Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

Copyright free Europe? EU parliamentary committee calls for 'sharing without intellectual property rights'

Published time: October 03, 2012 19:43
Edited time: October 04, 2012 02:05
(Image from http://en.wikipedia.org)

The ability to make and share content without having intellectual property rights may become reality if the EU parliamentary Committee on International Trade (INTA) continues following the lead of a pirate in its ranks.

The document entitled On a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy was released in September and is the brainchild of MEP Amelia Andersdotter, the sole member of the Swedish Pirate party on the INTA.

In outlining the INTA’s recommendations to the EU committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), the paper strikes a populist tone by expressing its awareness “that some people increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what lies behind it.”

It recognizes that intellectual property rights (IPR) are a driver for innovation, growth and job creation, and calls on more global cooperation in order to “uphold and modernize intellectual property rights in the future.”

As the dossier expresses “regrets” overthe losses incurred by European entrepreneurs” in the absence of a clearly defined IPR regime, the committee’s next recommendation seemingly comes out of left field:

[The INTA] Calls on the Member States and the Commission to develop IPR policy in order to continue to allow those who wish to create their own content and share it without acquiring IPR to do so.”

Tech Dirt immediately hailed the language, saying “an official document from the important trade committee of the European Parliament is calling for the option to create without copyright being attached.”

As the only directly elected European institution, a recommendation stemming from an EU parliamentary committee could in fact have very real consequences for the future of Europe’s attitude towards a more liberal IPR regime.

Andersdotter herself is no stranger to navigating the often treacherous waters of the EU, as the 25-year-old already convinced the parliamentary committee on Industry, Research, and Energy to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) this past summer. Her push to reject ACTA was later followed by the INTA and ultimately the entire EU parliament.

Jeremie Zimmermann, a spokesperson for the digital activist group La Quandrature said the EU decision to ax ACTA was a political symbol of such “global significance” that “the way will be open for copyright to be reformed in a positive way.”

If the latest INTA recommendations were in fact intended to become the cornerstone of an IR regime which drastically curbs economic sole right of copyrighted works remains to be seen.

One stumbling block could be the 1968 Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

Signatories to the Berne Convention, which includes all members of the EU, are required to recognize the copyrighted works of authors from other signatory countries

While the convention makes copyrighting automatic regardless of the author’s wishes, the 1993 Copyright Duration Directive extended the term of copyright protection to 70 years after the creator’s death for all EU members.

As the existing framework automatically locks in copyright protections for such an extended period regardless of the creator’s wishes, the INTA recommendations may in fact be a corrective to the fixed nature of the Berne Convention by empowering copyright owners to freely give away their work to the public domain.

In this context, the aim of the INTA might not be to create a world where a vast swatch of intellectual property can be shared freely and legally as long as it is not for commercial gain, but rather to give copyright owners more flexibility to freely share their own work.

How AFET reacts to the recommendations presented will go a long way towards clarifying whether a more open copyright system is in fact on the horizon, though it remains to be seen how, if, and when they will officially respond.

Comments (4)

birchwood (unregistered) 04.10.2012 04:12

This goes along with the Pu$$y Riot group and others of this sort,  being liked in Europe.  It seems there has been a completete breakdown of integrity or respect in Europe and the West.

We are now watching as the European Union "Self Destructs".......... .. Oh would someone in Russia send Baroness Ashton of Upholland, a pastry, for we would not want her to lose her well developed body.

+2

Undo

alephfool (unregistered) 04.10.2012 03:00

If every person in the world who had downloaded some copyrighted material was prosecuted according to existing laws many millions would be caught in the net, overtime this will turn into billion/s.The movie/music industry has failed to protect  it's property and has not changed it's marketing strategy to allow for changes to society with regard to the internet. Existing and future laws will not work, it's like leaving $100 notes laying around and complaining and prosecuting people for picking them up. These corporations have been negligent in their duty to their shareholders. There is also the issue of what is or is not copyright protected, someone downloads a picture from the net as there was no label claiming CP how would they know? the onus should be on the producers to safeguard their property. If these industries continue to follow their strategy they will soon find themselves falling off a cliff.Kim Dotcom of Megaupload (hopefully to be up and running again shortly ) announced recently his plan to provide a music download service which would return 90% of proceeds back to the artist/s. This was announced not long before the illegal raid on his business.It is incumbent on citizens to oppose unjust laws is a quote from a famous american, people should determine how best they can live up to this ideal. 

+4

Undo

Osho (unregistered) 04.10.2012 00:03

I think you've misunderstood what they've recommended. Intellectual Property Rights will remain for the big, powerful and rich companies but for the real innovators (the little guys) IPR will pretty much cease. This serves the corporate giants as they can copy and rip off technologies and content for their own gains, whilst no one can copy and rip off the technologies of these corporates. In the article, they said that Intellectual Property was a driver for innovation. As a creator, I can assure you that this is not the case. Certain technologies stagnate and are never developed because some big corporation has claimed a patent on the idea from which the innovation will be born out of... and then the corporation does nothing with the technology and doesn't allow anyone else to do something with it. Its kind of like a physicist laying claim to a certain section of physics and then never allowing any other physicist to explore and develop that field. IPR is the death of innovation.

+6

Undo

View all comments (4)
Add comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules

Log in to comment in full, or comment anonymously under character-limit restriction.

100 Text

– required fields

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us