tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2863386971671925668..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BREAKING NEWS: Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda proposes major overhaul of EU copyrightVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42278199849601134412015-01-22T08:40:50.331+00:002015-01-22T08:40:50.331+00:00@Federico: grazie!@Federico: grazie!Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1395142173085657902015-01-22T06:58:52.788+00:002015-01-22T06:58:52.788+00:00The breaking news aspect is very appreciated. Not ...The breaking news aspect is very appreciated. Not only the best summary around, but also the most timely!Federicohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01590082705421602977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-66903685879902104842015-01-22T03:13:36.647+00:002015-01-22T03:13:36.647+00:00Interesting post ex-examiner.
Here in the States,...Interesting post ex-examiner.<br /><br />Here in the States, there is not such a personal exemption - but there are a number of similar exemptions, such as an exemption to see if the invention works (the experimental exemption), for idle speculation, BUT any other use - commercial or merely for private benefit are still considered infringement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45360213417370327602015-01-20T12:37:08.099+00:002015-01-20T12:37:08.099+00:00A difference between Copyright and Patent infringe...A difference between Copyright and Patent infringement (under UK law) is that action for copyright infringement can be taken against a private individual for copying a copyright-protected work for personal use, whereas no action for patent infringement can be taken against a private individual for private non-commercial acts that would constitute infringement if carried out commercially. ex-examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63275849175845410262015-01-20T08:13:17.424+00:002015-01-20T08:13:17.424+00:00@Nit picker: Thanks for your comment. Besides the ...@Nit picker: Thanks for your comment. Besides the fact that I am not British, the reason why there have been 'Breaking News' items is because the posts were released a few minutes or - in some cases - hours after the actual piece of news was also released. For instance, my post on Julia Reda's draft report was published shortly after the actual draft report was also made available.Eleonora Rosatihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05629420303968805446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11909842889548855262015-01-19T21:53:55.445+00:002015-01-19T21:53:55.445+00:00Perhaps of interest that Reda is asking for paragr...Perhaps of interest that Reda is asking for paragraph-by-paragraph comments on her proposals, at<br /><br />https://www.discuto.io/consultation/6240Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25857405418700245092015-01-19T21:39:30.756+00:002015-01-19T21:39:30.756+00:00I have been wondering for a few months now, why ar...I have been wondering for a few months now, why are almost half the posts about copy right "BREAKING NEWS"? I like the understated British style better. Nit pickernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5880699956299040702015-01-19T18:23:45.685+00:002015-01-19T18:23:45.685+00:00Not related to copyright, but to general IP and th...Not related to copyright, but to general IP and the evolution effect, a long but well-thought-out piece is available at:<br /><br />http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/01/19/a-global-ip-system-at-the-crossroads/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73694868010517267282015-01-19T17:04:23.820+00:002015-01-19T17:04:23.820+00:00I would posit that "need" and controls s...I would posit that "need" and controls should be replaced with a discussion of <i>legality</i> of such controls.<br /><br />Let's face it: the only purpose of the controls is to STOP an action that may in fact be legal and justified - and this stoppage is <i>not</i> done in direct relation to an <b>actual</b> act of illegality, but is universally applied at the onset.<br /><br />There simply is no other bottom line takeaway.<br /><br />The problem that the vendors of digital information have is that even a single uncontrolled copy of a digital item can eviscerate (or at the least cause serious financial damage) to an <b>old style</b> business model. The problem is the business model and not the selective rights that exist to copy ANY work (for particular reasons).<br /><br />The problem is that those facing the problem of perfect digital replication is that the rights' holders are engaging in self-help activity (and in certain cases, this self-help is augmented with criminal penalties) that denies - at the onset - rights that the public already have.<br /><br />There need not be any argument made as to any "absolute right" for this denial of ALL rights position to be seen as inappropriate. <br /><br />I suggest then that the very nature of our "brand new" digital world must invoke a different discussion. I suggest that if the public has existing rights, then those existing rights cannot be sacrificed at the alter of preserving a particular business model that flourished in the pre-digital world.<br /><br />On the other hand, if we are sacrificing those rights, we should be upfront - and clear - about it and simply and directly remove those rights instead of trying to concoct and ultimately unworkable amalgam.<br /><br />Lastly, with the coming advent of 3D printers (and a projected exponential growth of just what - and where - and by whom - can be printed), I would daresay that copyright infringement can be easily matched with patent infringement and thus more than one flavor of intellectual property right is in the cross hairs of evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5364778229501226332015-01-19T16:50:00.590+00:002015-01-19T16:50:00.590+00:00I'm surprised to see so many comments about po...I'm surprised to see so many comments about point 24. How else do the objectors think the EU can meet their existing obligations under Article 7 of the treaty of Marrakesh?Andrew Robinsonhttp://www.pirateparty.org.uknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58940804797739384432015-01-19T16:27:16.967+00:002015-01-19T16:27:16.967+00:00First Anonymous - You may not see a need for contr...First Anonymous - You may not see a need for controls, but fortunately more than one voice can be heard in democratic debate. I must say, I don't necessarily agree with the measure proposed, but I was addressing your point that the measure did not seem to serve a purpose. You may or may not like the purpose, but purpose there is aplenty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-63423074954113220852015-01-19T16:11:46.810+00:002015-01-19T16:11:46.810+00:00I think the keypoint of "modern copyright use...I think the keypoint of "modern copyright use" is rather to open the gate of knowledge without siphon off creativity's protection.<br />Thus, I would strictly limit the protection of IP to 20 years from 1st publication/creation but leave a protection of 50 (or even 70) years after death on derived works.<br />It would lift off lots of uncertainty and foster creativity.Pierrehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12647995107763498331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-73088106314760500772015-01-19T13:16:08.673+00:002015-01-19T13:16:08.673+00:00@12:43
If I do not wish someone to copy the infor...@12:43<br /><br />If I do not wish someone to copy the information I provide and encrypt it in a manner according to my choosing, the state should not have the power to enforce me to do so. Just because an act is not illegal does not mean I have the absolute right to perform that act.<br />Should I as a producer of protected content, for example copy protected movies, be required to divulge the source code relating to that protection, there will be people who would make available anti-encryption tools even if their use is illegal.<br /><br />On balance, I see no need for controls to be introduced here. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84256750749571679692015-01-19T12:43:19.424+00:002015-01-19T12:43:19.424+00:00First anonymous: this recommendation exists to han...First anonymous: this recommendation exists to handle several scenarios where technological prevention measures interfere with permitted uses of a work.<br /><br />Firstly, imagine a situation in which a) exceptions exist to the principle that a certain activity with regard to a protected work is an infringement of a rightsholder's right (e.g. reporting on current events); b) the rightsholder implements a technological protection measure to prevent or restrict that activity in general, regardless of whether any exception applies in a particular circumstance (e.g. an encryption system); and c) the circumvention of technological protection measures is an offence. Under these circumstances, although the exception theoretically exists, it cannot be practically used.<br /><br />An alternative scenario has the alternative c) the technological protection measure is legal to overcome under certain exceptions, but the technological protection measure is sufficiently sophisticated that it cannot practically be overcome, e.g. it involves near-military-grade encryption. Again, under these circumstances, although the exception theoretically exists, and although it would even be legal to circumvent the measure, the exception cannot be practically used. <br /><br />A final alternative scenario has the alternative c) the implementation of the technological protection measure involves a service which may be disrupted or unavailable (e.g. server authorisation) or a device which may become obsolete or unavailable (a dongle, a chip). Under these circumstances, a person who, whether through license or using an exception, has the right to perform a particular act in connection with the work, cannot practically do so.<br /><br />Making the source code or specification for such technological protection measures available would allow those who seek to use the work as permitted by law practically to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62195293820079051112015-01-19T12:03:20.929+00:002015-01-19T12:03:20.929+00:00I don't know about the TTP, but there's a ...I don't know about the TTP, but there's a bit about copyright in material released by the Commission earlier this month on the TTIP (see http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/january/tradoc_153020.7%20IPR,%20GIs.pdf). The main link to all docs is http://www.eubusiness.com/regions/usa/ttip-texts-2/ttip-textsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86798638843072710502015-01-19T11:39:23.721+00:002015-01-19T11:39:23.721+00:00There appears to be no explanation in Ms. Reda'...There appears to be no explanation in Ms. Reda's report for the need for point 24,<br /> <br />"Recommends making legal protection against the circumvention of any effective <br />technological measures conditional upon the publication of the source code or the <br />interface specification, in order to secure the integrity of devices on which technological <br />protections are employed and to ease interoperability; in particular, when the <br />circumvention of technological measures is allowed, technological means to achieve such <br />authorised circumvention must be available."<br /><br />This measure does not seem to serve any purpose other than allowing illegal circumvention of technological measures to prevent copying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com