Slashdot Mirror
UK Reviewing Copyright Laws
Uebergeek writes "It looks like the UK is going to be reviewing its copyright laws. Prime Minister David Cameron specifically cites the US's Fair Use doctrine as something they wish to incorporate into their own laws... apparently they wish to 'encourage the sort of creative innovation that occurs in America.' One can only assume that they've been missing the continual assault on the Fair Use doctrine here in the States."
Well, I guess that they might see the value in the law as written, even if that doesn't tend to be how the law plays out.
Copy Canadian laws instead of American ones.
While I wholeheartedly welcome the opportunity to improve some of the frankly stupid laws floating around at the moment, the pessimist in me wonders how this will be twisted by lobbying into some ridiculous new round of laws. I'm going to wait six months before I celebrate this.
Windows in 6 Bytes (IA-32) : 90 90 90 90 CD 19
Don't hold your breath. He's a Conservative. Note that everything he said was to make things better for business. It's unlikely to end up a positive thing for the people.
Being better for business isn't necessarily the opposite of being better for the people.
Being better for an outmoded and artificially supported business model certainly is bad for the people, mind you.
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
While we desperately need some sanity injected into the system after the Digital Britain Bill, I suspect this is going to really favour big-media's use of our copyrighted work.
"He said the law could be relaxed to allow greater use of copyright material without the owner's permission."
There must be plenty of companies drooling at the idea of smash and grab raids on flickr accounts and GPL'd software.
Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?
Why would Cameron, a deeply conservative aristocrat, care one bit about what the riff-raff can do with his supporter's "intellectual property"? The British have caught the plague that began on my side of the Atlantic: kleptocrats compose a huge part of government, and they've been on a crusade against egalitarianism since the 1980s. Everything done by conservatives in power is aimed at enriching the already rich and reducing everyone else to desperate peasants. They yearn for a return to the Gilded Age or worse. If a conservative creates policy that benefits the people at large, he's done it by accident. Academic rationales and appeals to the public, however erudite or reasonable they might appear, are just meaningless words put together by consultants who specialize in creating talking points that promote a particular narrative among a particular audience. These statements are tools with a particular purpose, not sincere attempts to explain the genesis of an action and demonstrate its worth.
Knowing this, you must consider every action taken by a conservative through the lens of their ultimate goal. If Cameron says he wants to revise copyright law to foster creativity, don't take him at his word. Ask yourself, "In what way will these modifications enrich powerful backers? What loopholes exist? What narrative is the government trying to push? What does it prepare the population to accept? How can the change under consideration be used to hurt the opposition? Where are the lies? Where is the selective truth?"
Finally, consider the most important question of all: "Will the net effect of this action be to enrich the wealthy?" The answer will invariably be "yes".
But based on everything I've read online, including here on slashdot, US copyright law is the most absurd in the world. As far as I can see there is basically no fair use if you live within the United States of America. Even if US law allows it I would hazard to guess that many people are unwilling and reluctant to apply "fair use". The litigious nature of your corporations and government almost ensure that most sane persons will err on the side of caution, and maybe not publish anything at all in fear of being sued. How the fuck does fear encourage innovation?
Fair dealing isn't really similar. It's limited to a very specific set of situations that mean that most people are not able to take advantage of it. As an example, parody is not considered fair dealing.
It's unlikely to end up a positive thing for the people.
Indeed. If you read down this a bit you'll notice that they also want US style software patents. Idiots.
I think the main problem though is big corporations vs small startups rather than business vs the people. We need the small startups to create the jobs that will get us out of the recession and I hope he realises that.
Enshrining it as a right kind of suggests that the copyright holder has more of a right to the content than they actually have. In fact, the copyright holder is granted a temporary monopoly, not because of any intrinsic "rights" (he doesn't have any to the content), but to benefit society. So, you don't need fair use as a "right", you already have all the rights anyway. Fair use is an exemption to a temporary monopoly.
The Lib Dems manifesto included a number of things diametrically opposed to the Tories - e.g. tuition fees in universities. Don't expect much help from their quarter.
.. is theft of culture.
Name one "business model" that isn't artificially supported by laws?
Drugs?
You'll note that even the biggest busts, e.g. the seizure of 30 tons of cannabis last week in San Diego, seem to have no effect whatsoever on either supply or pricing.
You'll also note that organized crime and violence go hand-in-hand because criminal groups have no other means other than loose, mafia-style collusion to resolve disputes.
The fact is that we want laws to protect property and business models. If you disagree, I suggest moving your business operations to Mogadishu.
The reasons you can name them off the top of your head, and I also know them off the top of mine, is that they were the exceptions. Considering the vast numbers of mills and factories in Victorian England, those exceptions are few indeed.