End well: this won't. European Copyright Society wants one EU law to rule 'em all Copyright laws in every EU country should be the same, the European Copyright Society (ECS) has said. In a letter to the European Commission's digital commissioner Günther Oettinger (4-page 499KB PDF), the academic think tank on copyright said "actual Union-wide unification … of copyright" as opposed to simply further …
The countries with more pro-creator copyright laws will be forced to accept the laws of the parasitic countries that have been stealing and cloning other peoples works for years.
FTFY
Anyone see eastern European countries voting to do anything except solve their problems with selling hooky copies of things other people create ?
>Anyone see eastern European countries voting to do anything except solve their problems with selling hooky copies of things other people create ?
Yes, they will vote for the extended copyright laws (because of the associated financial incentives offered) and carry on failing to enforce them.
>The countries with more pro-consumer copyright laws will be forced to accept the laws of the pro-corporate ones that have been written by industry lobbyists.
That is the point of the EU isn't it? It was built from the European Coal and Steel Community.
"...ever closer union.." That means the ultimate aim is to do away with sovereign nation-states and replace it with, well the last thing of a similar order was the Holy Roman Empire.
The things they are trying to do simply don't work well unless you have one treasury and one government.
It will be interesting to see if the financial crisis and the weight of government/financial stupidity causes a disaster that will push people into accepting central command or tear the thing apart. My guess is that we'll see both. They will come closer together as the failing economies look for someone to bail them out and the more successful ones seek to extend their influence by offering aid. Then the more successful (slower to fail) economies will crack under the strain and nationalism will re-assert itself as countries try to isolate themselves from the economic disaster.
It's basically the sub-prime mortgage thing but on both financial and political levels. Everyone sees the EU as an insurance, "too big to fail." The problem is that merging prevents the smaller failures which indicate the system is not working and needs to be overhauled. Since it isn't underpinned by anything solid (i.e. Serbs don't identify with Croats, the English don't identify with the French etc.), as it becomes more shaky, leaders will be under more pressure to pretend everything is ok to preserve confidence in it, or be blamed for its failure. That just makes it a bigger crash when it comes. The question is, how much carnage will be caused in the meantime, as democracy moves power away from the people and towards Brussels?
Harmonisation should make it easier to navigate the legal labyrinth, but there's a hell of a lot to harmonise.
Just to muddy the waters a bit, up until last week, the place of supply for goods delivered over the internet was the supplier's location. Now, for VAT purposes, the place of supply is the customer's location.
If the applicable tax law is that of the customer's country, shouldn't the applicable copyright law also be that of the customer's country?
(Both things would be easier if harmonised.)
"Harmonisation" has already happened, in 2001. Given the profound differences in copyright laws and rights between, say, the UK, France and Germany, it was a considerable achievement.
This proposal would take things a large, large step beyond "harmonisation".
Getting a trombone, a piano and a viola to play the same note? Not necessarily wise, but doable. But fusing them into a single instrument... now there's a challenge that just plain shouldn't be accepted.
"Now, for VAT purposes, the place of supply is the customer's location.
If the applicable tax law is that of the customer's country, shouldn't the applicable copyright law also be that of the customer's country?"
Or the one that makes sense: if it's Value Added Tax, the applicable tax regime is that which applies where the value is added, and only that one. Copyright law of the country in which the IPR generated / work was created, and only that one.
...imposing a single set of rules, regulations and everything else that comes with it across a vastly different set of peoples can never have unintended consequences.
Right?
Yup, worked so well with the USSR, they only had to use force and fear to keep everyone in line with the soviet way. Worked terrifically for the British empire as well - why on earth wouldn't Johnny Foreigner want to do things 'the English way'?
Even us yanks love the rules and regulations the good old federal government imposes on the states - it's what we live and breath for (at least we're just a single country - just).
Yup, you go right ahead Europe. The Euro has already been such a major success so obviously we need more harmonization to bring everyone in line. And don't worry about how much of your existing laws you already had in place, worked. Ours will be better because they'll be European! And everyone will follow them.*
Someone pass the whip, please. Think we'll be needing it.
*Except those who don't which is OK because we're used to that as well.
Leaving the EU (in this case) would just mean the UK government would have no say in the regulations which would end up being imposed on them anyway. Do you really think the multinational lobbyists behind this sort of stuff are more worried about the UK out of the EU than in?? There may be arguments for leaving, but this ain't one.
A better question is why so many UK politicians don't care about stuff like this.
You make it sound like the UK government has a say in the current EU lobby space when its pretty clear that they dont.
In answer to your better question; Leaving the EU would mean the UK government wouldn't be able to blame the EU for everything and they might then have to get off their arses and earn our money.
I think you mean that the British government will deliberately take the strictest possible view and implement the law in a way which satisfies whoever pays them the most. Then they'll complain that the big boys made them do it.
Of course next week, when a popular EU law is enacted, the UK government will take the credit.
Here's the harmonisation problem in a nutshell...
a) Although people talk a lot about the split between copyright and author's right, the real problem for harmonisation is inside the author's right system.
b) Some countries (France and those following) have a 'dualist' system - this splits economic (property) rights in works, etc. from moral (personal) rights that relate to works (i.e. the right to be identified as author, etc.).
c) Other countries (Germany and those following) have a 'monist' tradition - this fuses the property and personal rights, thereby creating deep differences from both copyright *and* dualist author's right - for example, under German law, outright assignment (transfer of title) of rights in a work is not possible. It makes life very difficult from an economic perspective and is cumbersome from a practical business perspective (kudlgy workarounds with publishing contract terms - some mandated by law - exist).
d) Since there is no way of 'squaring the circle', one of these models will have to be abandoned for harmonisation to occur. On economic/business grounds, it should be the monist system but can you really imagine Germany giving up on a tradition as hallowed in legal terms as the 'Beer Laws' in food terms? But, equally, can you imagine the French or the British giving up on their traditions?
What's the bet that in a decade or so the only way they could get the rights holders on side is by agreeing to extend the length of copyright even further under these new harmonized laws?
Might actually be an incentive to a lot of orgs in around that time to try & extend further as there will be a lot of stuff nearing the end of the copyright period. Heaven forbid something should actually enter the public domain.
I appreciate that people in creative industries somehow have to be rewarded, however the reward process of copyright has been so overly abused by corporate greed and undermined by new technology as to render the whole idea of copyright in it's current form obsolete and unworkable. In addition to this the length of copyright is rather obscene at death +70 years and needs to be brought down.
I would support tougher copyright enforcement in exchange for bringing copyright length into harmony with the current patent length of 20 years for non commercial copying (i.e. copying for no reward) and give commercial protection for 30-40 years. Copyright holders need to give something to get something or otherwise they will become victims of their own unreasonableness to change in the face of technological advancement and societies changed attitudes to copyright.
I appreciate that people in creative industries somehow have to be rewarded...
Agreed. Which is why I prefer to support creators on Patreon - "X" people care enough about something to collectively pay a "Y" sum monthly to a creator who then proceeds to make what he creates available for everyone for free (obviously not the same as making it public domain, but hey, I'll take that). I'd prefer that everything (multipliable at zero cost) worked that way (so those that can afford it make things available even for those that can't) but that might take a while. And don't even try the "but then nobody will pay!" angle - we have living proof that's not what actually happens there.
I agree.
The solution is to produce something that customers are willing to pay for. If you don't meet that basic age-old requirement, you don't have a business model.
Using the law to demand that people owe you a living is just racketeering. Hence the public backlash against the media industries.
The customer defines value. No one else.
... Or even Best Together does not imply, automatically or otherwise, perfection?
Look at US China Russia, ... Do we think that however impressive UK credentials are it can go n do this sort of stuff on its own?
[My answers: Never believe your own propaganda and UK as the Grand Duchy of Londres might be sweet and quaint for some but not for the many as is usually the case motivation anyway?]
The very initials EU highlight what Europe is trying to do.
Unfortunately, all the sense and reason in the world won't dissuade the Tories to act sensibly.
Copyrights should be limited to the life or a person or 25 years. The extended periods in some jurisdictions are quite unnecessary.
The same applies to patents, they should have a life of about 5 years and certain things should be barred from being patented at all - especially in connection with human, plant and animal functions.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
