http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/06/07/27/1315203.shtml
In no way does my posting this link mean that my employer endorses illegal sharing of music or other copyrighted materials. (Okay, I'm a little paranoid. Read below for why!) Oh and the DADVSI has passed its constitutional challenge, and is now even worse. But it's all in French so nobody has noticed! (In particular /. hasn't noticed). Accurate translations and analysis, in English, especially of the differences between the EUCD's strict requirements and the DADVSI's implementation, and of the precise wording/meaning of the Vivendi amendment, would be appreciated: http://maitre.eolas.free.fr/journal/index.php?2006/07/27/408-loi-dadvsi-le-conseil-constitutionnel-a-rendu-sa-decision http://linuxfr.org/journal/ The distribution of "software obviously intended for the unauthorized provision to the public of protected works or content" would be criminalized, according to the babelfished first page. This might include Freenet; see http://freenetproject.org/index.php?page=philosophy Nextgens is of the view that it would include all P2P software that doesn't enforce strong DRM. Finally, the FFII (the group which fought the software patents campaign in Europe, including many of the world's largest IT litigation companies, to a standstill last year) is up to its eyeballs right now. There is a big push for the EPLA, which would both legalize software patents and make it easier to enforce them, and might not require approval from the European Parliament. For the uninitiate, software patents are patents on often trivial techniques used in computer software; they are generally only of value to large corporations who can afford vast numbers of them and thus force cross-licensing, or to patent parasites who don't ship any code. In particular, they present a major threat to open source software, since we cannot pay royalties. Freenet is open source. Arguing "we can hide behind IBM" is dubious, as IBM has been pushing for software patents, and filing them, for a long time. Apart from that, the IPRED2 rolls on; the IPRED2 makes the "intentional" (this word may be meaningless) infringement of intellectual property "on a commercial scale" (this may not mean much either), or attempting, aiding, abetting, or inciting such infringement, a criminal offence punishable by a wide range of sanctions including prison time. This would very likely make it illegal to distribute Freenet in France, and it might have wider effects; the FFII argues that it is impossible to avoid infringing on software patents if you write software, and therefore that all software devs who don't work for megacorps would be criminalized. Open source would again probably be hardest hit. FIPR argues that it would probably result in ISPs blocking sites alleged to infringe intellectual property as well as child porn sites, and if it was interpreted this widely then IMHO it could very well lead to mandatory TCPA as well. http://www.ffii.org/ http://www.fipr.org/copyright/ipred2.html -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
