European Court of Justice rules: You can resell digitally purchased software.

[Syt]

so by effect, copy-protection schemes are from today banned in the EU

Doubtful. Example from Germany and Austria: the right to personal backup copies of your media (movies, software etc.) is acknowledged. However, it's illegal to circumvent effective copy protection.

(Never mind that you pay a copyright fee on almost all empty data bstorage: audio tapes, CDs, but also on printers, photocopiers, and since recently on hard drives hard drives . . . because all of the lost sales from copies made with/to these things.)

[Syt]

That the scarcity is not a function of the limitation of the ability to copy, but a function of the codes used for DRM.  Because GOG is selling old games that they've been allowed to sell without DRM, they can sell as much as they want.

Also, GOG prices are usually in an area where reselling is not worth the hassle.

[Tamas]

so by effect, copy-protection schemes are from today banned in the EU

Doubtful. Example from Germany and Austria: the right to personal backup copies of your media (movies, software etc.) is acknowledged. However, it's illegal to circumvent effective copy protection.

(Never mind that you pay a copyright fee on almost all empty data bstorage: audio tapes, CDs, but also on printers, photocopiers, and since recently on hard drives hard drives . . . because all of the lost sales from copies made with/to these things.)

There is a difference between a backup copy, and being stopped from giving away your copy to whomever you see fit.

And I have big doubts about that copyright fee properly reaching the copyright owners. Most of it must be swallowed by the state.

[Martinus]

Anyone who accuses a civil law system court of "judicial activism" or "interventionism" has no idea what he is talking about. Civil law courts (and this includes the ECJ) cannot "create" law even if they wanted - they can only interpret and apply existing law.

[Razgovory]

That the scarcity is not a function of the limitation of the ability to copy, but a function of the codes used for DRM.  Because GOG is selling old games that they've been allowed to sell without DRM, they can sell as much as they want.

GOG doesn't sell only old games.  If the codes are not actually purchased by the distributors it's not really relevant to what GF was saying.

[Admiral Yi]

Anyone who accuses a civil law system court of "judicial activism" or "interventionism" has no idea what he is talking about. Civil law courts (and this includes the ECJ) cannot "create" law even if they wanted - they can only interpret and apply existing law.

That's a little circular.

[Syt]

And I have big doubts about that copyright fee properly reaching the copyright owners. Most of it must be swallowed by the state.

In Germany, the ZPÜ collects the levy from the manufacturers and then distributes it to rights holders, most notably GEMA (who wanted to charge YouTube €0.12 for every music video viewed in Germany) or VG Wort (print media representative body).

Prices in Germany are €12.50 for scanners, €13.65 for PCs, multifunctional laser copier/printer/scanners with 40+ pages per minute €87.50, MP3 players €2.56, external HDs >1 TB €9.00 etc.

International overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

[The Brain]

The upside is that since you already paid for the stuff you can fill the HDs with torrented shit without feeling bad.

[Syt]

The upside is that since you already paid for the stuff you can fill the HDs with torrented shit without feeling bad.

If only.

The good thing is that Austria considers copyright violations mostly a civil, non-criminal issue (unless you earn money on it, like selling pirated stuff or running warez servers with ad or subscription revenue), and ISPs can't be forced (and assed) to hand over IP identifications or transfer protocols in non-criminal cases.

[Admiral Yi]

And I have big doubts about that copyright fee properly reaching the copyright owners. Most of it must be swallowed by the state.

In Germany, the ZPÜ collects the levy from the manufacturers and then distributes it to rights holders, most notably GEMA (who wanted to charge YouTube €0.12 for every music video viewed in Germany) or VG Wort (print media representative body).

Prices in Germany are €12.50 for scanners, €13.65 for PCs, multifunctional laser copier/printer/scanners with 40+ pages per minute €87.50, MP3 players €2.56, external HDs >1 TB €9.00 etc.

International overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

Do GEMA and VG Wort disburse the proceeds only to German content producers, or worldwide?

[Syt]

Presumably they distrbute to the authors and composers (nwho are not necessarily the artists or distributors of the songs). They have pretty strong leverage in Germany. E.g. if you were to hold a public/commercial dance party you have to pay GEMA fees for the music played there. If you're not happy with that, YOU have to prove that the music you play is authored/composed by non-GEMA members (and this has been confirmed by legislation).

Sony and Universal in Germany have thrown hissy fits over GEMA blocking quite a few of their artists' videos on YouTube because GEMA thinks they don't get their fair share.

[Syt]

Btw, this circles back to my previous rant about the EU supposedly having a common, free market of goods and services (since 1992) which has yet to arrive for digital media.

[The Brain]

It is painfully obvious that the EU is an enormous disaster. I don't use the word failure since the purpose of the EU is murky at best.

[dps]

Anyone who accuses a civil law system court of "judicial activism" or "interventionism" has no idea what he is talking about. Civil law courts (and this includes the ECJ) cannot "create" law even if they wanted - they can only interpret and apply existing law.

That's a little circular.

I'm not sure that the problem with his argument is that it's circular.  The problem is that it doesn't seem to acknowledge what is meant by "judicial activism".  Essentially, a complaint about judicial activism is a complaint that the courts have exceeded their authority by interpreting a law is such a, uhm, shall we say, creative, way that a ruling can no longer be viewed as merely being interpretive.  The distinction between civil law and common law systems doesn't seem relevant to this.

[Admiral Yi]

Fair enough.