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."

Comments

Starts good end bad.

[aepervius]

Starts good end bad. The pessimist in me is that due to "compromise" with "industry leader" a tad tiny bit of fair use will be added, but in addition heavy fine , prison stay will be added for copyright infrigement, and maybe even copyright lengthened a bit.

ACTA Sweetner Anyone

[GumphMaster]

ACTA Sweetner(TM) guaranteed no calories and no teeth.

Cameron says, "So I can announce today that we are reviewing our IP laws, to see if we can make them fit for the internet age." However, he fails to mention that they are already "reviewing" the UK copyright laws under the veil of ACTA and in secret. This is just a bit of fluff to remove some heat from what is already a done deal.

Re:Great

[transfatfree]

kudos to the first country to adapt a voluntary collective licensing system as a tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Collective_Licensing

20 bucks a year per capita = no more damn bs

Re:Great

[dadioflex]

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.

Um, unless you want to live as a hunter-gatherer, you kinda need business. Now, BIG BUSINESS, ie the multi-national corporations, need curtailing. Those guys are unscrupulous.
In Victorian England it was the mill-owners that opened the schools and hospitals and provided cheap housing for their workers, because it was ultimately beneficial to the business. Similarly, loosening the noose on copyright isn't so much to help the man in the street, it's to help the entrepreneur in the street make money, any benefit to the hobbyist is just trickle-down. But it's all good.

Only in Israel, maybe

[Mathinker]

After a little research, it seems to me that Israel is the first (and only) nation in the world where "fair use" is possibly a "right" (see the section titled ' New User "Rights" ').

This is since Sept. 2009. My impression is that the decision has been appealed but hasn't been heard yet. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's administration wouldn't have a few (unofficial) things to say to the Israeli government when the appeal comes up in the Israeli courts.

Re:Great

[Shakrai]

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.

I don't think you can claim it has no effect on pricing. Cannabis does not cost anywhere near $60 per 1/8 oz to produce and transport but that seems to be the going rate around these parts. The cost of hiding from law enforcement and dealing with police raids/theft/etc is included in the current street price. If cannabis was legalized tomorrow prices would drop by a non-zero amount. At least until the Government got it's dirty paws in the game and started taxing it :)

The fact is that we want laws to protect property and business models.

Agreed that we need laws to protect property rights, but not business models. The marriage between big business and government is destructive to society and hinders economic growth by propping up failed business models that would otherwise be swept away in the creative destruction of capitalism.