Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Your Rights Online

New UK Law Criminalizes Copyright Violation 31

pdh11 writes "The Register today details the introduction of a new UK law that makes 'communication to the public' of copyright material a criminal, not civil, offence; this means that, whether done deliberately or not, allowing a copyright infringer to copy something from your machine becomes illegal. Even if you morally equate copyright infringement with theft, this is like prosecuting me as an accessory to theft because I left my front door unlocked. How has this, or the EU directive it implements, become law without even debate, let alone outcry?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New UK Law Criminalizes Copyright Violation

Comments Filter:
  • by pwagland ( 472537 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @10:14AM (#5590579) Journal
    The only quote that comes close to asserting what the punchline claims is this:
    The new law, precipitated by the EU's Information Society Directive, makes it an offence to "communicate to the public" copyright works, such as software, if the person knew or had reason to believe that this would infringe copyright.
    Nowhere do I see where it says that if your machine is hacked and someone steals office from your machine that you are liable. Everything in the article clearly states that this only applies to people who allow people to download copyright material.
  • Re:RTFA, please (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lynx_user_abroad ( 323975 ) on Tuesday March 25, 2003 @10:32AM (#5590737) Homepage Journal
    Read the bloody article.

    I read the aticle, but perhaps my point was a bit too subtle.

    I've never (in EU or America) seen a really workable definition for drawing a line between 'usage' and 'copyright infringment'. The publishing interests seem to want to reserve the power to declare any particular usage as illegal just as soon as they identify a model which (they believe) is costing them money. So, if I take a photo of my SO standing next to some costumed Episode I character, that's okay. But as soon as the studio thinks they could have charged me a half quid for the photo, it becomes an illegal activity (even if, had they offered the photo for half a quid, there would have been no takers.)

    This law seems to do nothing more (or less) than raise the stakes, does nothing to change behavior or offer guidance or clarify acceptable behavior.

    Sure, it's aimed at stopping the warez sites today, just like DMCA is aimed at stopping people from pirating DVD's. But that didn't stop Lexmark from using the law to kill the low-cost replacement toner competition, and I suspect it won't be long before we see some industry defining their competition's behavior as infringment and criminalizing them out of business.

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...