The relevant proposed EU provision (Amendment 138 to a set of directives called the Telecom Package) reads as follows:
"that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened where the ruling may be subsequent."
so (on my reading) it probably *would* make Eircom's action unlawful, BUT first, the package would have to be voted for with this amendment (not certain: the EU Council is against it), *and* it then would have to be ratified into Irish law.
The EU provision is not law --- it is an amendement by the European Parliament to EU legislation which has not passed yet. Also (tho' I may be wrong) I think it only makes it unlawful for an EU /government/ to mandate ISPs to implement a 3-strikes type approach. It doesn't say anything about circumstances in which ISPs can decide for themselves whether to cut users off in accordance with their T&Cs. (I think --- I may be wrong about this.) That said, I suspect that 3-strikes is unlawful under the ECHR, even if implemented "voluntarily" by an ISP. For my part, if my ISP implemented this sort of policy, I would do what "Irish immigrant" has done, i.e. change ISP.
If the European Parliament, at the forthcoming second reading votes, for amendments that the Council and Commission won't accept, then there's another round of negotiations. A final package is then put to the European Parliament, which can only vote Yes or No. If it votes No, THEN the entire bill is dead.
To put this into context, the "bill" in question is a set of directives, called the "telecoms package", aimed at regulating the EU-wide telecommunications market. The anti-3-strikes amendment (which Parliament voted for, and the Council has rejected) is only a tiny part of it.
The European Council has nothing to do with the Council of Europe (which is not an EU body). It's possible that "Uninformed Pedestrian" was thinking of the latter organization.
Well that might not be such a bad thing for supporters of sane (i.e. balanced, limited) IP laws. In Europe the people who oppose IP expansionism tend to come from the political left. The people who support things like copyright and patent extension tend to come from the supposedly "free-market" right.
I take a slightly more optimistic view of the chance of this being stopped. The Commission proposal to legalize software patents in the EU was thought to be a done deal, but was stopped because of a very well-organized campaign against it. If the opponents of copyright extension (often the same people under different organizational banners) can similarly get their act together, then they could also achieve the same result.
"The EU, being a group of basically socialist nations, is bound to go for this "cradle to grave" protectionism."
Since when was protecing the revenue streams of already-rich rock stars and successful record labels a "socialist" idea? I always understood socialism to be about redistributing money to those are are *not* well off. Maybe I'm wrong, and socialism is actually about subsidising rich people and wealthy corporations. In which case big business and rich people should be the biggest supporters of socialism.
And by proposing to extend copyright this way, the EU is simply following the US. So is the US socialist?
Why should the future of voting be electronic and online? As far as I can see that's just technology for the sake of technology. Making voting accessibly and easy sounds great, but if it means losing public confidence in election results, then it's not worth it.
The big problem with electronic voting is not "security" in the technical sense --- it's the lack of transparency. With paper ballots and manual counting anyone can see what is going on, you do not have to be any sort of technical expert.
E-voting machines are, by nature, black boxes. They make public scrutiny by ordinary Joe Bloggs impossible. Some people on here have suggested parallel electronic and paper systems. But what's the point? The paper ballots would have to form the definitive result, so what's the point in the electronic counting anyway?
I'm also sceptical of mechanical counting of paper ballots, because of the same problem of lack of transparency. The manual counting process is open to public scrutiny, simply because lots of people are doing it and supervising it, and point out (more like pounce on) any irregularities.
Stick to tried and tested voting mechanisms. They work.
Why is it very, very important that ATM machines have an auditable paper trail (and effectively human verified, because if the paper trail did not consistently match the actual transactions it would be noticed fairly quickly), but voting machines do not?
Because that sort of paper trail would violate the secret ballot.
Might force Nokia to rethink its position on paten
Nokia was one of the major entities pushing for the legalization of software patents (sorry, that should be "patents on computer-implemented inventions") in the EU. This lawsuit might make it realize that isn't such a good idea.
How ridiculous what is? Obviously there is going to be a delay between filing of a patent application and the application being granted or rejected, while it is being examined. The plaintiff clearly jumped the gun by suing before the patent was actually granted, but it is reasonable that the novelty of a patent should be based on the prior art in existence when the patent was originally filed, not that when the patent examiner gets round to making a decision.
Not that I know anything about the details of this particular patent case. If it follows the standard script for hi-tech patents, then the patent is bogus but this would be difficult to prove, and Cisco could well end up settling simply because that makes most business sense :(
Cisco's work would only be prior art if it predated the "date of invention" claimed on the patent. This would be some time before the patent was granted. [In a first-to-file system, it would have to be before the patent application was made, a later date than any claim of invention, making bad patents easier to bust.]
pretty bad when one government that professes to be a socialist republic
The current French government is right of centre (both the President and Parliament are conservative), although in the US its policies would probably still be thought of as fairly "liberal" (American sense --- in France "liberal" is a term of abuse to mean extreme supporter of the free-market).
While the US is looking at switching to a "first to file" system, they currently have a "first to invent" system -- so even if you're first to the patent office, it doesn't really matter.
The difference between the two systems only matters in the case of two or more people thinking of the same invention independently, and filing it at the patent office independently. [This seems to be an unlikely scenario which if it happened should raise questoins about whether the patent should be granted at all.] Prior art invalidates a patent under both systems.
Remember that liberals are naturally suspicious of private monopoly and coroporate power, while conservatives tend to be in the pay of such interests. Therefore, it is conservatives who tend to promote special interests when those special interests are private businesses.
If you are British and support IP-sanity, then the Liberal Democrats are a better bet than the Tories. The LibDems are the only major UK political party with a policy on copyright, fair use and software patents, and the entertainment industry would not like it:
Legislation designed to protect corporate profits against the public interest is not part of any principled "liberal" agenda that I'm aware of. Supposedly Hollywood and the media industry are politically "liberal", but at least when they lobby for the protection of their private, corporate interests they are leaving their liberal principles at home.
Conservatives are supposed to be swayed by arguments about free markets and against governments picking winners, but they have a habit of suspending these principles when shown greenbacks from their corporate paymasters. They also tend to accept at face value a property-rights framing of the debate, assuming that intellectual property == physical property.
First-to-file makes it easier to invalidate bullsh
Under a first-to-file system, any disclosure of an invention dating before a patent filing is valid prior art against the patent. Under first-to-invent, the prior art has to be before the claimed invention date (which of course is earlier than the filing date). Thus, first-to-file makes bogus patents easier to invalidate by increasing the body of patent-busting prior art available. Particularly since the period immediately before patent filing is likely to be that when there is going to be most prior art. So roll on first-to-file!
On the post: Irish ISP Accused Of Copyright Violations Agrees To Implement Three Strikes
"that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened where the ruling may be subsequent."
so (on my reading) it probably *would* make Eircom's action unlawful, BUT first, the package would have to be voted for with this amendment (not certain: the EU Council is against it), *and* it then would have to be ratified into Irish law.
On the post: Irish ISP Accused Of Copyright Violations Agrees To Implement Three Strikes
Re: EU?
On the post: UK Copyright Expiration On Popeye May Be A Test For Mickey Mouse
On the post: European Council Rejects EU Parliament's Amendment Against Three Strikes Rule
Not necessarily the end
To put this into context, the "bill" in question is a set of directives, called the "telecoms package", aimed at regulating the EU-wide telecommunications market. The anti-3-strikes amendment (which Parliament voted for, and the Council has rejected) is only a tiny part of it.
On the post: European Council Rejects EU Parliament's Amendment Against Three Strikes Rule
Point of info
On the post: EU Plans To Extend Copyright; Turns Copyright System Into Welfare For Musicians
Re: Re: Re: Not Surprising at All
On the post: EU Plans To Extend Copyright; Turns Copyright System Into Welfare For Musicians
Don't be quite so pessimistic
On the post: EU Plans To Extend Copyright; Turns Copyright System Into Welfare For Musicians
Re: Not Surprising at All
Since when was protecing the revenue streams of already-rich rock stars and successful record labels a "socialist" idea? I always understood socialism to be about redistributing money to those are are *not* well off. Maybe I'm wrong, and socialism is actually about subsidising rich people and wealthy corporations. In which case big business and rich people should be the biggest supporters of socialism.
And by proposing to extend copyright this way, the EU is simply following the US. So is the US socialist?
On the post: E-Voting Is Very Different From E-Banking
Re: Why on Earth...
The big problem with electronic voting is not "security" in the technical sense --- it's the lack of transparency. With paper ballots and manual counting anyone can see what is going on, you do not have to be any sort of technical expert.
E-voting machines are, by nature, black boxes. They make public scrutiny by ordinary Joe Bloggs impossible. Some people on here have suggested parallel electronic and paper systems. But what's the point? The paper ballots would have to form the definitive result, so what's the point in the electronic counting anyway?
I'm also sceptical of mechanical counting of paper ballots, because of the same problem of lack of transparency. The manual counting process is open to public scrutiny, simply because lots of people are doing it and supervising it, and point out (more like pounce on) any irregularities.
Stick to tried and tested voting mechanisms. They work.
On the post: E-Voting Is Very Different From E-Banking
Re: and yet somewhat similar....
On the post: Patent Holding Company Sues Nokia For $18 Billion
Might force Nokia to rethink its position on paten
On the post: Before Filing Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Please Make Sure The Patent In Question Has Been Granted
Not that I know anything about the details of this particular patent case. If it follows the standard script for hi-tech patents, then the patent is bogus but this would be difficult to prove, and Cisco could well end up settling simply because that makes most business sense :(
On the post: Before Filing Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Please Make Sure The Patent In Question Has Been Granted
Re: Wait a minute...
On the post: Fined For Using Someone Else's WiFi
Was his lawyer a jobsworth?
On the post: French Flip Flop Again On File Sharing
Re: Government
The current French government is right of centre (both the President and Parliament are conservative), although in the US its policies would probably still be thought of as fairly "liberal" (American sense --- in France "liberal" is a term of abuse to mean extreme supporter of the free-market).
On the post: RIM, NTP Settle Their Differences -- For $612.5 Million
First to {file|invent}: difference is not what it
On the post: US Congress, Ready And Willing To Serve... Hollywood
Re: Movie Business
On the post: US Congress, Ready And Willing To Serve... Hollywood
Re: In other news
http://www.makeitpolicy.org.uk/PP-ISociety-Copyright.html
On the post: US Congress, Ready And Willing To Serve... Hollywood
Re: Movie Business
Conservatives are supposed to be swayed by arguments about free markets and against governments picking winners, but they have a habit of suspending these principles when shown greenbacks from their corporate paymasters. They also tend to accept at face value a property-rights framing of the debate, assuming that intellectual property == physical property.
On the post: How The Patent System Is Eating Away At Scientific Research
First-to-file makes it easier to invalidate bullsh
Next >>