Slashdot Mirror

The judgment is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Ors v Sky UK Ltd & Ors [2015] EWHC 1082 (Ch)

The legislation is here

I imagine they already do this sort of think in the UK? From my understanding in their laws defamation happens even if you can prove that the opinion is factual and honestly put forth in good faith.

What a bunch of crap. Why not actually look up the law?

The British Government does it this way:

We have 'RIPA', the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 containing the scary "Part III": Investigation of electronic data protected by encryption etc. Power to require disclosure

In plain English, it says "If you have encrypted data, and you know, or have ever known, the key to that data, you have to decrypt the data for the police when they tell you to. And you're not allowed to tell anyone the police told you to decrypt the data, if they tell you not to." The penalty is 4 years imprisonment.

somebody did, that was quickly legislated out. Now there's a prescribed layout and texture for number plates (at least in the UK), Photoblocker, Laserveil and similar products specifically designed to defeat flash photography (ie GATSO speed cameras) are strictly illegal.

From Wikipedia, links are valid:

Number plates must be displayed in accordance with The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.

All vehicles manufactured after 1 January 1973 must display number plates of reflex-reflecting material, white at the front and yellow at the rear, with black characters. This type of reflecting plate was permitted as an option from 1968: many vehicles first registered before 1973 may therefore carry the white/yellow reflective plates and, where they were first registered during or after 1968, they may have carried such plates since new.

In addition, characters on number plates purchased from 1 September 2001 must use a mandatory typeface and conform to set specifications as to width, height, stroke, spacing, and margins. The physical characteristics of the number plates are set out in British Standard BS AU 145d, which specifies visibility, strength, and reflectivity.

Number plates with smaller characters are only permitted on imported vehicles, and then only if they do not have European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval and their construction/design cannot accommodate standard size number plates.

The industry standard size front number plate is 520 mm × 111 mm (20½" × 4"). Rear plates are either the same size, or 285 mm × 203 mm (approx 11"x8") or 533 mm × 152 mm (approx 21"x6"). There is no specified legal size for a number plate. For example, the rear number plate of a Rover 75 is 635 mm x 175 mm.

The material of UK number plates must either comply with British Standard BS AU 145d, which states BSI number plates must be marked on the plate with the BSI logo and the name and postcode of the manufacturer and the supplier of the plates or

"(b) any other relevant standard or specification recognised for use in an EEA State and which, when in use, offers a performance equivalent to that offered by a plate complying with the British Standard specification, and which, in either case, is marked with the number (or such other information as is necessary to permit identification) of that standard or specification."

as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001 Number 561), Schedule 2.

Older British plates had white, grey or silver characters on a black background. This style of plate was phased out in 1972, and is now legal to be carried only on vehicles first registered before 1 January 1973. A vehicle which was first registered on or after 1 January 1973 shall be treated as if it was first registered before that date if it was constructed before 1 January 1973 (as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... PART IV MISCELLANEOUS).

somebody did, that was quickly legislated out. Now there's a prescribed layout and texture for number plates (at least in the UK), Photoblocker, Laserveil and similar products specifically designed to defeat flash photography (ie GATSO speed cameras) are strictly illegal.

From Wikipedia, links are valid:

Number plates must be displayed in accordance with The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001.

All vehicles manufactured after 1 January 1973 must display number plates of reflex-reflecting material, white at the front and yellow at the rear, with black characters. This type of reflecting plate was permitted as an option from 1968: many vehicles first registered before 1973 may therefore carry the white/yellow reflective plates and, where they were first registered during or after 1968, they may have carried such plates since new.

In addition, characters on number plates purchased from 1 September 2001 must use a mandatory typeface and conform to set specifications as to width, height, stroke, spacing, and margins. The physical characteristics of the number plates are set out in British Standard BS AU 145d, which specifies visibility, strength, and reflectivity.

Number plates with smaller characters are only permitted on imported vehicles, and then only if they do not have European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval and their construction/design cannot accommodate standard size number plates.

The industry standard size front number plate is 520 mm × 111 mm (20½" × 4"). Rear plates are either the same size, or 285 mm × 203 mm (approx 11"x8") or 533 mm × 152 mm (approx 21"x6"). There is no specified legal size for a number plate. For example, the rear number plate of a Rover 75 is 635 mm x 175 mm.

The material of UK number plates must either comply with British Standard BS AU 145d, which states BSI number plates must be marked on the plate with the BSI logo and the name and postcode of the manufacturer and the supplier of the plates or

"(b) any other relevant standard or specification recognised for use in an EEA State and which, when in use, offers a performance equivalent to that offered by a plate complying with the British Standard specification, and which, in either case, is marked with the number (or such other information as is necessary to permit identification) of that standard or specification."

as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... The Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations 2001 (Statutory Instrument 2001 Number 561), Schedule 2.

Older British plates had white, grey or silver characters on a black background. This style of plate was phased out in 1972, and is now legal to be carried only on vehicles first registered before 1 January 1973. A vehicle which was first registered on or after 1 January 1973 shall be treated as if it was first registered before that date if it was constructed before 1 January 1973 (as specified in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... PART IV MISCELLANEOUS).

The above comment is especially fun - because it varies.
Some animals you keep you have no liability over their actions, and some you do.
(in the UK)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

For example - you are liable for the damage livestock causes to others property.
But this is only "cattle, horses, asses, mules, hinnies, sheep, pigs, goats and poultry, and also deer not in the wild state and, in sections 3 and 9, also, while in captivity, pheasants, partridges and grouse; poultry” means the domestic varieties of the following, that is to say, fowls, turkeys, geese, ducks, guinea-fowls, pigeons, peacocks and quails"

Ostriches, camels, llamas, kangaroos, cats, dogs, parrots, peacocks are not listed, so you aren't.

Unless your dog damages other peoples livestock.
If it savages a Kangaroo - no liability.
Or if your cat kills chickens.

in short - the exact legislation matters.

No.

You are free to express you opinion no matter how nasty but it must be expressed as an opinion.

In the UK, this is simply and completely not true, and the entire point of the news story. The UK "Communications Act 2003", section 127 (1) states (and I directly quote):

A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or
(b) causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

So yes, sending an offensive message in the UK is a crime, no matter if the message is true or not.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

        2 Truth

(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You can't force any level of review. It can always be turned into people signing stuff without looking at it. What the UK is currently doing is getting a buch of lawyers to go through and dig out all the laws that don't do anything any more. Every few years they pass a big omnibus repeal bill removing them. 2013 version can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

In England this would be covered under Fraud Act 2006 sections 2, 4, 6 and 7 (that's 4 separate INDICTABLE criminal charges with a concurrent maximum sentence of ten years).

You are talking rubbish. Organizations issue fines all the time in the UK e.g. libraries can fine you if you are late returning a book etc. I doubt every library has a sworn judge and a panel of jurors on hand to adjudicate your fine.

Any organization can levy a fine through an agreement. Students typically sign that they agree to be bound by the terms of the university's code of student conduct in before they are allowed to enrol. That code will undoubtedly contain the relevant clauses allowing a discipline procedure to levy a fine on the student. Even without such a signed agreement the fine can still be enforced with the threat of losing you membership of the organization should you fail to pay.

I can't see any way that any of the above constitutes false representation or abuse of position and section 6 and 7 have to do with possession, making and supplying articles for use in fraud (did you even read the act before citing it?).

This is certainly not the behaviour you would expect from a university and I am frankly amazed that they are doing this to their own students. However if it is done within the discipline framework of the university and the students have signed on to follow that code then I would expect that their choices are limited to either paying it or dropping out and finding a better university to attend.

And an amusing part from the UK law on counterfeit goods: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

* It is an offence for a person to use an instrument which is, and which he knows or believes to be, false, with the intention of inducing somebody to accept it as genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other person’s prejudice.

So now, all the people with PIDs of 0, and know about this fiasco, are breaking the law by continuing to use their fake device? (IANAL)

FTDI is headquartered in Scotland.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

For the purposes of the act, the serial adaptor is a 'computer' -as it's a data storage device that is plugged into a computer.
Destroying, or recklessly damaging the devices stored data is in principle worth up to a ten year sentance.

There's a rule at work here. It's the result of a drunken hookup between Clarke's Third Law and Poe's Law.

"Any post on Slashdot, advanced or not, is indistinguishable from sarcasm."

NYCL's friend has a point, as my analogy was an exaggeration and it expressed a viewpoint which he does not agree with -- See his other posts on the topic for more.

I stand by my original point. According to Brian Benchoff's article, FTDI's new driver is being distributed automatically via Windows Update and it causes damage to devices which use FTDI USB IDs but which are not authentic FTDI chip, rendering them unusable with any computer by permanently resetting their USB Product ID to zero. While I believe that FTDI has every right to protect their name and the reputation of their products, producing malware designed to damage or destroy competing products is overstepping their authority, and whoever authorized this may want to read up on the Computer Misuse Act and ask themselves a few questions about what they are doing.

Here's one. "Am I engaging in 'an act which causes an unauthorized modification of the contents of any computers' with the intent of 'causing a modification of the contents of any computer' which may 'impair the operation of any computer', 'prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer' or 'impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data'?" If the answer to this is yes, then the Home Office would like to have a word with you.

The correct response to this is one which FTDI had already made earlier. They changed their official drivers to not work with fake chips. Being clearer about the cause of the problem would have been nice (The new drivers only returned zeros, no matter what the faux-232 reported, leaving end users wondering what had gone wrong), this was a reasonable and proportionate response. Going from that to distributing vigilante malware crossed the line.

go to source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

the BBC is the least trustworthy source for anything ever.

ask then answer: if England didn't have a constitution THEN HOW IN THE ACTUAL FUCK CAN WE BE A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY?

Threatening to hit someone when you're in person is assault.

Let me stop you right there. It's not assault, it's affray and fear or provocation of violence under the Public Order Act 1986 section 3(1) and 4(1). Cyberstalking would be covered under section 4A of the same Act (under hte heading "Intentional harassment, alarm or distress").
 
...and for future reference, the definitive reference to UK Statute is the UK Statutes website: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Disclosure: I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advice. Consult your own legal adviser.

the British Government already did that with the institution of the Court of Protection: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

they already do this for humans: mental capacity.

It's a legal test: if the subject is found capable of litigating for himself, then he is "granted" the opportunity to assert his rights - which, it would then be assumed, he is aware of. If he is found not to be capable (which is the point of the test - it is not intended to find capacity, it is intended to find lack of capacity), decisions are made for him. He has zero input in decisions which directly and profoundly affect him.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Even by the scope of the test, it can easily be demonstrated that chimpanzees and other apes are legally incapable. If this case succeeds we will have handed the apes the fucking keys.

hm... only in America. They might run into some legal trouble in England, since there's a law against claiming a cure for cancer (1939 c. 13 section 4 paragraph 1a).

However, it's still more restrictive on what can and cannot be parodied:

If a parody conveys a discriminatory message (for example, by replacing the original characters with people wearing veils and people of colour), the holders of the rights to the work parodied have, in principle, a legitimate interest in ensuring that their work is not associated with such a message.

Certain really funny scenes in Spaceballs were just outlawed. "There goes the neighborhood."

However, when looking at the text of the actual law, it doesn't make any mention of discrimination in the list of changes. Neither does the 11-page explanatory notes section. My guess? Someone added their own interpretation, not realizing that the old test of "fair dealing" is modified by this new directive.

IANAL either but as i understand it ... under UK Copyright law there is no "fair use" exception.

Well, it's called fair dealing and the scope is not exactly the same as US fair use. However it does exist so you appear to understand it wrongly (unless you were being very pedantic about the naming)...

Finding legal advice in the U.K. won't cut it either, it specifically has to be in England as there is a different legal system in Scotland and with a devolved assembly in Wales they are also very subtly different. Complicating matters is that some Welsh clubs play in the English Premiership and home matches take place in Wales.

That said I believe that Copyright is a reserved power, aka only the Westminster (aka U.K. wide government) can legislate on it.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is UK-wide, including NI law. There would be some procedural differences in a Scottish court case but the basic legal questions would be the same. There would be no difference at all in Wales other than the geographical location of the court.

Agreed. Music is at the far right end of the factual <---> creative scale, and US judges have been especially strident and hard-line about music sampling in particular ("if you're going to sample, get license, period!"). Whereas, footage of a soccer goal is both factual and newsworthy. There may be copyright in the broadcast, but this is not cut from the same cloth as music, poetry, painting, etc. This isn't sampling either; that would be more like "autotune the news." Thus a short goal clip should fall under fair use in the United States.

EU/UK fair use ("fair dealing") law is different than US, in part because they don't have a 1st Amendment. They do allow for news reporting, comment, and criticism. However, across the pond their copyright exceptions (of which fair use is one) tend to be stricter and much more... I guess you'd call it "enumerated," in the sense that they list out acceptable use cases. OTOH, they have a way better "compulsory" (-ish) licensing system in the UK, covering a broader range of materials and uses than the U.S. (which covers mostly song compositions and certain broadcaster licenses).

It's never been criminal.

Are you a lawyer in the UK? The Crown Prosecution Service say that deliberate infringement may be criminal.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also lists criminal penalties such as those copied below. It might be worth getting competent legal advice given jail time is a pretty significant punishment.

(2A)A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
    (a)in the course of a business, or
    (b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.

(4A)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—
    (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both;
    (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.

Similarly there's a lot of FUD about RIPA's password clause by people who haven't read the law which explicitly states that police have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone has a key before they can be prosecuted for not handing it over

Except it doesn't.
The actual quote from the law is:

For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if— (a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and (b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

IOW the defence has to show "sufficient evidence ... to raise an issue", and then and only then does the prosecution have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. So this is a completely new standard of proof introduced into the British criminal system after 1000 years of using only the 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' test. How do you show 'sufficient evidence' that you have forgotten a password? Nobody knows.
AFAIK (and IANAL) no judge has yet accepted the defence has shown 'sufficient evidence'. How do you show a negative - that you don't know something? Maybe judges think (correctly) that it's impossible to 'raise an issue', so the prosecution never has to prove anything apart from that you didn't hand over a password.
This is what's known as the 'reverse burden of proof' introduced in RIPA. You don't have to prove 'beyond a reasonable doubt' you forgot the password, but you do have to show 'sufficient evidence', or - if you don't hand over a password - you're automatically guilty.
What's more the Home Office code of practice says that even if you have 'sufficient evidence' - it might not even be allowed in court 'if the person fails to raise some doubt as to whether he still had the key when the notice was given'.

it's never happened, everyone prosecuted to date has been like the plonker in yesterday's news story who incriminated themselves for the simple reason they were actually dickheads.

Perhaps you're assuming no judge would be that corrupt,so here's a case of someone who quite plausibly forgot his password being imprisoned:

A TEEN who refused to give police officers an encryption password for his computer has been jailed for four months. Evidence showed that the defendant admitted in police interviews that he had set an encrypted password of between 40 and 50 characters containing both letters and numbers using an encryption software programme and that he had had originally relied on his memory to recall it but could not recall it when he was served with the notice.
The jury heard both the prosecution and defence case and accepted the prosecution case that the defendant must have kept a record of this very complex password, rather than relying on memory, and that he had deliberately failed to disclose it to the police. They returned a guilty verdict after 15 minutes deliberation.

Incidentally, if you do get ordered to hand over a password - even to sometimes else's data you happen to have - you're not allowed to tell anyone, presumably not even to ask for the password.

No not in the slightest, not even close:

Section 53.3 of RIPA is very explicit:

(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"

(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Note point b), one of the two criteria required to prove someone has a key but will not turn it over in order to jail them is that there must be proof beyond reasonable doubt that the person has the key. The default assumption as written in law is that a person does not have they key, unless sufficient evidence is raised to suggest otherwise, and that it's proven beyond reasonable doubt that the contrary to them not having it is true - i.e. that there's incredibly strong evidence (the same level of evidence required for rape and murder convictions for example) that that's the case.

So not only are you completely wrong to say if you can prove you don't have a key you can be jailed for it, you don't even have to prove you don't have a key, the onus is entirely on the prosecution to provide sufficient evidence that you have the key.

This guy was an idiot, rather than keeping quiet or claiming he didn't have it he admitted he did then spent ages taunting and screwing the police around with false keys. This guy only got jailed under this act because he was a complete fucking tool who opted to incriminate himself. You are completely misrepresenting, no, outright lying about what is possible under RIPA. Yes RIPA is still a massive problem for idiots who choose to incriminate themselves, no it's not a threat to people who are genuinely innocent which isn't to say it's a good law, but that it's not the extreme type of law people like you claim it is. To be convicted under this law the same standard of evidence is required as to be convicted of murder, if you believe it's not sufficient evidence then that means you believe our current evidence for murder and so forth is also too weak which is a fair argument, because people do still get wrongly convicted in fringe cases, but it's a broader problem as to what level of false positives under the reasonable doubt system are acceptable than that being discussed here.

I've heard what passes for "Miranda Rights" in the U.K

I'm perfectly aware of this - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." - which is what you're probably referring to..

Yes. This is exactly what I'm referring to.

However if your finger isn't too tired and you read the full act you'll see that it goes on to say "[the judge, jury etc] may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.

and then "Where the accused was at an authorised place of detention at the time of the failure, subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply if he had not been allowed an opportunity to consult a solicitor prior to being questioned, charged or informed as mentioned in subsection (1) above.]"

The problem occurs when you are question prior to being in an authorized place of detention, at which point you don't yet have the opportunity to consult your solicitor (and depending on the circumstances, I'd think you'd want a barrister, instead, except in countries like Canada, where all solicitors are barristers).

Basically they can question the shit out of you at the scene, and then they can do it more on the ride to the station, and they can do it more on their stop for doughnuts along the way, and they can do it without actually charging you, and later use your answer (if any) against you in court, if they later decide to prefer charges.

So, you get the "why do you care what you say, if you don't have anything to hide?" effect, even though the legal system is definitely adversarial as it is in the U.S.. The lack of a law whereby an individual can avoid self incrimination without consequence, as in the U.S. 5th amendment, from which the Miranda rights in the U.S. are derived, means that there's wiggle room for the police to play a little fast and loose with the rules. And if BBC News is to be believed, the police occasionally do.

Which, I guess, if the whole "why do you care, if you don't have anything to hide" is so ingrained in the UK psyche, I guess that's why you guys are so OK with the idea of ubiquitous surveillance and lack of privacy (but then again, now that you can enforce privacy after the fact with a "right to be forgotten", and your libel laws are such that no one can say anything speculative, such as "the alleged perpetrator was XXX" without fearing legal action, privacy up front might not be an issue for you.

PS: I think someone should monitor the "demands to be forgotten" and run a server which is extraterritorial to Europe to remember everything that people want forgotten about themselves, so that they can go screw themselves and their demands.

I've heard what passes for "Miranda Rights" in the U.K

You clearly haven't.

., and you are effectively forced to incriminate yourself to assert an affirmative defense later.

No you aren't.

Basically, you have to make a decision up front, often without legal counsel, in order to be able to rely on the information in court later, should you choose that method of defense later.

No you don't. Not even close.

I'm perfectly aware of this - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." - which is what you're probably referring to. Or rather, you heard some other ill-informed lard-ass's third-hand interpretation of it.

However if your finger isn't too tired and you read the full act you'll see that it goes on to say "[the judge, jury etc] may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper.

and then "Where the accused was at an authorised place of detention at the time of the failure, subsections (1) and (2) above do not apply if he had not been allowed an opportunity to consult a solicitor prior to being questioned, charged or informed as mentioned in subsection (1) above.]"

(Solicitor is a kind of English lawyer, if that wasn't part of your DeVry JD program.)

"The problem with photographers is yes, police who don't know better and harass photographers. It's actually a big problem and occurs far more frequently than you may realize."

That's the problem, I don't think it does. I think it's newsworthy precisely because it is such an odd thing to happen.

By law photographers have every right to photograph, so it's not as if there is some section enshrined in law that cripples the rights of photographers, simply a training issue amongst some police officers (one that I believe police forces have been informed to resolve) that they aren't aware that people can in fact take photos in public - even of potentially sensitive things. Googling "police harass photographer" highlights far more cases of it in the US for what it's worth.

"Also, the burden of reasonable doubt does not apply in the UK, which is sad. Indeed, R v Majid was overturned due for this very reason."

I've never heard of this case, but I had a look here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases...

It seems there's absolutely nothing to suggest that what you say is true, merely that there was a procedural error in this specific case. This document seems to suggest the appeal was actually dismissed because the case was strong and despite the judge's mis-step the initial verdict would not have been different regardless.

Fundamentally though, the beyond reasonable doubt clause is actually written directly into this particular clause of RIPA itself, so even if your suggestion were true that this no longer generally applies in the UK, it most definitely applies to this particular provision of RIPA regardless because that's exactly how the law is scripted. See here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

Section 3) b) is the relevant section of the law. It clearly states:

"(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"

(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and

(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt."

Note that there is an assumption that the person has shown they have not been in possession of the key unless it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, thus your assertion that the law relies on good intent is in itself false. The law as written pre-supposes that the defendant has by default shown that they don't have the key - it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable that they in fact do for a prosecution to succeed.

Which highlights my point, most people slagging off RIPA haven't even bothered to read what it says in practice. Most of the commonly cited issues with the UK aren't what they seem in practice - even the one thing I agree is a problem, proliferation of CCTV, is largely misunderstood based on incorrect assumptions such as that speed cameras are all permanently on and can all stream live feeds, that the same is true of ANPR, and that the oft-cited report about numbers of CCTV cameras in the UK is talking about state cameras when in fact it's folding private (e.g. shop) CCTV into the mix.

As I say I have many problems with the UK but much of those cited as examples of how the UK has "become an authoritarian Orwell fantasy" are completely false. Slashdot just isn't a good place to have rational discussions or gain an understanding of these issues because it rapidly enters batshit crazy territory based on people without a clue jumping to extreme conclusions. Take the many people claiming the right to be forgotten in the EU will allow censorship of the media and rewriting of history for example, the actual draft law includes explicit provisions excluding the media and freedom of expression from it so it doesn't even apply in the way people claim anyway.

It'd just be nice if we could have these discussions on Slashdot based on the facts, not nonsense conclusions people have jumped to.

This is ... not legal advice. There are several factual errors in this analysis.

Firstly you don't write to the Secretary of State for "permission to break the locks". You write to him to complain about the locks, and then he has the power to require the lock owner give you a method to make a copy for personal use, which he is under no obligation whatsoever to exercise.

Secondly it does not mean that breaking DRM is explicitly legal in the UK, not whatsoever. The circumvention requirements of ACTA still apply, and this is made abundantly clear in all the DoI literature on the subject, which you should read.

The actual legislation is here.

I'm really looking forward to the Secretary of State receiving thousands of letters a day from people asking to rip their DVDs

Yes, if everyone was this childish then the system would collapse and we'd go back to not having fair-use rights. I'm not sure what the benefit of this would be, exactly ...

Doing things right" is an incredibly nebulous statement that nearly no judge should be in a position to determine.

The principles are in Schedule 1 of the DPA

'Fair' is not a legal term

Wrong.

Unless the prosecution can convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that you haven't forgotten the passwords, they can't convict you.

Similarly, if you filled a device with random data, they'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it contained the information they were after. If you could stand up in court and say it was random data, maybe with something to back you up (you could probably use this post?), you would probably be fine.

If not, the maximum sentence is 2 years, or 5 years if the matter relates to national security or possession or distribution of indecent photographs of children (although, interestingly, not in cases of actual child abuse). That's if it goes to a jury. On summary conviction the maximum is 6 months.

Which isn't to say you wouldn't face months if not years pre-trial, under investigation, with expensive and draconian bail conditions, unable to do much, with your life being destroyed, plus have to face the massive legal fees required to defend yourself... but that's the UK criminal justice system for you.

It's a maximum of 2 years, or 5 years in "national security" or "child indecency" cases. See section 53(5A). Prison terms in the UK run concurrently, not consecutively, so no matter how many pieces of media were found, it would be a maximum of 2 or 5 years.

I bet if a terrorist suspect had used IronKey what would happen is the police would ask GCHQ who would ask the NSA who would ask IronKey. IronKey would then give the NSA information how to get in, because the US government is a very important customer and the nice lady from the NSA had explained it was a matter of public safety for those charming folks in the UK, literally ticking time bomb situation. Then the NSA would tell GCHQ who'd provide the information back to the police. I.e. US and UK companies will by and large roll over when the government tells them and the US and UK government cooperate very efficiently.

Or alternatively suppose there was a company stupid enough to make a device which self destructed and foiled law enforcement and didn't roll over. They'd get sued for obstruction of justice. Probably the people who run the company would find they got audited by the IRS too. Also in the UK the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2015 would pass creating an offence of "conspiring to obstruct justice by storing data relevant to an ongoing investigation on a storage medium which self destructs when law enforcement personnel attempt to access it". Or something like that. Basically usage of the device would be criminalized and the company that made it harassed.

A lot of the time you need to look at the non internet version of things to see why things like the RIPA 2000 Section 49 which people on slashdot complain about are the way they are. Also you can see why most of the technical workarounds to them proposed here are probably either illegal now or would be made illegal if anyone used them successfully.

E.g. suppose a suspect is ordered by a court to provide some documentation and refuses. Does that mean the suspect gets to walk? No, they are prosecuted for contempt of court. This is analogous to refusing to provide a password or key to decrypt data. Knowing how to use TrueCrypt doesn't give you immunity from prosecution. Nor should it.

Similarly suppose a suspect rigs a system to destroy documents when police attempt to access it. Does that mean they get to walk? No, they are prosecuted for obstruction of justice, destroying evidence, contempt of court etc. This is analogous to using a storage medium that self destructs when police attempt to access it. Knowing about IronKey doesn't give you immunity from prosecution. Nor should it.

This change to the law does extend (some) copyrights by 20 years, and in some cases, indefinitely (in the sense of for a currently undefined period, rather than for ever), and in a few cases, pulling works previously in the public domain back into copyright.

The Regulations in question do several things, and there is a lot of misinformation going around about this (including in the summary above; I haven't read the CNN article).

The new EU law extends the copyright and performance rights (which are different things that usually go to different people) in certain sound recordings by 20 years. But as a compromise, adds new reversion etc. powers for the performance rights only, for the last 20 years only. So if someone performs for a sound recording today, and waives their performance rights, in 50 (to 100) years they might be able to do something.

The recent release (probably) wasn't anything to do with the change in the law, but the way the existing law words. The copyright in the sound recordings lasts for 50 years (technically, as with all of these, 50 + the rest of that year). However, if the work is legally published or performed in public during that period, the copyright lasts an extra 70 (was 50) years. So had Apple Corp. released these sound recordings next month, the copyright (in the sound recordings, but not in the underlying songs; they last the full "life + 70") would have expired on 31 December 2013. But by releasing them this month, the copyright will last until 31 December 2083 (assuming no changes in the law).

It is hard to see the decision to publish in December 2013 (verses any other time in the last 50 years) as anything other than a way to maximise the copyright duration, and thus the book value of the copyright.

But yes, if the work wasn't published, "control" over the sound recordings would have resorted to whoever holds the copyright in the underlying songs - which may be some of the individual Beatles or might be Michael Jackson's estate, as I understand he owned some of the copyrights.

At least in some countries, it isn't that you have to give the password, it's that you have to give the password if it's for an investigation. So the police can't just say "hand it over", they have to say "hand it over, because we are investigation this that and the other". Not that I want to defend that sort of shit of course.

I just had a look at part III of RIPA, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents and can't understand it. But it does look like it's not necessary to have any actual good reason.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/regulation/10/made

"Right to cancel10. (1) Subject to regulation 13, if within the cancellation period set out in regulations 11 and 12, the consumer gives a notice of cancellation to the supplier, or any other person previously notified by the supplier to the consumer as a person to whom notice of cancellation may be given, the notice of cancellation shall operate to cancel the contract."

i.e. you must notify them that this ain't the shit you ordered.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/regulation/17/made

Restoration of goods by consumer after cancellation17.
(1) This regulation applies where a contract is cancelled under regulation 10 after the consumer has acquired possession of any goods under the contract other than any goods mentioned in regulation 13(1)(b) to (e).
(2) The consumer shall be treated as having been under a duty throughout the period prior to cancellation -
(a)to retain possession of the goods, and
(b)to take reasonable care of them.
(3) On cancellation, the consumer shall be under a duty to restore the goods to the supplier in accordance with this regulation, and in the meanwhile to retain possession of the goods and take reasonable care of them.

i.e. you're wrong.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/regulation/10/made

"Right to cancel10. (1) Subject to regulation 13, if within the cancellation period set out in regulations 11 and 12, the consumer gives a notice of cancellation to the supplier, or any other person previously notified by the supplier to the consumer as a person to whom notice of cancellation may be given, the notice of cancellation shall operate to cancel the contract."

i.e. you must notify them that this ain't the shit you ordered.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/2334/regulation/17/made

Restoration of goods by consumer after cancellation17.
(1) This regulation applies where a contract is cancelled under regulation 10 after the consumer has acquired possession of any goods under the contract other than any goods mentioned in regulation 13(1)(b) to (e).
(2) The consumer shall be treated as having been under a duty throughout the period prior to cancellation -
(a)to retain possession of the goods, and
(b)to take reasonable care of them.
(3) On cancellation, the consumer shall be under a duty to restore the goods to the supplier in accordance with this regulation, and in the meanwhile to retain possession of the goods and take reasonable care of them.

i.e. you're wrong.

Skipping bail is criminal contempt of court in the UK

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63

Penalties are severe:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/contempt_of_court/

An immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentence to impose upon a person who interferes with the administration of justice, unless the circumstances are wholly exceptional

He would have been (was?) allowed to argue his case that he shouldn't be extradited to Sweden due to the subsequent risk of extradition to the US. I cannot see how he could possibly convince a court that this would have happened and simultaneously show that the same arguments wouldn't have held water when extradition proceedings were in effect.

I can see he might possibly avoid jail in the UK only by surrendering and going to Sweden. But I wouldn't bet that the UK wouldn't want to extradite him back for contempt of court proceedings (or maybe they wouldn't extradite him to Sweden until after he was convicted and sentenced.

If you read the rest of the document. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/section/2

Fathers do have parental rights. they just do not have natural guardienship rights unless asserted.

read section 2 para 1 and 2

In the UK, it's impossible for the upper house to block a bill for more than two sessions; for bills purely about funding/taxation, it's one month. This seems to be a better solution to the solution used by the US, but I prefer Australia's solution even more.

2. Economic espionage is illegal.

Economic espionage is not illegal for GCHQ. See the Intelligence Services Act 1994 section 3(2)(b) where "the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom" is listed as an explicit goal for GCHQ.

Rapiscan

One company does it so all companies do it?

What about next years model, the model they use to replace it when they inevitably break?

It is up to the union to keep track of that sort of thing and vet the new model. It's their job.

Two years out a crime is committed in a tube, a police officer notes tube workers use fingerprint scanners,

Your last point is moot if the union is doing it's job. Even if the system did log the fingerprint image, giving those images to the police makes the statement "We will never give fingerprint data to the police" a lie. Also, according to this the police need authorization from the person to take his fingerprints. I believe any unauthorized fingerprints transmitted to the police would have to be removed under those provisions as the employer would be acting as an agent for the police.

I would like to be the devil's advocate. In TFA, the IP cop says

Intellectual property crime is already costing our economy hundreds of millions of pounds a year and placing thousands of jobs under threat, and left unchecked and free to feed on new technology could destroy some of our most creative and productive industries

Violating IP is now a crime instead of an offense in the UK?

An offense is a crime - the words are synonyms in this context. IP is a class of legal protections which have different rules but yes, copyright violation can be a crime as well as a tort under CDPA 88. It is a crime under section 107 to violate copyright as your business, or even non-commercial violation if it is "to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright".

You're thinking Feist v. Rural. That US Supreme Court judgement held that simply collecting and unoriginally arranging mere information wasn't sufficiently creative to constitute a copyrightable work.

However, this is a UK suit. Feist isn't precedent. Also, it appears that the rest of the world (outside of the US) seems more friendly to the idea of copyrightable collections: the EU "database right" (and more specifically implemented in the UK by the The Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997); the explicit language in the Berne Convention supporing the copyrightability of collections (Article 2, section 5); and the corresponding wording in the GATT Uruguay Round Treaty Agreement, specifically in the TRIPS Agreement.

So, Feist appears to be an exception, not the rule.

Actually, in this case, under Schedule 7 of the 2000 Prevention of Terrorism Act, he MUST disclose whatever his captors want or he is liable to a summary conviction of up to 3 months in jail and/or up to whatever a level 4 fine is.

18(1) and 18(2)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

And if you read further up, this process requires NO level of suspicion by the officer (no "He looked suspicious" or even "I had a gut feeling", it can be "She has big tits").

Not true, although the term is still pretty serious. RIPA section 53 (as amended):

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the appropriate maximum term or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(5A) In subsection (5) ‘the appropriate maximum term’ means—

(a) in a national security case or a child indecency case, five years; and

(b) in any other case, two years.

In this case they'd claim "national security", so the sentence is comparable with causing death by careless driving,

However he was _required_ to answer all questions, no matter how irrelevant to a case, asked by the police.

While this has been widely reported to be the case, it's not technically true.

From the statute:

2 (1) An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

40(1)(b) says:

40 Terrorist: interpretation.

(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

So the officer is allowed to ask any questions in order to determine if the detainee is a terrorist, and the detainee is compelled to answer those questions.

But the officer isn't given the power to ask any questions on any matter he likes, and the detainee is therefore not required to answer them.

Obviously, the schedule 7 powers are ripe for abuse, and have been abused in abused in this case. MIranda claims he wasn't asked any questions about terrorism at all.

Miranda says he's going to sue, and he has a good case.

I hope you understand that laws generally except police in their official capacity.

No they don't.

Does the 1st amendment say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. But the cops can shoot you for being atheists, or if they don't like what you write, because some bootlicking twatass on the internet says they have blanket immunity"?

The police acted within the confines of the law

No they didn't. Miranda committed none of the actions mentioned here.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1