back to article Euro watchdog: We need ONE definition of 'illegal content' across EU

The European Commission should define what is meant by "illegal content" in order enable content 'hosts' to better understand what responsibilities they have to remove or disable access to such material, an EU privacy watchdog has said. The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) Peter Hustinx said that hosting service …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Thin end of the wedge

The objective in copyright lobbying at the moment is to bring about a change whereby governments become responsible for pursuing infringement cases, rather than it being up to the copyright holders.

Personally, I wouldn't cooperate with the copyright lobby on anything, ever, specifically in order to force them to start selling stuff I want, rather than the current situation where they're trying to force me to buy the crap they currently offer.

Once, the public wanted to buy vinyl records and the these companies sold them vinyl records. Now we want monthly subscription download/streaming services, and they're still trying to sell us vinyl records.

If the copyright lobby can't get its shit together to sell me a product I'm demanding from them, then I'm going to continue to keep trying to deal with individual artists on an individual basis, despite the difficulties this causes for me, because I'm quite content to refuse to pay for a product I don't want.

tl;dr: Refuse to give these bastards anything, ever, until they work out that the best course of action is to sell things people want instead of suing people who won't buy those things.

10
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Thin end of the wedge

Yep. In all reasonableness when I create media and content I expect the customer and users to wear chicken suits, pay me a million dollars and sing the hokey cokey. If they don't, then the government should enforce it on the population. I mean, I've worked really hard for that content, and spent millions of dollars of other peoples money on it, so I deserve to set my rules on everyone else. If you see my content, your bound by my rules.

/sarcasm

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Thin end of the wedge

Personally, I wouldn't cooperate with the copyright lobby on anything, ever, specifically in order to force them to start selling stuff I want, rather than the current situation where they're trying to force me to buy the crap they currently offer.

Personally, I've co-operated in the past but made them stick to the letter of the law. Want us to take something of a customers site? Written notification (email's fine) please, with sensible proof of copyright attached and any other details that might be pertinent. Issue will be considered, and customer will be contacted to give them a chance to respond.

I did have one conversation with a company who said it 'might' be in breach of their copyrights. It was politely explained to them that I wasn't going to action a takedown on the basis of 'might', it either was or wasn't.

7 times out of 10, the customer says 'oops, I'll get that down now' when I contact them. The rest of the time they usually have a reason for it being there, and I get the fun job of considering whether we need to comply with the request or not. In all cases, everything is heavily documented so that we can defend our decision if court if needed (not that it's come to that yet).

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to turn round and say "Nah, start selling some decent music and then I'll consider it" but it has to be a business decision and not a personal one. They've got a much bigger legal slush fund than us, so we have to be careful, but out of principal they'll only get what they want if it appears they are in the right. Not that they like hearing that, especially when they're demanding a customers details (response: "we manage the server, deal with us. Or you can get a court order or find their details yourselves. Your choice, but only one is likely to resolve this quickly").

6
0
Bronze badge
WTF?

"consumer protection law breaches"?

What kind of content (as opposed to selling things that actually breach the law) is that supposed to cover?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: "consumer protection law breaches"?

I think it probably relates to the often touted idea that dodgy software puts consumers at risk. Very 'fact' convenient for the likes of BSA, though it's not entirely true.

Yes, some pirated software will contain malware, and yes there's a risk that all could (just as there's a small risk that 'legitimate' software could). The reality though, is that if Joe Bloggs has ripped his XP cd and put a torrent up, there's no more chance of malware than on a shop-bought disc. The gamble, I guess, is that you don't know whether Joe Bloggs is a rip-n-share type or a rip-lace-n-share.

As far as media goes, I guess it's obvious. It must be a breach of consumer protection law (and human rights) if you download a Metallica track, only to play it and find that someone's renamed a Justin Bieber song!

2
0
Gold badge

What has the EU got to do with it?

Isn't this some Eurocrat suggesting that all members should pool sovereignty in its entirety and have a single legal system, just so that the eurocrats have an easier job?

This proposal does nothing to address cases where one of the countries is outside the EU (which are surely the majority) and has catastrophic effects on the national sovereignty of countries inside the EU. It is utterly idiotic and no-one that stupid should be on the Euro payroll. Sack this twat at once.

2
1
Unhappy

Being cynical..

.. I would suggest that what would most probably happen is that the EU will publish standards, the UK gov will rewrite those and then enforce a more strict interpretation, whilst the rest of Europe makes a rude gesture based upon their individual cultural past and completely ignores any such standards.

Feeling really grumpy today

4
0

Not ready to harmonise standards?

In some EU countries you aren't allowed to have stuff about the Nazis. In others, it's fine. I don"t think anyone wants to move together on that particular one right now.

Also, this reaches outside the EU of course, but some newsgroups that I read are pestered with unwanted offers of pictures of Indian actresses kissing. Kissing what, if it isn't each other, I don't know, nor do I want to, but the point is that in India this is extremely naughty.

Otherwise, what we and our neighbours are sensitive about in different ways is difficult to discuss without exposing our chauvinistic prejudices against each other, and suspicions about, for instance, personal hygiene.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Very simple

Any illegal use or distribution of copyright protected works is the correct definition.

Now that ISPs know, they need to do their part to stop the illegal flow of copyright protected works.

0
3
Silver badge

Re: Very simple

And how, exactly, do you propose they do that?

If I upload an MP3 file, how do they know if I have permission? I might even own the copyright, or at the very least have permission of the holder.

Then of course there's the issue of how they know what's going where. Are you really suggesting we all get subjected to DPI just to try and prop-up an industry that would have been in far less of a mess if they'd embraced the technology in the first place? An industry that still seems to be making rather a lot of money?

Who pays for the kit? The media industries? The ISPs, Governments? Here's a clue, in the latter two cases it's us as customers/taxpayers paying. In the former, the only people not paying for the cost of the DPI are those who the DPI is trying to catch.

Rather than whining about copyright infringement on the net, and expecting everyone else to sort it for them, how about the industry addresses the root causes (pricing being a big concern, convenience another)?

A good proportion of people on the Reg probably hold copyright on something(s), so lets use us as a sample. Are ISP's supposed to know what I've said can and can't be used by someone else? Are they supposed to even recognise that it's not been written/sung/played by the person uploading? No, of course not, which means any 'regulation' requiring ISPs to monitor favours big business over small. Those who are small will, by your view of the world, get killed by piracy, whilst Big Business will get a lovely bit of protectionism to help top up their bank balances.

Copyright infringement has been an issue ever since it became possible to copy things under copyright. It's gotten a lot easier to do, sure, but it's been a good while since Napster and yet the Industry is still here. Yes, there have been job losses, just as in every other industry - there's this thing called a recession on ya know.

Wow, feeling a bit ranty tonight. Think I'll go chill out somehwere!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Very simple

Copyright content filters.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums