Comment Neelie (Kroes)

Making speeches talk

Comment Neelie
[...] Just yesterday, the Commission agreed a way forward to enforce intellectual property, including copyright. We agreed that focusing on ordinary users would be heavy-handed, disproportionate, and ineffective. We agreed that new powers were not the answer either. Instead we will pursue non-legislative measures, under existing powers, focused on large-scale commercial infringements. That is the right way forward.
Nuno Brito
In regards to source code or pieces of digital text, it would help so much to standardize something as "Copyright (c) 2014 Nuno Brito". This alone would ease to discover the provenance of the piece and to provide due credits where they are deserved.
Nuno Brito, 03/07/2014 20:12
51.5, -0.1167 - London UNITED KINGDOM
Wendy Cockcroft
I'm being taxed to be spied on by my government and my ISP even though I'm law-abiding in case SOMEBODY downloads a song without paying for it. Since the public don't benefit from enforcing business models based on selling copies of things, why must we pay for it? Because you permit the lobbyists to convince you it is property. It's not. If you're going to talk about it as property, please can you treat it as property and tax it as property? I don't need a licence to have more than five people in my house. In fact, licencing doesn't apply to property, does it? The fact that you're letting this fiction go unchallenged is the problem. It's time to call it out. If it's property, I own it on CD, etc. As it is, I'm limited in what I can do with the CD I paid a personal use licence fee for. I can sell it, but I'm selling the plastic it's printed on. The contents are still licenced and I'm transferring the licence when I sell it. Given that this is the case, can we please ban advertisers from telling people they can "Own it now on CD, DVD, etc.?" We don't own it. "Obtain a transferable personal use licence now on CD, DVD, etc." is more truthful.
Wendy Cockcroft, 03/07/2014 22:08