Comments on: Music industry tries to hijack serious crime legislation in Europe

By: ArtistiqueB

ArtistiqueB — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:23:07 +0000

I would urge you to oppose the directive or at the very least quash the CMBA’s proposed amendments. The legislation is ill conceived, expensive and invasive; the CMBA’s amendments will only make matters worse.

By: The Open Rights Group : Blog Archive » Digital Rights Ireland challenge data retention laws

Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:08:24 +0000

[...] ORG campaigned strongly against the Data Retention Directive, particularly when the music industry said they wanted a piece of the action, but once the Directive was passed, there’s been little to do here in the UK but sit and wait for government implementation. Although Germany’s Budestag have voiced serious doubts that the Directive could be implemented “in a constitutional manner”, it has already been established that their constitution is subordinate to European Law. It’s therefore unlikely we’ll see a challenge from that direction. [...]

By: David Brake

David Brake — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:33:43 +0000

I just read that “The European Union wants to know what it can do to encourage the digitisation of books, and the making accessible of these digital works. Specifically, the European Commission (the �civil service� of the E.U., but with actual political power) asks if orphan works are an issue, and how the access to public domain material can be enhanced, amongst other things.

The consultation is open to �all interested individuals and organisations - from the private and from the public sector�. I believe this to include people who are not citizens of the EU, since they too are stakeholders.

The deadline is January 20, 2006.”

Is this a ‘one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing’ situation at the EU? (Discussion of this probably deserves its own blog posting).

By: Chris Clark

Chris Clark — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:02:48 +0000

Whilst I appreciate what the previous commentator has said, I’ve just signed up to the Open Rights Group, follow EFF, and am not impressed with the language used here.

Can we moderate the language please - the words will have more effect.

By: record label dude

record label dude — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:13:01 +0000

as the owner of a small record label, i say FUCK YEAH to this legislation. the majors continue to weave the web that will utlimately cut themselves out of the distribution game while retaining profits for small artists and labels…

but anyways all the chinese designed cpus that will be coming out on the market in the next few years will UTTERLY ignore all the DRM crap.. so spies and traitors and the like can buy chinese computers if they don’t wanna be monitored..

By: P. Rasmussen

P. Rasmussen — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:54:33 +0000

Are you sure about the date being the 12th? I admit that I’m no genius at deciphering the (deliberately?) Byzantine EU documentation, but looking at the draft agenda for the plenary session of 12-15 December, it looks like the directive is up on the 12th, already.

By: Thomas Pull

Thomas Pull — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:39:10 +0000

Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ he wrote, ‘If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government.’ But not a government of, by, and for We The People - instead, it would be a government of, by, and for the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.”

By: Suw Charman

Suw Charman — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:26:56 +0000

Tonnerre: Yes, I just heard about this. Need to read up on it, but even if IPRED2 is dead, it’s only a part of the battle.

By: Tonnerre

Tonnerre — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:15:03 +0000

Salut,

Please note as well that the Commission sent out a document (COM(2005)583) interpreting the ECJ judgement in case C-176/03 Commission v Council as ambolishing the current IPRED2 directive proposal, which could basically mean a restart of the proposal.

Thanks for listening,
Tonnerre Lombard.

By: John Girvin

John Girvin — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:45:18 +0000

Sent this to my MEP:

——-

Dear XXX,

I live in XXX and have been a long time XXX supporter and voter but this is the first time I have felt the need to write to my MP or MEP.

I read with great concern the report “Music industry tries to hijack serious crime legislation in Europe” [1] regarding how a media company group, the “Creative and Media Business Alliance” (CMBA), is lobbying for changes to data retention legislation currently under consideration to make it possible for companies to gain access to the telephone and internet records of private citizens with little or no reason or oversight. The legislation in its current form is already an affront to privacy and civil liberties and imposes heavy compliance and access costs on telephone and internet service providers (that will no doubt be passed on to customers), but restricts access to authorities’ investigations of serious and organised crime; the CMBA seeks to greatly extend these access rights to include their members.

Recent press reports [2] show the kind of behaviour we can expect from these companies - Sony BMG surreptitiously installing unremoveable virus like spy software on customers’ computers - and I for one object in the strongest possible way to such groups having free access to my personal records. Our society is already one of the most heavily surveilled (by government) in the world and any extension of these powers to private industry much be treated with the utmost suspicion and care. For these companies industry interests trump democracy, human rights and civil liberties.

On 13 December 2005 Parliament is to vote on the Data Retention directive. This is a single reading process, not the usual two reading.

Yours sincerely,
John Girvin.