

Copyright isn't working, says European Commission - pwg
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/communication-breakdown-10000030/copyright-isnt-working-says-european-commission-10024835/

======
nl
Be very careful when reading this article.

The only actual quotes from it are things like _Sadly, many see the current
system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward_
and _She added that the existing copyright system was not rewarding the vast
majority of artists_

There is a very common copyright meme in Europe (mostly it seems from France
and Belgium) that goes something like this: _Google is making a lot of money,
and they steal (aka spider) our work. Therefor Google should pay us_.

There are examples of this viewpoint in various court cases, for example:
[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/google-
versu...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/google-versus-
belgium-who-is-winning-nobody.ars)

In the ZdNet article the columnist added a lot of words about things like
_Rights-holders have long complained about the damage done to their industry
by online copyright infringement. Governments and courts in countries
including the UK have responded by blocking access to websites that help
people unlawfully share music, videos, games and software._

I think that Kroes is arguing for _stronger_ copyright, not less.

Here's a final quote. I hope I'm wrong about it being a "let's tax Google"
argument again: _In times of change, we need creativity, out-of-the-box
thinking: creative art to overcome this difficult period and creative business
models to monetise the art_

~~~
roel_v
What she's arguing for, and this is no secret in Brussels and even -dare I
say- common sense, is better _enforcement_ of copyright. The problem isn't
with copyright itself, it's with the difficulties that those who want to use
it to monetize content encounter when it comes to making sure people abide by
it. Working DRM is impossible with current technology, I think everybody
reading this agrees with that; so there are two ways forward: change
technology so that it becomes prohibitively difficult for the average customer
to copy content without a rights holder's consent, of a whole different
business model all together that separates payment from copying. Both are very
hard problems for which there are no real solutions in sight. In the short and
medium term, the only realistic trend I see is a more active stance from the
rights holders themselves in defending those rights - i.e. more lawsuits,
without government involvement. (Criminal law is not the right tool for this
issue anyway, it's a shame that we've wasted 15 years on going down that route
now).

~~~
vidarh
The downside of civil lawsuits is that the threshold for costing someone who
is innocent a lot of money is a lot lower: The copyright holder has an
incentive to sue or threaten to sue on the basis of enough information that
they _on average_ make the most money through settlements and judgement,
largely without much thought to the collateral damage along the way from
people who end up settling on the basis of the risk of _being sued_ regardless
of whether or not they've done anything wrong.

Conversely, if it's done under criminal law, while the end result for someone
who faces prosecution may be higher, so are the standards required for
evidence _and_ the prosecutor does not see monetary gain from going after
people on shaky grounds.

If one is to keep doing this via civil lawsuits, the consequences of suing
without real evidence need to be much higher, and the cost of taking the risk
of a lawsuit if you're innocent needs to be much lower.

~~~
roel_v
Why? Why is copyright different from any other area of the law? Anybody can
sue anybody else right now, for example claiming that some sort of service has
been performed, and the situation would be the exact same. The use of criminal
law would be a gigantic drain on already scarce public resources, why waste
them on something trivial? If anything, suing for IP infringement should be
_easier_ \- so that everybody can do it, and not just those with 10k cash up
front and several months or years time to wait out the result.

The key to an effective copyright regime is a way to enforce rights. That way
needs to be cost-effective, fast, accessible to any sort of rights holder, and
needs to put control into the hands of such rights holders. Leaving
enforcement up to a prosecutor (who will need to weight such cases with e.g.
murder and rape cases!) is or does neither of those.

------
loup-vaillant
> _Sadly, many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a
> tool to recognise and reward_ (Neelie Kroes)

As far as I know, copyright's primary goal originally wasn't to "recognize and
reward", but to increase the output in creative works. And even if it _is_
recognition and reward, it is done through punishment and withholding (state
granted monopoly that if infringed, causes fines).

I'd rather judge legislation by its actual consequences rather than by its
professed intentions. And my impression is that copyright causes much more
punishment and withholding than it does recognition and reward.

------
nextparadigms
I see a lot more common sense coming from EU lately than from US.

~~~
javascriptlol
EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8897662/EU-
bans-claim-that-water-can-prevent-dehydration.html)

~~~
nl
Untrue: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-
scientist/2011/nov...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-
scientist/2011/nov/18/1)

~~~
Dylan16807
That counters different articles on the same topic, not the telegraph article.
Nowhere did the telegraph article say that water itself was called bad, just
that the dehydration statement could not be made.

Also part of that article is logically unsound in the opposite direction. A
_significant_ amount of water is well more than a measuring cup full. Eating a
pork pie does help prevent starvation, how could you disagree? It's a nitpick
to complain that water only helps hypertonic and isotonic dehydration, _the
most common kinds_.

Edit: just read the linked pdf and t-winsnes's comment. I'm astounded that
none on the articles reporting on this, especially the guardian article
specifically written to debunk the drama, noticed that this is a rejection of
the statement as a _disease_ claim. Dehydration not counting as a disease
means labels don't _need_ approval under this regulation.

Edit 2: huh, a downvote. I don't mind it but would you kindly give me a
sentence why, whoever voted so? I'm not sure what I've done wrong.

