UK Copyright Extension in Exchange for Censorship?

Awel writes "The UK opposition leader, David Cameron, says in a speech to the British Phonographic Industry that his party would work to extend the copyright term to 70 years and crack down on piracy. But in return, labels would have to agree to bear more 'social responsibility', which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'. He doesn't spell out how this would be achieved in practice. This follows the publication in December of a UK government report recommending that the standard copyright term in Europe remain at 50 years (and not be raised to 70 or 95 years)."

Comments

Re:Historic precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

The industry isn't seeking this--it's the government.

Er, no, the government isn't seeking this. The Conservative Party is seeking this. The Conservatives aren't in power, Labour are.

Re:Historic precedent

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

It is not the government, it's the party that wants to be in government but isn't.
The conservatives have always been big businesses bitches and this simply reiterates it.
This is why any self respecting geek should avoid voting conservative (think of them as the republicans, only slightly less insane).. hell, it's pretty hard to tell the conservatives and labour apart nowadays. Lib Dems or the Greens are probably the best parties if you want a slightly (ever so slightly, lets face facts pretty much all parties suck) better government.

Re:Historic precedent

[LarsG]

So what you're really saying is, "Government is returning to its roots"

No, it is copyright returning to its roots. Early copyright has its root in government control of the printing presses.

Re:Historic precedent

[teh_chrizzle]

So what you're really saying is, "Government is returning to its roots" and that is correct.

government censorship and copyright go hand in hand.

copyright originally started as a government sponsored censorship program as the excerpt from this article states:

The first copyright law was a 1556 censorship statute in England. It granted the Company of Stationers, a London guild, exclusive rights to own and run printing presses. Company members registered books under their own name, not the author's name, and these registrations could be transferred or sold only to other Company members. In exchange for their government-granted monopoly on the book trade, the Stationers aided the government's censors, by controlling what was printed, and by searching out illegal presses and books -- they even had the right to burn unauthorized books and destroy presses. They were, in effect, a private, for-profit information police force.

so, in the UK, the government granting copyright terms in order to censor the works is a return to the roots of copyright.

Re:Nanny state

[Ngwenya]

I bet the chance of having a car accident after drinking just one pint is hundreds of times higher than the chance of you getting cancer from someone smoking near you?

Well, the effects of most car accidents are usually not fatal - in fact, most accidents don't involve injury. The effects of lung cancer and heart disease are a damn sight more serious than a smashed headlight.

But if we limit it to fatalities, the overall number of car accident fatalities in the UK in 2006 was 2920 (DoT statistics). The Gloag report in the BMJ estimated that 25% of those fatalities were attributable to alcohol - about 730, but the majority of those involved excess alcohol (2 pints or more). Lets estimate a low majority (55%) - 402. So I'm estimating that we could save 328 deaths a year by banning alcohol except in the home. But this also assumes that no-one drinking at home gets behind the wheel of a car. And this is also assuming that everyone who gets killed is an innocent victim and not the drunk driver. I reckon the figure of lives saveable is probably around 80 a year (50% fewer from lower drink driving, and 50% lower than that because it's not the drunk driver topping himself)

The number of deaths attributable to second hand smoke in the workplace was 517 (Jamroznik, published in the BMJ). That's excluding those who also are exposed to smoke at home. So by banning smoking in public places, we can save the vast majority of those people - about 500 a year.

So I think you'd lose that bet. You're more likely to catch disease from a smoker than get twatted by someone who's drunk a pint of beer and got behind the wheel of a car. Anyway - it doesn't really follow. Alcohol consumption does not render the environment inherently more toxic (it renders it more dangerous in concert with other activities); pumping toxins and carcinogens into the local atmosphere in a poorly ventilated area is obviously more directly dangerous to a persons local environment.

--Ng