UK copyright laws to be reviewed, announces Cameron

[Maggy J]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11695416

Britain's intellectual property laws are to be reviewed to "make them fit for the internet age," prime minister David Cameron has announced.
He said the law could be relaxed to allow greater use of copyright material without the owner's permission.

The six month review will look at what the UK can learn from US rules on the use of copyright material without the rights holder's permission.
It will also look at removing some of the potential barriers that stand in the way of new internet-based business models, such as the cost of obtaining permission from rights holders and the cost and complexity of enforcing intellectual property rights in the UK and internationally.

Interesting development..

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11695416





Interesting development..

The announcement was welcomed by internet freedom campaigners, who said the government had to redress the balance after the controversial Digital Economy Bill, which gives copyright holders the power to block access to websites hosting illegal content.

So hopefully some of what the Dark Lord Mandy did will be looked at as well.

[Maggy J]

Well with all due respect I'm looking at this as a fresh new start..it's getting very tedious to have every new suggestion from this government compared to the last one or the one before that..

So could we actually discuss THIS suggestion before dragging in the comparisons?Debate it on any merit it might or might not have?Please.

[haydnwalker]

I think "Fair Usage" is common sense, but it does need to be in conjunction with cheaper and easier access to legal downloads for movies/music etc. The copyright holders/publishers are IMO purposefully holding back on digital downloads of items to make more money on CDs etc.

Just changing copyright law alone won't stop the illegal downloading of materials.

But for legal services to appear, the copyright holders/publishers NEED to rethink their approaches and business models

[Hugh]

And the illegal downloaders NEED to rethink their purchasing (or lack of) models....

Originally Posted by Hugh

And the illegal downloaders NEED to rethink their purchasing (or lack of) models....

Just to take one example - not intended to be one that sets any precedent - if I download a TV program episode shown in the USA, but not available here in the UK, then delete the file after watching it - how is that any different to waiting for & watching the UK broadcast version?

- I'm thinking along the lines of the transitory nature of watching a live TV episode, rather than the possible impact of avoiding adverts.

- i.e. why is watching it via download a few weeks earlier, 'illegal', compared to waiting for the UK broadcast version, provided the file is not copied?

[Raistlin]

Originally Posted by gazfan

- i.e. why is watching it via download a few weeks earlier, 'illegal', compared to waiting for the UK broadcast version, provided the file is not copied?

I guess it's illegal for that very reason, because you are making a copy of it by downloading it.

[Hugh]

If you don't watch on TV, the broadcaster doesn't have the viewing figures, and the advertisers want refunds.

[haydnwalker]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And the illegal downloaders NEED to rethink their purchasing (or lack of) models....

I don't disagree with that at all!

However, until its made easier for people to purchase legally, and theres no social stigma for downloading illegally, then there will always be illegal downloaders unfortunately.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by haydnwalker

I think "Fair Usage" is common sense, but it does need to be in conjunction with cheaper and easier access to legal downloads for movies/music etc. The copyright holders/publishers are IMO purposefully holding back on digital downloads of items to make more money on CDs etc.

The price of CDs and movies has dropped alot, it doesn't seem to have done much to slow illicit downloading.

It's not really a great advertisement for lowering prices further to try and encourage more legitimate consumption - it always comes down to one very simple dilemma - 'How do you compete with free?'

[haydnwalker]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The price of CDs and movies has dropped alot, it doesn't seem to have done much to slow illicit downloading.

It's not really a great advertisement for lowering prices further to try and encourage more legitimate consumption - it always comes down to one very simple dilemma - 'How do you compete with free?'

Yes I know that prices of CDs etc have come down. But I was on about digital downloads specifically. Some of them are the same price as a CD without all the overheads of a CD (factory costs etc).

But I take your point that you can't compete with free.

[Maggy J]

With all due respect copyright isn't exclusive to music and films or TV programmes...it also applies to images,photos,logos,paintings and so forth..and I'm wondering what fair usage means in respect to them as well.

[lymmranger]

Hmmmm.....

As another long running thread has demonstrated, it would be nice to clarify "clearly" where exactly the law stands.
Who knows it may even negate the need for the "ACS" thread.

However, being a grumpy ol git who has seen it all before I do not intend to hold my breath

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by gazfan

Just to take one example - not intended to be one that sets any precedent - if I download a TV program episode shown in the USA, but not available here in the UK, then delete the file after watching it - how is that any different to waiting for & watching the UK broadcast version?

- I'm thinking along the lines of the transitory nature of watching a live TV episode, rather than the possible impact of avoiding adverts.

- i.e. why is watching it via download a few weeks earlier, 'illegal', compared to waiting for the UK broadcast version, provided the file is not copied?

It's ridiculous really. The world has shrunk drastically in the past 10 years, and yet we still have stupid regional releases that make no sense in the modern age.

So much piracy could be avoided with simultaneous releases. So many people who are paying for premium TV channels download shows because they can get them earlier.

Rights holders are tied to their ideology of market segregation, yet it doesn't work. Look at Russia, so much piracy that to compete with it the studios rush to beat the pirates to market there and at low prices. That's the sort of response that's needed on a global level.

People are inherently impatient, so by making people wait to watch the latest tv shows or movies they're driving people to piracy. It's got somewhat better over the past few years, with more and more simultaneous movie releases and TV shows aren't as far behind as they used to be, but there's still a gap, and whilst that gap is there people will resort to downloads to fill it.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by gazfan

Just to take one example - not intended to be one that sets any precedent - if I download a TV program episode shown in the USA, but not available here in the UK, then delete the file after watching it - how is that any different to waiting for & watching the UK broadcast version?

- I'm thinking along the lines of the transitory nature of watching a live TV episode, rather than the possible impact of avoiding adverts.

- i.e. why is watching it via download a few weeks earlier, 'illegal', compared to waiting for the UK broadcast version, provided the file is not copied?

Using your example which is something i do often ,it is very much a grey area imo.If i download a copy of stargate universe instead of watching it a couple of days later i see nothing wrong in that ,virgin still get their money so i have paid for the right to watch it, it shouldn't matter what medium i watch it on .Copying a show to my hd is no different to copying it to virgins hd on in the v+ or recording to dvd