If you want to check, the relevant bit of law is Section 13A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) which states:
(2)... copyright expires—
(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
(b) if it is released before the end of that period, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released, or
(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,
While various minor Acts (mainly based on EU directives or international treaties) have extended the duration of written works to life+70 from the life+50 in the original Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, so far, duration of copyright on sound recordings has escaped largely untouched. Of course, it is still a long way from the original 14+14 years, but it is something.
I don't really want to get involved with this debate, but that is the same logic that brought us: copyright infringement = stealing, stealing = crime hence copyright infringement = crime.
You're confusing the lay-person and lawyer definition of "murder". I assume you justify abortion = murder by working with "life begins at conception". I'm not sure about the legal jurisdiction you are in, but here in England it is my understanding that, legally (for the purposes of liability etc.) life actually begins at birth. Whether or not you agree with it, that is the law. Incidentally, this means (iirc) that if someone was to stab a pregnant woman and kill the foetus (but not the woman), they couldn't be charged with murder or manslaughter, or any charge involving harm to the foetus. But IAmalsNAL: I am merely a law student, not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
But yes, probably best modded offtopic and left alone.
No, it isn't. We don't (yet) have indefinite copyright anywhere. In Ireland (as in the UK), the copyright on sound recordings (so MP3s and whatnot) expires 50 years after the recording was made. Obviously, this means works recorded in the 60s will be dropping out of copyright soon. That will include the early works of some rather big names including the Beatles. It is no wonder that the lobbyists are hard at work extending it - screw investing in new bands, mustn't let the stuff they've already bought (and don't have to pay the artists for) become available for free.
Personally, I have quite a bit of music I have downloaded that is not copyrighted.
Also, Ireland even has a shiny, new blasphemy law. But anyway;
There isn't actually a lot of money in music. People think there is, (and the large record labels would like to believe it) but there isn't. In 2009, according to the BPI's figures, the entire UK recorded music industry revenue was less than GBP1bn. That's for all their recorded music (CD sales, music videos, legal downloads, ad- and subscription-based services, the whole lot) for an entire year. A top film will make nearly that much. EMI (the UK's one, failing contribution to the "big four" - and the smallest one) made more than that in 2009 (actually, it even announced pre-tax losses of more than that; but that is more due to its screwed up investments and legal battles with its own musicians, or former musicians).
While $1bn may sound like a lot to you or me, on a corporate level, it is hardly anything - there really isn't that much money in actually selling recorded music to normal people. Normal people don't have that much money.
Moving on; yes, this will be an interesting case and will likely be hailed as a success and great progress tomorrow by the IFPI and all their little friends; in fact, it will probably be used to support their efforts in forcing through something similar under the UK's Digital Economy Act. These measures will not work for two reasons. Firstly, they won't stop file-sharing without causing a huge fuss (and likely leading to an even greater backlash against the lobbyists). There will always be loop-holes, there will always be unlicensed file-sharing while it still more convenient. Secondly, even if people stop sharing, they won't naturally move to paying for stuff (and they certainly won't be downloading from iTunes or using Spotify if their Internet has been cut off for a year).
The only people who will win here are the lobbyists (who can get nice big bonuses for getting their laws passed) and the lawyers who will be spending the next 10-15 years trying to untangle the mess it creates in the local, national and European courts. Stopping piracy through legislation and litigation isn't going to work, nor has it ever worked.
Incidentally, I am doing something to stop things like this; I am a member of my local Pirate Party and will be meeting with Ofcom (the UK's communication regulator who has been tasked with drafting - or just using the BPI's draft of - our n-strikes law) to explain to them why they will be unable to carry out the requirements made of them.
Hang on, if software can now be patented, does that make it an "idea" or "invention", rather than an "artistic work"? In that case, does it meant that copyright law no longer applies to software?
Of course not - that might actually be useful to the average person. So now an algorithm can be both patented and copyrighted.... but only if it is a Computer Science one, not a Mathematical one.
I think someone needs to seriously knock in the head of all these "intellectual property" thingamies.
What also scares me is this quote from the detective: "Based on my training and experience, I know that persons who buy and sell stolen property often use cellular devices to negotiate via telephone calls, email and/or text message." I don't know if I'm alone here, but "someone may have been involved with an unusual case that could technically be theft" + "thieves use 'phones" + "this person has a 'phone" => "we should seize the 'phone and any other 'phones we see" seems a little dodgy to me. Particularly when a bit later the detective uses the same logic to seize a couple more. The conclusion may be valid, but surely the correct logic is "a witness stated that the individual had one main mobile 'phone and no fixed 'phone" => "any record of 'phone conversations related to the incident would be on this 'phone" => "it should be seized"
Now, I can understand the point of view that you want as much potential evidence as possible, but surely that doesn't mean you get to seize absolutely anything?
Also, I am somewhat amused by Apple's claims that the leak will cost them "huge" damage financially because people won't buy a current iPhone because they know another version is coming out soon... so instead of buying a cheapish current one, they'll buy the more expensive, brand-new release in a few months. Yes, that sounds like "huge" damage to me.
I'm also somewhat concerned by the fact that "Martinson" called the police after the (dead and wiped) iPhone prototype was connected to her computer briefly and she was worried that Apple would be able to trace it back to her. Now, I'm all for making it easier to recover stolen property, but Apple being able to tell if a dead product was connected to a computer and remotely identify it sounds (I hope) rather far-fetched. Either way, I'm sticking with avoiding Apple products wherever possible.
Anyway, I know that you USians like locking people up (with the highest ratio of inmates per person in the world) but I wonder if that is appropriate here. What do people think should be the punishment (if any) for the three people concerned if we assume the evidence provided is accurate?
When I was there (fairly recently) it was GBP3,000 per year. However, you could get a government-subsidised student loan for that (and to cover another 3,000 per year in living costs). Of course, every so often there is a call to increase the costs (last week they wanted to double it) and it is increasing year-on-year anyway, but it is still relatively low. You could also get an income-assessment done to see if some of that could be covered by a grant rather than a loan - and Cambridge (being an old and relatively rich university - in UK terms, not US ones) tries to make sure that no one is turned away due to the cost.
There is one private university in the UK that doesn't get any sort of government subsidy, so has Harvard-style costs, but I don't know much about it.
Anyway, I received a demand from the Student Loans Company for over £20,000 - fortunately as I have no income I don't have to pay it back yet - and they even stopped charging interest during the recession. That's about the cost (including living expenses) of a first degree in the UK (if you are a UK citizen) in a cheap subject (maths). If you then want to go onto a second degree, I don't think you get the government subsidy so it will be closer to that 30k per year figure.
If you are in Scotland, it costs about £1,000 a year, rather than £3,000 (Scotland in general gets more tax-money than the rest of the UK) but that's a different issue.
There were two Lords that pushed for web-blocking. I know it is now no longer party policy (and something I am glad the LibDems sorted out) but it is still important to remember that some of those MPs who spoke out against the Bill criticised the process but not necessarily the content.
Ideally when choosing who to vote for everything should be checked with the candidate rather than the Party, but the whip system means that we can't really vote for an individual.
Personally, I am trying to decide between the independents for the general election (my constituency has several "no chance" candidates; a Monster Raving Loony, a couple of 'independents' and a Labour guy) - although I may have to vote Tory in the local ones (to help stop a rather... ancient LibDem being re-elected). I will be sending out some emails over this soon (most of my candidates have supplied addresses) asking questions about the things that matter to me - I recommend everyone do the same.
Ideally I would vote for PPUk (and I think questions would be asked of me if I didn't, given my involvement with it and PPI) but I wasn't able to stand myself, and there wasn't an alternate candidate available here. I also strongly advise anyone who cares about the Internet, their privacy, culture, freedom of speech and communication and all those other lovely things to vote Pirate if they are lucky enough to be able to. I know it is unlikely that a Pirate will be elected, but getting votes may be enough to start making a difference.
Did not the European court rule the three-strikes thing was a violation of fundamental human rights?
My understanding is that the European Parliament passed a directive that means three-strikes style laws can't operate without judicial process. When Spain started working on this sort of thing, I think one of the Commissioners warned them that it would likely lead to conflict with the Commission.
At the moment, there is nothing in the Act that, from what I see, conflicts with this - but once the code comes out, this might change. I would not be surprised if, when the powers in the DEA are used for the first time (those under sections 4-16 under copyright infringement, section 17 on web censorship etc.) it is contested and the case goes all the way to either the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.
I think suggesting that the LibDems "stood up" to this is giving them a little more credit than they deserve. They ended up supporting it in the Lords and even adding the controversial web-censoring clause (I know they tried to get it removed, but it was too late then). As it was, only a handful (14?) of LibDem MPs turned up to vote, and even fewer made any sort of speech.
The LibDems seem to want to repeal this mainly due to the method by which it was passed, not for the content; they claim they would "take it off the statue book and replace it with something better" - better for whom? From what I remember of their speeches in the debate, better here may be for copyright owners. This could just mean they want to remove all the loop-holes. I will not be voting LibDem next week - for other reasons as well - because I am certainly not convinced by their "promises" over the Digital Economy Act.
Incidentally, I'm currently taking an OU law course and brought this up at one of my tutorials (a few days after it passed through the Commons) and none of the other 6 people present had even heard of the Act. The general public doesn't know - while there has been plenty of news in our section of reality, it hasn't been getting out into the rest of the country. Of course, once people start getting threatening letters, this could change, but by then it will be too late. Welcome to the British legal system.
Just looking through the list, I'm not particularly excited by their loop-holes.
Ok, I'll accept that this is quite cunning; however, it is basically just shifting the burden. It means that rather than needing n strikes, you'll need 2n-1 strikes (assuming two people capable of signing the subscriber agreement). They will all still go on the list of alleged infringements and any allegations (from what I remember of the debates; can't find the Hansard quote) stay with you for some time, even if you switch ISP. - Ineffective
I'm a little worried by becoming a "communications provider". There are over 400 sections of the Communications Act 2003 most of which seems to be aimed at laying down rules and laws for communications providers. I haven't read this Act thoroughly, but I think this will just end up placing a huge burden on the unsubscriber (like the provisions on Data Retention, or registering with the Information Commissioner - that sort of thing). Even then, it could be argued that if you are a communications provider, then you must provide the service to some sort of subscriber (even if it is just you) so then you become the target of all the initial obligations and liable for carrying them out. - Could cause a lot of trouble
This hinges on the definition of "allocation". Not sure how well this would hold up in Court (when the ISP is taken to court for not carrying out its obligations). However, it is a good example of what happens when you have an Act "debated" only briefly by people who mostly don't understand the context. - Possible, but might not hold up.
Comments to the second point apply here as well. Could work, but will likely be highly problematic for the unsubscriber. Also, this would only apply to some users, not all. - Problematic and limited
This was discussed in the Lords (should be quotes somewhere in Hansard) and there was an idea that the copyright notice count should follow you from one ISP to another. It's not explicit in the Act (from what I can see), but could be in the Code. It probably will be now. - Probably covered
This seems to hinge on the definition of an ISP. The definition is quite loose, and the three criteria are that they have subscribers (also defined quite loosely), they mainly or entirely provide access to the Internet and allocate IP addresses. The first and third have already been discussed, but the second might work; you'd need to find another primary business for the ISP - i.e. they sell invisible pink unicorns, but you get an Internet connection free with every monthly sale. - Could work
Well, this one should be a given. If they receive an invalid notice, they should delete it (or if I get my way, take action against whoever sent it). Of course, what makes it valid will be in the Code. The main criteria would be ensuring the evidence of infringement was up to standards (standards that aren't defined yet) and that whoever sent the notice actually owns the copyright. Both of these could require a lot of effort from the ISP to check. Also, if the ISP doesn't comply with the DEA, under Section 14 (2) they can be fined up to £250,000. This isn't something small ISPs are likely to mess with. Not really a loop-hole
So, while I am impressed that at least one ISP has thoroughly read through the Act and is trying to work against it, I think their loop-holes aren't going to be that good in practice (with the one exception). Still, their draft Code seems to have highlighted many of the key points, and I hope that they will get heavily involved with the Code-drafting process.
The best way to get around this sort of thing is to either fight for repealing the Act (so vote Pirate or Green - while the Lib Dems have said they want to repeal it, that's due to the process by which it was passed, they still seem mostly in favour of the content) or making sure that the Code approved
Copyright legislation like this are of a kind of recognition that media content should not play purely by free market rules.
Just a little comment here, but isn't legislation like this (which reduces the scope of copyright) actually making the market more free? Copyright is what locks up the market in the first place by giving the copyright owner the total (legal) monopoly on distributing certain content. If I want to watch a film I have the choice between paying the copyright owner via a cinema, or paying the copyright owner via a DVD/VHS store. While I can go to a different store or cinema which might allow me to "get a better deal", I have no choice over the "base price" set by the copyright owner - something that becomes particularly apparent with services like iTunes, from what I have seen.
Anyways, please don't mistake relaxing copyright law for legislative intervention to protect a market.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist/business student/whatever - I'm a mathematician and Pirate (not pirate with a little p, but Pirate with a big P - as in a member of the political movement).
the brain said to stop reading at the second word. momentum brought in the third word which just confirmed the notion.
Why was this modded flamebait? I know it isn't the most civilised and politely-worded post in this thread, but it does have a point. I'm no scientist (degree in maths) but I have been following this business with the climate change "controversy" from a safe distance, reading both arguments on either side and looking at available (non-technical*) evidence and have come to the conclusion that this "huge, controversial debate" is only going on in the media, not within the scientific community.
From what I've seen over the last 10-15 years, climate scientists got this sort of stuff pretty much sorted out a long time ago and, much like the same debate that happened over the last few decades with the negative effects of smoking, what we are seeing now is those companies with an interest in this issue waking up to the scientific community and doing everything they can to fight it. I hope we will see the same pattern here; scientist suggests something, scientists investigate, scientists accept; companies kick up a fuss, media 'investigates', media stirs up controversy (it seems to think it exists to do that - and in some ways, it does), overwhelming scientific evidence finally convinces media, companies shut up and try to work solving their problem rather than pretending it doesn't exist. Now, obviously there are still some people who think that smoking isn't bad for ones health and so there will likely be some that continue to dismiss global warming as a fantasy, but there are still those that suggest the Earth is flat or dismiss evolution as a pack of lies...
Anyways, my point was that the parent is correct in that, by appending "-gate" onto Climate, one demonstrates that this is an issue being discussed in the popular media, with catchy headlines and phrases, not in a scientific community, as such, many people (including myself) are tempted to stop reading after that word appears (although I didn't).
Having the "raw data" won't help anyone with this. Those who can actually understand it probably already have it (or as close as possible) and don't really care. Those who can't shouldn't be playing with things they don't understand and are only going to create more confusion.
Oh, and don't get me started on the word "proved"... that has no place outside mathematics.
*As a mathematician not someone with a phd in climatology, I won't pretend to be able to understand the actual data, and am highly sceptical of anyone not in that field who claims to be able to.
Internet used to be more of a home. Now it is become more of a marketplace.
The Web, perhaps - but I live in a nice IRC suburb which is quite friendly and generally ad-free (occasionally we get a spammer, but then sometimes spammers knock on my front door). There are still even corners of the web that are homely, it's just a case of finding the right ones.
There's quite a difference. Unless you think they abduct actual schoolgirls, and octopuses, to use them as models.
In Japan, maybe but not in some places - such as the UK as of a couple of weeks ago.*
Well, the tentacles part doesn't matter - you wouldn't get done for having images of bestiality (I think) assuming it was a drawing, but you could still get locked up for 3 years and have your life destroyed.
*Assuming the schoolgirls are under-18 or that the "impression conveyed" is that they are under-18, or that the "predominant impression conveyed" is that they are under-18 "despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child".
This would work great with the UK's plan for a new Digital Economy. On no, wait - it won't. Can't have open wi-fi any more. Can't have any sort of Internet connection where anyone using it cannot be tracked down and punished for allegedly infringing copyright.
Of course, according to Stephen Timms, Minister "for Digital Britain", if someone was worried about wireless connections being used by other people, he "could introduce a password so that somebody driving up outside his house would not be able to use his [connection]". So wireless is perfectly secure. Although this is the same person who was recently caught referring to an "Intellectual Property (IP) address" so possibly not the best person to be running our digital economy.
... which is an excellent trivialisation of the issues involved (and one that publishing companies have happily encouraged). It doesn't seem to be true. I was at a conference recently discussing piracy and counterfeiting (from an academic perspective as part of an EU project) and one thing most of the studies presented seemed to agree on was that 'price' wasn't the biggest motivation (or justification) for piracy. In some cases, it wasn't even in the top 5 or so. The main motivation is convenience.
This makes sense when you think about it - people generally are willing to pay for things that save them having to do work themselves (being lazy and all that). People also tend to pay more for things that are more convenient.
Pirates are willing to pay; there have been a couple of big piracy-related court cases in the UK over the last few months (OiNK and Newzbin) and in both cases the prosecution highlighted how much money these sites were making from their users. There have also been a couple of studies that noted that those who file-share (unlawfully or whatever, depending on jurisdiction) spend more than those who don't. Now, in terms of computer games (rather than audio/video material) this might be slightly different, but it should be reasonably obvious that the money is there and people are willing to spend it - just in some cases, they are not willing to spend the price demanded for the product offered (i.e. £40 for a DRM-laden game) and due to the monopolies granted by copyright, piracy is the only other way of acquiring the material (obviously there is the third option, which is the one I personally chooses). In their Digital Music Report 2010, the IFPI noted that the major, successful developments in the music industry in 2009 were a) getting more content available, b) introducing variable pricing, c) removing DRM (and not the litigation and legislation they have been pushing). It is unsurprising that what was successful was giving consumers (yes, pirates are consumers) what they want.
I read this headline and assumed at first it was an article about the fact that the "3D" in cinemas isn't really 3D at all (assuming that D refers to a spatial dimension). I got really excited when I heard about TV companies making a big drive for "3D television" but then lost interest as soon as I saw glasses. All you are getting is 2 x 2D (which isn't 4D... more 2.5D). It is all just an illusion (OK, so that's pretty much all film is anyway, but you know what I mean). There is no movement; when something comes at you from the screen, you can't dodge. You can't look behind things, you can't change your view.
It is interesting because I remember "3D" films being around for over 10 years (usually at places like the various Disney sites) and they were just shiny, let's-all-have-some-fun gimmicks. I even remember getting red-blue glasses with cereal boxes some time ago. False-3D is old and boring, it's been around for ages and is extremely limited.
What I am waiting for is true 3D filming. This would probably only be possible with cartoons etc. for a while, but the idea of having a film that you can really walk around (or through) is quite appealing. Obviously the film-making process would become considerably more complicated (more like producing a computer game) and the hardware at the viewer end could be quite complicated.
Alternatively, one way of achieving some sort of 3D would be to capitalise on the increasing cross-over between televisions and computers; you could set up a film as some sort of 3D environment that the viewer could wander around as you would in an FPS (or something) and focus on whatever you were more interested in; obviously you could still just watch it all from the default PoV (and it might mess things up when watching with other people), but personally I think it could be an interesting idea.
It seems Pirate Party UK's one of the core policies is reforming copyright and patent law so that non-commercial file sharing would be legalized.
For the record, the PPUK's policies aren't fixed yet. Voting is going on at the moment and there is an interesting debate on whether or not non-commercial file sharing should be legalised. Personally, I am on the unlawful side, but there are good arguments either way.
...along with decriminalising personal copyright infringement.
PPUK can't be pushing for this, because personal copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence in the first place. It is a civil offence which, in the UK, means significantly lower standards of evidence, fewer protections for the defendant and much bigger fines and legal fees.
Having said that, that policy is just a draft and is subject to change when it goes to a member vote over the next week or so.
As I pointed out in my original article that response from Lord Clement-Jones just highlights his lack of understanding.
He makes a major mistake in the first sentence - I pretty much stopped reading after then - although his assurances about it involving due process are worthless as the debate (and text) made it clear that the Court is not expected to be involved and if it is, the service provider will have to pay all the costs.
The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing.
Wrong!"P2P" or even the word "peer" do not appear at any point in the current text of the bill. The original recommendation in the Digital Britain report was limited to P2P if I remember correctly, and the major consultation over the summer (that I wrote 20,000 words on pointing out many of the flaws in their plans) was on P2P only, but when the actual text was published it had been expanded to cover any online activity.
Lord Clement-Jones may have seemed technologically competent and knowledgeable, but that was just in comparison to the government Ministers, so doesn't say much. The direct debate between him and the Earl of Erroll highlighted just how limited his understanding was.
There is no such thing as gravity, only Intelligent Falling, whereby Angels grab your ankles and pull you back down to the ground.
Angels? I was under the impression that it was all done by gnomes. Everyone knows that Angels don't really exist and were made up by the gnomes as cover.
So let's remove gravity, most of physics, and genetics from the science classroom as well. Those are all theories. You don't prove a theory. You find evidence either for or against it. As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it.
To take this further, I'm fairly certain that gravity is a much more vague theory than evolution. Evolution is a pretty good theory; there is a pretty good consensus as to how it happens, why it happens and what makes it happen; it has also been directly observed. The current theory is an adaptation and improvement on a theory developed a couple of hundred years ago.
On the other hand, while we have some fairly good approximations for how gravity works (Newtonian, General Relativity), there are still a lot of different theories as to why gravity works (gravitons, M-Theory, quantum field theory, quantum loop gravity are the main ones, I think). The LHC is working on getting more evidence for some of these theories; but despite the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence for the basic stuff (i.e. massive things attract each other), the fine details of what, how and why are still very confused.
As scientific theories go, evolution seems a lot more straightforward than gravity...
[Disclaimer: I've only got an undergrad. degree in maths.]
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.
Right, so to stop a few corrupt individuals and companies in the US avoiding paying tax in the US by banking in Europe, every banking transaction that passes through Europe (or the EU, with 27 countries and over 500m people - that's more than all of North America) should be reported to the US... Something about setting ones own house in order before messing with other people's springs to mind.
Moving on, it is nice to see that the (democratically elected) European Parliament is finally able to stand up to the (appointed) Council of Ministers (and the US); the Lisbon Treaty does have its good points (even if it was pushed through in a rather undemocratic way). Now if only the rest of it could get implemented and the Swedish Pirate Party could get their second MEP into office.
A few weeks ago both Bioshock 2 and Mass Effect 2 were available for pre-order through Steam and it seemed like fairly tough decision between them but Bioshock 2 won due to being cheaper and bundled with the original. Then I noticed the "Other Requirements".
Back when Bioshock came out I put off buying it until the activation limits were removed (ironically, I bought Bioshock instead of Mass Effect or Spore because of the drm they had). However, it still had the base SecuRom system in and I ended up having to contact tech support several times just to get it to install. Since then I have been very careful about avoiding it (although the 1.1 patch for C&C3 tricked me). Now I own both Mass Effect and Spore having bought them through Steam which removed the DRM (although the online log-in part wasn't working for Spore for a couple of weeks).
Bioshock 2, according to Steam, comes with the base SecuRom, GFWL with activation limits (required for saving games, earning achievements, receiving updates and playing online; so all the things that Steam would usually handle) and a one-time internet connection to install.
Mass Effect 2 requires an ea.com account to access the online features.
It seems that EA learnt from the Spore controversy (or possibly from the lawsuits) and gave up on excessive drm. I can't speak for everyone, but 2k games lost at least one customer to EA because of their choice. Also, a quick search would suggest that drm doesn't work anyway (30,000ish downloads, about the same as for Mass Effect 2).
People pirate games for various reasons. Yes, some because it is free, some to avoid the DRM, some just because they can. Even some because they don't want to spend $50/£40 on a game without making sure it will run on their computer first (what happened to major studios releasing PC demos?). DRM is particularly hated as it has no benefit to and negatively affects the legitimate customer. Removing DRM won't magically stop piracy; but giving the customer a better experience (and trying to return to the attitude of "the customer is always right" rather than "the customer is a potential criminal") might be a good start.
[For the record, I will not, nor have pirated those games.]
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to check, the relevant bit of law is Section 13A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003) which states:
(2) ... copyright expires—
(a) at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the recording is made, or
(b) if it is released before the end of that period, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is released, or
(c) if during that period the recording is not published but is made available to the public by being played in public or communicated to the public, 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,
While various minor Acts (mainly based on EU directives or international treaties) have extended the duration of written works to life+70 from the life+50 in the original Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, so far, duration of copyright on sound recordings has escaped largely untouched. Of course, it is still a long way from the original 14+14 years, but it is something.
I don't really want to get involved with this debate, but that is the same logic that brought us: copyright infringement = stealing, stealing = crime hence copyright infringement = crime.
You're confusing the lay-person and lawyer definition of "murder". I assume you justify abortion = murder by working with "life begins at conception". I'm not sure about the legal jurisdiction you are in, but here in England it is my understanding that, legally (for the purposes of liability etc.) life actually begins at birth. Whether or not you agree with it, that is the law. Incidentally, this means (iirc) that if someone was to stab a pregnant woman and kill the foetus (but not the woman), they couldn't be charged with murder or manslaughter, or any charge involving harm to the foetus. But IAmalsNAL: I am merely a law student, not a lawyer so I could be wrong.
But yes, probably best modded offtopic and left alone.
Well all music is copyrighted...
No, it isn't.
We don't (yet) have indefinite copyright anywhere. In Ireland (as in the UK), the copyright on sound recordings (so MP3s and whatnot) expires 50 years after the recording was made. Obviously, this means works recorded in the 60s will be dropping out of copyright soon. That will include the early works of some rather big names including the Beatles. It is no wonder that the lobbyists are hard at work extending it - screw investing in new bands, mustn't let the stuff they've already bought (and don't have to pay the artists for) become available for free.
Personally, I have quite a bit of music I have downloaded that is not copyrighted.
Also, Ireland even has a shiny, new blasphemy law. But anyway;
There isn't actually a lot of money in music. People think there is, (and the large record labels would like to believe it) but there isn't. In 2009, according to the BPI's figures, the entire UK recorded music industry revenue was less than GBP1bn. That's for all their recorded music (CD sales, music videos, legal downloads, ad- and subscription-based services, the whole lot) for an entire year. A top film will make nearly that much. EMI (the UK's one, failing contribution to the "big four" - and the smallest one) made more than that in 2009 (actually, it even announced pre-tax losses of more than that; but that is more due to its screwed up investments and legal battles with its own musicians, or former musicians).
While $1bn may sound like a lot to you or me, on a corporate level, it is hardly anything - there really isn't that much money in actually selling recorded music to normal people. Normal people don't have that much money.
Moving on; yes, this will be an interesting case and will likely be hailed as a success and great progress tomorrow by the IFPI and all their little friends; in fact, it will probably be used to support their efforts in forcing through something similar under the UK's Digital Economy Act. These measures will not work for two reasons. Firstly, they won't stop file-sharing without causing a huge fuss (and likely leading to an even greater backlash against the lobbyists). There will always be loop-holes, there will always be unlicensed file-sharing while it still more convenient. Secondly, even if people stop sharing, they won't naturally move to paying for stuff (and they certainly won't be downloading from iTunes or using Spotify if their Internet has been cut off for a year).
The only people who will win here are the lobbyists (who can get nice big bonuses for getting their laws passed) and the lawyers who will be spending the next 10-15 years trying to untangle the mess it creates in the local, national and European courts. Stopping piracy through legislation and litigation isn't going to work, nor has it ever worked.
Incidentally, I am doing something to stop things like this; I am a member of my local Pirate Party and will be meeting with Ofcom (the UK's communication regulator who has been tasked with drafting - or just using the BPI's draft of - our n-strikes law) to explain to them why they will be unable to carry out the requirements made of them.
What are you doing to stop this sort of thing?
Hang on, if software can now be patented, does that make it an "idea" or "invention", rather than an "artistic work"? In that case, does it meant that copyright law no longer applies to software?
Of course not - that might actually be useful to the average person. So now an algorithm can be both patented and copyrighted.... but only if it is a Computer Science one, not a Mathematical one.
I think someone needs to seriously knock in the head of all these "intellectual property" thingamies.
What also scares me is this quote from the detective: "Based on my training and experience, I know that persons who buy and sell stolen property often use cellular devices to negotiate via telephone calls, email and/or text message." I don't know if I'm alone here, but "someone may have been involved with an unusual case that could technically be theft" + "thieves use 'phones" + "this person has a 'phone" => "we should seize the 'phone and any other 'phones we see" seems a little dodgy to me. Particularly when a bit later the detective uses the same logic to seize a couple more. The conclusion may be valid, but surely the correct logic is "a witness stated that the individual had one main mobile 'phone and no fixed 'phone" => "any record of 'phone conversations related to the incident would be on this 'phone" => "it should be seized"
Now, I can understand the point of view that you want as much potential evidence as possible, but surely that doesn't mean you get to seize absolutely anything?
Also, I am somewhat amused by Apple's claims that the leak will cost them "huge" damage financially because people won't buy a current iPhone because they know another version is coming out soon... so instead of buying a cheapish current one, they'll buy the more expensive, brand-new release in a few months. Yes, that sounds like "huge" damage to me.
I'm also somewhat concerned by the fact that "Martinson" called the police after the (dead and wiped) iPhone prototype was connected to her computer briefly and she was worried that Apple would be able to trace it back to her. Now, I'm all for making it easier to recover stolen property, but Apple being able to tell if a dead product was connected to a computer and remotely identify it sounds (I hope) rather far-fetched. Either way, I'm sticking with avoiding Apple products wherever possible.
Anyway, I know that you USians like locking people up (with the highest ratio of inmates per person in the world) but I wonder if that is appropriate here. What do people think should be the punishment (if any) for the three people concerned if we assume the evidence provided is accurate?
When I was there (fairly recently) it was GBP3,000 per year. However, you could get a government-subsidised student loan for that (and to cover another 3,000 per year in living costs). Of course, every so often there is a call to increase the costs (last week they wanted to double it) and it is increasing year-on-year anyway, but it is still relatively low. You could also get an income-assessment done to see if some of that could be covered by a grant rather than a loan - and Cambridge (being an old and relatively rich university - in UK terms, not US ones) tries to make sure that no one is turned away due to the cost.
There is one private university in the UK that doesn't get any sort of government subsidy, so has Harvard-style costs, but I don't know much about it.
Anyway, I received a demand from the Student Loans Company for over £20,000 - fortunately as I have no income I don't have to pay it back yet - and they even stopped charging interest during the recession. That's about the cost (including living expenses) of a first degree in the UK (if you are a UK citizen) in a cheap subject (maths). If you then want to go onto a second degree, I don't think you get the government subsidy so it will be closer to that 30k per year figure.
If you are in Scotland, it costs about £1,000 a year, rather than £3,000 (Scotland in general gets more tax-money than the rest of the UK) but that's a different issue.
There were two Lords that pushed for web-blocking. I know it is now no longer party policy (and something I am glad the LibDems sorted out) but it is still important to remember that some of those MPs who spoke out against the Bill criticised the process but not necessarily the content.
Ideally when choosing who to vote for everything should be checked with the candidate rather than the Party, but the whip system means that we can't really vote for an individual.
Personally, I am trying to decide between the independents for the general election (my constituency has several "no chance" candidates; a Monster Raving Loony, a couple of 'independents' and a Labour guy) - although I may have to vote Tory in the local ones (to help stop a rather ... ancient LibDem being re-elected). I will be sending out some emails over this soon (most of my candidates have supplied addresses) asking questions about the things that matter to me - I recommend everyone do the same.
Ideally I would vote for PPUk (and I think questions would be asked of me if I didn't, given my involvement with it and PPI) but I wasn't able to stand myself, and there wasn't an alternate candidate available here. I also strongly advise anyone who cares about the Internet, their privacy, culture, freedom of speech and communication and all those other lovely things to vote Pirate if they are lucky enough to be able to. I know it is unlikely that a Pirate will be elected, but getting votes may be enough to start making a difference.
Did not the European court rule the three-strikes thing was a violation of fundamental human rights?
My understanding is that the European Parliament passed a directive that means three-strikes style laws can't operate without judicial process. When Spain started working on this sort of thing, I think one of the Commissioners warned them that it would likely lead to conflict with the Commission.
At the moment, there is nothing in the Act that, from what I see, conflicts with this - but once the code comes out, this might change. I would not be surprised if, when the powers in the DEA are used for the first time (those under sections 4-16 under copyright infringement, section 17 on web censorship etc.) it is contested and the case goes all the way to either the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.
I think suggesting that the LibDems "stood up" to this is giving them a little more credit than they deserve. They ended up supporting it in the Lords and even adding the controversial web-censoring clause (I know they tried to get it removed, but it was too late then). As it was, only a handful (14?) of LibDem MPs turned up to vote, and even fewer made any sort of speech.
The LibDems seem to want to repeal this mainly due to the method by which it was passed, not for the content; they claim they would "take it off the statue book and replace it with something better" - better for whom? From what I remember of their speeches in the debate, better here may be for copyright owners. This could just mean they want to remove all the loop-holes. I will not be voting LibDem next week - for other reasons as well - because I am certainly not convinced by their "promises" over the Digital Economy Act.
Incidentally, I'm currently taking an OU law course and brought this up at one of my tutorials (a few days after it passed through the Commons) and none of the other 6 people present had even heard of the Act. The general public doesn't know - while there has been plenty of news in our section of reality, it hasn't been getting out into the rest of the country. Of course, once people start getting threatening letters, this could change, but by then it will be too late. Welcome to the British legal system.
Just looking through the list, I'm not particularly excited by their loop-holes.
So, while I am impressed that at least one ISP has thoroughly read through the Act and is trying to work against it, I think their loop-holes aren't going to be that good in practice (with the one exception). Still, their draft Code seems to have highlighted many of the key points, and I hope that they will get heavily involved with the Code-drafting process.
The best way to get around this sort of thing is to either fight for repealing the Act (so vote Pirate or Green - while the Lib Dems have said they want to repeal it, that's due to the process by which it was passed, they still seem mostly in favour of the content) or making sure that the Code approved
Copyright legislation like this are of a kind of recognition that media content should not play purely by free market rules.
Just a little comment here, but isn't legislation like this (which reduces the scope of copyright) actually making the market more free? Copyright is what locks up the market in the first place by giving the copyright owner the total (legal) monopoly on distributing certain content. If I want to watch a film I have the choice between paying the copyright owner via a cinema, or paying the copyright owner via a DVD/VHS store. While I can go to a different store or cinema which might allow me to "get a better deal", I have no choice over the "base price" set by the copyright owner - something that becomes particularly apparent with services like iTunes, from what I have seen.
Anyways, please don't mistake relaxing copyright law for legislative intervention to protect a market.
Disclaimer: I am not an economist/business student/whatever - I'm a mathematician and Pirate (not pirate with a little p, but Pirate with a big P - as in a member of the political movement).
fyi, this is how many of us read your comment:
the brain said to stop reading at the second word. momentum brought in the third word which just confirmed the notion.
Why was this modded flamebait? I know it isn't the most civilised and politely-worded post in this thread, but it does have a point. I'm no scientist (degree in maths) but I have been following this business with the climate change "controversy" from a safe distance, reading both arguments on either side and looking at available (non-technical*) evidence and have come to the conclusion that this "huge, controversial debate" is only going on in the media, not within the scientific community.
From what I've seen over the last 10-15 years, climate scientists got this sort of stuff pretty much sorted out a long time ago and, much like the same debate that happened over the last few decades with the negative effects of smoking, what we are seeing now is those companies with an interest in this issue waking up to the scientific community and doing everything they can to fight it. I hope we will see the same pattern here; scientist suggests something, scientists investigate, scientists accept; companies kick up a fuss, media 'investigates', media stirs up controversy (it seems to think it exists to do that - and in some ways, it does), overwhelming scientific evidence finally convinces media, companies shut up and try to work solving their problem rather than pretending it doesn't exist. Now, obviously there are still some people who think that smoking isn't bad for ones health and so there will likely be some that continue to dismiss global warming as a fantasy, but there are still those that suggest the Earth is flat or dismiss evolution as a pack of lies...
Anyways, my point was that the parent is correct in that, by appending "-gate" onto Climate, one demonstrates that this is an issue being discussed in the popular media, with catchy headlines and phrases, not in a scientific community, as such, many people (including myself) are tempted to stop reading after that word appears (although I didn't).
Having the "raw data" won't help anyone with this. Those who can actually understand it probably already have it (or as close as possible) and don't really care. Those who can't shouldn't be playing with things they don't understand and are only going to create more confusion.
Oh, and don't get me started on the word "proved"... that has no place outside mathematics.
*As a mathematician not someone with a phd in climatology, I won't pretend to be able to understand the actual data, and am highly sceptical of anyone not in that field who claims to be able to.
Internet used to be more of a home. Now it is become more of a marketplace.
The Web, perhaps - but I live in a nice IRC suburb which is quite friendly and generally ad-free (occasionally we get a spammer, but then sometimes spammers knock on my front door).
There are still even corners of the web that are homely, it's just a case of finding the right ones.
Drawings of schoolgirls getting raped.
There's quite a difference. Unless you think they abduct actual schoolgirls, and octopuses, to use them as models.
In Japan, maybe but not in some places - such as the UK as of a couple of weeks ago.*
Well, the tentacles part doesn't matter - you wouldn't get done for having images of bestiality (I think) assuming it was a drawing, but you could still get locked up for 3 years and have your life destroyed.
*Assuming the schoolgirls are under-18 or that the "impression conveyed" is that they are under-18, or that the "predominant impression conveyed" is that they are under-18 "despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child".
This would work great with the UK's plan for a new Digital Economy. On no, wait - it won't. Can't have open wi-fi any more. Can't have any sort of Internet connection where anyone using it cannot be tracked down and punished for allegedly infringing copyright.
Of course, according to Stephen Timms, Minister "for Digital Britain", if someone was worried about wireless connections being used by other people, he "could introduce a password so that somebody driving up outside his house would not be able to use his [connection]". So wireless is perfectly secure. Although this is the same person who was recently caught referring to an "Intellectual Property (IP) address" so possibly not the best person to be running our digital economy.
Pirates are after free stuff.
... which is an excellent trivialisation of the issues involved (and one that publishing companies have happily encouraged). It doesn't seem to be true. I was at a conference recently discussing piracy and counterfeiting (from an academic perspective as part of an EU project) and one thing most of the studies presented seemed to agree on was that 'price' wasn't the biggest motivation (or justification) for piracy. In some cases, it wasn't even in the top 5 or so. The main motivation is convenience.
This makes sense when you think about it - people generally are willing to pay for things that save them having to do work themselves (being lazy and all that). People also tend to pay more for things that are more convenient.
Pirates are willing to pay; there have been a couple of big piracy-related court cases in the UK over the last few months (OiNK and Newzbin) and in both cases the prosecution highlighted how much money these sites were making from their users. There have also been a couple of studies that noted that those who file-share (unlawfully or whatever, depending on jurisdiction) spend more than those who don't. Now, in terms of computer games (rather than audio/video material) this might be slightly different, but it should be reasonably obvious that the money is there and people are willing to spend it - just in some cases, they are not willing to spend the price demanded for the product offered (i.e. £40 for a DRM-laden game) and due to the monopolies granted by copyright, piracy is the only other way of acquiring the material (obviously there is the third option, which is the one I personally chooses). In their Digital Music Report 2010, the IFPI noted that the major, successful developments in the music industry in 2009 were a) getting more content available, b) introducing variable pricing, c) removing DRM (and not the litigation and legislation they have been pushing). It is unsurprising that what was successful was giving consumers (yes, pirates are consumers) what they want.
I read this headline and assumed at first it was an article about the fact that the "3D" in cinemas isn't really 3D at all (assuming that D refers to a spatial dimension). I got really excited when I heard about TV companies making a big drive for "3D television" but then lost interest as soon as I saw glasses. All you are getting is 2 x 2D (which isn't 4D... more 2.5D). It is all just an illusion (OK, so that's pretty much all film is anyway, but you know what I mean). There is no movement; when something comes at you from the screen, you can't dodge. You can't look behind things, you can't change your view.
It is interesting because I remember "3D" films being around for over 10 years (usually at places like the various Disney sites) and they were just shiny, let's-all-have-some-fun gimmicks. I even remember getting red-blue glasses with cereal boxes some time ago. False-3D is old and boring, it's been around for ages and is extremely limited.
What I am waiting for is true 3D filming. This would probably only be possible with cartoons etc. for a while, but the idea of having a film that you can really walk around (or through) is quite appealing. Obviously the film-making process would become considerably more complicated (more like producing a computer game) and the hardware at the viewer end could be quite complicated.
Alternatively, one way of achieving some sort of 3D would be to capitalise on the increasing cross-over between televisions and computers; you could set up a film as some sort of 3D environment that the viewer could wander around as you would in an FPS (or something) and focus on whatever you were more interested in; obviously you could still just watch it all from the default PoV (and it might mess things up when watching with other people), but personally I think it could be an interesting idea.
It seems Pirate Party UK's one of the core policies is reforming copyright and patent law so that non-commercial file sharing would be legalized.
For the record, the PPUK's policies aren't fixed yet. Voting is going on at the moment and there is an interesting debate on whether or not non-commercial file sharing should be legalised. Personally, I am on the unlawful side, but there are good arguments either way.
...along with decriminalising personal copyright infringement.
PPUK can't be pushing for this, because personal copyright infringement isn't a criminal offence in the first place. It is a civil offence which, in the UK, means significantly lower standards of evidence, fewer protections for the defendant and much bigger fines and legal fees.
Having said that, that policy is just a draft and is subject to change when it goes to a member vote over the next week or so.
As I pointed out in my original article that response from Lord Clement-Jones just highlights his lack of understanding.
He makes a major mistake in the first sentence - I pretty much stopped reading after then - although his assurances about it involving due process are worthless as the debate (and text) made it clear that the Court is not expected to be involved and if it is, the service provider will have to pay all the costs.
The Digital Economy Bill, as currently drafted, only deals with a certain type of copyright infringement, namely peer-to-peer file sharing.
Wrong!"P2P" or even the word "peer" do not appear at any point in the current text of the bill. The original recommendation in the Digital Britain report was limited to P2P if I remember correctly, and the major consultation over the summer (that I wrote 20,000 words on pointing out many of the flaws in their plans) was on P2P only, but when the actual text was published it had been expanded to cover any online activity.
Lord Clement-Jones may have seemed technologically competent and knowledgeable, but that was just in comparison to the government Ministers, so doesn't say much. The direct debate between him and the Earl of Erroll highlighted just how limited his understanding was.
There is no such thing as gravity, only Intelligent Falling, whereby Angels grab your ankles and pull you back down to the ground.
Angels? I was under the impression that it was all done by gnomes. Everyone knows that Angels don't really exist and were made up by the gnomes as cover.
So let's remove gravity, most of physics, and genetics from the science classroom as well. Those are all theories. You don't prove a theory. You find evidence either for or against it. As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it.
To take this further, I'm fairly certain that gravity is a much more vague theory than evolution. Evolution is a pretty good theory; there is a pretty good consensus as to how it happens, why it happens and what makes it happen; it has also been directly observed. The current theory is an adaptation and improvement on a theory developed a couple of hundred years ago.
On the other hand, while we have some fairly good approximations for how gravity works (Newtonian, General Relativity), there are still a lot of different theories as to why gravity works (gravitons, M-Theory, quantum field theory, quantum loop gravity are the main ones, I think). The LHC is working on getting more evidence for some of these theories; but despite the fact that there is a huge amount of evidence for the basic stuff (i.e. massive things attract each other), the fine details of what, how and why are still very confused.
As scientific theories go, evolution seems a lot more straightforward than gravity...
[Disclaimer: I've only got an undergrad. degree in maths.]
Americans that want to avoid taxes, can now bank in Europe again.
Right, so to stop a few corrupt individuals and companies in the US avoiding paying tax in the US by banking in Europe, every banking transaction that passes through Europe (or the EU, with 27 countries and over 500m people - that's more than all of North America) should be reported to the US... Something about setting ones own house in order before messing with other people's springs to mind.
Moving on, it is nice to see that the (democratically elected) European Parliament is finally able to stand up to the (appointed) Council of Ministers (and the US); the Lisbon Treaty does have its good points (even if it was pushed through in a rather undemocratic way). Now if only the rest of it could get implemented and the Swedish Pirate Party could get their second MEP into office.
A few weeks ago both Bioshock 2 and Mass Effect 2 were available for pre-order through Steam and it seemed like fairly tough decision between them but Bioshock 2 won due to being cheaper and bundled with the original. Then I noticed the "Other Requirements".
Back when Bioshock came out I put off buying it until the activation limits were removed (ironically, I bought Bioshock instead of Mass Effect or Spore because of the drm they had). However, it still had the base SecuRom system in and I ended up having to contact tech support several times just to get it to install. Since then I have been very careful about avoiding it (although the 1.1 patch for C&C3 tricked me). Now I own both Mass Effect and Spore having bought them through Steam which removed the DRM (although the online log-in part wasn't working for Spore for a couple of weeks).
Bioshock 2, according to Steam, comes with the base SecuRom, GFWL with activation limits (required for saving games, earning achievements, receiving updates and playing online; so all the things that Steam would usually handle) and a one-time internet connection to install.
Mass Effect 2 requires an ea.com account to access the online features.
It seems that EA learnt from the Spore controversy (or possibly from the lawsuits) and gave up on excessive drm. I can't speak for everyone, but 2k games lost at least one customer to EA because of their choice. Also, a quick search would suggest that drm doesn't work anyway (30,000ish downloads, about the same as for Mass Effect 2).
People pirate games for various reasons. Yes, some because it is free, some to avoid the DRM, some just because they can. Even some because they don't want to spend $50/£40 on a game without making sure it will run on their computer first (what happened to major studios releasing PC demos?). DRM is particularly hated as it has no benefit to and negatively affects the legitimate customer. Removing DRM won't magically stop piracy; but giving the customer a better experience (and trying to return to the attitude of "the customer is always right" rather than "the customer is a potential criminal") might be a good start.
[For the record, I will not, nor have pirated those games.]