×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Europe To Adopt Strict Internet Copyright Law

timothy posted more than 13 years ago | from the is-there-still-space-on-the-moon? dept.

The Courts 203

sydb writes: "The EU has adopted what looks like the equivalent of the US DMCA. Details are here. One effect of these laws is to make it illegal to break encryption on copyright material. Depressing news." The EU seems to have discovered not only the Information Society (their caps) but has provided "a detailed exhaustive list of exceptions to the reproduction right and right of communication to the public ... the list is exhaustive which means that no other exception may be applied."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#298900)

We can always have someone do the actual "breaking" of the encryption somewhere else where nobody cares. Once a utility is written to decrypt it, are you still "breaking" it? If that is the case, your breaking the encryption every time you use said product.

arrgh (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#298901)

from the link:
However, as far as private copying is concerned, the quality and quantity of private copying and the growth of electronic commerce all mean that there should be greater protection for rightholders in digital recording media (whereby unlimited numbers of perfect copies may be made rapidly).In certain limited cases, where rightholders have made the means available, private copying may be carried out.

Let's see those MFs enforce that. All it takes is another crack of some digital media format but done by AC this time. Long live th' underground! Makes me want to spread that much more DVD-movies-on-CDs with cracking, ripping, encoding and burning proggies bundled.

Re:can someone explain... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#298903)

Simple, to watch a DVD on an unauthorized player. Many of us believe that we should be able to buy a DVD and watch it on Linux. The MPAA's view is we bought the right to view that DVD on a player that they authorized. There copy protection and the DMCA make it legal for them to hold that position. This trend continues into other avenues including software and telivision. With digital TV, they may eliminate the right to record. With software, instead of selling you an overpriced copy of Office, Microsoft will pobably force you to rent it. Our rights as consumers are getting pummeled because of the fear of copyright infringement. Either get informed now or suffer the consequences later.

Access cartels (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#298904)

What we are really talking about in this EU law and the DMCA is the ability to form access cartels by forcing laws regarding copyright and specifically copying into access and (fair) use.

I suppose the same judge that once ruled that a program executed was a form of copyright violation not permitted by fair use because it "loaded" a "copy" of the image from media into memory would also declair the brain illegal for forming copyies of "protected works" that are read/viewed/heard, etc. This reasoning appears to be the base philosophy of these so called recent "copyright" acts.

While we could talk about how copright is not actually a right at all, but a priledged that could OPTIONALLY be granted to encourage production of new works, and hence no such thing or right as "intellectual property" actually exists, at least in the US constitution, but that can be saved for another day. Today I wish to write about access cartels.

The idea of an access cartel is that all works must be secured in some manner against the potential of piracy. To do this, all media and all means of using media must hence be secured. This can be done by issuing certificates for CPRM schemes, or other means that may eventually be MANDATED in law. He who (or they that) control such systems have a cartel on what works of ANY kind may be permitted to be distributed in a given media.

The idea of requiring all executables to be signed with an authorized Microsoft or Microsoft authorized "partner" issued certificate is of course a form of access cartel.

While copyright holders have some concerns over so called piracy, access controls do not benefit them in the long run, except to restrict the number of indipendent works that might be created and otherwise distributed. The fundimental flaw with an enforced access control regime is that some copyright holds may not wish or want these so called "protections" offered by access cartels, much like the grocer does not really wish or require the "protection" offered by the neighborhood thug.

So imagine if you will a future world of access cartels. Oh, you wish to publish a program, well you can get your authorized access certificate to "permit" 10K copies to be legally created and executed, at $X. price. Ah, but you write free software, and permit UNLIMITED copying. Well, that requires the $special$ $unlimited$ cirtificates to permit your program to be used. Well, the idea is clear.

Where are fair use rights in this? Or the idea of public domain? Well public domain works are untrusted works to an access cartel. Being public domain, any "legitimate" publisher could pick up and re-publish a public domain work by registering for access certificates to distribute it. But of course access cartels are the personal friend of copyright cartels and other kinds of monopolists. What does this mean for individuals who own their own works and wish to distribute, or wish to distribute works in the public domain?

Well, note that the access cartel doesn't directly interfere with the notion or right to copy a public domain or private work, or to create a work. It simply interfers with the otherwise obvious right to access a work one ownes, copied, etc, and this is something so obvious that copyright law says nothing about it directly in any historical context I have heard of. The very nature of copyright implies and always had assumed one could access what is copied and personally owned. Consider it the mother of loopholes. I consider it a basic human right.

Do not let those who wish to form the new cartels of the future take away your rights to what you own.

Re:And (2)

abischof (255) | more than 13 years ago | (#298905)

You may wish to try one of the recent builds [mozilla.org] of Mozilla [mozilla.org] . Using a recent build, I've posted many comments to Slashdot (including this one) without problem.

Alex Bischoff
---

Legal but invalid -- the people did not vote (2)

Morgaine (4316) | more than 13 years ago | (#298912)

The EU commissioners are turning ever more into a bunch of corporate lackies. I'd like to say dinosaurs, but unfortunately there is no meteorite in sight yet.

Perhaps one of these insane laws they regularly bring in will tip the balance into revolt by member states, because the people never get to vote on any of this nonsense and one day it's going to be more than they can stand. We're quite good at removing the heads of leaders overawed by their own self-importance, if you look back in history. Unfortunately, in the UK we don't have a Constitution so it's difficult to fight anything on any basis, but perhaps the other EU states will not have that problem.

Re:can someone explain... (1)

HEbGb (6544) | more than 13 years ago | (#298918)

This has got to be a troll, but I'll bite.

How about fair use? We're legally allowed to utilize copyrighted material freely in a variety of ways, including excerpts, educational use, etc. None of that is stealing, and all of it is protected by law.

The DMCA, and now the EU regulation, is effectively eliminating provisions for fair use, which should be protected. I suspect that this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court, and I predict that they'll strike it down for that very reason.

Note, that I don't agree that they should outlaw encryption - there's no law saying it has to be easy to get your excerpts. But outlawing any attempt to exercise your fair use rights is deplorable.

Re:Information Society (1)

Ian Schmidt (6899) | more than 13 years ago | (#298919)

Except that P&LI isn't on Hack.

But they could listen to "Mirrorshades" all they wanted then.

This is the same European control that gave us: (2)

malkavian (9512) | more than 13 years ago | (#298924)

A ruling that said some bananas couldn't be sold because they were too straight and a ruling that certain apples (Granny Smith's, a popular English variety) couldn't legally be called apples because they were too small.
Something tells me these people have WAY too much time on their hands.
Still, once people catch on that you can't lend something out anymore, you'll see the end of 'group buys' from people on a low budget making a purchase where one couldn't on their own, no peer copying and learning, then purchasing when someone gets used to a product.
Many products have only BEEN so successful because it was possible to copy them, thus allowing them to saturate the market. And eventually, a good quantity of these people end up making a purchase they otherwise would never have considered.
This law, like the DMCA will eventually stomp all the newer, heavily protected stuff, because people simply don't get the 'preview' of it in action.
No confidence and familiarity==no reason to by speculatively (except in a lot fewer cases of people wanting the newest).
In the end, methinks the older tech will end up being used far past what the manufacturers wish, to keep their turnover going, just to avoid these rules.
So, either they back down, or they go out of business.

Cheers,

Malk

Fight back. :) (2)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 13 years ago | (#298926)

You could be a nut like me and work towards making a data haven. Get enough people to join your collective and you will have some clout. Even if you don't have enough people to influence the law you can all move into the same physical space so you are hard to just arrest. Get enough of the worlds data on networks inside your haven and they are unlikely to just cut your access off.

We're the techie wizards. Force some suits to try to keep up with the tech themselves and it won't take long before they start to listen to what we say. :)

Hehe or maybe I've just read to many books. :)

Re:problems (2)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 13 years ago | (#298927)

Take 75% of the websites in the US and put it in a data haven (not to hard to manage actually.. cheap service with high security has a lot to offer average business and web sites) and it's unlikely the US would cut the connection to that haven. You just have to make the haven respectable enough that anyone who cut itself off would be doing more harm to themselves than the have.

Maybe with so many geeks suddenly finding the job market less friendly they'll be more likely to be stubborn and start their own companies and such rather than kiss ass to take a lower paying job. Surely some geeks out there must have some nerve. What else does playing Quake or Half Life for 36 hours a day train us for? :)

Re:common paranoia (3)

Panaflex (13191) | more than 13 years ago | (#298928)

"The media is not a trust this must be destinctly understood. No one group of people meet in a smoke filled room and decide your fate. It just dosn't work that way at all."

Well, actually in a way it is. You see, these days media doesn't actually investigate anything. They use official statements!

In other words, the PR machine of our Government is the best anti-media medicine ever. People are inherently LAZY and will take a decent PR spokeman or article over an interview 90% of the time. (I know, I was in the industry for a few years.).

Besides that, the composition of our journalist is extremly one-sided. Typical liberal attitudes are played well by the PR spokeman. Not only that, but journalist are increasingly more worried about getting "their point of view" and criticism out than reporting the news, and most importantly they never ask how it affects YOU.

And to be final, American people work alot of hours... when their not working, their vegitables. When people worked agriculture, there was ALOT of time to sit, read, and analyze politics. No time for that now!

And to compound that, governemt is getting bigger and producing tons and tons more information. Try keeping up on a daily basis with an in-depy coverage of the house floor. (Just a hint, the last house passed more legislation than any session before).

And if you did do all of this, well you would be considered a freak.

Pan

Full Directive Link, A Few Provisions (3)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 13 years ago | (#298929)

Full Text Of The Directive [eu.int]

A few of the more heinous provisions:

Section 26: (paraphrased, full text below)
Making analog backup copies for personal use is fine. Making digi tal backup copies for personal use is not.

Section 27: (paraphrased, full text below)
Even if the media holder has a legal right to access the content, that media holder may not circumvent cryptographic protections in the medium to access the content.
IE: You must use a *licensed* player for DVDs.
IE: The use of DeCSS is illegal, even if the action for which it is used is legal.

Section 28: (paraphrased, full text below)
Lending libraries are a good thing, and should continue to exist; however, they must move their books around in meatspace.

On the upside:
Section 38: (paraphrased, full text below)
In 2 years we should sift through the wreckage.

26.
Whereas Member States should be allowed to provide for an exception to the reproduction right for certain types of reproduction of audio, visual and audio-visual material for private use, accompanied by fair compensation in certain cases; whereas this may include the introduction or continuation of remuneration schemes to compensate for the prejudice to rightholders; whereas, although differences between those remuneration schemes affect the functioning of the Internal Market, those differences, with respect to analogue private reproduction, should not have a significant impact on the development of the Information Society; whereas digital private copying is likely to be more widespread and have a greater economic impact; whereas a distinction should therefore be made between digital private copying and analogue private copying and whereas the conditions of application should in both cases be harmonised to a certain extent; whereas it is of particular importance, in the case of digital private copying, that all rightholders receive fair compensation ";

27.
Whereas, when applying the exception on private copying, Member States should take due account of technological and economic developments, in particular with respect to digital private copying and remuneration schemes, when effective technological protection measures are available; whereas such exceptions should not inhibit the use of technological measures or their enforcement against circumvention;

28.
Whereas Member States may provide for an exception for the benefit of establishments accessible to the public, such as non-profit-making libraries and equivalent institutions; whereas, however, this should be limited to certain special cases covered by the reproduction right; whereas such an exception should not cover uses made in the context of on-line delivery of protected works or other subject matter; whereas this Directive should be without prejudice to Member States' option to derogate from the exclusive public lending right in accordance with Article 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, as amended by Directive 93/98/EEC; whereas, therefore, specific contracts or licences should be promoted which, without creating imbalances, favour such establishments and the disseminative purposes they serve;

38.
Whereas, after a period of two years following the date of implementation of this Directive, the Commission should report on its application; whereas this report should examine in particular whether the conditions set out in the Directive have resulted in ensuring a proper functioning of the Internal Market, and should propose action if necessary,

Re:Fucking stupid (2)

HiThere (15173) | more than 13 years ago | (#298930)

You're assuming that their goals are anything similar to yours. I don't think that the evidence bears this out. In so far as I have been able to determine, the purpose of the DMCA, and allied pieces of legislature, e.g., UCITA, are to foster the creation of a centralized authority. To this end, they are so designed that a small business will not be able to use them to protect itself. They will be too expensive. This is based on the US version, but I presume that provisions of similar effect will be in place in the European version.

Consider this a prediction for testing, after the fashion of an experimental test. If it is wrong, then the theory behind it is wrong.


Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.

And thus we are silenced (2)

rakjr (18074) | more than 13 years ago | (#298931)

The "art" of politics goes against everything it is supposed to be about. Rather than truly representing the people, it is a game of compromising values. The biggest players are not even in office. They are the media. It was a trip to hear clips taken during the Clinton scandel. Hearing them back to back over a matter of minutes showed just how much a change had taken place and the change was accomplished through the media. The first clips were of democrats stating that if there was any truth to the sex scandel then Clinton should be immediately removed from office, then there is the slow slide to the point of "everyone does it."Locally, we recently had elections where the incumbant lost. The incumbant lost because people were fed up with the spend and tax mentality of the city commission (yes, the actually spend the money before they even have a source for it). But to read the local paper you would think the election was about ecology and anti-republican whiplash from the presidential race. Check out the editorial page and you find in the small paragraphs a different picture than the front page stories. Everyone is complaining about the way things are being railroaded over the community without any real representation from our own elected officials. Still the media machine pounds forward with its lies. After a while people will start to accept the newspaper view and the people will adjust just like they did for Clinton.The media speaks loudest and thus we are silenced and demonized (no offence BSD).

Re:Power corrupts (1)

Shadowlion (18254) | more than 13 years ago | (#298932)

I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)

I'm all for that too, but I'd like it to work in reverse.

If you get into an accident, are injured or killed in a manner that wearing a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet would've prevented those injuries, and no third party is involved/negligent, you forfeit your right to sue.

In other words, if you slam into a tree and get paralyzed, and your paralysis was preventable by wearing a seatbelt, you would be unable to sue the landowners for, say, the tree being too close to the road or something similar.

I'll completely for the right of somebody to choose to wear a helmet or seatbelt, but I'm also for that person to have to bear the responsibilities those rights confer. What angers me is that so many people want it both ways: they want the right to be able to wear a seatbelt, but they also want the "right" to escape responsibility by suing anyone and everyone in sight for their own actions.



--

Re:And .. (2)

BilldaCat (19181) | more than 13 years ago | (#298934)

Ahhh, but the only way to get in is to become one of them. And to do that you have to sell your soul to the 'vested interests'.

Yep. or you'll be bullied by other corrupt congressman into doing what they want, anyway. :\

And .. (4)

BilldaCat (19181) | more than 13 years ago | (#298935)

writing comments on Slashdot complaining about it is definetly the right way to go to try and fix things.

I've written letters to my congressman (and yes, I realize this article is discussing Europe, but we have the DMCA to deal with here), but as expected all I got back was the standard blow off form letter.

Face it, we're screwed. If you don't like it.. get into politics and try and change it. Change isn't going to happen from the outside, because too many people are ignorant/don't care about the issue.

Re:Extent of encrytption protection. (2)

mindstrm (20013) | more than 13 years ago | (#298936)

Yes, because the point is, they didn't discover it on theri own; you gave them an explicit instruction & tool to violate the control mechanism. Your intent was clear.

Re:can someone explain... (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 13 years ago | (#298940)

Fair use includes things like reviews, criticism, satire, etc. What IP owner would willingly allow fair use if it may make them look bad?

Not so bad... (1)

Betcour (50623) | more than 13 years ago | (#298943)

Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so.

Which means that the MPAA has to give schools and libraries access to a DeCSS program of some sort. This could lead to interesting thing :)

Re:Extent of encrytption protection. (2)

barracg8 (61682) | more than 13 years ago | (#298947)

  • Yes
No. Maybe.
Remember that this is not legislation, only a dirtective, and it depends on how this is framed into law.

The dvd consortium attacked decss by claiming that it violated a trade secret. Cue cat hired a lot of lawyers, and fired off a lot of threatening letters, but at the end of the day didn't have a leg to stand on. Even their lawyers weren't mad enough to enter a courtroom and argue that a one byte xor was a trade secret.

It really is far to soon to judge whether a tool to crack such a simple obfuscation could be attacked under the legislation that may well not become law for another year and a half.

G.

Time to start using freenet. (4)

barracg8 (61682) | more than 13 years ago | (#298948)

  • Technical copies on the net
    The Directive provides an obligatory exception for service providers, telecommunications operators and certain others in limited circumstances for particular acts of reproduction which are considered technical copies. A satisfactory balance has been found for what has been an extremely controversial issue. There are many conditions to be fulfilled before the exemption applies. In particular, those acts of reproduction have to form an essential part of a technological process and take place in the context of a transmission in a network. The Directive ensures therefore that there will be effective operation of the World Wide Web for those who place copyrighted material on the net and those who transmit or carry such material.
So caching web proxies are exempt - now this is a only an EU directive, not a piece of legislation, so we will have to wait and see how this is drafted into law in individual countries, but there might be a nice big loophole for freenet [freenetproject.org] here :-)

G.

yes yes (1)

malachai (62092) | more than 13 years ago | (#298949)

1984, were a few years behind. ------ you cant rape the willing

Re:If I buy a pad-lock... (2)

iceT (68610) | more than 13 years ago | (#298950)


Um... yeah...

CueCat Scanners.

Oh, S**t (4)

Noryungi (70322) | more than 13 years ago | (#298954)

All right, this is not good.

However, I can't help but wonder if:
  • This is going to be applied at all. There has been a lot of talks already in the EU about avoiding DMCA-style excess.
  • If this is really going to affect the local law, which tend to allow copying for personal & backup purposes.
  • If this could be attacked in front of the European Court of Justice, especially given the free speech implications. Of course, this last solution means anywhere from 5 to 7 years before any case is reviewed...


I might add that there is always the possibility of EU legislation, passed in the European Parliament, overturning this recommendation.

There is also the intriguing possibility that EU-wide protest will make the Commission change its mind pronto, a little bit like the recent protests in France against the proposed media tax...

Interesting times ahead. Can I still read Slashdot, Mr Commissioner? Pretty please? =)

Extent of encrytption protection. (3)

limpdawg (77844) | more than 13 years ago | (#298955)

If I were an author, and I wrote a book and encrypted and allowed people to download it off a website, but sold people the program to decrypt. And if the encryption was only single byte XOR, and somebody cracked it, and released a program that would decrypt XOR encrypted files, and would allow you to enter whatever key you wanted. If they gave out my key along with this program could sue them for what they did? Even if my encryption is incredibly weak is it still legally protected?

Re:Oh, S**t (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 13 years ago | (#298958)

Your question:
Is this is really going to affect the local law, which tend to allow copying for personal & backup purposes.

Nope. Exactly that it is about. How to grant the public rights of fair use. And how to balance it in a a way that inventors are encauraged to publish via the internet.

BTW: I can not et why on 7. you often reffer to free speach.

Taking something wich is not yours and is protected(and even encrypted) and republishing is not free speach.

Free Speach is about being allowed to say/express something. Like: I believe in XYZ. Even if you repeat what one else spoke before, its a total different matter.

Regards,
angel'o'sphere

Re:can someone explain... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 13 years ago | (#298959)

No.

You are not breaking the law, also not the new intended.

As long as you do not further distribute it!

Also you are not allowed to destroy the original "copy" and to distribute your home made decrypted copy.

However you could make a bitwise copy, destroy the original and give away the copy.

Thats all what it is about.

Regards,
angel'o'sphere

Re:can someone explain... (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 13 years ago | (#298960)

well, that should get moderated off topic.

All your arguements are in fact off topic.

None of them is in conflict with the (intended) new law.

The point is: for what reason do you decrypt(brak the code)?

For distribution of decrypted copies? Or for your own personal purpose?

Your own personal purpose is fair use. period.

If you are afraid that devices get so hard encrypted that this is no longer possibel to trust them, you should work on establishing peer reviews BEFORE it is shipped into the shops, not after it is.

For making a copy od the device to compete in a free market: what is that about competition if you do not compete? Try to build it your own, thats competition!

If you have a test in your class you expect that no one is looking over your shoulders and is writing (with better words?) what you write.

READING it after the test, thats competition and fair use. Not during the test.

Regards,
angel'o'sphere

Re:Fucking stupid (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 13 years ago | (#298961)

Oh yes, how intelligent. The provision for fair use will be granted voluntarily by the copyright holders. I.e. it is no
different from not having a fair use provision at all.


Where in the document is the speach about "voluntary"?

They are legaly FORCED: either to make agreements with universities and schools etc. or to prepare a way to grand tehm fair use which does not interfere with the standard distribution way.

Regards,
angel'o'sphere

BTW: as far as I know true fair use does not exist in the U.S. it does in Europe.

The EU Commission should be abolished (1)

dwalsh (87765) | more than 13 years ago | (#298964)

The commissionars were almost fired a few years ago because of corruption, but the EU Parliment chickened out in the end.

The Commission is a giant quango (an unelected government body) appointed by individual EU governments. Such an important role should be directly elected by the public or else the powers should be handed over to the EU parliment.

This news on copyright law is disgusting. I thought this had recently been ruled out for the EU?

can someone explain... (1)

BenHmm (90784) | more than 13 years ago | (#298968)

...how this story is not actually, "EU make attempting to steal something illegal"?

I must be being stupid here - because apart from taking stuff that you haven't paid for, I can't think of any reason why you would want to break the encryption on copyrighted materials.

Can anyone tell me otherwise?

Re:I'm from American too but... (1)

ChristTrekker (91442) | more than 13 years ago | (#298969)

Amen to that. Sure, some soldiers are just going to be gov't drones, doing whatever they're told. But I am confident that many retain a conscience and a free will and wouldn't bear arms against their own countrymen.

Of course, that raises the issue that there are too many gov't agencies empowered to wield weapons against the populace already, yet the liberals want to put further restrictions on law-abiding gun-owning citizens. Why is that? Do they really want to live in a police state?


I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.

Information Society (1)

cheezus (95036) | more than 13 years ago | (#298973)

The EU seems to have discovered not only the Information Society

Well, so long as it was a legally purchaced copy of Hack, they can listen to "Peace and Love Incorporated" all they want

---

At least it looks a bit better than the US variant (3)

guran (98325) | more than 13 years ago | (#298974)

... or what do you say
"Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices. A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy.

Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so. It will be up to Member States to ensure that such means exist."
(My empasis)

So, rightholders have legal protection for their encryptions schemes, but they must provide a bypass for "fair use" copies.

Re:can someone explain... (1)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 13 years ago | (#298975)

So that you can play DVDs on your linux box for one.
--

Re:Oh, S**t (1)

^ (104273) | more than 13 years ago | (#298976)

If this could be attacked in front of the European Court of Justice, especially given the free speech implications.

What makes you think that European nations and the EU have free speech protections like the US does?

Re:Power corrupts (1)

jgerman (106518) | more than 13 years ago | (#298979)

Uhh that's just dumb. If it is negligent for the tree to be to close to the road, you cannot remove the right for someone to sue. And if it's not negligent then they can't sue anyway.

Besides you're assuming serveral premises that aren't true.

First you're making unsubstantiated assumptions. It may be the case that if the seatbelt WAS worn it could have resulted in more serious injury. There is no way to prove one way or the other that the seatbelt would have helped or hindered. Even with a strong inductive argument ABOUT THAT ONE PARTICULAR CASE. A driver has no foreknowledge that a seatbelt would help or not. Therefore he is justified in making whatever choice he feels the safest.

I certainly don't condone rampant law suits, especially when they are definitley aren't warranted. But your argument makes no sense.

Re:At least it looks a bit better than the US vari (3)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 13 years ago | (#298980)

In some ways it's worse than the DMCA, since it narrowly scopes fair use to schools and libraries only. Private citizens gain no right (or means) to fair use by that provision. Read the next paragraph of that page:

However, as far as private copying is concerned, the quality and quantity of private copying and the growth of electronic commerce all mean that there should be greater protection for rightholders in digital recording media (whereby unlimited numbers of perfect copies may be made rapidly). In certain limited cases, where rightholders have made the means available, private copying may be carried out.
Funny how they mention the 'means available' after saying the 'means' will only be required to be 'available' to schools and libraries. If you ask me, that measure wasn't placed to insure fair use, but rather to squelch the kind of support in the academic community against this bill in the EU that there is against the DMCA (which makes no such exemptions for schools and libraries) in the United States. It doesn't protect end users of the copyrighted material, it doesn't protect reporters which might want to use an exerpt of the copyrighted material, it doesn't protect anyone who would want to use portions of the copyrighted material to form a parody.

The DMCA didn't address any of these things (so they're still up to court interpretation, which is good), and allowed exemptions for interoperability (something the EU directive explicitly does not -- "rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices").

Re:Fucking stupid (1)

marx (113442) | more than 13 years ago | (#298983)

Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either
voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties [...]
There it says it. If you interpret "by way of agreements" to mean "legally forced", I guess you're free to do that, but "agreement" normally means that both parties agree, and not one party forcing another.

Fucking stupid (3)

marx (113442) | more than 13 years ago | (#298984)

The arguments they present are frankly fucking stupid. Here is an excerpt:

Legal protection of anti-copying devices and exceptions
This has been amongst the most political and controversial topics of the whole debate. The problem has been how to ensure that an exception e.g. an act of reproduction or copying for illustration for teaching can be made use of where a copyrightholder also has in place an anti-copying device e.g. a digital tracker designed to prevent piracy. Failure to address this would have meant that the exceptions could have been meaningless in some cases. Here too there has been a balanced compromise.
And here is their argument why there has been a balanced compromise:
Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so.

Oh yes, how intelligent. The provision for fair use will be granted voluntarily by the copyright holders. I.e. it is no different from not having a fair use provision at all.

I can see why they have produced these law changes though. From the beginning of the document:

Adoption of the Directive fulfils one of the priority objectives set by the Lisbon European Council as part of the process to preparing the transition to a competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy in the EU.

This goal does not justify removing fair use though, and it certainly does not justify lying about some non-existent compromise. I think they are afraid of being left behind by the US, and have overreacted. Hopefully all this will be revoked as soon as people realize the impact it will have on society (which will probably take 10 years or so, bleh). If anyone knows of any strong opposing forces inside the commision or something similar, please post some links to give us some hope...

Re:can someone explain... (1)

jester_uk (125338) | more than 13 years ago | (#298985)

Fair use? Educational purposes?

Well, the section that's highlighted in the article here actually says that the copyright holder must make available some means of making legitimate copies, and sites Educational use as an example. Presumably it would extend to other 'Fair use' circumstances.

Re:what does DCC stand for? (1)

modecx (130548) | more than 13 years ago | (#298989)

If you would have done a bit more investigating (on the 'net namely) you would have found: <Drum Roll> Direct Client to Client Protocol.

Personal Use copying (1)

seaker (141236) | more than 13 years ago | (#298992)

One of the saner provisions of this is that you can make limited numbers of personal copies of mateerial. So the police will not be breaking down my front door to seize my mp3 collection.

-----------------------------

Re:And .. (1)

seaker (141236) | more than 13 years ago | (#298993)

If you don't like it.. get into politics and try and change it.

Ahhh, but the only way to get in is to become one of them. And to do that you have to sell your soul to the 'vested interests'.

Power corrupts, etc. etc.

-----------------------------

Re:Power corrupts (1)

seaker (141236) | more than 13 years ago | (#298994)

I would argue that EU govenrments are much closer to the people and implement laws that are closer to what the people want than the US.

The vast majority of Europeans are quite happy with our gun laws and the related lack of widespread gun violence in our societies.

I fail to see the link between Mad Cow Disease and firearms. BSE is a symptom of intensive agriculture policies, questionable vet advice and a government (UK) cock up rather than anything else.

The anti-nazi laws again are driven by the public. We have good reason accross Europe to implement laws that prohibit incitement to hatered.

And to top it all besides European countries are much more relaxed about drugs, sex and religion than the US. And that is reflected in our laws too.

-----------------------------

Re:Power corrupts (1)

HerrGlock (141750) | more than 13 years ago | (#298996)

I'm a firm believer that US laws were intentionally started only to bring punishment to those who unnecessarily harm another person. Active, not 'state of being' law origins. Decrypting messages is not, in and of itself, harmful to others, what you do with the decrypted information is another ballgame alltogether. Decompiling software is not harmful either, but if you use that information only to copy the code and sell 'your own' version, again, that's a different story.

I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)

It is interesting that the most closed societies are starting to open and the most open ones are closing down, China excepted. I wonder if our grandchildren will recognize the societies as they stand now.

DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]

THIS IS NOT A TROLL (4)

e_lehman (143896) | more than 13 years ago | (#298998)

THE PARENT POST IS NOT A TROLL. THE POSTER IS FROM THE TIMES OF LONDON.

The short answer is that copyright is not an unlimited right. For example, if I purchase a music CD, then I can legally copy it to tape to listen to in the car. Or I can make a copy for a friend, provided I don't do so commercially. As another example, the US Supreme Court has affirmed that I can record a television broadcast to watch it later.

Of course, large copyright holders would like to destroy such "fair use" rights so that they can double or triple charge for the same material. Since these fair use rights are so well established, their line of attack has been indirect: subvert these established rights by technological means.

A recent example concerns DVD movies. If you purchase a movie on DVD, you have a legal right to play it on your Linux machine. Except the movie studios try to absolutely prevent you from exercising this right by encrypting the movies.

Fair enough. But here's the problem: their encryption is a farce, and few believe that any form of encryption can ever succeed in this context. So they get laws like the DMCA passed that make trafficking in programs that subvert their encryption illegal. So you have the right to watch the movie, there are tools that let you watch the movie, but creating or distributing such a tool is illegal. Go figure.

Furthermore, banning trafficking in such programs has a chilling effect on free speech. For example, I can not post a certain decryption program that is shorter than this paragraph for you here without risking a lawsuit by the motion picture industry. Slashdot is full of people who communicate all day, every day in computer code. Now our essential mode of communication is curtailed so that wealthy execs in the recording and motion picture industry can illicitly rake in more cash. Furthermore, a recent court ruling limits my right even to post a *link* to such a program. We're not talking about pornography or atomic weapons secrets here (both of which I could post), but a little snippet of computer code (which I can not).

I work in the Theory of Computation Group at MIT. A central activity is the creation and cracking of cryptographic protocols as a scientific endeavor. If a protocol is used to protect any copyrighted material, then is our right to publish a crack in a research journal curtailed? This is not a theoretical problem: on advice of counsel, Edward Felton of Princeton University has refrained from publishing his cracks of several Secure Digitial Music Initiative watermarking systems. I personally know several researchers who have worked on watermarking. Since since the SDMI systems employ a whole spectrum of the techniques, must that entire field of academic research be abandoned? I hope not, but the ground is certainly shaky.

Yes, opposition to such laws may benefit people who like to swap free music. But these laws also trample on fundamental rights at the same time. When there's a clash between the rights of all citizens and the rights of the oh-so-seedy recording industry, there is no question which ought to prevail. That is why organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, are fighting to overturn such laws. And that is why Slashdot is so up in arms. Jealously guarding our basic freedoms is the duty of all citizens in a democracy.

Re:The Europeans could protest in the streets (2)

Drone-X (148724) | more than 13 years ago | (#298999)

I'd suggest the Europeans revolt, but they're a disarmed sheeple, and the massacre would be horrible.

oh well, at leat I'm an American.

Last time I checked Americans haven't relovted against the DMCA... with or without guns. What's your point?

Re:The Europeans could protest in the streets (2)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 13 years ago | (#299000)

Funny how the IRA and ETA have been able to wage terrorist campaigns for decades, despite not being able to walk into Walmart and buy high explosives.

Re:Power corrupts (1)

woody_jay (149371) | more than 13 years ago | (#299001)

I do not believe there should be laws against harming yourself, that's your choice and you should have to also bear the consequences of the actions rather than have a governmental body tell you what you must do (seatbelt laws come to mind here along with motorcycle helmets.)

Please don't think that I intend the following comment as some angry response to something I disagree with, but merely as an addition to the discussion. As a hard-nosed farm boy, I would like to agree with you comment that I have taken the liberty in pasting to my reply. This seems to be the view of Socrates in what is known today as the Ethical Rule of Egoism. This states: "An act is right if it creates a positive balance of consequences for the agent, and an act is wrong if it creates a negative balance of consequences for the agent." In your reply, you only mention the agent. The idiot who does not wear the helmet or doesn't wear the seatbelt. You don't mention the Wife/Kids/Driver of the other car/whatever that are not the agent. This seems to coralate with the selfishness I mentioned in my previous reply. I have a tendancy to agree more with (although not completely with) Budda's idea that an act is right if it creates a positive balance of consequences for everyone except the agent, and an act is wrong if it creates a negative balance of consequences for everyone except the agent.

My point is that there is always more to any situation than "me". Does this apply to the Decrypting of messages and such? I don't know. It's not for me to define. I think that governments go too far in many cases; gun control for example.

I wonder if our grandchildren will recognize the societies as they stand now.

Ask your grandparents if this is these are the societies they saw 25-30 years ago. I guess things change. We become more 'civilized/educated' and we think we now have the answers that they didn't have 25-30 years ago and the cycle continues. In my humble opinion, it's not that we are any more civilized or educated, but simply more selfish.

Re:Power corrupts (2)

woody_jay (149371) | more than 13 years ago | (#299002)

One of the problems with the EU gov't is they have already decided they know better than 'the people' what is good for them.

I'm not pretending that I know where you are from, but in a comment; I can't see how this differs so much from the society of the U.S. In all actuality, this is the idea of most governing bodies. If you think about it, the only reason for creating laws (which we are so good at here in the U.S.) is to protect "The People" from themselves or from other people.

The only type of government where "The People" would be trusted completely is tre communism which would mean there is no government as well as no private ownership of property (side note). I honestly can say that I don't believe this would work. People are selfish by default and without laws to protect us and each other from the selfishness that exists we would be much worse off than we are today.

Does this mean I think that it isn't going to far? No. Most "politicians" are selfish as well and seek to serve special intrest groups that pump money into their campaign fund. The real problem here in the U.S. is that instead of enforcing the laws that exist, we choose to just make another one. Talk about a catch-22.

Is there an answer? If there is I don't have it. I'm just here to offer my opinion. And as always...

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Re:can someone explain... (5)

clare-ents (153285) | more than 13 years ago | (#299004)


Reasons to break encryption on copyrighted materials :

To convert it to another format to use on a different playback media
[e.g. to decrypt audio to allow me to burn a CD to play in my discman]
[e.g. to covert a DVD to VHS to allow me to watch it on the upstairs TV]
[e.g. to view an e-book on my palm pilot]

To generate an archive
[e.g. to convert all my e-books to plain text so I can search them automatically]
[e.g. to extract the lyrics from my online music collection to allow me to search them]

To write my own viewer
[e.g. to write a DVD decoder that allows me to fastforward through the adverts]
[e.g. to rewrite an audio player to do soundprocessing on the way to my soundcard to fake surround sound / EQ the frequency response for my speakers]

To allow me to quote from a work
[e.g. To produce a comparison of two e-books by quoting the relevant passages]

To allow me to view a work as I choose
[e.g. To allow me to snapshot individual frames of a cartoon to find out how it was drawn.]

To make a security copy of the media
[e.g. to copy a CD incase of theft of the original]

To copy off a friend to replace a destroyed copy
[e.g. to replace a CD with a CDR burnt from a friend who owns the same album after the dog ate mine]

The story is

EU makes it legal for copyright holders to enforce arbitrary restrictions on what you are allowed to do with media you paid for.

Re:well, all you euro pussies... (1)

AntiNorm (155641) | more than 13 years ago | (#299005)

They don't have a constitution, so their government will get away with it, too!

Last time I checked, Europe consisted of more than just one country. The tone of this comment, as well as the topic itself of this post, seem to imply that all of Europe is covered by one large government. Wrong.

---
The AOL-Time Warner-Microsoft-Intel-CBS-ABC-NBC-Fox corporation:

Re:can someone explain... (1)

shepd (155729) | more than 13 years ago | (#299006)

>All your arguements are in fact off topic.

No, I think they are on topic. If they weren't then why would you even bother responding with encrytion-law based arguments? Now, if you post consisted of anti-blender statements, or something equally silly, I'd say my post was offtopic.

>None of them is in conflict with the (intended) new law.

We are discussing about encryption that you will not be legally allowed to break unless the manufacturer *chooses* to let you do so. To let you break encryption that they worked so hard to design would be silly, to say the least.

Allow me to quote:

"Legal protection of anti-copying devices and exceptions"
"Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices."

Seems clear to me.

"Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so."

Are you a school? Didn't think so. And besides, letting schools get at the encryption is optional.

"In certain limited cases, where rightholders have made the means available, private copying may be carried out."

Repeat after me: "where rightholders have made the means available, private copying may be carried out.". ie: You must convince the DVD team that you should be allowed to exercise your rights.

>The point is: for what reason do you decrypt(brak the code)?

I think I told you why in the post before.

>For distribution of decrypted copies? Or for your own personal purpose?

For my personal safety, comfort, and rights. You are trying to drag an issue of decrypted copies into an argument in which I have never mentioned about them, until now.

>Your own personal purpose is fair use. period.

Look at the sections from the proposal that I have quoted. They don't seem to recognize fair use laws...

>If you are afraid that devices get so hard encrypted that this is no longer possibel to trust them, you should work on establishing peer reviews BEFORE it is shipped into the shops, not after it is.

And how can I do that when the device is encrypted?

>For making a copy od the device to compete in a free market: what is that about competition if you do not compete? Try to build it your own, thats competition!

Ok, so the question is, if you build it on your own, will you be able to use it with the other encrypted devices (no, since you can't even decrypt and reverse engineer their software or communications protocols)? Or will each and every device be a monopoly unto itself (ahh, the dreaded anti-free market word, monopoly).

>If you have a test in your class you expect that no one is looking over your shoulders and is writing (with better words?) what you write.

That's plagarism. That's different. Why? Because doing what you suggest (simply redesigning an existing product without permission) is usually already a violation of patent laws. We don't need new laws to protect this.

>READING it after the test, thats competition and fair use. Not during the test.

And that's what the decryption is all about, reading it after the test.

And soon you won't be able to do that.

So, as you say, and I say, no more competition and no more fair use. No more free market. And the trolls on slashdot call Linux users communists! What are these people making these laws?

Re:can someone explain... (4)

shepd (155729) | more than 13 years ago | (#299007)

>I can't think of any reason why you would want to break the encryption on copyrighted materials.

I can. Consider these future devices (most already designed), currently "in the works":

- Cars that drive themselves
- Telephones you can talk to (literally) to phone people
- Quarter sized audio discs for cheap audio players

And these, already manufactured and "consumerized", devices:

- Digital LCD monitors
- Digital speaker systems
- Colour photocopiers
- Digital GPS receivers
- DBS receivers and Digital VCRs / TVs

Now, why do these matter? Because I think I should be able to:

- Drive where I want, when I want, and as safe as I want. To do that, I would like uninvolved, unsponsored, third party reviews on the car controlling computer software, which can't happen under this law.
- I want to phone who I want, when I want, without others eavesdropping. How can I trust the telephone company's digital encryption when I can't even try to break it myself?
- I want to play my audio on a high end system, and have it sound GOOD. Those players will be likely be crap for sure, and since no third party can manufacture a competing player, none will ever be made.

- I want to watch anything I want, and create any art I want. With encrypted digital monitor technology, the company owning the encryption could literally tell you they won't license you to use your computer to do these things should they disagree with you or your morals.
- I want to listen to my music where and when I want, and I want to be able to design good sounding speaker systems. Can't do that with encrypted signals, as a private user I'll never be licensed to decrypt the signals.
- I want to be able to take the part of the code out of my colour photocopier that puts a green square over currency so I can photocopy a $1 bill (with a black mark covering "This Note Is Legal Tender"). If I can't do that I can't create the $1 bill collage I wanted to do for my old art class.
- I want independent third party review of any GPS receiver I use before I can feel secure about it. Can't happen if the device is encrypted.
- I want to be able to record a show to watch later. I have been given this right under the 1984 BetaMax ruling. I can't exercise my given rights with this law in place, should the path be fully encrypted, as with new HDTV.

- I want to learn how all the above devices work so I can compete in the free market, which is what the EU and the US are supposed to be about, right? Can't do that legally with encrypted devices.

Are those enough reasons?

Oh not at all: Re:The Europeans... in the streets (2)

WolfWithoutAClause (162946) | more than 13 years ago | (#299008)

>I'd suggest the Europeans revolt, but they're a disarmed sheeple, and the
>massacre would be horrible.

Don't need a gun to hurt people. Rioters are quite ingenious at making ad hoc weapons, knives, Molotov cocktails? Rocks? Glass bottles?

The UK has had riots in the past. It tends to topple governments or atleast reflect very badly on them. Political fallout is bad enough if you are a politician. Guns are only necessary with really BAD government. Mostly Europe doesn't have government that bad.

And governments find it politically very difficult to use guns when the population don't have them. Look what happened when China killed a few students.

Full text of directive not available (1)

Keith_Beef (166050) | more than 13 years ago | (#299009)

Or at least, it's very well hidden! Most of the commentaries on these directives allow you to download a PDF of the full text of the directive being discussed. This particular commentary has no link to such. So all the posts on /. about how this directive will affect us and how it compares to the yanks' DMCA is premature.

Why climb mountains? (1)

Slashdolt (166321) | more than 13 years ago | (#299010)

What good does it do to climb a mountain? Does anyone benefit? Why play games? Ok, these things don't result in doing something illegal and neither should breaking encryption.

Now... If I was to take something from someone's house at the top of the mountain, that would be a crime. If I break the encryption, but do not otherwise do anything illegal with the material, why is that a crime?

Punish the crime. "Don't just make the act criminal, also make it criminal to do the steps that lead to the criminal act." Guess what? Any action can eventually lead to the commission of a crime, so let's just make doing everything illegal.

If I buy a pad-lock... (3)

Slashdolt (166321) | more than 13 years ago | (#299011)

If I buy a pad-lock and take it apart and learn how it works, that should be illegal too.

Outside of software, are there any real analogies for this type of stuff? If I buy something and tamper with it, is there any other case where I can get into legal trouble?

Re:And (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 13 years ago | (#299014)

Point taken, but this is the first I knew about this happening©

Where did I find out? Reading about it in the trash free newspaper on the bus on my way to work this morning©

If I'd known, I would have written© I signed the anti-software-patent petition, and would have done the same thing against this had I known©

Re:And (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 13 years ago | (#299015)

Note to self - do not post to Slashdot using Netscape 6.0 for Windows.

Need links. (2)

Alien54 (180860) | more than 13 years ago | (#299017)

The home page of the European Commission is here [eu.int]

The home page of the Information Society is here [eu.int]

Try to find a link to the actual full legislative text however.

Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip

At least ... (2)

Wordsmith (183749) | more than 13 years ago | (#299019)

... It's nice to have a reminder that the US doesn't have a monopoly or corpratocracy.

Loopholes? (2)

dstone (191334) | more than 13 years ago | (#299020)

Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices. A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy.

Two feeble attempts at finding loopholes...

1) Does the word "device", and later "manufacture", imply physical devices only? What about a pure software solution? Probably not, but worth a shot.

2) What's with the word "etc." in that?! How vague is that!? If I code up and run a DECSS equivalent myself, have I "manufactured" or "distributed" or "etc."'d anything?

Re:If I buy a pad-lock... (1)

GungaDan (195739) | more than 13 years ago | (#299021)

"This tag not to be removed under penalty of law, except by the end consumer of the mattress..."

Effectively things stay as they are (What you say) (1)

rxmd (205533) | more than 13 years ago | (#299023)

Note that this changes very little about the existing situation in most European countries, since the EU law merely unifies the laws present in the European countries at the moment.

More information about this is on the Heise news ticker [heise.de] , with special information regarding the situation in Germany. As always, Heise posts this in German, so those of you who participate in the English monoculture have to use the Fish or something similar.

The article on Heise specifically points out that in Germany, the situation doesn't change at all with the new law, more or less, and especially that napstering music is not becoming illegal, but that it never was legal for other than private purposes in Germany. Which is where they're right.

You wanna beat these things? (1)

TrebleJunkie (208060) | more than 13 years ago | (#299024)

You wanna know the way to beat the DCMA and stuff like this from the EU?

Easy

Beat 'em in the marketplace.

That's right. Beat 'em in the marketplace.

Fuck the lawyers, fuck the legislators. You can't sue em, you can't buy 'em. Beat 'em where you can always beat 'em, and that's in the marketplace. Go into business and create and/or distribute digital content and devices to play it back that do *not* have any encryption or copy protection in them. Stand up for the fair use of the consumer. Proclaim that fact loud and proud.

(Be willing to take a hit from piracy, because it's going to happen. Just because you're good to people doesn't mean that people are going to be good back to you. Do what you have to do -- go after the Napsters and the Gnutella's and the rest of the thieves out there, but don't use the shotgun tactics today's media companies are trying to use, because they won't work.)

And, of course, once your fair-use protecting media and devices take off in the marketplace, be sure to license the technology to the other bastards for some ungodly amount of money.

Ed R.Zahurak

Re:How are Australia Israel and JApan doing? (1)

LowneWulf (210110) | more than 13 years ago | (#299025)

Australia has some pretty dumb net laws...
They're long gone.

My take (1)

vinnythenose (214595) | more than 13 years ago | (#299026)

Here's why I believe breaking encryption should be legal.

Basically, because it encourages better end products. Using the example of DVD encryption. If you can't break the encryption then well, you're stuck with whatever decrypters you're forced to buy. Good or bad. If people can legally decrypt the code then it means that the way to make money is the make the decrypter/player better than the competition's. Faster, easier to use, nifty features and eye candy, etc.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to load my old MS Word documents under another word processor. What if my new word processor is way better than MS Word.

Same as how I don't really see how reverse engineering is wrong. It means you have to stay one step ahead (feature, speed, size wise) of the competition that are busy reverse engineering your product.

This in my mind is what capitalism is about. Making money because you have the better product, not because you have a strangle hold because no one will support other encryptions and no on is allowed to decrypt your information.

What are your thoughts?

This is not like the DMCA (2)

h4x0r-3l337 (219532) | more than 13 years ago | (#299028)

One effect of these laws is to make it illegal to break encryption on copyright material.

This is not at all what it says. What it says is that in case the rightholder has implemented an anti-copying device, rightholder should also provide a means for copying under one of the exceptions (e.g. for illustration or teaching).
(but note though that while breaking copyright protection might not be illegal, subsequent copying of the material still is)

Re:This is the same European control that gave us: (1)

Carl Drougge (222479) | more than 13 years ago | (#299029)

Don't forget the chocolate. When there isn't enough <whatever> in it, you can't call it chocolate. They suggested calling it fat instead. Appealing, no?

Stupid EU (1)

michaelo (224201) | more than 13 years ago | (#299031)

And i thought the EU isnt as stupid as the US are..
So I was wrong...
--
A nation ... is just a society for hating foreigners. - Olaf Stapledon

Re:Third option: Flout the law. Copy anyway. (1)

michaelo (224201) | more than 13 years ago | (#299032)

Good idea, but hard to realize. I mean, in small scale this _will_ happen. It already isnt allowed to copy the Windoze-CD for your friend, but everybody does it (supposed you use this OS..) But in big scale.. not easy.. And the industy has much more money for good lawyers.. Depressing news are around me.. really depressing.. what do i live for if im not allowed to do anything? The world gets smaller and smaller with all this fucking legislative...

Re:Time to start using freenet. (1)

michaelo (224201) | more than 13 years ago | (#299033)

freenet is really bad to use.. would need much facelifting. Not for the average user. I dare to claim i not more about computers and so than the "average" user, but i didnt get freenet running.. ok, i didnt try it really hard, but if it wants to succeed it must be up & running in 5 min, IMO.

society comes last (2)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | more than 13 years ago | (#299039)

Europe's creators, artists and copyright industries can now look forward with renewed confidence to the challenges posed by electronic commerce. At the same time, the Directive secures the legitimate interests of users, consumers and society at large.

I think that says it all .. creators come first, society comes last. Of course, the framers of the US Constitution had it the other way around and it still doesn't make a difference..

Re:Legal but invalid -- the people did not vote (1)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 13 years ago | (#299044)

The UK has a constitution. It's just not written and means essentially what Parliament says it means (no power of judicial review), which in turn equates into what the majority party says it means, which in turn equates to what Tony Blair says it means.

Re:What strict regulations? long arms have few (1)

leviramsey (248057) | more than 13 years ago | (#299045)

Okay, you can have your .22 and see how you fare against a professionally trained militant (PD, ATF, FBI, JTF (narcs), etc, etc) with a Heckler & Koch MP-5.
Thats not a rebellion, its a slaughter.

All I can say is: Duh!

Yes, against the military, you don't stand a chance. But in turn you make it a little more difficult for the military (ie: you might get a couple shots off). If a lot of people are owning guns in a close proximity, you'd have issues of covering fire and guerrilla war, which isn't exactly the military's idea of a good time.

Re:can someone explain... (1)

MrBud (261721) | more than 13 years ago | (#299046)

I can't think of any reason why you would want to break the encryption on copyrighted materials.

DeCSS ring a bell? Fair use? Educational purposes?

What strict regulations? long arms have few (1)

typical geek (261980) | more than 13 years ago | (#299047)

Basically, look like you're 18, walk into a Walmart, and have money.

Pistols are a little more regulated, but if you live in a state that respects your Constitutional Rights, like Texas, Virginia or California, they're easy enough to come by.

Re:society comes last (1)

EllisDees (268037) | more than 13 years ago | (#299050)

How about if someone comes along with a star trek replicator and makes an exact copy of your silly rock? They haven't stolen anything.

RTFA (1)

markmoss (301064) | more than 13 years ago | (#299058)

Just in case it gets slashdotted, here is the critical section:

Legal protection of anti-copying devices and exceptions

This has been amongst the most political and controversial topics of the whole debate. The problem has been how to ensure that an exception e.g. an act of reproduction or copying for illustration for teaching can be made use of where a copyrightholder also has in place an anti-copying device e.g. a digital tracker designed to prevent piracy. Failure to address this would have meant that the exceptions could have been meaningless in some cases. Here too there has been a balanced compromise.

Firstly, rightholders have complete control over the manufacture, distribution etc. of devices designed to circumvent anti-copying devices. A more flexible solution in this regard would have carried a greater risk of abuse and piracy.

Secondly, the Directive provides that rightholders either voluntarily or by way of agreements with other parties have to provide those who would benefit from a particular exception e.g. schools, libraries in the case of teaching, with the means to do so. It will be up to Member States to ensure that such means exist. However, as far as private copying is concerned, the quality and quantity of private copying and the growth of electronic commerce all mean that there should be greater protection for rightholders in digital recording media (whereby unlimited numbers of perfect copies may be made rapidly). In certain limited cases, where rightholders have made the means available, private copying may be carried out.

Re:can someone explain... (2)

markmoss (301064) | more than 13 years ago | (#299059)

the section that's highlighted in the article here actually says that the copyright holder must make available some means of making legitimate copies [for 'fair use'] Someone mod that up, please -- this is a major point that sydb missed in his own links.

So the EU wants to make breaking someone else's encryption illegal, but require the vendors of encrypted material to supply the decryption for fair use. The devil is in the details (which certainly aren't in that article, and I don't think the Europoliticians who wrote it have any idea of the technical thicket they are heading into). Will the "means" be bundled with the product or otherwise readily available to everyone (e.g., cut-and-paste enabled for one page at a time), or will you have to fill out a ton of forms to prove you really are a teacher, satirist, reviewer, or whatever and have a need to clip out a particular section, and then wait six months until the corp gets around to processing your request. You all know which choice WeSaySo, Inc., would prefer... But will the legislators and courts require that they provide real access for fair use -- even if the technology means that any access is really total access?

Re:The Europeans could protest in the streets (1)

00001300 (304208) | more than 13 years ago | (#299065)

What makes you think the Americans are not disarmed sheeple? The few people that care enough to exercise their right to bear arms (legally) have to comply with strict regulations.

And most of these people are the sporting/hunting type, and not the type that say, "I want to guard my diminishing civil rights and protect loved ones and/or property from an oppressive government."

But this has almost become a moot point.

The age of colonialism is not over, the only difference is the type of weapons used. Instead of conventional wars, the western governments have shifted to an information war. And they are making the rules up as they go along.

People tired of the usual media tripe visit the Independent Media Center [indymedia.org] .

Re:What strict regulations? long arms have few (1)

00001300 (304208) | more than 13 years ago | (#299066)

Okay, you can have your .22 and see how you fare against a professionally trained militant (PD, ATF, FBI, JTF (narcs), etc, etc) with a Heckler & Koch MP-5.

Thats not a rebellion, its a slaughter.

But you are right, regulations do vary state to state and public sentiment supports tougher handgun regulation (even though most of the recent school shooting incidents cited in support of such regulations rarely involve handguns... but instead .22 type rifles).

People tired of the usual media tripe visit the Independent Media Center [indymedia.org] .

Re:If I buy a pad-lock... (1)

sonofevil (316367) | more than 13 years ago | (#299073)

No. If you buy a padlock, take it apart and learn how it works, fine. If you then put this knowledge to use to take other people's padlocked stuff, you're clearly committing a crime. The problem with legislation like the DMCA seems to be that if you use your lockpicking skills to open up the shed in your backyard, you may be committing a crime... *shrug*

Re:And .. (1)

CrackElf (318113) | more than 13 years ago | (#299074)

"They did break the law. It seems your congressman is smarter and more tech savvy then yourself."

Learn to read. Please. I know that they broke the law ... i dont support napster. My problem has nothing to do with napster. The congressman was unable to comprehend that. That was the point of my post. It would appear that you are similarly afflicted.
-CrackElf

Re:And .. (1)

CrackElf (318113) | more than 13 years ago | (#299075)

"Perhaps if you told us what your "problem" was, it would help. (And let me guess, something about record companies and MP3s...)"

And how does this [slashdot.org] have anything to do with record companies and mp3's? Please tell me. Because that is the exact thing that i wrote about. I do not need to pirate mp3's because i make enough $ to buy the cd's of the few bands that i listen to that are popular enough to be pirated.
-CrackElf

Re:And .. (2)

CrackElf (318113) | more than 13 years ago | (#299076)

Heh, i also wrote my congressman complaining about the insanity ... and I got a letter back saying 'I understand your concerns about Napster, but they broke the law' ... blah ... blah ... blah to which i say huh? i dont support or use Napster. I did not say anything about napster in my letter. I really wish that there were more technologically savvy ppl in their staff. As long as the corps are able to obfuscate the issues enough that the politicians do not have a clue, we will keep getting screwed. Then again i never had much faith in the system.
-CrackElf

Oh well :( (3)

PepsiDman (320304) | more than 13 years ago | (#299077)

Thats us horrible lot in the UK totally screwed then. As soon as this law comes into play, the UK ISPs will happily monitor their customers, and when we download one mp3 we will get an emailed warning, download a second mp3 and the ISP will kick us off, and then send an e-mail to the Music industry's thugs so that they can come kick down my door and walk off with my computers. And if any Amercians out there think they have it bad, at least you have a right to free speech; unlike us poor Brits who have next to no way to fight this law. We are screwed now. Soon I'll be scared to buy a new PC since it will probably be 'secured' by big business to prevent me playing 'illegal' mp3s, I'm scared to buy a HD since it has probably be 'secured' by big business also to prevent me moving my files around as I choose. It boggles me that the British/European Public are so sheeplike. I'm just glad that I've seen and enjoyed the freedom of the internet from the start - Any teenage reading slashdot now, try to imagine what things are going to be like in 10 to 15 years. :( All the best to you all.

Re:If I buy a pad-lock... (1)

Chakat (320875) | more than 13 years ago | (#299078)

Uh, unless you are planing on reselling the matress, you can rip that tag off. Of course, if you do tear the tag off, you have to eat said matress, so YMMV.

Re:can someone explain... (2)

Chakat (320875) | more than 13 years ago | (#299079)

Okay. I've got several DVDs. I have no intention to pirate them, but I want to view them on my Linux box. In order to do that, I would have to use that "evil" DeCSS program (insert ominous music if you're a Media Nazi), and thus break the law. I'm not trying to steal the DVDs, just watch them on the platform of my choice.

Re:can someone explain... (1)

Hilary Rosen (415151) | more than 13 years ago | (#299091)

How about taking something you have paid for?

Fortunately for the MPAA, they put all of Europe in DVD region 2. The only good part of this directive is the elimination of country-by-country distribution rights.
--

Re:can someone explain... (1)

Count Fecal (416007) | more than 13 years ago | (#299092)

Sure. I have a perfect example. Suppose I have purchased a DVD and I want to transfer the audio to a CD-R so I can listen to it in my car. Should I be forced to pay again for material I already own. Suppose the material doesn't exist on CD.

You'd Think They're Raping You... (1)

8934tioegkldxf (442242) | more than 13 years ago | (#299093)

Geez people, this is a good thing, but the way you complain. What it means is that if you make something and you give or sell it to someone on the condition they don't copy and distribute it, there is law to enforce this implicit contract. If you buy a CD or game you are agreeing not to copy and distribute it. If you do, you are not only a thieving bastard, but a liar. What these kinds of laws are effectivly enforcing is people telling the truth. This is a good thing. A very good thing. You don't want a society based on lying.

The simple fact is that if you don't like it, don't frigging buy the thing. What people are mostly complaining about here is entertainment. No one is holding a gun to your head to make you buy Jar-Jar Binks. And just because George Lucas who spent hundereds of millions of dollars to make the thing doesn't want to give it away doesn't make him or the law a bad thing. It makes you a bad person for lying to him saying you won't copy and distribute it, and then doing just that. If someone wants to give away something they've spent their time and money on, good for them, but if someone won't give you something they made unless you agree not to copy and give it away and you don't like that condition, don't buy it, and don't distribute it, and don't steal it.

On the other side of the coin, this law may also be giving people a lot of freedom of speech and privacy protection. But go on, bitch more about how big nasty corporations and their government flunkys that give you all this great media and try to stop people from lying and stealing are actually hurting you.

Re:Fucking stupid (1)

8934tioegkldxf (442242) | more than 13 years ago | (#299094)

If the law seems draconian, it's only because it needs to be. Apparently the effort of breaking into someone's home and stealing their possessions is enough to stop a lot of evil, criminally minded people from actually commiting crime. However the ease of copying media, which the people who made it have only given out on the condition that it not be copied, has shown that a huge percentage of people are actually quite willing to lie cheat and steal. With such a huge number of criminals it takes drastic measure to deal with. The fact is that companies and people can release something without the condition you don't distribute it. If you don't release it like that and you don't like the conditions attached on the media, DON'T BUY IT and DON'T STEAL IT. Very simple. There is plenty of free software and music out there, lots of free movies and the like. Why you have to go out of your way to steal works which people DON'T want out in the public is beyond me.

Re:society comes last (1)

8934tioegkldxf (442242) | more than 13 years ago | (#299095)

If you take a rock and place it in your house, and someone takes it, that isn't okay.

If you take a rock and place it on a hill, and someone takes it, that is okay.

If you take a rock and place it on a hill, with a rope around it saying that people may look but not take the rock, and someone takes it, is that okay? This law says it isn't. If someone takes your sign and rope down so that others don't know they may not take the rock, this law says that isn't okay either.

m'Okay?

Europe is going to copyright the internet? (1)

Signal Nine (442438) | more than 13 years ago | (#299099)

I am very concerned about this. The Internet in Europe has always been a very good place to find music and porn now that the US shut down Napster. Now I may have to get on IRC.

I am also concerned about the fate of Al Gore - Europe seems to be trying to steal his invention!

Re:downloading from IRC? (1)

Signal Nine (442438) | more than 13 years ago | (#299100)

It's typical to use DCC send. Most clients make it fairly easy to do that; try searching your man pages or help file for 'DCC'. The thing, though, is that you can't both be firewalled (as usual).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?