UK Reviewing Copyright Laws 179
Uebergeek writes "It looks like the UK is going to be reviewing its copyright laws. Prime Minister David Cameron specifically cites the US's Fair Use doctrine as something they wish to incorporate into their own laws... apparently they wish to 'encourage the sort of creative innovation that occurs in America.' One can only assume that they've been missing the continual assault on the Fair Use doctrine here in the States."
Rather similar Fair Dealing doctrine already there (Score:4, Informative)
Re:yes! (Score:5, Informative)
I think you might be overestimating the quality of TV in the UK. The most popular shows are of the same brain-dead kind like in the US, reality shows, soaps, cooking shows and sports. The most watched shows these days are roughly in order: BBC: Eastenders (dumb soap), Strictly Come Dancing (celebrities dancing), The Aprentice, Master Chef, Match of the Day (Soccer). ITV: X Factor and Coronation Street (dumb soap), with X Factor far and away the leader with about 13 mil. viewers. How's that for people who know things? Yes there are some quality shows, mostly on BBC (which doesn't have to worry about paying bills), but not many people watch them.
Re:yes! (Score:5, Informative)
You realize that Murdoch, who owns News Corporation and Fox News, controls most of Britain's media, including Sky Television, The Times [of London], The Sun, and News of the World. If you want to vomit, look at some of Murdoch's holdings outside the US.
Re:ACTA Sweetner Anyone (Score:5, Informative)
However, he fails to mention that they are already "reviewing" the UK copyright laws under the veil of ACTA and in secret.
As far as I can tell from all the available information, the UK government has not actively participated in the ACTA negotiations to date. Also, note ACTA is an enforcement agreement, and doesn't really touch basic definitions of what constitutes an IP infringement, which is what they're talking about here.
Re:Better idea (Score:1, Informative)
No perhaps they won't like it, but at least the extra cost might offset the additional expenses associated with police investigations of auto accidents caused by drivers using such devices while they are behind the wheel.
Now, I don't know who gets the tariffs in Canada but I suspect that the tariffs don't go to law enforcement. In my country, Finland, there's a similar system and the money goes to the organizations that "protect the rights of artists" and lobby for legislation that I probably don't even need to explain...
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Rather similar Fair Dealing doctrine already th (Score:2, Informative)
Re:that's not necessary (Score:4, Informative)
Fair use does come from the US Constitution (Score:4, Informative)
Fair Use is, in fact, a product of the US Constitution. There are two separate and somewhat conflicting constitutional provisions in play here:
Fair Use is a doctrine developed by judges in the 19th century to help resolve the conflict between these two provisions. It was later codified in the 20th century, but with the intent of preserving the existing judge-made law.
Rights enshrined in the Constitution do not enforce themselves. Some constitutional rights are so well-established that they seem to enforce themselves, but in marginal cases these rights must be asserted in court. In a noted recent case, a group called Citizens United was prohibited from speaking about a presidential candidate during the election, because of the source of some of its funding. Political speech is at the very core of the First Amendment, but the question was a close one, and could only be established by asserting it in court.
The fact that Fair Use must often be defended in court comes from the fact-intensive nature of the doctrine, making it difficult to decide a priori whether Fair Use applies or not. This uncertainty, combined with the American Rule for paying legal fees (each party pays his own lawyers), skews the playing field in favor of the big copyright holders. This is true even though Fair Use is, at bottom, a Constituional right.
Re:Great (Score:2, Informative)
"Indeed. If you read down this [guardian.co.uk] a bit you'll notice that they also want US style software patents. Idiots."
On the contrary. As someone else stated above, the goal of the Tories is to enrich the already wealthy, in particular the upper class wealthy. Supporting a US style patent system is a great way of achieving this as it shuts out small businesses and gives huge amounts of money to lawyers (typically upper class). A US style software patent system would be terrible for society, but lucrative for the few. As long as the tories can justify this by claiming it encourages innovation (it does not), they will go for it and it certainly is not because they are idiots.
Re:Great (Score:2, Informative)
More than Canada, California itself both in legal and illegal crops produces a fuckload of cannabis. Really, the Californians have it all going for them: they have cheap mexican shit, expensive top-of-the-line hydro, gourmet crops in mendocino and a big import from BC...
It doesnt get better than Cali...