I think the source of the EU Parliament's definition of "commercial scale" in this case is the so called IPRED2 directive about criminal sanctions which created too much controversy and has not been passed yet.
If you instead look at the currently in force IPRED it's not quite so categorical: "Acts carried out on a commercial scale are those carried out for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage; this would normally exclude acts carried out by end- consumers acting in good faith." (emphasis added by me)
As I have previously pointed out, in some countries almost any act of making a single work available to the public is regarded as commercial scale. Personally I agree with la quadrature: ACTA provides that criminal sanctions must be applied for cases of infringement on a "commercial scale". This term is vague, open to interpretation, and just plainly wrong when it comes to determining the scope of proportionate enforcement. Widespread social practices, like not-for-profit filesharing betweens individuals, could be interpreted as "commercial scale". The only acceptable limitation of the scope of enforcement should be "commercial intent" or "for profit".
My country's (Sweden) implementation of the IPRED directive and its mention of "commercial scale" is quite telling of just how fluid this concept is. In our law the act of making a work available to the public is explicitly mentioned as an example of something that is normally to be treated as commercial scale and hence open the door for privacy invading measures. In order words, sharing a single song via BitTorrent is regarded as commercial scale since it involves uploading the song in a way that makes it accessible to many.
Regarding ACTA one should keep in mind that even if the agreement were to be watered down to the point where it essentially just expresses what our laws already say it will significantly increase the difficulty with which these law can be changed in the future.
Well, officially the levy is intended only to compensate for the exemption in the Swedish copyright law that makes it legal to make a limited number of copies of a copyrighted work for private use (including giving it to a close friend). A bit ammusingly it's also intended to compensate for your right to make copies that will only be used by yourself (eg. making a copy of a CD for use in the car in order to not risc scratching the original).
Anyway, whatever perspective one applies the fact still remains that the precision in terms of both input (what media to which it should apply) and output (who should receive the money?) is terribly bad. To me it would have made more sense if the politicians would have taken this money from the overall pool of tax money and call it a subsidy to the cultural sector with governmental control over the distribution. That's very close to what we have now anyway.
Btw. there was a funny ironic blog post commenting the story (run through Google Translate - "krukavgiften" means "pot levy")
Re: Re: Lost jobs in the EU music industry more than twice the EU population size
I did some checks and it seems that the number comes from the report covered in this Techdirt post. Somewhere, somehow the 1.2 million lost jobs, which was a quite questionable number to start with, must have been changed into 1.2 billion. Anyway, I don't think the exact number in itself is that important in this context. What's interesting is how something so obviously wrong can be printed without anybody in the editorial staff reacting.
Lost jobs in the EU music industry more than twice the EU population size
The largest morning paper here in Sweden (Dagens Nyheter), which is probably by many viewed as our most serious one, published an article the other day where it was claimed that according to a study performed on behalf of the music industry there is a risk that continued music piracy over the next five years will put 1.2 billion jobs in the music industry in the EU at jeopardy. Many bloggers now question if there is any fact checking at all being done, noting that this number corresponds to more than twice the number of citizens in the EU (500 million).
I guess this shows that the numbers are often so blown out of proportion that many journalists have stopped even trying think about what's reasonable and what's not.
That's good news. I hope they will be able to uphold this rule too. In Europe we have the European Patent Convention that excludes "schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers" and "scientific theories and mathematical methods" from patentability. However, through twisted interpratations of that it seems to be possible in some countries to get pure software patents granted anyway.
Anyway, since New Zealand have signed the TRIPS agreement it's good to have examples to point to of countries that interprete it such that excluding software patents is possible. That's very welcome.
For the purpose of comparing this to the european situation here's what the European Court of Human Rights found in the Marper v. UK case (pdf):
"In conclusion, the Court found that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests, and that the respondent State had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants’ right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. The Court concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 [of the European Convention on Human Rights] in this case.
I don't understand how this can avoid contradicting the EU Infosoc directive that states:
Article 5
Exceptions and limitations
1. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
(b) a lawful use
of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.
and:
(33) The exclusive right of reproduction should be subject to an exception to allow certain acts of temporary reproduction, which are transient or incidental reproductions, forming an integral and essential part of a technological process and carried out for the sole purpose of enabling either efficient transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or a lawful use of a work or other subject-matter to be made. The acts of reproduction concerned should have no separate economic value on their own. To the extent that they meet these conditions, this exception should include acts which enable browsing as well as acts of caching to take place, including those which enable transmission systems to function efficiently, provided that the intermediary does not modify the information and does not interfere with the lawful use of technology, widely recognised and used by industry, to obtain data on the use of the information. A use should be considered lawful where it is authorised by the rightholder or not restricted by law.
It almost seems as if they have misread the "or" that connects (a) and (b) in Article 5 as an "and".
Last year, of course, Sweden passed a strict "anti-piracy" law called IPRED, following a ton of pressure from the US entertainment industry (and US diplomats repeating debunked industry talking points).
If I am to be a bit picky IPRED is not actually the name of the law, but rather this EU directive. The so called IPRED-law is simply a Swedish implementation of this directive. In practice this meant a couple of changes to the Swedish copyright law (and the law on electronic communication if I remember correctly)
"it would be interesting to see brokep have his name show up again, even as he denies his involvement like crazy."
It didn't occur to you that the media will probably contact him for a comment since they don't know who else to contact?
He just offered a general comment. Anyone could have said the same thing.
I think you misjudge how the Swedish people look at the Pirate Bay. If we have between 1-2 million people using TPB out of a population of 9 million people, that should say something.
If they are not seen in the media The Pirate Party cannot the middle voters anyway, so the media exposure is the key and this gives them that and also provides something that make people engaged in these kinds of issues.
I'm not sure if it's a good move in the long run, but it is quite likely to rally up some extra support for PP now in the election times.
The Swedish Pirate Party has had some trouble with getting exposure in the media lately where people have instead been busy discussing the risk of a small xenophobic party entering the parliament in the election this autumn (in my view this debate has only given that horrible party unnecessary attention).
So this move will give the Pirate Party (PP) lots of well-needed media exposure. Furthermore, it could be somewhat of a headache for the MPAA and IFPI who now can only attack The Pirate Bay at the cost of increasing the chance of the PP entering the parliament due to the reactions. Also, I think that the PP uses Bahnhof (mentioned in these two Techdirt posts) as their ISP and have tried to make themselves a name as an ISP that stands up for user rights (eg. the right to privacy). So it could both be difficult to attack the secondary ISP and if they manage to successfully do that then the only option for them would probably be to cut all access to the Pirate Party which would be interpreted by many as a form of political censorship.
"And, on top of that, I'm still not convinced that harmonization of copyright systems across multiple countries really is ideal at this point"
Well, to be fair they are only talking about harmonizing a minimal set of exceptions but without any upper limit for what individual countries may choose to do. That sounds like a very good idea to me and would also mean a lot to people with visual or reading disabilities who could benefit from a greater supply of books.
Here's what they write: "If exceptions to copyright laws were harmonised at an EU level, with these exceptions forming a minimum above which member states can extend, individual contracts for each member state can be avoided, facilitating cross border trade and minimising negotiation related transaction costs."
On the post: How ACTA Turns Private, Non-Commercial File Sharing Into 'Commercial Scale' Criminal Infringement
EU Parliament's own definition
If you instead look at the currently in force IPRED it's not quite so categorical:
"Acts carried out on a commercial scale are those carried out for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage; this would normally exclude acts carried out by end- consumers acting in good faith." (emphasis added by me)
As I have previously pointed out, in some countries almost any act of making a single work available to the public is regarded as commercial scale. Personally I agree with la quadrature:
ACTA provides that criminal sanctions must be applied for cases of infringement on a "commercial scale". This term is vague, open to interpretation, and just plainly wrong when it comes to determining the scope of proportionate enforcement. Widespread social practices, like not-for-profit filesharing betweens individuals, could be interpreted as "commercial scale". The only acceptable limitation of the scope of enforcement should be "commercial intent" or "for profit".
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: MPAA In Favor Of Current ACTA Text Before Anyone's Supposed To Have Seen It
Regarding ACTA one should keep in mind that even if the agreement were to be watered down to the point where it essentially just expresses what our laws already say it will significantly increase the difficulty with which these law can be changed in the future.
On the post: Rather Than Whine About Used Markets, Why Not Enable Them Yourself?
Ikea recently went after a used IKEA furniture site
On the post: Say It Ain't So, Woz: Steve Wozniak Says Patent Trolls Are Okay
On the post: Pentagon Demands Wikileaks 'Returns' Leaked Documents; Does It Not Know How Digital Documents Work?
Sending digital documents back - spider payment
Kind of reminds me of this short episode:
Please accept this spider as payment
On the post: People Aren't Buying Blank CDs Any More, So Collection Agency Demands Media Levy Expanded To Mobile Phones
Re: Media tax?
Anyway, whatever perspective one applies the fact still remains that the precision in terms of both input (what media to which it should apply) and output (who should receive the money?) is terribly bad. To me it would have made more sense if the politicians would have taken this money from the overall pool of tax money and call it a subsidy to the cultural sector with governmental control over the distribution. That's very close to what we have now anyway.
Btw. there was a funny ironic blog post commenting the story (run through Google Translate - "krukavgiften" means "pot levy")
On the post: Scary: It's 'Newsworthy' That A Newspaper Prints Facts
Re: Re: Lost jobs in the EU music industry more than twice the EU population size
On the post: Scary: It's 'Newsworthy' That A Newspaper Prints Facts
Lost jobs in the EU music industry more than twice the EU population size
I guess this shows that the numbers are often so blown out of proportion that many journalists have stopped even trying think about what's reasonable and what's not.
On the post: Could Bolivia Opt-Out Of Berne And WIPO And Forge A New Path On Copyright?
Spelling
On the post: New Zealand To Dump Software Patents Afterall (But Will Allow 'Embedded Software' Patents)
Anyway, since New Zealand have signed the TRIPS agreement it's good to have examples to point to of countries that interprete it such that excluding software patents is possible. That's very welcome.
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
STUDIO SHAME! Even Harry Potter Pic Loses Money Because Of Warner Bros' Phony Baloney Net Profit Accounting
On the post: If Your Brother Was Arrested For A Crime, Does It Violate Your Privacy When They Store His DNA?
Comparison with the EU
On the post: Danish Supreme Court Upholds Required Blocking Of The Pirate Bay; Says ISPs Liable For Content
Information society directive
and:
It almost seems as if they have misread the "or" that connects (a) and (b) in Article 5 as an "and".
On the post: TeliaSonera Fighting IPRED Up To The Swedish Supreme Court
If I am to be a bit picky IPRED is not actually the name of the law, but rather this EU directive. The so called IPRED-law is simply a Swedish implementation of this directive. In practice this meant a couple of changes to the Swedish copyright law (and the law on electronic communication if I remember correctly)
On the post: Pirate Party Starts Hosting The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re: Re: Media exposure
It didn't occur to you that the media will probably contact him for a comment since they don't know who else to contact?
He just offered a general comment. Anyone could have said the same thing.
On the post: Pirate Party Starts Hosting The Pirate Bay
Re: Re: Re: Uh oh...
If they are not seen in the media The Pirate Party cannot the middle voters anyway, so the media exposure is the key and this gives them that and also provides something that make people engaged in these kinds of issues.
I'm not sure if it's a good move in the long run, but it is quite likely to rally up some extra support for PP now in the election times.
On the post: Pirate Party Starts Hosting The Pirate Bay
Media exposure
So this move will give the Pirate Party (PP) lots of well-needed media exposure. Furthermore, it could be somewhat of a headache for the MPAA and IFPI who now can only attack The Pirate Bay at the cost of increasing the chance of the PP entering the parliament due to the reactions. Also, I think that the PP uses Bahnhof (mentioned in these two Techdirt posts) as their ISP and have tried to make themselves a name as an ISP that stands up for user rights (eg. the right to privacy). So it could both be difficult to attack the secondary ISP and if they manage to successfully do that then the only option for them would probably be to cut all access to the Pirate Party which would be interpreted by many as a form of political censorship.
On the post: Library Group And Others Issue Declaration For Consumer Friendly Copyright In Europe
Only harmonization of minimal set of exceptions
Well, to be fair they are only talking about harmonizing a minimal set of exceptions but without any upper limit for what individual countries may choose to do. That sounds like a very good idea to me and would also mean a lot to people with visual or reading disabilities who could benefit from a greater supply of books.
Here's what they write: "If exceptions to copyright laws were harmonised at an EU level, with these exceptions forming a minimum above which member states can extend, individual contracts for each member state can be avoided, facilitating cross border trade and minimising negotiation related transaction costs."
On the post: Should We Allow Consumers To Sell Their Souls?
Next >>