UK Citizens May Soon Need License To Photograph Stuff They Already Own (arstechnica.com)

The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

...but without any of the freedom that came with lack of surveillance technology. Conservative policy since Thatcher has been solidly about contracting out as much of the apparatus of State, including the laws themselves, for the benefit of business-friends.

The best thing to do is laugh at the 1/6 or so of the population stupid enough to have voted in this government, and encourage the rest of the population to vote them out again.

Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by prefec2 · 2015-12-12 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

The strangest thing about the UK is that only 30% voted for the Tories, but the they got over 50% of the seats. How is this in any way fair and democratic? Sadly, the UK converts back to a feudal society. I loved to stay in the UK every now and then, but if this development continuous it will be Manchester all over again.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:23 · Score: 0

The best thing to do is laugh at the 1/6 or so of the population stupid enough to have voted in this government
No, the best thing to do is quietly dump the writers of the legislation into the Thames. Before they do something else horrible to you.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2015-12-12 06:32 · Score: 1

I believe that it should be illegal for people to take pictures of themselves. These so-called "selfies" are obviously a form of soliciting themselves for immoral purposes.
And it is a mortal threat to the Empire.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:44 · Score: 0, Insightful

If 70% decide not to vote, that is democracy in action. Same happens in the U.S. There was a recently elected politician that said the people had spoken in the recent election, but the voter turnout was only 18%. Non-presidential years in the States have low turnout unfortunately.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by monkeyxpress · 2015-12-12 06:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

That is by design of the First Past the Post electoral system though. I agree that it does sound pretty dumb on the face of it, but it's arguable as to whether the alternatives are that much better. You could have direct democracy, where each bill is put to referendum. This would even be practical with modern technology. But are members of the voting public really going to put effort into understanding the intricacies of complex or niche bills so as to ensure the best outcome for society at large? Maybe, but then you could see many ways this process would just allow big money to hijack the democratic process even more efficiently. It could also lead to a situation where everyone vote for their own self interest, which may create lots of tragedy of the commons like situation.
A more intermediate option is to move to a proportional representation system, such as MMP. The problem this has is that it is possible (and even likely in a partisan environment) for a fringe party to appear and prevent either main party from reaching a majority. This party then holds the balance of power, which can make it impossible for an effective government to form.
Indeed the main argument for FPP is that it allows effective governments to form, and that having an effective government is better than having a proportional one that can't do anything. One of those is good at preserving the status quo, while the other is better at getting things done. I guess which you think is better depends on how bad you think things are now, and whether you have any faith in politician's abilities to improve things.
I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by prefec2 · 2015-12-12 07:01 · Score: 4, Informative

On the continent many countries use proportional representation based on lists of candidates. And usually parties must form coalitions to govern. This is not necessarily a problem as long as political parties are able to compromise. It even allows to make the process of democratic consensus more transparent. For example, in Germany the conservative party is in a coalition with the social democrats and they worked out a treaty for this coalition which is a compromise between both party programs. In addition Germany has direct candidates. So the first all winners of a direct seat go to parliament and then they check if this fits the proportional representation scheme. And if it does not the under represented parties can seat additional politicians from their list.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by driblio · 2015-12-12 07:19 · Score: 2

Generally true, but

I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.
The upper house is bizarre, and needs reform, but they proved their worth in one swoop and defended democracy when they blocked the tax credits bill.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/29/manifesto-promise-broken-general-election-david-cameron-child-tax-credits
The monarchy has little to no influence in politics- it's only there for tourism.
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by bill_mcgonigle · 2015-12-12 07:31 · Score: 1

Approval Voting is the method that's almost always Condorcet-complete yet most people can still understand. It's nearly impossible to imagine how those in power because of FPP would ever allow more fair methods to come into place.
Which is really just a clue that fancied-up mob-rule systems like "democracy" ought to be abandoned for more morally-acceptable alternatives.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 07:50 · Score: 0

70% didnt decide to vote , They got 30% of those who DID vote, I think the total votes was something like 60% of those entitled to vote but the conservatives have been guilty of making it harder to register to vote.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by sjames · 2015-12-12 07:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

That doesn't explain why OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED, 30% voted Tory but 50% of the seats went to the Tories.
That is explained by gerrymandering.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by monkeyxpress · 2015-12-12 08:09 · Score: 2

Yes, it does seem to work well for Germany, though note that the reason they have a proportional system is precisely so that no single party could easily gain total power as in the weimer republic days. It is by design a less 'effective' form of government. My main problem with MMP, from my experiences with it in New Zealand, is that it causes parties to become extremely populist. What I mean by this is that the political discourse gets obsessed with media driven trivial issues (like the current flag debate). Of course you could argue this happens in the UK as well, but actually the govt has some leeway to ignore these things because in the end it is the constituent vote, and hence local issues of local importance, that mostly win elections, rather than winning the popular vote by having a PM with a good smile.
With a two house parliament the UK could potentially mitigate the faults of each system by having a proportional upper 'check' house and retain FPP for the lower house. It would force a government to compromise on its general direction in line with the popular vote, while still being able to pursue a cohesive plan.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Hognoxious · 2015-12-12 08:09 · Score: 4, Informative

One, it was closer to 40% than 30%.
Two, boundary changes are decided by a neutral, independent body.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Hognoxious · 2015-12-12 08:11 · Score: 1

One of those countries is Italy, and another is Belgium.
They're both crap.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Jack+Griffin · 2015-12-12 08:24 · Score: 1

Democracy is an interesting beast. It has so many imperfections, but as soon as you try and improve it, you just make it worse.
We've all experienced the flaw of FPP when a minor party can get double digits in the overall vote, but not win a seat in parliament. And I've experienced MMP where the fringes held the balance of power for decades and just ground the system to a halt
I've also seen in smaller local governments where it all inclusive, everyone gets a say, but nothing gets done. The best you can hope for is a strong, independent and critical media, because it is they who keep the politics in check. Right now I think this is where we are going wrong.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by rjforster · 2015-12-12 08:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Three. We had a referendum about an alternative voting system in 2011. The existing system was kept. Deal with it.
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:00 · Score: 0

Not quite as bad as North Korea yet, but they'll get there.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by jonwil · 2015-12-12 09:38 · Score: 1

Australia seems to get it right. We have a preferential voting system and 2 houses of parliament. The last few elections have resulted in minor parties (not necessarily fringe) holding the balance of power and requiring negotiations to get legislation through.
Means the government can't do whatever the hell it likes and has to negotiate to get anything through. And so far in the current term of government there have been over 300 bills passed (so you cant argue that the Australian system means nothing gets done)
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by prefec2 · 2015-12-12 09:55 · Score: 1

Yes Belgium has some issues. For example, they actually do not want to part of Belgium. It would be best they had a referendum and become part of France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Italy is a totally different thing. Their main problem is the weak law system. Look at Berlusconi, he cheated and got away using many different tricks. And they have a problem with compromise. However, it got better in the last couple of years. And it most likely will become better in future.
They should also give more autonomy to their regions. Europe is in fact an place where many different ethnicities live together. And many nations are arbitrarily combined. For example Spain, Portugal was once part of it for similar reasons Catalonia is a part of Spain. There is also tension in how to balance central and regional power.
However, there are also positive examples of a representative proportion parliaments: Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Finland.
In the UK the primary idea is that the government makes the laws and the parliament has to support them. In Scandinavia the parliament is the main source of law and the government can only propose laws and has often to convince the parliament to say yes. This is especially true when they have a minority government.
In Germany this is a little different, as the parliament elects the chancellor which is usually only done if you have a stable coalition to back that vote. And in addition to prevent fragmentation of the parliament they have an entrance criteria for a party to the parliament which requires 5% of the votes.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:58 · Score: 0

FPP leads to corrupt politicians and journalists that everyone hates, but only for a while. Then we get Donald Trump. So it's probably for the best.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 10:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Triviality is used to distract the populace from voting on real issues. This is just as much of a problem (actually even more so) for FPP systems. The big parties want more power that may not be beneficial to the public as a whole, so they create media circuses around trivial issues. Now the populace is voting based on this disproportionate media coverage for issues that do nothing for anyone (except pander to the bigotry and fear of the average voter).
A government that is prevented from enacting unreasonable and unjust laws (because the incumbent powers that be can't force their own policy through) is definitely not worse than one that can't seem to vote any changes to the law at all.
A slow acting government is a good government. Nothing ever comes from knee jerk legislation.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Hognoxious · 2015-12-12 10:13 · Score: 1

a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.

Complete nonsense.
Will you be voting for Trump, or Clinton?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by zkiwi34 · 2015-12-12 10:59 · Score: 1

You might have hit on a problem if Labour had got a higher count of the popular vote than the Tories. That however didn't happen. Look it up.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by monkeyxpress · 2015-12-12 11:13 · Score: 2

It depends how you define monarchy. The House of Windsor is a tourist attraction, but they merely represent the more visible parts of a deeply entrenched feudalistic tradition that continues to permeates UK society. The House of Lords is just one example of this. The fact that some guy called the Duke of Westminster owns large parts of central London is another. The special privileges of the City of London is another. I mean, most people have no idea that Winston Churchill was the son of the incredibly wealthy Duke of Marlborough, and was always going to have doors opened for him into the realms of power, and that this sort of thing still continues with the whole Boris-Cameron-Osborne crowd.
None of this is an orchestrated conspiracy though. It is just what you would expect when you never started from scratch (like USA, Australia etc), or had a big clearing out of your ruling class and its institutions (e.g. France, Russia). I just think many British people are so used to these sorts of things that they don't realise that it is not normal that someone from the North without a posh accent grows up believing they can never be prime minister because they weren't born into the right family. In New Zealand/Australia, people genuinely don't have this belief (though it is starting to happen now). Sure they grow out of this ignorance (life is not fair there either) but at least they see it as an injustice, rather than just accepting it as their 'lot in life'.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 11:44 · Score: 0

It's similar in Canada. In the recent election the Liberals got less than 50% percent of the vote but over 50% of the seats. In the election before that it was the reverse. Conservatives got less than 50% of the vote but over 50% of the seats.
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 12:21 · Score: 0

Copyright on a chair? Um, photo of chair != copy of chair
Next they'll charge a public display fee because people visited my house and saw the chair. May as well sell the chair with "in app purchases" so my visitors can pay for their fair use
What if I take a photo of the chair with a painting resting on it. Who gets the royalties for that?
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by jrumney · 2015-12-12 13:30 · Score: 1

The last few elections have resulted in minor parties (not necessarily fringe) holding the balance of power and requiring negotiations to get legislation through.
This only really works if the minor parties are more centrist than the major parties. But in general it tends to be the other way around, so the major party has to make their policies more extreme to get the votes of the far-right or far-left coalition partners.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by CanadianMacFan · 2015-12-12 14:30 · Score: 2

It works so well that Australia has had something like four Prime Ministers in the last five years. Plus I wouldn't count the number of bills passed as how well the government is working. Why does the government need to be passing so many bills? When you are passing that many the members don't have a change to properly investigate and debate them before voting. (I know I'm being optimistic but I do think that's their job.) By pushing through so many pieces of legislation the government becomes less accountable for bills that filter out websites, erode ecological protections, and take away personal freedoms.
One of the problems we've had in Canada was not the number of bills but the previous Conservative government using omnibus bills for the budget which packed in everything they wanted to get passed. In one of them they put in a Copyright extension to 70 years for certain recordings.
The government shouldn't be passing a ton of bills. There should be a smaller number of well-crafted, single issue bills that get debated and voted on based on what is needed (not in a knee-jerk reaction).
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by dryeo · 2015-12-12 15:15 · Score: 2

I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.
That bizarre upper house, when it had more power, used to stop the stupid things that democracies often do like this copyright act. Look at the history of copyright. Back at the beginning of the 18th century when Parliament decided on copyright, the House of Commons got tricked by the publishers (stationers) argument that it was "for the artists" and almost gave indefinitely long copyright. The House of Lords put the brakes on this and argued that copyright should be for a limited time and then works should go into the public domain. The end result was a copyright law that was limited to 14+14 years (with a grandfather clause of 21 years), copies went to the libraries at Oxford and Cambridge and the actual title include the fact that copyright was for the encouragement of learning. The Americans version of copyright was almost identical to this.
When works started to come out of copyright in 1731, the stationers argued that copyright was a natural right in common law and they should be able to keep it forever (sound familiar?) and once again the House of Lords, in their capacity as the Supreme Court, stopped that by ruling that copyright is not a natural right and only exists at the pleasure of Parliament (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ).
Copyright is just one example of how democracy can work against the common interests of the people and having a non-elected balancing house can be a good thing. Likewise with the Queen currently. She is the ultimate check on Parliament completely ignoring the will of the people. Ultimately she has veto power, can dissolve the Government forcing an election for a new Parliament and even the Armed forces are responsible to her. She also serves as a respected non-partisan adviser to the government. Note that she can only use her powers in extreme situations as without the agreement of the people and future Parliaments, she can and will be fired.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 16:29 · Score: 0

Dump the current Upper House and replace their function with tech-enabled bill referendums. Same rules apply to this new Upper House as the old.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 16:31 · Score: 0

"Conservative" in the United Kingdom means returning to the rule of the Crown. "Conservative" in the United States means returning to the principles upon which the US was founded ie freedom from tyranny.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 17:52 · Score: 0

I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.
180 degrees wrong. The problem is that New Labour "reformed" the House of Lords in much the same way as the Democrats "reformed" Healthcare - taking a working but indefensible system and removing the working parts.
The great benefit of the old HoL was that "elected by God" peers were unlikely to be to be lawyers or professional teat-suckers. The "reformed" HoL is full of the same class of parasite who infest the House of Commons - with the same crony paymasters.
There's no going back to the old system, but a system whereby the upper house is appointed to a fixed term by lottery from the general population (or better yet, a net tax-paying subset) would get close.
If only more in UK public life paid heed to Chesterton's fence principle.
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by KGIII · 2015-12-12 19:52 · Score: 1

You'll have to split them along percentages of the total picture. If both are shown in equal percentages, the value gets split. You can pay per-use or per month or per year. You get a discount for paying yearly because the merchant fees are lower. If you want you can simply indicate an estimate on your tax form and get a bigger discount by paying a year ahead.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by camperdave · 2015-12-12 19:55 · Score: 1

It's also explained by having 70% of the votes split between numerous parties. For example, with eight parties, the vote could be split 30%,10%,10%,10%,10%,10%,10%,10%. The 30% party gets in because they are the most popular, even though 70% of the voters hate their guts.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by AmiMoJo · 2015-12-12 21:07 · Score: 1

Another way of looking at it is our childish politicians can't work together effectively, so they prefer a system that gives a minority all the power, and keeps the opposition ineffective. The ruling party also gets to rig the next election by changing the rules and boundaries, and gets to stuff the House of Lords with cronies.
Strong government just means disenfranchisement for the majority.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Some+nick+or+other · 2015-12-12 21:41 · Score: 1

The alternative voting system was IRV, as used in Australia. Australia, too, has a two-party system, so I don't see what difference that would have made.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by ultranova · 2015-12-12 21:41 · Score: 1

But in general it tends to be the other way around, so the major party has to make their policies more extreme to get the votes of the far-right or far-left coalition partners.

So the government's policy will be a compromise between positions people voted for, rather than dictated solely by the biggest interest group? How's that bad?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by serviscope_minor · 2015-12-12 22:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Three. We had a referendum about an alternative voting system in 2011. The existing system was kept. Deal with it.
That was the Tories being devillishly smart. Part of the coalition agreement was to put that to the vote. The tories managed to find a system even less popular then FPP to go to a referendum. Just because the even worse AV failed, doesn't mean FPP is the best or even preferred by the public.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 23:46 · Score: 0

"deal with it". Is that the polite way of saying "end of" or "period"?
Sounds like something someone who was happy with the current system would say. Someone perhaps who's one of the (roughly - 30 odd % of the 60 odd % who voted) 20% of the population who voted for this government.
Yes, you must be very happy.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 01:02 · Score: 0

First past the post dampens extremism. With straight proportional representation, you get
- cases like belgium or the netherlands where these negotiations take literally years, during which time an illegitimate caretaker government rules... and the final coalition basically agrees that it will do nothing. There is a reason that some commentators are calling Belgium a failed state nowadays.
- the french FN, belgian VB... Both Poland and Hungary have extremist governments today that are only held in check by the EU
- not to Godwin the thread, but I think you are German and probably know the electoral system of the Wiemar Republic.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by AmiMoJo · 2015-12-13 01:09 · Score: 2

The AV referendum demonstrated exactly what is wrong with UK politics. People are fucking idiots. They are so mind numbingly stupid it gives you a migraine. The number who said they didn't understand something most 10 year olds can grasp, as if it was perfectly normal and okay to be borderline mentally retarded, was pretty shocking.
The coming EU referendum will be decided on fear and stupidity. The only question is who can run the most negative campaign of fear and stupidity. The out camp have been doing it for years, but the in camp has fear of change and the break up of the UK on their side. It's hard to predict which way the sheep will go with wolves on either side.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Hognoxious · 2015-12-13 01:21 · Score: 0

Someone perhaps who's one of the (roughly - 30 odd % of the 60 odd % who voted) 20% of the population who voted for this government.
You could get that figure down by half by including people like minors.
You've come so far. Why not go full retard and bung the population of China in the denominator too?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Hognoxious · 2015-12-13 01:36 · Score: 1

Except it won't. It'll be a compromise between positions very few people voted for and positions a tiny number voted for.
The "watermelon" greens were in that position in Belgium for a long time. In Israel it was some Zionist nutbags. Even with FPTP, UK Tories have had to rely on the "fuck the pope" brigade on many occasions.
P.S. how do you work out a compromise with single-issue parties?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Hognoxious · 2015-12-13 02:00 · Score: 1

It depends how you define monarchy.

Humpty-dumpty defined it as a turnip.

The fact that some guy called the Duke of Westminster owns large parts of central London is another.

You don't have such a thing as inherited wealth over there? The fact that he gets to wear a gold hat and a weasel-skin coat on special occasions isn't particularly relevant.

a big clearing out of your ruling class and its institutions
Like in 1066? Plenty of them in the late 16th/early 17th centuries too.

I just think many British people are so used to these sorts of things that they don't realise that it is not normal that someone from the North without a posh accent grows up believing they can never be prime minister because they weren't born into the right family.

People like Harold Wilson, Neil Kinnock or, in the interest of balance, Margaret Thatcher?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Hognoxious · 2015-12-13 02:06 · Score: 1

Ultimately she has veto power, can dissolve the Government forcing an election for a new Parliament

Bollocks.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Fragnet · 2015-12-13 04:22 · Score: 1

Every single MP got more votes than the other parties in every single constituency of the United Kingdom. The party currently in government got more MPs than any other party, indeed so many more that it managed to form a majority. Was it 36% of the total number who voted? Who cares.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Fragnet · 2015-12-13 04:24 · Score: 1

Nobody is able to say whether this is part of an EU directive, or legislation resulting from a European Court judgement. It probably is.
Re: The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by arwel · 2015-12-13 06:46 · Score: 1

So? In Scotland this year the SNP won 50% of the votes cast (35.52% of the total electorate) and 94.9% of the seats. It's just the way the cookie crumbles when you have more than two parties competing for votes and the candidate who gets one more vote than another wins.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by naich · 2015-12-13 22:57 · Score: 1

boundary changes are decided by a neutral, independent body.
Nope, they make recommendations to the government, who then implement them. If they want to.
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by tehcyder · 2015-12-14 05:00 · Score: 1

I just think many British people are so used to these sorts of things that they don't realise that it is not normal that someone from the North without a posh accent grows up believing they can never be prime minister because they weren't born into the right family.
Off the top of my head, neither Jim Callaghan or John Major were posh or came from well off families.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by RockDoctor · 2015-12-15 02:41 · Score: 1

Within some of the countries that make up the UK, they also use proportional representation. We don't all suffer from the "English Disease".
Unfortunately, this also results in anomalies such as a political party that was almost completely obliterated at the election, being the party in power. But I honestly don't think that is going to last much longer - along with the UK.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Re:The UK is regressing to Victorian times... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-19 15:24 · Score: 0

Ultimately she [...] can dissolve the Government forcing an election for a new Parliament
Nope. Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14), among other things.

She is the ultimate check on Parliament completely ignoring the will of the people
It seems pretty clear given the abuses of the Queen's Assent and the Prince's Assent processes that have been uncovered surrounding the spider-letters freedom-of-information battle, she seems to be an *actual* check on an elected government fulfilling its election promises. Moreover, her son has actively lobbied on behalf of foreign absolute monarchies.

I want to start a photo archive by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:39 · Score: 0

I want to create a website photo archive (hosted outside of the UK) of photographs of as many designer items as possible.

We can even go around to other websites where these designers try to sell or promote their wares and share links to them! Everyone wins! (Except for greedy overly-litigious trolls)

So, what actually changed? by mi · 2015-12-12 05:40 · Score: 1

extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death

So, they sky must've fallen already — if the write-up and the title are to be believed, it was already illegal to photograph those objects in many circumstances...

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:44 · Score: 0

Well, it's the UK. They're trying their hardest to beat China at its own game.
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2015-12-12 05:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

The point is that there was an exception to the usual rules for copyright that meant the duration was shorter for works created via an industrial process. That exception and the associated rules are being repealed.
The argument for this seems rather hypocritical in light of the recent changes regarding private copying. In the latter case, basically the government was in favour of introducing the private copying exception and did so, but then failed to get it upheld in court based on some weasel words about compensating rightsholders that apparently primary legislation can't overrule. (If you're thinking "WTF?!" at that point, you're not the only one.) And yet in this case, it seems anyone who for example already publishes a book about these works that was perfectly legal until the changes under discussion is considered collateral damage and there is no talk anywhere of compensating them for potentially having to pulp all of their creative works, i.e., the books about the other works that happened to contain relevant photographs.
And of course there is the usual logical argument about how copyright is supposed to incentivise the creation and sharing of new works, so retrospectively extending it to works several decades old so the rights will last longer than an entire human lifetime is surely going to be an effective incentive for the long-dead creators of many of those works to create more.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:56 · Score: 0

Except that in the US and other places that was already done.
http://www.diyphotography.net/10-famous-landmarks-youre-allowed-photograph-commercial-use/
Re:So, what actually changed? by Archtech · 2015-12-12 05:56 · Score: 1

More exactly, they are passing China while going in the opposite direction. China is going the right way, while the UK is going the wrong way.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:24 · Score: 0

I'm not sure that's really the same except conceivably in one instance:
Say I had a house with a balcony overlooking one of these properties. I want to sell my house, so I take a picture of the view from the balcony.
Is that a commercialization of the image of the landmark?
Don't answer that, any slashdot troll is a piss-poor substitute for an actual lawyer. And don't bother with the righteous indignation crap when it's born of ignorance.
Re:So, what actually changed? by mi · 2015-12-12 07:00 · Score: 1, Interesting
That exception and the associated rules are being repealed.
The shitty write-up omitted this crucial bit...

And of course there is the usual logical argument about how copyright is supposed to incentivise the creation and sharing of new works, so retrospectively extending it to works several decades old so the rights will last longer than an entire human lifetime is surely going to be an effective incentive for the long-dead creators of many of those works to create more.
- - Dear, you got to stop messing with that contraption of yours and find a real job!!
- - But, honey, when I'm done, my invention will bring billions!
- - I know, but you and I are 50 years old already and our kids will be paying off your debts for decades, while everybody will get your patent for free after you die.
- - Did they really pass that stupid law ending intellectual property, when the inventor dies?
- - Yes! And, had you paid attention to things happening around you, you would've known that. And you would have also noticed that strange van parked right outside too...
--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:22 · Score: 0

- Dear, you got to stop messing with that contraption of yours and find a real job!!
- But, honey, when I'm done, my invention will bring billions!
- I know, but you and I are 50 years old already and our kids will be paying off your debts for decades, while everybody will get your patent for free after you die.
- Did they really pass that stupid law ending intellectual property, when the inventor dies?
- Yes! And, had you paid attention to things happening around you, you would've known that. And you would have also noticed that strange van parked right outside too...
So the children will have to work, so what? The children of every non-inventor (or copyright holder) have to work as well. There are plenty of people who take a risk and start a business: sometimes their children take over and sometimes not. Sometimes the business fails before the handing over is a possibility.
If non-IP-based people can take a risk on a venture then I don't see why IP-based people can't do the same thing.
If you're in debt because of a invention/patent attempt how is that different than going in debt from trying to start a business? You declare bankruptcy and move on. I don't see why creative or inventive ventures should be different than entrepreneurial ones.
With patents you currently get 17-20 years to recoup your costs. For copyright it should be (IMHO) 17 years, plus perhaps extendable by another 17 (like it was originally in the US). In either case, if you can't make a profit you're bad at business and should move out of the way to allow to allow others (and society in general) to move forward. Why should "progress" be held back because of your incompetence at business?
Re:So, what actually changed? by russotto · 2015-12-12 10:22 · Score: 2

At least one of those is bullshit "photography featuring the iconic âoeWelcome to Fabulous Las Vegasâ sign are not restricted by copyrightâ¦ photos of all of the famous Las Vegas Hotels on the strip are."
Photos of architecture taken from public property are not subject to copyright in the United States. 17 USC 120(a).
Also, the Hollywood sign is not copyrighted, though the owners of the trademark do try to push their rights as if it's a copyright and trademark.
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 11:49 · Score: 0

Whereas before, you could post a picture of that designer item you want to sell on Ebay, now you will get sued for more than the couch is worth if you do. And since no one wants to buy something like that without pictures showing its color and condition, you can't sell it.
So this is a big loss for material culture and a big win for landfills.
Re:So, what actually changed? by mi · 2015-12-12 11:53 · Score: 1

So the children will have to work, so what? The children of every non-inventor (or copyright holder) have to work as well.
Non-inventors can leave their kids some tangible property. Inventors may little other than intellectual legacy.
If we want to encourage inventions, we ought to consider the latter to be no less valuable. Allowing it to survive the creator's demise is crucial to that.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 13:49 · Score: 0

So the children will have to work, so what? The children of every non-inventor (or copyright holder) have to work as well.
Non-inventors can leave their kids some tangible property. Inventors may little other than intellectual legacy.
If we want to encourage inventions, we ought to consider the latter to be no less valuable. Allowing it to survive the creator's demise is crucial to that.
The best inheritance you can leave your kids is training in how to be successful. Inherited money can be frittered or taken away, Inherited intangibles may lose their value, but if you train your kids to succeed, they can build their own fortunes.
Re:So, what actually changed? by dryeo · 2015-12-12 16:42 · Score: 1

OK, the patent should last for 20 years whether the original inventor is alive or dead. Either way the original inventor or the kids are going to inherit the debt after 20 years if the inventor is bad at business or wasted his time on an invention that won't pay off during the life of the patent. As the AC says, this is common for non-ip business startups and is the way things work.
There is no natural right to intellectual property, it is just a government granted privilege to advance society (learning in the original, the arts and sciences in the US constitution and in 1789 saying the arts and sciences was just a fancy way to say learning).

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:So, what actually changed? by KGIII · 2015-12-12 20:02 · Score: 1

I know that you said not to answer it but it depends, first, on the jurisdiction but assuming we're talking about the United States that would mean that yes, it's commercial use - you're using it to gain money, or in an effort to gain money, or some sort of payment/good/service or even elevated social standing. In a strict sense, yes, such would *probably* be a violation of copyright.
Now, what are the odds of you being taken to court? Rather slim. It almost certainly wouldn't qualify as a criminal infraction so it'd almost certainly end up in the civil courts. That said, you'd have a fair use defense. Now, the terminology here is a bit odd but fair use means that you get to violate the copyright. So, you'd still technically be in violation but you'd be given an exception post facto for fair use. You could, of course, just ask for permission in writing and I'm sure they'll grant it or as for a nominal fee.
Someone else who copies your work and reproduces it may be in violation of both your and the landmarks owner's copyrights.
I am not a lawyer but I do pay attention and I've employed many lawyers and I've read a number of findings and interpretations of copyright law as well as many other laws. I've even sat in mock courts to aid students. I also make it a point to frequent the court and observe the proceedings. The latter is, I believe, the duty of any adult who is eligible to vote.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:So, what actually changed? by KGIII · 2015-12-12 20:34 · Score: 1

I have a hobby. I have several but, for this discussion, we will be talking about woodworking. I make a variety of wooden items such as chairs, tables, benches, mirrors, etc... I also make a lot of them with few power tools meaning; I can make a dovetail joint faster by hand than you can set the jig up and make one with a router. Give me a coping saw, chisel, and a pencil and we're good to go. I spend, sometimes, a couple hundred hours on a piece. Then I give them away. Sometimes I make cabinets and I give those away. The wood is often milled from my own property and I sometimes take part in that process, as well.
Now, I don't do it for money (I have, a nominal sum, for reasons of my own - read needing to maintain income for reasons of incorporation and taxation), and I've never once considered copyright, trademark, or even patents to be a concern. I know that, in my country, copyright is assumed on creation which means that (I guess) they're copyrighted by default. (I've not thought about this before so bear with me.)
Now, where do those products fall? Are they less protected because they were made by industrial process? What *is* industrial process? How about those that are not made by power tools? I tried asking The Mighty Google and I didn't really find much information. I even spent a little while searching but it was for naught. I ask because I'd like to know if I need to expressly put them, conceptually or design, into the public work department. I really don't care if someone copies them, makes money from the design, or even copies them exactly.
I already have a fairly local crafter who does that with my express permission though we didn't discuss copyright or even care.
They asked, "Do you mind if I make a few of those and see how they sell?"
The reply being, "Of course I don't mind. You know better."
"Yeah, but it is good to ask. Should I, you know..."
Interrupting, "No, don't add the mental overhead, no need to pay me a dime if they sell. Maybe do something nice for a neighbor or something?"
"Ayuh, sounds good."
Anyhow, there are some other intricacies, I'm sure, but if I need to put these expressly into the public domain then I should probably do so. I have no idea how to do so and to do so retroactively.
Oh, and as an aside: Mix instant coffee with just enough warm water to break it down into a paste. Use a lightly damp sponge and apply the paste to the wood, let it sit until dry (wipe it off for a lighter stain), and then lightly sand with a fine grit sandpaper. It is one of the most beautiful stains out there. You can do repeat applications depending on the color desired. I like to finish some surfaces with Butcher's brand bowling alley wax - multiple coats. The person I give it to should apply a new coat every year for the first few years and then it should be good for a few generations before it needs to be resurfaced. To resurface, simply lightly sand and apply the wax again. Do not use a high speed buffer, do it by hand and lower speeds. It's good to see the grain come to life.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:So, what actually changed? by camperdave · 2015-12-12 20:44 · Score: 3, Interesting

I believe there should be two types of intellectual property protections: private and commercial. Private is for things like personal photos and trade secrets; things that are not intended for public consumption. If something IS intended for public consumption, like a book or a film, then it must be registered. Registration lasts for one year, and is not automatically renewed. The cost of registration starts off at 1 cent for the first year of protection; and for each subsequent year, the cost is double the previous year. The owner of the intellectual property is free to renew registration for as long as they can afford to do so. Once the registration expires, the work becomes public domain.

The first 20 years of protection would be fairly easy for a corporation to pay for: a little over $5000 for a year's protection. At 30 years, you'd better have a lucrative item, because it would cost $5million to protect. At 40 years, it would cost nearly 5.5 billion dollars.

The system has three advantages:
1 - It is easy to tell if something is still under copyright. Simply look up the registration number and see if it has been paid for.
2 - It is self cleaning. No corporation on the planet has deep enough pockets to keep something registered forever. I doubt even Disney could afford the 5 trillion dollar price tag for keeping a movie until the 50th anniversary of their release.
3 - It is a revenue stream for the government. Someone has to collect those license fees.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2015-12-12 21:04 · Score: 1

If we're talking preferences for what the law should be, I don't really feel like copyright is a good fit for this kind of work anyway. It seems to me that other types of IP, such as design rights or patents, would be more appropriate, but those have much shorter durations and different rules generally. Then again, my view of copyright is also that both the scope of what is protected and the duration of that protection are now absurdly large, so in my ideal world there wouldn't be so much difference between the practical effects of different kinds of IP protection in the first place.

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:So, what actually changed? by KGIII · 2015-12-12 21:53 · Score: 1

Yeah, I kind of find it disheartening that my designs would be considered copyrighted by default. I'd prefer an opt-in for something like this. There are patents, trademarks, design patents, etc... Copyright? No, that's not the kind of protection that I'd want even *if* I wanted protection. In fact, I want the exact opposite and have gotten it.
In other words, I want people to copy it, change it, tweak it, and make use of it. That's why I make it. In the list of things that I mentioned, you'll notice that every one of them is something functional. I don't make knickknacks or curios. I make stuff to be used. I make stuff that will last generations. I make stuff that could, in theory, still be in existence in a millennium.
It's my artistic outlet that gets me to use my hands. I want it to be copied. It inflates my ego and it means it is legitimately being used. I don't want to create, gift, or sell something that remains unused. If I wanted to do that, I'd make decorative art and not utilitarian furniture. I love, for example, Shaker-style creations and tend to move in that direction. I have a full shop, with everything I could possibly need, but I mostly prefer to do things in an un-automated way. So, there's art involved but it's really about being functional and of enough value to be used in that function.
At any rate, copyright can be a wonderful thing but I fear it is not currently as ideal as it could be. One does have a right to the fruits of their work, though some zealots disagree. It is, of course, subject to abuses but so wouldn't a world without it be subject to abuses. I'd say it extends too far and covers too many things. I'd not really thought that my furniture would be covered nor do I want it to be.
I suppose, I should have a lawyer look into it and write something up that grants all of my stuff to the public domain. Yay? Quite frankly, I want anyone to be able to use it. I don't even care if they profit from it. By placing it in the public domain means that the prior-art angle should be covered. *sighs* I guess I can sum it up in an email and send it off to my liar. I'll see what he comes back with.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:So, what actually changed? by serviscope_minor · 2015-12-12 22:10 · Score: 1

Oh, and as an aside: Mix instant coffee with just enough warm water to break it down into a paste. Use a lightly damp sponge and apply the paste to the wood, let it sit until dry (wipe it off for a lighter stain), and then lightly sand with a fine grit sandpaper. It is one of the most beautiful stains out there. You can do repeat applications depending on the color desired. I like to finish some surfaces with Butcher's brand bowling alley wax - multiple coats. The person I give it to should apply a new coat every year for the first few years and then it should be good for a few generations before it needs to be resurfaced. To resurface, simply lightly sand and apply the wax again. Do not use a high speed buffer, do it by hand and lower speeds. It's good to see the grain come to life.
I'm going to have to try that one!
I've recently acquired enough stuff to do some carpentry at home. No power tools (except a battery powered drill), since I've got nowhere to put them, and I don't own a vehicle large enough to transport stuff easily to and from my hackspace. So far I've made a light workbench (standing height) with removable legs for my attic room.
I've also been restoring my dad's old tools that went rusty in my mum's garage. They're nice 1950s and 1960s vintage. I found a bath of citric acid is one of the best. They come up beautifully and it's paint safe. Great way to bring old tools back to life.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:So, what actually changed? by KGIII · 2015-12-13 00:15 · Score: 1

I recommend Butcher's brand bowling alley wax and you should be able to find it easily enough. If you can't find it then you can substitute another brand. Any ol' instant coffee will do. You only want the sponge to be lightly damp at the very start. I've never measured out the amounts of liquid that I use so I can't help there. It should be just slightly more moist than a paste, it spreads well.
The other thing with the above mentioned wax - coat your dad's old tools with it - especially things like a saw. I usually hit tool tables (like the table on a router table, table saw, band-saw, etc once a year or as needed. If I'm going to be away for a while then I throw a light coat down. Chisels will get done a little more often if they're in use. Basically, it not only keeps moisture out but it makes them more smooth to operate.
I've got a dust-collection system, router tables, radial-arm saw, planer, jointer, shaper, etc... My garage is huge and the front half is the broadside and is where cars go that are in the garage for work or storage. The back half is my shop. It has a funny pitched roof, akin to a salt-box. To give you an estimate of the size, it's a six bay garage and somewhere around 20 meters deep, probably a bit deeper. I've posted pics of it in the past but I'm not sure where and I'm unable to take pics now as I am still not home. I'm quite fond of it though it is a bit cluttered.
It is split into three sections, stock storage, work, and finish. There's a sub-section where I have assembly/glue racks and clamps and all that sort of jazz. I'd kind of like to build a display area but I don't intend to sell any of it so I'm not sure what I'd actually end up doing with it. The finish area isn't as large as I'd like. Maybe I could combine the two and build out that way.
Other than space, it's not as expensive as people might think. I tend to buy industrial grade equipment because I don't like things breaking down and I like the art of joinery but one can do quite a bit with far less and at much lower costs. A decent set of hand tools and some practice and you can do quite a bit. I do not own a lathe nor do I know how to use one (well, I do in theory) so I don't do any turning. I'd like to learn using a foot-powered lathe and see how that goes. I do have a set of lathe chisels that are rather high end but those were a gift and I don't have a whole lot of interest in turning.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:So, what actually changed? by dryeo · 2015-12-13 06:06 · Score: 1

I don't know about having private vs public copyright and trade secrets are just that, secrets can be protected by laws on stealing. Break into Cokes headquarters and into the safe where it's kept, that's theft over as well as breaking and entering. Coke loses their secret by not guarding it, tough.
As for your main idea, perhaps the first 5-7 years are free, then the charges start at $1and double every year. This is better for the small person who doesn't have to scramble to renew all their copyrights at first and after 5-7 years copyright rather matters or doesn't.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:So, what actually changed? by mi · 2015-12-13 10:59 · Score: 1

whether the original inventor is alive or dead
Yes, my little hypothetical dialogue was meant to address exactly this part of Anonymous Brave Guy's argument. Just how long — 20 or 75 years — I am not sure.
But I would not object to it being perpetual, actually — tangible property has no expiration date, why should intellectual property be different?

There is no natural right to intellectual property
There is no natural right to physical property either. It is an abstraction some societies maintain in some shape or form. In properly Socialist countries, for example — such as USSR — an individual could not possibly own means of production. (Which, BTW, follows immediately from the very definition of "Socialism".)

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:So, what actually changed? by serviscope_minor · 2015-12-13 23:11 · Score: 1

I recommend Butcher's brand bowling alley wax and you should be able to find it easily enough.
I'll look for it. Seems the key is it is mixed with something that goes hard.
You only want the sponge to be lightly damp at the very start. I've never measured out the amounts of liquid that I use so I can't help there. It should be just slightly more moist than a paste, it spreads well.
On what woods do you use it? For small operators (i.e. hobbyists) it's hard to get anything but pine. Have you tried it on pine?
The other thing with the above mentioned wax - coat your dad's old tools with it - especially things like a saw.
Ah, I went a different route. I finished with fine wire wool soaked in oil on most surfaces. On the ones which contact with the wood. I rubbed on candle wax, then removed almost all of it with a paper towel. Makes the plane go like a bat out of hell :)
Here's something fun: my local hackspace has a #7 jointing plane. It's enormous and heavy and I can get the blade sharp enough to shave with (literally: the final test is if I can shave a bit of my hand). It's just plain beautiful to use.
I've got a...
Being a Londoner, I'd have to be about 4 million pounds richer to afford a place with a garage that size! I've got an attic workshop for light stuff and electronics, and a really crappy knock-off brand workmate (modified for extra rigidity), and a back garden. The garden has enough room for me to use it during the summer. That's where I usually make larger things.
Sounds like a very nice setup that you have. If (when?) I leave London, I aim to have a good workshop garage.
Other than space, it's not as expensive as people might think. I tend to buy industrial grade equipment because I don't like things breaking down and I like the art of joinery but one can do quite a bit with far less and at much lower costs.
Honestly, if I was to start, I'd probably get a bench saw with sawstop. Naturally I don't intend to feed my fingers into it, but, well, it's like buying a really good insurance policy.
Industrial grade stuff is generally much nicer. Most of my kit (except my dad's old tools) is cheap Chinese stuff. Not as nice as I'd like, but it is affordable on a very tight budget. I got some really good jet clamps though.
I do not own a lathe nor do I know how to use one (well, I do in theory) so I don't do any turning. I'd like to learn using a foot-powered lathe and see how that goes. I do have a set of lathe chisels that are rather high end but those were a gift and I don't have a whole lot of interest in turning.
My local hackspace has one and I've had a play with it. It's immensely good fun. They can be had pretty inexpensively, especially if you're not in a hurry to find one. While you might not have specific interest in turning bowls, etc. you can make nice legs and etc on one. If you see one cheap, I'd get it to have a try (you can always sell it on if you don't like it).
It's rather fun, because the shape comes out of the wood in a way that's different from normal woodworking. There's a rather calm fluidity to it, I think that's quite unique. Also, if you cut down any trees, you can turn the green logs on the lathe right away.
Anyway, I have a new project. I want to make a writing desk (mostly for laptop use, but with a nice embossed leather insert). Here's the difficult bit: I want it to work as a normal desk or a standing desk. It doesn't need to look so good in standing form, but needs to be easy to transition between the two. I expect this will take me a few years to figure out and build.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:So, what actually changed? by camperdave · 2015-12-14 02:58 · Score: 1

After I posted, I was thinking that, instead of a strict yearly renewal, a registrant could register for multiple years in a single shot. However, I like your idea as well. How does this sound: $20 gets you the first ten years, and each subsequent year doubles. You can buy ahead if you wish. This gives them fifteen years of relatively cheap protection, and it starts making it economically nonviable to retain protections for much beyond 25 years.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:So, what actually changed? by j-beda · 2015-12-14 07:12 · Score: 1

After I posted, I was thinking that, instead of a strict yearly renewal, a registrant could register for multiple years in a single shot.
However, I like your idea as well. How does this sound: $20 gets you the first ten years, and each subsequent year doubles. You can buy ahead if you wish. This gives them fifteen years of relatively cheap protection, and it starts making it economically nonviable to retain protections for much beyond 25 years.
I think there is value in having free automatic copyright protection for at least a few years - not only does it simplify all the accounting that a business would need for each and every little thing they might publish, it also protects the average citizen from having their work exploited by others without recompense. Ten years for free automatically, then require registration and payment for anything beyond starting at $10 and doubling each year as proposed. This is fairly close to the price point that the $0.01 for the first year would have realized ($10.24 for year eleven).
I would actually support almost any starting price at almost any year, since the geometric progression puts the vast majority of stuff into PD fairly quickly and eventually gets everything back, with the fees at least partially justifying walling off part of our shared cultural heritage for a limited time.
Re:So, what actually changed? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-14 11:38 · Score: 0

Inventions often by necessity have to be built upon previous inventions, therefore excessively long patent terms stifle innovation. Intellectual property is not like real property and therefore should not be treated as such.
I don't see anything wrong with it being passed on to the children if the inventor, if the inventor happens to die during the patent/copyright term. If not the inventor has had sufficient time to try and make money from it to pass on to his/her children.
What we are looking for is a balance, one that allows people a fair chance to make money from their creations, but isn't overly restrictive in preventing other from building on the creations. For copyright, 14 years is likely long enough for this purpose, if you are going to make money on the creation, you are likely to have made most of it in that time frame, there are no doubt a few exceptions to this, but they are just that, exceptions.

Just try enforcing it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:42 · Score: 0

These Social Darwinist - egotistic - assholes think they can control everything on a whim. People want to have control of their own lives, and be truly independent. Keep playing these games and soon heads will roll.

Re:Just try enforcing it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:13 · Score: 0

I'm sure the masses will come out in droves to post about it on twitter and change their facebook pictures in protest.
Re: Just try enforcing it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:46 · Score: 0

They don't *think* they *can* control the world. They *know* they *do* control it. As for the masses, they won't do anything. They can't.

fascist-socialistic chaos by harvey+the+nerd · 2015-12-12 05:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

The UK is becoming chaotic. Leave and ignore. When that sh|t shows up here, or elsewhere, hopefully people will laugh it off, or stomp them.

Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

This has nothing to do with socialism you idiot.
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:18 · Score: 0

but maybe facism? in that the needs of the corporate body become effectively those of
the state?
but yeah, can't see even a glimmer of socialism in there
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:26 · Score: 0

except we only extended it to 'harmonise' with the Conditions AMERICA foreced on to the world - so the fascists would be you.
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:44 · Score: 1

Ah, yes...I knew there was a way to blame this all on America. There always is!
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Tablizer · 2015-12-12 08:09 · Score: 1

The UK is becoming chaotic.
So is the USA. I suspect the Internet and cable TV have allowed people to filter their news to be what they want it to be, and this gives more extremists, turning the political systems into a battle of extremists.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:07 · Score: 1

Actually you should probably be more concerned. Usually when copyright is extended on something somehow abroad, the US lobbyists pressure the government with "look! they have it! You don't respect our rights if we don't get it too!!!!"
And they usually get it afterwards.
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by zippthorne · 2015-12-12 09:35 · Score: 1

Hah, you think people are choosing to filter their news?
More like, expressing a slight preference for certain links causes search engines and advertising to shift in that direction, feeding back to form the bubble. Eventually you're just not even presented information from outside the bubble. Our only hope is that big data is as incompetent implementing the results bubble as Netflix is and people start to get wise to it when they are only presented with a list of two-dozen or so items they've already seen any more.
Also, that no one gets the idea of deliberately manipulating the bubble to try to influence behavior on a mass scale (like Facebook already has done.. crap..)

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by dryeo · 2015-12-12 16:58 · Score: 1

Ah, yes...I knew there was a way to blame this all on America. There always is!
Well it is usually America that is at fault. Just look at all recent trade deals, especially those in the works. America invites the IP holders to write the trade deals rather then the people or even their representatives in Congress and then pressures other countries to go along with it.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by dryeo · 2015-12-12 17:25 · Score: 1

Back in the days before the Internet and TV we had newspapers that were very partisan and allowed people to filter their news to how they wanted it.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Tablizer · 2015-12-13 07:18 · Score: 1

But you usually had to pay more to get those

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by dryeo · 2015-12-13 13:03 · Score: 1

Only if you wanted the paper up to date, lots of slightly older editions would have been floating around free to read. Even now I read the paper for free at places such as the laundromat as others buy and then leave them behind.
The price was quite low as well.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:fascist-socialistic chaos by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-15 04:46 · Score: 0

The cost of buying one newspaper per day compares favourably to a monthly broadband subscription fee even today.
Of course, you get more than just news through a broadband subscription, so I suppose it's arguable that people who originally got internet access for purposes other than news get news thrown in for free, thus increasing overall news consumption.

So we never own anything buy? by Revek · 2015-12-12 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is the dream of any manufacturer that they sell you something you never own. You can use it but heaven forbid you talk about it. I'm sure they will want to charge for chairs by the sitting next. Hey! you can't sit in that chair. I'm only allowed fifty sittings a month in that chair. Sounds crazy, just like this article.

Re:So we never own anything buy? by monkeyxpress · 2015-12-12 07:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, that is the goal. The problem is that physically making stuff is quickly becoming a very low barrier for competition. 20-30 years ago, if you wanted to, say, make furniture, you would need an enormous amount of capital expenditure, a big factory, lots of workers. Now you can buy the machinery (or just outsource it to china) for probably 10% of that cost. It means it is very hard for a big incumbent to maintain large profit margins because a small up-start can jump in and start competing.
Big corporates hate this. The whole idea of being a big corporate is that you can stomp around being wildly inefficient but have so much money you can either crush or buyout anyone who might threaten your position. Reducing competitive barriers to entry scares these people a lot because it may very well expose their incompetence.
So the natural avenue of attack has been to compensate for the loss of scarcity on the physical side with made-up scarcity through this whole notion of 'intellectual property'. First they will get people to accept that someone who admittedly came up with a nice original design, should have this crazy (70 years after their death) monopoly on that design. Then they will expand it to cover things that you would not consider very original at all. Then they will get really sloppy with even checking if there is any originality. Before you know it you will have to have millions of dollars to go to court and invalidate a government-enforced-monopoly if you want to make anything that looks like it could be a chair, which you won't be able to do if you are a small up-start, and so mega-corp goes back to not working very hard and flying around on junkets in corporate jets.
This is the way the world works. What will kill it is the march of technology, and globalisation. The Chinese still don't really care about copyright, and when Westerners realise that they are living in relative poverty because of all these government enforced monopolies that keep a bunch of incompetent lawyers rich, they will get really annoyed. Sadly we are probably a decade or so from that.
Re:So we never own anything buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 08:25 · Score: 0

So... *takes a long drag* Does that mean terrorists won the cold war? *exhale*
Re:So we never own anything buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:10 · Score: 0

I'm sure they will want to charge for chairs by the sitting next.
This makes me think of the Ferengi episodes of DS9 where Quark had to pay one slip of latinum to stand and three to sit in a chair.
Re:So we never own anything buy? by Miamicanes · 2015-12-12 10:57 · Score: 1

Except nimble competitors who outsource everything will NEVER be able to compete long-term against massive vertically-integrated companies like IKEA, if only because their vertically-integrated competitors will always be able to under-bid them to get the Walmart purchase, and will be the only ones with the means to shave that last fraction of a cent that means the difference between eventual bankruptcy and ongoing profitability.
Nimble companies that outsource everything are good at driving innovation and bringing revolutionary new products to market, but in the long run the best they can hope for is to get purchased before they get bankrupted by a slower-moving vertically-integrated competitor who'll sell products that are kind of good for a fraction of the price and ultimately wring 100% of the economies of scale from the process.
Case in point: General Motors. Say what you like about its cars and bloat. They don't just build cars... they literally own their own bank, and can effectively print money by making loans. If you can't get approved by a bank for an auto loan, and only GM will finance your purchase, the value and quality of GM's competitors is meaningless. That gives them a staggering market advantage over companies like Tesla. Back when Tesla started selling cars, you'd have been laughed at if you walked into your bank and asked them to approve a loan for 100% of the purchase price, but the same bank would have rubber-stamped the approval for a zero-down loan to buy a regular car at twice the price.
Re:So we never own anything buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 20:17 · Score: 0

Big corporates hate this. The whole idea of being a big corporate is that you can stomp around being wildly inefficient but have so much money you can either crush or buyout anyone who might threaten your position. Reducing competitive barriers to entry scares these people a lot because it may very well expose their incompetence.
(1) The word is corporation, not corporate. Corporate is an adjective. Corporation is the noun you were looking for. (2) Buy out is the verb if you are looking for. Buyout is a noun.
Re:So we never own anything buy? by monkeyxpress · 2015-12-12 23:13 · Score: 1

(1) I meant 'Big Corporate' as a colloquial pronoun, so the real error was not capitalising to indicate this. (2) Yes.
On the other hand, this is Slashdot. You must have lost your way from The Grauniad.

You can't put corpses in court to testify by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:50 · Score: 0

Well how would you put a corpse into court to testify about their copyright?

Happy Birthday shows, you cannot test copyright long after the death of people because the witness die and the paper trail is optional for copyright.

Peter Mandleson once introduced extended copyright after partying on a media execs yacht, at the end of Parliament so it was passed by agreement. All very very very dodgy.

Re:You can't put corpses in court to testify by camperdave · 2015-12-12 20:58 · Score: 1

The paper trail should not be optional for commercial content. The Happy Birthday incident shows that anyone can claim they own the copyright.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

It is really really stupid. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 05:52 · Score: 0

How does one create an inventory of a house? The usual recommended method is to photograph the items (to show condition), then add serial numbers.

So, no longer can you take photographs? Going to make it illegal to photograph historic homes? or traffic accidents? After all you just might be violating someones copyright by doing so... :-) I guess only nude portrate photographs are going to be allowed as someone owns the copyright on the clothes designs...

Re:It is really really stupid. by Purity+Of+Essence · 2015-12-12 07:28 · Score: 2

I guess only nude portrate photographs are going to be allowed as someone owns the copyright on the clothes designs
You better not have any tattoos.

--
+0 Meh
Re:It is really really stupid. by Purity+Of+Essence · 2015-12-12 18:28 · Score: 1

I guess only nude portrate photographs are going to be allowed as someone owns the copyright on the clothes designs
Interestingly, fashion is not protected IP and is widely copied. That's why so much fashion has prominent branding. The brands are of course trademarked and can't be legally reproduced.
While much of the industry is lobbying hard for new protections, some people embrace its free culture.
https://www.ted.com/talks/joha...

--
+0 Meh

The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by mschwanke97402 · 2015-12-12 06:00 · Score: 2

Just one more example of how giant, multi-national corporations are increasing their stranglehold on governance of western countries. Can you image taking a family picture in your own home that happened to include some stupid designer chair or couch, then posting to FaceBook to share with your relatives, only to get a DMCA takedown notice to remove it or else? What if that was the last pic of dear old Aunt Granny that you ever took??

From what I understand, you can't post a vacation picture of the Eiffel Tower at night because there's a copyright on the evening light show. Ditto a number of other designer buildings in Europe, day or night.

It is enough to put one off of capitalism in general and the modern implementation of it in the U.S., Europe, Japan, Australia, etc. in particular. What has happened to the public good or the commonwealth?

Re:The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by lesincompetent · 2015-12-12 06:07 · Score: 0

Public good? Commonwealth?
You must be a commie!
Just like those who'd like to save the planet from utter uninhabitability at the expense of corporate earnings!
Re:The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:23 · Score: 1

Yes, if there's one thing Al Gore has taught us, it's that Climate Change will destroy us all and EVERYBODY must do their share to help! He said this from his gigantic mansion, built on a private lake with several large cruise boats docked nearby.
Re:The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:34 · Score: 0

"What has happened to the public good or the commonwealth?"
You can see why the cold war started to begin with, aka the left/communists knew this would be the end result. The gullible true believers in capitalism are seeing the end result with no political counterweight.
Re:The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by lesincompetent · 2015-12-12 06:40 · Score: 1

I don't know this guy you're talking about, he must be the last american in line to get rich at the expense of everybody else.
What I DO really know is the scientific consensus.
Re:The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by dwywit · 2015-12-12 11:16 · Score: 1

So, some person buys a designer dress, and he/she (let's not judge) wants to brag, so takes a picture and puts it on facebook/instagram - "Look how pretty I am!", and BOOM! Takedown notice.
How will shops advertise these "classic designer" items, either first sale or subsequent sale/s? Presumably a first-sale situation will come with a licence to display photos in ads in glossy magazines, but what about high-end second-hand shops? Will they have to seek a licence, too? If they're not allowed to advertise, isn't that a restraint of trade?
That brings to mind another horrible thought. If you want a licence to play music in a commercial venue, you pay a fee to a collections agency - is there going to be a new collections agency for fashion and furniture, and another representative group like the *IAA organisations?

--
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Re:The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by CanadianMacFan · 2015-12-12 14:39 · Score: 1

Or you put a picture up and you are wearing something similar to a designer outfit, enough to confuse an algorithm at least. You get a take down notice.
How about you take a vacation picture in a hotel lobby and post it online but it gets taken down because the chairs are designer made and you needed a license?
Re:The End Of The (Western) World As We Know It by Cederic · 2015-12-13 02:58 · Score: 1

I'm looking forward to this happening. It'll cause a public backlash which will hopefully extend to background music captured in videos of live events.
The sooner copyright law starts reflecting modern realities the better. It just looks like we need to slide down the slippery slope into the cesspool before the public wakes up and demands change.

Suckers by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:03 · Score: 0

All the countries in the Five Eyes alliance just plain suck.

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by sudon't · 2015-12-12 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not a joke, manufacturers are really pushing us towards this idea that you don't truly own the stuff you buy. That said, I doubt you will need a license to photograph stuff you own. You may a license to publish such a photograph, which is bad enough.

--
-- sudon't

Air-ride Equipped

Destroying an object generating revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:04 · Score: 1

Questions:

If I own an object and choose to destroy it can the designer sue me for lost income?

If a building is designed can the designer demand money for google street view or satellite pictures?

If you combine these two questions can a designer prevent a building being knocked down without due compensation for 100 years?

Re:Destroying an object generating revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:49 · Score: 1

And if you took a picture after you destroyed the designer object, would it be considered a derivative work?
Re:Destroying an object generating revenue by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 07:16 · Score: 1

They don't care if you destroy the object. In fact, they would prefer if you did, because then you might need to buy another.
The sole reason for this law is to try to kill used sales by banning people from putting up photos on site like ebay.
Re:Destroying an object generating revenue by Cederic · 2015-12-13 03:00 · Score: 1

Ah, you miss the point. There is income to be derived from photographing the item; destroying it prevents that income.
Thus the act of destruction inherently reduces the future income of the designer. Why, it's practically theft!

UK; this surprises you? by wnfJv8eC · 2015-12-12 06:07 · Score: 2

That country is working hard on becoming a toliet. The movie 'V' for Vendetta. Start thinking about Brits.

Re:UK; this surprises you? by moonlandingchap · 2015-12-12 06:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

Too damn right! It's a shithole that is only getting worse. Lived in lovely france for 9 years and came back to the UK to find a hostile, unfriendly, big brother watching you, tax the shit out of the them, country. All the good things of the past are gone and the future is looking more and more bleek. Back to France soon me thinks. This is one rat that is going to swim for it!
Re:UK; this surprises you? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 23:30 · Score: 0

Oh the irony. France already has such a law
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tra...

Glad to see the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:07 · Score: 0

You guys in the UK are allowing your leaders to run right over your rights to protect those precious corporations.

You guys make good US lapdogs, doing what you are told to do.... Good brits,, sit stay...

So, when do we stop talking pictures of sunset? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:22 · Score: 0

What next, no star trails? There are satellites, ISS and other space junk that _must_ be protected.

The article is likely wrong by angel'o'sphere · 2015-12-12 06:24 · Score: 1

Or the article is to simplified.

For private use, e.g. as a reference for an insurance or to show it to your friends it most certainly will always be allowed to photograph it.

However making photos and publishing them, in books or on the internet, might be a copyright infringement.

But, again, that would usually not be the case if you e.g. write an educational book about design epochs and use a photo from a chair as "an typical example" ... otoh ... if you would really need a license for that, which I doubt, there will be plenty of artists who will give the license to you, so omit the nay sayers from the book.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:The article is likely wrong by billyswong · 2015-12-12 15:31 · Score: 2

How can I "show it to friends" if posting on the internet is considered a publishing act already?
Re:The article is likely wrong by reve_etrange · 2015-12-13 07:35 · Score: 1

if you e.g. write an educational book about design epochs and use a photo from a chair as "an typical example" ...

The government has said this specific case is collateral damage. People who make books like that are already being forced to explore destroying their inventories.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:The article is likely wrong by angel'o'sphere · 2015-12-13 11:49 · Score: 1

Because it is an publishing act if it is not a "closed group"?
Stupid question, don't you think so?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Ebay by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:27 · Score: 0

So will part of my proceeds on ebay go to the copywite owner?

Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by ZorinLynx · 2015-12-12 06:29 · Score: 2

Think about it.. the more photos of your "designer object" are out there, the more people will find out it exists and decide to buy one from you.

This is not like taking a photo of a painting where the image itself is what's valuable.

Re:Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by ScentCone · 2015-12-12 06:49 · Score: 1

This is not like taking a photo of a painting where the image itself is what's valuable.
How is an artist's work, as seen in the form of the designs on a three dimensional piece of interior decor, different than an artist's work in the form of two dimensional piece of interior decor? Please be specific.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-12-12 09:08 · Score: 2

Parent makes total sense here.
The newly placed night illuminations on the Eiffel Tower (one of the examples in the article's do-not-phoptograph list) are an original work of art that is under copyright protection. The copyright would prevent a person from putting similar lights on some other tower.
Photographs taken of the illuminations are my own original work, not part of the Eiffel Tower, and any European law against my photographing them is crap that I will gladly violate whenever I please. Feel free to try to fight your way into gun-intensive Arizona to come and steal my vacation pictures.
Re:Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by jgdnavy · 2015-12-12 09:21 · Score: 2

Because the two dimensional photograph of a three dimensional object does not fill the same purpose. You might be willing to settle for a framed photo of a painting as both act as wall art, but a framed photo of a statue or chair does not replace the actual object.
Re:Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by Hognoxious · 2015-12-12 10:27 · Score: 1

My point exactly. If someone builds another London Eye or La Defence or whatever I think the architect has a right to be more than a bit miffed. A photo of it? They can go suck a badger's nads.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 11:19 · Score: 0

On a plus side, if you want to network auction (eBay) your designer chair, you can always put little star and heart stickers over the strategic areas to obscure the copyrighted object of desire. Blurring between the chair legs is also acceptable.
Re:Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 12:10 · Score: 0

Parent makes total sense here.
The newly placed night illuminations on the Eiffel Tower (one of the examples in the article's do-not-phoptograph list) are an original work of art that is under copyright protection. The copyright would prevent a person from putting similar lights on some other tower.
Photographs taken of the illuminations are my own original work, not part of the Eiffel Tower, and any European law against my photographing them is crap that I will gladly violate whenever I please. Feel free to try to fight your way into gun-intensive Arizona to come and steal my vacation pictures.
What they're going to do is seize your phone and laptop at the border.
I'm not joking.
Re:Why would anyone sue a photographer over this? by ZorinLynx · 2015-12-15 09:32 · Score: 1

What good is that going to do when said photographs are already backed up on the cloud?

Headline Writers Untie! by PopeRatzo · 2015-12-12 06:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.

It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Headline Writers Untie! by ScentCone · 2015-12-12 06:51 · Score: 0

It's still stupid
Needing use license from an artist to commercially reproduce their work is stupid?

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 07:20 · Score: 0

Needing use license from an artist to commercially reproduce their work is stupid?
Yes, it is.
And yes, we do not want artists like you making money, buying food, supporting their family, or even living.
Stop all of the above things please.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 07:50 · Score: 0

Is this 3D printing that's doing this?
As manufacturing costs go down and private prototyping and manufacture becomes ubiquitous we'll need laws to make the copying of physical things illegal. This is just the analog of copyright law for other (very copyable) things like software. On the other hand I wouldn't say that taking a picture of a chair is really a copy - you can't sit on it and it doesn't function as a chair. It might be functional if all you want to do is look at the chair and not sit on it.
Ramble ramble. This law is fucking stupid and it's designed and approved by retarded idiots in government for fucking greedy bastards that don't understand basic physics, ownership, contract law or anything else. Law is so detached from any belief of "fair" at this point that it's pointless following the law. It's just a tool for clubbing people over the head if we don't like them.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Hognoxious · 2015-12-12 08:25 · Score: 1

A photo of a vase is not a vase. Neither is a poem about one, or an interpretive dance.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Solandri · 2015-12-12 08:25 · Score: 2

You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.
You can already have your video pulled from YouTube because someone drove by with the radio blaring some copyrighted song. This law will allow you to be sued over photos of your vacation because some copyrighted object happened to be in the background."Publishing" was a lot more distinct back in the days when you had to sell a photo to a newspaper or magazine. Now you can post it on Facebook or YouTube and that can constitute "publishing". The line between "show your friends" and "publish" has become very blurred.

Copyright needs to be adjusted to borrow from trademark law. Two people or companies can have the exact same trademark, just in different fields of business. So Apple Records and Apple Computer could coexist (until Apple started selling iPods with music available via iTunes, at which point they had to negotiate a licensing agreement). If your YouTube video is not a music video or does not have a song as a soundtrack, then the song's copyright shouldn't apply. Likewise if your photos are for some purpose other than commercially exploiting the object in question, then its copyright shouldn't apply. I can (sorta) understand designer objects wanting to protect rights to use photos of those objects commercially. But unless the entire purpose of the photo is to exploit that object in particular, the copyright shouldn't matter. Unless you're running a competing theme park, Disney should not be able to prevent you from posting photos of your trip to Disneyland.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by PopeRatzo · 2015-12-12 08:26 · Score: 2

Needing use license from an artist to commercially reproduce their work is stupid?
Oh no, not at all. But needing a license to show an example of the work of a designer is quite stupid.
Taking and publishing a photo of a chair doesn't impinge on intellectual property any more than taking a photo of a book infringes on the copyrighted material within.
Now, if I want to copy and make and sell more of those chairs, then I would quite rightly need a license. But to photograph? Nah.
My opinion on the facts of the story don't change the fact that it's a very stupid and intentionally misleading headline.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:10 · Score: 1

Shooting movies or taking photos in London will be completely illegal, lest you accidentally get the Gherkin or the Eye or anything made in the last 100 years in the shot.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 10:00 · Score: 0

does "publish" mean post to Facebook?
Do I need a licence to post a family picture to Facebook that has some furniture in it?
Would Donald Trump pay for a licence to post photos on the Internet? No, he'd buy the furniture company and fire the CEO for trying to make him pay to upload a picture.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 10:53 · Score: 0

A photo isn't a reproduction of a chair, it's a photo. It's a representation of the light bouncing off the chair and into the lens. It's not a chair.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 12:22 · Score: 0

You may be wrong. It may actually now be illegal to take photos for your own private use.
I tried to read the actual law, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/contents, but I'm unable to parse it clearly.
For example, the 2013 law refers deleting section 52 of the 1988 law (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/52) rather than restating the law for 2013.
Here is an article touching on the same problem from a different aspect - making a backup copy of music you bought.
That is now illegal.
http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/11/thanks-to-the-music-industry-it-is-illegal-to-make-private-copies-of-music-again/
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by PopeRatzo · 2015-12-12 13:20 · Score: 1

Here is an article touching on the same problem from a different aspect - making a backup copy of music you bought.
Just to be devil's advocate, there is a difference between a copy of music and a photograph of a chair. You can listen to the copy of music, but you can't sit in a photograph of a chair.
But I take your point. There's no telling what's illegal in this age of intellectual property insanity.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by reve_etrange · 2015-12-13 07:37 · Score: 1

And yes, we do not want artists like you making money, buying food, supporting their family, or even living.
How does it support their livelihoods 70 years after they're already dead?

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by reve_etrange · 2015-12-13 07:39 · Score: 1

Needing use license from an artist to commercially reproduce their work is stupid?
It certainly is, if there aren't a bunch of critical exceptions worked into the law. Exceptions for insurance inventories, used sales, etc.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by sociocapitalist · 2015-12-14 02:42 · Score: 1

No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.
It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).
So any picture up on facebook of me in my living room would fall under this which means that the headline isn't far off, if at all.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by PopeRatzo · 2015-12-14 02:55 · Score: 1

So any picture up on facebook of me in my living room would fall under this
No, it wouldn't.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Headline Writers Untie! by sociocapitalist · 2015-12-14 03:24 · Score: 1

So any picture up on facebook of me in my living room would fall under this
No, it wouldn't.
You said " You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property."
So why wouldn't it?

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:41 · Score: 0

The core of capitalism is private ownership.

so they are banning free advertising... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:48 · Score: 0

so they are banning free advertising...

are they making money on pictures of their products or on the products?

the UK is hopeless

and yet still you don't own your own likeness by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 06:50 · Score: 0

and yet still you don't own your own likeness... giving rise to paparazzi, up-skirt pictures, revenge porn, etc...

the Anglo-sphere is hopeless

Just 3 letters and a mark by future+assassin · 2015-12-12 06:52 · Score: 0

WTF?

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Coming soon to a dystopia near you: by kheldan · 2015-12-12 07:08 · Score: 1

Brainwave-reading technology, that all citizens will be required to have implanted in their heads at birth, that detect when you're thinking about anything copyrighted. Embedded wireless technology will automatically generate a charge on your credit card or against your bank account to pay a royalty fee.

--
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 07:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

> You may a license to publish such a photograph

Clothes may have a copyright on their design. Putting on facebook may be publishing. Do not put up photos of anyone wearing clothes, only of people without clothes.

Sloppuy headline - residents not citizens!! by Bruce66423 · 2015-12-12 07:29 · Score: 1

The law will apply to those subject to the law because they live in the country, not all the citizens of the UK - or rather the subjects of the Crown, as we aren't citizens, just subjects, unless that's changed recently!

Re:Sloppuy headline - residents not citizens!! by angel'o'sphere · 2015-12-12 07:44 · Score: 1

Perhaps you forgot to apply to the UK citizenship?
https://www.gov.uk/becoming-a-...
(*facepalm*)

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

The UK can go by MitchDev · 2015-12-12 07:47 · Score: 1

Fuck itself with a live grenade minus the pin...

Re:The UK can go by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 08:32 · Score: 0

The UK government can. The UK people are in a bit of a bind unfortunately.
We have an incompetent & sociaopathic goverment that almost everyone hates, but one of the two main opposition parties commited suicide by entering a coalition and shafting their core supporters in the name of staying in power. The other main opposition party is attempting to return to the 70s and re fight the political battles they lost in the 80s rather than stay relevant.
In this environment the people in charge don't feel any need to rein in their worst instincts because they know that the people know (or believe) that there is no credible alternative.
It sucks.

Passport and selfies? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 07:48 · Score: 0

Best strip down off those BRANDED clothes to birthday suit when you get your passport photo taken or a selfie :)

Looks like Lucasfilms jumpstarted this by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 08:03 · Score: 0

as they recently sent out DMCA takedown notice to Twitter and Facebook for a picture taken of a store-bought Star Wars action figure... https://torrentfreak.com/lucas...

Re:Looks like Lucasfilms jumpstarted this by Anne+Thwacks · 2015-12-12 09:37 · Score: 1

Even Intellectual Property Trolls have the right to plead "not guilty by reason of insanity".

--
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII

Who is the refrom candidate? by Jack+Griffin · 2015-12-12 08:28 · Score: 2

Ok so we all know the drill about how totally fucking ludicrous copyright is getting. So instead of continually bitching and moaning, who are the candidates pushing for reform that we can all go out and support them?
Democracy works by action, not all sitting around moaning. I need a hero....

Re:Who is the refrom candidate? by sociocapitalist · 2015-12-14 02:44 · Score: 1

Ok so we all know the drill about how totally fucking ludicrous copyright is getting. So instead of continually bitching and moaning, who are the candidates pushing for reform that we can all go out and support them?
Democracy works by action, not all sitting around moaning. I need a hero....
Keeping in mind that the word 'reform' can be abused by those looking to extend copyright indefinitely as well.

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

Just wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 09:00 · Score: 0

So, if David Cameron were to pose a dead pig in an old chair, and record himself mouth fucking (as he is famously known to do) it, he'd have to first acquire a license to do so, or risk being fined for copyright infringement?

Re:Just wondering by Dunbal · 2015-12-12 09:30 · Score: 2

The law doesn't apply to the ruling class, you should know better slave.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

Have they paid? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 10:18 · Score: 0

Baroness Neville Rolfe has some nice earrings, they look expensive and it must be expensive to licence their photographic reproduction on a taxpayer funded web site. That necklace looks expensive too, it can't be cheap to license photographic publishing rights to such expensive jewellery. I don't know what the tie-died piece of shit draped over her shoulders is. It may not be the most elegant attire but I should imagine triple licensing or damages for being published when worn by a model sporting a Hitler hair-do.

John Alty is committed to transparency although he may also think about committing to a hair piece. The taxpayer will cover the publishing fees should he be photographed wearing one. He also should have gone to Specsavers, their licensing fees for photographic publishing of their products would surely be amenable to the public fisc.

One hopes that Sean Dennehey would go to Specsavers too. On a lighter and more seasonal note, I won a set of comedy teeth like that in a Christmas cracker once.

Hierarchy. by jondeanmack · 2015-12-12 10:45 · Score: 0

The sooner people accept that the person who assembled the item has more ownership of the product than the person who purchased it the better.

Re: Hierarchy. by MenThal · 2015-12-12 21:47 · Score: 1

Good thing I buy all my furniture from IKEA then...

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 10:50 · Score: 0

That's still stupid. There's an existing line (or was) where you'd have to get a license to reproduce something that you photographed where the photograph largely represents the actual object. For example, take a picture of a painting and you've got a fairly faithful reproduction of it. If the painting was copyrighted (i.e. copyright had not yet expired), you'd probably need a license to distribute the photo. In the past, that didn't extend to such things as sculptures because (ostensibly) there was a creative process involved in deciding how to photograph the object. You composed the photo in a unique way. The photo wasn't effectively a clone of the object itself, but a separate artistic work, of a sort.

Now, well, I don't know where to draw the line. Design copyright is a very bad idea. A patent of some kind on recreating it, fine, but a photo or other illustration of it? Give me a break. I'd probably test the limits by drawing it by hand and then ask them to sue me for creating a piece of art with my own hand that just happens to resemble their product.

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 13:51 · Score: 0

> You may a license to publish such a photograph

Clothes may have a copyright on their design. Putting on facebook may be publishing. Do not put up photos of anyone wearing clothes, only of people without clothes.

I know you only got one up vote, but this is something to think about. If a magazine or news photographer takes a picture of a celebrity in full view of the public going to, say, an awards ceremony wearing "designer" clothes, that newspaper or magazine (or even TV station!) would have to pay a royalty to the fashion designer to "license" that image? Same could be said for any and all photographs taken by the press where something--ANYTHING--someone is wearing or is pictured in the background would have to get licenses from all the designers before they could publish that picture! The alternative would probably be to have a ridiculous amount of out of focus or mosaic'd content in the image in order to publish it. It's utterly ridiculous! And yes, clothing is a creative work of art, especially the one-off dresses and such that celebrities wear to gala events. But, also consider any product or name brand item as well.

Which country is more fascist? The UK or the US? by sydbarrett74 · 2015-12-12 13:54 · Score: 1

I'm having trouble deciding...

--
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman

This is what you wanted right? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 14:41 · Score: 0

Godless cunts and homosexual tolerance making laws? Any idea why people left Europe for America?

Careful what you wish for because God delivers.

Missing context? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-12 15:10 · Score: 0

Hey kids.

Photographic records of 'designer objects' is pretty much everything from your Walmart Chinese counterfeits to super-expensive Louis Vuitton and Hermes branded items. The idea is right, but the application will inevitably be poorly applied just like Child Porn laws. The point is to protect artwork and marketing materials from being mis-represented to pass off counterfeit products which happens on a daily basis on sites like eBay and Alibaba. They are not going after the picture of your cousin sitting in a designer chair, they are going after the Chinese knockoff being sold using a picture of the real thing.

That said. It will be inevitable that it's poorly applied and some companies Walmart and Amazon.com will be both targets and sources of litigation.

Bad ideas are enforced with The Law by Bob_Who · 2015-12-12 15:32 · Score: 1

If it were a good idea, they would patent it.

That is true in the US in one case. by KingAlanI · 2015-12-12 16:16 · Score: 1

In the US, if someone's over the state age of consent but below 18, sexual depictions of them are still child porn under Federal law.

--
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by KGIII · 2015-12-12 20:41 · Score: 1

I suspect that's a fair-use exemption. The clothing is incidental to the picture. It might be different for fashion magazines and they likely have permission from the vendors.

--
"So long and thanks for all the fish."

And you wonder why terrorist are by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 00:47 · Score: 0

So hard to beat.

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by twokay · 2015-12-13 01:05 · Score: 1

The solution is simple. Don't buy already overpriced "designer" gear where the manufacture has to have an army of lawyers defending their brand to keep it exclusive.

--
Wannabe nerd.

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by Simulant · 2015-12-13 01:27 · Score: 1

The core of capitalism is private ownership.

For the few... then rent for everyone else. Kind of like feudalism.,,,

Marx was right.

Why do we buy things we can't own? by fygment · 2015-12-13 02:12 · Score: 1

Increasingly we seem to be paying to lease goods and services. It would be easy to say then, stop buying stuff you can't actually own.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.

So, if I make my face in to a copyrighted trademar by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 05:55 · Score: 0

...does that then mean that all the surveillance cameras are forbidden to take my picture without getting a license?

I wonder what other fun-but-unintended-consequences are waiting in this steaming pile of a law?

Re:Only thing permitted in the UK by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 06:30 · Score: 0

One must ask why Americans don't do that. Is it because they can barely stand up because they're so fat and they shit themselves unless they've got a gun in their hands?

And a sudden chill appeared over the antique biz by doccus · 2015-12-13 07:35 · Score: 1

Are the most powerful and wealthy in Britain aware that their favorite hobbies and industry.. that of the high end antique and classic car industry will be decimated? Perhaps somebody should circulate this iinfo to all their wives that spend all their free time buying antiques.. and their friends that deal in Aston Martins and old British and Italian sports caers etc. if they knew how it would decimate the industruy maybe they'd think twice.. And where are these copyrights going to come from if they are now NOT copyrighted? Ask the dead for less than 70 year creators? You can't just arbitrarily assign copyright. Only the CREATOR of a work can do that...

Party lists by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-13 07:36 · Score: 0

Party lists put the choice of representatives in the hands of the parties not the voters. The parties determine where someone's name comes on the list and therefore what chance he has of being elected.

The Irish system (designed for it by Britain, ironically) allows voters to put candidates in their order of preference. Thus maverick candidates can put their fate in the hands of the electorate rather than the parties.

One more reason why by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-14 05:06 · Score: 0

I will never set foot in that crumpet obsessed shit hole. You twits actually make France look good.

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-17 04:26 · Score: 0

what if i get a really cool sweater for chrismas and wasnt to post about it on facebook. now the sweater is the focus of the picture. can i now be sued.

Re:So We Never Own Anything We Buy? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-12-17 05:45 · Score: 0

I'm not fluent in UK law but you should be good to go, so long as you aren't trying to profit on it.

Slashdot Mirror

UK Citizens May Soon Need License To Photograph Stuff They Already Own (arstechnica.com)

197 comments