Copyright laws and pirate party

Yes. The Pirate Party are trying to do the right things. I absolutely agree with their program, but there is nothing they can do because the competitor is too strong. 

So. Because i can not give anything new to the program i will give a good example of the not far away future and some real information of that what is exactly going on. Enjoy!!!

Dostoevsky ... 2118 ... - Read what we are rolling

- Dad, can I take off your card 99 bucks? For the book you have to pay ...-

- And, what kind of book?

- Well, this one. Dostoevsky. "Crime and Punishment".

- So why buy it. We have the same.

- Yes? And in which file?

- Why  the files. Here he is, standing on the shelf ...

- Fu-uuu. This is a paper book!

- Well, so what? Well I was your age read it.

- At your age, your age ... There's no search. How do you think, will find quotes? Audio support is not here. Animated images are not.

Only the text in which even the font and can not be changed ... You what? I am also in school all laughed! a read himself.

- Well, okay. Here, take the DVD. About fifteen years ago I bought it.

- What? DVD? And than I am this antiques, do you think I'll read? At the Polytechnic Museum, hand it over. You even offered me a punched tape with Dostoevsky!

- If you're so clever, then look for yourself on the net, and download it for free.

- Free download book !?

- Well, yes. And how else? On Dostoevsky's book for a long time ago, copyrights do not spread ... Certainly, somewhere it lies.

"You, that's Dad!" It may be you, at the beginning of the century, you can download all the stuff. Have not you heard that for five years already, how copyrights to all books are forever transferred to the American Publishers Association of Books. Or do you want me to be sent to prison as a member of Dmitry Sklyarov's sect for life?

- So, Dostoevsky is not an American! And here the American publishers.

- And who cares? You, Dad, are not the case an anti-globalist?

- No, you! Well, sonny, it's a pity to spend almost 100 dollars per file. Well, classmates better ask you to give this file. They just have it. And you'll give them your own file later.

- Aha! If they give me their Dostoevsky, then where will I read it?

"I mean, where?" They have their own copy at home, and you're yours.

- Well, you are completely behind. The book can only be read from the computer from which it was bought. And the polarization code there will be different ... In short, Dad, give me money!

I'll buy myself a normal book.

- Well, okay. Here, you have a one-time password for withdrawing 99 bucks from our account. In our time, $ 100 was a lot of money ...

- OK. Downloaded. Thanks.

- Well, let me see ... Listen, son, what are these pictures?

This seems to be in the novel was not ...

- Duc, the same banners. No banners book worth 699 bucks.

Open the file was gay flashing ads: "Axe Proffessional, 2018 - modern laser sharpening axes"; "Beauty Shop" We Lizanka '- we will not let you turn into an old woman "; "Crucify problems Psychological service trust 'Porphyry'?"; "Crediting, we cashed LOW percentage."; 

"RASKOLNIKOFF.COM - playful challenge to old ladies in anywhere in the world" ...

- Listen, my son, and it is the text of the novel can not see? Wait what-if necessary while banners disappear?

"Well, you seem to have fallen off the moon!" You will wait a hundred years. The text should be read through polarization glasses. Without glasses, only advertising is visible!

- And this is why?

- What do you mean why? So that no one but a paid one could read a book! Estimate, if I bought a book, and someone, without buying anything, could read it over my shoulder too ...

- Some kind of stupidity. Well, but if I had the same glasses I would wear?

- Ha, well, you give! The file is configured only for my glasses. On the other glasses, another polarization code.

- Okay, well, give me your glasses. I'll look through the book through them.

"How will you look?" They do not recognize you on the retina. You're in them nothing but the message that you're wearing someone else's glasses you will not see! All right, Dad, do not bother with your stupidities! I need until the license is not over quickly read everything, otherwise it will be necessary either to renew the file or the book itself will be destroyed. Do not interfere, I read ...

3 hours later ...

- Ufff! Well, everything. I read!

- How did I read everything? "Crime and punishment" for three hours ?!

- Well, yes. I would have read more quickly if there were no advertising breaks every half hour.

- I do not believe in anything equal! Who is, for example, Svidrigailov?

- Who-who?

- Ahh, it's all clear. Who is Luzhin? Who is Sonia Marmeladova?

- Well, you give! How do I know! I've read the Home Edition. I only have about how Raskolnikov killed an old woman with an ax, and then surrendered with confession. About everyone else, you need a Professional version to buy or even an Enterprise Edition. We do not have the same amount of money.

- Hmm, it's crazy to go where the world is going!

- I already rolled. Fifteen years ago I had to think, if not earlier ...

It's funny, but you can not be that kind of thing? !!!! It would not be so .....

EU prepares cannibalistic reform of copyright.

The European Commission is considering a draft amendment of European copyright law to eliminate the imbalance between content publishers and large Internet companies. Changes will allow publishers to require royalties from search engines, social networks and news aggregators for the publication of fragments of content.

Publishers will receive exclusive rights to their content.

The European Commission is preparing a draft of a radical copyright reform, the official publication of which, according to The Financial Times, is scheduled for September 2016. Major changes in the new project of European legislators have to do with online content.

The draft of the draft law states that "The stability of the publishing industry of the EU may be at risk, with the risk of further negative consequences for the pluralism of media opinions, democratic debate and the quality of information."

The ultimate goal of the draft law is to provide "exclusive rights to content" to its publishers.

You will have to pay even for fragments.

The updated copyright, according to the Financial Times, will provide content creators with legal conditions under which search engines, social networks and news aggregators will be required to agree with publishers on the conditions for using fragments of their content.

New euro-legislation on copyright protection will allow to require royalties.

With search engines, social networks and news aggregators for publishing content fragments.

According to the members of the European Commission, currently in the field of Internet content there is no legal balance between content publishers and individual large players in such segments as search.

The history of this question.

Internet is based on copying. This statement is true on a purely technical level: at least his world tour portion of the data is copied from the network to the network, and eventually broadcast on the user's device. But it is also true with respect to the way in which people use the Internet: they are always forwarded a copy of the network, whether it is part of the code, or any work entirely.

This is a huge problem, because anything that falls under the definition of copyright, since the establishment of a fixed form automatically becomes the subject of copyright, intellectual monopoly, which gives legal effect to the creator to impose a ban on the copying of their work. Obviously, in this situation, virtually everyone who uses the Internet violates the law more than once a day.

This was not noticed for the first time. Back in 2007, US law professor John Teganenen described copyright infringement as an absolutely routine activity on the Internet in his work "The Nation of Violators: Copyright Reform and the Breach of Norm and Law." According to this work, during the day, the representative in question was violating the copyright of twenty e-mails, three legal articles, an architectural digital model, a verse, five photographs, an animation character, a musical work, a picture and 50 more entries and drawings. In view of the foregoing, he committed at least 83 violations and is liable for $ 12.45 million (not to mention potential criminal liability). If we scale this model of behavior for a year, the responsibility would increase to several billion dollars.

Not all listed violations were made online, and the count was made according to US laws, but the main idea is this: according to modern laws, virtually every Internet user is annually liable for millions of dollars for copyright infringements. This is not just an absurd situation - it is dangerous for society, because it led Internet users - in particular, the younger generation - to complete disregard and even contempt for copyright that is not able to keep pace with the times.

The situation arose from the fact that copyright was developed three hundred years ago, and in the analog world, such creations were rare and copying could be easily detected by the police - it's difficult to hide the printing press. To date, creativity is not an attribute solely of the "creative class": being online, everyone does it all the time by sending messages, uploading videos to YouTube or simply commenting on the article.

Moreover - to stop copying is not just difficult, but it is simply impossible without resorting to full control of the Internet - which, according to an interesting coincidence, is practically already happening, based on the exposures of Edward Snowden.

Ultimately, copyrights are not suitable for the digital age, and what Tegrenin called the "norm / law gap" (what people do and what is written in the law) has become so dramatic that even a slow and excessively prudent European The Commission realized that it was time to do something. But to understand - it was the easiest part, but to agree on exactly how it is necessary to update the existing EU copyright directive "for harmonizing specific aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society", which is dated 2001, is much more complicated.

Real copyright reform is complex because the industries associated with it (publishers, rights holders, etc.) have grown accustomed to the fact that laws always change in their favor, as demonstrated by the repeated extension of the term of ownership, beginning at age 14 In 1710 to the period of the author's life + 70 years in our days. The idea that online users may need (and have the right to do so) in more flexible regulation of digital copyright is anathema to publishers, music and film industries that have resisted every attempt to update laws in these areas.

Resistance to change can be seen in one of the early polemics during the battle, which pertained to the change of copyright for the Internet era. There they discussed the so-called "orphan works" (from English - orphan works). These are works that are still protected by copyright (that is, within the "life + 70 years"), but whose owners can not be found or installed. In the past, this was not a problem: they were not particularly paid attention to and ignored these works - otherwise, the rightholders would exploit their value. In this case, as an example, there is likely no economic benefit in making modern reissues of books, or releasing a new physical copy of the film.

But in the digital age the situation has changed. Digitization of analog works can be quite inexpensive, and the price continues to decline. The ubiquitous spread of the Internet has led to the fact that there are usually people who are interested even in the most inconspicuous orphan works. But despite this, it is impossible to legitimately digitize without the permission of the rightholders. As a result, millions of works of lesser significance, but at the same time very interesting, represent copyright copyrights: although they are not available for purchase, and may not even have an obvious rightholder, they can not at the same time be given a new life by posting them on the Internet, because This will lead to copyright infringement.

It is ironic that the first act of copyright in 1710 proclaimed "Promoting Learning," and right now, mainly because of copyright, people are limited in access to information contained in orphan works.

This issue was submitted for discussion by the European Commission in a document entitled "Public Report on Copyright in the Sphere of Knowledge" in 2008. The author of this document writes: "The problem we faced in large-scale digitization projects is the so-called phenomenon of orphan works," and afterwards concludes: "Most of the participating countries have not yet developed their own approach to regulating the problem of orphan work. The potential international nature of this problem requires a concerted approach. "

The obvious solution was to allow people to digitize orphan works and only then pay the owner if it will have an effect. Thus, to digitize barriers would be eliminated, and if the holders are declared - they receive their payment. But the publishing world is categorically against such an idea. The report of the meeting on orphan works, which took place in October 2009 showed two positions: "Libraries of Internet search and online archival companies (Google, Internet archive) argued for an exception in the law by which free digitization of orphan works would be possible. Publishers, however, consider such a digitization can be carried out only with prior authorization. "

Such an insistent demand of publishers of licensing around will be a stumbling block not only for orphan works, but also for all attempts to modernize copyright. In this context, it is not surprising that when the final version of the directive on ownerless work was adopted in October 2012, it was commented on by the non-governmental organization Knowledge Ecology International as a "missed opportunity."

The Commission began the process of updating the copyright directive from 2001 in December 2012 with a statement that it will organize a "discussion of the vision of content in the digital economy" with the aim of "ensuring the practicality of copyright" in the digital age. A key part of the debate was "a structured dialogue with stakeholders." Details were announced a few weeks later. They included 4 topics for consideration: international access and portability of services; The audiovisual sector and cultural heritage organizations; User-generated content and licensing of protected content for small-scale users; Extraction of text and data. The last two were particularly contradictory.

The main problem was the problem of the wording of the question. Here the Commission explained the situation with the content that users generate:

On average, every minute, people download 72 hours of YouTube videos, over 150,000 photos on Facebook. In some cases, the content generated by users "reuses" existing material (for example remixes, editing of finished materials and home video with the addition of a soundtrack) and therefore often covered by some forms of licensing rightholders who are in partnership with specific sites, but this is not Transparent to the end user. At the same time, small-scale users with great difficulty find out how they can get a license for their material. The purpose of the commission is to stimulate the emergence of a more transparent and understandable system for the use of protected materials. This work should determine the appropriate forms of licensing and ways to improve the information of end users.

As the only obvious "decision", the Commission saw only that which is based on licensing. The idea that non-commercial content generated by a user may not need a license (as an example of an exception, the "fair use" approach in the US) was not considered at all. In a similar manner, the Commission's press release on the mining of text and data says:

Text and Data Extraction (TDM), an automatic research technology for scientific research, requires contracts between users and rightholders to establish technical access to relevant materials. The purpose of the Commission is to ensure the effectiveness of TDM for research purposes. This work should develop solutions such as standard licensing models along with technology platforms to simplify access for TDM.

Until then, people who actually used TDM-all types of researchers, not just scientists-were convinced that they did not need additional licensing because they used to extract data and text to the materials they received legally, for example, through subscription Institutes for scientific publications. Again, the Commission looks at the situation from the point of view of the copyright owner's industries, which implies the need for a new license for each new use of material protected by copyright and, as a rule, additional payment. If you need proof of the starting point of the tendentiousness of the dialogue, you should simply look at its official name: "Licenses for Europe". 

As You all can see - there is nothing the Pirate Party can do about the authors laws. Even the scientific discovery are not opening its patented more than 10 years as well, and should write some little song and you'll have it the right to receive money throughout ypur lifetime and after your death your children will receive royalties for it another 70 years.

This occurs partly because of the scientist will never have a crowd of idiots ... oh .... that is .... of the fans who will be ready to break all of his idol.