EU Internet at Risk

[wasab]

This is what happens when you have an all controlling big government. EU is like the power hungry American Feds but like an entire continenet bigger in scope and crap tons more regulations. 

 

Who decides on these policies anyway? Is it the European parliment, the council, or the commission?

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

i'm just wondering how far this extends. 

 

for example, if someone on youtube covers a song on the piano, even though the original song had no piano in it, is that still using copyrighted material then? 

[hobobobo]

The time to scrap current cr laws and start from scratch is drawing closer, thanks eurocom. Perhaps, someday, ill be able to sell mickey mouse merch in the hood or make a donald duck fitness youtube channel

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, firelighter487 said:

i'm just wondering how far this extends. 

 

for example, if someone on youtube covers a song on the piano, even though the original song had no piano in it, is that still using copyrighted material then? 

Yes it is, you must have permission or pay royalties If you do that.  When you post a cover version to youtube you are publishing that work.

 

2 hours ago, hobobobo said:

The time to scrap current cr laws and start from scratch is drawing closer, thanks eurocom. Perhaps, someday, ill be able to sell mickey mouse merch in the hood or make a donald duck fitness youtube channel

 

Copyright laws have largely remained unchanged in last few decades.  The biggest change has been the length of time one can own the copyright for (growing thanks to micky mouse).  What we see changing these days are laws that help to enforce copyright law (extend it's reach to make it easier for CR owners and prosecutors to enforce.  Whether they are fair or not (whether that reach goes too far and has unfair effects) is up to each person individually to determine.     The simple fact is technology today has made it so easy to pirate and not get caught.  Which effectively means in order to prevent piracy or other digital crimes (whether you agree with them or not) is to start moving down the directory  tree so to speak and start cutting of the supporting branches. 

[jagdtigger]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Which effectively means in order to prevent piracy or other digital crimes (whether you agree with them or not) is to start moving down the directory  tree so to speak and start cutting of the supporting branches. 

But in the process they are using methods that frustrates the paying customer but not the so called pirates. At some point more and more legal customers will say "screw it, im fed up with this" and get their stuff from other "free sources". Its a catch22. And the sad thing is CR owners just cant see this because they are blinded by greed....

Plus there was an EU study that showed that piracy isnt that big of a deal as the CR owners want to present it.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, jagdtigger said:

But in the process they are using methods that frustrates the paying customer but not the so called pirates. At some point more and more legal customers will say "screw it, im fed up with this" and get their stuff from other "free sources". Its a catch22. And the sad thing is CR owners just cant see this because they are blinded by greed....

Plus there was an EU study that showed that piracy isnt that big of a deal as the CR owners want to present it.

As I said:

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

  Whether they are fair or not (whether that reach goes too far and has unfair effects) is up to each person individually to determine.  

It seems everyone has a different opinion on whats fair and whats driven by greed.  Many CR owners know that piracy is driven by greed.  

Also the EU does not have a study that proves anything, they have an investigation that concluded:

Quote

"In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements. That does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect."

That is not proof, that is merely a conclusion drawn from the conditions they investigated and the statistical results indicated no loss of sales.   Their study only included 6 countries and was mostly surveys about consumer intention.  The same types of surveys that tell us everyone wants windows 8 style start menus and that no one cares about facebook data pilfering. Their surveys tell us the live music generated more revenue than recorded (this we know is not entirely true). This is the big problem with the industry claims and the claims of pro piracy, they don't take into account all the data and the data they do take into account is not always in context. For Example tour revenue is up but tour numbers are declining for live acts.  Why, because ticket prices for a live show are going through the roof.      The TL:DR of this is don't believe one report just because it suits your agenda.   They set out to prove piracy was bad and as soon as you do that your data is biased, that report could literally say anything because garbage in = garbage out.

[jagdtigger]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Many CR owners know that piracy is driven by greed.  

Yeah, thats why everything is available  for free on torrent sites...  Piracy isnt driven by greed, its a symptom of a outdated business model that should've died a long time ago.

Edited June 13, 2018 by jagdtigger

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Yeah, thats why everything is available  for free on torrent sites...  Piracy isnt driven by greed but, its a symptom of a outdated business model that should've died a long time ago.

You think those sites exist because the people who run them aren't making money?  The end product is free for you becasue the service that provided that content for you made money from doing so.  That is what piracy is. If there was no money in it for the torrenting sites then they wouldn't exists, and if you think that isn't true then you are a fool.

[jagdtigger]

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You think those sites exist because the people who run them aren't making money?  The end product is free for you becasue the service that provided that content for you made money from doing so.  That is what piracy is. If there was no money in it for the torrenting sites then they wouldn't exists, and if you think that isn't true then you are a fool.

You have a point there, but the rest what i wrote is still true. The harder they try to grasp the more they loose....

 

One good example:

https://torrentfreak.com/crunchyroll-addon-for-kodi-hit-with-fatal-copyright-complaint-180613/

Albeit unofficial its only purpose was to provide access through kodi for paying customers, considering how popular kodi is i dont think it didnt helped to grow their revenue. And what they do? Kill it. Typical short sighted uneducated corporate decision.

Edited June 13, 2018 by jagdtigger

[hobobobo]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Copyright laws have largely remained unchanged in last few decades.  The biggest change has been the length of time one can own the copyright for (growing thanks to micky mouse).  What we see changing these days are laws that help to enforce copyright law (extend it's reach to make it easier for CR owners and prosecutors to enforce.  Whether they are fair or not (whether that reach goes too far and has unfair effects) is up to each person individually to determine.     The simple fact is technology today has made it so easy to pirate and not get caught.  Which effectively means in order to prevent piracy or other digital crimes (whether you agree with them or not) is to start moving down the directory  tree so to speak and start cutting of the supporting branches. 

Its not like i dont understand this, im just of the firm opinion that disney turned cr law into an abomination preventing creative development. Im more or less fine with it since its mostly arts and crafts affected by this which, while important, is of little concern to me. Its just that the cr laws problem goes in tandem with retarded patent laws, which, im more then sure, in the current state stifle innovation and competition. I kinda worship CCP for making guanzhou ip-free area, i dream the russian gov one day gets its head out of its ass and its grubby mitts out of the budget and does the same with Ekaterinburg or Gorno-altaysk, id even move there

 

Btw, did that scematic for tig welder help?

[mr moose]

25 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

You have a point there, but the rest what i wrote is still true. The harder they try to grasp the more they loose....

 

One good example:

https://torrentfreak.com/crunchyroll-addon-for-kodi-hit-with-fatal-copyright-complaint-180613/

Albeit unofficial its only purpose was to provide access through kodi for paying customers, considering how popular kodi is i dont think it didnt helped to grow their revenue. And what they do? Kill it. Typical short sighted uneducated corporate decision.

I fully appreciate there is a downside to the way they enforce some CR laws and DRM etc, however I refuse to accept that piracy itself is innocent and the notion that all the problems lay at the feet of CR owners is to ignore a wealth of established conditions surrounding all the different industries that rely on IP and CR.  

 

1 minute ago, hobobobo said:

Its not like i dont understand this, im just of the firm opinion that disney turned cr law into an abomination preventing creative development. Im more or less fine with it since its mostly arts and crafts affected by this which, while important, is of little concern to me. Its just that the cr laws problem goes in tandem with retarded patent laws, which, im more then sure, in the current state stifle innovation and competition. I kinda worship CCP for making guanzhou ip-free area, i dream the russian gov one day gets its head out of its ass and its grubby mitts out of the budget and does the same with Ekaterinburg or Gorno-altaysk, id even move there

The problem with CR tends to stem more from philosophical ideals than it does physical evidence of abuse (from either side).  The problem with IP tends to only surround companies whose sole reason for existing is to buy IP as an investment or to sue (patent trolling).  Outside of that their is no evidence that scraping the IP system would open up development. In fact quite the opposite is true, without decent IP protections there is no guarantees that your investment (in whatever you develop) you will make a return on because others can simply copy your work and under cut you. Leaving you with all the R+D expense and non of the profit.

 

 

[hobobobo]

44 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

The problem with CR tends to stem more from philosophical ideals than it does physical evidence of abuse (from either side).  The problem with IP tends to only surround companies whose sole reason for existing is to buy IP as an investment or to sue (patent trolling).  Outside of that their is no evidence that scraping the IP system would open up development. In fact quite the opposite is true, without decent IP protections there is no guarantees that your investment (in whatever you develop) you will make a return on because others can simply copy your work and under cut you. Leaving you with all the R+D expense and non of the profit.

 

 

 

I agree with investment\return part, im not suggesting completly axing it (although it did actually work for guanzhou, they have a different r&d cycle there, less capital-intensive, more labor-intensive), i just want them to have reasonable window of exclusivity, something like 5 years from products launch, and, perhaps, mandatory small royalty fees after that. Just hogging the patents retards industries, look no futher then amd-nvidia-intel love triangle, where intel and amd leverage x64 and x86 patents to keep the markets to themselves, even going as far as making vias license non transferable so that pesky jensen does not stretch his tentacles towards it. Or gpu IP, which keeps\kept intel from making a nice big discreet gpu (they licensed some of it from amd now, afaik, so....)

 

Considering that the end-goal of any competent corporation is to build a monopoly - there is literally no way the current ip laws oppose or prevent that, their sole purpose is to lock down markets and drive competition out. With the current 20 years of ip ownership it might as well be forever, since the tech will always be modified, patents renewed and kept under the ip laws protection and by the time protection wears off - the tech is straightup useless and outdated. This ip shit is the foundation of current western economics and it will be its downfall, its unflexible and harmfull to consumers and competition. But the point is literally impossible to argue since "mah bottomline" got no limit and no sane exec would give up miniscule market advantages (5yo patents are a small advantage) for the sake of advancing competition and tech in general. So i honestly hope cr and ip laws become so drakonian that it would be a no-brainer to abolish them and start from scratch

[Mihle]

Change I want is that on patents for example,  after for example 5 or 10 years, other companies must be able to buy a license to it for a reasonable price. A problem with that would be: Who decides what a reasonable price is, and how do they decide it?

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, hobobobo said:

I agree with investment\return part, im not suggesting completly axing it (although it did actually work for guanzhou, they have a different r&d cycle there, less capital-intensive, more labor-intensive), i just want them to have reasonable window of exclusivity, something like 5 years from products launch, and, perhaps, mandatory small royalty fees after that. Just hogging the patents retards industries, look no futher then amd-nvidia-intel love triangle, where intel and amd leverage x64 and x86 patents to keep the markets to themselves, even going as far as making vias license non transferable so that pesky jensen does not stretch his tentacles towards it. Or gpu IP, which keeps\kept intel from making a nice big discreet gpu (they licensed some of it from amd now, afaik, so....)

 

Considering that the end-goal of any competent corporation is to build a monopoly - there is literally no way the current ip laws oppose or prevent that, their sole purpose is to lock down markets and drive competition out. With the current 20 years of ip ownership it might as well be forever, since the tech will always be modified, patents renewed and kept under the ip laws protection and by the time protection wears off - the tech is straightup useless and outdated. This ip shit is the foundation of current western economics and it will be its downfall, its unflexible and harmfull to consumers and competition. But the point is literally impossible to argue since "mah bottomline" got no limit and no sane exec would give up miniscule market advantages (5yo patents are a small advantage) for the sake of advancing competition and tech in general. So i honestly hope cr and ip laws become so drakonian that it would be a no-brainer to abolish them and start from scratch

I don't have the same fear, obviously.  Markets tend to be driven as much by consumer demand as they are by corporate control.  When they get to the point where the controls cause problems for demand, the market tends towards reduced patronage.  For example when health insurance prices rise to high, people just stop buying health insurance ( I use health insurance because that's really important), if Intel/AMD/Nvidia try to maintain an operation that oppresses consumers (using IP to maintain a monopoly in which they charge too much and under develop), then consumers wait longer to upgrade costing them revenue.  Even when a company has a monopoly (especially in tech) they still have to give their consumers motivation to upgrade (either better a product or cheaper prices for better products) or else their revenue streams stagnate.   I know it looks like they are using their market position to charge exorbitant prices, however the prices for tech today are actually lower than they ever have been.  Even with tighter IP laws.

 

If their was an industry that was needing to have a much closer eye on it and maybe even stricter laws/regulations, it would be the transparency of banking and information service providers.  And that is second only to Government transparency. 

 

EDIT: also, what if a 5 year patent was not enough to recoup R+D costs + reasonable profit?  Pharmaceutical patents are dynamic, each one is calculated on how important the drug is to society and how long it will take for that drug to pay for it's own development.   So I guess dynamic patents can be applied elsewhere, however you then have the issue of who gets to decide, I don't want a patent house lacky who is getting cash from my competitor deciding how long my patents are.

[Thaldor]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

-snip-

 

EDIT: also, what if a 5 year patent was not enough to recoup R+D costs + reasonable profit?  Pharmaceutical patents are dynamic, each one is calculated on how important the drug is to society and how long it will take for that drug to pay for it's own development.   So I guess dynamic patents can be applied elsewhere, however you then have the issue of who gets to decide, I don't want a patent house lacky who is getting cash from my competitor deciding how long my patents are.

Couldn't agree with you more. IT tech also still has fast development cycle and it handles well the staggnation. For good example Intel, AMD fell far behind with FX-CPUs and Intel started to really stagger their R&D and bring around 5-10% improvement per generation until AMD somehow managed to get their game on and brough Ryzens. We are only talking about 10 years but in IT that's a long time.

 

I think dynamic patents could be applied at least in IT and quite many other areas where there is some non-profit associations and other organisations that know what is going on and how important something might be and still be in the grey area of neutrality. But it really needs some organisation that everybody can trust their secrets and the real information about their products. In IT I would like to believe something like IEEE has very good knowledge how something like completely new CPU architecture could change the field and where and how it might affect while having no monetary interest on it and wouldn't compete against the inventor.

 

But changing these things is like trying to fight a dragon with a toothpick. CR and patent laws are probably the most lobbyed laws there is and they are being lobbyed with huge sums of money because someone still wants to make money with one more release of Christmas songs by Elvis.

[jagdtigger]

19 hours ago, mr moose said:

however I refuse to accept that piracy itself is innocent and the notion that all the problems lay at the feet of CR owners

I didnt say its innocent, but TBH i think the "all the problems lay at the feet of CR owners" part is true. I mean they are the ones who feeding the flames of piracy through silly things like DRM, geoblocking,  region locking, lobbying for insane CR laws, etc... Their outdated thinking and actions are the main cause IMHO.

[hobobobo]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

-snip-

I kinda hate your example with health insurance there since it seems bizzare to view health as a product, kinda has a ring of elitism and cynicism(the bad kind one). The thing is - cr laws and consumer demand do not infliuence each other, IP itself does influence deman and vice-versa. And when the market gets problematic IP is held as ransom against reduced patronage. Tech is just the easiest example, there are plenty others. Ecosystem is another word for size-able IP leverage, since its main goal is to satisfy your need in a way thats acceptable to you and locks your operations to their platform, to the point where platfrom switching costs would be prohibitive. And independent research coming up with the same solution is shunned since they were not the first, which is fucken retarded.

 

The greatest thing about messing with cr laws is the market got its own indicator - trade secrets. Which, for some, are also protected by the law. I dont see corporations in need of any protection, esp against competition stealing their ideas. All the bullshit that CR and IP laws protect innovation and without them it would stagnate is ridiculous, while true in a narrow sense. It would stagnate in its current form, where corporation model would no longer be feasable for innovation. It would lead to something of a start-up market with tons of small players, as it more or less is now, but to a greater extent with those start-ups not having an end goal of being bought by google/facebook. In an ideal world such a market would be made of dynamic associations between companies producing different products depending on the combined resources of the companies involved in such associations. But that sounds awful lot like a dream and would give all the cards to the manufacturers, since ip is just a drop of the funds required for cuttung edge production plants, which is not so bad i think

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

I didnt say its innocent, but TBH i think the "all the problems lay at the feet of CR owners" part is true. I mean they are the ones who feeding the flames of piracy through silly things like DRM, geoblocking,  region locking, lobbying for insane CR laws, etc... Their outdated thinking and actions are the main cause IMHO.

 

This just becomes a chicken and egg issue.  DRM became a thing because software was being pirated, Geo blocking became a thing because licensing rights were being bypassed, etc etc.  Have they gone too far? probably in some cases. but again there is no evidential absolute answer, it comes down to your personal ideal on the subject.

58 minutes ago, hobobobo said:

I kinda hate your example with health insurance there since it seems bizzare to view health as a product, kinda has a ring of elitism and cynicism(the bad kind one). The thing is - cr laws and consumer demand do not infliuence each other, IP itself does influence deman and vice-versa. And when the market gets problematic IP is held as ransom against reduced patronage. Tech is just the easiest example, there are plenty others. Ecosystem is another word for size-able IP leverage, since its main goal is to satisfy your need in a way thats acceptable to you and locks your operations to their platform, to the point where platfrom switching costs would be prohibitive. And independent research coming up with the same solution is shunned since they were not the first, which is fucken retarded.

 

The greatest thing about messing with cr laws is the market got its own indicator - trade secrets. Which, for some, are also protected by the law. I dont see corporations in need of any protection, esp against competition stealing their ideas. All the bullshit that CR and IP laws protect innovation and without them it would stagnate is ridiculous, while true in a narrow sense. It would stagnate in its current form, where corporation model would no longer be feasable for innovation. It would lead to something of a start-up market with tons of small players, as it more or less is now, but to a greater extent with those start-ups not having an end goal of being bought by google/facebook. In an ideal world such a market would be made of dynamic associations between companies producing different products depending on the combined resources of the companies involved in such associations. But that sounds awful lot like a dream and would give all the cards to the manufacturers, since ip is just a drop of the funds required for cuttung edge production plants, which is not so bad i think

I think you missed my point.  without CR laws or IP laws anyones content/product can be reproduced thus flooding the market.  supply exceeds demand causing the value to drop.  Yes CR and IP law effects consumer demand and it's place in market forces.

[jagdtigger]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

This just becomes a chicken and egg issue.  DRM became a thing because software was being pirated, Geo blocking became a thing because licensing rights were being bypassed, etc etc.  Have they gone too far? probably in some in most if not all cases. but again there is no evidential absolute answer, it comes down to your personal ideal on the subject.

FIFY. Software piracy is a bad example since both CDPR and GoG proven that you can operate just fine without DRM. Its not a chicken and egg situation but big corps abusing their wealth and influence to the detriment of consumers who dont have a chance to defend their interests. Law should be balanced, but CR laws are a very bad farce, a one sided but kicking fiasco...

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

FIFY. Software piracy is a bad example since both CDPR and GoG proven that you can operate just fine without DRM. Its not a chicken and egg situation but big corps abusing their wealth and influence to the detriment of consumers who dont have a chance to defend their interests. Law should be balanced, but CR laws are a very bad farce, a one sided but kicking fiasco...

you're repeating yourself now.

 

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 but again there is no evidential absolute answer, it comes down to your personal ideal on the subject.

 

 

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

you're repeating yourself now.

If two company operating without useless junk like DRM is not evident enough....

[asus killer]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

You think those sites exist because the people who run them aren't making money?  The end product is free for you becasue the service that provided that content for you made money from doing so.  That is what piracy is. If there was no money in it for the torrenting sites then they wouldn't exists, and if you think that isn't true then you are a fool.

you are generalizing and that's all the obvious route for mistakes. Not all trackers are run for profit i can assure you that. 

[Uzume]

Pretty soon geo-IP excluding EU traffic from your web servers is going to be easier than complying with Eu demands.

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

If two company operating without useless junk like DRM is not evident enough....

that doesn't make any sense.

18 minutes ago, asus killer said:

you are generalizing and that's all the obvious route for mistakes. Not all trackers are run for profit i can assure you that. 

What do trackers have to do with this?  what mistakes are you talking about?

[jagdtigger]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

that doesn't make any sense.

What do trackers have to do with this?  what mistakes are you talking about?

Read my comment you quoted and said im repeating myself.... And i think by tracker asus killer meant torrent site. Not all of them is run for profit, same for release groups.

Edited June 14, 2018 by jagdtigger