Minister of justice zypries introduces draft new copyright novel
On thursday, federal minister of justice brigitte cypries introduced the cornerstones of the new draft official law law. Again, it became clear that there is no master plan for the knowledge regulations of the digital society. At the first basket, it won, there was no design, as only the mandatory requirements of the EU copyright directive should be implemented (code of code … And all questions open). In the second basket, the points were placed, which needed another discussion.
What was introduced, testifies to a lot of pragmatics and some arms, but of little active design will. In copyright contract law, the federal government had been behind the weaker, protection-exercised party, the authors, to secure a reasonable share from the exploitation of their works. A comparable start to the burgers whose interests are as threatened and protected, has not been given here. The design, as far as he has known, has left central questions open, chosen for other procedural solutions and left the market free hand for the grovers of the copyright scope.
"Obviously unlawful template"
At the for burger’s central question of private copy nothing is another. That is, she is further admitted, but impossible if the utilets prevent them technically. It is not prohibited, but is not a right, which is implicitable in certain cases against the use of DRM, just not in its core content. Who should understand that?
So do not even understand the lawmakers themselves. When asked whether downloads for private purposes are not only unlawful, but also punishable, the ministry wars had to fit. It goes primarily to the criminal liability of the illegal offer.
It was pleasing to realize that the schulhofe should not be criminalized. Cypries: "private must not bleed." also possible civil legitimate the minister does not see as a danger: "I do not think that happens in a significant extent." one "little editorial clarification" was there at the template for private copies. She was excluded so far when she "obviously made unlawful" became. Now it should "obviously unlawful template" make. A private copy can therefore be right to offer you for download. The intention, so the minister, be it not to demand exchange bolts. If the new madonna CD appears there, so you have to know that downloading is illegal. But it is also punishable? She was guilty of the answer. You have to look a look at what exactly stands in the law.
Another central interest of the burger’s access to information for political participation, education, science and culture is the libraries. What cypries asked for a largely explanation of the leeway, which the EU directive for library barriers in europe. Libraries should be allowed, their insistence also "electronic reading straps" to show. This retained connection to the new media. However, only that the minister did not spoke unless they are connected to the internet, because an electronic pointing out the room of the library prohibits the policy.
The exact wording of the bill remains to be seen, but it is flourished that without corrections in european law is no longer possible than a cartoon of the universal digital library, which was always prevented.
The minister is high that it has not given up the prere of the publisher when copying. Libraries can also be used to send a future copies of commissioning electronically to their users, though only in the form of graphical files. It is more problematic that you can only threat if the publishers do not offer the texts electronically. If neither the individual users nor his library can afford them, then we get a digital cleavage. And in the chendable case that the library can allow it to license you for your users, they have to look at them to the "electronic read place" ie. What is analogous to you can download digitally. For what is digital, you must physically go to the library. Absurd world.
It is also to be buried that the SPD politician has also rejected the private claims claim against isps demanded by the rewinders. In order to be revealing the names of their customers in the case of mutual copyright infringements, they had to provide connection data, and the bring data protection problems with themselves. This is one of the few points where not only data protection motions in copyright to wear, but also offered its privatization. If you have suspected, you should contact the prosecutor as before.
Package allocation and DRM
The core of non-policy becomes clear at the drawing of DRM. Checking which unintentional consequences they have in the first basket flat-rate bypassing technologies did not take place. Here the minister does not seem conditional. This is EU law and let yourself be done only with a regulated procedure. On the question of a colleague, what to do linux users excluded from almost all DRM-protected content advised zypries: "then buy a CD player." even for this question, it is not stateful.
In the DVD regions code, which obviously has nothing to do with copyright and everything with business models, she does not see a problem. There are only a few who buy dvds in the USA. Something loss sounded zypries as she realized: "copying cds should be cheaper in our opinion. But that’s not like that." after all, the minister reversed the statutory obligation required by industry representatives for the use of DRM. The mantra here too: the market should regulate it.
DRM is also one of the reasons for the reorganization of the lump-sum assessment system, another central task of this amendment. His abolition was, despite the massive demand this time the residence industry, not for discussion. That DRM will make barrier freedoms overflow, cypries obviously does not believe. Rather, lump-sum duty and DRM behaved like communicating pipes: when a lot is written, the consumption must be reduced. And vice versa, when recycling, as is more and more music labels, DRM again, has to rise again, the wholly has to rise again. This is relatively easy to determine with market research means.
There were so far units and storage media "intended for copying" are, so should it be those who "actually in a significant extent" to be used for private copying. This actuality should also be determined by market research. Art should not be determined by the legislator, neither the fortifications requiring residual classes nor the tariffs, as the last time in 1985. The private-sector negotiation between collecting societies and the industries concerned has, since then, is obviously not the solution if it does not lead to agreement even after seven years. The bill continues to give private negotiations to take precedence, but she limited to six months. Then a conciliation body comes to the train, with representatives of all parties and a neutral chairman. If this does not lead to an agreement, there is only the higher regional court as the last instance.
Where it is about burger interests, the minister argues with the principle of exclusive rights of the right holders and essentially does nothing. For example, the violently criticized expiration date of the educational barrier, she does not want to rule. You must see if you have to see if you have preserved and then re-regulate you.
If, on the other hand, is involved in recycling, the ministry is very pragmatic. The prohibition of transmission of unknown usage types has so far served to protect originators before the lump sum outlaws of their rights. For recycled is the burst. You have to locate the authors and make new contract with them if they want to market their works now on the internet. The ministry therefore turns the sponge and also represents the advantage for the originator. Surfing buy-out-to-date for all the uses to sign up in the future. For the new use, he has a right to adequate tempering, and he can contradict her – if he finds it in time, because the recycler does not have to teach him, is just the meaning of the matter.
Even with the rejection of an exhibition activity, the minister argued more rather from the near trail, because of principle. Small municipal museums could not afford any exhibitions if they had to pay the artists a temper. Even the BMJ itself occasionally show artistic works in his rooms. Numbers do not pay the ministry, because there is no household title. Such a pragmatic argument was also aware of the households of public educational institutions and libraries.
In principle, the ministerials were only again with the question of a lump sum insured for exchange bolts. In the internet, economic freedom. The content flat rate is one "socialization of the property". If the label of madonna wants to sell her music in the net, it had to compete with an offer for lau. In addition, the federal government has no regulatory competence. European law prohibit her.
The policy is disputed on the moderation of conflicting interests
The guiding principle is: the market will already regulate it. Since the rights owners can wear through technical measures themselves, the amption, it only needs the state to protect their self-protection systems. Waives a recycling for the use of DRM, valid usage freedoms of burgers, education, libraries apply. If he sets it, he automatically turns out the burger freedoms, and it applies without obligation "economic freedom". There are no conditions for DRM.
Where the "digital barbed wire" radiates to other values such as privacy and informational self-determination, freedom of choice for its own technological platform, competition and innovation freedom, long-term care of cultural providers etc., does politics explain copyright lawy. If the copyright has so far a state-hedged balance between private and public interests, so should in the digital and especially the online world the recyclers with the help of tolerated and technologies at willing to threading, without all the barriers and exceptions.
The policy, however, is disputed on the moderation of conflicting interests. Thus, the bill itself has occurred. The ministry involved representatives of industry and libraries, consumer protectioners and trade unions on half a year in thematic working groups on the second basket and called that "cooperative legislation".
The copyright ministerial director elmar hucko had blessed at the beginning of the year that one has one of them "hostage" promised. Behind closed treatments, ministry and stakeholders come close and move their powder, so that the compromise, which the moderating hostage-active BMJ finally ends up, could train all the parties. Whether this account is based on whether the deputies can be made to hostages of industrialobbies, will soon show. Legal tags as prof. Thomas hoers have already criticized the lack of transparency of the procedure.
If a red-green handwriting can be recognized by the flicker of the design presented now, then she exhales in the statement, it had been much worse. The text of the bill remains to be seen. With him is expected in the coming weeks, spat at the latest on the 2. November, for the cypries another symposium to the second basket in munchen. But after what’s so far say, the trend for the privatization of copyright continues.