What is to be considered harm depends on what baseline you choose. If you are trying to establish whether the currently law is justifiable or not then it doesn't make sense to use the provisions setup by the law as a baseline.
That's a very welcome result indeed. However, one should not forget that there is also an ongoing power struggle, so this is not only about ACTA or even transparency.
and your interpretation is like saying that the only cure for unpopular laws being passed is to keep them secret to the public for as long as possible. Oh, wait - that's what's currently being done.
It's indeed very strange to have a system with secret verdicts. Here in Sweden rights holders may use our implementation of the IPRED directive to request this type of information if they can get a court to approve to their request, but in that case, although the ISP is not allowed to notify the subscriber until after a certain period of time the court decision itself is completely open.
I think many countries have tax laws that distinguish between some commercial and noncommercial activities, so the problem is not entirely new and one can probably find some inspiration in how this has been solved in other cases.
I'd argue that the data rentention directive itself is probably what violates EU privacy laws in this case (for example the convention on human rights). Some have tried to make the argument that the stricter access rules of the data retention directive (which is not implemented in Swedish law but applies anyway) neutralises the IPRED law by making it impossible to release trafic data in cases like this. However, the data retention directive only affects data that has been stored in accordance with the directive. It's very questionable if the data in this case can be said to have been that.
For example, if an ISP uses certain logs internally in the company then one could argue that such data is stored in accordance with the directive since it is stored and used for other purposes than criminal investigations. That could be the case even if the same log data were stored in another database with stricter access rules according to the directive.
"These taxes on various technologies, consumer electronics and media storage devices are supposed to 'compensate' for any copyright infringement that is done on that equipment"
Here in Sweden, and likely more EU countries, the official motivations for these taxes are that they are only meant to compensate rights holders for the fair use like exemptions in the law that give you the right to make a few copies of a copyrighted work for yourself and your closest friends.
Under Article 3, databases which, "by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation" are protected by copyright as collections: no other criterion may be used by Member States.
Can it really be called an "intellectual creation" to just gather information for TV schedules? To me it doesn't seem any more intellectual than delivering people's mail or something like that. Although there are some challenges in doing it efficiently there isn't room for much creativity in relation to the end result.
"Copyright infringement should, by any honest definition of the term, be a civil issue"
Is that really a given? If you view copyright as a form of property or natural right then it makes sense. But if you view copyright as a way to try to promote the public good, is it then really so strange to view it as a criminal issue?
Just wondering...
When someone demanded access to the ACTA drafts refering to Swedish transparency laws they got access to the documents, but all the text was redacted. Have a look. Of course we are all aware of the secrecy, but when it's illustrated graphically like that it really sends a powerful message. Much more strongly than if it had not been released at all I think.
(Btw. the document was still useful since the document number in the header had not been redacted, so it could be used to confirm the authenticity of a document leaked earlier but where the source was unknown).
What you say is true, and the pirate party has indeed focused on this, but they are also pragmatists who don't let the best be the enemy of the good.
I often compare internet disconnection with imprisonement - it's a way to limit the possibility of people to roam freely in the virtual landscape. It's limiting how you can meet friends, perform tasks necessary for daily life and create opinion and participate in a democratic discussion about important matters. The effect of limiting participation in the democratic society I think is extra serious.
According to that argument the extreme situation with the surveilance cameras in for example Great Britain is no problem either since all that is filmed is public anyway. I'm not sure I would agree with that.
"Copyright is a monopoly in the same way that Coca-Cola is a monopoly. Copyright is not the kind of monopoly that excludes market competition, on the contrary, there is AMPLE competition in EVERY copyright-centered industry. Copyright serves only to exclude competition from itself. just like Coca-Cola. Or any other brand.
The key point, that copyright abolitionists love to ignore, is that there is a VAST difference between having a monopoly on cola and having a monopoly on Coca-Cola"
I agree that there is a difference. But by comparing copyright to trademarks you highlight an important aspect. Trademarks are not granted because of some idea that a producer has a natural right to exclude others from using certain terms to describe their products. Rather it's based on the idea of consumer protection - we want to know what it is that we are buying and by giving exclusive rights to certain brand names we give incentives to companies to produce high quality products since the quality will be associated with the brand. So the foundation for trademarks is:
1) to stop companies from doing deceptive advertising by describing a product like something that it is not
2) to give incentives for increased quality for the public good
Copyright is very similar. The reason we grant authors an exclusive right (I don't think the word "monopoly" is wrong, but as you point out it's of course a more narrow monopoly than the ones one normally thinks of) is because this is believed to create some societal benefit (promoting progress and the useful arts as the US constitution puts it) - not because there is some kind of natural right. The exclusive right is just a means to an end. If there were a better way to promote progress and a vivid culture we would/should of course choose that instead.
The most important reform today is in my view would be to reduce the copyright term to an historic level. It doesn't make sense to protect works up to 150 years like today.
"Basically, if I make something for myself, I own it. End."
It depends on whether you owned the parts. If you borrow a couple of things from your neighbour and use them to build a machine for youself, then it's still not yours despite your labor.
"If I make something for someone else as work for hire, they own it."
Not necessarily. Normally the employer owns it because you have written a contract to that effect or he is the one who owns the parts with which it was built. But when it comes to immaterial production like producing a film or writing software then it varies from country to country whether the rights to the resulting work are owned by the employer or employee.
So, to sum it up ownership normally follows from mutual contracts or from ownership of the parts from which something was built. Labor does not, in the absense of those other two things, imply ownership. Basically it's the old fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation. Just because labor is often involved when something is produced doesn't mean it's the cause of ownership.
There are two separate issues here:
1) Whether labor implies ownership of what you produce even if you do not own the parts with which it was constructed (no, it doesn't)
2) Whether breaking a contract can lead to sanctions (yes, it can).
On the post: Lessig Gives A Well-Timed Speech To The Italian Parliament On Internet Freedom
Re:
What is to be considered harm depends on what baseline you choose. If you are trying to establish whether the currently law is justifiable or not then it doesn't make sense to use the provisions setup by the law as a baseline.
On the post: Overwhelming Majority Of EU Parliament Votes Against ACTA
Re:
On the post: Overwhelming Majority Of EU Parliament Votes Against ACTA
On the post: Justice Department Decides To Break Up E-Voting Company
Re:
On the post: Justice Department Decides To Break Up E-Voting Company
Re: Open Source For Security ...
On the post: Norwegian Supreme Court Explores Whether Private Companies Should Get Access To IP Info
Secret verdict
On the post: Can You Fairly Distinguish Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Use In Copyright?
On the post: Copyright Is An Exception To The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up Info; Says IPRED Violates EU Privacy Rules
correction: then one could argue that such data is NOT stored in accordance with the directive
On the post: Swedish ISP Refuses To Give Up Info; Says IPRED Violates EU Privacy Rules
For example, if an ISP uses certain logs internally in the company then one could argue that such data is stored in accordance with the directive since it is stored and used for other purposes than criminal investigations. That could be the case even if the same log data were stored in another database with stricter access rules according to the directive.
On the post: Consumer Electronics Firms Fighting Against Copyright Levies In Europe
Official motivation: fair use tax
Here in Sweden, and likely more EU countries, the official motivations for these taxes are that they are only meant to compensate rights holders for the fair use like exemptions in the law that give you the right to make a few copies of a copyrighted work for yourself and your closest friends.
On the post: German High Court Says That TV Schedule Info Is Covered By Copyright; TV Listings Sites Have To Pay
Intellectual/creative - really?
Can it really be called an "intellectual creation" to just gather information for TV schedules? To me it doesn't seem any more intellectual than delivering people's mail or something like that. Although there are some challenges in doing it efficiently there isn't room for much creativity in relation to the end result.
On the post: Congress Gives $30 Million To Fight 'Piracy'
Civil issue?
Is that really a given? If you view copyright as a form of property or natural right then it makes sense. But if you view copyright as a way to try to promote the public good, is it then really so strange to view it as a criminal issue?
Just wondering...
On the post: Careful What You Redact: It May Say More Than What You Left In
ACTA redacting
When someone demanded access to the ACTA drafts refering to Swedish transparency laws they got access to the documents, but all the text was redacted. Have a look. Of course we are all aware of the secrecy, but when it's illustrated graphically like that it really sends a powerful message. Much more strongly than if it had not been released at all I think.
(Btw. the document was still useful since the document number in the header had not been redacted, so it could be used to confirm the authenticity of a document leaked earlier but where the source was unknown).
On the post: Compare The Process Between Engstrom's Internet Bill Of Rights And ACTA
Re: 3 strikes
I often compare internet disconnection with imprisonement - it's a way to limit the possibility of people to roam freely in the virtual landscape. It's limiting how you can meet friends, perform tasks necessary for daily life and create opinion and participate in a democratic discussion about important matters. The effect of limiting participation in the democratic society I think is extra serious.
On the post: Musician Chases Down Google Street View Car To Promote His Music
Re: Re:
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re:
The key point, that copyright abolitionists love to ignore, is that there is a VAST difference between having a monopoly on cola and having a monopoly on Coca-Cola"
I agree that there is a difference. But by comparing copyright to trademarks you highlight an important aspect. Trademarks are not granted because of some idea that a producer has a natural right to exclude others from using certain terms to describe their products. Rather it's based on the idea of consumer protection - we want to know what it is that we are buying and by giving exclusive rights to certain brand names we give incentives to companies to produce high quality products since the quality will be associated with the brand. So the foundation for trademarks is:
1) to stop companies from doing deceptive advertising by describing a product like something that it is not
2) to give incentives for increased quality for the public good
Copyright is very similar. The reason we grant authors an exclusive right (I don't think the word "monopoly" is wrong, but as you point out it's of course a more narrow monopoly than the ones one normally thinks of) is because this is believed to create some societal benefit (promoting progress and the useful arts as the US constitution puts it) - not because there is some kind of natural right. The exclusive right is just a means to an end. If there were a better way to promote progress and a vivid culture we would/should of course choose that instead.
The most important reform today is in my view would be to reduce the copyright term to an historic level. It doesn't make sense to protect works up to 150 years like today.
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy, Stealing, Theft, Evil, Greed, and other emotional descriptors
It depends on whether you owned the parts. If you borrow a couple of things from your neighbour and use them to build a machine for youself, then it's still not yours despite your labor.
"If I make something for someone else as work for hire, they own it."
Not necessarily. Normally the employer owns it because you have written a contract to that effect or he is the one who owns the parts with which it was built. But when it comes to immaterial production like producing a film or writing software then it varies from country to country whether the rights to the resulting work are owned by the employer or employee.
So, to sum it up ownership normally follows from mutual contracts or from ownership of the parts from which something was built. Labor does not, in the absense of those other two things, imply ownership. Basically it's the old fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation. Just because labor is often involved when something is produced doesn't mean it's the cause of ownership.
On the post: Can You Copyright An SQL Query?
Re: Re: legally
Not if the original piece of information is not a work protected by copyright.
On the post: The Language Of 'Piracy' As A Spectacle
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Piracy, Stealing, Theft, Evil, Greed, and other emotional descriptors
1) Whether labor implies ownership of what you produce even if you do not own the parts with which it was constructed (no, it doesn't)
2) Whether breaking a contract can lead to sanctions (yes, it can).
These are two completely separate matters.
Next >>