9 ms·

Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does? It fights US companies like Google on privacy and information securit

by zanny 9y ago

Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does? It fights US companies like Google on privacy and information security grounds, but seems to follow lockstep with the US on completely irrational copyright policy like "75 years after the author dies, only then can anyone else reproduce this work". The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about. Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens, so why is it just as bad over there?

specializeded 9y ago
Perhaps the European interests fighting copyright regulation are stronger than the ones that fought privacy regulation. See: diesel
- toyg 9y ago
  Not sure why you would mention diesel. At the moment, European governments are queuing up to announce draconian bans on diesel coming into force in just a few years. That's certainly not pleasing most entrenched players in the energy and manufacturing sectors. If you wanted to highlight established interests successfully fighting their corner in EU proceedings, you could have picked something like tax harmonisation or OGMs - fields where extensive lobbying seems to have ultimately won the day.
  - detuur 9y ago
    Could we for once and for all stop entertaining the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful or a thing that should be avoided? Every single argument I've heard against GMOs, so far, has been a form of wilfully ignorant neo-luddism. While yes, the contracts that companies selling GMOs utilise are socially unfair, it's not like we consider databases to be a horrific thing because Oracle licensing terms are bullshit.
    - toyg 9y ago
      > the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful I did not express any judgement on this topic, I just pointed out that the current state of play at EU level on the subject is the result of extensive lobbying from the relevant industry.
      - detuur 9y ago
        Ah I see. Still, your statement that extensive lobbying has won is pretty much a blanket statement for any contentious legislation. Both sides will extensively lobby and whichever side wins will be able to attribute it to lobbying. In GMOs case, it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost in the EU. GMOs are subject to dumb shit like mandatory labelling which only reinforces people's ill-founded fears and will inevitably poison debate going forward. After all, "why would they force labelling if it were harmless?"
        toyg 9y ago
        > Both sides will extensively lobby Absolutely, but often one side will not have industrial interests in play. I'm not intimate with the OGM situation, but the mainstream perception was that this is one of those cases where there is a difference in budgets, let's say. > it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost They had lost, and comprehensively, when the blanket ban was introduced. But they've since won by reversing it. If the situation actually were to be crystallized now, it would be a victory for pro-OGM interests and their lobbyists.
confounded 9y ago
International IP law is standardized through the World Intellectual Property Organization. National laws like the DMCA in the US are local implementations of the international agreements. Conforming to these rules is necessary to join any international club. Without agreeing to terrible copyright laws, as a country, you basically don’t exist. Take a look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Or...
toyg 9y ago
1) the EU moving away from US economic and foreign policy is a relatively recent development. On most issues, from Crimea to copyright, you can usually start from the assumption that European and American positions are somewhat aligned. The exceptions (privacy etc) are well-known exactly because they are exceptions. 2) EU countries have a significant skin in the creative-sector game, in a way they really don't in other segments. In tech the US are more or less dominant, most "Big Bad Corps" are American, hence it's easier to attack. As soon as big European interests are in the picture, things naturally become harder. In this case, the incriminated books are by top German authors and likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line. 3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change. > Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens I wish I could share this view. Alas, things like corruption, regulatory captivity, and revolving doors, are big problems on this side of the pond too.
- tormeh 9y ago
  >3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change. This is an important point that is often forgotten. People complain that the EU is too complicated, but it became that way be necessity. You couldn't have built a European federation with the same scope and less complexity.
discordianfish 9y ago
Because, unlike some frankly sometimes a bit ignorant view of especially Americans, Germany isn't the paradise of individual/customers rights paradise it's often portraied as. It fights companies like Google not because privacy and security concerns but protectionism and the public accepts that due to some reasonble concerns about privacy spiked with deeply entrenched anti-americanism. (For context: I'm German)
- foepys 9y ago
  I'm also German and strongly disagree with your opinion. Privacy is a very delicate topic in Germany since the Nazis and the Stasi used to arrest people for even talking bad about them.
  - number6 9y ago
    While this is true for the people, the officials seem to have other goals and opinions about privacy. E.g. using video surveillance at the Südkreuz in Berlin. Also from Germany ;)
    - Faark 9y ago
      There are advocacy groups fighting privacy everywhere, including germany. And yes, they make progress, even here. But we still have stronger privacy culture and laws (that local companies follow, regardless what the guy a few posts above says) , giving such groups a much harder time here (and some degree the EU) to push their agenda. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case regarding IP laws/interest.
  - briandear 9y ago
    If it’s so delicate, why do Germans permit a law that requires people to register their religion? When I had applied for a German residency permit, I was asked to disclose a religion, ostensibly to determine taxes. I feel like Germans fall back on the “delicate topic” nonsense as a permanent justification for just about everything, but in reality, they tolerate plenty of big government violations of privacy and individual liberty while becoming hysterical about Google or Facebook. It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again — but the actual government could, yet Germans tolerate their government tracking people by religion or a government conducting mass surveillance but they lose their minds over an American social media company? Russians and East Europeans aren’t constantly claiming “sensitivity” because of the past abuses of the KGB or NKVD despite those organizations killing vastly more people than the Nazis. It’s hypocrisy. You can’t claim to be sensitive about a Nazi past while still tolerating the government to register people by their religion. Facebook privacy issues aren’t going to lead to Nazism; any implication of same is just nonsense.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
icebraining 9y ago
seems to follow lockstep with the US on completely irrational copyright policy like "75 years after the author dies, only then can anyone else reproduce this work". No, the US followed the EU on that one. The Berne Convention first set that policy¹ in 1886, and amongst the original signatories were multiple European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Others followed soon after, like Luxembourg (1888), Denmark (1903), Austria and Greece (1920), Hungary (1922), Ireland (1927), Finland (1928), etc. The US was a holdout; they kept the policy based only on date of publication, which led to a much shorter duration, and only joined Berne a century after its creation. Which is why the books in question in this lawsuit are in the public domain in the US but not in Germany. ¹ Berne only said life + 50, but it was already life + 80 in Germany before the US ever joined. The EU then harmonized at life + 70 in Directive 93/98/EEC.
- briandear 9y ago
  But those facts don’t fit with the anti-American trope commonly repeated on Hacker News. Why do many Europeans on here seem to resent or blame the US for everything? There doesn’t seem to be nearly the same animosity from Asians or Australians. I am genuinely curious because clearly you stated the facts around the origins of copyright law but clearly others wanted to claim that this whole system was caused by Americans — despite being factually wrong. Do Europeans have an inferiority complex or something when it comes to Americans? It’s strange to me because Germans really seemed to love the US during the Berlin Wall era.. Levi’s, American music, Coca Cola, American military assistance to counter the Soviets.. but as soon as that wall came down, the next German generation seems to be filled with a low-grade hatred or resentment of all things American. But Europeans, rather than attempting to compete with American companies like Facebook, Apple or Google, instead seem to want to use the government to weaken those companies — rather than supporting tax and entrepreneurial policy that would allow places like France to create successful companies. There are more tech billionaires and millionaires in a single city in the United States than in the entirety of Europe. And that money? It gets used to fund more companies — creating a cycle of innovation and entrepreneurship. But somehow, all of Europe’s problems are because of America?
  - 9y ago
starsinspace 9y ago
> The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about. Germany has many powerful media/publishing companies as well, and most people don't care. It's really a very similar situation.
Mindwipe 9y ago
The EU broadly follows the French legal tradition that copyright isn't a "monopoly granted for the useful arts" as we hear so much on here from Americans. Copyright is considered to be a property right, period. And hence inheritable. The Hacker News contention that the US exports it's copyright policy flat out isn't true really. The EU has always had very similar beliefs on the value of strong, long term copyright.
bzbarsky 9y ago
> Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does? Uh... you do realize the EU had them first?

by zanny 9y ago

specializeded 9y ago

Perhaps the European interests fighting copyright regulation are stronger than the ones that fought privacy regulation. See: diesel

toyg 9y ago
Not sure why you would mention diesel. At the moment, European governments are queuing up to announce draconian bans on diesel coming into force in just a few years. That's certainly not pleasing most entrenched players in the energy and manufacturing sectors. If you wanted to highlight established interests successfully fighting their corner in EU proceedings, you could have picked something like tax harmonisation or OGMs - fields where extensive lobbying seems to have ultimately won the day.
- detuur 9y ago
  Could we for once and for all stop entertaining the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful or a thing that should be avoided? Every single argument I've heard against GMOs, so far, has been a form of wilfully ignorant neo-luddism. While yes, the contracts that companies selling GMOs utilise are socially unfair, it's not like we consider databases to be a horrific thing because Oracle licensing terms are bullshit.
  - toyg 9y ago
    > the ridiculous notion that GMOs are somehow harmful I did not express any judgement on this topic, I just pointed out that the current state of play at EU level on the subject is the result of extensive lobbying from the relevant industry.
    - detuur 9y ago
      Ah I see. Still, your statement that extensive lobbying has won is pretty much a blanket statement for any contentious legislation. Both sides will extensively lobby and whichever side wins will be able to attribute it to lobbying. In GMOs case, it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost in the EU. GMOs are subject to dumb shit like mandatory labelling which only reinforces people's ill-founded fears and will inevitably poison debate going forward. After all, "why would they force labelling if it were harmless?"
      - toyg 9y ago
        > Both sides will extensively lobby Absolutely, but often one side will not have industrial interests in play. I'm not intimate with the OGM situation, but the mainstream perception was that this is one of those cases where there is a difference in budgets, let's say. > it appears that the traditional lobbyists (the corporate lobbyists) have actually lost They had lost, and comprehensively, when the blanket ban was introduced. But they've since won by reversing it. If the situation actually were to be crystallized now, it would be a victory for pro-OGM interests and their lobbyists.

confounded 9y ago

International IP law is standardized through the World Intellectual Property Organization. National laws like the DMCA in the US are local implementations of the international agreements. Conforming to these rules is necessary to join any international club. Without agreeing to terrible copyright laws, as a country, you basically don’t exist. Take a look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Or...

toyg 9y ago

1) the EU moving away from US economic and foreign policy is a relatively recent development. On most issues, from Crimea to copyright, you can usually start from the assumption that European and American positions are somewhat aligned. The exceptions (privacy etc) are well-known exactly because they are exceptions. 2) EU countries have a significant skin in the creative-sector game, in a way they really don't in other segments. In tech the US are more or less dominant, most "Big Bad Corps" are American, hence it's easier to attack. As soon as big European interests are in the picture, things naturally become harder. In this case, the incriminated books are by top German authors and likely contribute a pretty penny to the publisher's bottom line. 3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change. > Europeans seem to have more democratic governments that are more willing to represent the interests of their citizens I wish I could share this view. Alas, things like corruption, regulatory captivity, and revolving doors, are big problems on this side of the pond too.

tormeh 9y ago
>3) do not make the mistake of assuming a humongous organism like the EU always talks with one voice. Already what we call "EU" is actually a hodgepodge of treaties and institutions (including nation-states that literally invented the various different forms of nation-statehood to mark differences with their neighbours...) that are slowly being integrated together. Then you have competing interests between nations, between institutions, between different economic and political interests, and between individuals. In this case a court ruled in a certain way following existing guidelines; but it might well happen that something else, like EuroParliament, looking for a fight at some point, will eventually pick up this sort of issue and push for change. This is an important point that is often forgotten. People complain that the EU is too complicated, but it became that way be necessity. You couldn't have built a European federation with the same scope and less complexity.

discordianfish 9y ago

Because, unlike some frankly sometimes a bit ignorant view of especially Americans, Germany isn't the paradise of individual/customers rights paradise it's often portraied as. It fights companies like Google not because privacy and security concerns but protectionism and the public accepts that due to some reasonble concerns about privacy spiked with deeply entrenched anti-americanism. (For context: I'm German)

foepys 9y ago
I'm also German and strongly disagree with your opinion. Privacy is a very delicate topic in Germany since the Nazis and the Stasi used to arrest people for even talking bad about them.
- number6 9y ago
  While this is true for the people, the officials seem to have other goals and opinions about privacy. E.g. using video surveillance at the Südkreuz in Berlin. Also from Germany ;)
  - Faark 9y ago
    There are advocacy groups fighting privacy everywhere, including germany. And yes, they make progress, even here. But we still have stronger privacy culture and laws (that local companies follow, regardless what the guy a few posts above says) , giving such groups a much harder time here (and some degree the EU) to push their agenda. Sadly that doesn't seem to be the case regarding IP laws/interest.
- briandear 9y ago
  If it’s so delicate, why do Germans permit a law that requires people to register their religion? When I had applied for a German residency permit, I was asked to disclose a religion, ostensibly to determine taxes. I feel like Germans fall back on the “delicate topic” nonsense as a permanent justification for just about everything, but in reality, they tolerate plenty of big government violations of privacy and individual liberty while becoming hysterical about Google or Facebook. It’s illogical, Facebook isn’t going to lead to Nazism or the Stasi again — but the actual government could, yet Germans tolerate their government tracking people by religion or a government conducting mass surveillance but they lose their minds over an American social media company? Russians and East Europeans aren’t constantly claiming “sensitivity” because of the past abuses of the KGB or NKVD despite those organizations killing vastly more people than the Nazis. It’s hypocrisy. You can’t claim to be sensitive about a Nazi past while still tolerating the government to register people by their religion. Facebook privacy issues aren’t going to lead to Nazism; any implication of same is just nonsense.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

icebraining 9y ago

seems to follow lockstep with the US on completely irrational copyright policy like "75 years after the author dies, only then can anyone else reproduce this work". No, the US followed the EU on that one. The Berne Convention first set that policy¹ in 1886, and amongst the original signatories were multiple European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Others followed soon after, like Luxembourg (1888), Denmark (1903), Austria and Greece (1920), Hungary (1922), Ireland (1927), Finland (1928), etc. The US was a holdout; they kept the policy based only on date of publication, which led to a much shorter duration, and only joined Berne a century after its creation. Which is why the books in question in this lawsuit are in the public domain in the US but not in Germany. ¹ Berne only said life + 50, but it was already life + 80 in Germany before the US ever joined. The EU then harmonized at life + 70 in Directive 93/98/EEC.

briandear 9y ago
But those facts don’t fit with the anti-American trope commonly repeated on Hacker News. Why do many Europeans on here seem to resent or blame the US for everything? There doesn’t seem to be nearly the same animosity from Asians or Australians. I am genuinely curious because clearly you stated the facts around the origins of copyright law but clearly others wanted to claim that this whole system was caused by Americans — despite being factually wrong. Do Europeans have an inferiority complex or something when it comes to Americans? It’s strange to me because Germans really seemed to love the US during the Berlin Wall era.. Levi’s, American music, Coca Cola, American military assistance to counter the Soviets.. but as soon as that wall came down, the next German generation seems to be filled with a low-grade hatred or resentment of all things American. But Europeans, rather than attempting to compete with American companies like Facebook, Apple or Google, instead seem to want to use the government to weaken those companies — rather than supporting tax and entrepreneurial policy that would allow places like France to create successful companies. There are more tech billionaires and millionaires in a single city in the United States than in the entirety of Europe. And that money? It gets used to fund more companies — creating a cycle of innovation and entrepreneurship. But somehow, all of Europe’s problems are because of America?
- 9y ago

starsinspace 9y ago

> The US has it because its government is coopted by big media like Disney, MPAA, and RIAA and the average American is too ignorant / doesn't care at all about the death and stifling of culture that 100+ year copyright terms bring about. Germany has many powerful media/publishing companies as well, and most people don't care. It's really a very similar situation.

Mindwipe 9y ago

The EU broadly follows the French legal tradition that copyright isn't a "monopoly granted for the useful arts" as we hear so much on here from Americans. Copyright is considered to be a property right, period. And hence inheritable. The Hacker News contention that the US exports it's copyright policy flat out isn't true really. The EU has always had very similar beliefs on the value of strong, long term copyright.

bzbarsky 9y ago

> Why does the EU still have the same gross and absurd copyright terms and laws the US does? Uh... you do realize the EU had them first?