EU Digital Commissioner Says Copyright Laws Encourage Piracy

[Therumancer]

Good luck trying to change anything. She tries to do so, billion-dollar companies will be on her like flies to honey trying to protect their security blanket.

If there is anything more ridiciulously powerful than companies it is the EU. The Commission regularly hands out ridonculous fines to major corportations, some which are outside of Europe (e.g. Microsoft had to pay a fine of $794m in 2004). I have no doubt they can resist any pressure.

Exactly. In fact, the lady in question here, Neelie Kroes, IS THE ONE TO HAVE SUED MICROSOFT. And not just one time, either.
According to her Wikipedia page, she sued companies for over 9.000.000.000 euro's.
Look. At. The. 0's.

Yeah, another example is when Intel got sued for 1.45 billion dollars

And she was the one leading the charges.


http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/intel-fined-1-45-billion-dollars/

Well, I'm sort of a pessimist when it comes to things like this, especially in Europe. I've read articles over the last few years about legal actions, insurance, and various scams. While it gets very complicated and I don't even pretend to understand it all, the simple truth is that in many cases companies can benefit by being sued in the EU and then writing it off, and that in some countries an international business can use legal battles in other countries as a tax write off and so on, leading to a lot of staged legal battles full of appeals simply for tax purposes depending on what agreements they can call on.

To me that article sounds sketchy because the legal action is over consumer rebates that were undercutting competitors? It sounds so ridiculous that it almost sounds like a method of giving the goverment a payoff without it seeming like a bribe, perhaps after dragging things out for more then the amount they are losing in tax credit in other countries, or whatever. The point is it's a mess.

I'm saying this because again, as a pessimist, I kind of figure some politician who crossed a company that can lose 1.4 billion would wind up having an accident if something wasn't going on. I mean seriously for 1.4 billion dollars you could probably hire a PMC to be your personal army and take over a small African nation or something if you wanted one, win or lose you figure someone would have been paid to fuck with her car or whatever. Real life isn't a movie or adventure novel, but that largely just means the arseholes are more likely to get away with this crap.

No direct connection but the logic is similar to the whole article here about Uwe Boll and about how his movies are probably made to exploit holes in the tax code. When international borders get involved you would be surprised at how ridiculous the logic can get and how a bad thing in one country can somehow be a gold mine elsewhere and how many people screw with it.

I'm not saying I know anything, I just suspect, since this would be the first time I've ever heard about a company being successfully smacked down for offering valid customer rebates, I figure someone HAD to be up to something there.

That has nothing to do with her comments on piracy though, which I agree with for the most part... or at least the bit about needing to re-evaluate the copyright laws themselves.

 

[MrTub]

Good luck trying to change anything. She tries to do so, billion-dollar companies will be on her like flies to honey trying to protect their security blanket.

If there is anything more ridiciulously powerful than companies it is the EU. The Commission regularly hands out ridonculous fines to major corportations, some which are outside of Europe (e.g. Microsoft had to pay a fine of $794m in 2004). I have no doubt they can resist any pressure.

Exactly. In fact, the lady in question here, Neelie Kroes, IS THE ONE TO HAVE SUED MICROSOFT. And not just one time, either.
According to her Wikipedia page, she sued companies for over 9.000.000.000 euro's.
Look. At. The. 0's.

Yeah, another example is when Intel got sued for 1.45 billion dollars

And she was the one leading the charges.


http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/intel-fined-1-45-billion-dollars/

Well, I'm sort of a pessimist when it comes to things like this, especially in Europe. I've read articles over the last few years about legal actions, insurance, and various scams. While it gets very complicated and I don't even pretend to understand it all, the simple truth is that in many cases companies can benefit by being sued in the EU and then writing it off, and that in some countries an international business can use legal battles in other countries as a tax write off and so on, leading to a lot of staged legal battles full of appeals simply for tax purposes depending on what agreements they can call on.

To me that article sounds sketchy because the legal action is over consumer rebates that were undercutting competitors? It sounds so ridiculous that it almost sounds like a method of giving the goverment a payoff without it seeming like a bribe, perhaps after dragging things out for more then the amount they are losing in tax credit in other countries, or whatever. The point is it's a mess.

I'm saying this because again, as a pessimist, I kind of figure some politician who crossed a company that can lose 1.4 billion would wind up having an accident if something wasn't going on. I mean seriously for 1.4 billion dollars you could probably hire a PMC to be your personal army and take over a small African nation or something if you wanted one, win or lose you figure someone would have been paid to fuck with her car or whatever. Real life isn't a movie or adventure novel, but that largely just means the arseholes are more likely to get away with this crap.

No direct connection but the logic is similar to the whole article here about Uwe Boll and about how his movies are probably made to exploit holes in the tax code. When international borders get involved you would be surprised at how ridiculous the logic can get and how a bad thing in one country can somehow be a gold mine elsewhere and how many people screw with it.

I'm not saying I know anything, I just suspect, since this would be the first time I've ever heard about a company being successfully smacked down for offering valid customer rebates, I figure someone HAD to be up to something there.

That has nothing to do with her comments on piracy though, which I agree with for the most part... or at least the bit about needing to re-evaluate the copyright laws themselves.

Well as far as I know, Intel used to offer a heavy sale for every company that only used Intel products, if they started to use AMD products the price would be "the normal" price and sometimes even stop selling products to that company, which pretty much forced every company to only use Intel.


And btw the government didnt get any money

"Intel Corp. is paying Silicon Valley rival Advanced Micro Devices Inc. $1.25 billion to squash a legal battle over Intel's sales tactics, a rift that led to antitrust charges against Intel in several countries and was headed toward a costly and nasty trial next year."



"The complaint says Intel used threats and rewards to keep the world?s largest computer companies from using rival chips. The FTC also contends Intel secretly designed compiler software to stunt the performance of rival chips."

"The FTC is seeks an order preventing Intel from using threats, bundled prices or other offers to encourage exclusive deals, hamper competition or unfairly manipulate the prices of its CPU or GPU chips. The FTC said it also may seek an order barring Intel from making products that impair performance of non-Intel chips."

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2009/12/16/intel-sued-by-ftc-for-anti-competitive-behavior/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10396188-92.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33882559/ns/business-us_business/t/intel-pay-amd-billion-settle-lawsuits/

 

[MrTub]

This is a small step in the right direction I hope, to end once for all whit this "DRM" stunt ans similar and more obscure means to punishes legit consumers,and solves noting to avoid Piracy. But I fear it may be just empty word but I really hope that I am wrong.

Only real way to do it is to keep voting Pirate Party if you can whereever you are xD

Other than that... just had another nice encouter with DRM today, bought "Saint's Row: The Third" off of Amazon.co.uk because I wanted it Uncut like all my other games and it just got delivered today, I opened the package and game to install it, put in the disk and started, came to the Steam Activation Screen, put in the Key and get a "Sorry, but the following items are not available for purchase in this country. Your purchase has been cancelled." ... well thank you very much.

After looking for the issue on the Web and seeing that I'm not the only one e.g.: http://saintsrow.com/community/go/thread/view/136781/28700433/UK_Copy_of_Saints_Row:_The_Third_Not_Activating_on_Steam_in_Germany?pg=1 I decided to install and use OpenVPN (which is the first time I was required to do such with Steam) just to install the game I bought...

I imagine people that won't know what to do or not willing to do it via VPN are royally screwed.

I'm sorry, but could you please explain what OpenVPN does and why it helps here, and whether I should be using it too? I went to the Wikipedia page but still don't really see what it would be used for.

OT: Well, it's a politician saying we ought to do X, without any plan or policies actually suggested. As such, I don't expect much to come out of it. Nice to hear though.

Well VPN stands for virtual private network and you can use it to "change" your location, so if you live in Sweden and the game isnt available there yet, you can connect to a server in US and then connect to steam and it will think you live in US and then you can activate/download the game

 

[McMullen]

This is a small step in the right direction I hope, to end once for all whit this "DRM" stunt ans similar and more obscure means to punishes legit consumers,and solves noting to avoid Piracy. But I fear it may be just empty word but I really hope that I am wrong.

Only real way to do it is to keep voting Pirate Party if you can whereever you are xD

Other than that... just had another nice encouter with DRM today, bought "Saint's Row: The Third" off of Amazon.co.uk because I wanted it Uncut like all my other games and it just got delivered today, I opened the package and game to install it, put in the disk and started, came to the Steam Activation Screen, put in the Key and get a "Sorry, but the following items are not available for purchase in this country. Your purchase has been cancelled." ... well thank you very much.

After looking for the issue on the Web and seeing that I'm not the only one e.g.: http://saintsrow.com/community/go/thread/view/136781/28700433/UK_Copy_of_Saints_Row:_The_Third_Not_Activating_on_Steam_in_Germany?pg=1 I decided to install and use OpenVPN (which is the first time I was required to do such with Steam) just to install the game I bought...

I imagine people that won't know what to do or not willing to do it via VPN are royally screwed.

I'm sorry, but could you please explain what OpenVPN does and why it helps here, and whether I should be using it too? I went to the Wikipedia page but still don't really see what it would be used for.

OT: Well, it's a politician saying we ought to do X, without any plan or policies actually suggested. As such, I don't expect much to come out of it. Nice to hear though.

Well VPN stands for virtual private network and you can use it to "change" your location, so if you live in Sweden and the game isnt available there yet, you can connect to a server in US and then connect to steam and it will think you live in US and then you can activate/download the game

Hm, good to know. Thanks!

 

[Something Amyss]

Why continue the DRM if the only people being hurt are legitimate customers.

People can't stand the thought that someone else might be getting away with something.

 

[neurohazzard]

To the people disagreeing with what the EU commissioner is saying:
1. If piracy is killing the industry, explain how the industry still exists and makes money.
2. If the only thing stopping everyone from pirating everything is DRM and harsh laws, why isn't everyone pirating everything? Saying DRM stops or even discourages piracy is like saying you can stop a tornado by blowing at it really hard, and since people will usually default to their own sense of morality over the law unless they are being directly watched by said law, it can't be having much of an effect.
3. If DRM makes the legit copy WORSE then a pirate copy (when a pirate copy is normally worse by default), how is it going to stop piracy? (and don't say an unbreakable drm will arise, it's not going to happen, and if you don't believe me, take a second to pit your mind against the rest of the internet and see if you can get a score of %100 for the rest of time)
4. If the only way to make the law work to stop piracy is a total surveillance police state, how is it worth it? It's a bad idea for much the same reason as is drinking a big glass of cyanide to kill a stomach flu.

"If you're not careful, the media will have you hating the people being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing."

 

[CrystalShadow]

Likewise there is an increased interest in re-selling the same properties again and again in differant formats. It's a touchy issue if you bought the rights to say a song if you really should have to pay again to say put it onto an MP3 player when you bought the CD. The greedy corperate schmucks say "yes", and of course the people who bought the song to have the song are going to disagree about having to re-purchuse something they rightfully already own.

You make a lot of good points, but this one somewhat amuses me right now.

Of course, it's primarily because the corporations are going by that old saying "To have your cake, and eat it too"...

If I were sold a product, I have the right to do whatever I feel like with it, and it would be subject to certain legal protections (Such as fitness for purpose and several other consumer protection laws...)

If it's sold as a license, then the logical conclusion from the buyer's perspective, is that it is a licence to play/watch/listen to/etc. whatever I've bought a license for. - Format shifting and duplicating something wouldn't be an issue as long as all the copies are exclusively for my own personal use.
Furthermore, if I had proof that I owned the licence for such a work, I would expect the company to provide me with replacements if I lost it. (Again, because I didn't pay for a specific copy of something, but for the right to use the information it represents.)

But... Of course, that's not what's happened. It's a licence when that's convenient for the seller, a product if it suits them (but obviously not if that would expose them to any kind of legal liability), and so on...

Eh. At the end of the day corporations are defined by greed, so this shouldn't come as a surprise. (Being greedy even seems to almost be a legal requirement, which is a little awkward if you happen to have other considerations and you run a company...)

 

[Aeshi]

To the people disagreeing with what the EU commissioner is saying:
1. If piracy is killing the industry, explain how the industry still exists and makes money.
2. If the only thing stopping everyone from pirating everything is DRM and harsh laws, why isn't everyone pirating everything? Saying DRM stops or even discourages piracy is like saying you can stop a tornado by blowing at it really hard, and since people will usually default to their own sense of morality over the law unless they are being directly watched by said law, it can't be having much of an effect.
3. If DRM makes the legit copy WORSE then a pirate copy (when a pirate copy is normally worse by default), how is it going to stop piracy? (and don't say an unbreakable drm will arise, it's not going to happen, and if you don't believe me, take a second to pit your mind against the rest of the internet and see if you can get a score of %100 for the rest of time)
4. If the only way to make the law work to stop piracy is a total surveillance police state, how is it worth it? It's a bad idea for much the same reason as is drinking a big glass of cyanide to kill a stomach flu.

"If you're not careful, the media will have you hating the people being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing."

1. See below

2. Because piracy isn't perfect yet, there are people too cowardly to try and people unwilling to waste god-knows how long waiting for the torrent to download. I'm willing to bet that the day somebody comes up with BitTorrent 2000 or some other way of quickly pirating without risks games sales will sink like a stone.

3. Early forms of Surgery were more likely to kill than to cure, they took time to perfect, and this is no different.

4. No comment, I personally would say yes though.


Also, if we're allowing quotes from random people most likely long dead to be considered arguments:

OH GOD PIRATES WILL KILL US ALL STOP THEM!!!!

 

[Low Key]

To the people disagreeing with what the EU commissioner is saying:
1. If piracy is killing the industry, explain how the industry still exists and makes money.
2. If the only thing stopping everyone from pirating everything is DRM and harsh laws, why isn't everyone pirating everything? Saying DRM stops or even discourages piracy is like saying you can stop a tornado by blowing at it really hard, and since people will usually default to their own sense of morality over the law unless they are being directly watched by said law, it can't be having much of an effect.
3. If DRM makes the legit copy WORSE then a pirate copy (when a pirate copy is normally worse by default), how is it going to stop piracy? (and don't say an unbreakable drm will arise, it's not going to happen, and if you don't believe me, take a second to pit your mind against the rest of the internet and see if you can get a score of %100 for the rest of time)
4. If the only way to make the law work to stop piracy is a total surveillance police state, how is it worth it? It's a bad idea for much the same reason as is drinking a big glass of cyanide to kill a stomach flu.

"If you're not careful, the media will have you hating the people being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing."

1. See below

2. Because piracy isn't perfect yet, there are people too cowardly to try and people unwilling to waste god-knows how long waiting for the torrent to download. I'm willing to bet that the day somebody comes up with BitTorrent 2000 or some other way of quickly pirating without risks games sales will sink like a stone.

3. Early forms of Surgery were more likely to kill than to cure, they took time to perfect, and this is no different.

4. No comment, I personally would say yes though.


Also, if we're allowing quotes from random people most likely long dead to be considered arguments:

OH GOD PIRATES WILL KILL US ALL STOP THEM!!!!

So you're of the mindset that everyone is a pirate if given the opportunity? Cmon now. That's rather naive. Those who drink wine with a meal aren't future alcoholics, all gun owners aren't future murderers, everyone who enjoys sex aren't future rapists, etc.

 

[Kopikatsu]

Why reward people for doing the right thing instead of punishing them for doing the wrong thing?

Rewarding people for doing the right thing 'validates' piracy. Similar to how establishing a minimum donation to get the Humble Bumble games would just cause many people to pay the minimum and not feel bad about it since 'It's like they're saying it's okay to pay this little!'

You don't get a letter in the mail every week saying 'You haven't committed any crime this week! Good job! Here's a fiver!', do you?

 

[The Random One]

That's be nice. Call me when you come with a plan that keep people for being dicks and stealing because they just want to shit on your rules. We can have tea and pet the unicorns while watching the flying pigs.

I don't think any system will prevent people from obstinately opposing it. Any barrier at all, no matter how legitimate will piss people off. Still you can't not have the laws since then nobody would be able to make any money off anything they produce and it'd be the end of money in any creative medium. I'd like some new laws but It'd like a better plan then "we need a new system." That's not a plan, it's a hippy protest.

OK, it's simple.
Some people are dicks. They will try to steal media no matter what.
Some people are completely honest. They will never willingly break any laws or EULAs no matter how much they end up losing in the matter.
Both of those groups are very, very small parts of the whole consumer base.
Most people are in the grey area.

(That is true for most things, by the way, although pundits will try to trick you into believing there are rigidly defined black and white options. With us or against us, etc. Do not believe.)

The problem with modern DRM is that it attempts to stop piracy entirely, which is impossible, because the very small group of dicks will always exist. They should focus on the grey area.

What people on the grey area become more likely to pirate the more strict DRM is?

Tech savvy consumers who are very aware of their rights. They'll take any perceived slight as an excuse to do their thing.
It won't even cross their mind if there is no strong DRM.

Lazy, entitled couch potato activists. They have a warped concept of how to fight for what they deserve and think pirating a game with strong DRM is an act of moral disobedience.
This are the same people who are unable to wait for a few months until a price drop for their games, and this is how they will approach any game that they like unless DRM changes their mind.

People who want to steal, but feel bad about it. If they hear the former two groups speaking about it as if it was something good, it'll soothe their conscience, and they'll feel at ease pirating even though they know it's wrong.
They don't have the guts to do it without an excuse.

Etc, etc. This is not and has never been a matter of legislation. This is a matter of public relations. Legislation will never be strong enough, or succesfully enforced enough, to meet publishers' goals for no piracy. They must instad focus on making people internalize what they think, appealing to their own moral compass or business sense. Buying an original game should be something you do because it's the better choice, not something that you begrudgingly do because you want to support the industry. It shouldn't be out of the kindness of our hearts.

Why reward people for doing the right thing instead of punishing them for doing the wrong thing?

I think the real question is, why punish people for doing the right thing for a chance to more effectively punish people for doing the wrong thing?

 

[neurohazzard]

To the people disagreeing with what the EU commissioner is saying:
1. If piracy is killing the industry, explain how the industry still exists and makes money.
2. If the only thing stopping everyone from pirating everything is DRM and harsh laws, why isn't everyone pirating everything? Saying DRM stops or even discourages piracy is like saying you can stop a tornado by blowing at it really hard, and since people will usually default to their own sense of morality over the law unless they are being directly watched by said law, it can't be having much of an effect.
3. If DRM makes the legit copy WORSE then a pirate copy (when a pirate copy is normally worse by default), how is it going to stop piracy? (and don't say an unbreakable drm will arise, it's not going to happen, and if you don't believe me, take a second to pit your mind against the rest of the internet and see if you can get a score of %100 for the rest of time)
4. If the only way to make the law work to stop piracy is a total surveillance police state, how is it worth it? It's a bad idea for much the same reason as is drinking a big glass of cyanide to kill a stomach flu.

"If you're not careful, the media will have you hating the people being oppressed, and loving the people doing the oppressing."

1. See below

2. Because piracy isn't perfect yet, there are people too cowardly to try and people unwilling to waste god-knows how long waiting for the torrent to download. I'm willing to bet that the day somebody comes up with BitTorrent 2000 or some other way of quickly pirating without risks games sales will sink like a stone.

3. Early forms of Surgery were more likely to kill than to cure, they took time to perfect, and this is no different.

4. No comment, I personally would say yes though.


Also, if we're allowing quotes from random people most likely long dead to be considered arguments:

OH GOD PIRATES WILL KILL US ALL STOP THEM!!!!

1 and 2. Bullshit. Torrents are quick and easy, and in this age where being computer illiterate is rare, everyone would pirate everything if (and only if) everyone was the immoral looney toons you seem to think they are. Hell, I could have pirated every game I've ever played, but I don't, because I support developers, or at least I support the developers who don't screw me over because of imaginary losses.

3. As surgery progressed, it became better, not worse, besides which, I think we all agree in hindsight that drilling holes in your head to fix a headache was a bad bad idea, and this will probably be no different.

4. So you're in favor of a total surveillance police state then? Well I guess you're just a god damn fascist and really, at that point, there's no talking to you anyways.

5. Modern day pirates aren't killing anything. Technically, they aren't even stealing anything because the original is left intact. Deal with it.

 

[Asehujiko]

So her "Grand Plan" to stop Piracy is to make it easier to do it?

Hate to break it to you love, but Plagues are always going to adapt to whatever works against them, regardless of whether those plagues are Viral, Bacterial, Digital or Human in nature.

Piracy now:
Go to thisisatorrentsite.whatever
download game
overwrite game.exe with cracked game.exe
watch your neighbor get a ?9999999 fine because companies utterly suck at adressing lawsuits to the correct person.
MAFIAA/BREIN takes ?9999999, artists get nothing.

Piracy under proposed laws:
Go to thisisatorrentsite.whatever
download game
overwrite game.exe with cracked game.exe
watch your neighbor get a ?9999999999 fine because companies utterly suck at adressing lawsuits to the correct person.
MAFIAA/BREIN takes ?9999999999, artists pay tax to have their work "protected".

Or are you one of the people who think file sharing involves going to a seedy alley and giving a shady guy some unmarked bills in exchange for a grubby dvd which may or may not make your pc explode with VIRUS.EXE? In that case, by all means, keep on dreaming but please don't vote on real life issues.

 

[(LK)]

This is the same system that for a century gave music artists no real choice but to sell all rights to their own creation up front for an infinitesimal fraction of its' worth... or, alternately, to collect (at most) 4 cents on the dollar for every sale of the product their hard work created (but only after that 4 cents on the dollar has added up to the advance pay given to them, meaning the artist receives no pay at all until the label receives a ~2,500%, yes two-thousand and five-hundred percent, return on the loan issued to the artist).

No human being alive has ever seen a system of copyright that was about artists, at least not in the sense you think of when you read that phrase. The system is about publishers, and enabling publishers to prevent artists from being able to survive without them... giving ~96% (nominally 96%, but in effect it's asymptotic to 100%) of the earnings from their creativity and labor to people who almost never work very hard and often don't work at all.

The reason they hate the internet so fiercely? It has nothing to do with piracy. Artists can use the internet to earn a living without signing on with a label. It threatens their existence by making it possible to do business directly with an artist. That's scary as hell to an industry that has gotten accustomed to not needing to do a single hard day's work in over 100 years.

Southern US states got pretty mad when their slaves were freed, too. But, you know what? They got over it, and today's slave-owners in the publishing industry will do the same, after all their lobbying under false pretenses fails to prevent them from losing those plantations of captive artists they had grown so fat on.

Honestly the more you learn about copyright and about the publishing industry, the more you realize that it would be illegal in any other field of production to conduct business this way. I can't wait for them to die. Not the industry, the people. Their twisted, terrible, cannibalistic ethics are poisonous to society.

The kind of society that richly rewards the behavior they engage in is a society you do NOT want to live in. It idealizes the kind of morals and ethics which are explicitly designed to attack and subjugate you.

 

[nyysjan]

Southern US states got pretty mad when their slaves were freed, too. But, you know what? They got over it,

Oh no, no they didn't.