Users aren't customers. If you're downloading someone's software without paying them for it, you are not their customer.
The users are, however, consumers. If you have a significant number of consumers who aren't customers, surely a more sensible approach is to investigate why this is the case and try to convert them, rather than simply dismissing them as irrelevant?
Plus, at least as far as music goes (and by extrapolation to games and software), there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that "pirates" actually spend more on average than non-pirates, so are these groups' best customers.
I remember thinking along those lines during the opening episodes of Stargate Universe: In that it was made very clear that the lead scientist was mean, arrogant, self-centred and generally only looking out for himself, while the politician (a senator, iirc) was noble, honourable and self-sacrificing, literally giving his life for others. It was rather disappointing after the effort SG:A seemed to put in to make scientists, diplomats and so on look good, and the military and politicians (often) just getting themselves into trouble.
Last week Time Warner announced third-quarter profits of $822 million. If the little people working on Warner films (i.e. those who aren't stars or executives) aren't being paid enough, and are "suffering", it isn't because of copyright infringement. And that's before you take into account the wonder of Hollywood accounting. The little person is likely to be screwed whatever happens, if their employer is bringing in $3bn a year and doesn't have a conscience.
I've met Arnold J... strangely enough he didn't come off as an egotistical, narcissistic asshole with a touch of sociopath. To be honest, there isn't much room to be any of those traits while ruling on copyright and patent issues in the English civil legal system. You may be overgeneralising the habits of a few high-profile criminal law judges.
FYI the United Kingdom is, in fact, a member of the EU which has enacted enabling legistlation effective as of 1998.
As an aside, I note that you linked to opsi.gov.uk, which has simply redirected to the new legislation.gov.uk for some time now, which makes me wonder where you found that link... I know it's a bit petty of me, but there's really "no excuse for being unaware" of the change and still "presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter...".
I was very disappointed when I heard an RTS game was on the way - not because I knew it would be bad, but because I knew it could be a lot better:
While watching the HBO series I started reading up on the books (ah, Wikipedia) and it gradually struck me that the SoFaI-verse seems very suitable for a Total War game. I'm no expert (of the series) but you've got a number of different factions/Houses, a nice campaign map, armies in the thousands, interesting rebel possibilities, some pretty castles to have battles with, lots of diplomatic possibilities, and some characters to throw in (as Generals, princesses, spies etc.). But, sadly the franchise is now licensed out, which will make it unlikely, and any mod will probably be clamped down on.
A court; that's why we have trials rather than summary punishment.
It's interesting that you should say that, as the offence he was apparently convicted for *is* a summary offence, so you can't get a full trial under it at first instance. These days the UK has quite a few summary offences and punishments (on-the-spot fines, ASBOs etc.); it's part of the "keep the plebs away from the higher courts" drive the last couple of governments have been running.
Except that rests on the assumption that he knew it was the police. On the evidence available (particularly given the second article I linked; read the three paragraphs starting "To buy what Storie is pitching...") there is considerable doubt about that. If we don't assume that, we get the following scenario:
* Unidentified individuals have broken into your house early in the morning. * Last year two of your relatives were murdered during a break-in. * Your wife and child are in the house, and otherwise helpless. * You have a firearm, and are trained in how to use it (hence keeping safety on etc.).
Do you A) lie down on the floor, running the risk of you and your family being killed, or B) Clearly indicate to the intruders that you are capable and willing to defend yourself. So, there are two sides to this story (as there are to most) and naturally we've both picked the one which favours our respective positions. Interestingly, if you replace the words "SWAT team" with "intruders" and "officers" with "thieves" in the italicised part of your quote, you would arguably have an heroic story of a man defending his family and home.
However, the fact that they killed him isn't really the corruption point. These things happen, particularly when throw firearms at law enforcement and the general public. The corruption comes from the cover-up and the blatant lies; lying about him firing at them, getting the warrants sealed once complaints were raised (under the pretence of protecting innocent lives), the alleged attempt to smear the 'victim', the doubt over the police's claim about approaching with sirens etc., and the double standards concerning the release of information.
I don't know about the US, but in the EU (or within the Council of Europe) there's this thing called the "Right to Life" (under Article 2 of the ECHR). It doesn't say that the state can't kill people, but it does mean that if the state does kill someone, there needs to be a full and open investigation. In this case, someone *was* killed by the state. Now, it may well be that it was "accidental", that the SWAT team acted reasonably, or that the 'victim' acted unreasonably and it was his own fault... but until it is investigated, there is know way of telling.
Imho, the corruption that is a significant problem here is comes from the police's attitude that they can do no wrong, or at least cannot admit to doing wrong - and they should take whatever steps they can (such as sealing files, launching smear campaigns, lying; at least 2 factual inaccuracies were identified in the article) to protect them and their colleagues.
As pointed out above, this is an Internet discussion, not a research paper... it is expected that people debating on the Internet have at least some basic ability to find things for themselves. But, if you insist: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vet+shot+police
Now, I get 14.8m hits on that - obviously not all are going to be about the same story. However, the first result does seem to refer to the story mentioned, and still on the first page there is a slightly more detailed version of the story from later on, after some more details had emerged. Ok, so the OP may have got some of the numbers incorrect (70 to 100, 60 to 80), but the substance seems to be true.
How is Disney enforcing it's rights a 'problem'? It is the whole freaking point of copyright law.
Disney enforces its copyrights => Starz removes all its content from Netflix (a) => A large number of people lose their primary access to Starz (and related content) => Fewer people view said content, (b) => Starz makes less money => Starz is able to fund less new content.
So if, like me, you think that copyright should be about encouraging the creation and dissemination of artistic works... it's failed rather spectacularly.
Disney (and the other studios) create those movies (which people apparently absolutely MUST have) for one and only one reason - to make as much money as possible. Do you really think that they would have made those movies (or will continue to make movies) if they don't have the ability to sell them for whatever price the market will bear?
Which is, again, getting means and end the wrong way around. Copyright is about encouraging creation of works by giving creators the chance to make some money out of it, not about making it easier for companies to make more money (or it is in those places where art is about art, rather than a mere investment). Whichever way you look at it, here Starz have chosen to *not* make money from their content. The market (in this case, Netflix) isn't willing to bear the price they're offering, and so rather than offer a lower price, they're simply shutting down that revenue stream. This is an example of copyright failing utterly.
Starz makes exclusive content? So what? So do ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, etc. The fact that SOME of them may decide to license SOME of their content to SELECTED outlets doesn't change the fact that none of the have to do that. Your idiotic proposal would mean that NBC should be forced to allow CBS to air its shows, thereby negating the whole point of NBC existing in the first place.
And again I find myself needing to note the difference between producers and distributors. I admit it is confusing as often (with TV) they are the same - which is why issues with competition arise. It's slightly different over here, where TV tends to be made by production companies and then sold to the broadcasters (we don't really have "networks"). Allowing CBS to show stuff created "for" or "by" NBC does not negate NBC; it means that you split up producer and distributor. The networks still get to choose what to show, when to show it, how to charge for it, how to package it etc., and so have to offer a competitive service to both producers (if they want 'better' deals than the compulsory licence) and to customers (who aren't forced into buying a package with a hundred channels if they want to watch a particular 30-minutes-a-week of programming).
First, to 'abuse your position', you must have an actual position to abuse. That is you must be completely dominant in an industry.... having a so-called 'monopoly' on your own products does not count, ever.
This would be where I disagree; but as this is a disagreement in definition, and I'm not an expert in business terminology etc. or anti-trust law, there doesn't seem to be much point in pursuing this as I'm likely not using the terms in the correct, legal context and manner.
Ok, now we're confusing "means" and "end". So, let's start with the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
The "end" of copyright is to "promote... useful arts". The means for doing so is by giving "for limited Times" certain "exclusive Right[s]." It doesn't say "To give authors control over their works..." That's a hint that this isn't about control.
Looking at pretty much any modern copyright law, there are three very clear ways to spot that the laws aren't about control. Firstly, they're time-limited. If copyright was about giving creators control, it would either last indefinitely, or as long as the creator lived - so they could control their work. This is particularly obvious in the early copyright laws were the duration was anything from 14 years to 5. In fact, in the Constitution quoted above, there's that "limited time" part, highlighting this.
Secondly, copyright isn't absolute. While the early copyright acts (the British Copyright Act 1709, US Copyright Act 1790) didn't contain them, defences to copyright cropped up fairly quickly (with "fair abridgement", the precursor to "fair use" being created in 1740, in Gyles v Wilcox. These days they tend to be enshrined in legislation (fair use is in the 1976 US Copyright Act and the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has a whole host of "permitted acts"). Again, if copyright was about control, why would there be exceptions and defences? This takes away control from creators.
Thirdly (perhaps the weakest argument) copyright is transferable or revocable. It can be bought and sold like any other intangible property (at least, in some jurisdictions; some or all of it in others are bound to the creator); this gives creators control over their works by allowing them to give up control over it. That seems a rather odd way of doing so.
Of course, when I wrote that comment I didn't have the US Constitution in mind; I was thinking of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often referred to as simply the Statute of Anne), or to give it its full title:
An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
Again, this is about "encouraging learning", not about giving authors control. In fact, if you read the text (which I recommend, it's a good read; particularly comparing it with modern copyright laws) the purpose it gives (along with the above) is to prevent booksellers and publishers from printing works to the "very great Detriment" of authors and the "Ruin of them and their Families." In order to fix this, it gives authors (or those who would become known as copyright owners) the "sole Liberty of Printing and Reprinting" their books for 14 years (subject to some qualifications about price and registration). [If it helps, the 1790 Act was mostly copied (ah, the irony) from the 1709 Act.]
To me, this implies that copyright was originally about money, not control. It was a means to ensure that authors had the first chance at getting a reasonable financial return on their books, not a means to give them complete control over their works.
Anyway, I hope some of this will help convince you that copyright isn't entirely about control (or wasn't originally), but by giving copyright owners some limited control (as a means to an end), has led them to feel entitled to greater control. Perhaps that might encourage you to revise your opinion of my post...
Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented). Starz does not have a monopoly on Disney films. They had an agreement with Disney for pay cable TV distribution. Somehow they found a loophole that allowed them to claim Netflix as one of their customers. Disney has now closed that loophole, and said anyone who wants to stream must negotiate directly with Disney.
So Disney is enforcing its distribution monopoly on its content... which is the problem, caused by copyright, that I was identifying as being at the heart of this issue. As for the renting issue, renting and streaming are legally very different (at least in the US) - renting is perfectly legal (provided the DVD was legally bought in the first place), but streaming requires a licence. This is why Netflix was able to set up in the first place; it just needed to buy a load of DVDs, no need to worry about getting licence agreements with Hollywood et al.. This contrasts with the EU, where renting *is* covered by copyright, and does require a licence, so legally I can't rent a Disney DVD without Disney licensing that.
However, Starz (the cable company) does have a monopoly on Starz (the film company) films. That's where the issue of competition comes in; you have one company acting as both publisher and distributor, meaning it gets favourable distribution deals, and will do what it can to block other distribution methods.
As to your last point, so what? Do you some sort of inherent right to get a recent episode of Camelot? No, you do not. Anti-trust regulations are meant to protect consumers from harm - no-one is being harmed by being unable to stream Disney movies. If Starz (or anyone else) had a monopoly over the entire entertainment industry then there would probably be a reasonable reason for anti-trust action. But they don't.
I certainly didn't wish to imply the existence of any inherent rights... but look at it from the other point of view; the episode exists, it is published, it can easily (almost without effort and expense) be made available to the public - the only thing stopping this is the government-given restriction, saying that only Starz (et al.) can do so. Similarly, I don't have any inherent right to drink water, but if a government decided to grant a certain company an exclusive right to give people water (outlawing any other way of accessing) that would certainly raise eyebrows...
The anti-trust comment was more aimed at the issue of bundling; i.e. to watch film A you must subscribe to service B (or to play game C2, you must use service O); where a company abuses its monopoly over distributing certain content (to which it owns the copyright or has appropriate licenses) by restricting the legal ways of accessing that content to specific services. Now, some people would say that that's fair enough, and their right; my point was the emphasise that this entire issue stems from an "unnatural" set of laws, which aren't doing their job properly any more (discussed further below).
Coming soon: Officially-licensed porn of every Disney character!
Firstly, "officially-licensed" would quickly lose its meaning and appeal under a compulsory licensing scheme. If you look at Creative Commons stuff (where all relevant uses are "officially-licensed") the equivalent phrase appears to be "creator endorsed" (which is 'better' in many ways, as it involves the creator rather than a mere licensor). Also, it would be interesting to see if current copyright laws could be used to stop porn of Disney characters... particularly given the expression/idea divide. Plus once the works are out of copyright, it ceases to be an issue (and most Disney characters are based on public domain ones, so you can do what you like with them).
Compulsory licensing eliminates any control over how a work is used or presented.
And? Maybe I wasn't clear (I'm not a great writer), but a large part of my original post was emphasising that this "need for control" is a bad thing. It has crept into copyright over the last 100 or so years, and has no real place there, being responsible for much of the evils that copyright has caused. If I build a house or a table, I don't get any control over how it is used once I've sold it, why should a creator have control over their work once published? Yes, of course they should receive fair compensation for the use, but control?
From my understanding, most European copyright law has a separate section for "moral rights" including the protection from degrading or defamatory use. I'm all for keeping that (and, if anything, strengthening it), but that's not the same thing as control - that's part of defamation law.
Compulsory licensing is also unlikely to actually improve competition. The arbitrator (or whatever entity decides what's "fair") adds yet another layer of bureaucracy, easily swayed by overstatements (and understatements) of value. Think of the value, according to the RIAA, of a pirated song. Contract negotiations would be even longer and more expensive, because the owner couldn't back out, so they have to continue investing time and people to dealing with the negotiations.
As discussed above, State-run licensing does exist, and does seem to function (at least on a small scale). A large part of it is that it eliminates the contract negotiations entirely - one doesn't need a contract if one can go straight to a readily available licence. But yes, there is the big issue of valuing work (which is partly why most copyright laws long-abandoned a requirement of something being artistic). It will be interesting to see if anything happens with the UK's Digital Copyright Exchange, if it ever gets set up...
Perhaps the simplest way to get around this is just to cut back copyright to 5 years, restrict it to artistic works and give up on licensing? Only something like 5% of US-registered copyright works are commercially viable after 5 years, and copyright covers considerably more stuff than is ever registered - it wouldn't have a major affect on the vast majority of copyright owners...
Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.
You are confusing the content monopoly with the distribution system monopoly. Yes, Ford has a monopoly on the manufacture Ford cars, but they're not the only ones selling them. You can get them second-hand, through a dealer, through a distributor etc.. Imagine, instead, if Ford could prevent people from selling a Ford car without a licence - they could then insist that the only way to buy a Ford would be from them, and when you did that, you had to get 5 cars at once, and agree to buy cars from them for the next 10 years...
Of course, if they tried to do that, no one would buy Ford cars; they'd move to Toyota or Bentley (now part of VW) - but when the top half-dozen manufacturers control over 50% of production (rough estimate from here), such a practice could easily become standard.
The other major point is that a car is a car, and what makes a Ford a Ford (v a VW or Skoda) is the Ford logo on the front. While there are significant variations, and individual companies may hold design rights and patents on certain elements, very few substantial designs are restricted to one company. This means that while Ford have the monopoly on Ford cars, Toyota could, if it wanted to, make a car very similar to a particular Ford model, but stick their logo on. This makes the market much more competitive and gives consumers much more choice.
In contrast, while the contrary could be argued in some cases, each TV show/film is unique. There is no other way to get an episode of, for example, the recent Camelot series, or Torchwood: Miracle Day without going to Starz (or their partners). The very essence and purpose of the object (the show) is protected by copyright etc., whereas with a car, it is only the specifics (the logos, design, possible patented parts) that is unique to any one manufacturer.
This already happens; in the UK we have a little-known thing called the Copyright Tribunal, which acts as a sort of mini-court/dispute resolution thing. It's job (by law) is to dictate the terms of licence agreements (mainly between collective licensing bodies and end users) in cases where the parties can't agree on them themselves.
Historically, this comes from part of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often simply called the Statute of Anne) which gave a cause of action against booksellers etc. who were charging unreasonable prices for their works. Early copyright law is very much focussed on being paid a fair amount, not on control.
Computers don't lie. They can get a list of IPs from a torrent tracker and connect to them. If they upload the content, that is proof that the connection is being used to break the law.
Actually, it's evidence, not proof. And only evidence that the connection may be being used. You then (at least, in the UK, I'm assuming NZ has similar copyright laws as I think they borrowed most of it from us) have to prove that the content was copyrighted, prove that whoever uploaded it didn't have a licence (or other legal option) to do so, prove that you own the copyright to said content and prove that a person (you can't sue a computer) did the uploading or authorised it. Then you can sue them for it.
Interestingly, from what I recall, during the ACS:Law fiasco over here, some of the leaked files showed that, of the IP addresses identified as being involved in copyright infringement at a certain time (by ACS:Law's "client"), about 1 in 4 weren't even allocated at the time the alleged infringement occurred. When you have a minimum 25% error rate, there's no way to get a criminal conviction on the basis of that alone, and (combined with the uncertainties in all the other elements), even a civil case is looking unlikely.
Pesky thing, due process; causes all sorts of troubles. That's why these laws (this one, the French Hadopi, UK Digital Economy Act, the US ProtectIP) are created; they're mostly designed to circumvent the requirements of existing law (in terms of what needs to be proven). But who needs due process; copyright infringers are all evil thieves and don't deserve it.
Of course, most UK Internet users infringe copyright on a daily basis (particularly given the recent Meltwater decision, which seems to hold that merely visiting a website is a prima facie infringement)...
Yep, that's the massive hole in much of the "common law" legal system. Usually this means "what a judge thinks is reasonable", sometimes "what a jury thinks is reasonable."
Of course, flexibility in a legal system isn't always a bad thing...
So you blame Netflix? There are two parties in this contract; we won't know which one is at fault without knowing how much Starz is demanding, and how little Netflix is offering.
Of course, the real villain here is copyright. Not the law, but the idea that it gives publishers complete control over their works (rather than just being a way to help them make a reasonable return). It means that publishers like Starz feel entitled to demand whatever price they want for their content, or flat-out refuse to license it - particularly if they'd rather you spent $10/mo on their service (even though you only want to watch the odd show), rather than paying Netflix $x/mo, of which only a fraction will end back at Starz.
The same issue is gradually making itself known with computer gaming; particularly the current Valve/EA fight, with contract negotiations breaking down as both parties want to push their own distribution systems (Steam/Origin resp.) with their products (notably Crysis2, Dragon Age 2, and soon SW:tOR).
This is bundling, it occurs when you have publishers, distributors and copyright owners all mixed together, and is anti-competitive and evil. This is what led to the EU fining Microsoft €899m in 2008, for bundling WMP with Windows (and made MS give EU users a choice of web browser, by default).
Sadly, the only way around this (short of having very strict and rigorously-enforced anti-trust laws - which take a long time to work; the initial complaint against MS above was made in 1994 - an appeal is still pending) is compulsory licensing. This would mean we could get dozens of Netflixes and Hulus, iTuneses and Spotifies, Steams and Origins, all offering competing services to access the same content - giving consumers the choice for which service to go with (rather than the copyright owner), depending on the terms ($n/mo for streaming v $m per download etc.) - with copyright owners getting paid a 'fair' amount, and not having to worry about endless contract negotiations.
Of course, this will never happen in the US/EU etc. as it would involve the big copyright owners (Disney, Warner Bros, Starz etc.) giving up control, and their refusal to allow these sorts of services already (or reliance on excessive DRM) shows how tightly they cling on to this. Plus it would probably have to involve registering copyrights, a state-run scheme, international co-operation and a significant change to the big copyright treaties (such as TRIPS or the Berne Convention).
Mmm, the restrictions are rather broad; but then there's the bit about being "prescribed by law" and "necessary in a democratic society", which tends to mean "proportionate" or "no more than is necessary." However, most of us can't afford the lawyers needed to argue these things out and the lower courts seem to just do whatever the police ask of them.
Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly?
Probably covered by the above.
What part of a water fight is not legal?
Well, it could be some sort of offence against the person (would certainly be battery, if there was no consent). Then you have all those lovely "breach of the peace" or "affray" things that the police love to (often incorrectly) apply when they want to round someone up. They could also go with s127 Communications Act 2003 (as with the Twitter Joke Trial) if they can show that calling for a water fight is "menacing".
Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?
Of course you can - planning, or conspiracy to do a crime is arrestable most places.
Iirc the UNDHR isn't binding in the UK. However, the police are bound by the Human Rights Act which protects freedom of association (Art. 11). Unfortunately, like freedom of speech and privacy it comes with the annoying qualifications about doing things "in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
They also need some controls on how long they can keep people on bail for (currently indefinitely thanks to our incompetent, reactionary Parliament - in practice this can be years, then a few more years in prison between being charged and tried), and restrictions on what they can do with seized property, i.e. having to give it back quickly, and in good condition.
Rather than just arrests and convictions, it might be worth comparing investigations (or stop-and-searches), arrests, charges and convictions (the Home Office probably has stats somewhere) and seeing how terrible it is. [I found some stats on Terrorism laws, particularly the s44 stop-and-search powers - where in 2009-10, they had arrest rate. Oh, and not one was related to terrorism.]
Ah, so this isn't really a judgment, just some sort of pre-ruling opinion? Also, the other two judges are listed at the bottom with an "I agree" each, so I had assumed that was like the E+W courts where, if there are multiple judges and only one giving the lead judgment, the others will just "agree".
TFA explains that it was a panel of three judges, so it was the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision, not the decision of a single judge.
Yes, but as often happens in cases where there is a panel, only one of them gave a judgment, the others just agreed.
If anyone is interested in what the ruling actually says, the judgment is here with the relevant part starting at [41]. The judge seems to have noted that in both the US and UK, domain names are already being treated as a form of intangible property in law (like patents, copyrights etc.), which could, as discussed elsewhere in the comments, lead to greater "rights" for those who have "bought" a domain name; making it more like renting than licensing.
The reason the court needed to consider this was due to jurisdictional issues; the claimants needed to show a "real and substantial connection with Ontario", i.e. that the case concerned property there. The case seems to be mainly about procedure rather than substantive law. [For the record IAALS]
Slashdot Mirror
Users aren't customers. If you're downloading someone's software without paying them for it, you are not their customer.
The users are, however, consumers. If you have a significant number of consumers who aren't customers, surely a more sensible approach is to investigate why this is the case and try to convert them, rather than simply dismissing them as irrelevant?
Plus, at least as far as music goes (and by extrapolation to games and software), there is a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest that "pirates" actually spend more on average than non-pirates, so are these groups' best customers.
I remember thinking along those lines during the opening episodes of Stargate Universe: In that it was made very clear that the lead scientist was mean, arrogant, self-centred and generally only looking out for himself, while the politician (a senator, iirc) was noble, honourable and self-sacrificing, literally giving his life for others. It was rather disappointing after the effort SG:A seemed to put in to make scientists, diplomats and so on look good, and the military and politicians (often) just getting themselves into trouble.
Last week Time Warner announced third-quarter profits of $822 million. If the little people working on Warner films (i.e. those who aren't stars or executives) aren't being paid enough, and are "suffering", it isn't because of copyright infringement. And that's before you take into account the wonder of Hollywood accounting. The little person is likely to be screwed whatever happens, if their employer is bringing in $3bn a year and doesn't have a conscience.
I've met Arnold J... strangely enough he didn't come off as an egotistical, narcissistic asshole with a touch of sociopath. To be honest, there isn't much room to be any of those traits while ruling on copyright and patent issues in the English civil legal system. You may be overgeneralising the habits of a few high-profile criminal law judges.
As an aside, I note that you linked to opsi.gov.uk, which has simply redirected to the new legislation.gov.uk for some time now, which makes me wonder where you found that link... I know it's a bit petty of me, but there's really "no excuse for being unaware" of the change and still "presenting yourself as someone qualified to analyze the matter...".
Also, legislation only has the one t in it.
I was very disappointed when I heard an RTS game was on the way - not because I knew it would be bad, but because I knew it could be a lot better:
While watching the HBO series I started reading up on the books (ah, Wikipedia) and it gradually struck me that the SoFaI-verse seems very suitable for a Total War game. I'm no expert (of the series) but you've got a number of different factions/Houses, a nice campaign map, armies in the thousands, interesting rebel possibilities, some pretty castles to have battles with, lots of diplomatic possibilities, and some characters to throw in (as Generals, princesses, spies etc.). But, sadly the franchise is now licensed out, which will make it unlikely, and any mod will probably be clamped down on.
A court; that's why we have trials rather than summary punishment.
It's interesting that you should say that, as the offence he was apparently convicted for *is* a summary offence, so you can't get a full trial under it at first instance. These days the UK has quite a few summary offences and punishments (on-the-spot fines, ASBOs etc.); it's part of the "keep the plebs away from the higher courts" drive the last couple of governments have been running.
Except that rests on the assumption that he knew it was the police. On the evidence available (particularly given the second article I linked; read the three paragraphs starting "To buy what Storie is pitching...") there is considerable doubt about that. If we don't assume that, we get the following scenario:
* Unidentified individuals have broken into your house early in the morning.
* Last year two of your relatives were murdered during a break-in.
* Your wife and child are in the house, and otherwise helpless.
* You have a firearm, and are trained in how to use it (hence keeping safety on etc.).
Do you A) lie down on the floor, running the risk of you and your family being killed, or B) Clearly indicate to the intruders that you are capable and willing to defend yourself. So, there are two sides to this story (as there are to most) and naturally we've both picked the one which favours our respective positions. Interestingly, if you replace the words "SWAT team" with "intruders" and "officers" with "thieves" in the italicised part of your quote, you would arguably have an heroic story of a man defending his family and home.
However, the fact that they killed him isn't really the corruption point. These things happen, particularly when throw firearms at law enforcement and the general public. The corruption comes from the cover-up and the blatant lies; lying about him firing at them, getting the warrants sealed once complaints were raised (under the pretence of protecting innocent lives), the alleged attempt to smear the 'victim', the doubt over the police's claim about approaching with sirens etc., and the double standards concerning the release of information.
I don't know about the US, but in the EU (or within the Council of Europe) there's this thing called the "Right to Life" (under Article 2 of the ECHR). It doesn't say that the state can't kill people, but it does mean that if the state does kill someone, there needs to be a full and open investigation. In this case, someone *was* killed by the state. Now, it may well be that it was "accidental", that the SWAT team acted reasonably, or that the 'victim' acted unreasonably and it was his own fault... but until it is investigated, there is know way of telling.
Imho, the corruption that is a significant problem here is comes from the police's attitude that they can do no wrong, or at least cannot admit to doing wrong - and they should take whatever steps they can (such as sealing files, launching smear campaigns, lying; at least 2 factual inaccuracies were identified in the article) to protect them and their colleagues.
As pointed out above, this is an Internet discussion, not a research paper... it is expected that people debating on the Internet have at least some basic ability to find things for themselves. But, if you insist:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=vet+shot+police
Now, I get 14.8m hits on that - obviously not all are going to be about the same story. However, the first result does seem to refer to the story mentioned, and still on the first page there is a slightly more detailed version of the story from later on, after some more details had emerged. Ok, so the OP may have got some of the numbers incorrect (70 to 100, 60 to 80), but the substance seems to be true.
Happy now?
How is Disney enforcing it's rights a 'problem'? It is the whole freaking point of copyright law.
Disney enforces its copyrights => Starz removes all its content from Netflix (a) => A large number of people lose their primary access to Starz (and related content) => Fewer people view said content, (b) => Starz makes less money => Starz is able to fund less new content.
So if, like me, you think that copyright should be about encouraging the creation and dissemination of artistic works... it's failed rather spectacularly.
Disney (and the other studios) create those movies (which people apparently absolutely MUST have) for one and only one reason - to make as much money as possible. Do you really think that they would have made those movies (or will continue to make movies) if they don't have the ability to sell them for whatever price the market will bear?
Which is, again, getting means and end the wrong way around. Copyright is about encouraging creation of works by giving creators the chance to make some money out of it, not about making it easier for companies to make more money (or it is in those places where art is about art, rather than a mere investment). Whichever way you look at it, here Starz have chosen to *not* make money from their content. The market (in this case, Netflix) isn't willing to bear the price they're offering, and so rather than offer a lower price, they're simply shutting down that revenue stream. This is an example of copyright failing utterly.
Starz makes exclusive content? So what? So do ABC, NBC, CBS, HBO, etc. The fact that SOME of them may decide to license SOME of their content to SELECTED outlets doesn't change the fact that none of the have to do that. Your idiotic proposal would mean that NBC should be forced to allow CBS to air its shows, thereby negating the whole point of NBC existing in the first place.
And again I find myself needing to note the difference between producers and distributors. I admit it is confusing as often (with TV) they are the same - which is why issues with competition arise. It's slightly different over here, where TV tends to be made by production companies and then sold to the broadcasters (we don't really have "networks"). Allowing CBS to show stuff created "for" or "by" NBC does not negate NBC; it means that you split up producer and distributor. The networks still get to choose what to show, when to show it, how to charge for it, how to package it etc., and so have to offer a competitive service to both producers (if they want 'better' deals than the compulsory licence) and to customers (who aren't forced into buying a package with a hundred channels if they want to watch a particular 30-minutes-a-week of programming).
First, to 'abuse your position', you must have an actual position to abuse. That is you must be completely dominant in an industry. ... having a so-called 'monopoly' on your own products does not count, ever.
This would be where I disagree; but as this is a disagreement in definition, and I'm not an expert in business terminology etc. or anti-trust law, there doesn't seem to be much point in pursuing this as I'm likely not using the terms in the correct, legal context and manner.
Ok, now we're confusing "means" and "end". So, let's start with the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
The "end" of copyright is to "promote ... useful arts". The means for doing so is by giving "for limited Times" certain "exclusive Right[s]." It doesn't say "To give authors control over their works..." That's a hint that this isn't about control.
Looking at pretty much any modern copyright law, there are three very clear ways to spot that the laws aren't about control. Firstly, they're time-limited. If copyright was about giving creators control, it would either last indefinitely, or as long as the creator lived - so they could control their work. This is particularly obvious in the early copyright laws were the duration was anything from 14 years to 5. In fact, in the Constitution quoted above, there's that "limited time" part, highlighting this.
Secondly, copyright isn't absolute. While the early copyright acts (the British Copyright Act 1709, US Copyright Act 1790) didn't contain them, defences to copyright cropped up fairly quickly (with "fair abridgement", the precursor to "fair use" being created in 1740, in Gyles v Wilcox. These days they tend to be enshrined in legislation (fair use is in the 1976 US Copyright Act and the UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has a whole host of "permitted acts"). Again, if copyright was about control, why would there be exceptions and defences? This takes away control from creators.
Thirdly (perhaps the weakest argument) copyright is transferable or revocable. It can be bought and sold like any other intangible property (at least, in some jurisdictions; some or all of it in others are bound to the creator); this gives creators control over their works by allowing them to give up control over it. That seems a rather odd way of doing so.
Of course, when I wrote that comment I didn't have the US Constitution in mind; I was thinking of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often referred to as simply the Statute of Anne), or to give it its full title:
An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned.
Again, this is about "encouraging learning", not about giving authors control. In fact, if you read the text (which I recommend, it's a good read; particularly comparing it with modern copyright laws) the purpose it gives (along with the above) is to prevent booksellers and publishers from printing works to the "very great Detriment" of authors and the "Ruin of them and their Families." In order to fix this, it gives authors (or those who would become known as copyright owners) the "sole Liberty of Printing and Reprinting" their books for 14 years (subject to some qualifications about price and registration). [If it helps, the 1790 Act was mostly copied (ah, the irony) from the 1709 Act.]
To me, this implies that copyright was originally about money, not control. It was a means to ensure that authors had the first chance at getting a reasonable financial return on their books, not a means to give them complete control over their works.
Anyway, I hope some of this will help convince you that copyright isn't entirely about control (or wasn't originally), but by giving copyright owners some limited control (as a means to an end), has led them to feel entitled to greater control. Perhaps that might encourage you to revise your opinion of my post...
Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented). Starz does not have a monopoly on Disney films. They had an agreement with Disney for pay cable TV distribution. Somehow they found a loophole that allowed them to claim Netflix as one of their customers. Disney has now closed that loophole, and said anyone who wants to stream must negotiate directly with Disney.
So Disney is enforcing its distribution monopoly on its content... which is the problem, caused by copyright, that I was identifying as being at the heart of this issue. As for the renting issue, renting and streaming are legally very different (at least in the US) - renting is perfectly legal (provided the DVD was legally bought in the first place), but streaming requires a licence. This is why Netflix was able to set up in the first place; it just needed to buy a load of DVDs, no need to worry about getting licence agreements with Hollywood et al.. This contrasts with the EU, where renting *is* covered by copyright, and does require a licence, so legally I can't rent a Disney DVD without Disney licensing that.
However, Starz (the cable company) does have a monopoly on Starz (the film company) films. That's where the issue of competition comes in; you have one company acting as both publisher and distributor, meaning it gets favourable distribution deals, and will do what it can to block other distribution methods.
As to your last point, so what? Do you some sort of inherent right to get a recent episode of Camelot? No, you do not. Anti-trust regulations are meant to protect consumers from harm - no-one is being harmed by being unable to stream Disney movies. If Starz (or anyone else) had a monopoly over the entire entertainment industry then there would probably be a reasonable reason for anti-trust action. But they don't.
I certainly didn't wish to imply the existence of any inherent rights... but look at it from the other point of view; the episode exists, it is published, it can easily (almost without effort and expense) be made available to the public - the only thing stopping this is the government-given restriction, saying that only Starz (et al.) can do so. Similarly, I don't have any inherent right to drink water, but if a government decided to grant a certain company an exclusive right to give people water (outlawing any other way of accessing) that would certainly raise eyebrows...
The anti-trust comment was more aimed at the issue of bundling; i.e. to watch film A you must subscribe to service B (or to play game C2, you must use service O); where a company abuses its monopoly over distributing certain content (to which it owns the copyright or has appropriate licenses) by restricting the legal ways of accessing that content to specific services. Now, some people would say that that's fair enough, and their right; my point was the emphasise that this entire issue stems from an "unnatural" set of laws, which aren't doing their job properly any more (discussed further below).
Coming soon: Officially-licensed porn of every Disney character!
Firstly, "officially-licensed" would quickly lose its meaning and appeal under a compulsory licensing scheme. If you look at Creative Commons stuff (where all relevant uses are "officially-licensed") the equivalent phrase appears to be "creator endorsed" (which is 'better' in many ways, as it involves the creator rather than a mere licensor). Also, it would be interesting to see if current copyright laws could be used to stop porn of Disney characters... particularly given the expression/idea divide. Plus once the works are out of copyright, it ceases to be an issue (and most Disney characters are based on public domain ones, so you can do what you like with them).
Compulsory licensing eliminates any control over how a work is used or presented.
And? Maybe I wasn't clear (I'm not a great writer), but a large part of my original post was emphasising that this "need for control" is a bad thing. It has crept into copyright over the last 100 or so years, and has no real place there, being responsible for much of the evils that copyright has caused. If I build a house or a table, I don't get any control over how it is used once I've sold it, why should a creator have control over their work once published? Yes, of course they should receive fair compensation for the use, but control?
From my understanding, most European copyright law has a separate section for "moral rights" including the protection from degrading or defamatory use. I'm all for keeping that (and, if anything, strengthening it), but that's not the same thing as control - that's part of defamation law.
Compulsory licensing is also unlikely to actually improve competition. The arbitrator (or whatever entity decides what's "fair") adds yet another layer of bureaucracy, easily swayed by overstatements (and understatements) of value. Think of the value, according to the RIAA, of a pirated song. Contract negotiations would be even longer and more expensive, because the owner couldn't back out, so they have to continue investing time and people to dealing with the negotiations.
As discussed above, State-run licensing does exist, and does seem to function (at least on a small scale). A large part of it is that it eliminates the contract negotiations entirely - one doesn't need a contract if one can go straight to a readily available licence. But yes, there is the big issue of valuing work (which is partly why most copyright laws long-abandoned a requirement of something being artistic). It will be interesting to see if anything happens with the UK's Digital Copyright Exchange, if it ever gets set up...
Perhaps the simplest way to get around this is just to cut back copyright to 5 years, restrict it to artistic works and give up on licensing? Only something like 5% of US-registered copyright works are commercially viable after 5 years, and copyright covers considerably more stuff than is ever registered - it wouldn't have a major affect on the vast majority of copyright owners...
Starz is a monopoly? What kind of twisted logic is that? By that definition, Ford is a monopoly because they are the only ones selling Ford vehicles. Toyota is also a monopoly, as they are the only ones selling Toyotas. And let's not forget the juggernaut monopoly of Bentley.
You are confusing the content monopoly with the distribution system monopoly. Yes, Ford has a monopoly on the manufacture Ford cars, but they're not the only ones selling them. You can get them second-hand, through a dealer, through a distributor etc.. Imagine, instead, if Ford could prevent people from selling a Ford car without a licence - they could then insist that the only way to buy a Ford would be from them, and when you did that, you had to get 5 cars at once, and agree to buy cars from them for the next 10 years...
Of course, if they tried to do that, no one would buy Ford cars; they'd move to Toyota or Bentley (now part of VW) - but when the top half-dozen manufacturers control over 50% of production (rough estimate from here), such a practice could easily become standard.
The other major point is that a car is a car, and what makes a Ford a Ford (v a VW or Skoda) is the Ford logo on the front. While there are significant variations, and individual companies may hold design rights and patents on certain elements, very few substantial designs are restricted to one company. This means that while Ford have the monopoly on Ford cars, Toyota could, if it wanted to, make a car very similar to a particular Ford model, but stick their logo on. This makes the market much more competitive and gives consumers much more choice.
In contrast, while the contrary could be argued in some cases, each TV show/film is unique. There is no other way to get an episode of, for example, the recent Camelot series, or Torchwood: Miracle Day without going to Starz (or their partners). The very essence and purpose of the object (the show) is protected by copyright etc., whereas with a car, it is only the specifics (the logos, design, possible patented parts) that is unique to any one manufacturer.
This already happens; in the UK we have a little-known thing called the Copyright Tribunal, which acts as a sort of mini-court/dispute resolution thing. It's job (by law) is to dictate the terms of licence agreements (mainly between collective licensing bodies and end users) in cases where the parties can't agree on them themselves.
Historically, this comes from part of the original Copyright Act 1709 (8 Anne c.21, often simply called the Statute of Anne) which gave a cause of action against booksellers etc. who were charging unreasonable prices for their works. Early copyright law is very much focussed on being paid a fair amount, not on control.
Computers don't lie. They can get a list of IPs from a torrent tracker and connect to them. If they upload the content, that is proof that the connection is being used to break the law.
Actually, it's evidence, not proof. And only evidence that the connection may be being used. You then (at least, in the UK, I'm assuming NZ has similar copyright laws as I think they borrowed most of it from us) have to prove that the content was copyrighted, prove that whoever uploaded it didn't have a licence (or other legal option) to do so, prove that you own the copyright to said content and prove that a person (you can't sue a computer) did the uploading or authorised it. Then you can sue them for it.
Interestingly, from what I recall, during the ACS:Law fiasco over here, some of the leaked files showed that, of the IP addresses identified as being involved in copyright infringement at a certain time (by ACS:Law's "client"), about 1 in 4 weren't even allocated at the time the alleged infringement occurred. When you have a minimum 25% error rate, there's no way to get a criminal conviction on the basis of that alone, and (combined with the uncertainties in all the other elements), even a civil case is looking unlikely.
Pesky thing, due process; causes all sorts of troubles. That's why these laws (this one, the French Hadopi, UK Digital Economy Act, the US ProtectIP) are created; they're mostly designed to circumvent the requirements of existing law (in terms of what needs to be proven). But who needs due process; copyright infringers are all evil thieves and don't deserve it.
Of course, most UK Internet users infringe copyright on a daily basis (particularly given the recent Meltwater decision, which seems to hold that merely visiting a website is a prima facie infringement)...
Now all we have to do is define "reasonable."
Yep, that's the massive hole in much of the "common law" legal system. Usually this means "what a judge thinks is reasonable", sometimes "what a jury thinks is reasonable."
Of course, flexibility in a legal system isn't always a bad thing...
So you blame Netflix? There are two parties in this contract; we won't know which one is at fault without knowing how much Starz is demanding, and how little Netflix is offering.
Of course, the real villain here is copyright. Not the law, but the idea that it gives publishers complete control over their works (rather than just being a way to help them make a reasonable return). It means that publishers like Starz feel entitled to demand whatever price they want for their content, or flat-out refuse to license it - particularly if they'd rather you spent $10/mo on their service (even though you only want to watch the odd show), rather than paying Netflix $x/mo, of which only a fraction will end back at Starz.
The same issue is gradually making itself known with computer gaming; particularly the current Valve/EA fight, with contract negotiations breaking down as both parties want to push their own distribution systems (Steam/Origin resp.) with their products (notably Crysis2, Dragon Age 2, and soon SW:tOR).
This is bundling, it occurs when you have publishers, distributors and copyright owners all mixed together, and is anti-competitive and evil. This is what led to the EU fining Microsoft €899m in 2008, for bundling WMP with Windows (and made MS give EU users a choice of web browser, by default).
Sadly, the only way around this (short of having very strict and rigorously-enforced anti-trust laws - which take a long time to work; the initial complaint against MS above was made in 1994 - an appeal is still pending) is compulsory licensing. This would mean we could get dozens of Netflixes and Hulus, iTuneses and Spotifies, Steams and Origins, all offering competing services to access the same content - giving consumers the choice for which service to go with (rather than the copyright owner), depending on the terms ($n/mo for streaming v $m per download etc.) - with copyright owners getting paid a 'fair' amount, and not having to worry about endless contract negotiations.
Of course, this will never happen in the US/EU etc. as it would involve the big copyright owners (Disney, Warner Bros, Starz etc.) giving up control, and their refusal to allow these sorts of services already (or reliance on excessive DRM) shows how tightly they cling on to this. Plus it would probably have to involve registering copyrights, a state-run scheme, international co-operation and a significant change to the big copyright treaties (such as TRIPS or the Berne Convention).
But one can dream...
Mmm, the restrictions are rather broad; but then there's the bit about being "prescribed by law" and "necessary in a democratic society", which tends to mean "proportionate" or "no more than is necessary." However, most of us can't afford the lawyers needed to argue these things out and the lower courts seem to just do whatever the police ask of them.
Does he not have the freedom of assembly?
Yep, he has that. Although it can be restricted.
Does he not have the freedom to call for an assembly?
Probably covered by the above.
What part of a water fight is not legal?
Well, it could be some sort of offence against the person (would certainly be battery, if there was no consent). Then you have all those lovely "breach of the peace" or "affray" things that the police love to (often incorrectly) apply when they want to round someone up. They could also go with s127 Communications Act 2003 (as with the Twitter Joke Trial) if they can show that calling for a water fight is "menacing".
Can you be arrested for a pre-crime in England?
Of course you can - planning, or conspiracy to do a crime is arrestable most places.
Times like this I wish I was a lawyer already....
Iirc the UNDHR isn't binding in the UK. However, the police are bound by the Human Rights Act which protects freedom of association (Art. 11). Unfortunately, like freedom of speech and privacy it comes with the annoying qualifications about doing things "in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others".
No, but it is in the UK, where "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others," - and people wonder why the government doesn't like the Human Rights Act...
They also need some controls on how long they can keep people on bail for (currently indefinitely thanks to our incompetent, reactionary Parliament - in practice this can be years, then a few more years in prison between being charged and tried), and restrictions on what they can do with seized property, i.e. having to give it back quickly, and in good condition.
Rather than just arrests and convictions, it might be worth comparing investigations (or stop-and-searches), arrests, charges and convictions (the Home Office probably has stats somewhere) and seeing how terrible it is. [I found some stats on Terrorism laws, particularly the s44 stop-and-search powers - where in 2009-10, they had arrest rate. Oh, and not one was related to terrorism.]
Ooh, Canada has a LII as well - shiny.
Ah, so this isn't really a judgment, just some sort of pre-ruling opinion? Also, the other two judges are listed at the bottom with an "I agree" each, so I had assumed that was like the E+W courts where, if there are multiple judges and only one giving the lead judgment, the others will just "agree".
TFA explains that it was a panel of three judges, so it was the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision, not the decision of a single judge.
Yes, but as often happens in cases where there is a panel, only one of them gave a judgment, the others just agreed.
If anyone is interested in what the ruling actually says, the judgment is here with the relevant part starting at [41]. The judge seems to have noted that in both the US and UK, domain names are already being treated as a form of intangible property in law (like patents, copyrights etc.), which could, as discussed elsewhere in the comments, lead to greater "rights" for those who have "bought" a domain name; making it more like renting than licensing.
The reason the court needed to consider this was due to jurisdictional issues; the claimants needed to show a "real and substantial connection with Ontario", i.e. that the case concerned property there. The case seems to be mainly about procedure rather than substantive law. [For the record IAALS]