Hyper injunctions don't actually exist. The term was apparently made up by the MP in question (who seems to have campaigned on attacking judges over the privacy of family courts). What really happened was that the individual had (on the advice of his lawyer) entered into an unenforceable agreement not to talk to that specific MP (the anti-privacy one), because he was known for screwing up these sorts of cases. Obviously he breached this agreement, and obviously nothing happened.
Hyper-injunctions have only taken off because they make good headlines - they don't appear to exist.
Ah, more political grandstanding from the government in their crusade on our judges. They've been at this for the last six months; a way of making the (pathetically weak) government look stronger in the eyes of the people.
As for the matter; injunctions are granted all over the place, all the time - in the case of privacy, they are usually short-term stops (pre-trial) to prevent the spread of information when there's a very good case that that it will be found illegal to spread the information. The point is not to prevent the spread of the information (which has always been futile, even pre-Internet), the point is to limit the "damage" done by the information by keeping it from the major channels.
The UK (and Europe) has always had a low interest in freedom of speech (a very US-centric concept), there are all sorts of way to limit it (privacy laws, defamation, contempt of court, copyright) and they exist because our society prefers it this way (apparently).
In terms of our politicians whining that judges are making up privacy laws - this is complete rubbish. Parliament passed a privacy law 13 years ago; it is called the Human Rights Act 1998. This caused a huge problem for UK judges, who have had to try to bend existing laws to cover the right to privacy added - and they have seriously struggled over this (just look at some of the judgments in the big cases; Douglas v Hello, Campbell v MGN etc.).
Parliament has had 13 years to step in and pass their own privacy law and have consistently failed to do so, because they really didn't care (and I imagine politicians quite like the availability of super-injunctions), the only reason they care now is that they can use the general public's lack of knowledge on this area to score some points against the HRA and judges.
The problem with injunctions and super-injunctions (which are very rare) in the UK is not their existence; they are quite useful tools - the problem is the money required to get them. They are not available to "normal" people, only the super-rich. But this is a flaw in our (and most) legal systems; lawyers cost far too much money. Creating more laws probably isn't the best way of fixing this.
I put "debate" in ""s as it was more or less the three of them ranting at Google (I managed to catch some of it live) with no one there to put them right.
I found it particularly interesting to hear Ed Vaizey (Minister at DCMS) going on about wanting to "stay focused on the need for an open internet" the same week he was in secret talks with the copyright lobby and ISPs over web-blocking.
As one of his constituents, I'm tempted to write to Mr Raab and point out his errors (and how "search neutrality" is a meaningless or self-contradictory phrase), but I don't suppose it will do any good. Plus, this debate was a couple of weeks ago - do people think it is worth it?
If you're going to go with the Charter, you have to include
Article 17
Right to property
1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.
2. Intellectual property shall be protected.
and
Article 47
Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. ...
Interestingly, Article 48 (Presumption of innocence) may not apply as that only refers to people being charged with something - something that web-blocking tends to avoid.
The Article 17 right highlights the dangers of being sloppy with terminology and the success of the "intellectual property" campaign. By getting it into the public conscious that copyright etc. are property (which, to a minor degree, they are) it becomes a lot easier to convince lawmakers to protect them along with the right to property.
Fortunately the Article 1 Protocol 1 right to property in the ECHR is suitably worded that it probably doesn't cover copyright etc. - not sure if there is case law on that, though.
This isn't about "human rights", but about "fundamental rights". It may sound petty, but the difference is between the EU charter (which actually mentions "intellectual property" as something to be protected in Art 17(2)), and the European Convention on Human Rights which only talks about "enjoyment of possessions". This is going through the Courts of Justice of the European Union, so they are referring to the charter of fundamental rights (which only really came in in 2009) rather than the European Court of Human Rights.
In any case, it doesn't look like the Advocate General actually objected to the principle of web-blocking, merely that it shouldn't be done arbitrarily by a Court order - but it would be fine if done through clear, predictable and transparent legislation.
[Disclaimer: I haven't read the opinion yet - it is only available in French.]
I was in the High Court in London this week (watching the Judicial Review of the Digital Economy Act), and while there were signs up saying that 'phones should be turned off, several people had their 'phones out and there was a fairly good twitter-stream for the hearing. Some of the lawyers had laptops, I had my Kindle out, and there was no question that we'd be trying to blow something up.
This was at the Royal Courts of Justice, which houses the English High Court and Courts of Appeal, and while it has ... what would have been called airport-style security a few years ago, but now... merely x-ray machines for belongings, and a standard walk-through metal detector at the entrances, security is fairly lax; possibly because the judiciary realise that blowing them up would be kind of pointless; they're not particularly high-profile.
Incidentally, I was also wandering around our Parliament buildings last week, and they had the same level of security (plus "ID" tags, which merely show that you've been through security and are a guest, rather than identifying you personally), and that's a building that *has* been the subject of a terrorist attack, admittedly some time ago (although I imagine the IRA probably tried more recently).
It seems rather ridiculous to the extreme to put in place all these extra layers of security theatre in US (or other) courts (such as banning phones), and one can't help but wonder if the reasoning behind it is something along the lines of "airports have tighter security than courts, this can't be right, we must have more security", rather than actually being worried about concrete threats.
This is a little off-topic, but one of my first thoughts after watching the video was "Who owns the copyright in the video?" [Yes, I've been spending too much time around lawyers and copyright lobbyists]
...
Having now skim-read through the rather extensive terms and conditions on the website, I'm not sure they know the answer either, but it is an interesting question (similar to the question of who owns the copyright to save-game files generated by a computer game).
From my reading of this article (by a UK law-person) this isn't about works-for-hire but about whether or not the helmet is a sculpture.
There is no question that the original designs (probably by Ralph McQuarrie) are covered by copyright, and that copyright will (most likely) be owned by Lucasfilm. However, there is a specific exemption (s.51 of the CDPA) for making models etc. based on designs (otherwise, for example, any LEGO model would be illegal), provided this is for utilitarian use.
So, if the helmet is a sculpture, it is an artistic work and covered by copyright (both in itself and as a derivative work) and so you have (probably criminal) copyright infringement. However, if it isn't a sculpture, but merely an object, there is no copyright infringement as the s.51 defence applies.
Of course, this is a perfect case for licensing being used as a solution (UK copyright law encourages infringement to be actioned by issuing a back-dated licence) - but they still decided to fight it out in the courts. However, I think it will be useful to see how it goes - it is quite an important case (boring cases rarely make it to the Supreme Court).
[For completeness, the High Court judgment from 2008 is available (for free) here and the Court of Appeal judgment from 2009 here. I haven't had a chance to read through them yet, though, but I will, so feel free to ask me for more details.]
Interestingly, no one had heard of the Publishing Association until about 9 months ago when the BPI's top lobbyists moved over to them (I guess due to musicians gradually realising that paying someone to lobby against their own interests was a bad idea).
Having said that, I'm against fair use (and argued so in my response to the review, on behalf of PPUk). It *is* uncertain (particularly with an absence of domestic case law) and it seems that every other week there tends to be a story here about some company suing for copyright infringement despite it being an obvious case for fair use.
Fair use is a kind of equitable defence; as such it works great when you have equal parties, but is almost worthless when dealing with a stronger or weaker party. A much more sensible approach would be (in my opinion) to set very clear and limiting rules on when copyright applies, rather than saying it always exists unless one of a set of fairly vague defences applies.
If you'd read the paragraph below, you'd have noticed that I mentioned "lost revenues". "Lost revenues" hinge on the claim that "If person A had done action-x, person B would have more money". That's not a cost. By the same argument, I could say that you cost me millions of pounds this year because you didn't pay me millions of pounds. If you had, I would have made more money. That is lost revenue... But that sort of argument is ridiculous.
I can state that online infringement of copyright doesn't cost anything because there is no logical way it can. How can person A, by copying a file from one location to another (i.e. a "file-sharing website" to their hard drive) cost some person or company B (who doesn't pay the bandwidth for that website) money?
It can't. There is no logical way that can happen. Now, if you can give any argument to suggest that there is even the tiniest cost of online copyright infringement itself to copyright owners, (as little as 1p a decade), then yes, evidence is needed and so on, but while there can be no cost at all due to basic logic, no evidence is needed.
You can talk about displaced or lost sales, diverted revenue and all that, but when it comes down to it, online infringement of copyright doesn't cost anyone anything.
It is anti-piracy measures that cost. And the argument usually is that the cost of anti-piracy measures will be more than balanced by the increased revenue caused by the decrease in piracy (if any). But this decision is up to the individual copyright owner (or in some cases, their trade body that has just hired a fancy new "content protection officer" who needs to justify his salary). Any copyright owner can spend as much on anti-piracy measures as they want to. There are very few places where there isn't *some* kind of measure that can be taken; (in the UK, for example, there is already a law that makes copyright infringement actionable... but for some reason, no one uses it. Why? Because copyright infringement isn't causing enough of a problem for it to be worth the effort).
In this case, what we have is precisely content owners (or their trade organisations) running in and stealing the bangers and mash off the poor people's and shipping it off to (hardly starving) record execs. The DEA (or IOC measures at least) are anti-piracy measures. There is nothing in them that copyright owners can't do already. What the DEA does is make ISPs pay for some of this, to make it cheaper for copyright owners (or their agents). The ISPs then have to pass the costs on to their subscribers.
This legislation is designed to make it cheaper for the large copyright owners (and their agents; i.e. the BPI, FACT, MPA, NLA et al.) to implement anti-piracy measures by passing the cost onto normal people (including the poor) because they don't want to pay for them themselves. Of course, the aim of the measures is to get "the people" to may more for content - so "the people" (poor or rich, although I imagine the rich don't care so much about filesharing) are being forced to pay so that they can pay the record execs more...
Once again we see that copyright is not about protecting content (as some people occasionally try to claim); quite the reverse. It is copyright infringement (even if just archiving like this, or the Internet Archive etc.) that protects content.
And the Doctor Who tapes is a slightly different issue; that was about the BBC not having enough money due to excessive copyright stuff (during the "home taping" scare of the 70s/80s). Incidentally, Doctor Who actually survived quite well (the audio for all episodes remains, and some sort of video or stills for most); Z-Cars, in particular, was very badly hit by this, with about half of all episodes missing.
Looks to me like the Scottish law deals with interests in land. Just because we sometimes describe land as property, doesn't mean everything else described as property suddenly becomes land. A => B does not mean that B => A.
If you read the actual law, you will see that the relevant part of the law specifically doesn't apply to land, but other property rights. If you want to read (what I think is) the relevant section, it is s.8, extinction of other rights relating to property by prescriptive periods of twenty years. Subsection (a) states that unexercised rights expire after 20 years, and (b) states that this applies to "any right relating to property, whether heritable or moveable" (aside from the exceptions listed in the schedule, including land).
I'm not an expert in Scottish law, but the Scottish Law Commission thinks this must apply to copy- and related rights, and they are the experts...
That also sounds like if you have a piece of land and don't use it for 20 years.
Not quite - the law in question specifies that "any real right of ownership in land" (Schedule 3, (a)) is exempt from the 20 year limit, as are a number of other things.
In the UK, copyright and related rights are defined to be property rights (by law - s.1(1) of the CDPA). This means that (from my understanding - I'm not a lawyer yet) the copyright in something, or a trademark (the concept, not the actual mark) is personal property and so can be assigned, sold, mortgaged etc. but the actual work (the material copyrighted, the design, mark or invention) is not property, being merely information.
While some aspects of property law therefore apply to IP stuffs, the way the law is drafted, certain parts are excluded - for example, the "moral rights" related to copyrights aren't assignable or trade-able.
Interestingly, copyrights being property means that a copyright or patent can, theoretically, be stolen under the Theft Act - even though the information/material can't as it is not property. Working out how this could happen requires a bit of mental gymnastics and legal toying, but it works out as something similar to some kinds of "Copyfraud".
Reading through the original law report (here, I think) it looks like there is a 1973 law (the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973) which states that no claims can be made on any property right that isn't actioned for 20 years. The idea was noted when a case when to the House of Lords on a similar issue (the copyright claim was upheld) and the Lords noted that the case might have been different had it been tried under Scots, rather than English Law.
This doesn't apply in England as the equivalent law (the Limitation Act 1980) has a clause specifically exempting rights with a fixed time-limit (such as copyrights and related rights) but the Scots law has no such exemption. This becomes a problem because (as you pointed out, due to the copyright industry lobbying, one assumes) the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 specifies that copyright is a property right (one imagines that the drafts-men didn't think to check Scots Law on that).
The law report also notes that while this would apply to all IP-related stuff, all the other forms than copyright and performance rights (patents, design rights, trade marks etc.) last for 20 years or less, or require active registration (enough to maintain the property right). Nevertheless, they propose that the Scots law be amended to match the English law by clarifying that specific-length property rights be exempted.
Interestingly, it could be argued that, by failing to correct this, Scotland (and thus the UK) could be taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to uphold its various obligations under EU directives (not to mention TRIPS and the Berne convention).
Of course, I imagine that if this is to be changed it will be sorted out quickly and quietly - and probably retroactively; lawmakers can be very efficient when they risk legal action if they delay or when there is enough money behind them (as with the Digital Economy Act).
This is the basic principle of the "first sale doctrine" in US law (from my understanding of it). It means that once you own copyrighted material (and there is a 'first sale') you can legally resell, rent, loan etc. it without needing to have any sort of interaction with the copyright owner.
This is, perhaps, why the rental market is rather different here in the UK; there is no Netflix etc., and the attempt to set something similar up didn't last long - but Blockbuster (which recently folded in the US) seems to be going strong, presumably through lack of competition.
Interestingly, this is pretty much the complete opposite of EU law on the subject, where renting and loaning *are* restricted by copyright (the 'first sale' idea wouldn't work anyway as the data copyrighted cannot be owned or sold - at least in the UK). There is even a thing called the "Artist's Resale Right" that means anyone selling certain physical objects in which there is copyright, in a certain way, must pay a royalty to the copyright owner.
The closest thing to "freedom of speech" that exists in the EU is article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which includes the "right to freedom of expression". This is subtly distinct from freedom of speech (which is a very USian idea). The article goes on to say that the exercise of this right can be restricted for various reasons including "the protection of health or morals" and "the protection of the reputation or rights of others" (among others).
In terms of privacy, there's no specific right to privacy in the ECHR, but the subtly different "right to respect for ... private and family life, home and correspondence" including in Article 8. Again, this can be waived for the same reasons as above. These two articles often get balanced against each other, for obvious reasons. It also isn't hard to see how this "right to be forgotten" could be covered under (or related to) this right to respect of private life etc., when it wouldn't necessarily be covered by a simple right to privacy.
From what I have observed the US holds the idea of freedom of speech much higher than it is held elsewhere, particularly in Europe, where other "rights" (including privacy, protection from defamation and prevention of hate-speech) often take precedence. While in some case this can go too far (such as the Twitter Joke Trial), it is part of how European culture seems to operate. As such, while there is an obvious conflict with freedom of speech in this proposal, it may not be quite as noteworthy as it may seem from an American perspective.
With regard to the ECHR and the UK, (iirc) the UK was the first country to sign the convention (and the first country to be taken to Court by it) and it has been binding on the state since 1953. In 2000 this was strengthened through the Human Rights Act 1998 which made it easier for cases etc. to be considered with regard to the convention.
If you look at the MSM, it is only really being covered by the BBC and the Guardian (both fairly anti-Sky) and they are going with the "people" story of the personal details being available, not all the legal or file-sharing stuff. They've also really pushed the porn access. In particular, the BBC headlines refer to the "Porn list" and "Adult video-sharing list" - and they are still referring to "illegal filesharing" (admittedly with "alleged" sneaking in occasionally).
There are two sides to this story; one is the personal data leak, which is what the ICO, Privacy International and the MSM are all discussing, and then there is the details about the legal practice, the "scaring", the dismissal of justice and due process, the back-door deals with ISPs, and the estimates for what the "actual" damages would be in a fairl trial etc. which, hopefully, the SRA will deal with, but the media are ignoring.
On the post: UK Continues Issuing Tons Of Super Injunctions To Keep Famous People From Being Embarrassed
Re: Fewer acronyms please
On the post: UK Continues Issuing Tons Of Super Injunctions To Keep Famous People From Being Embarrassed
Re:
Hyper-injunctions have only taken off because they make good headlines - they don't appear to exist.
On the post: UK Continues Issuing Tons Of Super Injunctions To Keep Famous People From Being Embarrassed
Political, not Legal problems...
As for the matter; injunctions are granted all over the place, all the time - in the case of privacy, they are usually short-term stops (pre-trial) to prevent the spread of information when there's a very good case that that it will be found illegal to spread the information. The point is not to prevent the spread of the information (which has always been futile, even pre-Internet), the point is to limit the "damage" done by the information by keeping it from the major channels.
The UK (and Europe) has always had a low interest in freedom of speech (a very US-centric concept), there are all sorts of way to limit it (privacy laws, defamation, contempt of court, copyright) and they exist because our society prefers it this way (apparently).
In terms of our politicians whining that judges are making up privacy laws - this is complete rubbish. Parliament passed a privacy law 13 years ago; it is called the Human Rights Act 1998. This caused a huge problem for UK judges, who have had to try to bend existing laws to cover the right to privacy added - and they have seriously struggled over this (just look at some of the judgments in the big cases; Douglas v Hello, Campbell v MGN etc.).
Parliament has had 13 years to step in and pass their own privacy law and have consistently failed to do so, because they really didn't care (and I imagine politicians quite like the availability of super-injunctions), the only reason they care now is that they can use the general public's lack of knowledge on this area to score some points against the HRA and judges.
The problem with injunctions and super-injunctions (which are very rare) in the UK is not their existence; they are quite useful tools - the problem is the money required to get them. They are not available to "normal" people, only the super-rich. But this is a flaw in our (and most) legal systems; lawyers cost far too much money. Creating more laws probably isn't the best way of fixing this.
On the post: UK Politicians Want To Regulate Google... Because It's Good At What It Does
Full text of the "debate"
I put "debate" in ""s as it was more or less the three of them ranting at Google (I managed to catch some of it live) with no one there to put them right.
I found it particularly interesting to hear Ed Vaizey (Minister at DCMS) going on about wanting to "stay focused on the need for an open internet" the same week he was in secret talks with the copyright lobby and ISPs over web-blocking.
As one of his constituents, I'm tempted to write to Mr Raab and point out his errors (and how "search neutrality" is a meaningless or self-contradictory phrase), but I don't suppose it will do any good. Plus, this debate was a couple of weeks ago - do people think it is worth it?
On the post: EU Advocate General Says ISP Filtering To Block Infringement Violates Fundamental Rights Charter
Article 17
Right to property
1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.
2. Intellectual property shall be protected.
and
Article 47
Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. ...
Interestingly, Article 48 (Presumption of innocence) may not apply as that only refers to people being charged with something - something that web-blocking tends to avoid.
The Article 17 right highlights the dangers of being sloppy with terminology and the success of the "intellectual property" campaign. By getting it into the public conscious that copyright etc. are property (which, to a minor degree, they are) it becomes a lot easier to convince lawmakers to protect them along with the right to property.
Fortunately the Article 1 Protocol 1 right to property in the ECHR is suitably worded that it probably doesn't cover copyright etc. - not sure if there is case law on that, though.
On the post: EU Advocate General Says ISP Filtering To Block Infringement Violates Fundamental Rights Charter
In any case, it doesn't look like the Advocate General actually objected to the principle of web-blocking, merely that it shouldn't be done arbitrarily by a Court order - but it would be fine if done through clear, predictable and transparent legislation.
[Disclaimer: I haven't read the opinion yet - it is only available in French.]
On the post: Federal Courts Afraid Your Smartphone Might Be A Bomb
Whereas in the UK...
This was at the Royal Courts of Justice, which houses the English High Court and Courts of Appeal, and while it has ... what would have been called airport-style security a few years ago, but now... merely x-ray machines for belongings, and a standard walk-through metal detector at the entrances, security is fairly lax; possibly because the judiciary realise that blowing them up would be kind of pointless; they're not particularly high-profile.
Incidentally, I was also wandering around our Parliament buildings last week, and they had the same level of security (plus "ID" tags, which merely show that you've been through security and are a guest, rather than identifying you personally), and that's a building that *has* been the subject of a terrorist attack, admittedly some time ago (although I imagine the IRA probably tried more recently).
It seems rather ridiculous to the extreme to put in place all these extra layers of security theatre in US (or other) courts (such as banning phones), and one can't help but wonder if the reasoning behind it is something along the lines of "airports have tighter security than courts, this can't be right, we must have more security", rather than actually being worried about concrete threats.
On the post: But... But... Piracy...
Copyright in the video
...
Having now skim-read through the rather extensive terms and conditions on the website, I'm not sure they know the answer either, but it is an interesting question (similar to the question of who owns the copyright to save-game files generated by a computer game).
On the post: Questions About Copyright On Stormtrooper Costume Hit UK Supreme Court
Really about sculpture
From my reading of this article (by a UK law-person) this isn't about works-for-hire but about whether or not the helmet is a sculpture.
There is no question that the original designs (probably by Ralph McQuarrie) are covered by copyright, and that copyright will (most likely) be owned by Lucasfilm. However, there is a specific exemption (s.51 of the CDPA) for making models etc. based on designs (otherwise, for example, any LEGO model would be illegal), provided this is for utilitarian use.
So, if the helmet is a sculpture, it is an artistic work and covered by copyright (both in itself and as a derivative work) and so you have (probably criminal) copyright infringement. However, if it isn't a sculpture, but merely an object, there is no copyright infringement as the s.51 defence applies.
Of course, this is a perfect case for licensing being used as a solution (UK copyright law encourages infringement to be actioned by issuing a back-dated licence) - but they still decided to fight it out in the courts. However, I think it will be useful to see how it goes - it is quite an important case (boring cases rarely make it to the Supreme Court).
[For completeness, the High Court judgment from 2008 is available (for free) here and the Court of Appeal judgment from 2009 here. I haven't had a chance to read through them yet, though, but I will, so feel free to ask me for more details.]
On the post: UK Publishers: Fair Use Would Put A 'Chokehold On Innovation'
Having said that, I'm against fair use (and argued so in my response to the review, on behalf of PPUk). It *is* uncertain (particularly with an absence of domestic case law) and it seems that every other week there tends to be a story here about some company suing for copyright infringement despite it being an obvious case for fair use.
Fair use is a kind of equitable defence; as such it works great when you have equal parties, but is almost worthless when dealing with a stronger or weaker party. A much more sensible approach would be (in my opinion) to set very clear and limiting rules on when copyright applies, rather than saying it always exists unless one of a set of fairly vague defences applies.
On the post: UK Gov't Admits That Protecting Big Record Labels More Important Than Getting Poor Online
Re: Re: Re:
I can state that online infringement of copyright doesn't cost anything because there is no logical way it can. How can person A, by copying a file from one location to another (i.e. a "file-sharing website" to their hard drive) cost some person or company B (who doesn't pay the bandwidth for that website) money?
It can't. There is no logical way that can happen. Now, if you can give any argument to suggest that there is even the tiniest cost of online copyright infringement itself to copyright owners, (as little as 1p a decade), then yes, evidence is needed and so on, but while there can be no cost at all due to basic logic, no evidence is needed.
On the post: UK Gov't Admits That Protecting Big Record Labels More Important Than Getting Poor Online
Re:
You can talk about displaced or lost sales, diverted revenue and all that, but when it comes down to it, online infringement of copyright doesn't cost anyone anything.
It is anti-piracy measures that cost. And the argument usually is that the cost of anti-piracy measures will be more than balanced by the increased revenue caused by the decrease in piracy (if any). But this decision is up to the individual copyright owner (or in some cases, their trade body that has just hired a fancy new "content protection officer" who needs to justify his salary). Any copyright owner can spend as much on anti-piracy measures as they want to. There are very few places where there isn't *some* kind of measure that can be taken; (in the UK, for example, there is already a law that makes copyright infringement actionable... but for some reason, no one uses it. Why? Because copyright infringement isn't causing enough of a problem for it to be worth the effort).
In this case, what we have is precisely content owners (or their trade organisations) running in and stealing the bangers and mash off the poor people's and shipping it off to (hardly starving) record execs. The DEA (or IOC measures at least) are anti-piracy measures. There is nothing in them that copyright owners can't do already. What the DEA does is make ISPs pay for some of this, to make it cheaper for copyright owners (or their agents). The ISPs then have to pass the costs on to their subscribers.
This legislation is designed to make it cheaper for the large copyright owners (and their agents; i.e. the BPI, FACT, MPA, NLA et al.) to implement anti-piracy measures by passing the cost onto normal people (including the poor) because they don't want to pay for them themselves. Of course, the aim of the measures is to get "the people" to may more for content - so "the people" (poor or rich, although I imagine the rich don't care so much about filesharing) are being forced to pay so that they can pay the record execs more...
How is that remotely logical or fair?
On the post: While BBC Wants To Kill Off A Bunch Of Websites, Geeks Quickly Archive Them
Re: Re:
And the Doctor Who tapes is a slightly different issue; that was about the BBC not having enough money due to excessive copyright stuff (during the "home taping" scare of the 70s/80s). Incidentally, Doctor Who actually survived quite well (the audio for all episodes remains, and some sort of video or stills for most); Z-Cars, in particular, was very badly hit by this, with about half of all episodes missing.
On the post: Did Scotland Accidentally Create A 'Use It Or Lose It' Copyright Law?
If you read the actual law, you will see that the relevant part of the law specifically doesn't apply to land, but other property rights. If you want to read (what I think is) the relevant section, it is s.8, extinction of other rights relating to property by prescriptive periods of twenty years. Subsection (a) states that unexercised rights expire after 20 years, and (b) states that this applies to "any right relating to property, whether heritable or moveable" (aside from the exceptions listed in the schedule, including land).
I'm not an expert in Scottish law, but the Scottish Law Commission thinks this must apply to copy- and related rights, and they are the experts...
On the post: Did Scotland Accidentally Create A 'Use It Or Lose It' Copyright Law?
Not quite - the law in question specifies that "any real right of ownership in land" (Schedule 3, (a)) is exempt from the 20 year limit, as are a number of other things.On the post: Did Scotland Accidentally Create A 'Use It Or Lose It' Copyright Law?
In the UK, copyright and related rights are defined to be property rights (by law - s.1(1) of the CDPA). This means that (from my understanding - I'm not a lawyer yet) the copyright in something, or a trademark (the concept, not the actual mark) is personal property and so can be assigned, sold, mortgaged etc. but the actual work (the material copyrighted, the design, mark or invention) is not property, being merely information.
While some aspects of property law therefore apply to IP stuffs, the way the law is drafted, certain parts are excluded - for example, the "moral rights" related to copyrights aren't assignable or trade-able.
Interestingly, copyrights being property means that a copyright or patent can, theoretically, be stolen under the Theft Act - even though the information/material can't as it is not property. Working out how this could happen requires a bit of mental gymnastics and legal toying, but it works out as something similar to some kinds of "Copyfraud".
On the post: Did Scotland Accidentally Create A 'Use It Or Lose It' Copyright Law?
Reading through the original law report (here, I think) it looks like there is a 1973 law (the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973) which states that no claims can be made on any property right that isn't actioned for 20 years. The idea was noted when a case when to the House of Lords on a similar issue (the copyright claim was upheld) and the Lords noted that the case might have been different had it been tried under Scots, rather than English Law.
This doesn't apply in England as the equivalent law (the Limitation Act 1980) has a clause specifically exempting rights with a fixed time-limit (such as copyrights and related rights) but the Scots law has no such exemption. This becomes a problem because (as you pointed out, due to the copyright industry lobbying, one assumes) the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 specifies that copyright is a property right (one imagines that the drafts-men didn't think to check Scots Law on that).
The law report also notes that while this would apply to all IP-related stuff, all the other forms than copyright and performance rights (patents, design rights, trade marks etc.) last for 20 years or less, or require active registration (enough to maintain the property right). Nevertheless, they propose that the Scots law be amended to match the English law by clarifying that specific-length property rights be exempted.
Interestingly, it could be argued that, by failing to correct this, Scotland (and thus the UK) could be taken to the European Court of Justice for failing to uphold its various obligations under EU directives (not to mention TRIPS and the Berne convention).
Of course, I imagine that if this is to be changed it will be sorted out quickly and quietly - and probably retroactively; lawmakers can be very efficient when they risk legal action if they delay or when there is enough money behind them (as with the Digital Economy Act).
On the post: Netflix's Move From DVDs To Streaming Shows The Massive Value Of First Sale Doctrine
Re: Re: $15 for DVD? HUH?
This is, perhaps, why the rental market is rather different here in the UK; there is no Netflix etc., and the attempt to set something similar up didn't last long - but Blockbuster (which recently folded in the US) seems to be going strong, presumably through lack of competition.
Interestingly, this is pretty much the complete opposite of EU law on the subject, where renting and loaning *are* restricted by copyright (the 'first sale' idea wouldn't work anyway as the data copyrighted cannot be owned or sold - at least in the UK). There is even a thing called the "Artist's Resale Right" that means anyone selling certain physical objects in which there is copyright, in a certain way, must pay a royalty to the copyright owner.
On the post: EU Proposes 'Right To Be Forgotten' Online, In Contradiction With Free Speech Concepts
Freedom of Speech, Privacy and the ECHR
The closest thing to "freedom of speech" that exists in the EU is article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights which includes the "right to freedom of expression". This is subtly distinct from freedom of speech (which is a very USian idea). The article goes on to say that the exercise of this right can be restricted for various reasons including "the protection of health or morals" and "the protection of the reputation or rights of others" (among others).
In terms of privacy, there's no specific right to privacy in the ECHR, but the subtly different "right to respect for ... private and family life, home and correspondence" including in Article 8. Again, this can be waived for the same reasons as above. These two articles often get balanced against each other, for obvious reasons. It also isn't hard to see how this "right to be forgotten" could be covered under (or related to) this right to respect of private life etc., when it wouldn't necessarily be covered by a simple right to privacy.
From what I have observed the US holds the idea of freedom of speech much higher than it is held elsewhere, particularly in Europe, where other "rights" (including privacy, protection from defamation and prevention of hate-speech) often take precedence. While in some case this can go too far (such as the Twitter Joke Trial), it is part of how European culture seems to operate. As such, while there is an obvious conflict with freedom of speech in this proposal, it may not be quite as noteworthy as it may seem from an American perspective.
With regard to the ECHR and the UK, (iirc) the UK was the first country to sign the convention (and the first country to be taken to Court by it) and it has been binding on the state since 1953. In 2000 this was strengthened through the Human Rights Act 1998 which made it easier for cases etc. to be considered with regard to the convention.
On the post: Privacy International Plans To Sue ACS:Law For Mishandling Information On Those It Threatened
Coverage
There are two sides to this story; one is the personal data leak, which is what the ICO, Privacy International and the MSM are all discussing, and then there is the details about the legal practice, the "scaring", the dismissal of justice and due process, the back-door deals with ISPs, and the estimates for what the "actual" damages would be in a fairl trial etc. which, hopefully, the SRA will deal with, but the media are ignoring.
Next >>