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."

Comments

In short

[Raul654]

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.

Re:In short

[BrokenHalo]

Yet another blow against the principle of fair use. But I suppose most politicians wouldn't understand principles, since they don't have any. It's kind of sad (not to say scary) to see how quick governments can be in rolling over when Industry tells them to.

Re:In short

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be more worried about this section, myself:

"(4A) It is not fair dealing to observe, study or test the functioning of a computer program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program (these acts being permitted if done in accordance with section 50BA (observing, studying and testing)).";

Who decides what is observing, studying, and testing? The act of reverse engineering _is_ observing, studying, and testing. Anybody know what section 50BA really means?

Re:In short

[JaredOfEuropa]

It kills your right to make personal backups

No it does not, not directly at least. There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.

However, it does make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection devices... in a few years, when DRM might becomes commonplace, it could mean that your rights to make copies for personal use are de facto taken away from you.

Over here in Holland, fair-use rights have always been upheld as a right. Not because prevention and prosecution of the making of such copies would be impractical, but because lawmakers deem the ability to make such copies for personal use a right. What I would like to see is legislation that would protect and guarantee this right, rather than take it away by outlawing the circumvention of copy protection devices. How about a law that outlaws a copy protection device or DRM, if such a device would infringe on fair-use rights, making it impossible to make copies for home use?

Unfortunately it will never happen. When corresponding with both left-wing and right-wing representatives in the EU government, I get the distinct feeling that no consideration whatsoever is given to the rights of individuals, when copyrights or piracy are discussed. The current politcal wind seems to fully favor the RIAA and its ilk.

More about the EUCD and the UK implementation.

Re:In short

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Which is actually quite amusing, since Sony are still selling their NetMD minidisc walkmans (walkmen?) in the UK. In case you aren't aware of it these devices come with software that allows you to rip CDs or convert mp3s, wma or wav to ATRAC3 to write to minidisc via usb. As far as I have been able to find, there are no warnings in the manual about ripping CDs or writing downloaded mp3s (indeed the manual actually says "You can record audio data to your computer from sources such as audio CDs and the Internet... You can transfer audio data stored in your computer to an MD").

Re:In short

[x-router]

Interesting: So in fact sony are selling a device that has software to encourage you to break law. In fact they are selling this device thats sole purpose is to copy CD's something that is now illegal even if you own the original.

Perhaps a test case against sony would force some sense to be seen in such matters. After all sony seem to like to take PSX mod chip makers to court for doing exactly what they are.

Re:In short

[Tim C]

There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.

There doesn't need to be, at least not here in the UK - we've never had that right, unless it was explicitly granted by the copyright holder. Technically, it's always been illegal here for me to rip my CDs to mp3s/oggs, or to MDs when I had an MD player.

Re:In short

[AKnightCowboy]

However, it does make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection devices... in a few years, when DRM might becomes commonplace, it could mean that your rights to make copies for personal use are de facto taken away from you.

This is something a court is going to have to eventually decide. Is the right to make a backup for personal use more important than the manufacturer's right to copy protect their content? If so, will they say manufacturers will be forced to provide two copies of the media for every item shipped, one as a pristine backup and EXACT copy of the original? It's ridiculous I have the right to make a backup copy for personal use, yet doing so turns me into a criminal. These kinds of catch-22 situations are the epitome of bad laws.

Re:In short

[welsh git]

> There is no "principle of fair use".

Someone should tell these solicitors then:

http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/ipFairUse.html

Re:In short

[gnu-generation-one]

"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."

The article also mentions that the use of iPods, Nomads, and other MP3 players will become impractical, as it would be illegal to convert your CDs into suitable formats.

As someone about to buy such a device, I'm going to have to ask the manufacturers, and possibly an MP or two for advice, as the last thing we want is a $400 device being confiscated for holding a copy of the music I purchased at full retail price.

I presume that Apple, Creative, Dell, and other manufacturers are writing to the government to enquire whether they mean to deprive UK customers of these products? And no "the Europeans told us to do it" doesn't count as an excuse.

Re:In short

[e40]

No it does not, not directly at least. There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.

From the article:

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 article is wrong, then?

Re:In short

[JaredOfEuropa]

From the article:
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 article is wrong, then?

Yes and no. English law (apparently) prohibits making copies for personal use, but the EUCD does not.

So I guess...

[badboy_tw2002]

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!

Re:So I guess...

[kcbrown]

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!

People may laugh at this. They forget that it's exactly this sort of reasoning (modified to sound more palatable to the masses) that was used to justify the last copyright term extension act.

In other words, don't laugh. It's a lot more likely to happen than you might think.

Re:So I guess...

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

... and the EU brought it in at the behest of WIPO. Which happens to be little more than a international legislation recommendation body sock puppet for US corporate interests.

Re:So I guess...

[Dun Malg]

the EU brought it in at the behest of WIPO. Which happens to be little more than a international legislation recommendation body sock puppet for US corporate interests.

Heh. I prefer to think of them as multi-national coprorate interests, since they're screwing us here in the US as well.

Will be challenged legally.

[zymano]

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.

Does This Mean Anyone Cares?

[heapacreep]

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...

Re:Does This Mean Anyone Cares?

[kcbrown]

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!

Ah, but you haven't been reading the Evil Overlord manual.

The purpose of legislation such as this isn't to put everyone in prison, it's to make it possible to put anyone in prison -- whomever the government wishes, in other words. That way governments don't have to worry about pesky things like public dissent: they can just arrest the key players before they have a chance to make a mess of things.

Classic police state stuff.

Re:Does This Mean Anyone Cares?

[jaavaaguru]

Yeah, but this law will prevent other things. I don't fit into the category you're talking about because I don't copy CDs from friends, and on the few occasions I've downloaded music from the 'net, it's because I was wanting to sample the music of a particular band before going out and buying the CD. My main problem with this law, is that it would be illegal to transfer the music onto a portable MP3 player. If I can't have the music with me when I go walking or to the shops, then I might just choose not to buy it at all. I'm quite dissapointed at Britain making tighter restrictions on what fair use of copyright is considered to be.

UN Digital Copyright Standard?

[Qweezle]

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.

"wider awareness campain"

[a.koepke]

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?

Oh great. Now I'm a criminal

[troon]

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.

Re:Oh great. Now I'm a criminal

[Tim C]

I'm afraid not.

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 conferred by Part 2 in relation to a performance or recording included in the broadcast.

[emphasis mine]

As I read it, that section relates specifically and only to time-shifting broadcasts, not to "media-shifting" CDs, etc. Which, frankly, sucks. I run a (private) streaming mp3/ogg server at home, so I can listen to my music at work without lugging CDs around or leaving them in the office, or ripping them all to my work machine's rather small hard drive (hah - which I suppose is illegal anyway...). I guess that's now illegal; thanks guys. And this is meant to make me buy *more* CDs?

Re:Oh great. Now I'm a criminal

[Gumshoe]

You were already a criminal, it hasn't changed.

You're half right. It's true that UKers were never allowed to rip CDs, but it was never a crime and certainly not incarcerable. Previously, the copyright holder had to bring a civil case and the penalty would be nothing more than a fine, albeit a large one in all probability.

Excellent

[bigberk]

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.

Re:Excellent

[mormop]

This could be part of a new UK Government scheme to cut the outsourcing of IT based labour to India, the far east etc.

For instance, it costs 25,000 pa to employ a coder in the UK but only 3000 pa to employ his/her counterpart in India. Tech savvy people are quite likely to use peer to peer or copying so by criminalising even reasonable acts, e.g. ripping a CD to play tracks on your MP3 player, you can then fill prisons with tech savvy people and force them to code or remote administer networks without having to pay them more than an ounce of tobacco a month.

Business benefits from free labour and the rapid growth in the need for prison officers will end unemployment overnight.

I'd better shut up mow or that twat Blunkett might start getting ideas.

I expected the UK to pass this...

[kcbrown]

The UK, after all, is the nation which decided to pass a law requiring you to hand over your encryption keys without due process when asked, upon penalty of jail when you fail to do so -- and it doesn't matter if you actually have the encryption keys or not.

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.

Re:I expected the UK to pass this...

[nicky_d]

The U.K. seems about as close to an Orwellian society as any "enlightened" country on the planet.

That's right, and it's all thanks to our right-wing "left-wing" government. And even if the people protest, it'll do no use - witness the recent war protests, or consider these excerpts from the Home Office report on ID card consultation, courtest of stand.org.uk:

What was learned from the consultation exercise? 11. Individual responses, sample surveys, and polling results have demonstrated substantial support for an identity card. Of the 5,000 people and organisations who responded formally to the consultation, 4,200 expressed a view. Over 60% of these were in favour. We also received over 5,000 e-mails from an organised opposition campaign. Over 96% of these were opposed.

12. We commissioned wider research which involved both focus groups and polling which confirmed, as independent polling has done, 80% of the general public were in favour of identity cards...

In essence, theyd've carried on commissioning research until it said what they wanted it to say, spinning any existing results in the meantime.

Frankly, nothing they say or do or agree to is going to surprise me, or a lot of other people. But because these activities aren't yet hitting people directly in the pocket, we won't see civil unrest on a scale of, say, the Poll Tax protests - people readily notice a few pounds a week being taken from them; a few freedoms here and there are perhaps harder to detect...

Well, perhaps a more civilised country will invade and liberate us. Don't worry, we're flabby and apathetic - the Brits you know from black and white war films are all long dead.

Re:I expected the UK to pass this...

[BenjyD]

I don't see the problem with ID cards. You need to prove your identity for anything important anyway - from renting a video , taking money out of a bank account over the counter to claiming benefits. Why not standardise the system, as many other countries already have.

The UK has many 'freedom' problems, from the House of Lords to the ridiculous voting system that gives the government such a huge majority it can shove through whatever legislation it wants. I dont believe that ID cards, despite the paranoia people have about them, are one of those problems.

Re:I expected the UK to pass this...

[AndyS]

I don't care about an easy to use identity card that I can opt to carry. I don't want to have to present one on the street to a policeman who asks, who can then mark my card if I'm wanting to protest.

Can you imagine the chilling effect of being forced to provide ID if you wanted to protest, or being put on a register?

Where people dislike optional IDs is the fear that they'll be made mandatory.

Re:I expected the UK to pass this...

[BenjyD]

So, ID cards are bad because they might be used in a situation in which the police grossly violate your basic rights of peaceful assembly? The problem in your hypothetical situation is not the card.

Re:I expected the UK to pass this...

[Sexy Bern]

our taxes will go down by large amounts ...

God bless you, you poor misguided fool!

This is the kind of spin being churned out by HM government and you're buying it, big time.

If the government wanted to work on reducing social security costs, the first thing they'd do is link up the NI databases with the benefits databases - believe me, they're not connected AT ALL. If you walk into a benefits agency office, you can claim you're unemployed and you will probably receive payment. They have absolutely no way of checking your income tax or NI contributions, and they usually don't investigate somebody until they receive a complaint.

Then we have the problem with identity theft. My mother-in-law is a registrar, and she is powerless to stop somebody asking for a copy of ANYBODY'S birth certificate. She hands them out to people who she KNOWS are going to use them fraudulently, but it is absolutely legal to do this in the UK, so she can't stop it. It only takes a couple of extra steps and you can gain credit cards, utility bills and an identity.

The people that want an ID card (illegal immigrants) will get one to use to their advantage. The people that don't want an ID card will be forced to carry one and it could be used to their disadvantage. Remind me again how this is useful?

Re:I expected the UK to pass this...

[kaiidth]

I see the problem with it. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of ID cards in general (actually, as a frequent traveller within Europe I would very much like to have the ability to acquire one of these French/German style ID cards that functions as a sort of cut-down passport, principally for security reasons...) and somewhat less fine with the idea of compulsory ID cards. I'm not in the least convinced of the argument for them, other than the ability to stop random people in the street and demand to see their ID, which will result in one of a few scenarios,

1) being 'I have it, here it is' (somewhat unlikely - you can prove your identity for video rental with something called a video club card after the initial effort, for example, so there's not much incentive to carry around fourty pounds (sixty dollars, ish) worth of ID card just so some prick can hit you over the head and nick it),

2) being an honest 'I left it at home', in which case the police will have to give you a reasonable time period to go home, get it, and present it to them, thus putting you to some inconvenience for your honesty,

or 3) being a dishonest 'I left it at home', in which case the police will give you a similar grace period, and you, being not a stupid illegal immigrant/criminal/whatever, will be unlikely to go back to the police station and admit it.

And I'm totally creeped out by the idea that Blunkett and his Orwellian pals are demanding compulsory biometric registration. Biometrics isn't something to use lightly, even if it is a popular element in buzzword bingo. In summary, it could be stated that whilst, for example, EU-acceptable ID cards would be very handy, and whilst a national ID system would perhaps be a good thing - solving the 'proof of age' problem, for example - this ID card system is not really about that sort of solution. Blunkett is probably not really after making European travellers' lives easier, so much as he is after that lovely-sounding Gattaca-style database of All The Biometric Information of Every Citizen And Visitor.

I'm aware that there are arguments for the retention of biometric information. But I've worked in areas where there's an astonishing quantity of crime, and our problem has never been proving the ID of the criminal, so much as the fact that the criminals are either underage or consider themselves so far outside the law that nothing short of a prison sentence can stop them. ID is easy to establish where you have a photo or a fingerprint (this is presumably where biometric info 'helps'), and is hard to establish where you have neither and rely on witness identification or less (biometric info isn't going to help you here...) In short, unless the government were to come up with some very good reasons for force-collecting that information from every citizen, they shouldn't be permitted to go through with it. It could be harmful, it isn't much help, and given things like his fabulous extradition agreement, it is extremely hard to see why anybody would consider Blunkett an even mildly trustworthy individual.

Previously, many people in the UK have had the comforting illusion that the country, unlike certain others, did not display the 'you want human rights? Prove your entitlement first' attitude. Blunkett, (the prick), is proving otherwise. Sensibly, many people have the unsurprising opinion that Blunkett can fuck off.

Re:I expected the UK to pass this...

[Oddly_Drac]

"Cherish what few freedoms you have left. You won't have them for long."

We've never had them in the UK, but then we have an urbane approach to the law. We consider them mostly optional, which is unfortunate for any government that wants to emulate the American model.

We have this propensity to riot at the drop of a hat, and the rumblings have already started again, simply because of the number of things that have been waved through since 9/11, however, the vast majority are being doped up with worry at the moment because of the quasi-fictional recession the world has been on the brink of for the past couple of decades.

"The U.K. seems about as close to an Orwellian society as any "enlightened" country on the planet."

Cheeba hits 'Class C' (categorised alongside steroids) on January 29th. Confiscation and a telling off for personal possession, although they've raised the penalties for dealers.

Given societal penetration of at least 72%, it's pretty much the only way to reduce the statistics for drug abuse in this country without engaging in an ultimately futile war on drugs.

"The UK, after all, is the nation which decided to pass a law requiring you to hand over your encryption keys without due process when asked, upon penalty of jail when you fail to do so -- and it doesn't matter if you actually have the encryption keys or not."

The horrific portion of this is that the RIP Bill regulatory instruments hasn't been written yet and they're still levering things in on top of that.

"also the nation that supports the U.S."

Yeah, well, for all our sins we are allies. In that particular case there was an agenda pushed that did leave us quite distasteful of some aspects, and I suspect that this government will get elected around the time hell reaches absolute zero.

"nobody gives a flying fuck about liberty, freedom, rights"

Funnily enough, I've always found that it's best to work within the system rather than against it, which is why the local police are receiving a complaint about the local council flouting the law regarding camera placement. Should be good for a giggle.

EUCD made DVD reselling illegal in Denmark

[zonix]

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.

z

Re:EUCD made DVD reselling illegal in Denmark

[zonix]

I guess that remains to be seen.

However, bear this in mind. I was told by my once local region 1 shop that even before the EUCD, the studios (or their representatives in Denmark) were already quite trigger happy and tried to have the region 1 DVD reselling stopped - however without success with respects to local lobbying. The EUCD changed that of course, which was lobbying on a higher level and you can count that as a success on their part.

They are now working towards having the region modding of DVD players made illegal (of course they've been at this even before the EUCD). This is still legal here, that is nobody interprets the EUCD as prohibiting this. BTW, I buy Pioneer players, and even Pioneer accept the fact that their players are being region modded as the players are not warranty voided after the operation. And no, it's not my local shop providing the warranty, it is actually still Pioneer themselves - at least that's what my local shop told me. Great service on Pioneer's behalf if you ask me.

z

Re:EUCD made DVD reselling illegal in Denmark

[Pofy]

I might missunderstand the situation in Denmark, but I believe a similar situation might occur in Sweden with its propsed changed copyright law. The issue here would be the right to distribute copies. In general, that right belongs to the copyright holder. However, that right is also generally consumed as soon as a copy is sold. That mean, that the right to distribute a specific copy does no longer belog to the copyright holder after they have sold it.

Now, the consumtion of this right can be global or regional (or whatever the law says). The proposal for the new copyright law in Sweden changes the consumtion from golbal (world wide) to regional (within EU). That is, only a copy sold within EU will have the right of the copyright holder consumed. Thus, any copy sold OUSIDE of EU, will still have the copyright holder as the only one with permision to distribute it (which include resell it and so on).

Since it is doubtfull they will ever sell DVDs in Europe with a region coding not being the one for Europe, the end effect is that you can't resell DVDs with other region codings inside EU since the copyright holder will retain that right.

Not sure if that is the case for Denmark mentioned here though.

so....

[croddy]

now you know how we feel.

sucks, eh?

Depressed Pride

[Apple Acolyte]

From referenced 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?

Re:Depressed Pride

[nickos]

"America remains the sweet land of liberty in comparison to the rest of the world."

Riiight. I know things aren't perfect in the UK but at least we haven't set up anything like what you have at Guantanamo Bay, where the usual notions of justice don't even apply:Confess or die, US tells jailed Britons

Re:Depressed Pride

[maxpublic]

So quit whining about "freedom" in the Western world; over here you can openly criticize your government in the press, on the TV, on a public web site without the slightest fear of reprisal.

Unless, of course, the government decides that your 'whining' is a way of aiding terrorism, in which case you can be locked up forever, without any Constitutional recourse, care of Section 81A of the Patriot Act.

Another 'STFU' argument from your local Bush apologist. Hey, who gives a shit what the hell happens in America - so long as it's still better than North Korea? At least *some* part of the Constitution is still good, so who are you to complain?

Max

I've read the law.

[Kickasso]

And beat me up with a 2x4, I cannot find anything in it that makes copying of your own media for your own use illegal. Moreover, I cannot find anything that makes DeCSS illegal. Can anyone point it out for me?

Not that I care; I'm not even British.

Re:I've read the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Denmark was one of the first to implement this law.
And the minister EXPLICICTLY has stated that DeCSS by Jon is legal in Open Source distributions (it was asked specifik about Linux).

http://www.folketinget.dk/Samling/20021/spor_sv/ S4 85.htm

You have to be able to understand Danish, but some friendly soul can probably give an translation.

Also note that folketinget is the danish parlaiment, so the source is diffenitly okay.

Re:I've read the law.

[Doctor7]

There is nothing specifically in there about preventing the public shifting media for personal use. Bear in mind that there is no fair use exception in English law, so it has technically always been illegal. This EUCD implementation just makes prosecution more likely.

Re:I've read the law.

[I confirm I'm not a]

> Not that I care; I'm not even British.

[sarcasm]
Well that's alright - the DMCA itself only ever affected US citizens [cough]Dmitri[/cough] [cough]DVD Jon[/cough], right?

Boy am I grateful I only live in Europe - if I were British as well now I'd be screwed.
[/sarcasm]

Re:I've read the law.

[naxi]

Making temporary copies 8. - (1) After the heading "General" appearing before section 29 there shall be inserted -

" 28A Making of temporary copies Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -

(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or

(b) a lawful use of the work;

and which has no independent economic significance.".

admittedly just the amendment, I'm sure there's more for anyone who wants to slog through everything, but I think the parent of this has a point. It really does look like making a copy for backup is legal.

So now what

[mcc]

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.

Re:So now what

[16K Ram Pack]

Could you set up a file server in space on a satellite? What would be the jurisdiction on it?

In other news...

[nicky_d]

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.

Hey, anyone want to set up s political party?

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Translation

[John Hurliman]

I think Gardiner's argument holds perfect ground. You personally may not take advantage of the benefits of digital media, but I use them to the fullest extent possible. All of my CDs are archived in OGG/MP3 for streaming across the network, and possibly burned to CD hundreds at a time for listening to in the car on the MP3/CD player. How can this justifiably be considered illegal? The legal system doesn't work by banning everything that could lead to a crime (until now?).

If they simply stopped buying instead of illegally copying we wouldn't have this mess.

So the illegal file sharing of music has countered the market correction expected by the music industries reported losses? How does that work? A few high profile suits against college kids doesn't even begin to recoup for the losses they are claiming.

just a thought

[narkotix]

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

Re:just a thought

[narkotix]

ahhh....i thought there would be
What i meant tho was having a public website which holds the key (i guess you could say something similar to a torrent site). If they download it, it still isnt in any meaningful format (because its encrypted), but if they download the thing then decrypt it using the key to which it becomes usable, does that mean that they can be prosecuted under the law they made? I guess it would be legal for the copyright owner to download but for any of these other organisations which arent the official copyright owner, yet are the ones to pursue the users in question, what legal right do they have?
Im guessing i could be laughed out of court but heck its slashdot and its for the cause! :P

Re:just a thought

[mretallack]

Nice idea. However the law states that you should not circumvent the system. From what I think you are saying, if RIAA download the key from a public web site where everyone else gets it from, then this is not Circumvention. However if users need to ask for the key, then it could work. If a small selected number of users (10->100) get together and use an encrypted PtoP network then no one outside the network would be able to read the data inside the network. If someone trys to circumvent the encription system, then the DMCA or EUCD could be used. I think there are applications that can do this. The one that I can think of the the one that was leaked from WinAmp's makers (AOL) under the GPL. It uses a pgp style key to encrypt all comms.

To take a great quote...

[L-s-L69]

I love my country, but i fear my goverment.

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.....

Re:To take a great quote...

[Blue Stone]

New Labour is not left-wing. It is a pro-corporate centre-right party. It's all about big-business and it's own power. There are no principles it has beyond staying in power, and mutual masturbation with generous corporations.
The basic premise of New Labour was that it was better to have the Labour party in power implementing Tory policies than the Tory party.

Unfortunately, whereas the Tory party was constrained somewhat by the lack of good-will they had, their general perception of being authoritarian, "devil-take-the-hindmost," "I'm all right Jack" c***s (so to speak,) the Labour Party had so much good-will and good-feeling after their initial election win, that it clouded the fact that they were, and are, more dispicable than the Tories, and there was little restraint on their actions.

This buffer-effect is almost entirely worn through, but we don't have a viable alternative to them, other than the sheepish, timid Liberal Democrats, who have (IMO) squandered their opportunity to speak loudly and forthrightly against the nefarious policies of New Labour.

It's not that the party has a "nanny-state" mentality, I would submit, it's that it thinks of itself as our rulers, rather than our representatives (this seems increasingly common across western so-called democracies.)

I believe what we're seeing is a trend in governments across the western world in seeing just how authoritarian a government a people in a "democracy" will put up with.
I fear it will get worse before it gets better, since I think people will put up with a lot of illiberal laws and policies, so long as they don't touch key areas of their lives, enabling them to go about their day-to-day, unwilling to takle a look at how they're being herded and fenced.

Its not all bad news

[skeeve22]

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 is

[LeftOfCentre]

There already is -- that's why the DMCA and EUCD were constructed. They are both based on the WIPO (a UN agency) copyright directive.

It is not illegal to make personal backups

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Translation

[rokzy]

you are absolutely pathetic. he specifically says a CD HE paid for and you turn it into a CD he's obtained illegally.

that's not a translation or an argument, it's just being a retard.

Re:Breakin' the Law, Breakin' the Law

[nickos]

I think alot of this is being driven by the US demanding that anyone visiting their country has biometric information in thier passports.

This article sums up the current situation:

"A European Commission official told the paper that EU governments are bound by a timetable set out by the US government after September 11.

Under the US Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, countries whose citizens enjoy visa-free travel to the United States "must issue passports with biometric identifiers no later than Oct. 26, 2004," the IHT reports.

"The solution which is mostly likely is a chip in the passport containing fingerprints and eye scans," Pietro Petrucci, an EC spokesman told the paper."

Digital media laws

[vanillaspice]

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?

MP3 players become worthless?

[philask]

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...

Re:MP3 players become worthless?

[fishbowl]

"No, you just can't play copyrighted music on them. Feel free to make your own music and listen over and over and over."

Are you suggesting I can't copyright my music? Or are you saying that the copyright I put on my music is somehow a different kind of copyright than the one some media corporation puts on its music?

One law for the king, one law for the peasant.

Why do we keep pretending...

[dollar70]

At this point I wonder why anyone bother's to believe in governements that adopt these kinds of laws. Why do we continue to endure the insult? Why? Throughout the ages, men have faced tyrany after tyrany. You'd think we'd have a clue as to what one looks like by now.

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?

An Exerpt:

"subsection (4) does not apply, but the Secretary of State may at any time refer the licence or licensing scheme to the Tribunal for a determination of whether the licence or licensing scheme is reasonable in the circumstances, or may notify the licensing body that he does not intend to refer it to the Tribunal."

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?

Re:Why do we keep pretending...

[maxpublic]

It stops when enough people get so annoyed that they decide to shoot everyone in the government and start over. That's pretty much what history teaches us. It goes something like this:

A) Angry citizenry overthrow government, replace it with a new one;

B) New government wary of being lynched, treads carefully.

C) Time passes. Citizenry becomes fat and deliberately stupid, government starts amassing power and revoking rights.

D) More time passes. More people go to jail. More people start getting pissed off and asking what the hell is going on.

E) Government cracks down on dissenters, sends them to jail, enacts draconian laws. Thinks these tactics will put the fear of god into those uppity proles, but really, it just ticks off even more people.

F) Government and citizenry come to blows. Much bloodshed follows.

G) Government wins and becomes an open dictatorship, or government loses and the process starts all over again.

It's been awhile since either the U.S. or the U.K. got riled enough to kill their politicians. I figure both countries are past 'D' and on their way to 'E' right about now. It remains to be seen if the process isn't short-circuited because today's proles are a bunch of bleeding cowards.

Max

Re:Why do we keep pretending...

[dollar70]

It's been awhile since either the U.S. or the U.K. got riled enough to kill their politicians. I figure both countries are past 'D' and on their way to 'E' right about now. It remains to be seen if the process isn't short-circuited because today's proles are a bunch of bleeding cowards.

I agree with your 'A' through 'G' analysis.I'm amazed that we're not on the verge of 'F'. Even more amazing is the fact that we're able to hold such a conversation without facing incarceration based on the laws like the one mentioned in this article.

Lord knows I don't want to knowingly inflict harm upon anyone, and using a concept such as "the law" seems like a pretty good way to clearly state rules that we can all generally agree upon to maintain order. But these new laws lack anything to do with defining right from wrong. They just appear to be willfully wrong.

Re:Why do we keep pretending...

[Zocalo]

I'm amazed that we're not on the verge of 'F'.

I'll reserve judgement on that until *after* President Bush has finished his imminent visit to the UK. From some of the discussions I've seen on various boards I have a feeling that things could get really ugly at the demonstations that are being planned. There are a lot of Brits who are extremely pissed at Bush and Blair over the WMD thing, even amongst those who supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Add in a few militant types to stir things up and an over zealous security detail and you have a recipe for disaster.

Re:Why do we keep pretending...

[dollar70]

Oh for certain! I'm a bit tense over this one, especially after reading this. Personally I'd prefer it if our President wouldn't engage in such risky behaviour. I find it hard to believe that his cabinet has kept him so sheltered that he doesn't realize he's made a lot of people from other nations very angry.

Maybe not *all* bad

[flossie]

I've just started skimming through the amendments. I haven't come across the stuff prohibiting back up copies yet, but I did come across this section, which appears to explicitly allow reverse engineering, regardless of any terms or conditions attached to the product:

Observing, studying and testing of computer programs
15. - (1) After section 50B there shall be inserted -

50BA Observing, studying and testing of computer programs

(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.

(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).".

Re:Maybe not *all* bad

[villoks]

Well,

This section actually comes from much earlier EU software copyright directive, which was not changed by EUCD. The tricky part here is that sw-copyright directive applies to software only as copyrighted works, not as technical protection measures. So even if you don't break copyright by reverge engineering, you might do it by circumventing the technical protection measure.

Re:Translation

[maxpublic]

This is really getting old. One reason there is a backlash from companies against "fair use" is because people decided to abuse it.

And the apologia for corporate usurpation of individual rights continues. "Hey, if everyone wasn't a criminal none of these laws would be passed" has got to be the one of the most naive arguments ever made.

Fact is, if everyone is breaking a law then something is wrong with the law. The idea that people obey laws only out of fear of punishment is the argument of the dictator and his adoring fans, who use this as an excuse to drop-kick anyone who happens to disagree with them or refuse to play ball. It should be rather clear by now that the 20th century business model employed by the rabid and frantic RIAA/MPAA doesn't cut it in the 21st century, but rather than try to develop a new business model they buy off politicians to pass laws in an effort to shore up their eroding economic monoliths.

And why not? There are plenty of Joe Idiots sitting about just waiting to kiss ass and jump on the bandwagon, supporting any legal inanity proposed by these modern-day rail barons just so, for a few brief seconds, they can feel morally superior to their neighbors.

My only question is: where the hell were all you losers when the buggy whip industry was demanding that the automobile be banned? If you'd gotten off your lazy asses then we could've saved those poor oppressed corporations and done away with the evil automobile forever!

Max

Re:Well

[nickos]

"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."

Re:The Liberal party

[91degrees]

I always vote for the party I believe in (usually independent). They never win. You're right that I should have considered the other parties, and I'm hoping that Lib Dem can make a decent showing in the next election, but they seem to be remarkably bad at getting the publicity they need. The voting mechanism we use is pretty rubbishy for reflecting the true opinions of the people.

Re:They don't get a choice

[infradead]

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.

Meet your MP

[Brian Blessed]

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

This will probably be scrapped...

[JackJudge]

...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.

IANAL but..

[CaptainCheese]

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...

mods on crack

[Simple-Simmian]

Some crack head modded the parent to -1 but this was important enough to restat for the poster.

"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.

Implementing the same law in different times...

[Rozzo]

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.

Re:Implementing the same law in different times...

[sjofi]

While nice conspiracy theory, it's most likely not true at all because every directive have to be implemented as a law in each member country according to the rules of that country.

With 15 countries each having different policies in implementing laws it's just impossible to achieve a simultaneous implementation.

Case in point: in Finland this law was almost ready for final voting in the parliament, but didn't quite make it through the committee responsable of drafting it before the elections and thus had to be post poned until after the elections. Meantime the opposition of the law has grown and therefore it's still pending.

Denmark, Germany, Italy, Greece, Austria

[jochietoch]

according to this site. (Google is your friend).

Benefits for open source as well

[sir_cello]

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.

Software license agreements?

[Channard]

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.

What you have to remember

[ajs318]

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.

Re:What you have to remember

[TSage]

Am I the only one who finds this reasoning foolish and naive? And I do not mean the poster is foolish (you actually seem upset that it is not different).

There should never be a situation where foolish laws are passed because "only the criminals will be punished." Well, think about this: one day what is considered a criminal may change. Look at the hackers who find bugs in systems and report them to companies only to find themselves in trouble with the law. Notice how I used hackers, remember when that had a different connotation?

And aside from the potential martial law crack downs wherein everyone breaks the law at anytime, what about the rights of criminals? Are they not people? If we have to catch someone who committed a more devious crime by almost baiting them with laws, who can honestly say that that is just?

The poster mentioned that there was a potential for abuse, but "as long as it works" no one wants to deal with it. I'm sorry, but it doesn't "work". It is just people don't care because it doesn't affect them which is not the same thing as working. People don't care that minor drug users are thrown in jail where they are raped and psychologically tortured because they're obviously the scum of the Earth. "They should have thought more before breaking the law." Yeah, well since when do we turn a blind eye to rape?

Sorry, I've gotten a bit off topic, but this bothers me. People should not be lackadaisical about the justice system and the legislation that criminalizes people. We should be making sure that justice is served, not that only people who break laws are thrown in deplorable jails.


TSage

Mod parent (+1, Informative)

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:Mod parent (+1, Informative)

[16K Ram Pack]

It's also illegal to miss out your 2 hours per week Crossbow practice, but I don't know many people who do it.

In the end, it's why habeus corpus is so important - so that juries can get stupid laws changed that politicians are too lazy, involved or frightened to change.

Re:Mod parent (+1, Informative)

[Brahmastra]

because the UK legal culture isn't anything like as nasty as the US one.

However, being a colony of the US, it's only a matter of time before the UK becomes just like the US in every possible way, including legal culture.

Re:Mod parent (+1, Informative)

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Ah, but the best bit is that carrying the weapons required for that practice would now be illegal...

Blatantly OT, but...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The British Prime Minister is so far up Bush's arse that it should be no surprise that he wants to copy US legislation.

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?

How exactly?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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.

Re:How exactly?

[jarran]

in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does

I don't know about backups, but I'm pretty sure it does explicitly recognise "fair use".

All the photocopiers in my (UK) university libraries have a poster above them which says "Make sure you stay within the law!" and gives details on how much you can legally photocopy from various different types of source.

In fact, I've heard it mentioned explicitly in the UK media recently, with regards to the "Burrell affair" which involved Paul Burrell publishing extracts from letters whose copyright was held by Princess Dianna and other royals. He was able to publish these extracts due to fair use, otherwise the royal family could have prevented the book being published (and/or sued for royalties) for copyright infringement.

Re:How exactly?

[tjensor]

Errr flaimbait? Your post is factually correct in that there is no written constitution in the UK, but after that its all downhill. Its not there, because it has never proved to be required.

There is a complex, mature, respected legal system that works on a vast body of case law. It is simply not the case that the government can make up stupid laws and them expect the courst to just go ahead and enforce them. Plenty of Home secretaries (including David Blunket, the current one) have attempted to psuh trhough measures only for them to be brought up short by the courts.

Re:How exactly?

[CentrX]

Clearly, a lot of people don't believe that gun ownership only belongs in the "wild west", and gun ownership has been a right in the US and in other countries since long before the wild west. Even assuming that extreme gun control is legal under the Constitution, and assuming that gun control laws will reduce crime in urban areas, etc., the United States has vast rural regions where wild animals are a real threat, where your closest neighbor is a mile away, and it will take the police at least 20 minutes to get to your house. Frankly, I don't see how you might not think a gun would be appropriate in such a situation, even if only because the low population density in many regions in the United States is actually quite similar to the way things were in the wild west. Gun ownership was appropriate in the wild west because it was wild and law enforcement authorities were not very powerful. The same is true if you're living in North Dakota. Other people are very far away, there are wild animals, and law enforcement is weak, or at least, delayed (which is the same thing when you're dead). With gun control, as a criminal, I would be able to get guns fairly easily (and the US doesn't even have a small border of water like the UK), and then due to the gun control laws, I can go to any house in a rural area, and know that even if there is a person in the house, it will be at least 15-30 minutes before anyone (the police) else with equal power to me (a gun) will get there. There are 500,000 police officers in a country of 280 million people and over 9 million square kilometers. They are good at investigating crimes, they are not good at preventing any individual crime. On the other hand, there are 70 million gun owners in this country, and only a few thousand murders by gun per year, many of which are by people who are going to kill each other anyway, such as various criminal elements fighting each other. Canada has more guns per capita than the US and there is much less crime in Canada than the US.

I don't see what's wrong with having a single written Constitution. The United States Constitution is so minimal as to be extremely flexible. Gun ownership is a specified right that was clearly thought important by the people who founded this country. If that right is to be changed, it is done so with the numerically significant and regionally diverse support required of a Constitutional amendment. If the UK "constitution" is so flexible that it reflects the current world better than the U.S. Constitution (which is absurd because the U.S. Constitution is so very basic that it is an appropriate Constitution for a government in almost any era at all), that would mean that the basis of the UK government is more vulnerable to various fads of government and such that are often later realized to be very bad ideas. No, I suspect your constitution isn't as flexible as you think. If it were, it wouldn't be any sort of constitution, it would be on par with any other law at all, and afforded no special protection under the law.

That's the Router/Cache clause.

[Speare]

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.

The problems with ID cards

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I don't see the problem with ID cards.

OK, here's a summary of the major "anti" arguments.

• There are some theoretical benefits, but little evidence supports the claim that they will work in practice.
  • A lot of the claimed benefits obviously won't materialise, because five-year-olds can identify why they won't work. (Yes, some of the practical problems are so obvious that five-year-olds have been quoted in the media.)
  • The remainder are dubious simply because the government has never yet managed to organise such a wide-scale system without numerous crippling flaws. (I speak as someone who was working full-time in two jobs on opposite sides of the country, living in two places simultaneously, for several months according to the tax office, and all because someone mistyped and put in my NI number -- note the "universal ID" there -- when updating someone else's record.)
  • If the cards aren't compulsory (as in, you must have one, and you must carry it at all times) then most of the anti-crime benefits are pointless anyway.
• There is serious potential for abuse.
  • Historically, almost every identification scheme introduced in the UK has been abused by the authorities when it suits them. Notice the way that driving licences and passports -- neither of which is legally required and both of which cost money -- are the only acceptable forms of ID for many things these days. Note also my comments on NI numbers above. Don't even ask about TV licences, and agencies whose computer systems don't acknowledge the possibility that you might not have one, say because you didn't have a TV.
  • If card-carrying is made full-time compulsory, then anyone who, say, demonstrates vocally during a visit by a foreign head of state, can be stopped, have their identity demanded, and then be blacklisted and subject to further abuse in future.
• Did we mention that it's going to cost billions to implement?

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.

contract as desired, law subclasses EU law

[midgley]

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.

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 /. could frame a suitable contract...

What planet are you on?

[purrpurrpussy]

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.