Slashdot Mirror
UK Report Suggests Tougher Copyright Laws
danpsmith writes "The BBC has an article about a government report which proposes new powers against copyright infringement. Interestingly, however, it also: "says private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player" and further "recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended," saying, "The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators." While satisfied with most of the report, The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says, "it would continue to press for the copyright extension.""
The summary didn't cover the part where intentional copyright infringement can land you in jail for up to ten years. Yes, the DMCA sucks and is overly draconian, but I'd rather violate that within my home than endg up in the slammer for having accidentally including a snippet of something copyrighted in something I upped to Youtube.
Best of both worlds would be nice, though.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
It's still illegal in New Zealand..
(and the local recording industry is fighting hard against a suggested law change)
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
> The summary didn't cover the part where intentional copyright infringement can land you in jail for up to ten years. Yes, the DMCA
> sucks and is overly draconian, but I'd rather violate that within my home than endg up in the slammer for having accidentally
> including a snippet of something copyrighted in something I upped to Youtube.
Where did that come from?
From TFA:
"It calls for penalties against people who sell pirate versions of music and films on the internet to be brought in line with those who make hard copies. Currently, the former face two years and the latter 10."
Very well said. Further extensions of copyright, with the way copyright works these days, is tantamount to stealing music from future generations. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to continue creating more works, then the last thing we should do is allow them to rest on their laurels! The length of the copyright term is actually a disincentive to artists to make new works. It also hinders artists in the future from building on top of those works.
By the way, unbreakable DRM really is impossible: it's not even possible to make the problem mathematically infeasible. There is always a way around it provided you have control of all the hardware and software used to play back the protected media. As Bruce Schneier famously put it, making bits on a general-purpose computer uncopyable is like making water not wet. The only way to make DRM work absolutely would be to make true general-purpose computers illegal, or make it illegal to interface protected media to a general-purpose computer. As long as there is no law preventing people from circumventing DRM, someone will do it.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
Under current UK law, such format-shifting is actually illegal. The report notes that this is an anomaly. The BPI won't be suprised, it was something Peter Jamieson had already agreed with a while ago (maybe he had a sneak preview)
With the current situation in Britain and our Fifty Or So Strikes approach to law enforcement it's more likely to be an ASBO preventing offenders from "committing anymore piracy, please".
Right, because of course the number of criminal prosecutions brought in this country (which doesn't include issuing ASBOs, which are a civil matter) hasn't increased from 1.3 million in 2003-2004 to 1.5 million in 2005-2006, over a timescale during which the number of reported crimes actually fell.
The notion that Britain is getting "soft on crime" is perpetuated by tabloid journalism, but the figures don't hold it up.
Absolute worst case scenario is probably "10 years" becoming 1 year, out in 6 months on good behaviour.
Few crimes have had their maximum sentences reduced in the recent past; in fact, the current government seems bent on increasing maximum sentences wherever possible, e.g. for unlawful sex with a child between 13 and 16, where it has been extended from 2 years to 14, or posession of an offensive weapon (2 years to 4), etc.
Britain has (and has had for a long time now) a very successful system where people imprisoned are usually permitted out of prison for the second half of their sentence, but if they reoffend during it, the second half is automatically added on to their next sentence. What you refer to as "out in 6 months on good behaviour" is actually an extremely good system for deterring reoffending that has shown good results.
Or they could always get out whenever they please if they invoke the Human Rights Act and point out that being imprisoned violates their basic human right to "do whatever the fuck they want".
Funnily enough, that isn't a right enumerated by the Human Rights Act. The rights are:
* The right to life
* The right not to be tortured
* The rigth not to be enslaved
* The right to a fair trial
* The right not to be punished without law
* The right to respect for private life (e.g. no unwarranted searches, tapping of communications, etc. except where necessary for law and order)
* The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
* The right to freedom of speech
* The right to freedom of assembly and association
* The right to marry
* The right to remedy for violation of rights
* The right not to be discriminated against in application of rights
* The right to hold property
* The right not to be executed for a criminal offence
Tell me which of these rights you object to? Unfortunately, I can't discriminate in how I feel the rights should be applied, so I can't suggest that you should live without it, but still...