Loneliest Pirate's EU copyright report secures MEPs' approval

The European Parliament adopted the “Reda report” on copyright yesterday. Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda’s report on the functioning of the current Infosoc Directive is widely seen as a bellwether for the coming copyright legislation overhaul. Digi Commissioner Gunther H-dot Oettinger is due to present his proposals before the …

[Mine's a pint]

Double-take

Why did I read “freedom of panorama” as "“freedom of paranoia” ? It must be Friday.

[BoldMan]

So will anyone in Europe who actually make the laws (as opposed to make lots of waste paper aka European Parliament) pay the slightest bit of attention to all this garbage?

[John Brown (no body)]

Yes. Because the European Parliament may not actually make the laws, but they have to pass them. If a new law is submitted that goes against their known wishes than it's unlikely to be passed. Whether "this garbage" is garbage or not depends on which side of the copyright fence you fall on.

[Graham Cobb]

Collecting societies will be disappointed

“We know this resolution has had a long and difficult path to adoption, but every side seems to defend the importance of authors receiving fair remuneration but fails to put forward any concrete proposals to correct current failings,”

Despringe has hit the nail on the head. That is what this whole argument is about.

However, in my view, authors (or, at least, the people they have voluntarily contracted with to publish them) currently receive more than a fair remuneration and the changes that are needed are to reduce the rights and powers of publishers and collecting societies, not increase them. I will not be satisfied unless copyright terms are reduced, and more copyright exceptions are created.

[GrumpenKraut]

Thanks for this article ...

... that does not, for a change, repeat "Reda stoopid!" ad nauseam.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Thanks for this article ...

That's because it's not written by the Register's self proclaimed copyright expert.

[John Brown (no body)]

removed...to restrict the so-called “freedom of panorama”

Good, because to put it bluntly that is about the most braindead and stupid clause I think I've ever heard of with respect to copyright.

If you want to retain copyright in your IP of a building design or "public" art installation, then DON'T put in public view. That's a very slippery slope that we do NOT want to start going down.