I'm an English IP lawyer. We've had database rights for years. I'm not aware of any abuses. Then again, our litigation system isn't anywhere near as out of control as yours (assuming you're in the US).
In the fucked-up world of American litigation, if someone wants to sue you then they will. This is not an argument against database rights.
We've had database rights in Europe since 1996 and the sky doesn't seem to have fallen down.
Can any of the gloom-and-doom mongers point to any abuses of the law in Europe? (other, that is, than a general dislike and/or misunderstanding of copyright law)
the law in question is section 50A of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - see http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s50A
The FAQ is just wrong. Whoever wrote it is pig-ignorant of the law or lying.
They claim that section 50A applies only to the copyright in software, and therefore if the software contains film and sound recordings then the backup right doesn't apply to the software.
Wrong. Section 50A(1) states "It is not an infringement of copyright" for a user to make a copy. The section refers to copyright in general and not specific types of copyright. It has to work this way: any software is going to contain zillions of different types of copyright in the art, design, sounds, documentation etc.
They then claim that in ELSPA's view it is no longer "necessary" for lawful users to make backups because CDs are more reliable than discs, and manufacturers will replace when asked. Given that it's standard business practice to backup CDs I find their view of the word "necessary" rather surprising, and I think a Court would too. Their reference to "the judgment in the case relating to the illegal chipping of PSX consoles referred to below" is irrelevant.
Finally note that section 50A doesn't restrict you to one backup copy: if two or more are necessary it would equal permit that.
It stands to reason that people who fantasise about violence will play violent computer games, just as they'll watch violent films. So it's unsurprising that the Columbine killers played DOOM, but that absolutely doesn't mean DOOM caused them to killers.
Of course common-sense arguments starting "it stands to reason" are often wrong, particulary in this area... anyone know of any research in this area?
it doesn't make hiding documents easier, it just provides an excuse for why they're not readable, and it's an excuse which isn't going to impress a court very much.
it's not really a question of "working" or "not working" - any evidence you have to prove the date is helpful, and obviously a tamper-proof envelope is better than an envelope, and filing with your attorney is better than either.
The poster has an unusual definition of "just barely" - according to the article there's only a one in 909,000 chance of it hitting us, and the odds are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements have been made.
anyone got any background on why the BBC will only release its library in the UK?
My guess: the way they sell non-UK rights to local broadcasters (e.g. PBS in the States) means that they don't have the right to release some of their catalogue outside the UK.
Perhaps the situation is so complicated they can't work out what they own and what they don't.
Perhaps they do know what they own, but it's technically or legally too complicated to create a system that restricts downloads based upon the rights position in the user's country. (Could such a system ever be legally acceptable, given the unreliability of matching location to IP address?)
but the article didn't give the impression there was a controversy at all: either the author hadn't read the infrared spectrometer stuff from last week or (worse) he reported one side of an argument and hid the other.
whilst this may work in theory, in practice successful examples of people doing this are rare: it's all but impossible to prove that the seller authorised or knew about the unscrupulous tactics of the spammer.
Most likely the spammer himself is taking advantage of an affiliate scheme, and is long gone.
being hit by an uninsured vehicle is a bit of a hassle but it's not really a problem - you're paid out from a pool to which all insurers are obliged to contribute.
being prosecuted for going one mph over the speed limit or one inch over a line would clearly be stupid.
The interesting question is whether you (and all the others) would still have a problem even if it only clobbers you if you go (say) 50mph over the limit. Rather than modding me down, or responding with simplistic "one inch" arguments, perhaps someone could think about this.
Nobody has a right to drive a car over the speed limit, or to shoot a red light: provided suitable privacy protections are put in place, what exactly is wrong with this proposal?
Hydroelectric power's potential is limited by geography: in most countries it amounts to a few % of generation and getting much beyond this is impracticable.
Nuclear power is on the back foot across the world due to popular distrust, regardless of the merits of the technology (and I agree with you it can potentially be safe).
so in the forseeable future the electricity to hydrolyse hydrogen will come from fossil fuels.
how do hydrogen cars "lead to a cleaner environment?"
The hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Most is produced by reforming natural gas: the process is only 85% efficient (i.e. you are better off just burning the natural gas) and the byproducts are bigtime greenhouse gases. Electrolysis is more environmentally friendly (as the only byproduct is oxygen) but it's only 75% efficient and the electricity normally comes from fossil fuels.
So hydrogen is probably a big red herring from an environmental point of view.
that's just silly - the BBC's programmes are its own to do what it likes with. The MPAA can no more sue the BBC than it can sue you if you give away a film you've made yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
the data isn't protected: the database is protected - that's the whole point of database rights.
The William Hill case they mention seems perfectly just to me. Why should they be able to filch off someone else's work?
I'm an English IP lawyer. We've had database rights for years. I'm not aware of any abuses. Then again, our litigation system isn't anywhere near as out of control as yours (assuming you're in the US).
In the fucked-up world of American litigation, if someone wants to sue you then they will. This is not an argument against database rights.
We've had database rights in Europe since 1996 and the sky doesn't seem to have fallen down.
Can any of the gloom-and-doom mongers point to any abuses of the law in Europe? (other, that is, than a general dislike and/or misunderstanding of copyright law)
you are misunderstanding copyright law. If you haven't *copied* their copyrighted database then they cannot sue you for breaching their *copyright*.
no - we have no fair use right (although the House of Lords once came close to creating one). There is a specific statutory right for software.
the law in question is section 50A of the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - see http://www.jenkins-ip.com/patlaw/cdpa1.htm#s50A
The FAQ is just wrong. Whoever wrote it is pig-ignorant of the law or lying.
They claim that section 50A applies only to the copyright in software, and therefore if the software contains film and sound recordings then the backup right doesn't apply to the software.
Wrong. Section 50A(1) states "It is not an infringement of copyright" for a user to make a copy. The section refers to copyright in general and not specific types of copyright. It has to work this way: any software is going to contain zillions of different types of copyright in the art, design, sounds, documentation etc.
They then claim that in ELSPA's view it is no longer "necessary" for lawful users to make backups because CDs are more reliable than discs, and manufacturers will replace when asked. Given that it's standard business practice to backup CDs I find their view of the word "necessary" rather surprising, and I think a Court would too. Their reference to "the judgment in the case relating to the illegal chipping of PSX consoles referred to below" is irrelevant.
Finally note that section 50A doesn't restrict you to one backup copy: if two or more are necessary it would equal permit that.
but the media has it the wrong way round.
It stands to reason that people who fantasise about violence will play violent computer games, just as they'll watch violent films. So it's unsurprising that the Columbine killers played DOOM, but that absolutely doesn't mean DOOM caused them to killers.
Of course common-sense arguments starting "it stands to reason" are often wrong, particulary in this area... anyone know of any research in this area?
um, there isn't an "evil Xander" episode!
"Most European TV shows wouldn't last 5 minutes on American TV"?
Except Millionaire. Or the Weakest Link. Or Big Brother. Or any of the other billion shite reality TV shows that have clogged up your schedules.
And where do you think Banzai comes from? Hint: not Japan.
it doesn't make hiding documents easier, it just provides an excuse for why they're not readable, and it's an excuse which isn't going to impress a court very much.
it's not really a question of "working" or "not working" - any evidence you have to prove the date is helpful, and obviously a tamper-proof envelope is better than an envelope, and filing with your attorney is better than either.
None - when you deliver documents etc subject to a subpoena you have to deliver the means of access to the document.
The poster has an unusual definition of "just barely" - according to the article there's only a one in 909,000 chance of it hitting us, and the odds are likely to become even slimmer once more measurements have been made.
Bruce Willis can stay put.
"criminal prosecution for negligence"? Hello?
You need to check up on the difference between civil and criminal law - the parent was talking about the latter.
I love the idea of a "slippery slop" argument - can anybody think of one?
anyone got any background on why the BBC will only release its library in the UK?
My guess: the way they sell non-UK rights to local broadcasters (e.g. PBS in the States) means that they don't have the right to release some of their catalogue outside the UK.
Perhaps the situation is so complicated they can't work out what they own and what they don't.
Perhaps they do know what they own, but it's technically or legally too complicated to create a system that restricts downloads based upon the rights position in the user's country. (Could such a system ever be legally acceptable, given the unreliability of matching location to IP address?)
but the article didn't give the impression there was a controversy at all: either the author hadn't read the infrared spectrometer stuff from last week or (worse) he reported one side of an argument and hid the other.
"Recent studies have hinted at liquid water on the dusty planet."
presumably those studies aren't quite as recent as the one last week which found that Mars isn't watery now, and wasn't in the past:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3173167.stm
whilst this may work in theory, in practice successful examples of people doing this are rare: it's all but impossible to prove that the seller authorised or knew about the unscrupulous tactics of the spammer.
Most likely the spammer himself is taking advantage of an affiliate scheme, and is long gone.
being hit by an uninsured vehicle is a bit of a hassle but it's not really a problem - you're paid out from a pool to which all insurers are obliged to contribute.
being prosecuted for going one mph over the speed limit or one inch over a line would clearly be stupid.
The interesting question is whether you (and all the others) would still have a problem even if it only clobbers you if you go (say) 50mph over the limit. Rather than modding me down, or responding with simplistic "one inch" arguments, perhaps someone could think about this.
Nobody has a right to drive a car over the speed limit, or to shoot a red light: provided suitable privacy protections are put in place, what exactly is wrong with this proposal?
Hydroelectric power's potential is limited by geography: in most countries it amounts to a few % of generation and getting much beyond this is impracticable.
Nuclear power is on the back foot across the world due to popular distrust, regardless of the merits of the technology (and I agree with you it can potentially be safe).
so in the forseeable future the electricity to hydrolyse hydrogen will come from fossil fuels.
how do hydrogen cars "lead to a cleaner environment?"
The hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Most is produced by reforming natural gas: the process is only 85% efficient (i.e. you are better off just burning the natural gas) and the byproducts are bigtime greenhouse gases. Electrolysis is more environmentally friendly (as the only byproduct is oxygen) but it's only 75% efficient and the electricity normally comes from fossil fuels.
So hydrogen is probably a big red herring from an environmental point of view.
that's just silly - the BBC's programmes are its own to do what it likes with. The MPAA can no more sue the BBC than it can sue you if you give away a film you've made yourself.