Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important
Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important
A year ago, Walled Culture wrote about an extremely important case that was being considered by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the EU’s top court. The central question was wheth…
The key problem is that copyright infringement by a private individual is regarded by the court as something so serious that it negates the right to privacy. It’s a sign of the twisted values that copyright has succeeded on imposing on many legal systems. It equates the mere copying of a digital file with serious crimes that merit a prison sentence, an evident absurdity.
This is a good example of how copyright’s continuing obsession with ownership and control of digital material is warping the entire legal system in the EU. What was supposed to be simply a fair way of rewarding creators has resulted in a monstrous system of routine government surveillance carried out on hundreds of millions of innocent people just in case they copy a digital file.
You're viewing a single thread.
lmao copyright isn't important
if copyright were abolished worldwide today, we'd be in a happier place. people who buy things generally want to buy from the official source anyway, those official sources might even have to cut prices or (god forbid!) have to make their services better to compete in the market
I don't want to see a end to copyright. I want it restored to what it was. Where the creator had a copyright for limited amount of time then everyone had a copyright to the work.
Now that time is beyond the amount of time that someone inspired by a copyrighted work could create some derivative of it. Unless you think someone inspired as a child would feel like bringing that inspiration to fulfilment as an elderly adult is going to happen often.
Humanity as we know it existed for ten of thousands of years without copyright. Copyright is the anti-thesis to creation. Everything humans create is iterative. Copyright along with the rest of intellectual property seeks to pervert creation for personal gain.
Art does not need copyright to survive and I would argue that intellectual property is not needed to promote the arts or science. It is designed to do the opposite which is limit creation to the benefit of the individual.
What makes this worse is the individual is now the corporation. Do you know that a lot of successful artists, particularly musicians, don't even own their own works?
Corporations benefit disproportionally by copyright. They have lobbied for decades to further pervert the flawed intention of copyright and intellectual property to the breaking point. Simply put, going down the road of trying to prove who created what was first is wrong.
Creation does not happen in a vacuum. Pretending that we create is isolation is farcical. We are great because of all those that came before us.
The telephone was invented by multiple people. The Wright brothers had European counterparts. These issues around intellectual copyright are a lot more complex than we are ready to admit.
We have billions of people now. Stop trying to pretend any idea, drawing, tune, or writing is unique. Rude wake up call, it is not.
Thank you, I seldom see my own thoughts laid out so clearly. As a practitioner of the Dark Arts (marketing), this union of commerce and art is a foul bargain. I think it's time the two had some time apart to work on themselves.
Art 100% needs copyright. There is a reason forgery is a crime. Copyright is meant to protect small creators. Yes it is being abused by corporations but the idea that we don’t need it is absurd. Stealing someone’s work and selling as your own is fraud. Plain and simple.
First, how do you account for all the art made before copyright existed. Second, what about all the art created everyday where the creator does not pursue copyright let alone try to enforce their rights in a court of law. These two scenarios disprove your assertion that art needs copyright.
Perhaps you are under the misconception that artists need to make a living. Art is an expression of our culture and it is not inherently tied to making money. How many people are creating art right now without the intention to sell it. I will clue you in, there is a lot of people, millions who do this everyday.
The amount of art created for personal use dwarfs that of commercial use by a thousand fold. Copyright does not need to protect these artists at all. Read that, the majority of artists do not need or ever use copyright.
All art is iterative. This means every piece of art is built upon the art that came before it. Copying is literally how it is done. You know Led Zeppelin just copied a bunch of old blues songs? Oh you didn't because you think artists create stuff out of thin air apparently.
Stealing is depriving someone of their property. Copying does not do this at all. You are pushing a false narrative to prop up your flawed argument. Plain and simple.
Authentication of the author is not the same as copyright.
I don't see the predictable effects of dropping IP laws as more harmful than the current reality. The idea is to protect small creators but the implementation does the opposite.
The solution, as is with so many societal issues, is UBI.
A further solution than UBI is abolishing the exploitative system of capitalism, replacing it with post scarcity while implementing and maintaining true democracy where the people have actual power to vote on issues
Human rights should be respected most of all and should be legally ratified to protect human rights and equality to the fullest extent
Systems like sustainable energy and recycling can assist post scarcity, eliminating food wastage and finding new ways to recycle and use food bits that normally couldn't be consumed
New technologies and research into food production such as using vertical farms and aquaponics
Humans should be working together towards a better future in all aspects of life, no one's rights should be taken away in the name of equality either because then its not equality
I only see universal basic income as a transitional step towards what I have described
Well sure, but "end the concept of Intellectual Property" is already a radical position to argue. Fully Automated Space Gay Communism is a little beyond the scope of the topic and a hard sell to normies.
Copyright was never about defending the creators, its origin is the industrial revolution and it was a tool of companies to protect "their" inventions (the ones of their workers actually). It was NEVER about defending the small person who actually creates things.
I disagree. It was put in place so the creators of works and inventions had exclusive rights to that work or invention for 14 years with one renewal for a total of 28 years. Then the copyright passed into the public domain. It was always about protecting the creators. The companies dominance of it came later. Just who came up with the laws and when do you think it was put in place? Just a hint look at the faces on US currency.
I think you're mixing copyright which protects works and patients which protect inventions as well as the timelines.
I'm not, both system were devised at the same time by the founding fathers. You seem to think its all about the companies when originally it was all about the people specificity the authors. Benjamin Franklin was both. He keenly interested in protecting his ideas as he was both a inventor and a author. Even he recognized that no protection should go on forever. That corruption took place later when the unethical moved to make it so. Greed is a hole in ones soul that cannot be filled by money but the greedy think it can. Something they foresaw as a danger as well. We are living in that world today but we don't have to forget or deny its corruption.
copyright dates to the statute of Anne. it was not invented in America.
My ideal copyright would be 15 years or death of the creator or the end of sale/support, whichever is earlier. That would mean that Portal 2 has copyright and Portal doesn’t, which sounds about right.
How about an exponentially increasing fee to retain copyright?
So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?
No thanks.
So Disney and Nintendo can keep doing what they are doing
After 30 years not even Disney or Nintendo will pay a billion for exclusivity.
but also the same companies can steal the work of smaller artists almost immediately?
Let's make copyright non-transferable. For a company to retain copyright it must employ the creator.
After 30 years not even Disney or Nintendo will pay a billion for exclusivity.
In October 2012, Disney acquired Lucasfilm for $4.05 billion.
To keep episode IV in copyright would cost $2^47 = $141.737 trillion
Nah. I'd even call 15 years too long.
You don't pay a plumber every single time you use his work 15 yrs after his death.
To retain copyright:-
$2^n for year n
$1 for year 1
$2 for year 2
$4 for year 3
$1k for year 10
$32k for year 15
$1m for year 20
$1bn for year 30
Why, though? It still pointlessly favors people who already have money. Just get rid of it.
Ok, let's say the copyright retention fee is only paid when it's above 1k, I.e. after 10 years.
You are desperate to give rich fucks an avenue to maintain an advantage over everyone else.
No. I want to give small creators a tool to stop their work being stolen in the short term.
But I also want to force copyright monopolists to pay ever increasing tax on the property they hold that should really be in the public domain.
My proposal also means orphan works no longer exist.
Like, maybe tiered to something like 5 years: pay what it costs now, 10 years: 10 times that cost, and 15 years: 100 times, with a hard cap at 15? I could get behind that.
Yeah. Something like that. Maybe don't even need a cap.
If you pay $2^n each year n to retain copyright then by year 30 you are into the billions.
5 years: pay what it costs now
It doesn't cost anything to copyright something. You just automatically own the copyright to something you create.
(This may vary outside the US; I'm not familiar with international copyright law.)
I thought there was a registration fee for copyright, but I think I mixed it up with trademark...
I don't, it's not the 18th century and the industrial revolution. Copyright had a time and place and that isn't the here and now. We are worse off for copyright and patients today. Today they enshrine wealth and are a tool to prevent progress and inflate cost.
cut prices
There you have your answer to the question you didn't ask, but you know what I mean
I know right? The very idea of copyright is so fucking abstract, absurd and far-fetched. For the most part, it amounts to:
"NOOOOO YOU CAN'T PLACE THE ATOMS IN THIS ORDER BECAUSE ANOTHER PERSON DID IT BEFORE YOU!!!11!1!1!" (When it comes to scientific or engineering parents)
"NOOOO YOU CAN'T MAKE A SURFACE REFLECT THE PHOTONS LIKE THAT, OR EMIT THEM IN THAT PATTERN. THE RIGHT TO DO THAT BELONGS TO SOMEONE ELSE!!!1!!1!" (When it comes to pictoric arts)
"NOOO YOU CAN'T MAKE THE AIR VIBRATE AT THOSE FREQUENCIES IN THAT PATTERN, SOMEONE DID IT BEFORE YOU AND THEY'RE PAYING ME SO YOU CAN'T DO IT TOO!!!" (Music)
"NOOO YOU CAN'T PUT LETTERS IN THAT ORDER!! THAT'S ILLEGAL, ANOTHER PERSON DID IT BEFORE!!" (Text and code)
So yeah, fuck that shit
Copyright protects creators and prevents monopolies from abusing the system. Imagine you write a movie to sell and Amazon steals that exact movie but uses their resources to market it as their own and sell over seas.
You tell me in what world that sounds fair. Only a moron thinks a free market economy actually works.
Another example is assuming companies act in good faith to protect the market. History has shown that not only do corporations NOT care about rules and regulations but they actively act in the interests of investors and profits.
It is up to the courts to fix the abuse of the current copyright system and unfortunately they also act in the interests of profits.
Imagine you write a movie to sell and Amazon steals that exact movie but uses their resources to market it as their own and sell over seas
Imagine this thing actually happens because you're hired for Amazon as a screenwriter and you're paid a salary of 3k a month making shows that make Amazon 3 million a month, and Amazon, not the screenwriter, owns the rights to the show. Tell me in which world that's fair.
Only a moron thinks a free market economy actually works.
Thank you, that's why I'm a communist.
History has shown that not only do corporations NOT care about rules and regulations
"Copyright rules are necessary because corporations don't care about rules and regulations" isn't as solid an argument as you think it is
You don’t know what you’re talking about and I’m not going to respond to your arguments that you yourself don’t even understand. Contracts of employment don’t have anything to do with copyright. In your own example Amazon owns the IP because they bought it. Something your commie brain wouldn’t understand I guess.
Oh I understand it alright, but how is "Amazon owns the IP" a protection of the artist?
Becoming better at technology is the gateway to fucking with copyright. As if they're going to be able to do shit when I torrent their files over some obscure server in the developing world to over here. Fuck copyright and companies who engage in that. Every game, all kinds of media and intellectual property that these companies own should be stolen from them and distributed freely. This should then be followed by severe cyber attacks on said companies to destroy their infrastructure to the extent that they can never hold creations of artists for themselves. Fuck corporate enslavement of artists and creators. I'd much rather pay $200 a month to be distributed directly to artists than pay a single cent for a game/album provided by Microsoft/Spotify (as an example). Now, some companies are better than others. GOG until recently was something I liked (conceptually anyway, since I don't play games), and Qobuz and Tidal pay their artists better than most. I am OK with these companies. The likes of Amazon and Spotify and Microsoft should be destroyed so badly that they can no longer function in this space. We should spread the word of piracy and digital freedom away from these bastards.
Do you want corps just stealing every new idea and product, cloning it, and muscling out the original inventor without paying them a dime? Because abolishing copyright entirely would be an excellent way to do that.
That already happens. People who research normally do it under a wage and the invention goes to the company paying the wage. If not, a small inventor doesn't have the financial means and the lawyers to fight a big company copying their idea. The small person is never defended.
Someone has never seen Aliexpress..
No, I want to die. I fucking hate reality so much that I want KILL YOU ALL.
Property rights are the only thing that protects the poor from the rich. Sure.
Copyright is the only thing protecting us from getting absolutely fucked even harder by the rich than we already are, yes.
How does that work? By definition, a rich person owns a lot of property. Therefore, laws that give more power to property owners favor the rich. Copyright is a type of property.
Copyright died when information became easily accessible. It's only propped up by those who stand to profit immensely from it. The rest of us not only do not profit from it, it harms us.
If copyright was abolished overnight, then the corporations with enough money would control everything. The chance for an individual creator to create and control their unique art would disappear. Works of art and entertainment would forever be controlled by giant corporations.
If copyright were abolished, all FOSS and Creative Commons licenses would be rendered null and void, since they depend on copyright law to work.
Aren't they a bandaid to a copyright problem (certain parts of it)? If the copyright is gone the root of the problem would be gone.
If by "null and void" you mean unnecessary.
Companies could take and steal as much as they want from smaller artists in that case
As will small artists to companies.
Shit even the value of art would be intristic to am individual, almost impossible to capitalise on, but totally viable for an individual working directly with people
As they already do, you mean? Like, look at the recent Spotify scandal, with artists complaining that they don't earn enough and a higher up of Spotify saying that "nowadays content creation is very inexpensive", basically implying that Spotify deserves to keep most of the money since the artists' job is super easy. Most musicians already get most of their money through concerts and merchandising. Copyright already de-facto doesn't protect the artists nor the scientists.
…and?
Deal
The whole point of them is to create a voluntary system without copyright.
A take. Presented to you by an edgy teen.
Lol yeah.
Good luck spending time and money investing in something that you know will have zero legal protection as 'yours' after you go to market.
I personally feel that a copyright does give confidence to product developers to actually develop products. If they felt they weren't going to get anything for their work they just wouldn't bother and our tech advancement would stall significantly.
You need money to defend your copyright in court, otherwise it's pretty meaningless
But the thing is, we don't need to develop products. New products are just further resource usage, more greenhouse gasses, more "infinite growth". Also, a company or individual having "an edge" in competition by developing something first is simply waste of resources. Now only they are allowed to improve upon it, make it more efficient, whatever. If this didn't exist, yea they'd be incentivized less to create it in the first place, but also now everyone could take it and make it better.
We have to go away from thinking as individuals in the direction of thinking as humanity.
I'd argue that it's naive to think we can ever think non-individually as a species. Maybe I've just become cynical as I've aged and experienced though, not to say you haven't also experienced - more that, if you have, your experiences have clearly been very different to my own.
"No copyright" is usually flaunted by people who haven't created single thing of value (monetary or otherwise). Who never give, but always first to take.
To no one's surpise it's now a go-to argument of "statistical engine enthusiasts".
Copyright sure was useful for all the artists who had their creations scraped from the “open web,” huh (I am in this bucket). It would literally bankrupt me to enforce it.
Copyright only serves the wealthy, and rarely if ever protects I normal individuals who are well enough off to afford legal remedy. This is due to the cost to enforce, which is beyond most creators and a drop in the bucket for the wealthy. It is intended to and has been updated consistently to do just that.
We need some kind of protection, but historically copyright ain’t it.
I'm all up for improvement or better system.
I'm against anarchy and copyright abolishment all toghether.
Implementing a better system would effectively abolish copyright, but I’m pretty sure most people agree with your sentiment.
I’m an edge case where I don’t believe ideas/land/medicine/stars etc can’t or shouldn’t be “owned” by any one entity. It’s not feasible to expect it in practice, of course. But humans love to carve things up and arbitrarily assert ownership. Some traditional Native American ideas on this are the closest to what I’m chipping away at.
You just made two contradicting statements
Only if you have difficulties reading.