British Video Recordings Act 1984 Invalid 340
chrb writes "BBC News is reporting that the British Video Recordings Act 1984 is invalid due to a 25 year old legal blunder. The Thatcher government of the day failed to officially "notify" the European Commission about the law, and hence it no longer stands as a legal Act. There will now be a period of around three months before the Act can be passed again, during which time it will be entirely legal to sell any video content without age-rated certifications."
Of course, Obligatory (Score:1, Interesting)
They would have passed this shit as a _fake_ law in _1984_
This is absurd (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly do 25 years pass without anyone noticing that a law, that's supposed to be official and in force, hasn't actually been enacted?
It's beyond a joke... although I'm sure there will be plenty of jokes.
Re:Of course, Obligatory (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean that Grotesque [imdb.com] has just been given the best publicity ever [theregister.co.uk] and no way to prevent it from being sold?
Retroactive courts? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this mean that anybody found guilty and punished for breaking this law in the past 25 years will now be paid back by the government?
No, Police will probably pretend law is valid (Score:4, Interesting)
during those 3 months until Parliament can scramble together a Save the Children act.
I heard that the FBI kept on relying on parts of the (un)Patriot(ic) Act long after the Supreme Court overturned those same parts of it. Business as usual, carry on.
Re:Hang On (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>the EEC (now the EU) is designed to allow freer trade between countries. You can't do that if you're implementing standards that you're not telling other people about
>>>
Well that's stupid.
The State of Utah can ban playboy from bookstores (and they have), but they are not any obligation to inform the other 49 states or the U.S. Congress about this change in law. It's called sovereignty - Utah does whatever it pleases within its own boundaries. I'm surprised to hear that the UK has less power over its own laws than does Utah, and I wonder if the EU may be exerting too much power.
Aside-
One cool example is when Delaware passed a law forbidding building new chemical plants without the DE Legislature's permission. Well just a few years later New Jersey built a new plant along the Delaware Bay. Delaware immediately sued NJ, and the NJ governor told delaware to fuck off, and so on. The U.S. Supreme Court dug-out 400 year old documents, reviewed the original charters, and proclaimed Delaware was correct - they own that beachfront. So New Jersey was forced to dismantle their construction and restore the waterline to its original appearance.
Re:OMG, freedom. (Score:5, Interesting)
If so...doesn't that make you a non-sovereign nation then?
Re:This is absurd (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:OMG, freedom. (Score:3, Interesting)
Exploit it in the most outrageous and gratuitous ways possible, thereby giving ammunition to the very forces who want to take it away?
Re:This is absurd (Score:4, Interesting)
More importantly ,what about anyone convicted under that act while it wasn't really an act? Do they get their time, money, etc back?
More freedom - no copyright now?! (Score:5, Interesting)
I added this as a comment to the original submission but it didn't get picked up.
According to The Telegraph [telegraph.co.uk] this also means that there is now no copyright on DVDs. I'm not sure of the reasoning for this since copyright is supposed to be enforced by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [wikipedia.org], but that's the legal system for you.
So, apparently the UK is now (unwittingly) running the first national experiment in the abolition of copyright and age controls on DVDs. Should be interesting!
Re:Hurray?! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Roman Republic lasted some five hundred years without criminal law. From this, you could conclude that the modern notion of criminal justice is unnecessary, even in a large society. But a look inside of Rome might change your mind. Just because the system didn't collapse without this law doesn't mean the law is worthless. It also doesn't mean it's any good, either.
Re:Of course, Obligatory (Score:3, Interesting)
Friends of mine never had problems importing "banned" films from other countries -- typically using eBay.
("Banned" is really "unrated", but to show a movie in a public cinema or sell it requires it to be given a rating by the BBFC. It's still OK to posses, or view privately, the film).
Re:So they will find something else to charge you (Score:3, Interesting)
In the United States it varies state to state. But I'm in Pennsylvania, and that's how it is here. You get a DUI, they will charge you with both. The state considers them separate offenses.
Re:Scandalous (Score:3, Interesting)
Claiming that Britain lacks a constitution on the basis that no-one has written it all down in one place is akin to claiming that the USA doesn't have a head of state because Obama doesn't wear a pointy gold hat.
Re:OMG, freedom. (Score:3, Interesting)
Thousands not millions.
Don't exaggerate. You also make it sound like, after the civil war, the Constitution was no longer in force. Well. It is. The United States is still limited in its power, and the Supreme Law still still reads, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The primary powers still lie with the 50 Governments, even if Congress does not seem to realize that. For example they want to fine me, personally, $1500 a year because I don't have health insurance (like Massachusetts does with its citizens). Now I've read the U.S. law several times, and I can not lay my hand on any part of the document which gives Congress the right to fine the People, because one of them voluntarily-choose not to buy a product.
We are still better-off having a weak central government, since one size solutions do NOT fit all. It is better to put the power closer to home, just a few miles from the citizens, at the state level. 50 solutions for 50 very different climates/regions. It is also better to have "checks and balances" not just between the three branches of U.S. government, but also between the States and the U.S., so neither grows too powerful.
As power grows, liberty wanes.
Better to keep power in check.