(52) Takes note of the emergence of contact-tracing applications on mobile devices in order to warn people if they were close to an infected person, and the Commission’s recommendation to develop a common EU approach for the use of such applications; points out that any use of applications developed by national and EU authorities may not be obligatory and that the generated data are not to be stored in centralised databases, which are prone to potential risk of abuse and loss of trust and may endanger uptake throughout the Union; demands that all storage of data be decentralised, full transparency be given on (non-EU) commercial interests of developers of these applications, and that clear projections be demonstrated as regards how the use of contact tracing apps by a part of the population, in combination with specific other measures, will lead to a significantly lower number of infected people; demands that the Commission and Member States are fully transparent on the functioning of contact-tracing apps, so that people can verify both the underlying protocol for security and privacy, and check the code itself to see whether the application functions as the authorities are claiming; recommends that sunset clauses are set and the principles of data protection by design and data minimisation are fully observed;
Everything in France is secondary to the supreme principle of the all-powerful central government. Privacy laws, tech regulation and so on are meant to reduce the power of corporations as opposed to the state, not to give more power to the people.
This is similar of course to Washington's attitude on spying: everything is fine as long as we do it to others, but don't dare any other government plant surveillance devices around the world to compete with our intelligence/military/economic power.
If you're happy for someone to use your picture of fluffy for absolutely anything [...]
An author who wants other to use their work for absolutely anything cannot just sit down and do nothing, as you suggest: to have their wish fulfilled, such authors need to proactively license their work with adequate legal tools, specifically the CC-0 for the kind of usage you suggest.
Down in Australia, they're not subject to the EU Copyright Directive, but it's not stopping them from taking the same ridiculous approach
It's not the same at all, so far. I don't know what "a mandatory code of conduct" means in Australian jurisdiction, but if no ancillary copyright alias neighbouring rights are created, and the copyright law doesn't change, it's infinitely better than the 2019 copyright directive.
One can disagree with the objective (redistribution of wealth from one business to another), but taxation and antitrust are correct tools for that objective, while copyright is clearly the wrong one. Copyright affects billions of people and millions of websites or works, while taxation and antitrust can, in principle, be targeted.
Then of course it doesn't help if the "code of conduct" ends up being something like "use EU's best practices for article 17" or "follow the standards of compensation for news aggregators established in France". That would just be a copyright law change by the backdoor.
Intellectual property theft has always been a problem, but it has never affected as many people as it does today. If you’ve taken a photo, recorded a song or written a letter, you’ve likely created a copyright.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's what the source literally says: stores wanted 1.5 million names. What we don't know is whether they got them, or whether the authorities found a way to solve the immediate issue without sharing data which is not immediately needed for the purpose (a boolean information about a subset of those persons).
Grocery stores attempted to get a marketing list of 1.5 million customers without strings attached. Authorities replied "Nice try". Less than 24 hours later an alternative list was found, showing how pointless the original request was (presumably the customers can prove they're in the list without sharing any data about their medical history).
If only I could send this press release back in time to March 2019 and have someone read it aloud in the European Parliament!
Publishers have been led to accept conditions which are even more unfavourable for them after the entry into force of the law on neighbouring rights than those pre-existing
Nobody, nobody, could possibly have ever predicted this!
To be fair, they were right at the time of posting. Books from 2016 and later were all suddenly removed at some point before April 8. Some of the books which now "enjoy" being in a waitlist are quite ironic, in particular Aaron Swartz's book. https://archive.org/details/celuiquipourrait0000swar
Yes, copyright maximalists have in the past happened to claim that copyright infringement causes damages significantly bigger than the entire GDP. Usually they rely on people not being able to do the math, let alone check the sources.
The copyright industries have a long experience on making up numbers. A famous figure is "750,000 jobs and $200 billion in revenues", which was a complete invention. See William Patry's "copyright wars": https://archive.org/details/moralpanicscopy00patr/page/30
If people can listen to Bach for free on the internet, who is going to buy fancy Bach albums, let alone expensive theatre tickets? And without such sources of income, what incentives will musicians have to study Bach? And without incentives to study Bach, who will teach people about Bach? Soon Bach will be forgotten, maybe everyone will be talking about Ludovico Einaudi. Unlicensed musicians playing Bach, and their audience listening for free, are just thieves, freeriders on the decades of work by Bach rightsholders and Bach performers, paid for by generations of dutiful and licensed Bach listeners.
That's why we need copyright to last at least a couple millennia. Then Bach will have proper incentives to not turn in his grave at the thought of his heritage being erased. You wouldn't want our children to be haunted by the ghost of an angry Bach, would you?
[cherry picks statistic based on 0.008 % of the data]
could have been purchased legally either by the customers or the libraries
"Could" is just a fantasy or made up hypothesis. There is no logical, economic or empirical model showing that it would actually happen. The law is not there to compensate people for imaginary potential future non-events.
How can the "CDC Yellow Book 2020: Health Information for International Travel" be registered for copyright when the registration itself says:
Authorship on Application: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, employer for hire; Domicile: United States. Authorship: Some new, revised and updated text. Compilation of individual contributions
Text from previously published edition. Public domain material.
On the post: European Commission Wants Coronavirus Tracing Apps To Build In Strong Protections For Privacy -- Unlike The French Government
European Parliament resolution
This follows the European Parliament resolution of 2020-04-17 https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2020-0054_EN.pdf (HTML version:
(bold added)
On the post: French Hypocrisy: Fines Google For Being Soft On Privacy; Now Angry That Google Won't Let It Spy On Users
Re: Privacy in France
There we go, Thierry Breton was immediately deployed:
https://www.euractiv.com/section/data-protection/news/breton-urges-apple-chief-cook-to-wor k-with-eu-amid-french-spat-on-virus-app/
On the post: French Hypocrisy: Fines Google For Being Soft On Privacy; Now Angry That Google Won't Let It Spy On Users
Privacy in France
Everything in France is secondary to the supreme principle of the all-powerful central government. Privacy laws, tech regulation and so on are meant to reduce the power of corporations as opposed to the state, not to give more power to the people.
This is similar of course to Washington's attitude on spying: everything is fine as long as we do it to others, but don't dare any other government plant surveillance devices around the world to compete with our intelligence/military/economic power.
On the post: New York's Governor Hands Down A Mask Mandate While The State's Anti-Mask Law Remains On The Books
French ban on face covering
I thought such laws were expanding!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban_on_face_covering
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: What authors need to do
Hey, it was your premise, not mine:
An author who wants other to use their work for absolutely anything cannot just sit down and do nothing, as you suggest: to have their wish fulfilled, such authors need to proactively license their work with adequate legal tools, specifically the CC-0 for the kind of usage you suggest.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Re: Re: Copyright lawsuits against the wish of authors
Can you prove that? Because Elsevier didn't.
On the post: Australia Gives Up Any Pretense: Pushes Straight Up Tax On Facebook & Google To Pay News Orgs
Not the same if copyright is left alone
It's not the same at all, so far. I don't know what "a mandatory code of conduct" means in Australian jurisdiction, but if no ancillary copyright alias neighbouring rights are created, and the copyright law doesn't change, it's infinitely better than the 2019 copyright directive.
One can disagree with the objective (redistribution of wealth from one business to another), but taxation and antitrust are correct tools for that objective, while copyright is clearly the wrong one. Copyright affects billions of people and millions of websites or works, while taxation and antitrust can, in principle, be targeted.
Then of course it doesn't help if the "code of conduct" ends up being something like "use EU's best practices for article 17" or "follow the standards of compensation for news aggregators established in France". That would just be a copyright law change by the backdoor.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re: Copyright lawsuits against the wish of authors
Easy: Elsevier vs. Sci-Hub.
https://www.nature.com/news/us-court-grants-elsevier-millions-in-damages-from-sci-hub-1.221 96
In the trial, Elsevier didn't even have to prove it had copyright. Authors of the works involved objected to the lawsuits and sided with Sci-Hub.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
Re:
Wrong. Copyright is automatic. Moral rights in several countries cannot be waived.
Wrong. You need to release them under CC-0, otherwise they'll have a debt of 150,000 dollars hanging on their head for every single use.
On the post: Why Is The Copyright Office Celebrating That All Our Cute Pet Photos Are Locked Up Under Copyright?
New York Times doubles down
You cannot make this up:
https://www.nytimes.com/article/copyrights-trademarks-patents.html
On the post: Jack Daniels Gets Chewed Up In Trademark Case Over 'Bad Spaniels' Doggy Chew Toy
Re: Re: Re: Another homage?
Now, that's definitely "expensive litigious adventurism"!
On the post: UPDATED: GDPR (Briefly) Blocked Grocers From Accessing Lists Of 'At Risk' People In Need Of Food Packages
Re: Re: Alternative view
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's what the source literally says: stores wanted 1.5 million names. What we don't know is whether they got them, or whether the authorities found a way to solve the immediate issue without sharing data which is not immediately needed for the purpose (a boolean information about a subset of those persons).
On the post: UPDATED: GDPR (Briefly) Blocked Grocers From Accessing Lists Of 'At Risk' People In Need Of Food Packages
Alternative view
Grocery stores attempted to get a marketing list of 1.5 million customers without strings attached. Authorities replied "Nice try". Less than 24 hours later an alternative list was found, showing how pointless the original request was (presumably the customers can prove they're in the list without sharing any data about their medical history).
On the post: French Government Says Google Must Pay French News Agencies For Sending Traffic Their Way
Re: Re: Authority's press release
If only I could send this press release back in time to March 2019 and have someone read it aloud in the European Parliament!
Nobody, nobody, could possibly have ever predicted this!
On the post: Publishers And Authors Misguided Freakout Over Internet Archive's Decision To Enable More Digital Book Checkouts During A Pandemic
Re: Your stats are bad
To be fair, they were right at the time of posting. Books from 2016 and later were all suddenly removed at some point before April 8. Some of the books which now "enjoy" being in a waitlist are quite ironic, in particular Aaron Swartz's book.
https://archive.org/details/celuiquipourrait0000swar
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
Re: Trillions of dollars in copyright damages
Yes, copyright maximalists have in the past happened to claim that copyright infringement causes damages significantly bigger than the entire GDP. Usually they rely on people not being able to do the math, let alone check the sources.
A famous story is "No, The RIAA Is Not Asking For $72 Trillion From Limewire (Bad Reporters, Bad)".
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/16265119070/no-riaa-is-not-asking-72-trillion -limewire-bad-reporters-bad.shtml
The copyright industries have a long experience on making up numbers. A famous figure is "750,000 jobs and $200 billion in revenues", which was a complete invention. See William Patry's "copyright wars":
https://archive.org/details/moralpanicscopy00patr/page/30
On the post: As Record Labels Still Are Demanding Mandated Filters; Facebook's Copyright Filter Takes Down A Guy Playing Bach
Re: Re: Copyright justification
You're not thinking far enough.
If people can listen to Bach for free on the internet, who is going to buy fancy Bach albums, let alone expensive theatre tickets? And without such sources of income, what incentives will musicians have to study Bach? And without incentives to study Bach, who will teach people about Bach? Soon Bach will be forgotten, maybe everyone will be talking about Ludovico Einaudi. Unlicensed musicians playing Bach, and their audience listening for free, are just thieves, freeriders on the decades of work by Bach rightsholders and Bach performers, paid for by generations of dutiful and licensed Bach listeners.
That's why we need copyright to last at least a couple millennia. Then Bach will have proper incentives to not turn in his grave at the thought of his heritage being erased. You wouldn't want our children to be haunted by the ghost of an angry Bach, would you?
On the post: Publishers And Authors Misguided Freakout Over Internet Archive's Decision To Enable More Digital Book Checkouts During A Pandemic
Re: Books without Digital Versions? Maybe.
"Could" is just a fantasy or made up hypothesis. There is no logical, economic or empirical model showing that it would actually happen. The law is not there to compensate people for imaginary potential future non-events.
On the post: That Coronavirus Image Is Public Domain, But That Won't Stop Getty From Trying To Sell You A $500 License To Use It
Copyright registration for public domain works
The web page has a footer "© 2020 Getty Images", which is misleading but maybe not so clearly associated to the image itself.
I couldn't find any copyright registration by "Gado", but funnily enough there are 1177 copyright registrations containing the keyword "CDC":
https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=1,0&SAB1=CDC&BOOL1=all%2 0of%20these&FLD1=Keyword%20Anywhere%20%28GKEY%29%20%28GKEY%29&GRP1=OR%20with%20next%20set&am p;CNT=10&REC=0&RC=0&PID=ZFkr0_L7g37iWSH4WBC1ZrnOu&SEQ=20200407021637&SID=2
Inclu ding several which list the CDC as author:
https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?SC=Author&SEQ=20200407021906&PID=LAo cG3v9QlCKYsm-Yw7qaULF6&SA=Centers+for+Disease+Control+and+Prevention
How can the "CDC Yellow Book 2020: Health Information for International Travel" be registered for copyright when the registration itself says:
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court: 'Community Caretaking' Function Applies To Warrantless Seizures, Not Actually Caring For The Community
Kansas v. Glover: "common sense" and Sotomayor dissent
I'm afraid the courts will be busy rewriting some of those rulings in the future...
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/in-lone-dissent-justice-sotomayor-blasts-majority-op inion-no-foundation-in-fact-or-logic/
Next >>