Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Chancellor announces intellectual property review (HM Treasury)
The British government
will hold a year-long review of the UK's intellectual property
rights system.
"The review will provide an analysis of the performance of the UK IP system, including:
the way in which Government administers the awarding of IP and their support to consumers and business;
how well businesses are able to negotiate the complexity and expense of the copyright and patent system, including copyright and patent licensing arrangements, litigation and enforcement; and
whether the current technical and legal IP infringement framework reflects the digital environment, and whether provisions for ‘fair use’ by citizens are reasonable."
(Thanks to Nick Talbott.)
(Log in to post comments)
Chancellor announces intellectual property review (HM Treasury) Posted Dec 8, 2005 17:52 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] When they say "whether provisions for ‘fair use’ by citizens are reasonable", does that mean "whether we need fair use provisions or not" or "whether our fair use provisions are strong enough"?
Doesn't look good Posted Dec 8, 2005 19:07 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] The commission head is a former editor for a major newspaper. Two strikes: he's biased in favor of longer copyrights as an editor and as someone who worked for a major copyright holder.
The Labor party has a manifesto to modernize IP for the digital age. This sounds like something straight from the mouths of copyright holding companies.
The commission will actively consult stakeholders (but not citizens) and provides a contact address for them (but not citizens).
On the other hand, it does include looking into the complexity of the current process, but only from the point of view of IP holders.
I doubt any good will come out of this commission.
Doesn't look good Posted Dec 8, 2005 20:32 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] The commission will actively consult stakeholders (but not citizens) and provides a contact address for them (but not citizens). Of course, anybody who was really being honest about it (i.e. almost nobody in the public light) would recognize that all citizens of a given country are stakeholders when it comes to intellectual property laws. We also have to start to recognize that intellectual property laws cannot be discussed independent of the issues of freedom of speech and freedom of the press-- especially now that "the press" includes anybody able to afford a web hosting service. When we describe copyrights as "rights" or "property", they sound warm and fuzzy and "more is better" sounds like a valid argument for one side to make. When we recognize it for what it really is-- censorship, that is, a law passed by the government that restricts with people can say or publish-- then we might understand that, hmm, copyright is in fact a tradeoff that a free society makes in order to encourage the production of creative works, and "more is better" shouldn't even be on the table. -Rob
Chancellor announces intellectual property review (HM Treasury) Posted Dec 9, 2005 8:26 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] I doubt it means "Whether our fair use provisions are strong enough".
There's no such thing as "fair use" in law in the UK. Our only fair-use defense is that judges would get rather upset if copyright holders sued over every little infringement of the law.
Cheers,
Chancellor announces intellectual property review (HM Treasury) Posted Dec 9, 2005 8:44 UTC (Fri) by ngwenya (guest, #34102) [Link] It's called "fair dealing" rather than "fair use", and covers copying for purposes of research and/or study. But it certainly does exist within the context of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988).
Generally, the CD&PA recognises that non-commercial copying for private and domestic use is not the same thing, offence-wise, as commercial infringements. Remember that, in the UK, and most of Europe, copyright infringement is a criminal offence, not a civil one, and with no silly statutory damages. Which means that bringing a copyright ingringement case for private downloading would be hideously expensive, even if the plaintiff won. I am, as yet, unaware of any court case which convicted for copyright infringement for downloading.
Now, file-sharing (ie, unauthorised redistribution) is another matter, and easier to prove criminal behaviour. Even in those cases, I don't think anything has come to court yet
--Ng
Chancellor announces intellectual property review (HM Treasury) Posted Dec 8, 2005 20:33 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] how well businesses are able to negotiate the complexity and expense of the copyright and patent system, (Emphasis mine.) See, they're not even starting from the right basic premise. -Rob
Chancellor announces intellectual property review (HM Treasury) Posted Dec 8, 2005 21:02 UTC (Thu) by jrigg (subscriber, #30848) [Link] Most businesses in the UK consist of self-employed individuals,partnerships and small companies. We have a higher proportion of these than a lot of other European countries. Somehow I don't think this is the type of business that the government intends to consult. Often when a `small business' is held up by politicians as an example of `what small businesses want' it later turns out that they're in the pockets of one of the big players.
Chancellor announces intellectual property review (HM Treasury) Posted Dec 9, 2005 3:48 UTC (Fri) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Even if most businesses are self-employed individuals, the premise that's flawed is that only those with a direct economic interest have a valid interest.
Given that copyright restricts what people can say, publish, and do in non-profit-making ventures, it sure affects people's ability to express themselves even beyond economic impacts. Why is it that only economic concerns are considered valid things to worry about? (Even *if* they were being done fully honestly, which is probably not the case.)
-Rob
France isn't alone? Posted Dec 8, 2005 20:37 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] Undercover politics. Why are they doing that, they'll still die just as others do?
France isn't alone? Posted Dec 8, 2005 21:07 UTC (Thu) by jrigg (subscriber, #30848) [Link] > Undercover politics.
You mean there are other kinds?
This is 'investing in Britain's future', as they like to say. Posted Dec 12, 2005 7:20 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] This is 'investing in Britain's future', as they like to say:http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/01/08/the-corporate-...
|
|||||||||||