Speak Out Against Copyright Extension

[braineater]

sorry, że jak alterglobalistyczny przyjeb przybywam z protestem do podpisania, ale chyba warto.
Więcej info:
kultura20.blog.polityka.pl/?p=479
Sama petycja plus szczególarskie omówienie in inglisz:
www.soundcopyright.eu/
Jedna z nielicznych okazji do pokazania, że całe EU to nie wymysł posłów Samejbrony służęcy dupieniu zagramanicznych lasek.

P:)

[grimsrund]

> służęcy dupieniu zagramanicznych lasek.

Raczej chłopców, chciał Kolega powiedzieć, zważywszy na to, która
frakcja zboków rozdaje karty w Brukseli.

Podpisano, ale... 6385 głosów. Płyta pilśniowa to raczej...

[roar]

Kurde, sorry, że się anarchista ci do wątku wtapia, ale jeśli petycja jest za zachowaniem 50 lat copyrighta, to ja dziękuję, bo to bez sensu. Chcą przedłużać, niech przedłużają choćby na wieczność, ja tam wolę się wykazać solidnym obywatelskim nieposłuszeństwem i ignorować rzeczone przepisy kompletnie, aż znikną nieużywane.

[grimsrund]

Nie no oczywiście, Kolega ma rację, ale grać trza na wielu
fortepianach jednocześnie - u mnie tam petycja i obywatelski
nieposłuch w niczym sobie nie przeczą, to przecie i tak nie moje
państwo ;)

Eurohuje w natarciu

[grimsrund]

Żem takie dostałem dzisiaj w mailu:


Dear Sound Copyright petitioner,

The flawed proposal to extend the term of copyright protection afforded to sound
recordings, robbing consumers in the name of performers but for the benefit of
the world’s four major record labels, is being fast-tracked through the
democratic process. Earlier this month MEPs from the relevant European
Parliament committees presented their draft reports (1) at a meeting of the
legal affairs committee (JURI), the Committee which will make recommendations to
the European Parliament on how to vote on the Directive early next year. They
proposed a host of worrying new amendments which threaten to:

* Weaken further already inadequate measures intended to allow orphan works, and
commercially worthless but culturally significant recordings to pass into the
public domain (Culture (CULT), Internal Market (IMCO) and the Industry,
Technology and Research (ITRE) committees draft reports).

* Allow record labels to deduct “costs” from a fund intended to benefit session
musicians, further shrinking the pot of money made available to performers in
favour of labels (IMCO committee draft report).

* Dramatically widen the scope of the Directive to include audio-visual
recording, even though no relevant impact assessment has been conducted into
what effect this might have on consumers and follow-on innovators. (JURI and
ITRE committee draft reports).

(1)
www.openrightsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/term-extension-committee-draft-reports.zip
At the JURI meeting, Dr Lionel Bently of the Centre for Intellectual Property
and Information Law (CIPIL) Cambridge, dismissed the proposal stating that
“record producers will gain the lion’s share of revenues on sales in the
extended term”. He warned that the Directive would accrue serious social and
economic costs, and concluded that MEPs should “oppose this measure in its
totality.” (2)

(2) www.openrightsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/prof-bently-juri-speech.pdf

Bently is not the only expert to oppose the Directive. In an open letter to
MEPs, Europe’s leading intellectual property research centres unanimously
condemned the proposal (3). The European Broadcast Union has also stated
publicly that the proposal will make consumers foot the bill while stifling
innovation (4).

(3)
www.openrightsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/term-open-letter-and-statement.zip
(4)
www.openrightsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/ebu-position-paper-extending-the-term-of-copyright-protection.doc
Earlier this month ORG met with MEPs in the European Parliament to express our
serious concerns about the proposal. We warned that the European Commission’s
own figures demonstrate that performers will benefit little from the extended
term (5), while the world’s four major record labels will gain millions of Euros
direct from consumer’s pockets. We argued that this damaged the respect
necessary for a functioning IP system.

(5) www.openrightsgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/openrights-scotsman-oct-08.pdf

But our voice is not as powerful as yours. It’s vital that you contact your MEPs
now (6) and tell them why term extension is bad news (7).

(6) www.soundcopyright.eu/system/files/MEP+lobbying+tips.pdf
(7) www.soundcopyright.eu/system/files/Briefing.pdf

With all the evidence pointing against this measure, you can call on your MEPs
to put a stop to bad IP law and reject this proposal. You can also also tell the
appropriate government department in your own EU country (8) (in the UK it is
DCMS), as they will be meeting in the Council of Ministers to discuss term
extension.

(8) www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp

With the European elections next year, Parliament is set to move quickly on this
issue. It’s up to you to remind your representatives that their job is to look
out for your interests, not to rush through bad law.


Thanks again - we'll keep you updated.


The Sound Copyright Campaign

Run by the Open Rights Group and EFF




Trzeba by całą tę bandę kałachami popieścić, zanim będzie za późno...

[braineater]

It’s up to you to remind your representatives that their job is to look
out for your interests, not to rush through bad law.


tja. przyklepane.