What happened to the provisions that CETA has to be ratified by every country in the EU, and Wallonia agreed to sign it only on the promise that the European Court of Justice would be allowed to decide whether or not it violates EU law, which it almost clearly does (in terms of the ISDS provisions)? If it gets through all this, these are well-educated countries (i.e. no one is being exploited) and if they have so little self-respect as to fall for this US-supported agreement (42,000 companies is not nothing), there's some logic in letting them stew in their own juices.
Ireland did not violate the EU (currently the Lisbon Treaty) Treaty. EU has no jurisdiction over taxes. This is under the jurisdiction of the member states. Ireland did what many countries (and many US states, btw) do - gave a corporation a tax benefit to entice it to move to that country and provide jobs. The US does it all the time. What the EU claims is that this violates the competition law regarding state aids to enterprises which give local enterprises advantages over those in other EU member states. To my knowledge, this is the first time EU has claimed that tax preferences are state aids, as would be the case, e.g. if Ireland had simply paid Apple to locate jobs there.
First of all, EU has no power to tax. Only member states can tax. Secondly, however, the US pushed the EU into this. Countries (and US states) have been bribing companies with tax incentives to settle within their territories for the purpose of providing employment for a long time and no one had a problem with it. The US is scouring the world for funds to cover its never-ending war expenses. It thought it could get the EU to do its dirty work, but the whole thing backfired and Ireland is left holding the (empty) bag. How embarrassing.
One also wonders how much of a role Elsevier played in the forthcoming EU proposed directive overhauling copyright law to include 'publishers' among those eligible to exercise related/neighboring rights under EU copyright law (as well as extending these rights from 50 to 70 years). Much attention has been paid to new rights to newspapers, but at best Elsevier stands to gain, even if it was among the lobbyists (which is doubtful).
Iraq? What about Viet Nam? This article follows the road that as a 'nation' we have 'values' that may be described as humane and just. While many individuals within the country do in fact have such 'values', as a 'nation' we have rarely exhibited them. Nuremberg (if the film itself can be trusted) may have been the last time. As long as we think we have 'values' that no other nation has, we will walk this terrain again and again and again.
Correct me if I'm wrong (but I have followed and taught this stuff for quite a while), but there is no copyright in 'the game' (as it is not a creative work belonging to anyone) and the owner of a film of the game belongs to the person who films it. If a broadcaster pays to film and broadcast, that broadcaster owns the copyright to what they have filmed, NOT what anyone else filmed. I think this is just bullying, which much of copyright is about.
It leaves 'regulatory convergence' (which means EU abandon its protective regulations for America's 'free-market'); it leaves removing EU restrictions on GMOs; it leaves attempts to ditch EU's 'precautionary principle' in favor of America's 'you have to prove 'scientifically' that something is dangerous but you never have to prove it's safe; it leaves the campaign against EU's protected designation of origin regime (because it's the only IP that can't be owned by corporations).
Before we totally bad mouth WIPO for the actions of its loony leader, let's remember that WIPO has always been the voice of developing countries. The reason WTO got its intellectual property gig (TRIPs) was that the US felt WIPO was both too democratic (i.e. they couldn't control it) and too developing-country rights oriented. This has little to do with 'America' except for its ill-advised appointment.
Indeed. In the 1990s I attended a conference in Seattle on IP in Asia where Judge RR casually and pseudo-humbly mentioned that he 'knew nothing about patents'. I think it's been downhill from there.
I would be willing to believe it, but your article gives absolutely no notion of how they are doing this and I have seen no reference anywhere else. A hint of how this might be happening would be most welcome.
Never mind 'a say' in the matter, they are not even going to tell you what it says. Poor Brussels is so desperate to be liked that they have to say 'jobs and growth' over and over again. But it won't happen, and EU will lose what it has - regulation of industry, non-GMO food and protection of agriculture.
I totally fail to understand this debate. If a person writes something, i.e. as soon as it is in fixed form, they own the copyright, automatically. That is not only in the US but throughout the world. Copyright extends, whether we like it or not from that point until 70 years after the death of the author, which means, it passes to the heirs for seventy years (Remember Hugh Grant's leisurely lifestyle in 'About a Boy' based on his father having written a popular Christmas carol?). So of course it passes to the Kardashian children if they are named heirs to his property. I am no fan of censorship-prone, corporate-enriching, lazy-children-supporting copyright, but to deny that this is the way it works seems to obfuscate the issue unnecessarily.
Lots of dumb comments here. Turkey borders on the EU (many members of which are 'far from the Atlantic') and has since 1995 been in a Customs Union with the EU. While I am not in favor of this agreement (it seems to fulfill part of the EU's death wish, but that's their business) to imply that the inclusion of Turkey is beyond the pale is crazy.
Google news
This is exactly what the EU has just done with its latest proposed Directive. See 14.9.2016 COM(2016) 593 final 2016/0280 (COD)
CETA
What happened to the provisions that CETA has to be ratified by every country in the EU, and Wallonia agreed to sign it only on the promise that the European Court of Justice would be allowed to decide whether or not it violates EU law, which it almost clearly does (in terms of the ISDS provisions)? If it gets through all this, these are well-educated countries (i.e. no one is being exploited) and if they have so little self-respect as to fall for this US-supported agreement (42,000 companies is not nothing), there's some logic in letting them stew in their own juices.
Re: Not playing by the rules
Ireland did not violate the EU (currently the Lisbon Treaty) Treaty. EU has no jurisdiction over taxes. This is under the jurisdiction of the member states. Ireland did what many countries (and many US states, btw) do - gave a corporation a tax benefit to entice it to move to that country and provide jobs. The US does it all the time. What the EU claims is that this violates the competition law regarding state aids to enterprises which give local enterprises advantages over those in other EU member states. To my knowledge, this is the first time EU has claimed that tax preferences are state aids, as would be the case, e.g. if Ireland had simply paid Apple to locate jobs there.
EU, Apple and taxes
First of all, EU has no power to tax. Only member states can tax. Secondly, however, the US pushed the EU into this. Countries (and US states) have been bribing companies with tax incentives to settle within their territories for the purpose of providing employment for a long time and no one had a problem with it. The US is scouring the world for funds to cover its never-ending war expenses. It thought it could get the EU to do its dirty work, but the whole thing backfired and Ireland is left holding the (empty) bag. How embarrassing.
Elsevier
One also wonders how much of a role Elsevier played in the forthcoming EU proposed directive overhauling copyright law to include 'publishers' among those eligible to exercise related/neighboring rights under EU copyright law (as well as extending these rights from 50 to 70 years). Much attention has been paid to new rights to newspapers, but at best Elsevier stands to gain, even if it was among the lobbyists (which is doubtful).
newspaper business model
Well, looking on the bright side, at least one country is admitting that they are (ab)using copyright to protect a business model.
Had PM won, Australia wouldn't be paying a 'fine', but rather it would be forced to compensate PM for its future losses - a very different animal.
Re:
Iraq? What about Viet Nam? This article follows the road that as a 'nation' we have 'values' that may be described as humane and just. While many individuals within the country do in fact have such 'values', as a 'nation' we have rarely exhibited them. Nuremberg (if the film itself can be trusted) may have been the last time. As long as we think we have 'values' that no other nation has, we will walk this terrain again and again and again.
copyright?
Correct me if I'm wrong (but I have followed and taught this stuff for quite a while), but there is no copyright in 'the game' (as it is not a creative work belonging to anyone) and the owner of a film of the game belongs to the person who films it. If a broadcaster pays to film and broadcast, that broadcaster owns the copyright to what they have filmed, NOT what anyone else filmed. I think this is just bullying, which much of copyright is about.
Re: So what does that leave ?
It leaves 'regulatory convergence' (which means EU abandon its protective regulations for America's 'free-market'); it leaves removing EU restrictions on GMOs; it leaves attempts to ditch EU's 'precautionary principle' in favor of America's 'you have to prove 'scientifically' that something is dangerous but you never have to prove it's safe; it leaves the campaign against EU's protected designation of origin regime (because it's the only IP that can't be owned by corporations).
Before we totally bad mouth WIPO for the actions of its loony leader, let's remember that WIPO has always been the voice of developing countries. The reason WTO got its intellectual property gig (TRIPs) was that the US felt WIPO was both too democratic (i.e. they couldn't control it) and too developing-country rights oriented. This has little to do with 'America' except for its ill-advised appointment.
Judge RR
Indeed. In the 1990s I attended a conference in Seattle on IP in Asia where Judge RR casually and pseudo-humbly mentioned that he 'knew nothing about patents'. I think it's been downhill from there.
I would be willing to believe it, but your article gives absolutely no notion of how they are doing this and I have seen no reference anywhere else. A hint of how this might be happening would be most welcome.
Re:
Never mind 'a say' in the matter, they are not even going to tell you what it says. Poor Brussels is so desperate to be liked that they have to say 'jobs and growth' over and over again. But it won't happen, and EU will lose what it has - regulation of industry, non-GMO food and protection of agriculture.
I totally fail to understand this debate. If a person writes something, i.e. as soon as it is in fixed form, they own the copyright, automatically. That is not only in the US but throughout the world. Copyright extends, whether we like it or not from that point until 70 years after the death of the author, which means, it passes to the heirs for seventy years (Remember Hugh Grant's leisurely lifestyle in 'About a Boy' based on his father having written a popular Christmas carol?). So of course it passes to the Kardashian children if they are named heirs to his property. I am no fan of censorship-prone, corporate-enriching, lazy-children-supporting copyright, but to deny that this is the way it works seems to obfuscate the issue unnecessarily.
wto
The US created the WTO, so why shouldn't it 'care one iota'?
Lots of dumb comments here. Turkey borders on the EU (many members of which are 'far from the Atlantic') and has since 1995 been in a Customs Union with the EU. While I am not in favor of this agreement (it seems to fulfill part of the EU's death wish, but that's their business) to imply that the inclusion of Turkey is beyond the pale is crazy.
I hope the Europeans are getting a lot of money for this. Politicians usually sell themselves sooooo cheaply.
GOP on CR
Amazing. Thanks so much for posting.
Cornell patents
Amen, brother.