Slashdot Mirror
UK Citizens May Soon Need License To Photograph Stuff They Already Own (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes with this story from Ars Technica UK: Changes to UK copyright law will soon mean that you may need to take out a licence to photograph classic designer objects, even if you own them. That's the result of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which 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. In most cases, that will be well over a hundred years after the object was designed. During that period, taking a photo of the item will often require a licence from the copyright owner regardless of who owns the particular object in question. This sounds like a great kernel for a short story, and a terrible idea for a law.
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.
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 That exception and the associated rules are being repealed.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.
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.
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!
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.
The shitty write-up omitted this crucial bit...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
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.
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.
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!