Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Plans To Give 'Greater Freedom To Use Copyright Works'
crimperman writes "The U.K. government is planning to change their copyright laws to give 'greater freedom' on usage. The Dept. for Business Innovation and Skills say the new measures 'include provisions to allow copying of works for personal use parody and for the purposes of quotation.' (There is currently no 'fair use' law in the U.K.) They also say the provisions 'allow people to use copyright works for a variety of ... purposes without permission from the copyright owners,' and 'bring up to date the provisions for education use.' A sensible copyright law from the U.K.? What are the chances of this getting through?"
Once again, western countries are playing catch-up to China.
It's like they had to balance out the stupid lame, half-baked porn filter law they just announced with something that actually made a bit of sense. Although knowing our government as I do, I'll wait until I've seen the small print, before I assume that the headlines are actually in tune with the reality of the proposals.
Oh no... it's the future.
First, they want to change laws that make basically everybody in the UK a criminal. It seems that when you buy a CD, ripping it onto your Mac makes you a criminal, downloading it onto your iPod makes you a criminal again. Same when you download music from Amazon and put that onto your iPod (or your Android phone, doesn't make a difference). Clearly if everyone went to jail who did that, then the only ones left outside would be half a dozen pensioners. (On the other hand, if all those criminals who happen to be judges were taken to court first, then the whole thing wouldn't work).
The other thing that the government wants is to make it easier for businesses to use other people's work. Like take the works of some professional photographer, remove all the metadata, and then voila! you can't find out anymore who created it, so businesses are now free to use it.
Can we get some links from the Daily Mail please? As a UK citizen I don't think there's enough reactionary nonsense from the Daily Fail posted on slashdot as journalistic fact!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2251617/Video-mash-ups-song-parodies-legalised-just-long-funny.html
I'm sure some editors will be able to spin this as proof that the UK is somehow living in a mish-mash between 1984 and Mad Max.
On a more serious note, I'm amazed that our government would do something so sensible (especially in denying the "storage tax") merely 15 years too late, and since our governments of the last decade appear to be living out of the back pockets of the financial and entertainment industries, I'm wondering what other copyright reforms will be riding on the back of this. Call my cynical (or maybe reading too much sensationalist nonsense), but whenever I've seen a move for the better regarding copyright in the other first-world countries, it's always come with a whole shedload of "...just one more thing!" provisos, such as blank media taxes and three-strikes rules. Perhaps those will come up in the next few days and be buried over christmas...
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
There is, it's called "fair dealing".
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Without fair use provisions until now?
I do not understand how society could even function if you cannot at least quote with citations someone else without breaking the law.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm sure they will do a complete U-Turn on this shortly.
Long live the Parodies!
Of course they'll probably pull the Canadian trick of making cracking-DRM to do it a criminal offense.
To answer the questions "A sensible copyright law from the U.K.? What are the chances of this getting through?" I have a snowball that has better chance in hell of surviving than this happening.
...will be in the bill? Politicians have a habit of rolling lots of things into one in bills, and you can only get all or nothing.
One thing I have never understood is how that works in the US system. There's normally plenty of time in the UK to take amendments on a Bill before you get to the take it or leave it stage.
If they are like all other politicians, they will copy the new Canadian law:
You can copy all you want for private use if not copy protected.
It a right that nobody can exercise.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
...will be in the bill? Politicians have a habit of rolling lots of things into one in bills, and you can only get all or nothing.
One thing I have never understood is how that works in the US system. There's normally plenty of time in the UK to take amendments on a Bill before you get to the take it or leave it stage.
The "US system" is purposefully designed to be a pain in the ass. "Checks and Balances," "Separation of Powers," etc. are supposed to make governing a complex dance between the Executive and Legislative. Since Congressman are much more independent of their leaders in the US then the UK it's 539 people are on the dance floor, and a 540th (the Vice President) has to come in whenever there's a tie in the Senate. That means a lot of what Americans call "the ordinary operations of the United States Government," are what any sane person would call "gaming the system" in frequently futile attempts to get things done.
For the specific example you mention Omnibus bills are great because they force Congress to actually do shit, rather then simply find ways to put things off until the next election. Everyone assumes that the Other Side will get wiped at the next election, and for 99.9% of issues the Executive really can BS a solution for a year or two. But that 0.1% HAS to be done this year, and if it's in the same bill with a lot of the crap that could be put off...
This kind of thing does not happen in Westminster systems because the guy in charge stops being in charge when most of Parliament votes against him. He's got every incentive to get everything done today, while he still has the Confidence of Parliament. The people with a reason to delay (the Opposition, members of his party who think they'll get a minutely better deal next year, etc.) do not have the power to actually stop him, or he wouldn't be Prime Minster anymore. Omnibus bills don't help him, risk angering his fellow MPs, and don't look good during Question Time.
BTW, the recent rise of the Filibuster, it's possible castration via the Constitutional Option, and the entire "Fiscal Cliff" debate show exactly how intricate the US Government is, and how incredibly stupid it can get when someone figures out a new way to gum up the works.
Thanks for taking the trouble to reply in detail; it also answers the original question better than I could.