UK Politicians Don't Seem To Mind That Every Web Page You Load Is Copyright Infringement Under Current Law
from the you're-breaking-the-law-while-reading-this dept
Last year Techdirt wrote about the almost unbelievable Meltwater decision in the UK, where the courts said that viewing a Web page without the owner's permission was copyright infringement. In November last year, leave was granted to Meltwater to make an appeal against the ruling to the UK's Supreme Court. However, that still leaves the inconvenient matter of the infringement by tens of millions of UK Web users hundreds of times every day in the meantime.
To rectify this ridiculous situation, the British MP Fiona O'Donnell has proposed some simple amendments to UK copyright law, as this post on Out-Law.com explains:
The act of downloading data required to view that copyright material "and any subsequent processing of that data, including processing for display, provided that it does not result in any publication elsewhere of the work or an adaptation of the work" should also be explicitly permissible, O'Donnell's draft amendment had proposed.
Given its frequent exhortations to the public not to infringe on copyright in any way, you would have thought the UK government would have rushed this amendment through in order to legalize what are, after all, absolutely indispensable actions when using the Web. But no:
Last week Business Minister Norman Lamb said the Government would not draft new copyright laws to make the act of website browsing explicitly legitimate and not in breach of copyright until the courts had ruled on the issue.
Since the Supreme Court is not expected to rule on this until the beginning of next year, that means another six months of blanket infringement for UK users of the Web. When even the British government seems not to care about the letter of copyright law, which is hard enough to understand at the best of times, how are ordinary citizens supposed to know what is legal or illegal as they go about their daily lives online?
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: {smirk}
"YOU, citizen! Do not look at this sign! This sign, right here, the one I'm pointing to; do NOT look at it. You are not allowed" (repeat, ad nauseaum)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: {smirk}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: {smirk}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: {smirk}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the case itself, this issue didn't really arise as all the newspapers involved apparently had some sort of express statement in their T&Cs that the content could be copied etc. but only for personal use. Meltwater was doing something that wasn't personal use, so there wasn't really an issue with this.
However, back in the rest of the Internet, it comes down to what is enough to count as an express licence. For example, many websites have something along the lines of "� All Rights Reserved" on them. That could be enough to override an implied licence. So if you're in England or Wales, are browsing the Internet and see something like that, there is a good chance that you're breaking the law.
Practically, of course, no one cares. Just another example of the law being completely out of step with reality when it comes to copyright or the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
These laws need serious updating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not sure about the UK, but in the U.S. that would be true in most cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now for something completely different
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DO NOT READ THIS POST! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
You are being sued for a kazillion dollars!
Who says you can't profit off the internet? It's the world's greatest financial rape medium!
Hell has arrived at last. Total impunity and the Farce of Law on our side (the side of evil). We can't lose. I mean whose gonna prosecute us rich rapists?
No-fucking-body, that's who.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The UK should just take the old Soviet Union/KGB propaganda/freedom-suppression/killing tactic that the United States is busily perfecting and destroy those who would dare release information on government incompetence. Has being up the US's waste-pipe all these years taught them nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Contrast this with the situation that developed last year with police bail conditions, when a court ruled that the police were breaking the law by holding people on indefinite bail without charge, the case was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court (within a couple of months) but the Government (under pressure from the police lobby groups) rushed through a new law in a week, completely undercutting the work of the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminds me of the Olympics opening and the amazing irony it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I bet the US would have a different view on this extradition process when the tables are turned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it wouldn't. They've got the majority of the bombs and guns and they make war (which they usually lose) at the drop of a hat. It gives them a false sense of security, similar to what the ancient Roman empire had just before it fell apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
War of 1812 - More of a draw than a loss, but Washington was still razed.
WW2 (Europe) - Possible claim that joining in the end game doesn't actually equate to a victory.
Korea - Didn't go to well, still ended in a draw.
Vietnam - Loss
War on Drugs - Not going that well.
War on Piracy - Ditto.
War on Terrorism - Still not much to write home about.
But still in the overall scheme of things, the American's have won more conflicts then they lost.... But being in a large number of conflicts to begin with isn't much of a bragging point either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You will all be put in forced labor camps.
The Internet is Dead ! Long live the Underweb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google preview to be attacked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
see
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120727/14251019859/dear-permission-culture-this-is -why-no-one-wants-to-ask-your-ok.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dear Permission Culture: This Is Why No One Wants To Ask For Your OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just visiting websites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not just visiting websites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't one of the steps in "Maintaining a police state" to make srue that ALL your citicizens "could be" considered criminals?
The US has to have 'someone' to emulate after all (it's not like we can come up with ideas on our own, all your base are belong to US...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I AM THE BEST FUCKING PIRATE EVER!
I surf so much!! I bet I've caused trillions of dollars in damages due to lost sales!!
Saddam ain't got shit on me I've damaged the world in amounts more than our planet is worth. I'm a fucking superstar!
Sigh :( I was gonna say FML but I don't have one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling all ISP's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What every government wants...
Why change a law that makes everyone a criminal? That's an oppressive government's wet dream!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What every government wants...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
muwahahahaha....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, in nearly all cases, there would be an implied license to engage in such copying. The rub is when websites have explicit terms and conditions limiting use of their sites to certain purposes (e.g., noncommercial, noncompetetive, etc.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However the UK has some arcane laws going back centuries, a lot of the older ones broken by many people all the time. I'd have to know where the initial ruling came from. But I'll plough on regardless...
So... why aren't we all arrested?
Because the police aren't petty little pedants (contrary to most people's views!) and understand that commonsense has to prevail.
It's only lawyers (and possibly online journalists) who don't have enough to do, so expect the letter of the law to be upheld and then cry foul when it isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not a copyright violation to download a webpage, because the website owner gives you that permission. As the rights holder, they have that right to grant anyone access.
It would only be a real issue if the website said "copyright and you may not access it in any way".
Copyright doesn't automatically mean locked up. You need to learn that basic idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either that or you're fucking illiterate. One of the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is all we do and if anyone tries coming after us, we hit back HARD and get the law thrown out then. It shouldn't come to that, but too often considering how freaking lazy our politicians in the world today are, it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]