Slashdot Mirror
UK Becomes Sixth Country to Implement EUCD
orbital3 writes "The UK, as of October 31, 2003, became the sixth nation to implement the laws required to comply with the European Union Copyright Directive with its Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 legislation. This is a short little article about it and here is a copy of the law itself."
It's basically a super DMCA act. It kills your right to make personal backups and prohibits copyright circumvention of any kind. How nice of them.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
All you guys that were going to get out because of DMCA are cancelling your reservations? Don't worry, the US won't let a bunch of Brits top us. They'll build a super-DMCA? We'll build a Super- DOOPER-DMCA!
These laws are not in stone. They will be changed . You have to let people make backups .
From the article
"Why shouldn't I be allowed to make a copy of a CD I have paid for so I can listen to it on my computer or put it on an MP3 player? This shows that the law can be an ass," said George Gardiner, technology lawyer and partner at law firm Stephenson Harwood.
They can write a book full of laws regarding the illegal usage of one's digital multimedia, but untill some incentive is offered for one not to do things illegally, it will run rampad. As such, I think that the majority in the UK could care less about this. Just think about it, were you on irc today, did you download mp3s of songs you do not own, did you copy a friend's cd, did you even make a full stop at a stop sign while drving or do a rolling stop? If we got penalized for every little things that humans do wrong, the only jobs would be working at a prison, on either side of the bars! I am quite sure that not many even care, and so the companies having their product used illegally need to provide some sort of incentive for those not to copy things and rather buy them..though this is not likely to happen any time soon...
--Shut up and get a mac--
Every country to implement this makes me ever more certain that if every major civilized country in the west implements this sort of a law, there may eventually be some sort of a UN mandate in the vein of the DMCA...
...that's a very worrisome thought indeed.
From the article:
"Once we have digested the implications of the revised copyright legislation and communicated this to our members we will consider the need for a wider awareness campaign..."
Will this "wider awareness campaign" involve sending out subpoenas to ISP's and suing 12 year old children?
(\(\
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute bunny virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread
It mandates installation of anti-circumvention technology built into your brain at birth?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
orbital3 writes "The UK, as of October 31, 2003, became the sixth nation to implement the laws required to comply with the European Union Copyright Directive with its Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 legislation. This is a short little article about it and here is a copy of the law itself."
Which are the other five? A little background please.
I have many of my CDs ripped onto my hard drive for playing on my HTPC setup. I own the original CD for every single file, and never have a situation where the same file is used on more than one system simultaneously, and yet I'm all of a sudden a criminal. Thanks guys.
Ydco co
Once the US and EU jails are filled with teenagers, society can truly enjoy the New Renaissance. I for will be glad to see the earth cleaned of this scourge that is casual media duplication.
All hail Great Enterprise, Who knows no international boundaries. Thou arst truly the Corporate Ruler in this modern age. Cleanse us of our sins, oh Corporate one. Show us how to become better Consumers! Without Thou we are lost; we canst not thinketh by ourselves. Help us think! Neigh, think for us! Please take our money, and tell us what to do. We are forever in Thy humble service.Of course I'm nitpicking, but shouldn't this really belong in "The Courts" and not "The Internet" - just like the story below on mp3s?
It's also the nation that puts up monitoring cameras in many public areas.
Oh, and it's also the nation that supports the U.S. no matter what, especially when it comes to invading another country in pursuit of "weapons of mass destruction" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, *cough*oil*cough*).
The U.K. seems about as close to an Orwellian society as any "enlightened" country on the planet.
No, the real question is whether or not most of the other members of the EU will pass the EUCD. I expect they will, because they're all in the pockets of large corporations these days. Because money and control, after all, are the only things that matter these days, and nobody gives a flying fuck about liberty, freedom, rights, or the general well-being of the population anymore.
Cherish what few freedoms you have left. You won't have them for long.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
FYI, here in Denmark the interpretation of the EUCD has made DVD reselling illegal! That is all DVDs other than region 2.
It pretty much sucks, as you have to privately import, say region 1 and region 4 discs now if you still want to absorb some kind of foreign culture and art.
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
"Peter Jamieson, the BPI's executive chairman, said in a statement given to vnunet.com: "Once we have digested the implications of the revised copyright legislation and communicated this to our members we will consider the need for a wider awareness campaign and, as and when this is carried out, assess its impact and effectiveness before taking further steps."
In other words:
"Once we push this law through we will coordinate with our hordes of attorneys decide and how many people to sue. After that, we may decide to sue more if its profitable."
"Why shouldn't I be allowed to make a copy of a CD I have paid for so I can listen to it on my computer or put it on an MP3 player? This shows that the law can be an ass," said George Gardiner, technology lawyer and partner at law firm Stephenson Harwood."
In other words:
"Why shouldn't I be allowed to make multiple copies of a CD a friend of a friend paid for so I can listen to it in my car, at my computer, in my MP3 player, and on all my friends' computers. Dammit, this sucks."
This is really getting old. One reason there is a backlash from companies against "fair use" is because people decided to abuse it. One reason people claim to abuse fair use is because media was too expensive? If they simply stopped buying instead of illegally copying we wouldn't have this mess. The market would have corrected itself. CD prices will drop if sales drops are caused by high prices.
*sigh*
sig
sucks, eh?
Just uploading to P2P networks is illegal? Even if it's not copyrighted material?
This is the first time I've actually been proud to be an American after reading a Slashdot article.
Indivuals [sic] who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.
And here we all thought the DMCA was the state of the art in draconian intellectual property legislation. Amazingly, while the US Constitution stands eviscerated, America remains the sweet land of liberty in comparison to the rest of the world. Is it possible to feel patriotic and disenchanted at the very same time?
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
Not that I care; I'm not even British.
So does Alan Cox move to Iceland now, or what?
I have this mental image of Alan Cox a man on the run, moving from country to country, each time leaving just minutes before a law goes into effect making the distribution of software that facilitates the breaking of copy protection illegal, always staying just one step ahead of the DMCA as one by one, each country implements the DMCA or something like it..
Until finally there is no where left, and finally, Alan Cox winds up in the most fitting place possible to spend the rest of his life working on the Linux kernel in hermitage: with the Penguins. In Antartica. Outside the dominion of any country. HA!
Hmm, there's a thought. If in order to escape draconian DMCA-like laws, you get on a big boat and go out in international waters to perform copyright-dangerous actions, then does that make it Piracy on the High Seas?
Okay I think I've been awake a bit too long.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Anyway, once old Blunkett gets his police state, and one surveilance is stepped up to the next level, we'll all be for it. They'd better start building more prisons now.
Stick Men
Further depressing developments for those of us in the UK: the 'snooper's charter' has now passed through the Lords. Ready your proxies and encryption plug-ins - but remember they might require you to hand over the key at some point.
"Why shouldn't I be allowed to make a copy of a CD I have paid for so I can listen to it on my computer or put it on an MP3 player? This shows that the law can be an ass," said George Gardiner, technology lawyer and partner at law firm Stephenson Harwood."
That ship sailed long ago, or should I say, never even entered the dock. The UK never HAD a right to create backups, this hasn't all of a sudden outlawed them
Labour is a bunch of right wingers who are fanatically supportive of the US and seem to be a puppet government. The Conservatives - assuming they've finally got their act together - are a bunch of businessmen who rarely show interest in anything that doesn't directly help big business.
We need a party that focusses on rights for consumers. There are a million irritating little things that work against free competition or are not affected by it. The fact that I have no choice for a cable service, Mobile phone companies charging a fortune to other networks for connection charges and the EUCD. Offer some laws for the individuals who don't want to be tied into a 12 month contract for any and every service, and you get my vote.
what if we encrypted the songs with a key. A website held all the keys (which arent illegal to host). Now technically if any organisation (RIAA,ARIA etc etc) broke the encryption then they will be of their own act right? If they download the key and decrypt it...they will also be guilty of the crime..
maybe someone can implement this idea!?! or maybe im just smoking too much crack rofl
We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
What we're seeing is a complete suspension of the right to properties. The capital expansion of these kinds of licenses is endless. In two years, in five or ten, the errosive nature of DMCA type acts can wipe away every gain of the hard fought freedom many of us enjoy.
How such a minority can hold hostage such a majority in a so called democratic countries is beyond me, because there is no alternative through election is a failure of beyond measure (in an alternate universe it might be called terrorism). What they have to do to enforce this can only be called extrordinary and it will have to be done.
The at least need to inform through labelling products which go beyond simple copyright laws and label properties to the effect of temporary licence.
The UK has some of the most draconian laws in the 'free' world, but in the case of the EUCD most people will ignore it. Except in high profile cases no one will ever go to court for copying a cd and giving it to a friend. Its just the high profile cases that bother me, thing like the skylov case etc.
Aah well guess we should all just persue none violent resisance, now wheres that dvdlib code.....
2) The BPI (UK equivalent of the RIAA) takes a much less aggressive stance on piracy, and certainly isn't trawling Kazaa looking for people to sue.
Without a plaintiff, there can be no (civil) lawsuit!
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
The time has definitely come for a new political party that champions individual liberty, social responsibility and sicentific progress.
I'd love to help, but I'm far too busy trying to earn a living and stuff.
But I might vote for you.
Stick Men
1. They've allowed temporary copies (Section 8) - so "transients" created say while listening to the music aren't infringing :-)
2. They've allowed "timeshifting" for domestic premises. Interestingly this opens a whole can of worms for them given the phrasing. A copy can be made for the purposes of timeshifting as long as it does not become an infringeing copy - i.e. one that is sold or let for hire. This would seem to allow at least the creation of "backup" copies for personal use.
3. Section 15 - Observing Studying and Testing of Computer Programs. They've allowed this - as long as you own a copy - and even better this Copyright Act overrules any restrictive license imposed by the copyright holder. (2) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).".
Of course the really stupid part of this is that any infringement is a criminal offense (why?) and you can potentially end up spending longer in jail than a burglar or rapist.
There already is -- that's why the DMCA and EUCD were constructed. They are both based on the WIPO (a UN agency) copyright directive.
Article 6 of the EUCD is quite clear. What is illegal is to circumvent any copy protection technology for any purposes whatever. But if the material is not copy protected, and the vast existing stock of CD's are not, then it is legal to make a digital copy for personal use (as well as all kinds of fairuse, educational and club uses)provided that you own the original.
The poster suggested that UK laws were becoming Orwellian ... Well, if you thought that the UK laws on CD and DVD copying were dumb, you "haven't seen nothin' yet" --- check out the following.
The legal age of consent in the UK is 16 so, as you'd expect, sexual intercourse is a criminal offense under that age. However, they're about to pass a law making *all* physical contact of a sexually-relevant nature with or between under-16's a criminal offense, including cuddling, kissing, and even holding hands. (I kid you not, I wish I was.) And this at a time and in a society where the huge majority of teenagers are sexually aware well under 16, and where popular culture treats sex as a normal part of teenage life alongside music, soft drugs, fashion, clubbing and general street life, ie. just like almost everywhere else in Europe.
There's plenty of info on the subject on the UK's Channel4 independent TV website.
In a government where such idiocy can take hold, is it any wonder that other laws are daft as well?
What's actually happening is a process of ever greater distancing between laws passed by the alleged representatives of society and the people of that society. That can only end in tears.
infringements of the acts are "Criminal" and not "Civil" breaches.
I don't really feel it benefits anyone for me to reiterate this for each and every post about digital rights, but this seems like a decent one to use my umbrella statement.
To all media distribution companies, big and small: You decided to go digital. Deal with it.
It is not your right to bend legislation at any level to secure your profit margin because that's not free trade. Go ahead and use any copy protection schemes you wish. But don't you even dare try to legally sanction somebody because they've figured out how to get around it: they've just acted more intelligently and more efficiently.
If you truly believed in free trade and the spirit of competition, you'd try to maximize quality while minimizing overhead. What causes so much overhead? Executive salaries and expense accounts, as well as advertising and payola. You've over-saturated your markets with expensive and inferior product, and people have gotten wise to you. The only companies who have any right to complain are the small independents, because the playing field isn't level to begin with.
This was the case with video games piracy and the resultant bankruptcies of production houses during the 1980s and 1990s. If only their distribution companies would have given more back to the people who originated these products instead of fattening their wallets, we might still have diversity in our software.
Creative people have a right to their intellectual property. Why not show them some respect by divvying up the rewards for their efforts more fairly?
Ok, so this ridiculous new law makes devices such as the SLIMP3 player, the Audiotron and god forbid the iPod worthless devices? Well, except for playing MP3's of yourself singing...
Does that make iTunes ripping feature illegal?
I wonder what Apple will make of this...
Or the Liberal Democrats, being more electable.
"Every nation has the government it deserves."
-- Joseph de Maistre
If you keep voting Conservative and Labour like they are the only choices I have no sympathy. Find out what the parties stand for before voting for them.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
But enough rhetoric... After actually reading the text of the law, I can honestly say it was not written to be clearly understood by the common man. If men cannot understand the laws set before them, how can they be expected to follow said laws?
Wow... I'm glad we got that cleared up. I always enjoy it when someone can intervene and change the rules whenever they see fit. It makes life so much more predictable. Corperate lawyers love this stuff, because it's easy to twist and turn into a favorable position for any barratry they wish to inflict.
I live in the US, so this law does not directly affect me, but it's still a global chilling effect on all the common people who are just trying to live comfortable lives without being nickle-and-dimed to death by corperations who feel they should be entitled to every portion of our lives.
Where does this madness stop?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
If Iraq was invaded for "(wink, wink, nudge, nudge, *cough*oil*cough*)." WTF is mine? I would expect it would be cheap and plentiful by now here in the USA. I also expect I wouldn't be getting told by PG@E there is a natural gas shortage and I would be paying more for it too? Not meaning to be a smart ass can you please explain this. You seem to be quite confident you can. Don't let down my faith in your abilities. After all Iraq is producing 2.5 billion barrels of oil a month now most which is being sold into europe and the middle east by the Iraqi stae oil company it appears. You must be able to explain how the war criminals Blair and Bush are profiting from all this. Really please let us all know.
As you can see I don't care about my karma.
then how do I play songs on my iPod?
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
"Won't it be wonderful when Labor adopts the EU constutition without a vote by the people. I know you are all excited over than and can hardly wait.
I know you are all looking forward to getting the the Euro as a currency as well."
It's not so important to those of use working in IT, but our failure to join the Euro is hurting a lot of people who work in or are connected to the manufacturing sector (see here).
People bash the EU all the time, but it does us a lot of good - we weren't even guaranteed certain human rights until Europe introduced the European Convention on Human Rights:
"This is a separate, but just as influential element of European Law. For example, The Human Rights Act 1998 became law in the UK in October 2000 and guarantees some rights that people in the UK did not have previously, including certain rights to privacy."
You may not understand how it works in the EU: basically, there are EU directives which each national government is required to implement via its own legislative processes. There's no real choice about it. The real problem about this is the EU is not a very democratic organisation, ie the EU Commission isn't even an elected body and Euro MPs don't expect to be bothered by those who vote for them (like when anti-software-patent activists were accused of "harassing" their Euro-MPs by lobbying them).
So the UK continues its long tradition of repressive legislation and most people will say "Fair enough, I'm prepared to put up with a little more inconvenience if it stops the real crooks." But of course, it doesn't stop them and our liberties get eroded a little more. Trouble is, we're sometimes just a bit too tolerant, esp. of our lousy government and Europe.
I went to see my MP (Member of Parliament) about this and explained to him that because it was similar to the DMCA which the US has had for 5 years, we could expect it to have the same unintended consequences.
A few days later I received a letter from him saying that he was asking questions of the Government's Department of Trade and Industry, and would get back to me with their responses.
Have others here tried this course of action? / Is there a coordinated effort out there?
What can be done after this?
- Brian
Stupid isn't it!
In particular what if the research covers benchmarks ... ? May this law actually allow independent benchmarks at last ?
IANAL but I love sophistry and given that copyright lasts for around 50 years then a backup which has a life of much less than this is transient. All typical media including CDs has a life of less than 50 years. Even fusible link PROMS and EPROMS die out in 30 years or so. Ripping your shop purchased CD onto hard disk and then transfer to a MP3 player is transient (unless you are really weird and want the same song for 50 years). Even shop bought CDs are transient i.e. the layers will rot in much less than 50 years. Both the hard disk surface, any intermediate CDRs and the MP3 player are transient with no independent economic significance i.e. assuming there was never an intent to sell ripped CDRs. Seems to me that making backups rests on the definition of "transient" and "independent economic significance". BTW: ripping from CD to harddisk is "an integral and essential part of a technological process" and listening to the copyright works on your MP3 player is "a lawful use of the recording". So it doesn't really affect anyone unless all your music comes from P2P or CDRs.
...at least in part as being unenforceable.
Several years ago the Home Office introduced a law banning VCR owners from keeping off-air recordings for more than 30 days.
The police declared it unenforceable and the govt. had to back down.
Now I don't know about you but I think the police have got more important things to do than checking to see if Kylie's latest warblings are on little Johnny Smith's MP3 player.
The article claims that:
..."
Indivuals who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime. Even if this is for personal use they theoretically face up to two years in jail or an unlimited fine, and possible civil action from copyright holders.
The text of the law however states that:
The making in domestic premises for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any right
So it would seem I have every right to make a copy of my CD to my MP3 player or my PC jukebox.
Kristoph
From the section about circumventing copy protected CDs (or any other non-software format)
"296ZA Circumvention of technological measures
(1) This section applies where -
(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright work other than a computer program"
"effective"?
IANAL,but I can speak english. that reads to me as "This section applies where insurmountable copy protection has been applied" i.e. if it's effective it is non-circumventable...
--
Sorry man... This is /. You've got to expect that when you get in people's faces with profanity and SHOUTING.
Assuming the author of an email retains copyright (as with correspondence on paper) forwarding would be making an unauthorised copy.
The same might be true of many emailed replies - as by default these include a copy of the original email.
Ditto complaints about spam - if you report it, including a copy of the original email, you would be the criminal.
"My sympathy now do like good english people always do and ignore the law."
I have to agree since people in the USA don't know how to ignore the law without getting all anal. The English have ben doing it for centuries. I have faith they will ignore this one too.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
"Indivuals who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime."
Yay MP3 players in the UK are illegal? So if you can't encode your originals into mp3 format and put em on your mp3 player, whats the point? woohoo! God bless the MPs! The goverment amuses me sometimes...
"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
I just want to focus on the timeline of EUCD implementation over European countries. Delaying the implementation among each country keeps the number of oppositors against it divided (and thus weakened), just those of one nation each time. They would have faced a different (and more consistent) opposition to EUCD if they had set it on in all countries at the same time. Obviously they did ponder it and act consequently. In Italy where it has been implemented on 29 April 2003, street prices raised a new level as a consequence of the EUCD act, yet original CDroms, DVD, book and other intellectual material are still remaining at untolerable high prices. This seems to me a confirmation that EUCD is only helping great companies to earn even more, without giving anything better (in price or quality) to the public. Sadly.
Do or do not. There is no Fry.(Bender after vaporizing Fry)
With the penalties for holding copied MP3s now exceeding the penalties for crimes of violence I think we should call them....
MP3's of Mass Destruction
If the person that modded it posted to the thread after modding the thread as this person claims they are a scuzz ball and don't deserve to moderate. They know you can't post to a thread you mod. Going AC to do it is chicken poop and against the spirit of moderation.
Your point was on topic and has beeen much copied in the thread if the mod had bothered to read the thread completely.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
first thing i wondered about was which other countries had implemented this EUCD, and given the European Diversity, how that laq had been adapted. This site: http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/EUCD-Status gives an excellent overview of the status of the EUCD in the EU countries.
according to this site. (Google is your friend).
example: here in spain when this law gets aproved, and eventually it will be aproved, given that our system is similar to canada, we wont be able to do what english wont be able to do with their cds, plus we will have to continue to pay the tax we pay in blank cds for our "right" (wich we wont have anymore) to do backups.
So in fact yes, spain will make US DMCA and english "DMCA reloaded" look pretty n00b.
Channel4's website is pretty useless. There's some mention of the "Sex before 16" series, and looking up the programme presenter Miranda Sawyer briefly refers to the production, but really there's no meat there.
Does anyone have a better link to this material, especially to the changes in the law under consideration?
Does it occur to people that this is actually also beneficial for copyleft and open source software ?
Preventing alteration of rights management information and anti-circumvention also works to protect a ripp off of GNU / copyleft / open source software licenses.
These mechanisms are for the benefit of all copyright owners, irrespective of what political stance they take. Effectively they just strengthen the use of rights management information, and are agnostic about the specific favour of that rights management information.
The worst thing is that to a paranoid enough guy, this actually makes sense.
And ofcourse, I'm not saying being paranoid enough is a bad thing. Quite on the contrary.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
So how would this affect software license agreements that state you can make one backup copy of the game/program? I know that my Operation Flashpoint, despite having 'FADE' protection, has a license at the back that states you can make a backup copy. Would the EUCD somehow retroactively invalidate past license agreements - would I be doing something illegal if I were to copy Op Flashpoint for my own use after the EUCD came in? There are so many impracticalities here, it's not even funny.
An actual post containing the word "profit", not being a direct waste of bandwidth. I'm impressed.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
And there I was thinking Europe was better than the states when it came to software, now I am know I am wrong. I mean I just bought a damned mp3 player, and I can't bloody copy music to it???? Sod that! This is pants! I am going to add a new section to my website calling for mass action against this law for it to be either dropped or at least amended!!!
The Thunderbird...
is that, traditionally at least, laws in the UK have never counted for much. Bad laws get broken all the time - but only criminals and minor traffic offenders get punished. If the politicians want to make stupid laws, it's easier just to let them - and then go ahead and carry on doing what we used to do anyway. The police have a hard enough job dealing with real crimes that they haven't time to waste on trendy new crimes. I guess it comes from the same thinking that gave us the class system: there are Law Abiding Citizens {who like to remenisce about the old days when you could leave your front door unlocked} and there are Criminals {who shoplift, litter, vandalise property &c}. Even amongst Criminals, there are Good Criminals {stealing from the rich without hurting anyone} and Bad Criminals {stealing from the poor, violence, sex offences &c}. Merely re-branding something that Law Abiding Citizens do as a crime will not turn L.A.C.s into Criminals.
If the police don't actually want you for something, you're fine. What this law - or any new law passed since the infamous Criminal Justice Bill of '94 - actually means is that if they do want you for something, they will have an easier time pinning something on you. For instance, it's a common trick for the police to pick you up on a charge unrelated to your normal activities in order to be able to search your home without a warrant. This is usually a little easier than getting an actual warrant, but any evidence it turns up will be admissible in a court of law. Conversely, if a sufficiently high-ranking officer requests that the ordinary plods turn a blind eye to a particular activity, and they do, then the only thing the government could do would be to place the area under martial law - which would be political suicide and to the best of my knowledge has never happened outside N.I.
It's technically already against the law in the UK to make a copy of a CD or LP you own onto cassette in order to listen to it in your car. But I'll dare bet you what you like if you went through a copper's car, or even a government minister's car, you'd find something taped at home; and to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever been sent down for that. Nor are they likely ever to start.
Those at the top have lost the plot and the rest of us - who do all the real donkey work - just have to put on a bit of a show for them. It's a grossly inefficient system, and it carries with it the possibility of misuse; but as long as it works, it gets left as it is because any attempt to change it would probably make things worse.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
If in order to escape draconian DMCA-like laws, you get on a big boat and go out in international waters to perform copyright-dangerous actions, then does that make it Piracy on the High Seas?
:-)
While L R0n Hubbard wasn't out on the seas to get his fix of MP3 goodies, several Sc1entologist-staffed boats, commandeered by Hubbard, cruised around the Mediterranean for several years at the start of the 70's. The supposed reason was to get away from unrest and persecution of Scient0logy experienced in the UK and the US, and for this purpose, could be considered a good idea.
Unfortunately it didn't go quite so well with the fleet facing problems with authorities all around the Med, and even crowds of angry locals on Madeira.
Of course, there are also rumors that Hubbard was abducted by the US Gov during this time, but you can make your own mind up on that.
I wonder if Linux could become the new Sc1entology
mogorific carpentry experiments
The parent is, sadly, correct. In the UK, copyright law has never allowed for the same "fair use" as the corresponding law in the US. Some exemptions do apply, but copying for personal use is not among them by default, even if it's just transferring data to a different media format, burning a CD with just your favourite tracks (which you legally have on other CDs) on it, or making back-ups.
This is, of course, a rather absurd situation, since everybody does it and even the pro-copyright people (of whom I am normally one) don't argue that the behaviour is unreasonable. That's probably why, AFAIK, no-one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for recording a programme onto video cassette and keeping it, or making back-ups of software they just bought for their computer. The law should certainly be changed to reflect the practical reality, but in practice, it's not as damaging as it sounds for now, because the UK legal culture isn't anything like as nasty as the US one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Tony and his cronies may be, but I think the state visit this week will make the overwhelming public view here abundantly clear. On the BBC News web site over the weekend, there was an amusing article about some of the things the US have asked for during their state visit, but been denied by British authorities.
Top of the list for comedy value was David Blunkett (the UK Home Secretary, who's not exactly known for his liberal views and is currently trying to ram compulsory identity cards down our throats) refusing to grant diplomatic immunity to the 700 US Secret Service agents coming over to guard Bush. Y'know, the ones who are already being backed up by 5,000 UK Metropolitan Police officers in London, and who are already being allowed to carry more firearms than the Met would usually have on the streets as a courtesy. Why exactly would they need diplomatic immunity anyway, unless they were planning to abuse the privileges being granted to them?
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The parent wasn't insightful, it was wishful thinking. Copyright law in the UK has never allowed people the automatic right to make back-ups. Everybody does, and no-one's stupid enough to sue them for it, but technically it's only legal if the licence agreement allows for it.
How exactly were you proposing that this law would be challenged? We have no written Constitution, in the sense that the US does, so the usual mechanism for overturning silly laws across the pond is out. There's nothing inherently wrong with this law in a legal sense: what it says sucks, but it was passed by the usual means. Sure, we can hope that in time copyright law in the UK will be changed to reflect common sense (in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does) but for now, there's simply no basis in law to challenge this.
OTOH, the tinfoil hat brigade who are chanting "super-DMCA" should go and read what it actually says (and doesn't say) before getting all spooky on us.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's the clause that allows a device to operate as designed to play the music. To operate, the signal is buffered between the original and the speakers, but buffering is "making a copy." This clause allows that.
Backups are neither integral nor essential in the data path; they may be obvious and appropriate, but that's not what the clause describes.
[
So all unreasonable laws, gays, immigrants and paedophiles will become null and void.
Britain is a nation of immigrants, so that's enough of the pure blood bollocks. And speaking as a former member of the BNP, I can tell you that plenty of the membership are gay.
Looks like sales of Vaseline will be booming in the UK. And carefull not to hurt your backs bending over to touch your toes like that all day...
Good luck
realkiwi
OK, here's a summary of the major "anti" arguments.
Basically, it comes down to three things: it won't do its job, it will be abused, and it will cost a fortune that should be spent on more important things.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
suprnova is crying out for bandwidth again and you post a link to it (which was modded up a few too many times too). Nice one. I bet they're really getting fed up with all the slashdottings.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
the EUCD sounds bad, but this article suggests the courts might not completely abandon users. It reckons their might be a legal loophole that means copyright protection measures could be legally cracked.
Is this a change to copyright length?
(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), copyright expires -
(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
(b) if during that period the recording is published, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first published, or
(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,
Where do DVDs stand at this point?
Since the page with the law is down, here's a random law to cheer you up.
... a CD as "a broadcast"???
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Wow, it sure makes me feel comfortable when one of the largest and most modern/civilized(?) Political Organizations infringes upon the rights of its constituents.
Not only does this law make it illegal to copy the music (which is ok since it is stealing even though the law itself is way too broad), but it also turns anyone who publishes information about defeating protection technology in to a criminal.
(see section 296ZA "Circumvention of technological measures")
Wow, really nice EU. Good Job, Who needs basic human rights now a days.
I couldn't care less. Not because I'm not british, but because copyright infringement is already illegal. So what if it just got more illegal, they're beating a dead horse. They could up the punishment to capital, and I'd still be pirating away.
Rather than creating a new party, which is often ineffective, I think you should make an organization similar to the NRA. A united group of people that, once big enough, can lobby its interests to politicians in exchange for votes.
Or we could forget all that and make a Geektopia on some island.
From now on, when posting an article, could you please save me time and thought by prefixing all articles with
GOOD THING: (article title), or
BAD THING: (article title)
That way I will know how to feel about the news in the article without making up my own mind.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
If anyone was in some doubt with their conscience concerning whether they should use P2P systems for obtaining MP3s to albums they'd already purchased, or even for auditioning artists with a view to purchasing CDs, then perhaps the decision is now clearer.
If the vast majority of CD users, who already record them for use on other devices or make security backups, are now criminals and are thus now liable for fines larger than 10x their salary, then P2P systems are obviously now available for use without compunction.
This is because the steps necessary for immunity from prosecution are now pretty untenable, i.e. to erase all MP3s and Video tapes (except wedding movies, etc.).
So if you're just as guilty by duplicating a CD for your own use, as you would be for uploading a CD to a P2P system, then there's no additional conscience or litigation cost. The law has now made it clear that they have equal legitimacy.
Therefore if you consider making format conversion copies fair use, then the law says that's as fair as sharing those copies on a P2P system, ipso facto everyone's now encouraged to use P2P systems.
Whereas before, there was some doubt as to a difference in legitimacy, e.g. "sharing is bad, copying for personal use is ok". Now it's "Sharing is bad, personal copying is bad". But, in the people's minds it will be "I see nothing wrong with personal copying, but if I'm liable for 250K fine for doing so, just as much as I would be for sharing my personal copies, then fuck it, I ain't stopping one, so I might as well have little hesitation for doing the other".
THIS WILL ENCOURAGE P2P FILE SHARING
The law is an ass.
So now that mp3.com are going to be deleting all content from their servers and mp3s4free has been shut down or is in the process of being and p2p networks are illegal and ripping your own mp3s is illegal - HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO USE MY mp3 PLAYER?
can i go back to cassettes perhaps? or is that illegal too?
When the whole country or a very large part of it are suddenly made into outlaws the laws very obviously are wrong.
So can we expect sony and the like to withdraw mp3 players from the shelves of dixons et al? seeing as there is no official legal distributor of mp3s to play on your player?
I'd like to hear what Dixons or sony have to say about where i should get mp3s from when i purchase a player from them?
I would hope they don't incite me to break the law.
Damn, I meant content providers as in "contending content providers"? :-)
zWhat would an EWOULDBLOCK block, if an EWOULDBLOCK could block would? -- me
Instaid of printing the law "the way it is from now on" (and implicitly replacing "the way it was before") they just print how the text for "the way it was beforze" must be changed to get the text of "the way it is from now on". This system might be usefull if you want to see the changes (very little, some, a lot), but does not at all tell you what you can and can not do!
there is also a very funny line of text:
and a bit further on:
I see what the legislator is getting at, but somebody has to clarify the notion "wireless"...
120 chars is not enough!
No no no no no! The same thing pretty much happens here in the US too. In theory, it sounds workable, I know. Why don't they go after everyone who speeds? Because they have bigger issues to deal with. Why don't they go after every person who they suspect of downloading music illegally? Because they don't have the time or the resources. Here is the kicker - what if they had the time and the resources? Do you think they would go after every single downloader? I do. I know they would. Technology is their friend too you know. You can bet your ass that they are trying to figure out ways to do this. Why wouldn't they? It is free money.
You can say "they wouldn't sue everyone, it is impossible" all you want. But what if they could go to every ISP and legally get your download logs, and send you a ticket in the mail? I know, I know, it sounds stupid. I used to think it was implausible. Now I am not so sure. The point is, they WOULD go after each and every violator of copyright if they could. All they need is the means to do it, and I am sure they are working on it. If you allow the flaws into the system, and rely on the fact that they aren't enforced *today*, a very cold slap in the face could be awaiting us all. After all, it is much easier to get a law repealed than it is to get it passed. Your argument of "this law is stupid" is pretty much nullified after it is on the books. It then becomes "I should be allowed to break this law." That is a much harder argument to win, because now you aren't a concerned citizen, you are a criminal.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
> Historically, almost every identification scheme introduced in the UK has been abused by the authorities when it suits them.
We have our fair share of abuse and corruption in the states, but damn, I've watched those British police videos on TLC and I must say, your cops are total pricks compared to ours. Just hearing some of the snyde remarks and rude comments make me feel lucky to have cops that quietly write me a bullshit ticket instead of adding insult to injury too.
For the truly brave, this is the only option. It is a curse of our time that we blur individualism, meaning property law, with actual freedom.
Freedom is not open to contract, and once we are too strongly oppressed, we must remember that. Contract is a means by which we get on. It is a voluntary trade, a voluntary restraint. When our rights are shat upon from a great height, this is not a voluntary trade: it is oppression.
Fair use rights might appear to be the right to rip off an artist; in reality they are a recognition in law that freedom of action trumps property rights. Naturally, they're limited in society, for we do want to protect artists' income streams, but we do not prescribe the death penalty for all misdemeanours, for we believe in graded punishment that "fits the crime", ie. we do not want to deter actions too much.
What do we want to do, then? We want to allow people to break the law if they have sufficient cause. And this is a classic case. Our fair use rights are particularly important, for they link to free speech. This includes the right to quote others our of their chosen context. Without this, political dissent within a free society is not possible. What then is political as apposed to commercial? There is no easy way to deduce that. It has to be left up to the speaker. And sometimes the speaker has to brave prison or other disincentives in order to uphold their rights, and (more importantly) the rights of those who are in a similar position. Civil disobedience is a social act, not an antisocial one. Civil disobedience restores sanity and respect into the minds of the rulers, and reminds them that they are meant to serve us, not rule us.
What about the objection that law is the result of democracy? Democracy, like capitalism is a form of contract, and it may be necessary, but it should itself be held to account to the higher principle of freedom.
Wikileaks, no DNS
to think that the british government wouldn't prosecute hundreds of thousands of copyright 'criminals'!!!! hahahaha - try telling that to a cannabis user! y'all have thirty years of potential imprisonment/fines/criminal records to deal with...then round about 2035 they will change the law so the police can just destroy all your hi-fi, comps, storage media (whether containing anything illegal or not) - which will be interesting if we all have implants - unless you were sharing files with a minor, that is... am i the only one who thinks there might be at least an ideological overlap here: drug users and filesharers, both groups seen as a threat to corporate power, both using technology in ways the corps didn't intend, both criminalized for activities which certainly ought not to be offenses for which custodial sentences are available? oh well, at least it will make filesharing cool and sexy (cos it's illegal), and numbers of kids trying it will mushroom (as 'twere) under prohibition...lol i wonder how long b4 DARPA sponsors the development of magnetic pulse weapons (to deploy against renegade overseas ISPs) - makes sense, given that dropping defoliants on South American pot-growin' peasants works so well...
It's also the nation that puts up monitoring cameras in many public areas.
What planet are you on? The CCTV cameras installed by retail outlets or in shopping centres are their to deter shoplifters and for customer safety. The CCTVs installed in Underground stations and airports are there to observe passenger flow, to prevent platform overcrowding and for passenger safety. The CCTVs installed around prominent buildings are there to deter terrorists like the IRA.
Presumably, you live in the US. Next time you go out to the mall, check how many CCTVs there are. Now do the same at the airport. And then do the same the next time you're near a government building or other sensitive location.
The CCTVs installed in the UK aren't one big monitoring network. You can't use them to track a person. And you can't use them to see where a person has been in the past. So where's your "monitoring"?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think the expression is "could not care less." If I *could* care less about something doesn't that mean I care about it?
Just trying to be constructive, please don't think I'm trolling :)
I'd like to know who the hell keeps voting for the Conservatives
All the blue bits of countryside on this map; there's still a whole lot of them even though the major cities are almost entirely coloured red. Quite a bit of gold inroad into the blue, though-- six more than last time, and it'll be interesting to see how they're doing after the next election.
(BTW, it just gets confusing to call the Lib Dems "the Liberal Party", since the Liberals who didn't join up with the SDP back in 1988 are still hanging around somehow and still hanging on to the name.)
GROGGS: alive and well and living in
If you want to treat me as a consumer, then I do not want you to share your music with me.
I have always, and will continue to live in accordance with the following principles, and it is through your adopting them that we the people will see the downfall of corporate interests; for they will no longer hold our interest.
Do not attend the show of an artist, unless that artist permits the free taping, and redistribution of the recordings.
If studio albums do not meet the preceeding criteria, avoid them.
Do not promote, endorse, seek out, or aim to listen to any artist which does not provide for the satisfaction of the previous two criteria.
Do not be a fan of any person. Be you brothers and sisters in arms. Let us sing the Internationale.
The UK law is less significant than might be thought, since in the absence of a national - UK - law, the EU law applies unmodified from its effective date.
/. could frame a suitable contract...
Not passing a law was not a useful option.
I think the parent here is unduly pessimistic, in that it isn't so much giving a reward that causes people to follow a course of action agreed in society, but their own agreement that it is proper.
In this case that agreement is largely absent, and a coercive law is going to get little effort or enthusiasm in following or enforcement.
There is a remedy to it, and that is to seek the rights to move the information of music around media and formats when one buys it.
This is perhaps a bit Monty Pythonesque for a record shop, where the assistant may not be in a position to alter the terms of the contract under which one CD is sold, but if people have the good sense, or act he same way through a sense of irritation, not to buy material under an unfavourable contract, then the sellers will get the message.
Perhaps
Jeez mate do _YOU_ actually live here? I live in Zone 2 in London (about 10 minutes from Kings-X).... there are cameras EVERYWHERE. These are NOT part of the underground system they are "law enforcement cameras" and have been put up over the last 5 years or so usually on the grounds of traffic control although this simply isn't the truth. Most are used to watch the streets for known muggers and drug dealers. Of course the police can't actually get to any of these crimes whilst they are happening but the victim gets a really nice snapshot of their face being smashed in for their records....
They are on ruddy huge pillars that stand on many junctions and road confluences. They ARE part of a London wide monitoring system (run by the met police).... There are at least 6 of these within a few hundred yards of my house and I am filmed from the second I leave my front door (on Seven Sisters Road) until I reach the tube station at which point I am picked up on LU CCTV which is run by both the station management staff (to prevent overcrowding usually) and the London Transport Police (who have real policing powers).
Output from these cameras IS recorded. You CAN track people with them. It isn't often done because it requires manual effor but technology (ala the Congestion Charge network) is being perfected to allow computers with face recognition software to track individuals....
Please talk about reality next time.
"None of this shit works" -W.Shatner
Making circumvention devices illegal is a logical step to protect works sort of like how making lockpicks illegal except to a licensed locksmith protects homes.
Difference: Many claim that the DMCA, EUCD, and foreign counterparts provide insufficiently for something analogous to licensure of locksmiths.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The parliament reversed this part.
The parliament overlooked some undesirable effects of the new copyright law one year ago. Then the parliament realized and undid part of the law. The restriction on freely reselling and importing all DVD's shall be lifted on january first 2004.
It is a very small step, but still the first and only positive step I can remember in this area of law.
Apparently they don't mind going out of scope. WIPO has been pushing DMCA-like requirements for years now. In fact, that is the excuse Congress used to pass the DMCA in the US.
another stupid law to ignore.
Help another party grow. There are many third parties in the US. Help an independant candidate run. Find one that meets with your political beliefs and help them do their work so their ideas can be heard on TV and more people will be inclined to vote for them.
It's a self-fulfilling prophesy to do as Jack Black recently told Amy Goodman in an interview on "Democracy Now!"--he said he'd vote Green if they had a prayer (of winning). When people throw their vote behind the leader they devalue their vote and help make sure they will always have to choose between the best of the worst.
What you're saying is quite true--in the 2000 American presidential election Bush and Gore agreed on a number of important issues. Both supported the death penalty and both benefitted from excluding Nader and Buchanan from the televised debates (even though a majority of the public wanted to see these two candidates in the debates, probably to learn what they had to say). As a result, most voters had little to base their choice on and we got a roughly down-the-middle split. The Democrats and Republicans also ended up working together to keep thousands of would-be Democratic Party voters in Florida from excercising their voting rights in the 2000 election (the majority of which still do not have their voting rights, according to one Slashdot poster). More people were not allowed to vote than the number of votes which separated Bush and Gore in Florida.
So if you want to break the duopoly you should find another party or an independant candidate and volunteer for them. You can look into helping Open Debates get off the ground and bring us real TV debates. Nothing I'm suggesting will cost you much money, but it will cost you a great deal of time. Real political candidate volunteer work is repetitive and long. It is mostly not something you can do on the computer. I helped a local candidate run for Congress and I learned a great deal, it was very rewarding.
Digital Citizen
You don't feel happy? Take Zoloft. Your kid's a bit on the lively side? We can fix that.
This reminds me of the lyrics to a song from Dance Dance Revolution 5th Mix, "Hot Limit" by John Desire, reproduced as heard:
That's not how the official lyrics go, but I wonder how much Pfizer (Zoloft mfr) and Novartis (Ritalin mfr) paid John Desire to mispronounce "summer love" as "Zoloft" and "revealing" as "Ritalin". (Others have heard "You take Zoloft" as "You chase Solo," referring to Harrison Ford's character in Star Wars episodes IV through VI.)
From here it's just a small step to a world described e.g. in Ira Levin's "A perfect day" (for the German audience: "Die sanften Ungeheuer").
Or the world in The Giver by Lois Lowry, where everybody is perpetually high on drugs that deaden feelings, which are called "Stirrings" in the culture.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Just use a microphone, sing
But by now, you've infringed the songwriter's copyright by fixing a recording of a copyrighted musical work.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The real problem about this is the EU is not a very democratic organisation, ie the EU Commission isn't even an elected body and Euro MPs don't expect to be bothered by those who vote for them (like when anti-software-patent activists were accused of "harassing" their Euro-MPs by lobbying them).
Probably because they were actual voters, rather than "professionals". Somehow I doubt it's just MEPs who have this kind of attitude.
The article is grossly inaccurate. I am reliably informed that it was, prior to the new legislation, illegal to rip CDs for personal use, convert your LP collection to CD, and certainly illegal to upload or download copyrighted songs to/from grokster et al. The anti-circumvention stuff is the new thing here. And the UK has had a shadow of that for 10 years, unfortunately - but it was quite limited.
I'll tell you who: Old People. That's right, bigotted, opinionated, austere and puritanical old people. These are the people who "fought in the war for us." They also harbour secret hatred of the Irish, socialists, liberals, brown and balck people, foreigners etc. They also believe in low taxes, criticise the government for giving them rubbishy state health and social care and low pensions and then go and vote for the right-wingers. These are the people who like Norman Tebbit, Nicholas Ridley, Michael Howard, John Redwood and think that Margaret Thatcher was too left-wing. These are the people who'd have us all in crew-cuts and doing national service. I should know because 90% of my family are like this.... and I'm not at all bitter.
Stick Men
Well I think there is a difference between ineffective and easily overcome. It may only take 5 minutes to come up with all the posible keys, but you are still making that effort to circumvent a form of encryption. What bugs me is the whole region code thing, thankfully, that is neither encryption or copyprotection. It is merely a (direct) attack on the rights of the consumer to use the product, with no affect on copying. Thus this Act shouldn't affect multi-region DVDs AFAIK. IANAL. To turn the problem around, has anyone any news that would indicate the illegality of region zone restrictions?