stories filed under: "eu"
European Parliament Committee Willing To Push Back On Copyright When It Comes To The Blind
from the small-victories dept
If you go through a timeline of the history of copyright law over the last two centuries, one thing is clear: it has only moved in one direction, and one direction only. That is that it has repeatedly been changed to take away more and more consumer rights and to ratchet up copyright law to greater and greater levels. The only exception I can think of was the US government's decision to make all federal government documents public domain, rather than granting them copyright. While important, this was still a minor move. Update: Thanks to one of the copyright scholars in the audience for pointing out a few other cases of pushback against copyright, including the 2002 TEACH Act which included some small exceptions for distance learning, as well as a variety of countries rolling back perpetual copyright.For the past few years, there has been one other push, happening via WIPO, that would push back just slightly on copyright law when it came to books for the blind (in Braille). Basically, this treaty makes it easier to get books in Braille for the blind. Who could possibly be against such a thing? Well, of course the RIAA and the MPAA, who fought against it claiming that a treaty like this would "begin to dismantle the existing global treaty structure of copyright law, through the adoption of an international instrument at odds with existing, longstanding and well-settled norms."
This was especially hilarious, considering that it came from two organizations that remain massively strong supporters of ACTA -- which has done a tremendous amount of damage to the "existing global treaty structure of copyright law," by going around it entirely, and created an agreement that was very much "at odds with existing, longstanding and well-settled norms."
However, it appears that the WIPO treaty is actually getting some traction (even if just a little bit), and MEP Christian Engstrom is noting that the legal affairs committee JURI in the European Parliament has unanimously adopted an amendment that supports the treaty. It still appears to have a long way to go, but as Rick Falkvinge notes, this is "the first time in several decades" that "politicians voted unanimously that the public’s access to knowledge and culture is more important than the copyright monopoly." It is a very small thing, but considering how rarely our elected officials are even willing to consider such a move, it's noteworthy.
And Now Europe Feels The Need To Catch Up To China And The US In The Self-Destructive Patent Race
from the bad-news-for-innovation dept
Well, you had to know this was coming. When you make the very dangerous mistake of assuming that patents are a proxy for innovation, then you get concerned when other countries/regions are getting more patents than you are. We've already covered how China is ramping up their patent approvals in an attempt to create an economic weapon against the West ("sorry, you can't sell those computers here, they violate the patent of this Shanghai firm..."). And, of course, the US has stupidly fallen into line and started approving patents willy-nilly to keep up. So, over in Europe, overreacting bureaucrats are about to make the same mistake. They've declared that the EU is "falling behind" in innovation (really, patents) and are urging a more streamlined patent system that would be European-wide. The idea, of course, is that with a EU-wide patent system, it becomes easier to get patents. Of course, that only helps innovation if patents actually lead to more innovation and, sadly, the evidence suggests otherwise.EU MPs Investigating US Info Snooping To See If It Violates EU Privacy Laws
from the whoops dept
Via Slashdot, we learn that a group of European MPs are apparently asking the European Commission to determine if the US government violated EU privacy rules with its attempt to get info from Twitter on various Wikileaks associates. We had already noted that Icelandic officials were upset with the US, since one of the accounts under investigation was an Icelandic Member of Parliament.Of course, I have to say that as troubling as the US government's investigation appears to be, this particular response seems a little silly. The request for information was to a US company for info on US servers. That European users were involved really shouldn't much matter. Now, there is a somewhat silly "safe harbor" system that the Commerce Department has set up for American companies to get around the fact that the EU Privacy Directive forbids the transfer of personal info from Europeans to non-EU countries unless they have similar privacy laws (the US does not). However, I don't think the safe harbor would apply here either. This seems more like political grandstanding by some EU politicians against the US. I agree that there are problems with the investigation, but worrying about the EU privacy directive seems like a bit of a stretch.
Filed Under: eu, privacy, wikileaks
Companies: twitter, wikileaks
EU's Main ACTA Supporter Caught Lying About ACTA
from the and-this-shocks-anyone? dept
As a few folks have submitted, EU Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht -- the main EU politician backing ACTA -- has been caught lying about ACTA. As you may recall, the EU Parliament was quite skeptical of ACTA for quite some time. However, De Gucht convinced the EU Parliament to support ACTA by claiming nothing in ACTA would impact penal enforcement of intellectual property rules, suggesting that it fully complied with existing rules. The only problem? Well, this was a lie. But it was a lie of omission. De Gucht has now admitted that some countries may have to change their local laws to comply with ACTA, but tried to defend the earlier statements by saying since there are no uniform EU rules on penal enforcement for IP, it was technically correct that no changes were required to the EU-wide rules. That seems... disingenuous, at best.Filed Under: acta, eu, karel de gucht
EU Parliament Rubber Stamps ACTA Approval
from the too-bad dept
Despite serious concerns about the way ACTA was negotiated, as well as a declaration against ACTA, it appears that the EU Parliament has reversed course and more or less said that ACTA can move forward. This isn't really surprising, but at least suggests that the EU Parliament doesn't seem to understand what it's voting on half of the time, as it will flat out disagree with itself for no clear reason.Filed Under: acta, eu, eu parliament
US Basically Says It'll Ignore Anything In ACTA That It Doesn't Like... So How About Everyone Else?
from the ignore-away dept
It's been amusing to watch supporters of ACTA who repeatedly claim that it's not going to matter if ACTA actually disagrees with US law, because, as an executive agreement (rather than a treaty) it "can't" change US law. Of course, they ignore the history of such things, where suddenly lobbyists start talking up our "international obligations." But, it appears some in the US are now claiming that Article 1.2 provides something of a giant loophole, where it states:"Each Party shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within its own legal system and practice."We've even had people in our comments highlight that section, as a clear indication that each country need not change its laws. And some of the US negotiators are specifically using that clause to say that it can sign the current agreement and then point to that clause to ignore whatever they don't like in ACTA. Of course, this response has some scratching their heads. If the US can point to that clause an opt out of any clause that they don't like why can't other countries do the same? And, if it's true that any country can use that clause to effectively opt-out of anything they don't like in ACTA, what's the point of ACTA in the first place?
Of course, the reality, again, is that it's because down the road, when everyone's forgotten the promises that ACTA won't change anyone's laws, the lobbyists will step in and do the whole "international obligations" bit. What's amusing to me is that the very same commenters on our site who insist that ACTA cannot change US law, and who have pointed to Article 1.2 as proof, were also the very same folks in our comments a few months ago pointing to the demands that Canada change its copyright laws by claiming "international obligations" concerning WIPO/TRIPS -- even though WIPO/TRIPS, similarly, is supposed to let each country set up its laws "within its own legal system and practice."
It's basically all a shell game: say whatever you can to get the damned thing signed, knowing that after it's signed, it'll be much easier to apply lobbying pressure down the road.
ACTA Negotiators Still Claiming Secrecy Is Needed; Turn Off WiFi At Briefing
from the it's-not-war dept
EU's ACTA negotiators apparently held a briefing about the latest draft, and apparently they ordered the WiFi in the room turned off, to stop real time reports from "leaking" to sites like le quadrature and Wikileaks. Apparently, EU negotiators are unfamiliar with mobile data and sites like Twitter, where reports of the meeting were posted in real time by folks like David Hammerstein.So why would EU's head negotiator, Luc Devigne, want the WiFi turned off in a meeting about an agreement that can impact everyone and should be debated in public? Apparently, he claimed "without secrecy, no trade agreement can be successful." Huh? This must be from the secret negotiators handbook, because it makes no sense, and there's absolutely no support for such a statement. And, he's being willfully misleading in pretending that this is a trade agreement. It's not. And if you want to know how an agreement will be unsuccessful? It's by keeping out those stakeholders who such an agreement will most impact.
Separately Devigne insisted that Mexico will sign the document, despite the unanimous vote against the ACTA process.
Finally, he claimed that "ACTA text is finalized but not stabilized." What does that even mean? It means it's not finalized and negotiators are trying to sugarcoat the fact that there are still substantial differences between participating countries.
EU Parliament Members Not At All Happy About ACTA
from the now-can-they-do-anything? dept
We already noted that it's expected that the latest ACTA draft text will finally be released this week (the first time since April that negotiators have decided it's worth letting us officially see the document), which they continue to insist they've been "transparent" about. We've already noted that the EU Parliament has rejected the secrecy around ACTA, but the EU Commission (which is negotiating the agreement) has more or less ignored them. Now, with reports coming out saying the agreement being close to done, EU Parliament members are speaking out against ACTA. They're demanding a copy of the document, and warning that they need to approve it before the agreement is official. And, they're specifically complaining about the impression negotiators are giving that this agreement does not need European Parliament approval. In the end, I still don't think this will derail the agreement, but it's really quite amazing the entitlement attitude of negotiators on this agreement, where they've clearly decided that they're only going to pay attention to people who already agree with them.Filed Under: acta, copyright, eu, eu parliament, parliament
ACTA Negotiators Refuse To Set Up More Timely Meeting For Consumer Advocates
from the who-needs-consumers? dept
Following up on the news of how ACTA negotiators hid the information about the latest round of negotiations, including scheduling the only opportunity for consumer advocates to meet with negotiators until it was too late for those consumer advocates to get to Tokyo in time for the meeting, a bunch of those groups asked the Japanese delegation to change the schedule to allow for a meeting next week, rather than on the 24th. Sean Flynn passes along the note he received (and others got nearly identical notes):Dear Mr.FlynnFlynn also points us to the news that the Green Party in the EU also asked to meet with negotiators in Tokyo, and there was some hope that perhaps that the negotiators would agree to that, since the EU Parliament has made it clear that they are not happy with ACTA and may try to block it. But... no such luck:
Thank you for your contact.
First of all, we regret that we could not inform you earlier of the lunch meeting.
As we just settled our program of this round this week with other parties, we have not able to inform our schedule to public beforehand.
Please kindly understand our situation.
Actually lunch time on 24 Sept is the only slot for NGO meeting.
The purpose of the lunch meeting provides an opportunity to exchange views informally between the negotiating parties and the public, not a firm consultation.
All ACTA negotiation parties recognize the importance of transparency and we are to discuss any ways to promote transparency of ACTA negotiations.
Best regards
Yoshihiro Takeda
Dear SirsTalk about lip service to transparency while at the same time mocking it. Also, while some supporters of ACTA seem to claim that because the documents were shown once to such public interest groups everything's perfectly transparent, it seems pretty damn obvious that those working on ACTA have done their best to keep rather important stakeholders very much out of the conversation. Of course, the industries, who are such fans of ACTA, may discover that screwing over consumers and consumer advocates comes back to bite them. You don't have much of a business without consumers after all.
Thank you for your message.
We understand the Greens/EFA Group's interest in the transparency very well.
The Government of Japan also recognizes the importance of the transparency in ACTA negotiations and decided to arrange a lunch meeting with the public on September 24 as you know.
However, it is with regret that we cannot arrange the meeting during the week of September 27 due to purely practical organizational reasons.
We regret that we could not inform you earlier of lunch meeting as you pointed out. As we just settled the program of ACTA negotiations in Tokyo this week with the negotiating parties, we cannot inform our lunch meeting to public beforehand. Please kindly understand our situation.
ACTA negotiating parties share the intention to promote transparency and we are to discuss any ways to promote the transparency of ACTA negotiations.
Best regards
Yoshihiro Takeda
Filed Under: acta, consumer advocates, eu, green party, japan, sean flynn, tokyo
