Slashdot Mirror
UK Think Tank Calls For Fair Use Of Your Own CDs
jweatherley writes "The BBC reports that a UK think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has called for the legalization of format shifting. In a report commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, they state that copyright laws are out of date, and that people should have a 'private right to copy' which would allow them to legally copy their own CDs and DVDs on to home computers, laptops and phones. The report goes on to say that: 'it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.' The report also argues that there is no evidence the current 50-year copyright term is insufficient. The UK music industry is campaigning to extend the copyright term in sound recordings to 95 years."
The only problem with think-tanks is that they're constantly coming up with common sense and good ideas like this, but no one in actual real grown-up government will give a rats ass. They commission a study to show that they care about the issue and then ignore the results. That's politics!
There is nothing interesting going on at my blog
They almost got it right:
'it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.'
There I was thinking it was the job of society (i.e. the people themselves) to decide what rights people should have, and the job of the government to put into place laws describing and safeguarding (and where appropriate, limiting) those rights.
Guess I'm just getting old.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
It's not the job of government to decide what rights people have, but to determine what rights they don't have, as by default, if freedom is the natural state of man, it is limitation of the rights of man that must be negotiated and/or dictated.
A drug company spends several hundred million to develop, test, and market a drug, and they get less than 20 years until generics can replace them. Milli Vanilli is supposed to get 95 years now? That's fair.
---
When you come to a fork in the road, take it! --Yogi Berra--
Rights aren't given to anyone by society, government or any corporations -- rights are inherent and they're only protected when we use them even in the face of those who wish to stop us.
Government can jail me, society can tell me to get lost, corporations can sue me -- but I will still use these hands and these ears and this voice as God gave them to me (yes, a religious slashdotter). No one can take them away, and no one can tell me what to do with them. I don't use them to hurt anyone. If I spend time making copies of something, it is my time I am wasting. I could use my hands to make a copy of a mechanical design that is patented -- it might take me thousands of hours, or I could just go and buy it. Some things are difficult to copy, so my time preference says it is better to buy it. I could make a copy of a CD -- it might take me 30 seconds, or I could just go buy it. Time preference works in my favor in this case.
I pay the plumber to fix the toilet -- his current action in front of me is worth my money. I pay the band to perform live for me -- their current action is worth my money. Recording their music on a CD is a great way for them to advertise their abilities to get me to come to their live show, but the CD is worthless. Supply and demand, people. The supply is near infinite (for the recorded music), so the price goes to zero. But the supply of the live band is limited, so the price goes up to meet demand.
'it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.'
I wholeheartedly support the things they're trying to achieve, but...I would be hard-pressed to find a statement that could be more fundamentally wrong than the above. It's that sort of thinking that's got us in the mess we're in.
The government, in no way whatsoever decides what rights people have. The function of legitimate government is no more or less than to recognize and to protect the rights people have*. The government doesn't grant rights, people have rights because they're people. The government, if anything, limits exercise of rights in the name of social order (don't read anything into this statement that isn't there - I'm not advocating anarchy, this is a legitimate function of government and necessary for society to function).
By ceding the power to government to decide what rights people have, we've opened the door for exactly the kind of abuse that now runs rampant. Government is controlled by money, and huge quantities of money are controlled by the pseudo-citizens we refer to as "corporations." Granting power to government is granting power to corporations.
It would be easy to say that the quote is just verbal shorthand, but I think there's a fundamental difference between the mindset "we have rights, and we delegate some authority to government" and the mindset "the government has authority, and delegates some rights to us" that is exhibited by such a statement.
*To demonstrate this to yourself, consider this: if government grants rights to people rather than people having rights and granting authority to government, then this means that there can be no such thing as a government abuse of rights. After all, if government can legitimately decide what your rights are, then you have no legitimate complaints about government trampling them. And I don't think you really need to look too far from home or too far in the past to find examples that, to me, pretty clearly indicate that the government can trample rights.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
What's a CD? Is that like a "record" that my great-great-grandma threw at my great-great-grandpa when she was drunk?
"It is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government."
It's not the government's job to decide our rights. We have rights, they are inalienable. It's the government's job to protect our rights. Protect our rights from corporations which would ignore or destroy them for a buck, or the power to make a buck. And we create our government to protect our rights. Our job is creating and perpetuating that government.
When the founders of the US specified the rights we have that the government would protect, they also made a compromise with the existing economy. The government would promote "the progress of science and useful arts" by granting temporary monopolies - exclusive rights - to authors and inventors of their writings and discoveries. This limitation on freedom of others to copy and use writings and inventions was necessary in the late 1700s, and for many years after. But as the centuries have progressed, those writings and inventions have changed the economy so that "the progress of science and useful arts" is better promoted by more copying, not less. Even if temporary monopolies like copyrights and patents are still necessary, they are necessary for much less time than before. Instead, those monopolies are now extended for much more time, totally unjustified by any necessity to "promote progress".
The original time set in the 1790s was 17 years, a human generation. The next generation that grew up with the writings and inventions could, by the time they became adults and likely started having their own children, use those writings and inventions freely. Writings and inventions passed into the folk art, the folk consciousness, the folk wisdom, the folk heritage, for everyone to use. By which time, most of the value, especially of the writings, was delivered not by the author, but by the audience, the consumers, the people using it and perpetuating it. And any honest author will tell you that the process of adoption of their writings by their people is the most powerful promotion of their useful art.
Maybe the Internet has changed things, along with the rest of communications, manufacturing and distribution tech over the past 200 years. If anything, the lifecycle of content is much shorter before it's "old", either folklore or just obsolete. Likewise with most inventions. The length of copyright and patent exclusion should be, if anything, shorter - maybe 8-10 years, maybe 2-5. Maybe different for different kinds of "writing", whether a news article or an opera. But certainly promotion of progress is much more hurt now by these monopolies.
We still have control over our governments. Except when we ignore that control, and corporations and other greedy monopolists move into the power vacuum. If we don't create governments to protect our rights, we're creating ones to destroy them.
--
make install -not war
Goddamnit, why does every discussion that involves the word 'rights' and a non-US country always have to devolve into an our-constitution-is-bigger-than-your- sucky-parliament-and-can-kick-its-head-in polarised slagging match? If this leads to UK government policy that bars corporations from imposing their DRM bullshit on the UK, then it's a good thing. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Can we wait and see before jumping down each other throats over who's form of government has the biggest swinging dick?
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
But IP isn't really a fundamental right, like property. It *is* different. The artifical legal creation of pseudo-property rights was done for a purpose, rather than based on any sort of inherent principle. IP is a form of social engineering. If we do away with that social engineering, we needs must do away with IP. The principles upon which property rights rest don't extend naturally to cover IP. Since the only IP rights that exist where created by government for the purpose of social engineering, then truely it is correct (in this instance) to say that it is the job of governemnt to determine what rights consumers vs producers vs middlemen have.
The US system and UK system are entirely different. In the UK, there is parliamentary sovereignty and no written constitution. There are no courts with the power to overrule any law passed by parliament (no uk version of the supreme court). There are no REAL powers to curb the parliament's will. The House of Lords is mostly symbolic and if it ever stood in parliament's way by making a serious nuisance of itself, parliament could legally abolish it or curb its power further (as they have done throughout the twentieth century). Technically, the crown is supposed to sign off on any legislation passed by parliament (royal ascent), yet they never challenge parliament because if they did, this would probably spell the death-knell of the monarchy. Royal-Ascent is a rubber-stamp. Thus, parliament is entirely sovereign. Any law they pass automatically becomes part of their ever-evolving and expanding constitution. Think of every single law as a constitutional amendment without requiring anyone's review or permission -- except that of the current parliament. They do not require a super-majority, just a simple majority will do. There is no written Bill of Rights. Tony Blair's government recently removed the right-to-remain silent without so much as a public debate and did so in a single afternoon with the stroke of a pen. The right-to-remain silent is now not a right and parliament was entirely within their own rights to do this.
In the Lockean philosophy of the United States constitution, and Declaration of Independence, Parliamentary Sovereignty is a crime and I agree with that view. This is why we fought to free ourselves from the authority of Britain. However, it is naive for people to make such bold assertions as, "It is NOT the role of the government to grant rights", when in fact, it IS the role of government (in the UK) to grant rights and take them away. It is important to accept this reality to better understand such things as why Britain has such high voter-turnout (wouldn't we have high voter turnout if the Pres was chosen by the House, the Senate was only symbolic, There was no Supreme Court and anything a new House passed was part of the constitution?), and important for understanding why there is a movement in Britain to pass a Bill of Rights, Create a codified Constitution, and other issues that pose sticky questions: "Parliament has been ceding its authority to the EU, what happens when the EU asserts its authority over Parliament and Parliament tries to take it's authority back?" Who is sovereign in that situation?. By actually trying to understand the realities of systems of government in other countries, some people might have a better appreciation for what we have in the United States. Here, it is not the role of government to determine our rights, in Britain it is. -- Dave
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Actually we do have a written Bill of Rights. We also have courts which are capable of overruling Parliament, as happened recently with control orders. There was also a recent instance, although I can't recall details, in which a court construed an Act as meaning the opposite of its plain reading. However, it's rare for legislation to be struck down except on the grounds of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act.
The British Phonographic Industry Association (Our RIAA) are lobbying for a disney-style extension of copyright, citing artists like Sir Cliff Richard who are about to have their early works go into the public domain (BBC story with details here)
Guess where our Prime Minister Tony Blair went for a free summer holiday? That's right, Cliff Richard's private island in Barbados (another BBC story)
Does anyone want to bet that sanity and common sense will triumph over bribery?
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
It's about time. The music industry has no problem changing formats. I can look back at my 45's, FP's, 8-tracks, cassettes, CD, minidisks, etc...... Why do I have to re-buy my music due to the industry changing formats? I can't disagree that I could maintain all my old equipment (8-tracks, cassettes), but why would I want to? Why should I have to? The movie industry is going down the same path... beta, VHS, laserdisk, dvd's, now HD-dvd's. 'bout time!
Anybody remember how Digital Media started out? It was all "create your own website, make your own music, shoot and edit your own films, bring your creative vision to life". Sort of like DTP applied to all things audiovisual, multimedia and creative. Where is industry taking us now? Pay $$$ for a DRM locked audioplayer, $$$$ for DRM locked HD viewing gear, then lots of $$s for each little chunk of hour long or two hour long formulaic audiovisual content. You can view but you cannot copy. You can view but you cannot modify. You can view but you cannot share. That explains, in my opinion, why the internet landscape is so impoverished of quality audiovisual content today that people hang around viewing junk like what's on Youtube in their millions. P2P has been killed with fear of lawsuits. Indy film/music/games crushed by billion dollar commercial content marketing. What's left, really, is an impoverished landscape of non-participatory, formulaic view-but-don't touch content that is basically just there to pull another two 10 dollar bills out of your pocket.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Furthermore, this was an "Act of Parliament". Under parliamentary sovereignty no previous act of parliament can trump a future act of parliament. This can be overturned by another Act of Parliament until the British establish a Bill of Rights of the people which limits Parliament's sovereignty and binds all future parliament's to its provisions.
:-)). This is not to decry the magnificence of the US Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Merely to say that a written constitution has certain advantages, and certain disadvantages, and that a constitution in itself is no guarantor of liberty.
Actually, that's not quite correct. The courts (which are independent of the executive. Well, as independent as any judiciary can be) have long held that there are "ordinary statutes" and "constitutional statutes". And only a new constitutional statute can overturn an existing one. In other words, things like the Human Rights Act, the Representation fo the Peoples Act and the Bill of Rights (along with the Acts of Union, Settlement, etc, etc) must be purposefully overturned. You cannot just stick a rider onto a Fisheries Bill abolishing the right of appeal, or fling in a statutory instrument asserting the right of the executive to have detention without trial. It must be specifically brought forth and voted in by Parliament (all of Parliament, not just the House of Commons).
Afterall, the right to remain silent was sustained for 300 years based on tradition and self-restraint, yet Blair's government tossed both out the window and now that long-held right that was taken for granted is now gone.
Actually, that was the last Conservative government, with Home Secretary Michael Howard introducing the legislation.
In the end, the strength of the US Constitution is only as great as those charged with its defence, and the desire of the US population to see its strictures adhered to. It didn't stop the abomination of slavery - although its power was shown when that institution was finally abolished via constitutional amendment. Similarly, the desire of the US population to refrain from state torture seems to be somewhat ambivalent right now (And we can probably thank "24" for that...
At the moment, liberty is taking a bit of a pounding either side of the Atlantic. But it will reassert itself, and when it does, the centuries of British conventions, traditions and personal desire for liberty will prove just as powerful a force as the US's instruments of state. The British method of government and preservation of liberty isn't as capricious or fragile as one might think from your posting.
--Ng
Well...
1) In the UK, there is parliamentary sovereignty and no written constitution
There is no *single* written constitution, but there is Magna Carta (1215), the Bill of rights (1689), the act of settlement (1701), and the Parliament acts (1911, 1949). These collectively form the constitution of the United Kingdom.
As for parliamentary sovereignty, that was effectively removed when the UK joined the EU - the European courts can trump UK law, and people do take cases there. Even without that step, there are cases where UK courts have ordered an act of parliament to be changed, and it has happened.
2) There are no courts with the power to overrule any law passed by parliament (no uk version of the supreme court).
Oh yes there is although they're still readying the building...
3) There are no REAL powers to curb the parliament's will. The House of Lords is mostly symbolic...
To abuse Pauli: "that's not even wrong". The House of Lords has been a critical part of UK parliamentary infrastructure. It has sent bill after bill back to the government for adjustment, and ironically enough is *far* more protective of the "common man" than the government of the day (whichever party is in power). As an overseer of an elected government body, they could do no better.
Of course, the House of Commons can ram legislation through if the Lords reject a bill 3 times, but this causes an immense, very public row. The Lords will quite happily eloquently state their case, or write op-ed pieces for the media saying why they rejected XXX, and since they're usually for very good reasons, politicians have to squirm on live TV interviews; they don't like that, which is why it happens rarely - usually a compromise is struck, or the Lords get their way. For an organisation with seemingly no power, they have a huge impact on UK law.
4) Royal assent (it's "assent" by the way, she's not climbing anywhere)
I'll just point out that just like life-insurance, past-performance is no guarantee of future success - just because royal-assent is only very rarely refused (the last time was 1708), it is still a requirement for any law. It is still a final check-and-balance within the judicial system. It is still very much *not* a rubber-stamp. Reserve powers like these *are* important during times of crisis, eg: the hung parliament example in the link.
If I go on like this, the reply will be miles long. Shortening things a little bit:
5) There is no written Bill of Rights
Yes there is. See above.
6) Tony Blair's government recently removed the right-to-remain silent without so much as a public debate
Apart from the massive public outcry, the weeks of TV coverage, and the end result being that in fact {you can remain silent, but the court is now told that you did} being the result of it all, you mean ?
Most of what you have written in the first paragraph (I'm not going to bother with the second, this reply is long enough, and it seems to be mainly based on the assumptions in the first paragraph anyway) is wrong and/or you've misunderstood the facts. That's not too surprising I guess - it certainly would be a lot easier if everything was collected in one place, and FWIW I'd like a constitution that placed limits on the UK government, but you can't use the above arguments to get there...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!