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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

[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.

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

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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?

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?

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: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: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.

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.

Denmark, Germany, Italy, Greece, Austria

[jochietoch]

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

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

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.

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.