back to article Mozilla breathes petition-of-fire at EU copyright laws

The Mozilla Foundation has decided the time is right to scorch the European Union's copyright law, which it says “undermines innovation and creativity on the internet.” Mozilla's beef includes a lamentation of the EU's lack of a universal fair use law, which it says means “In some parts of the EU, making a meme is technically …

  1. Tac Eht Xilef

    Errr...

    ... what the hell does all that have to do with Mozilla anyway?

    I mean, I could understand them speaking out if it was affecting their ability to build and/or release a browser - but all the examples in their carrying on seem to be end-user issues.

    Or have they given up trying to copy Chrome and started trying to copy the EFF?

    1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: Errr...

      I think that they (Mozilla) have been dragged into a court case for illegally displaying images that fall foul of copyright laws AND also for allowing Hyperlinks to be used and not sending money to the site being linked as happened in Germany where certain dead tree publishers took umbridge at having links to their content and them not getting paid for it.

      Firefox was being used to browse these sites using these 'illegal' links.

      1. Tac Eht Xilef

        Re: Errr...

        OK. If they have a concrete problem like that, maybe they should've explained it (or used plausibly similar examples) in their position statement / petition launch?

        Because ther current statement reads like they're picking a fight that has nothing to do with them or their business at all...

      2. Doctor_Wibble
        Coat

        Re: Errr...

        > umbridge

        That's where they film The Urchers, isn't it?

        1. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Trollface

          Re: Errr...

          'Umbridge' - wasn't she a prof at Hogwarts?

      3. Dan 55 Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re: Errr...

        Any links to that? Legal ones, of course.

        They couldn't even argue that Mozilla is profiting off this. It seems an incredibly stupid line of argument.

      4. Down not across

        Re: Errr...

        I think that they (Mozilla) have been dragged into a court case for illegally displaying images that fall foul of copyright laws AND also for allowing Hyperlinks to be used and not sending money to the site being linked as happened in Germany where certain dead tree publishers took umbridge at having links to their content and them not getting paid for it.

        Isn't that bit of a stretch? It is almost like taking BMW to court for having been used as a getaway car in a robbery.

        1. martinusher Silver badge

          Re: Errr...

          >Isn't that bit of a stretch? It is almost like taking BMW to court for having been used as a getaway car in a robbery

          Precisely. But everyone knows that all Internet companies have unlimited deep pockets and so there's a lot of creativity being used to grab a slice. If there was some way to persuade a court that BMW was indeed responsible for their cars being used in a robbery you can bet that someone will try it on.

          Meanwhile in the US a photographer (Carol Highsmith) is suing Getty Images for a 'lot of money' after being hit with a demand for money with menaces for using a photograph on her website without paying for it. The trouble is, that image was one of hers and it was one of a large number she'd put into the public domain through the Library of Congress. You'd think the 'copyright holder' would back off and suggest that maybe they've screwed up; think again, its not a copyright fee but a 'download fee'. What these outfits lack in scruples they make up in chutzpah.

    2. LosD

      Re: Errr...

      You DO know that The Mozilla Foundation is much more than the browsers, right?

      The Mozilla Manifesto

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So????

    Does the Louvre have Leonardo's (written and authenticated ) permission to sell pictures of the Mona Lisa to tourists?

    Does the architect of the Pompidou Centre give every tourist written permission to take pictures of the building they designed?

    etc

    etc

    etc

    I think not.

    So the ban on pictures of at metal thing that is a blot on the Paris skyline (joking) is silly.

    It just needs someone skilled in French Law to make a court see sense.

    Then again, they workers at the court might just go out on strike instead as they might see any relaxation in the law a threat to their jobs.

    Remember, "La Belle France" is where you can be reported to the authorities if you work more than 35 hours/week. Gotta have more jobs for the boys and girls you know.

  3. graeme leggett Silver badge

    petition page

    Long on rhetoric short on links to further information or examples, eg the more interesting claim about prohibition on use of copyrighted materials in education. Or about which countries are or aren't affected by each of these issues.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Mickey Mouse Protection Act

    Meanwhile, Europe is lying down and being screwed by Mickey Mouse. For 120 years !?!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

    1. Oengus

      Re: Mickey Mouse Protection Act

      At the rate they are going the various "books" in the bible will become copyright soon.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Mickey Mouse Protection Act

        No, they won't go backwards in time otherwise Disney would lose copyright as the public domain stories they based their movies on would become copyrighted!

      2. Suricou Raven

        Re: Mickey Mouse Protection Act

        If you believe the account of the bible, they are inspired by God. As the copyright term fit an individually authored work in most countries starts ticking down upon the death of the author, that means they would be still under copyright.

        However, the books themselves include explicit permission to reproduce and share freely. There's a very strongly-worded clause near the very end of Revelation forbidding alteration though.

  5. Mage Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Oh dear.

    They are conflating different issues. Also the niche French laws ought to be amended, they are not EU laws. There are EU copyright issues, but not are mentioned in the article.

    Mozilla have little expertise in this and really ought to stop fiddling with Firefox GUI but fix the bugs and functionality if they are short of work.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh dear.

      Said the end user, who has no idea how web standards, browser development and possibility even open source actually works.

  6. Steve Graham

    Back in the USA

    Hey, man, did you know that there are different countries, with actual different laws and shit? That sucks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Back in the USA

      Yeah it's nothing like your state and county laws

      1. The Nazz

        Re: Back in the USA

        Not to mention the special "Clinton's (own) Laws".

        It isn't going to go well.

  7. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    What, saying "jus' like that!" or "a pint? that's very nearly an arm full" is illegal? Mindless! Who's going to dig up Tommy Cooper or Tony Hanock and prosecute them?

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      fair use = common sense

      at any rate, the concept of 'fair use', as in "I can have a pic of me standing in front of the Mona Lisa" = fair use, but "a high-res pic of the Mona Lisa intended to be used for T shirts, post cards, and wall posters" may NOT be, depending...

      Or similarly for the Eiffel Tower light show, for which a copyright just SOUNDS stupid...

      Copyrights were intended to stop outright PLAGIARISM, and not become revenue sources for aggressive trolls. Long ago the USA decided that photocopying parts of a book were 'fair use', as is recording a radio or television broadcast (for personal use). Other grey areas, like parody, emerged.

      So I can take a Fox News photo of Mrs. Clinton, for example, and under 'fair use' put a Hitler moustache and half-bangs haircut on her, "improve" her wrinkles, give her eye redness and 'snake-eyes', make her look like she has 'rosacia' cheeks, and draw a snake tongue from between her (now) pointy devil teeth, with the caption "Mrs. Clinton speaks with forked tongue" or similar [yes, I _did_ do this], and of course that PARODY is now covered by 'fair use' and makes for a nice new meme or de-motivational poster (whatever).

      yeah, the internet IS a nicer place, when we have fair use exceptions for things LIKE that..

  8. Colin Tree

    ISP for IP

    Why don't some of our ISP payments go towards IP payments.

    Access to the internet is more than just paying for bandwidth.

    It should also be about payment for use of content.

    How much bullshit could be avoided?

    No more talk of pirates on the high seas.

    No more DRM hardware and software.

    1. DvorakUser
      Pirate

      Re: ISP for IP

      Unfortunately, doing that would add a further $50 to every American's internet bill.... assuming all 318.9 Million of us had our own bill. As there's roughly 4 people in a family (2 parents, 2 children, on average), that turns into $200. And that's just to cover piracy losses by the RIAA. Add on another $240 for the MPAA, and that's $440 - but we'll say $480 for easier math - per year for internet access. I don't know about you, but I highly doubt you'll get everyone in the USA - or anywhere else - to agree to pay an additional $40/month for internet access just to keep the service level the exact same.

      --Sources--

      RIAA - https://www.riaa.com/reports/the-true-cost-of-sound-recording-piracy-to-the-u-s-economy/

      MPAA - http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/putting-a-price-tag-on-film-piracy-1228/

  9. The C Man

    It's a misunderstanding ...

    ... by the European law makers but so is Mozilla's understanding of it. The Eiffel Tower lighting displays are created by a living artist and supposedly governed by the copyright laws but as they are meant for public display and paid for by the owners of the tower who cannot restrict photography except on the grounds of security as Eiffel's copyright ownership is no longer valid. Copies of the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas and elsewhere cannot/should not copy the lighting displays of the Paris tower without the express permission of the display creators.

    Without copyright laws that allow artists/authors/designers to be paid for what they create they would be deprived of a way of earning a living. Piracy laws go out the window if, for instance, books as soon as they are published, can be downloaded freely from the internet without the author earning from the sales of those books.

  10. The C Man

    It's a misunderstanding ...

    .. by the European law makers but so is Mozilla's understanding of it. The Eiffel Tower lighting displays are created by a living artist and supposedly governed by the copyright laws but as they are meant for public display and paid for by the owners of the tower who cannot restrict photography except on the grounds of security as Eiffel's copyright ownership is no longer valid. Copies of the Eiffel Tower in Las Vegas and elsewhere cannot/should not copy the lighting displays of the Paris tower without the express permission of the display creators.

    Without copyright laws that allow artists/authors/designers to be paid for what they create they would be deprived of a way of earning a living. Piracy laws go out the window if, for instance, books as soon as they are published, can be downloaded freely from the internet without the author earning from the sales of those books.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like