition. Can you imagine if abortion foes (pro-lifers except for doctors' lives) ever shut-up for even a day? One would assume that they were accepting the status quo. Same for gun advocates. Same for libertarians. Even though sometimes it feels like we are becoming a broken record, it is still important to maintain pulic discourse on these issues.
The one thing I would add is that We (yes, that's Us) find some way to bring this discourse to the forefront of public opinion more forcefully, more immediately. But in the meantime we would do well to sharpen our tongues on the whetstone that is this forum.
Sorry if this is ot, I will accept down mods, but my opinion is vitally important, ya know?
Re:Why Europe sucks... (Score:2)
The choice is not "DMCA or CD tax"... There's a third option--not screwing over consumers. Many people don't use their CD-Rs for audio, and those that do probably aren't burning much Canadian content (only Canadian artists get money from the tax, and who knows how it's distributed).
Do you really want to have every form of digital media taxed based on how you *might* use it?
Copyright is part of a social contract. It requires the public to generally respect and honour it, or it won't work. Period.
Swedish ministers... (Score:2)
Circumvention problems (Score:2)
Proof? Canada taxes the shit of cigarettes, more than the US. 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border, so smokers come south every now and then and take quite a few cartons of cigarettes back. There's a small yet lucrative undergound industry of smuggling cigarettes across the border around here. Just think globalization...
Re:Switzerland... (Score:2)
Corporate Rights and Responsibility. (Score:3)
I put it to you that the reason companies and governments are being forced into these drastic actions is because people, the geeks and high school students who use napster for one, are not responsible with the ability to copy music.
I put it to you that the reason geeks and high school students are being forced into piracy is because people, the RIAA and associated corporate cartel, are not responsible with the ability to market music, rip off artists, and lobby the US govt.
If you are not responsible, you do not have any rights, and any whining is pointless and idiotic.
If a corporation is not responsible, it does not have any rights, and any whining is pointless and idiotic.
Those who would copy music need to start being responsible.
Those who would control the music industry need to start being responsible.
Re:It's here in the US already (Score:2)
Stupidity on Military Parade, it seems. (Score:2)
Translation: "It's going to make me money, so, sure, do it. I know it's wrong and unfair, but hey, money is money."
He admits to it's uselessness, yet still backs it. He should be a government official.
"Anyone who makes money out of my content ought to contribute something to my well-being," Mr. Wallis said.
That sounds reasonable. But if I'm NOT making money off his content, I should be able to tell him to sod off.
"It is pretty clear when people buy blank CD-ROM's that they want to do some copying, and it is fairly easy to argue that a certain levy should be imposed."
I strongly disagree. Out of the past40 CDRs I bought, only ONE has been to make a copy of a music disc, and that was only because I found that the plastic around the inner hole was starting to chip, letting it slip while spinning up in my portable CD player. So even there I am not violating copyright. Why should I pay a copyright tax on those other 39 discs that contain computer DATA, not music or copyrighted works?
But when you come to the actual machine, that will be harder for people to understand."
For those of us blessed with working minds, and who value fredoms more than money, it's already hard to grasp.
--
Re:Once again (Score:2)
Imagine if, for example, the RIAA went around to every juke joint and honky-tonk and subpoenaed every musician they found for playing Willie Nelson / Rolling Stones / Oasis songs without permission? I think they are within their rights to do so. Why don't they? They know they'd get thrown out on their asses if they tried, if not by the patrons of the bar, then by the judge who had to hear their stupid claim.
We need to nip this in the bud by continuing to ignore the law in this case. It is clearly bad law because it is ultimately unenforceable. Kind of like 55 mph speed limits...
...it leads to loss of public morale and disrespect for authority.
This is just pragmatism (Score:2)
hmm yes (Score:5)
Yes, I was thinking the other day how much I really need to double my income. It's just such a hassle that I have to work all day long. If I made twice as much, I could work half as long. And hey that's pretty cool. Now where's that congressional telephone book? If those wacky Europeans can do it, so can I. I've been saving up, and I think I have enough to get a new law passed. Those things are expensive!
Why not give money to the programmers? (Score:2)
Re:It works for those record co. prix. (Score:2)
Damn straight.
The record companies will get the money and the artist will get bupkis, as they say in my home town of Hollywood, CA.
Yeah, I know Steve Albini wrote the original article that this is based on, but Courtney Love delivers the facts of life in a much more...well, colorful way. Read this and read it well:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/ index.html [salon.com]
Nobody makes money in the record industry except for those "above the line" (executives) and a select, 31337 few who are in the "millionaires' club." Like Metallica, Elton John, Puff Daddy and all the others who have wept openly that Napster is spoiling their plans to buy yet another summer home.
This is how it has been since back in the days of 78RPM Swing "sides." The white-owned record companies made fat $$$ off of lots of musicians, most of them Black. What started in the 1930s and '40s continued like a runaway freight train into the '50s, when "Race Musicians" signed away 100% of their rights to predatory record companies.
It continued through the '60s, '70s, '80s, and '90s to present day/present time, and it's Black, White, Latino, Asian and any number of other ethnicities of musicians who are taking it up the ass and winding up with an anus resembling that poor goat sex guy.
And if you sign with a small, indie record label, you will not be immune from these games. A friend I know was in a band [paperbagtheory.com] which got signed to a famous punk rock band's private label [screwradio.com]. All went well for a couple of years, they got to put out a few albums and did lots of live gigs.
Then a major record distributor (Jem) went out of business, and this famous punk rock band's private label's balance sheets suddenly didn't look so good. Enter a whole lot of big record company creative accounting practices and all the sudden a band that was making bucks for the company suddenly found themselves owing the company large green.
This band's masters are now tied up with the famous punk rock band's private label, and they have no hope of legally re-releasing this music independently and making some money for themselves off of it. The famous punk rock band's private label doesn't even release this band's music anymore and have not pressed a copy of the band's CDs in years. The only way to hear this band's music now (unless you go cruising used CD stores for it) is if some kind soul ripped their tunes and posted them on Napster, Gnutella, Freenet or whatever.
I have zero sympathy for the record industry pigs and the supermegastar musicians who have the good fortune to have a piece of the action. Hoist the Jolly Roger and to hell with them all.
----
http://www.msgeek.org/ -- All your estrogen are belong to us!
Re:A typical socialist policy (Score:2)
THESE ARTICLES ARE A PLAIN LIE! (Score:4)
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-14.
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/tig-06.02
The European Parliament decided that
COPYING FOR PRIVATE USE REMAINS LEGAL
and even better:
NATIONAL GOVERNEMENTS HAE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINS COPY PROTECTION MECHANISM
(bye bye DeCSS)
The tax (compensation) is not payed to the record-labels but to organisations (Verwertungsgesellschaften). Their job is to distribute the money to musicians.
Unfortunately most europeans don't know about their rights, because mainstream media spreadsso much FUD.
Ummm, are you sure about that? (Score:4)
What this does show... (Score:3)
The only thing this tax proves is that these people are greedy.
---
a=b;a^2=ab;a^2-b^2=ab-b^2;(a-b)(a+b)=b(a-b);a+b=b
Re:A typical socialist policy (Score:2)
Incidentally, this should prove advantageous to the US if the Europeans go further down this road and we have the sense not to.
Music Companies (Score:5)
A smart music company will adapt by starting its own fee-based MP3 web site, and providing fee-based access to low-cost recording facilities similar to what a dedicated home user can now have with a PC, good recording equipment and mixing software. This would also give garage bands a low-cost method of producing and distributing their music.
What's that falling out of the sky? -- Generic dinosaur, 65 million B.C.
--
Re:THESE ARTICLES ARE A PLAIN LIE! (Score:3)
AC: You didn't read quite well.
Indeed, copying for private use remains legal. But alas, national governments do not have to take actions against copy protection mechanisms. The first article says that the parliament declined to force states to take such actions.
OTOH, at least circumvention of copyright protection mechanisms has not become illegal (as is the case in the DMCA), and states even may take actions against it, which is especially logical for states that already impose a tax on copying devices and blank media.
Also, states do not have to impose tax on copying devices and blank media.
Summary: It could have been worse (like the DMCA) and the practical consequences depends for a great deal on what the individual states will do. Probably there will be big differences, causing people to circumvent taxes etc by ordering media or equipment in another state. I think that in a few years time this will cause new discussions. Lets hope that in the meantime, politicians will become more experienced with this subject matter so that they will see how dangerous these developments are for consumer rights.
You are talking out of your arse (Score:2)
Of course, we still have a duty to look after the welfare of beings considered irresponsible, as we decide it. This is why it's not okay to torture prisoners and so forth.
You have a very screwed up idea of what rights are.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Re:Moronic... yah (Score:2)
The 'EU-DMCA' (Score:5)
The latest available draft of the law (which has the short and wonderful name "Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society"), from 14 September 2000, is available here. [eu.int]
There have been a few changes to the draft, but I unfortunately don't have a complete list available. Official news about the law should be available here [eu.int] and here. [eu.int]
The draft is in many respects very similar to the DMCA, and has many of the same problems. Legal protection of TPMs that deny fair use, is computer code protected speech or illegal tool, legality of encryption research, etc.
Article 5
Exceptions and limitations
1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental, which are an integral and essential part of a technological process whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or
(b) a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.
2. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
(a) in respect of reproductions on paper or any similar medium, effected by the use of any kind of photographic technique or by some other process having similar effects, with the exception of sheet music, provided that the rightholders receive fair compensation;
(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made for the private use of a natural person and for non-commercial ends, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;
(c) in respect of specific acts of reproduction made by publicly accessible libraries, educational establishments or museums, or by archives, which are not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage;
(d) in respect of ephemeral recordings of works made by broadcasting organisations by means of their own facilities and for their own broadcasts; the preservation of these recordings in official archives may, on the ground of their exceptional documentary character, be permitted;
(e) in respect of reproductions of broadcasts made by social institutions pursuing non-commercial purposes, such as hospitals or prisons, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation.
3. Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2
and 3 in the following cases:
(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;
(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;
(c) reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author's name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as, whenever possible the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;
(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;
(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that, whenever possible, the source, including the author's name, is indicated;
(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;
(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;
(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;
(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event;
(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;
(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;
(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;
(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2(c) of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;
(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.
4. Where the Member States may provide for an exception or limitation to the right of reproduction pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3, they may provide similarly for an exception or limitation to the right of distribution as referred to in Article 4 to the extent justified by the purpose of the authorised act of reproduction.
5. The exceptions and limitations provided for in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall only be applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder.
Article 6
Obligations as to technological measures
1. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of any effective technological measures, which the person concerned carries out in the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he or she is pursuing that objective.
2. Member States shall provide adequate legal protection against the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement for sale or rental, or possession for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or the provision of services which:
(a) are promoted, advertised or marketed for the purpose of circumvention of, or
(b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent, or
(c) are primarily designed, produced, adapted or performed for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of, any effective technological measures.
3. For the purposes of this Directive, the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.
4. Notwithstanding the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1, in the absence of voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(a), (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (3)(a), (3)(b) or (3)(e) the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation, to the extent necessary to benefit from that exception or limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to the protected work or subject-matter concerned.
A Member State may also take such measures in respect of a beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), unless reproduction for private use has already been made possible by rightholders to the extent necessary to benefit from the exception or limitation concerned and in accordance with the provisions of Article 5(2)(b) and (5), without preventing rightholders from adopting adequate measures regarding the number of reproductions in accordance with these provisions.
The technological measures applied voluntarily by rightholders, including those applied in implementation of voluntary agreements, and technological measures applied in implementation of the measures taken by Member States, shall enjoy the legal protection provided for in paragraph 1.
The provisions of the first and second subparagraphs shall not apply to works or other subject-matter made available to the public on agreed contractual terms in such a way that members of the public may access them from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.
When this Article is applied in the context of Directives 92/100/EEC and 96/9/EC, this paragraph shall apply mutatis mutandis.
Riddle me this... (Score:2)
"// this is the most hacked, evil, bastardized thing I've ever seen. kjb"
It's here in the US already (Score:3)
Here in the US this already exists
This tax goes into a fund that is then distrbuted to copyright holders under the assumption that your purpose in buying blank media is to record and pirate copyrighted material.
In addition, there are now music CDR discs and "normal" CDR discs. The music discs carry an additional tax specifically for the RIAA. There is no functional difference, however between the two media (other than an identifier so consumer CDR decks can reject non-music media) ...
There IS a way around this though : find in your area where the pro audio people buy their media -- there is an exception made for the audio industry where a pro audio supply house is exhempt from this tax!
- Jonathan
Re:The bleak future (Score:2)
Even if your future comes about, how many of us buy our systems from Dell or Gateway now and tweak/upgrade them as we see fit? Did those systems come with Windows? Probably. Did that stop us from downloading Slackware and mothballing that Windows Licsence?
Steven
Re:A typical socialist policy (Score:2)
Where have I seen this before? (Score:5)
keepin' it fresh!
.
Absurd... (Score:2)
don't they see that this promotes breaking the laws?
its like a cop that stops you before you enter a very fast highway and says "we're collecting in advance for any speeding you're likely to do". who in their right mind would NOT speed after being charged for it? especially if your car is up to it.
...and the fight escalates further.
-snellac
Re:Music Companies (Score:2)
Also many of these appear to be multi-national companies. Thus the "European Music companies" are probably the exact same entities active in the US.
What they are trying to do is support their business model by legislation, rather than admit it might be obsolete. Does any one know if the "horse and buggy" industry tried anything similar? Or if instead they either went out of business or adapted into working with motor vehicles.
Companies are a convenient vehicle employed by people to produce goods and services
Effectivly all those people are are publishers and distributers. However those kind of people have an overinflated view of their own importance. People don't tend to be fans of record labels, film companies, publishers, etc. Instead all most people care about are the people who actually produce the creative works in the first place.
Re:Whither best.com (Score:2)
Best was acquired by Verio a few years ago. Thus, going to Best's home page now teleports you to Verio's home page. However, there are still a ton of subscribers' pages hosted on Best's servers, all logged in search engines as residing at http://www.best.com/. So they couldn't just kill the name.
The result is that Best subscribers up to the point they got acquired still exist on the net as coming from best.com, but it's really Verio now.
Schwab
Switzerland... (Score:3)
Here in Switzerland, yes. Fair Use means that if your copying is among relatives ("friends & family") AND in very limited number, the copyright holder can't sue. This is according to legal usage, but is nowhere written in law (however, IANAL etc., please correct me if you know better). As such the swiss equivalent of the RIAA, the SUISA, uses every occasion it gets to dispute it.
This does not apply to commercial software, which is generally bound by an EULA (which have never really been tested in court however).
Sidenote: Switzerland is not part of the EU (nor the UN for that matter) so there may very well be drastic differences, I hear that the german situation is pretty similar.
Moronic. (Score:3)
Put one on paper; you can use it to burn down buildings.
Outlaw letters; you can use them to make death threats to the President.
Like all of these things, computers are a tool; they have many uses. There's no way to determine *how* someone is going to use it, and therefore there's no way you can turn this approach into a fair piece of legislation; it assumes many things that it can't know.
Do we need a damn Digital Bill of Rights? Was the first one just not enough for them?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
Re:Switzerland... (Score:2)
As well as "Satute Law" there is also "Case Law". The latter set by the outcomes of court cases and the findings of judges.
Quite frequently concepts such as "fair use" are case law.
Re:Tax method is flawed (Score:2)
You assume that the professional pirates actually buy their own pressing equiptment. Far easier to simply hire the plant. In the "legitimates" use plants in places where labour is cheap then it just means that the people are cheaper to bribe.
Re:You are talking out of your arse (Score:2)
In the american system, you lose all your rights when convicted.
In sweden, for example, you do not loose most of your rights; e.g. you are still entitled to vote (this right can never be withdrawn).
Re:Rights and Responsibility. (Score:2)
Grrr... (Score:2)
I wrote a fake news story [best.com] about this some months ago, except I set it in the US. Seems like it's getting closer to reality every day.
Talk to your friends and relatives about this issue. Raise awareness. And make sure you vote, both at the polling place and the cash register.
Schwab
Tax method is flawed (Score:3)
The real problems are not home users copying a CD for their own use. It's not someone copying a CD for a few friends. The real problem is professionals using CD pressing machinery to turn out thousands or millions of CD's. So if we must have a tax, place it on all CD pressing equipment, and the CD blanks (not to be confused here with blank CD/RW disks).
--
Re:Rights and Responsibility. (Score:2)
The cat only kills to keep itself alive.
We kill because we're so bored with our shitty lives we can't think of anything better to do.
Re:Just like Canadian CD's and CD for Consumer med (Score:2)
Which I believe works out to roughly an American penny LOL.. but that's for another thread... :)
While we're on the offtopic of Canadian currency, did anyone see the new horrific blue Canadian $10 bill? Looks like toilet paper you'd see in a really bad Vegas hotel. The first run had a typo: "In Flander's Fields the poppies blow." Looks like spell-checker-dependanitis is everywhere. Nobody nose how two proofread anymore.
Rights and Responsibility. (Score:3)
Now, applying this tenet to the music industry, we can see that in order to have the right to copy music, you must also be responsible with this ability.
I put it to you that the reason companies and governments are being forced into these drastic actions is because people, the geeks and high school students who use napster for one, are not responsible with the ability to copy music.
If you are not responsible, you do not have any rights, and any whining is pointless and idiotic.
Those who would copy music need to start being responsible.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
Your question (Score:2)
You are not "paying" for anything. It's almost like a tax -- a form of socialism if you will. The people who can influence the govnerment get to influence the laws and can therefore do what ever they want. (an off topic example is Marc Rich)
You could also think of the transaction like this and I know that the politics don't realy work this way but I'm simplifying them and the net effect is the same. Company A sells DVD movies. Company B sells technology to copy DVD movies. After company B's technology hits the market the sale of DVD movies goes down and company A is upset. So company A goes to company B and says "Hey, your product is hurting our revenue. We need more money. Could you pay us for our lost revenue and just pass that expense along to your consumers?" Company B says ok and now you are paying extra to the DVD/record/whatever company to get no extra privilges. Only YOU arnt paying them. The government (acting as a middle man) is taking your money and giving it to the company.
Re:Just like Canadian CD's and CD for Consumer med (Score:2)
That's not to say that we don't pay a levy, of course. I think we pay around 5 cents for each blank CD-R, and significantly more for CD-Rs for consumer media.
On the other hand, it is legal in Canada to copy music you do not own, provided it is for your own use and you aren't going to sell it (or perhaps give it away).
--
they'll need to tax bandwidth too (Score:2)
Of course, this is no good for many legitamate uses of computer storeage. It would work fine for storing all your bootlegged mp3's though. Make it much easier to share too.
I think we do already (Score:2)
If this is true, obviously we would have a green light to copy, since we're already paying.
Re:Stupidity on Military Parade, it seems. (Score:2)
In one network/system ops centre where I occasionally work, I'd put that number at about 1200 per month.
All of those CDRs are used to archive user data, configurations, and statistical bumph. None of the machines has any music/video capabilities, apart from some cheap consumer PCs with built in sound blaster functions. This additional tax will just increase operating costs for legitimate users, with the money going to pay the special interest groups lawyers.
This is just a proposal, and if the commission manages to upset enough large users of computing equipment, there will be tons of exemptions, tax refunds, loopholes, and other clauses allowing large data centres to recover the tax, but not the average small consumer.
the AC
Re:I doubt it (Score:2)
I disagree. It's a quid pro quo, you've paid for the right to copy, you've should have the right to copy. It is a characteristic of copyright that it is assignable, and if the manufacturers are charged this fee, explicitly to pay for the potential copying of material, the right would seem to have been assigned.
You're paying for their legal team (Score:2)
The money will be limited, and it'll go to their legal team. You will be paying for your own chains. That's my guess.
Re:I doubt it (Score:2)
--
Right-wing crap (Score:4)
This is absolute crap. Rights are never "absolute" in the sense of one right always trumping another, but they ARE absolute in the sense that all humans retain these rights no matter how irresponsibly they behave. That's why they are call "rights," not "concessions."
The classic example from the past few years is the Oklahoma City bombers. Despite their actions, they still had the right to a fair trail (even if it required moving the trial hundreds of miles and killing the political future of several participants), the right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and ultimately the right to a humane execution.
Taking on a more controversial issue, "gun rights" are a current hot topic but very, very few people dispute the concept of the right of individual self-defense. A person can walk nude through a neighborhood shouting that he's looking for (offensive racist epitath) (offensive sexist epitath) to (offensive sexual act) and he still has not only the right to be free from physical assault (meaning that the people who attack him will be charged with a crime), he has the right to defend himself with deadly force if necessary to save his own life. The fact that he was acting so irresponsibly that he would be facing serious prison time himself (for inciting a riot) doesn't diminish his right to defend himself one iota.
Now, applying this to the music industry, we see that the sale of an album to the consumer necessarily involves the right to listen to the music in the time and manner that the customer prefers. That is what customers expect and demand - every attempt to sell restricted media in exchange for a lower price has failed. (E.g., the unlamented "DivX" players.) Commercial use of the music clearly conflicts with the publisher's and artist's rights, but there is absolutely no justification for the music industry to claim they are "harmed" if I elect to transfer the content from a CD to cassette tape so I can listen to the song while commuting to work, or if I elect to transfer the content to an MP3 file that I can listen to with my laptop without risking damage to the original media.
Do some people abuse this technology? Of course. But that's completely irrelevant - the reason "rights" are so powerful is that the rights of a single person can (and often do) trump the desire of millions of other people for "convenience." These proposals would be convenient for the record industry, but they stomp all over the right of people such as myself to use CD burners and CD-R media to back up my computers and produce small-volume software releases without being forced to pay my hard-earned cash to a third party in exchange for absolutely nothing of value to myself. I would literally get more value from burning the cash in an ashtray - at least it would warm my house by a fraction of a degree!
Re:It works for those record co. prix. (Score:2)
The particular model i'm setting up with Silent Noise is we're basically a services organization for bands. They contract us to perform services such as CD distribution, promotion, etc... In turn, we get paid for our services out of the sales of CDs and related activities. Without ever dipping into the Band's royalties. So, bands on s/n will be getting their royalties from day one, instead of having to 'pay back'.
There are elements of the business model still being worked on. We'll really only work well with self produced bands (since we aren't acting as a loan organization, for financing recording), and we're bouncing around ideas of co-investing with the bands to cover spin up costs (e.g. getting that first run of CDs done, etc...). But in the end, the band still owns everything.
If you want more info on what Silent Noise is doing, and how we'll be working, feel free to email me at dgarcia@silentnoise.org [mailto]. I'd be more than happy to answer questions about how we'll be working. Once the website is finished, all that information will be up there as well.
Cheers,
I think that when babies are born... (Score:3)
--
Bizarre Trend (Score:2)
This trend strikes me as bizarre. We've seen stories about this before -- if you remember http://slashdot.org/yro/00/12/20/1337235.shtml, about paying the tax on recordable media in Canada, this is just a logical extension.
What's strange and scary is that I see no boundary in site. Since when do you have to pay to compensate for crimes you _might_ be able to commit using a technology? Floppy disks have been around for piracy for _years_. I was copying games on floppies using my disk drive on my Apple 2 in the early- to mid-80s. Same goes for audio tapes. What's new that suddently requires a tax? Not copyrights. Not digital media.
Did you realize that you can use just about anything to commit a crime? Soon, the recording industry will be taxing my kitchen knives since I might use them to stab somebody and deprive the industry of the income from the victim's potential future purchases. Scary.
This strikes me as almost a deranged form of insurance. Companies are trying to compensate for their percieved loss due to piracy by spreading the cost over the legitimate as well as illegitimate users. However, unlike life insurance, it's obligatory insurance against a _deliberate_, _illegal_ act. This is undoubtably a poor analogy, but when you buy a can of spraypaint, do you have to pay the insurance on all the buildings on your block because you might use it to tag someone's garage? Undoubtably this paragraph is a flawed argument, and someone will hopefully respond to this and point out what I'm missing -- please do.
However, I can't see where this is going to end, and I don't like where it looks like it's heading.
-Puk
It works for those record co. prix. (Score:2)
Cats and Mices (Score:2)
What are you talking about? (Score:3)
You americans are dumb sometimes. What's next? we all have Uber-Overclocked cpu's because we live in igloos and have no need for external cooling?
Moron
Wrong.. (Score:2)
CD-R-audio, the ones you *require* to use blackbox cd audio recorders (like lots have those, right?..) have a larger tarrif, because they are supposdly obviously for audio use. But who cares about them.