Dutch Government: Make European Copyright Exceptions More Flexible
from the didn't-see-that-coming dept
Well, here's a turn-up for the books. At a time when the European Commission is insisting that the copyright ratchet should be tightened up a few notches by bringing in ACTA, with its perilously vague terms that potentially criminalize even low-level acts of online sharing, here's the Dutch government planning to go in the opposite direction:
The Dutch government wants to change copyright law so new media users can continue to do "creative remixes" of protected content. [It] will no longer wait for the European Commission to find a compromise.
The Dutch government made that clear at a conference it had organized, entitled "Towards Flexible Copyright," where one of the speakers was Bernt Hugenholtz of the Dutch state committee on copyright law. On the subject of YouTube, he said:
"Many of the videos we find there are creative remixes of material protected under copyright. They're mostly for laughs or political commentary, or they're simply absurd. If we applied the law today strictly, we would not be allowed to do these things."
Also speaking at the conference, Netherland's Deputy Justice Minister Fred Teeven said he was exploring "a more flexible system of copyright exceptions that would also work in a European context." One solution would be to replace the limited set of European exceptions to copyright, which are laid down by law and allow no flexibility, with a system more akin to US fair use, which gives courts a certain leeway to determine what exactly is permissible.
Of course, that's an eminently sensible thing to do, not least because it wouldn't require a radical overhaul of European copyright, just some tinkering at the edges. Despite that, the idea is likely to meet stiff resistance -- and not just from the industry dinosaurs that reflexively resist any change that might reverse the copyright ratchet by even a few degrees.
At a time when the European Commission is hell-bent on getting ACTA ratified by the European Parliament, it won't take kindly to national governments going their own way on exceptions. That's particularly the case since the Commission is also drafting a new directive specifically designed to harmonize EU copyright law.
The Dutch government will be well aware of all those countervailing pressures, which makes this unexpected move all the more bold. Let's hope it inspires other EU countries to lend their weight to this much-needed initiative to make European copyright laws fit for the digital age.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, exceptions, flexibility, government, netherlands
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Special 301 list here they come...
"Don't even think about copying *that* part of our copyright law"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's idiotic to just 'do it some other way'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Further there is no reason for exemptions to copyright to increase the number of law suits filed for use of non-licensed material. Any public domain material provides no basis for legal action.
"It's idiotic to just 'do it some other way'."
It is incredibly foolish to believe there is only one valid solution to any problem. Exploring other options is perfectly valid and well within the rights of the Dutch government. It might cause some friction on the issue, but, in case you hadn't noticed, there is plenty of that already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Copyright needs to be wiped out in its current form and scaled back to the original 14 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering that your message is effectively "Your country is SO backwater and uncultured! Have some laws/copyright extensions/ACTA!" it's amazing you can get other countries to even agree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We will just have to invade if they continue with their insane ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm, you know the street goes both ways, right?
If we loosen "fair use" rules, which I take is what this proposal is addressing, Then Sony might be able to incorporate some BMI content (or whomever ... just an example) into their offerings and increase their audience. Naturally that would be reciprocal.
Has anyone explained to the Major Labels that "OOH! We can grab some of YOUR best shit and use it to improve our crappy shit! COOL!" It's called Fair Use!
Depending on who's shit is great or crappy you might get some complaints but, in the end, maybe we'll get better shit?
These days it's like a KIng of the Mountain game where everybody is trying to break the legs of all the competitors rather than actually trying to make it to the top of the mountain!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm, you know the street goes both ways, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmmm, you know the street goes both ways, right?
Obviously there would be some exemption to using material freely, where fair use is defined as remixing and sharing with friends on youtube, not stealing ideas and incorporating them in your own material to sell with millions of dollars in profit.
Where they draw the line will be up to courts:
"which gives courts a certain leeway to determine what exactly is permissible."
Yes, it is possible you get dragged to court, but not over something like posting a video of yourself covering a copyrighted song in your bedroom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is similar to a pre IP purist article I found in the October 1998 edition of Biblio Magazine in an article about Commomplace Books where the author makes the point that the notes, quotes and sampling done in these old books led to remixing that accelerated the Renaissance and compared it to Web hypertext where he says that "I our postmodern sense of hypertextuality, hypertext technology offers a vast spectrum of literary wisdom for the creation of unique works." This is quite the opposite of IP minimalist stances which, somehow, seem to claim the opposite.
In this sense the Dutch government is on the right side of culture and freedom whereas ACTA is anything but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you want to make laughs... make your own NEW videos and songs. Political commentary? Apply the news theory, quote as needed, attribute, and don't use video / audio you don't have the rights to.
If you cannot make your political statements without using the works of others, perhaps you have nothing important to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or perhaps you've never read Jonathon Swift or Evelyn Waugh who did some remixing of their own in their books. So I guess they had nothing to say either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But your own "perspective and thoughts" are framed by that other side of the conversation and without that frame they are adrift. You are not "stealing" those thoughts but are merely using them to frame your own creation; putting the conversation in context. Otherwise your contribution loses a lot of value, it's just words in the sand. In fact, you are elevating those "other thoughts" to a higher level by highlighting their importance to you, that you recognize them as important.
Creativity builds on those that came before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That depends, can you report the news without using the words of others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
0/10
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright does not exist because the public (meaning most everyone but you and your masters) refuses to accept it anymore.
Besides, political speech isn't under copyright protection, it doesn't exactly promote science and the progress of society, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Copyright does not exist because the public (meaning most everyone but you and your masters) refuses to accept it anymore.
Besides, political speech isn't under copyright protection, it doesn't exactly promote science and the progress of society, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, it is more than just that. In case hadn't noticed, they are talking about parody and political commentary. Both of these things are comments on the original expression and the context is vital to the new expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you are basing your stupid comment on the assumption that violating others rights is bad surely, surely you can see how bad it is to have copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
>If your entire political discourse requires you to violate the rights of others to make it
You realise that this can be applied to most politicians, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh look, someone who doesn't understand how art and culture work. Let me guess, piracy would be reduced if the punishments were harsher?
"I don't understand this modern world with their uppity kids, get off my lawn!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
By the time Andy got back from Mt. Pilot, Barney had the whole town locked up. "I got them dead to rights" proclaimed Barney.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No wonder you chose that handle.
That's all you are...
A coward who hides behind a veil of anonymity to make people think that you're somehow special.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The VCR is the Boston Strangler."
"Safe harbours in the DMCA were a mistake."
We could go on. The fact is - being black and white didn't start with us; it started with the RIAA/MPAA. Why are their black-and-white arguments valid to you, but not ours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is what happens when your ideas are so vapid, unoriginal and empty of any worth, financial, moral or otherwise, that my eyes rupture each time I see something this stupid, my ears bleed each time I hear Vapid Pop Idol #5296704, and my brain melts at CallofGearsBattlefieldBadCompany 76.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does this look familiar to you?
"If you want to make laughs... make your own NEW videos and songs. Political commentary? Apply the news theory, quote as needed, attribute, and don't use video / audio you don't have the rights to.
If you cannot make your political statements without using the works of others, perhaps you have nothing important to say."
Hmm, sure is not black and white there, nope.
Glad to see that you're such an open-minded fellow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dragonball Z Abridged is a hell of a lot funnier than most of the shit being made today.
I've got more remixes on my iPod than I do copyrighted songs.
If you think the only things wort protecting are purely original work then you likely haven't looked much into the alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please take care of your nine to five push a button job and spare us of your world view remix
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You quote Mr. Fred Teeven, the same man who proposed a ban on downloading last December after having a great meeting with someone called Chris Dodd.
As a Dutchman, I trust him about as far as I can throw him.
The copyright reform your post speaks of only proposes increased exceptions, not the drastic restructuring of copyright terms and stimulation of new models that we really need.
TL;DR: It's all words, and insufficient ones from unreliable politicians at that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]