Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media The Almighty Buck

EU Proposes Online Music System 174

Posted by CowboyNeal from the about-time dept.
jefu writes "According to a story in the Globe and Mail, the European Commission has proposed a unified online music licensing (and copyright) system. The article says that one of the points of doing this is to get copyright and license fees to the artists and to simplify the maze of copyright regulations that cover Europe."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Proposes Online Music System More

EU Proposes Online Music System

Comments Filter:

  • duh (Score:2, Funny)

    by ichigo-666 ( 896741 )
    When I read the title, I thought they were going to create a P2P system :P

    • Re:duh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tony Hoyle ( 11698 )
      If they did, it'd be years late, cost millions, and not work.

      The last time they tried anything with computers was when they produced a 1000 page report saying that the euro symbol should be on AltGr-e. By the time the report was published everyone was already using AltGr-4 so they'd just thrown a lot of money down the toilet for no reason.
      • re: the euro key. My old (300-celery laptop, can't remember how old) Toshiba does have in to AltGr-4 (UK keyboard) but my 2 year old Gericom has it on AltGr-e as does my new IBM thinkpad (with a German keyboard). It's not present with the US keyboard which is a shame because the German keyboard is terrible for programming. When I was working in The nNetherlands and Belgium it was on AltGr-e.

        So from the keyboards I've seen the German, Dutch and Belgian ones seem to have in AltGr-e. The only (admittidly old)
    • I wonder if they've read my essay [blogspot.com] on content licensing. I'd be happy to ... uh ... license it to them. :-D

  • Remember the part-timers... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Max Romantschuk ( 132276 ) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Friday July 08, 2005 @05:48AM (#13012177) Homepage
    This is a good idea, providing they come up with a system which can take part-time and amateur artists into account.

    Currently (at least in Finland) marginal artists get next to nothing. Revamping the system would provide an opportunity to rectify this issue.

    • Re:Remember the part-timers... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:00AM (#13012203)
      "providing they come up with a system which can take part-time and amateur artists into account."

      How likely is it that a centralized government collection system, probably lobbied into existence by large copyright-holding companies, will do that?

    • Reality (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:25AM (#13012268)
      All they EU is doing is facing the reality of the way technology is changing business practices and legislating appropriately which is so normal it should not be newsworthy. The old ways of doing business in the music industry are dying. You can either react to that by suing people who download music left right and center [slashdot.org] in the hope of keeping change from happening or you can do like Apple did and embrace the new way of doing business. Piracy not withstanding going into the online music business certainly does not seem to have done Apple any harm [slashdot.org] since people do seem to be prepared to pay for downloadable music even though they have the option of downloading pirated materials free of charge. I suppose you could make the argument that the law suits have actually discouraged people from consuming pirated music and thus helped online oufits like iTunes but I don't buy that argument since the chances of being caught while downloading pirated music are still very small.

      • Re:Reality (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ray-auch ( 454705 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @07:17AM (#13012438)
        facing the reality of the way technology is changing business practices and legislating appropriately which is so normal it should not be newsworthy

        Erm, surely politicians understanding changing technology and legisilating appropriately is definitely _not_ normal and _is_ newsworthy.
    • Wow, the comission seems to be in good shape after the whooping the Parliament gave them...

      I hope they find a framework in which the money does go to the artist. As for small artists now I would suggest signing up with magnatune.com, they aren't evil...

    • YEah, a good idea, maybe, if it was thought up and introduced by the industry itself. My question is WTF is the EU doing sticking it's nose in private enterprise in this way? There are other things they should make legislation for...and this sure ain't where they should stick their noses.

      It's like they really have nothing better to do!

  • Before it gets slashdoted (Score:4, Informative)

    by La Gris ( 531858 ) <lea@gris.noiraude@net> on Friday July 08, 2005 @05:48AM (#13012178) Homepage
    EU proposes system for on-line music

    Thursday, July 7, 2005 Updated at 2:44 PM EDT

    Associated Press

    BRUSSELS, Belgium -- The European Commission on Thursday proposed a single Europe-wide copyright and licensing system for on-line music, to boost the European Union's music business.

    EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said European on-line services had to be improved to make copyrights cheaper for artists to obtain.

    "We have to improve the licensing of music copyright on the Internet," McCreevy said, adding such a system would ensure "Europe's creative community will get the lion's share in revenues achieved on-line."

    Currently artists have to secure copyrights in each of the EU's 25 member nations, with each country requiring separate copyrights for the right to transmit songs over the Internet, a complex and expensive process the EU head office said.

    Advertisements

    As a result of these costs, on-line music sales in Europe have lagged behind those in the United States. Last year, the U.S. had an estimated $248-million (U.S.) in on-line music sales compared with Europe's $32.5-million.

    Musicians make money from their music after registering copyrights with collective rights managers. Those managers then license songs to on-line services, radio stations, dance clubs and other outlets. All these registrations are complex and costs artists a lot of money.

    The EU head office said a single system governing music rights would save money.

    "The most effective model for achieving this is to enable right-holders to authorize a collecting society of their choice to manage their works across the entire EU," said the Commission in a statement, adding such a system would "considerably enhance" earnings for artists.

    • This sounds like transmission rights, rather than traditional media-based copyrights. The way I read it, they may be effectively making internet music a transmitted form (penny per song) versus a media-style licensing (dollar per song) market. Look slike AllOfMP3 had it right to begin with. ;-)
    • Currently artists have to secure copyrights in each of the EU's 25 member nations, with each country requiring separate copyrights for the right to transmit songs over the Internet, a complex and expensive process the EU head office said.

      1. Release it. Wow you got copyright in every signee country of the Berne treaty.

      2. In contract: License distribution rights in all 25 EU countries at once.

      3. Profit.

      From what I gather, they want to make it one "EU-license" area. It is most unusual though, because usua

  • So this is a good idea in theory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 08, 2005 @05:49AM (#13012182)
    Since allowing you to have to deal with just one copyright office to be valid for all of Europe is the exact sort of thing that inspired the European Economic Community thing that became the EU in the first place.

    Unfortunately, you can absolutely bet 100% that if a system such as this is proposed or comes anywhere near to implementation, the biggest and most affluent copyright holders will use it as an excuse to grab new and undue powers for themselves-- powers which they will then never, ever let go of, and be defending in a hundred year's time as "the way things have always worked".

    Thus what ought to be a plus for everyone (a unified, more efficient copyright system) is going to be a massive downer for consumers, or at least that subset of consumers who wish to be treated like consumers or citizens and not cattle.
    • If this implies every other organisation is cut out, in The Netherlands for example there are 4 organisations you need to contact before you can even broadcast a CD legally. A very small part of the fee you pay will go to the artist, composer and writer.

      This organisation could potentially be a very good thing. Though it must stay small, otherwise most of the money will, again, go to the bureaucrats.

      • Re:So this is a good idea in theory (Score:5, Interesting)

        by jimicus ( 737525 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:11AM (#13012232)
        in The Netherlands for example there are 4 organisations you need to contact before you can even broadcast a CD legally

        I wonder how those organisations (and those in other countries) are going to react to the prospect that most, if not all of them would become irrelevant in the face of a Europe-wide organisation?

        That being said, record labels may like it at a very senior level - they could save a lot of money.

        • "I wonder how those organisations (and those in other countries) are going to react to the prospect that most, if not all of them would become irrelevant in the face of a Europe-wide organisation?"

          They would not like it.

          "That being said, record labels may like it at a very senior level - they could save a lot of money."

          Can you explain what the record companies would have to do with this? We're talking about rights management for artists here -- the money that gets paid to composers and songwriter

          • I was under the impression that the organisations were, for the most part, subdivisions of the record labels themselves.

            However, ICBW. IANARL. (I am not a record label).

            • Heh. No worries, lots of people aren't aware of the distinction. I can't speak to the vagaries of the European music licensing system, but here in the US, ASCAP and BMI are non-profit societies run by and for artists. Some songwriters and composers often make much more money through performance and publishing rights than they do from the record companies through sales of the recordings.

              Even though they are in business to look after artists' rights, and artists are the "good guys," this does not mean th

    • But in practice... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:41AM (#13012326)
      Unfortunately, you can absolutely bet 100% that if a system such as this is proposed or comes anywhere near to implementation, the biggest and most affluent copyright holders will use it as an excuse to grab new and undue powers for themselves-- powers which they will then never, ever let go of, and be defending in a hundred year's time as "the way things have always worked".

      Too true. Remember, this is the same EU that brought us the EU Copyright Directive, which is pretty much Europe's DMCA. It'll take a lot to convince me that they're doing this for the benefit of consumers.

      Here's a great scenario for you, based on some investigation for an amateur dance club in the UK about the possibility of burning a selection of the best tracks used at club activities onto a small number of compilation CDs, so the club DJs don't have to carry several large boxes of CDs everywhere. For reference, the club already pays a fee to PPL for the right to play the copyrighted music in public at its classes and events. It also buys the original CDs just like anyone else.

      It seems the club can also pay another fee to a different organisation, which gives it the legal right to make the compilations (and even to make multiple copies and sell the spares, with a few restrictions). However, while this would be more than enough, under UK law, to make the compilations normally, thanks to the EUCD those people making the compilations could be criminally liable for doing so if they take material from any "copy-protected" CDs. After all, circumventing copy protection now seems to be a criminal act in its own right here, even if you had every legal right to copy the protected material. <sigh>

      Now, if the EU were to introduce some common sense to copyright -- the equivalent of fair use rights so everyone knows they're safe making a back-up or format-shifting material they've legally purchased, for example -- that would be great. If the EU want to introduce mandatory escrow for DRM-based material to guarantee that fair use, and prohibit the sale of music in any DRM'd form that doesn't submit a copy for escrow first, that would be in the interests of consumers and yet still consistent with protecting the legitimate rights of copyright holders.

      I'm guessing this is neither of those things, but then this is also the EU that just threw out software patents, so there is some hope and perhaps I should keep the faith. Time will tell...

    • Except you do not have to deal with any copyright offices. You do not have to register copyright.

      You can write a song, perform it, sell the recording all over Europe with registering anything.
  • Ugh...that's a stroy low on details if I ever saw one. Proposed legislation for making things better... How is this going to work? Where does the "Online" in the /. headline come from?

    If all this means that musicians can now go and distribute the music we make, and get the copyright watchdogs all over the EU to go after piracy, without musicians having to give up their rights to these watchdogs, that would be a great win. The fact that the new system would be easier seems almost like a secondary benefit to
  • Why this title might sound trollistic it is not. AFAIK when I download an MP3 I want to listen it, perdio - not print its periodogram on toilet paper or any other cabalistic use. Granted, I am a geek and I could want to do something a little odd with the file. Well, free market has an answer to this, if I desperatly want to own completly a protected file I can pay the market's price for that. Listen-once file ? This is restrictive, but it also means it's cheaper. I prefer to have the option to buy a listen-

    • Re:Enforce open DRM (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vidarh ( 309115 )
      The problem with that is that open DRM is an oxymoron. If it's open it can be bypassed. DRM works only if there is a secret component that can't be bypassed to get at the raw data, and that inevitably means that access to the implementations of it has to be covered by restrictive NDA's.

      • The problem with that is that open DRM is an oxymoron. If it's open it can be bypassed. DRM works only if there is a secret component that can't be bypassed to get at the raw data, and that inevitably means that access to the implementations of it has to be covered by restrictive NDA's.

        All DRM schemes can be bypassed by technical means, so making them open doesn't decrease their effectiveness. The enforcement mechanism is legal, so the owner has a cause of action against anyone who violates his rights.

      • Re:Enforce open DRM (Score:3, Informative)

        by Alsee ( 515537 )
        A major part of Trusted Computing is indeed about establishing an "open DRM system". In fact the entire system can be open source, or even GPL. Trusted Computing defeats the GPL. Trusted Computing makes the source code useless. If you attempt to modify the software then (1) the chip broadcasts that fact to anyone you connect to, and (2) the chip then prohibits you from reading the data files.

        If you want more details or have any questions, just ask. I'm a programmer, I've read the Trusted Computing technica
    • Fine, except there is no such thing as "listen once".

      I invented a form of listen-once music myself, when I was eight years old, by mounting a small ceramic magnet inside the shell of a Philips Compact Cassette, downstream of the sound head.

      The very same day, using two cassette recorders and a commonly-available 5-pin DIN to DIN cable, I demonstrated exactly what was wrong with such a scheme.

      • Re:Enforce open DRM (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Arthur B. ( 806360 )
        Everything that can be heard can be listened. True. But a) Quality is lost b) see DRM as a 'in case you forgot the license agreement' protection scheme. It can be bypassed, sure but heck you can also bypass the store security system.

        • Re:Enforce open DRM (Score:2, Interesting)

          by ajs318 ( 655362 )
          Bypassing DRM of any description is trivial. At some stage, the digital signal must be converted to a reasonably high quality, analogue signal. This can be redigitised and now contains no DRM metadata -- just a list of numbers saying how far to move the loudspeaker cones, which can then be copied indefinitely without introducing any additional loss of quality. No DRM scheme is able to know the difference between a loudspeaker and an analogue-to-digital converter; and even if someone did find out a way, t

  • Sounds good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pr0nbot ( 313417 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:00AM (#13012205)
    The EU was initially set up as a free trading group. The aim has since become to create a level playing field that allows businesses from all member countries to operate in the eurozone; this isn't just free trade but e.g the free movement of capital and labour. This inevitably means changes at the political level to harmonise standards and regulations.

    So I think harmonising licensing and copyright systems is a natural step, and a good one SO LONG AS it is not seized as an opportunity for radical reform in the favour of corporations over the citizen, e.g. extending the lifetime of copyright.

    • The European Economic Community was created as a free trading grouop. Subsequent events, including the evolution of the EEC into the EU, have only proven that you can never trust a politician.

  • Mixed, mostly bad. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by haakondahl ( 893488 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:03AM (#13012215)
    As much as TFA says the system is supposed to increase revenues for artists by streamlining things, that's great. But I suspect most of what will happen is that another government-mandated program will be too slow and inflexible to allow its supposed beneficiaries to profit from a rapidly changing business world.

    Chalk one up for the people who can't even get a constitution done. Do you really want them involved in your label? Software patents, anyone?
    • Chalk one up for the people who can't even get a constitution done.
      You're saying this like "can't get shoelaces tied". Do you really think a -good- constitution, encompassing so many so fundamentally different nations is easy to create? This is one simple regulation, thing of the kind they make 10 daily. Constitution is "law above laws", not something you write during a lunch break.

  • Noble idea, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:06AM (#13012218) Journal
    let the project be discussed by politicians, artists and fans. Lock all the managers, producers, studio owners etc in a dungeon, take their phones away from them, close the exit with a concrete wall, and don't let them contact the outside world until the project is ready. Otherwise it will be another horrible "all your base" takeover of your rights.

    Actually, once the project is over, don't let them out either.
    • Lock all the managers, producers, studio owners etc in a dungeon, take their phones away from them, close the exit with a concrete wall, and don't let them contact the outside world until the project is ready.

      Up to the 'until the project is ready'-part I was sooo agreeing with you.

  • I propose a very simple system (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2NO@SPAMearthshod.co.uk> on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:10AM (#13012229)
    Everyone who makes music available for listening to, should have to publish the name and address of the copyright holder and the amount of money that you need to send to that person in order to be allowed to make a single, permanent copy of that music {i.e. on a medium which cannot be prepared for re-use using generally available equipment -- to re-use a CD, you would have to melt it down} plus an indefinite number of temporary copies. The licencing fee would be the same for any party. If any money changes hands at the time the music changes hands, and the licencing fee is to be stopped out of the transaction charge, then this must also be clearly stated.

    Example: I buy a CD of Lester Norton's greatest hits for £12.50. It says in the booklet that Norton owns the copyright on all his music and the licence fee is £1.50 for the album. My friend wants a copy of the album. I make a copy of the CD, and send a postal order for £1.50 to Lester Norton. He gets his money, and my friend saves the best part of £11. Everyone is happy.
    • A significant quanity of studio time went into producing that album. I think in addition to the £1.50 you are sending to Lester you need to factor in that the Label has paid a studio for the production & mixing of the CD and was hoping for profits from CD sales to recoup that initial outlay. Your model has removed that profit element and so the Label has lost on this. Your model only works if the artist has paid up front for the studio time. This second model is actually bad for emergent artists w
      • upfront studio time fees (well over 5k a day for a cheap studio)

        5k a day?!?!? The studio where I work is 300 quid a day. If you're not getting change from 500 quid you're being conned mate.
        • If you're not getting change from 500 quid you're being conned mate

          When I worked in one it did part production on a Pink Floyd album and all of a Def Leppard album. The day figures were above the 5k I quoted. It had 8 engineers. I doubt you could get 3 engineers for 500 a day. It quoted by the half hour.

          • Your context was for "emergent artists" who could not afford studio fees, not megadrome filling prog/cock-rock dinosaurs. Maybe if you want to go and record at Abbey Road it might cost you a fair wedge, granted. If you're just starting out go record at the Cowshed instead.
      • The problem here is that Lester is the one who owes the money, but Lester does not get paid first. The Label only footed the upfront studio cost, but the Label gets paid first, and then from what's left they pay Lester.

        That's like having a mortgage on my house, and now the Bank gets my paycheck and they take their cut then hand me the rest.

      • A significant quanity of studio time went into producing that album. I think in addition to the £1.50 you are sending to Lester you need to factor in that the Label has paid a studio for the production & mixing of the CD and was hoping for profits from CD sales to recoup that initial outlay.

        This is not true for the vast majority of major labels. The money that pays for studio time is a loan from the label that the artists pays back from cd sales. Therefore, the copyright owner paid for it.

    • What a marvellous idea! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by samael ( 12612 )
      And, of course, because we're all trustworthy, it'll work fantastically well!

      Neither I, nor my friends, would ever just copy music without paying for it. Ever. It would be morally indefensible!

      Oh, and the cost of the album is more likely to be about £4. and would go to the record label, not the artist. It's them that own the rights to it, after all.
      • And, of course, because we're all trustworthy, it'll work fantastically well! Neither I, nor my friends, would ever just copy music without paying for it. Ever. It would be morally indefensible!

        By all means... sell a licensed cover and jewel case instead. Trust doesn't enter into it... home printing usually costs between $2000 to $10,000/gal for the ink where a professionaly printed cover would cost less, last longer, and look better. Why should Canon and Epson get all the bucks from P2P distrubution.

  • Ensure the EU Acknowledges doctrine of first sale (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:20AM (#13012255) Homepage Journal
    When I purchase a car, I own that car. I have the right to that particular instance of that car to use,modify ( pimp my ride ),combine, dispose or resell without having to seek permission from the car builders, vendors etc.

    It's called the doctrine of first sale [google.com] and it has been recognized time and again by the US and other courts that it also applies to instances of copyrighted works. It's fair use.

    The doctrine of first sale has even been used to challenge End User License Agreements [wikipedia.org]

    Therefore is the following is self evident that copyright legislation should grant the following rights under the concept of fair use:

    1. Acknowledge the supremacy of the doctrine of first sale : When you purchase an instance of a copy of copyrighted work, your rights to view,use,modify,combine,inter-operate with, dispose or resell that one instance should not be impeded by either legislation or technology. This fact has been recognized time and again by the US courts.

    2. The doctrine of first sale applies to both physical media and digital content where the receiver pays a transaction for particular instances of a copyrighted works: When you purchase an instance of a copy of copyrighted work that involves the buyer making a choice for that instance of copyrighted work and entering into a transaction with the seller, then the buyer has the rights to that instance under the doctrine of first sale. Sellers of instances of copyrighted work cannot hide behind "provision as a service": when you pay for an instance, you own that instance.

    3. You do not have the right to record content without permission of the copyright holders of a live performance ( play, concert etc ) or private performance ( film theater ) held on private property or performance venue. You pay to attend a performance at a physical venue, not for a copy of an instance of that performance.

    4. Instances of copyrighted works broadcast ( as apposed to downloaded ) and received by a device held by individual person or on that person's property, may not be redistributed outside of that person's household to anyone who does not receive the content though the same service. You may record an instance of copyrighted work for later viewing ( timeshifting ) and distribute a copy along to any person whos household also receives that same broadcast service ( samaritan clause ). You many not redistribute or resell content recorded from a broadcast service to anyone not receiving that same broadcast service content.

    5. Although you may not redistribute recorded copies of broadcast copyrighted content outside of the terms of (4), there should be no limit to what you may do with instances of those works within your household. You should have the right to modify the works, combine with other works and inter-operate with other works. You should also have the right to transform the instances of the copyrighted work so that it operates or can be viewed on other devices (mediashifting).

    6. Copyright protection extends only to the particular work copyrighted. The copyright holder's exclusive rights should not extend to the right to deny others combining a legally acquired instance of a copyrighted work with other works. You should have the right to distribute and/or sell, patches, recipes and add-on components that refer and link to the content of the copyrighted work, as long as the distributed items do not contain content from the original copyrighted work. The resulting combined and/or transformed work that contains content from the copyrighted work sources can not be legally redistributed without the permission of all the copyright holders.

    We have to ensure that file formats and protocols adopted should not limit the ability to sample mix and match. To do otherwise would limit peoples creativity.

    If I purchase an instan

    • Can I get a license to redistribute your post?
    • 7. The duration of the copyright term of a work is fixed when the work is first published, and may not be either shortened or extended by subsequent legislation.
    • This is thoughtful, well-reasoned, and insightful. It strikes a reasonable balance between the rights of the owners of content and the rights of the consumers of that content. It's also well-written and correctly spelled.

      Who are you, and what the hell are you doing on Slashdot?
    • When I purchase a car, I own that car. I have the right to that particular instance of that car to use,modify ( pimp my ride ),combine, dispose or resell without having to seek permission from the car builders, vendors etc.

      I know it's only an analogy, but there are regulations governing cars which will affect how you modify yours. Here in the UK there are noise and emissions regulations at least, plus regulations on tires (tread must be of at least a certain depth, etc) and other parts. Even bolt-ons woul
      • there are regulations governing cars which will affect how you modify yours

        Do those restrictions apply if you use that car on your private property?

        Sure there are restrictions on volume levels and pollution leaving your private property, and those restrictions apply whether the volume source is a car or a copyrighted song, and the pollution restrictions apply whether the source is a car or a copyrighted song. If you modify a song to spew out excessive levels of nitrous oxide then pollution laws will appl

  • bah why not EU wide micropayments (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:21AM (#13012258) Journal
    They should have true vision and start building a micropayments infrastructure for the whole of the EU and beyond.

    Then not just the holy musicians can indulge in the utopia where talk is free but the beer is charged by the litre!

    • While not strictly related to the topic at hand, I do think this would be a good idea. The banks are clearly not getting their act together on this, and we need something better than credit cards for online payments. I mean:

      1. Not everyone has a credit card. Not even everyone can get one.
      2. Credit card payments cost money, more than is practical for micropayments.
      3. Who knows the company you make the payment to isn't storing your CC info for later use?
      4. Credit card processing companies usually charge thei

  • Sounds good to me (Score:5, Informative)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:26AM (#13012272) Homepage Journal
    As far as I understand it, what is being proposed is that artist will be able to contract a single authority to distribute the music throughout the EU, rather than having to contract the appropriate authority in each state separately.

    This means that (or so it is expected) the existing copyright monopolists (typically there is one authority which has exclusive rights in a state) will be forced to compete with one another. I believe that to be a Good Thing...from 25 monopolists to 25 companies, each having a pretty small market share.
    • The software patent directive was also (according to the Commission) proposed to harmonise [software] patent law.

      The truth was it proposed to harmonise the effective existence of software patents in the EU.

      So while the stated goal might be interesting, you have to read the content and check if you're not being fooled by smart lawyers

    • I believe that to be a Good Thing...from 25 monopolists to 25 companies, each having a pretty small market share.

      Until they all merge and up their cut

      • Unlikely that the EU would let them. It wouldn't be the first time that they banned two companies from merging to prevent them from becoming too powerful. They really do care about such things in the EU, although it doesn't always work out (still a lot of reliance on Microsoft, for example).
    • An artist can already contract a single authority to distribute the music in the EU.

    • "typically there is one authority which has exclusive rights in a state..."

      Interesting. BMI and SESAC offer their services in Europe. Are there some EU nations in which they're prevented from operating because of a country-wide monopoly?

  • RTFR (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Instead of the well-spun press-release why has noone bothered to read the f report the commision released today?

    http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/copyrigh t/docs/management/study-collectivemgmt_en.pdf [eu.int]

  • Unified? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Indy Media Watch ( 823624 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:32AM (#13012289) Homepage
    Obviously those who use the words "unified" and "Europe" in the same sentence never got the memo...

  • Legislation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lordsilence ( 682367 ) * on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:43AM (#13012333) Homepage
    I'm against this kind of unificated legislation. There're several reasons, one being that they will most likely try to base it on the American broad copyright.

    The swedish copyright which I think is great, makes it possible for only items which reaches a "work of art" level.

    This means silly stuff like cease and desist letters cant be copyrighted to keep them secret from outside parties except the legal advisor.

    Now, other sources of cultural exchange such as the pirate bay would most likely also be forbidden. Where even "linking" to the source of copyright will be forbidden. I'm not against allowing artists a fair pay for their work. But there's still a thin balance between making a system which is good and a system which limits freedom to the point it's silly.

    I dont want a system which allows companies to extort minors.

  • expect sabotage... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spectrokid ( 660550 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:43AM (#13012335) Homepage
    from the big labels. I mean, draw up a simple law which brings a level playing field? With no loopholes? Mark my words, before you know it somebody will start talking about this disgusting "fair use" thing again!

  • The Music Industry is behind this (Score:4, Informative)

    by Reverant ( 581129 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @06:47AM (#13012348) Homepage
    Am I the only person here that is angered by this news item - and the way it's served to us?

    First of all, everywhere in the article, we get excerpts saying "the artists pay too much money", "it costs the artists too much". Which is of course, totally BS, because the labels pay for these, as the artists don't own the copyright!

    In other words:

    The EU is spending our (I'm a EU citizen) money (all these procedures cost money), so that the record labels spend less trying to restrict us, while at the same time we are going to get the same price for the BS records they serve us?

    You'll be seeing me again in a record store buying a CD in...2078. Because no way in Hell am I going to download a drm'ed version from an online store!
    • In many european countries the labels dont own the copyrights as there arent any copyrights. There are other completly different systems.
      In many countries, the labels just get the distribution rights.
    • I think you are wrong. Actually, I really can't fathom how your post gets +3, Informative.

      This proposal would lower the cost of entry to the pan-European market for all copyright holders. In general low cost of entry is good for the consumers and the smaller producers. There really are artists that own their own copyrights. You may not have ever heard of them, because right now it is really, really hard to break into the music market without Big Media backing. This proposal would make that slightly easier,

    • "First of all, everywhere in the article, we get excerpts saying "the artists pay too much money", "it costs the artists too much". Which is of course, totally BS, because the labels pay for these, as the artists don't own the copyright!"

      Are you positive about that? It's usually the case that the record company (along with the producer) own the copyright on the recording, but the words and music, of course, remain with the authors. It's these copyrights that the article is referring to, and it's these

    • Which is of course, totally BS, because the labels pay for these, as the artists don't own the copyright!

      The labels are the ones that initially pay the invoices, yes. But do you honestly think the label doesn't then turn around and charge back every expense they possibly can to the artists?

  • "The most effective model for achieving this is to enable right-holders to authorize a collecting society of their choice to manage their works across the entire EU,"

    Isn't EU job to ensure there are no market barriers in Europe? He could create a directive to stop copyright holders parcelling up copyright along National barriers in Europe and leave it for them to sort out the system.

    Instead he proposed a 'collecting society' which sounds very much like a super quango - more overhead so the artists will ge

  • Change the nature of copyrights. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vertinox ( 846076 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:37AM (#13012903)
    I think it's more important that copyrights exist in order to prevent others from taking your work and then slapping their name on it and selling it as their own or making copies and selling it without your authorization on the streets where the customer thinks they are buying a legitimate copy.

    However, if someone says this is such and suchs work and puts it on their own media and gives proper credit it is my belief that it should be legal to do so.

    This might seem strange, but copyrights were never really intended to extract money from the populace, but rather promote science and arts and to credit where credit is due.

  • Steve Jobs will like this, yes? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shag ( 3737 ) on Friday July 08, 2005 @08:37AM (#13012908) Journal
    After all, country-by-country licensing differences made Apple introduce its European iTunes store piecemeal.

    Now if they could just get steady pricing as well, so the Brits would stop whinging about paying more. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

If mathematically you end up with the wrong answer, try multiplying by the page number.

Close