Court Of Human Rights: Convictions For File-Sharing Violate Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights has declared that the copyright monopoly stands in direct conflict with fundamental Human Rights, as defined in the European Union and elsewhere. This means that as of today, nobody sharing culture in the EU may be convicted just for breaking the copyright monopoly law; the bar for convicting was raised considerably. This can be expected to have far-reaching implications, not just judicially, but in confirming that the copyright monopoly stands at odds with human rights.

Freedom of speech (and other human rights, like education?) vs. copyright, never happy bedfellows.

In any case, not opening slather, but tightening up the requirements. Makes $25 for a complaint look small.

VICTORY! ACTA Suffers Final, Humiliating Defeat In European Parliament – Falkvinge on Infopolicy

Today at 12:56, the European Parliament decided whether ACTA would be ultimately rejected or whether it would drag on into uncertainty. In a crushing 478-to-39 vote, the Parliament decided to reject ACTA once and for all. This means that the deceptive treaty is now dead globally.

This is a day of celebration. This is the day when citizens of Europe and the world won over unelected bureaucrats who were being wooed and lobbied by the richest corporations of the planet. The battleground wasn???t some administrative office, but the representatives of the people ??? the European Parliament ??? which decided in the end to do its job beautifully, and represent the people against special interests.

A time for celebration, and preparation for TPPA

EC publishes proposed data protection reforms

Key changes in the reform include:

???A single set of rules on data protection, valid across the EU. Unnecessary administrative requirements, such as notification requirements for companies, will be removed. This will save businesses around ???2.3 billion a year.

???Instead of the current obligation of all companies to notify all data protection activities to data protection supervisors ??? a requirement that has led to unnecessary paperwork and costs businesses ???130 million per year, the Regulation provides for increased responsibility and accountability for those processing personal data.

???For example, companies and organisations must notify the national supervisory authority of serious data breaches as soon as possible (if feasible within 24 hours).

???Organisations will only have to deal with a single national data protection authority in the EU country where they have their main establishment. Likewise, people can refer to the data protection authority in their country, even when their data is processed by a company based outside the EU. Wherever consent is required for data to be processed, it is clarified that it has to be given explicitly, rather than assumed.

???People will have easier access to their own data and be able to transfer personal data from one service provider to another more easily (right to data portability). This will improve competition among services.

???A ???right to be forgotten??? will help people better manage data protection risks online: people will be able to delete their data if there are no legitimate grounds for retaining it.

???EU rules must apply if personal data is handled abroad by companies that are active in the EU market and offer their services to EU citizens.

???Independent national data protection authorities will be strengthened so they can better enforce the EU rules at home. They will be empowered to fine companies that violate EU data protection rules. This can lead to penalties of up to ???1 million or up to 2% of the global annual turnover of a company.

???A new directive will apply general data protection principles and rules for police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The rules will apply to both domestic and cross-border transfers of data.

Deleting Music: Copyright extension is anti-music

this decision is not made for the benefit of songwriters, composers, audiences, music researchers or for the benefit of culture.

It is a profoundly anti-music decision.

Worse, the Musicians Union ??? a body purporting to represent the interests of their members ??? have decided to side with the BPI in their support of this copyright extension, confirming their status as pro-popstar, pro-corporate entertainment complex and pro-copyright maximisation??? but utterly anti-music, and anti-musician.

I know some good people in the MU, and I can think of good reasons to be a member. But at a public policy level, the Musicians Union has become complicit in some of the worst decisions and campaigns that are not to the benefit of their members at all, but solely for the good of the corporate record industry.

I don???t think they have been fooled by BPI rhetoric. I don???t think they???re stupid. I didn???t say ???deluded??? ??? I said ???complicit???.

SABAM Knocked Out at the ECJ

43. The protection of the right to intellectual property is indeed enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (???the Charter???). There is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of that provision or in the Court???s case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected.

Filter that.

Copyright isn’t working, says European Commission | ZDNet UK

People have come to see copyright as a tool of punishment, Europe’s technology chief has said in her strongest-yet attack on the current copyright system.

Digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Saturday that the creative industries had to embrace rather than resist new technological ways of distributing artistic works. She added that the existing copyright system was not rewarding the vast majority of artists.

“Is the current copyright system the right and only tool to achieve our objectives? Not really,” Kroes said in a speech to the Forum D’Avignon thinktank. “Citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it.”

>>> The headline isn’t news (and is wrong to the extent that IP rights holders, that specially vulnerable group is making money in a recession, just not as much as their greed might require) but it seems to be breaking into the higher echelons of some jurisdictions.

Sad comments from the Register of Copyrights to the effect that without SOPA copyright cannot work. Well if SOPA is the price, who wants it to work?