Intellectual Property Manifesto for the UK

feepcreature writes "Ars Technica is reporting that the British Library has published a Manifesto calling for a balance in Intellectual Property rights between the interests of users, creators and publishers. There are 6 key recommendations, including: DRM should not override users' statutory rights; analogue rights should apply to digital media; and copyright terms should not be extended without evidence that this would be good for society. There is also part of the debate on the UK Government's Gowers review of Intellectual Property, due to report in the Autumn."

Comments

Re:Public libraries and P2P have similarities

[ray-auch]

Libraries have many roles, but almost none of those roles are exclusive. The three most important ones are collecting, sharing, and archiving for posterity, but these roles are also performed within society as a whole

The british library is a national library, and also a legal deposit library (one of only six) under the 2003 Act, and its job is to perform those roles. Others may perform the roles, but it isn't their stated purpose enshrined in law to do so.

This does make them exceptional. There is a huge difference between saying "DRM is stopping me doing Y" and saying "DRM is stopping me doing Y, which I am required to do by law".

Re:DRM in the UK

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Now, as for TC related activity - there's a lot of nonsense talked about this, and I don't have time to go into it right now. TPMs are neither good nor bad. They are simply a way for the owner of the platform to measure the integrity of his/her platform, and to attest that integrity to a remote verifier.

If you're running Windows, your no longer the owner of the system.

TPM could be a good thing in the hands of, say, a Linux or *BSD developer. That would be nice on a server.

Re:Agree and disagree

[LocalH]

But you can't compare copyright to a brick-and-mortar business - as there are specific laws that govern each of those. Copyright was explicitly codified such that works would go into the public domain - copyright holders knew this going in, but managed to get it extended. Originally, at least in the US, copyright was supposed to last a maximum of 28 years - one 14-year term and one 14-year extension. This was known going in, so I see it from the other direction - copyright owners who attempt to extend this term to ludicrous lengths (such as we have today) are effectively stealing from every single person in the country.

If you want your heirs to benefit after you die, it's your place to provide for that. Why should the government have an interest in making sure your heirs benefit?