Slashdot Mirror

I guess they know how to spell; pity I don't.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk

Over on this side of the big pond, the cost of calling mobile telephones is still orders of magnitude higher than making national or local calls, and in some instances comparable (or even more expensive, if you use some of the specialist long-distance carriers) to making international calls. Example: Calls to mobiles are charged at anywhere from 18.90 to 26.05 pence per minute including tax during the daytime. Compare this to international rate calls to the USA at 14.00 and Australia at 22.00 pence per minute. (Source: BT price list). The cost alone is usually sufficient to put people of making calls to mobiles. SMS (text messaging) spam is become more popular though.

The UK Direct Marketing Association, which is the self regulatory body for direct marketeers in the UK run a scheme called the Telephone Preference Service or 'TPS'. From personal experience, I have found this scheme to be particularly effective against junk callers.

The same bunch also run a postal-mail and fax opt-out service, which is apparently also fairly successful, and an Email service, which I'm somewhat sceptical about (not giving my addressesout anyway, I shouldn't be on their lists). (and most of my spam comes from the USA anyhow) Under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy Regulations) 1999 it is an offence for any company engaged in direct marketing to call numbers listed on the TPS. Those who do can be 'shopped' straight away on the TPS site. One difference I noticed with the USA version of the TPS is that in the USA, you can still be called by local traders, charities and religious groups, AND your number only registers for five years. In the UK, local traders, charities and religious groups are included in the act.

The rip debate is about getting existing logs, not activly "sniffing" data.

Well, data recorded one second ago can be classed as 'an existing log'. Do you think they'll let this information sit around for a week or so just so it can go stale? Maybe there are already systems in place to make sure that this information is delivered in a timely fashion. We might never know.

The rip debate is about getting existing logs, not activly "sniffing" data.

Well, data recorded one second ago can be classed as 'an existing log'. Do you think they'll let this information sit around for a week or so just so it can go stale? Maybe there are already systems in place to make sure that this information is delivered in a timely fashion. We might never know.

That's what I did when this unholy bill was first announced asking why any of the listed groups could have access to emails, mobile phone and ISP logs without so much as a warrant. Read that list - it's beyond belief what they're trying to get away with. The only one I can see a justification for is the Home Office as they deal with crime and internal security.

Within two days I received a reply signed by the man himself which suggested that he agreed that there were privacy concerns here and he has forwarded my concerns to the home secretary. So I await Blunkett's justification for all this with baited breath.

It's nice to see that they have delayed the debate but the House of Commons is so stuffed with New Labour drones that they will be able to whip whatever fascist legislation they want through there. Still if this proposed legislation does concern you write to your MP and let your views be known. Who knows maybe even New Labour will deign to listen to the electorate if enough people kick up a fuss.

An extraordinary degree of opposition from all parts of the political spectrum succeeded in getting the worst aspects of that accursed Bill amended, though the resulting Act that passed into law is still highly objectionable. Crucially, some aspects of the way the RIP Act would actually work in detail were left unspecified in the legislation, to be clarified as regulations to be drawn up later by - yep, you've guessed it - the Home Office. This is fairly standard practice in the UK, but in this particular case one has to conclude that the parliamentarians who were trying to pull the teeth of the monster ended up by giving it a big yet kiss.

Well, now we have the detailed clarification from the Home Office of who should be allowed to snoop on our communications. A grab-bag of everyone from government departments with responsibility for sensitive areas like nuclear power to hundreds of thousands of minor civil servants and elected officials up and down the country, presented to Parliament in a form that doesn't even need further legislation to come into force - it's more in the nature of an administrative order. I will nevertheless admit that I'm a little surprised at how over the top this list of authorised organisations is. The Post Office is authorised to snoop on electronic communications? Any local authority (ie local town or district council)? Does the Home Office perhaps believe that snooping on electronic communications is going to help deliver letters on time, or keep the sidewalks free from dog-poop? More likely you'll end up with Councilor Bigbucks-the-Builder, head of the local building & planning department, trawling for information about the pesky folks who are orchestrating a campaign against selling off the school playing-field for a multi-story office development.

FWIW, my guess is that the more extreme entries in the wish-list are sacrificial and that the Home Office will give them up if pushed - though it will do this with the same bloody-mindedness and grudging bad grace that it displayed throughout the discussion on the original RIP Act which this 'clarifies' - so that some other entries which would otherwise be contentions, for example the government Department of the Environment - will slip through unopposed. Cynical, but unfortunately standard practice. I'd guess that other aims of such an extensive set of authorised organisations are to make the task of oversight as difficult as possible, and to maximise the uncertainty about whether a particular request for traffic information to an ISP can legitimately be resisted.

Brits: write to your MPs - politely but firmly. Look at the list of bodies that the Home Office wants to authorise to snoop - the wish-list is up on the government's web site here. Ask your MP to consider what range of offenses and security concerns it is reasonable to use traffic analysis and access information to investigate, and what organisations are going to be directly involved in such investigations.

(Sigh) It took the BSE and foot'n'mouth debacles before the UK government finally reluctantly accepted that the old Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Food had become nothing more than an in-house lobbey for the agribusiness, and could no longer be trusted with supervising food safety. I shudder to think how long it will be before it is accepted that justice and supervision of law enforcement are now too important to be left to the Home Office.

There are exemptions to the DPA. If the information would comprimise national security then it will not be released to you. This doesn't stop you requesting your MI5 file - however they can get out of it by saying that it's a matter of national security.

For more see here

See Section 296 of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)

• Anyone from the UK here? You guys are saps for government intrusion. You don't even live in a democracy, but you think you do

I'll bite. I (the poster you're responding to) am a UK citizen. Now, let's see. We can be sued for contributory copyright infringement for bypassing DRM, but we didn't make it criminal offence. We don't already habitually hand over book purchase records to law enforcement. We don't have banned book lists. We have exactly the same fucked up first-past-the post electoral system as the US, but we have five parties that regularly win seats in parliament, and we don't return 90% of incumbents, nor did we choose to re-invent the idea of a near-absolute head of state appointed not by democratic process, but by a council of picked power brokers (if you know your history, the 2000 Presidential election was fascinatingly similar to the Anglo Saxon selection of a monarch by the witan, a council of aethelings and eoldermen appointed, influenced by and loyal to various factions in contention for the throne).

There never has been a country, state or city run as a democracy. Athens came close - if you were a free man of property (the premise that both US and UK systems were also based on) - but they got sick of governing themselves and executing advocates of free speech and more or less acquiesed in their own transformation to a dictatorship. The US system is heavily influenced by Athens, and even more so by Rome and it's wacky dagger-in-the-back machinations. Hurrah!

Given your .sig, I'll infer that your primary argument is that in the US, you're allowed to own guns. I'm using that wording advisedly. You are allowed to own guns. As long as you haven't been convicted of a crime, and you don't want a concealed weapon, or a fully automatic weapon, or a handgun with a clip in excess of ten rounds, or live in New York and aren't (de facto) employed in government or the legal system, or in any way want arms (not guns specifically) that could actually be used for the explicitely intended purpose, which is "A well regulated Militia". You've already lost the gun argument, they're just being taken away (from honest men and women) one shell at a time by men and women with heavily armed bodyguards, until only criminals will have guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the UK is much better than the US. The UK is a nasty, mean little country, but in practical terms, i.e. in practicing what we preach - we are still a little better, although I freely concede that we get worse every day under the auspices of Mr President-Elect Tony Blair.

New Zealand knocks us both into a cocked hat, of course. But let's not go there, it's always embarrasing when you think you're on the high ground only to find someone dropping moral rocks on your swollen head.

More info on that???
Can be got from the stationary office website.

Compare and contrast that travesty with UK Data Protection Act 1998. To summarise

Anyone processing personal data must comply with the eight enforceable principles of good practice. They say that data must be:

• fairly and lawfully processed;
• processed for limited purposes;
• adequate, relevant and not excessive;
• accurate;
• not kept longer than necessary;
• processed in accordance with the data subject's rights;
• secure;
• not transferred to countries without adequate protection.

Personal data covers both facts and opinions about the individual. It also includes information regarding the intentions of the data controller towards the individual, although in some limited circumstances exemptions will apply. With processing, the definition is far wider than before. For example, it incorporates the concepts of 'obtaining', holding' and 'disclosing'.

The Full explanation of the principles can be found here

(source: http://www.dataprotection.gov.uk/principl.htm)

Note that last point - the US at present does not have 'adequate protection' (ie protection to an equivalent level). This proposed bill takes it further away.

Something else to note - the enforcement of this will only get stricter when the new Data Protection Commissioner takes office.

These 'privacy statements' sound like the requirement that the EU's Directive on Data Protection (enacted under UK law as the Data Protection Act) imposes on organisations, governmental, corporate or otherwise, to have a publically available privacy statement (amongst other items, such as rapid access to all information held by an organisation on request for a 'reasonable' handling fee, and so on).

They can go to prison for 2 years if they fail on request by the police to decrypt it.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is a bit more complicated than this statement suggests. For instance, the explanatory notes say the act creates civil liability for unlawful interception on a private telecommunications network and defines who may bring an action, namely the sender, recipient or intended recipient. For example, where an employee believes that their employer has unlawfully intercepted a telephone conversation with a third party, either the employee or the third party may sue the employer.

Interception normally requires a warrant from the Secretary of State. It would not be sufficient for him to consider that a warrant might be useful in supplementing other material, or that the information that it could produce could be interesting. The word 'necessary' means 'necessary in a democratic society'.

The act provides for a tribunal as a means of redress for those who wish to complain about the use of the powers.

The provision that forces disclosure of the decryption key assumes that the investigator has authority to read the email in the first place.

The suggestion that the British practice resembles a dictatorship is preposterous.

They can go to prison for 2 years if they fail on request by the police to decrypt it.

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is a bit more complicated than this statement suggests. For instance, the explanatory notes say the act creates civil liability for unlawful interception on a private telecommunications network and defines who may bring an action, namely the sender, recipient or intended recipient. For example, where an employee believes that their employer has unlawfully intercepted a telephone conversation with a third party, either the employee or the third party may sue the employer.

Interception normally requires a warrant from the Secretary of State. It would not be sufficient for him to consider that a warrant might be useful in supplementing other material, or that the information that it could produce could be interesting. The word 'necessary' means 'necessary in a democratic society'.

The act provides for a tribunal as a means of redress for those who wish to complain about the use of the powers.

The provision that forces disclosure of the decryption key assumes that the investigator has authority to read the email in the first place.

The suggestion that the British practice resembles a dictatorship is preposterous.

Deal with software businesses in England ONLY.

This is our company policy, by UK law under the Data Protection Act of 1998 all businesses that get personal data MUST keep it for the minimum time, and MUST provide an opt-out clause on all correpsondence where such data is given to the business. Even if you're just going to pass the data around within the company.

The laws are so strict that to calculate employee sick days you need every employee's signed permission to access the sickness records database.

We live in an era of unprecedented governmental respect for civil liberties.

One can see this respect even in the USA PATRIOT Act that uses tortuous language to try and make the act consistent with the Constitution and various court rulings. The British, with a more flexible notion of a constitution and a different role for the judiciary, simply hand government new powers to fight terrorism without such concern for precedent.

A good deal of the USAPA consists of minor, even miniscule, changes to earlier acts, like:

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and inserting `; or';

This highly legalistic approach to extending government powers shows that the government is mindful of what it is taking away and wishes to precisely delineate its new powers. It provides conventional recourse to the courts if the powers are exceeded or abused.

• Seeing as mr PineGreen's URL indicates a UK domain, the DMCA does not apply, ergo he's very unlikely to have broken the law in the manner you suggest

The Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 was around in the UK ten years before the DMCA.

Specifically, we're talking about Section 296 which says:

• "296.--(1) This section applies where copies of a copyright work are issued to the public, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, in an electronic form which is copy-protected.

  (2) The person issuing the copies to the public has the same rights against a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that it will be used to make infringing copies--

  (a) makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any device or means specifically designed or adapted to circumvent the form of copy-protection employed, or

  (b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection, as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright."

The CDPA is a little more reasonable than the DMCA, as it basically says that contributory copyright infringment can be prosecuted by the copyright owner under the same terms as primary infringement, i.e. a civil action. What it doesn't do is make secondary infringement a criminal offence, which is the really nasty bit of the DMCA.

• Seeing as mr PineGreen's URL indicates a UK domain, the DMCA does not apply, ergo he's very unlikely to have broken the law in the manner you suggest

The Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 was around in the UK ten years before the DMCA.

Specifically, we're talking about Section 296 which says:

• "296.--(1) This section applies where copies of a copyright work are issued to the public, by or with the licence of the copyright owner, in an electronic form which is copy-protected.

  (2) The person issuing the copies to the public has the same rights against a person who, knowing or having reason to believe that it will be used to make infringing copies--

  (a) makes, imports, sells or lets for hire, offers or exposes for sale or hire, or advertises for sale or hire, any device or means specifically designed or adapted to circumvent the form of copy-protection employed, or

  (b) publishes information intended to enable or assist persons to circumvent that form of copy-protection, as a copyright owner has in respect of an infringement of copyright."

The CDPA is a little more reasonable than the DMCA, as it basically says that contributory copyright infringment can be prosecuted by the copyright owner under the same terms as primary infringement, i.e. a civil action. What it doesn't do is make secondary infringement a criminal offence, which is the really nasty bit of the DMCA.

• Fortunately, most of the rest of the world is moving towards the same kind of draconian copyright laws. And by "fortunately" I mean "unfortunately"

Try and keep up; the UK had the Design, Copyright and Patents Act way back in 1988. It took another ten years to slither its way across the Atlantic, disguised as the DMCA.

Indeed - the RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) of 2000 has sections under which one can be imprisoned on failing to 'hand over' keys to the authorities on request; the burden of proof of lack of ability to hand over said keys lies with the defendent; to quote:

53
(1) A person to whom a section 49 notice has been given is guilty of an offence if he knowingly fails, in accordance with the notice, to make the disclosure required by virtue of the giving of the notice.
(2) In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.[emphasis mine]

The act also makes it an offence to give notice that one has been given notice to divulge a key.

However, it should be noted that although this act came in to force in 2000, the code of conduct has yet to be released by the HO (presumably because they're having difficulty working out when to release it so as to best avoid a fuss in the media; maybe they should consider hiring Jo Moore), so no-one will have been prosecuted under this act yet (assumedly).

Oh, BTW, IANAL and all that #include stddsclmr etc...

"Walt Disney Productions is grateful to the Hospital for Sick Children - Great Ormond Street, London - to which Sir James M. Barrie gave his copyright of Peter Pan."

The US Peter Pan copyright was originally set to expire in 1987. But because of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, the copyright was extended to 2007.

I don't know whether Disney actually paid royalties to the Hospital, but I bet they did.

(In the UK, parliament passed a special act giving the hospital an eternal copyright in Peter Pan. It's debatable whether the Berne convention extended this ininite protection to all Berne convention countries.)

Under the computer misuse act in the UK, it could be argued that the spammer, by putting your friends email address in the mail has attempted unauthorised access to his computer.
We should be able to get said spammer extradited and get him five years to try and not drop the soap.
The police will not be keen on this as it hasn't been done before against hackers. Once it has been done in one juristiction, then it can be used by people in other juristictions as a lever on their local police departments to get spammers rounded up and beaten like the dogs they are.

Banning cables is even worse - it creates a notion of "pirates' tool", something tangible that can be used as a "weapon" by "bad guys" and should be kept out of the country.

Actually, in the UK, knives are something that can be banned from import -- they even restrict printed magazines that promote 'combat knives' on the basis that they are a tool only for the "bad guys".

References:

• The Criminal Justice Act 1988
• http://law.rainertech.co.uk/justice.htm
• Offensive Weapons Act 1996

The one good reference I had on the advertising restrictions was an AOL homepage that has since vanished... you'll have to do the research yourself if you won't take my word on the laws.

Actually any information that is stored on a computer by any company is protected by LAW in the UK
United Kingdom Data Protection Act 1988
so all our private information is just that private and is not for sale

unlike the USA

Here in the UK we don't put up with such exploitation why should we ? do we really want our TV to be as bad as yours ?.

• Ok, so now I am not allowed to leave where I live and play my games where I travel to? I don't understand this. [...] Maybe I am just being dense, but could someone please show me where it says you aren't allowed to move somewhere and play your game?

It says so in the Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988 in the UK, and the DMCA in the US. It's perfectly clear, we just didn't realise how badly we'd been buttfucked until recently. North American English speakers have been insulated slightly because they get region 1 English-only DVD's first with all the extra features, while everybody else has to wait and get a compromise. If regioning was really a language issue, as was originally claimed, why is the UK in Region 2 with Europe (so we'd get English language with all the extra features rather than several different European language versions) rather than in Region 1 with North America? And why do the many Canadian French or North American Spanish speakers have to mod their players (illegal for US citizens) and wait for and import Region 2 DVD's? North American English speakers probably don't even realise the importance of being able to change the region code on a DVD player easily and without restriction (mine varies between 0, 1 and 2). Regioning is a farce, it always has been, and it looks to be getting worse.

The one blessing in this case is that the judge ruled on active use of the content rather than just possession of the media. At the moment, it's OK to have non-Region 2 DVD's in the UK, it's just illegal to do anything with them or to traffic in or create a device modified to allow you to play them (hello DeCSS). It could be worse. AFAIK, there's no law or precedent that says we have to turn in our existing modified players or DVD's. Yet.

This, by the way, is a perfect example of why crap like the DMCA shouldn't be allowed to stay on the books, even if it's not used for a while. The CDPA has been around for thirteen years, lurking in stealth mode. It was always perfectly clear, it's just not been used to assrape anyone up until now (and by the way, to the poster who ripped into me for mentioning the CDPA six months ago because "it's never been used and never will be", a big fuck you, ostrich boy). Expect to see the copyright owners target DVD manufacturers next, to have region changing ability removed completely rather than just hidden away.

I don't know about the UK, but in the USA, copying programs from a legit copy to RAM in order to run them is perfectly lawful.

Section 17 of the Copyright, Design and Patent act 1988

(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.

So yes, it is illegal in the UK.

Why can't I legally play an imported PS2 game (which I probably paid a goodly premium for) on a modded PS2? I've voided my warranty if I mod the PS2, Sony still gets their money from the original software sale, the reseller gets their money from the sale to me, and I get to try to decipher the hirigana and kanjii in a vain attempt to understand just what the heck it is I've bought. Seems like everyone gets what they want in this circumstance.

Because under Section 17 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988 you specifically have no intrinsic right to make a transient copy even if that transient copy is necessary for the use of the product - that is, reading the contents of a CD into memory is unauthorised copying. It is assumed that you are implicitly granted permission from the copyright holder when you purchase the product, but as of yesterday's ruling this is assumed to only apply to the country where you bought it. As a result, you are legally permitted to import a game for personal use, but copying that game into your system's memory in order to play it is illegal unless the copyright holder specifically grants you permission to do so.

This quite possibly applies to imported DVDs, too.

Check with a British IP lawyer before either:

• Believing in common sense being represented in the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 or
• Accusing me of being an American.

As it so happens, I live in a country which has a very similar Copyright Act to yours (or theirs; perhaps you're not a Brit, but you certainly write like one).

Whilst it's good to see serious discussion of open-source benefits to UK govt, one wonders if a related discussion could take place to explore the benefits to the UK economy of reducing the lengthy 125-year term of govt copyright which currently prevents open-source projects from using and adding to 100-year old Victorian map data produced by the Ordnance Survey. The nearest open-source projects can get is ancient pre-125 year map data which are quite interesting as historical data but are seriously deficient for mapping because they are missing large areas of development from the late 19th century. By contrast, in the US, it seems the USGS has a more favorable policy of open-sourcing their data. The result is open-source mapping projects and software that use and extend the USGS datasets, in many cases also leading to commercially successful products.

For those of us in the UK:

I just thought about how this related to the Data Protection Act (1998 iirc). If someone were to create a link to an individual's website, and write: Here is a link (nb. this link does not work) to Joe Bloggs' website, does that link constitute personal data? After all, a link is like saying Here is Joe Bloggs' address: ..., and an address (so long as there is a name associated with it) is personal data.

If a link is personal data, does that mean that to link to Joe Bloggs' website you must either be registered with the Data Protection People or have Joe Bloggs' permission? In fact, wouldn't it be worse than that because you would have to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the personal data was secure (placing it on the internet is nothing like secure).

Any thoughts? Can we all go out and start sueing our friends?

TJ

PS. Appologies to our US friends. The DPA governs how people may use data about other people in the UK. It gives citizens the right to know what data someone holds on them (yes, even the security services), the right for that data to be accurate, and a number of rights governing how that data is used. Crucially, it often means that someone must have your permission before they can store data on you. This applies to paper and electronic data. Don't try to read the Act - it's boring.

• • If they no longer sell it, and no longer support it, technically it's abandonware, right?
  There is no legal definition of abandonware (nor any legal concept of it).

In the UK, under the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, the copyright on software expires 50 years after first availability to the public. I'd expect the situation to be similar in the USA.

Here's the relevant section of the CDPA, and note that computer programs are "literary works":

• "literary work" means any work, other than a dramatic or musical work, which is written, spoken or sung, and accordingly includes-- (a) a table or compilation, and (b) a computer program;.

The CDPA is well worth a read. It was very forward looking, and includes clauses on "lawful reception" of encrypted broadcasts, and even a DMCA-a-like clause that prohibits manufacture, sale or traffic in encryption busting devices. Or rather, the DMCA includes CDPA-a-like clauses. ;-)

Great. Then the only people able to read your mail with be the British Government (check point 11) . . .

The problem with media in Britain is that it's run by and controlled by the governement. In my opinion that is far worse a situation than what we have in the US. Especially given the lack of an equivalent to the First Amendment in Britain.

The Human Rights Act included the European Convention on Human Rights in British law. This includes a right to freedom of expression. Sounds like an equivalent of your First Amendment to me.

Oh, and the BBC is independent. It's funded by the government, but not controlled by them. Of course, Americans often have some difficulty with the idea that it's possible to receive money from someone without becoming their slave... hence the problems with your media, the DMCA, and so on.

First and foremost I respect and admire the work Mr. Cox does. And just as I am allowed to respect and admire his work I freely choose to disagree with his overt political opinions regarding the changelogs and the withholding of them from US citizens based on a law he is interpreting to include those changelogs.

Secondly I admit I am not an expert on the DMCA but from what I have read and studied so far his camparison of publishing changelogs -vs- circumvention devices/reverse engineering of document protection is the equivalent to comparing apples -vs- oranges.

In the Skylarov case for example,Mr. Skylarov wrote code to circumvent Adobes ebook encryption scheme.. correct? Then Adobe complained to authorities prompting an investigation and subsequently withdrew its complaint. After investigating it was determined by the FBI that he (Skylarov) violated US law by writing and distributing a "crack", code to circumvent Adobes encryption scheme so that people would not have to purchase content in Adobe ebook format. With his "crack" one could gain the content without paying for it. Whether or not you agree with proprietary formats or not, "stealing" it by way of circumvention is still petty theft in my opinion.

Back to how Cox fits in... Why would Mr. Cox fear his publishing of changelogs would be in violation? I have yet to see on Slashdot or his diary pages or from the main pages at that website a detailed explanation of exactly WHY he feels he needed to do this.

And if I am right it would take a whole lot more than simply publishing the changelogs to violate the DMCA. Correct me if I am wrong, but please show me proof (from sources that are legitamate). Would "NOT" publishing the changelogs feed into the premise that the DMCA is legitamite? Wouldn't the owner of the code have to actually submit a complaint to the authorities to be charged with a violation of the DMCA, similar to what Adobe did to Mr. Skylarov? BTW, since the linux kernel is open source and licensed under the GPL doesn't that in effect offer protection against a DMCA violation for publishing changelogs? I mean does Mr. Cox think Linus or someone else is going to complain to the FBI that he has somehow violated the DMCA by publishing changes he made to the Linux kernel? Why does he NOT worry about the changes to the kernel itself then? The kernel is obviously published all over the world includeing the US and it has his changes in it already doesn't it? That kinda seems oxymoronic in my opinion.

Lastly, the irony is that I have read some comments in this artice and on a previous Slashdot article that suggest the US laws are squashing freedom and the US government is oppressing its people, while Mr. Cox nor anyone else has mentioned anything about the UK's own RIP (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000) from the Crown itself, which is a quite scary peice of legislation and comparable to the DMCA only it has a broader, less defined scope about it. Some links on the RIP are here: World Socialist Website , SiliconValley.com , ZDNet , The Register.

In summary, withholding changelogs sounds like just a little more "America bashing". While I typically choose not to be anti-anyone else my feelings of patriotism are quite high due to recent events in America. My personal view of a non-US citizen withholding information from US citizens/developers is counter productive in repealing the DMCA. Should he feel so strongly about the DMCA then I would invite him to become a US citizen and VOTE to repeal this ignorant law instead of bitching about it from some other place in the world that has its own share of ignorant laws and regulations. Yes, do something...anything but legitimizing the DMCA by withholding changelogs!

Zoom

Just ask the Brits about the utility of this kind of law. After all, over there if the police demand you release your crypto keys, you're not allowed to say that you don't have them.

The example that someone actually implemented was to write a confession to a crime, encrypt it with a PGP key that claimed to belong to the Minister backing the stupid law. Then they destroyed the keys.

My biggest beef with Key Escrow or compulsory back-doors is as discussed in Cryptography, Privacy and Crypto-Anarchism.

In addition, this stupid kind of law adds more burden to foreign nationals. Say I use strong crypto to post a message to a discussion group. Say that discussion group is hosted in the good old USA. If I ever take a trip to the USA - or even just stop over in Hawaii en-route somewhere else - I'll get arrested by US forces for breach of US laws, a la Dimitri Sklyarov.

The minor benefit gained by this kind of policy is totally undermined by the amount of evil that can be performed. Imagine for a second that bureaucrats weren't paid enough to do their jobs. Imagine for a moment that some bureaucrats weren't the exemplars of moral integrity that they are. Just say it was possible for a large corporation, intent on stealing some other companies ideas, to bribe a bureaucrat to hand over (sorry, accidentally leave untended) the escrow keys for a competitor (or competitors). Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act passed into UK law last year, despite a campaign by the website stand.org.uk based on this very idea (they called it "Operation Dear Jack", it was against the then Home Secretary Jack Straw).

There is now a penalty of 2 years in jail for failing to disclose a key, and 5 years in jail if you tell anyone you've been asked for a key! The full text of the law is available here.

Speaking as a Brit, two things. First, by the end of 1997 *all* handguns with a very few (usually historical) exceptions were outlawed. Check the text of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 on Her Majesty's Stationery Office web site if you want to know the gory details.
Second, watch out for the expected fuss soon to come over here -- the Government are expected to listen to the rabid anti-gun group (all 7 of them) instead of the hundreds of thousands of gun owners, and pretty much ban guns.
I don't know how Godwin's Law applies here, and I suspect it applies badly, but at risk of invoking it I'll point out that in "Mein Kampf" the complete prohibition of private gun ownership is defined as part of the road towards the Third Reich.

ObOnTopic: Without WHOIS, I wouldn't have been able to trace the low-life who's been harassing a friend of mine for the last couple of weeks. Let's see how the bathtub likes having the LEOs on his case.

Um, what fair use? In the UK there is no such thing. If you read the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 you will see that there is no mention of fair use, the closest thing is "fair dealing" which is described under "Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works". You will not that while making a copy for personal _study_ is permitted, a copy for personal _use_ is not. So, even making an MP3 of a CD you own is illegal, regardless of whether or not you distribute it.

Fair use does not exist in the UK, so many things that you can do legally in the US, are illegal over here. And if there is ever an international agreement on copyright, which do you think is more likely to happen - fair use rights get eroded further (by legal or technical means) in the US, or the UK grant fair use rights to match those in the US?
--

Um, what fair use? In the UK there is no such thing. If you read the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 you will see that there is no mention of fair use, the closest thing is "fair dealing" which is described under "Acts Permitted in relation to Copyright Works". You will not that while making a copy for personal _study_ is permitted, a copy for personal _use_ is not. So, even making an MP3 of a CD you own is illegal, regardless of whether or not you distribute it.

Fair use does not exist in the UK, so many things that you can do legally in the US, are illegal over here. And if there is ever an international agreement on copyright, which do you think is more likely to happen - fair use rights get eroded further (by legal or technical means) in the US, or the UK grant fair use rights to match those in the US?
--

Only if copyright law allows you that fair use, for example in UK copyright law, there is no such thing as "fair use".

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't believe me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved, that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, in the UK, you can only legally access a work in extremely limited ways, and you can be found guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

Only if copyright law allows you that fair use, for example in UK copyright law, there is no such thing as "fair use".

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't believe me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved, that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, in the UK, you can only legally access a work in extremely limited ways, and you can be found guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

Only if copyright law allows you that fair use, for example in UK copyright law, there is no such thing as "fair use".

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't believe me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved, that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, in the UK, you can only legally access a work in extremely limited ways, and you can be found guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

Only if copyright law allows you that fair use, for example in UK copyright law, there is no such thing as "fair use".

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't believe me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved, that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, in the UK, you can only legally access a work in extremely limited ways, and you can be found guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

If it's fair use to share a recording with a few of your friends

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't beleive me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, you can only access a work in extremeely limited ways, and you're guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

If it's fair use to share a recording with a few of your friends

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't beleive me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, you can only access a work in extremeely limited ways, and you're guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

If it's fair use to share a recording with a few of your friends

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't beleive me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, you can only access a work in extremeely limited ways, and you're guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

If it's fair use to share a recording with a few of your friends

In the UK, according to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act it would be even illegal to make a recording of a song, even for your own personal use. Don't beleive me? - look at the section about Infringement of copyright by copying section which states that "This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means".

If you think this falls under "fair use", think again, there is no such thing. There is a section called "fair dealing" which allows certain exceptions and copying for personal use (as opposed to personal study) is not one of them.

Oh, and one of the clinchers is that if you are unprepared, you can be convicted for copyright infringement on a work that has passed into the public domain, because "it shall be presumed [that it was copied illegally] until the contrary is proved that the article was made at a time when copyright subsisted in the work."

So, you can only access a work in extremeely limited ways, and you're guilty until you can prove otherwise
--

From what I can figure out (see the quote below),

1. you do need a licence to receive TV broadcasts on a computer.
2. you don't need a licence if you have a broken TV in the attic.
3. you don't need a licence if you have a TV that's not installed to receive television program services, i.e., no aerial connected. This would cover the case of a TV used only as a terminal for a games console.
4. in practice you are guilty until proven innocent.

from http://www.hmso.gov.uk

Statutory Instrument 1991 No. 436

The Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Regulations 1991

2. The following class or description of television receiving apparatus is hereby specified for the purposes of the definition of "television receiver" in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949[5], namely such apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programme services, as defined by section 2(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for other purposes.

Where did you find this? All the gutenberg stuff is all very well, but id like to get some stuff that was written a little more recently!!

George Orwell died on January 21, 1950. Paragraph 12 of the UK's Copyright Act 1998 states that "Copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies".

Doesn't that mean that 1984 is out of copyright?

At the time of the court-case the platform was in international waters. Now it isn't.

Obviously there's the potential for something like this to drag on in the courts, but I'd say that the onus of proof of sovereign status rests firmly on Sealand's head rather than for the UK Government to prove otherwise.

The 1987 Act just ratified a previous agreement over sovereignity with France for that bit of the Straits of Dover (details here and that sounds like international agreement to me.

Getting rid of the occupiers is another matter entirely. As long as they don't violate UK law I'd imagine they can stay there as long as they like!

Whole thing sounds far too much like an Ealing comedy to me. Passport to Pimlico anyone?