The European Commission is planning an overhaul of the copyright monopoly laws in Europe, and is asking the public for input. The deadline for such input is February 5, one week from now. Activists have made it as easy as possible for you to submit meaningful input.
While the European Commission’s so-called “public consultation” is very detailed and biased toward the copyright industry’s perspective rather than the net liberty perspective, a number of pirate activists – notably Ásta Helgadóttir and Amelia Andersdotter, as I understand it – have put together a friendly walkthrough.
You can find it at copywrongs.eu. Go there now. Submit your input to this legislation.
and i’ll bet here and now that the majority of what the people have asked for has been used by ‘the opposition’ to table the blocks they want put in force! on top of that, no countries take any notice of what the EU says anyway, with each doing exactly as it likes, when it likes! i personally cant see the point of having laws that member countries are allowed to flout. it’s another case of being in a club but playing by individual rules, not by the en bloc ones. if there were any sort of standards and the laws meant anything. why is it that when one country decides to do something different to what the EU law states, that country isn’t reprimanded and made to toe the line? even better, why not stop the country from stepping out of line in the first place? what is on the cards everywhere is known about everywhere else, so do what needs to be done at the outset or scrap the bloody lot!!
Countries do pay attention to Brussels (or rather Strasbourg) when it wants them to do something they want to do but can’t get away with in domestic politics. Look at the directives regarding separation of rail haulage from rail network operation: the only country which followed that the way it was intended was the UK, and that’s because it was a British idea which they wanted to blame on the EU.
My opinion as a citizen of the E.U. is that copyright should be abolished. For some reason that’s not an option on the form.
The issue doesn’t have to be a black or white, yes or no thing. Even a slight liberalization of copyright laws would have it’s benefits for EU Citizens.
Might as well let your voice be heard, right?
We need the copyright but the law should change in the way the Pirate Party is suggesting.
No, we don’t. See my other post below (post #5).
Public consultation what a load of bullshit!
Had a look at it even with the kind help of the pirate activists.
It’s purposely overly complicated wording meant to keep the average person
from finishing reading the questions let alone answering any of them.
Is it no wonder so few people even try to understand politics anymore.
You forget how smart on average you and your readers are Falkvinge
The vast majority have been left clueless and angry at a system that has abandon them!
here here or is it hear hear?
change of subject slightly, but this needs checking out because it will be in the EU in a short space of time, now there’s a foothold in the USA. thank goodness to all who stand for an open and free internet and not one that is just for the rich and powerful, the 1%!
h**p://cms.fightforthefuture.org/tellfcc/?t=dXNlcmlkPTUyMDEzMDMxLGVtYWlsaWQ9MzcxMQ==
It seems EC has extended the deadline by a month to 5th March. Anyway, I’ve just submitted my response to EC and now I’d like to share some of my answers:
Question 7: YES
I believe that copyright monopoly on creative works is a fundamentally flawed concept. It creates an oligopoly of large publishers who can get away with one-sided “take it or go back to your factory job” deals with authors. The law leaves way too little space for competition in this area. A better solution would be replacing the monopoly with authors’ right to a share of revenue from any commercial exploitation of their work. This would allow multiple publishers to compete for the benefit of both the author and end-users. (I am aware that this would violate TRIPS and Berne Convention.)
Question 12: NO
Consider for a moment the legal minefield such a requirement would create. How would the end-user receive authorisation from the rightholder? This requirement itself would forbid the transfer of authorisation electronically through the Internet because, from the end-users’ perspective, the act of viewing legal authorisation electronically is indistinguishable from viewing a web page.
Question 27: I don’t find the argument that rightholder needs to be compensated for statutory exceptions particularly convincing. When the law grants something in general and then takes a specific part of it away through exception a few paragraphs later, it’s as if it didn’t grant that specific part in the first place. These exceptions also broaden the market and thus indirectly increase the rightholders’ income. Encumbering them with any kind of direct compensation is detrimental to this benefit.
Question 48: The law should reflect that the first and foremost interest of every scientist is to spread the results of his or her research as far and wide as possible. Their scientific career literally requires it (it’s sometimes described as “publish or perish”). Copyright monopoly only gets in the way because it is designed to do the exact opposite.
Question 62: The copyright law clearly favors large companies and treats creators of non-commercial culture in the digital environment as second-rate citizens. Back in 1886, when the original Berne Convention was written, it was unthinkable that copyright could ever interfere with non-commercial culture. The law now also needs to protect the rights of authors who create for non-commercial reasons, especially against hostile commercial interests. See my answer to question 7.
Question 75: I tentatively support this under the condition that EU copyright directive will include an explicit ban on criminal prosecution of copyright infringement that will be binding to all EU member states.
Question 76: Intermediaries that do not host any content themselves should be explicitly banned by law from taking any action related to copyright enforcement. Upholding the law is the job of courts and state, not of private individuals or private companies. Directly involving private companies in copyright enforcement or allowing copyright holders to blackmail service providers by legal threats into enforcing copyright independently creates significant threat of private censorship.
which is exactly why it’s done and exactly why politicians wont do anything to stop it. it keeps the monopolies in force that copyright holders want and pay to get laws changed and/or introduced to stop the public from gaining access without paying, not just once but for every different format wanted. that is also why there is such lapse agreement over standards. the more there are, the more money can be squeezed out of the public! everything is done to keep copyright holders in charge, in control and in pocket and the public with as little say in anything! and basically, no government gives a fuck!!
the way certain industries, corporations and companies have manipulated laws to give them monopolies and the way politicians and law makers have done what they can to ensure the monopolies exist and grow is disgraceful! one way of curbing it would be to enact laws that prosecute politicians and law makers for receiving ‘donations’ from lobbyists and another would be to penalise just as hard against false take downs as against industries claims of infringement. considering how democracy itself is actually in the balance here, with it tipping less and less in democracies favour, how nice it was to read how a new democratic nation has emerged out of conflict! Tunisia has now become a democratic nation with a government and mandate that puts the likes of the USA and the UK, two of the supposed strongest supporters of democracy, until those in power now came to power, that is, to absolute shame and disgrace!! good for you, Tunisia! you shame the rest of the World!