Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Censorship Your Rights Online

UK Becomes Sixth Country to Implement EUCD 479

orbital3 writes "The UK, as of October 31, 2003, became the sixth nation to implement the laws required to comply with the European Union Copyright Directive with its Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 legislation. This is a short little article about it and here is a copy of the law itself."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Becomes Sixth Country to Implement EUCD

Comments Filter:
  • In short (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:08AM (#7491773) Homepage
    It's basically a super DMCA act. It kills your right to make personal backups and prohibits copyright circumvention of any kind. How nice of them.
    • Re:In short (Score:2, Insightful)

      by BrokenHalo ( 565198 )
      Yet another blow against the principle of fair use. But I suppose most politicians wouldn't understand principles, since they don't have any. It's kind of sad (not to say scary) to see how quick governments can be in rolling over when Industry tells them to.
    • Re:In short (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I'd be more worried about this section, myself:

      "(4A) It is not fair dealing to observe, study or test the functioning of a computer program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program (these acts being permitted if done in accordance with section 50BA (observing, studying and testing)).";

      Who decides what is observing, studying, and testing? The act of reverse engineering _is_ observing, studying, and testing. Anybody know what section 50BA really means?
    • Re:In short (Score:5, Informative)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @05:25AM (#7492054) Journal
      It kills your right to make personal backups

      No it does not, not directly at least. There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.

      However, it does make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection devices... in a few years, when DRM might becomes commonplace, it could mean that your rights to make copies for personal use are de facto taken away from you.

      Over here in Holland, fair-use rights have always been upheld as a right. Not because prevention and prosecution of the making of such copies would be impractical, but because lawmakers deem the ability to make such copies for personal use a right. What I would like to see is legislation that would protect and guarantee this right, rather than take it away by outlawing the circumvention of copy protection devices. How about a law that outlaws a copy protection device or DRM, if such a device would infringe on fair-use rights, making it impossible to make copies for home use?

      Unfortunately it will never happen. When corresponding with both left-wing and right-wing representatives in the EU government, I get the distinct feeling that no consideration whatsoever is given to the rights of individuals, when copyrights or piracy are discussed. The current politcal wind seems to fully favor the RIAA and its ilk.

      More [ukcdr.org] about the EUCD and the UK implementation.
      • Re:In short (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tim C ( 15259 )
        There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.

        There doesn't need to be, at least not here in the UK - we've never had that right, unless it was explicitly granted by the copyright holder. Technically, it's always been illegal here for me to rip my CDs to mp3s/oggs, or to MDs when I had an MD player.
        • The parent is, sadly, correct. In the UK, copyright law has never allowed for the same "fair use" as the corresponding law in the US. Some exemptions do apply, but copying for personal use is not among them by default, even if it's just transferring data to a different media format, burning a CD with just your favourite tracks (which you legally have on other CDs) on it, or making back-ups.

          This is, of course, a rather absurd situation, since everybody does it and even the pro-copyright people (of whom I a

      • Re:In short (Score:3, Insightful)

        However, it does make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection devices... in a few years, when DRM might becomes commonplace, it could mean that your rights to make copies for personal use are de facto taken away from you.

        This is something a court is going to have to eventually decide. Is the right to make a backup for personal use more important than the manufacturer's right to copy protect their content? If so, will they say manufacturers will be forced to provide two copies of the media for every ite

      • Re:In short (Score:3, Informative)

        by e40 ( 448424 )

        No it does not, not directly at least. There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.

        From the article:

        Indivuals who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.

        Even if this is for personal use they theoretically face up to two years in jail or an unlimited fine, and possible civil action from copyright holders.

        The article is wrong, then?

        • Re:In short (Score:3, Interesting)

          From the article:

          Indivuals who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.
          Even if this is for personal use they theoretically face up to two years in jail or an unlimited fine, and possible civil action from copyright holders.

          The article is wrong, then?

          Yes and no. English law (apparently) prohibits making copies for personal use, but the EUCD does not.

    • Re:In short (Score:3, Interesting)

      "It's basically a super DMCA act. It kills your right to make personal backups and prohibits copyright circumvention of any kind. How nice of them."

      The article also mentions that the use of iPods, Nomads, and other MP3 players will become impractical, as it would be illegal to convert your CDs into suitable formats.

      As someone about to buy such a device, I'm going to have to ask the manufacturers, and possibly an MP or two for advice, as the last thing we want is a $400 device being confiscated for holding
  • by badboy_tw2002 ( 524611 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:12AM (#7491784)
    All you guys that were going to get out because of DMCA are cancelling your reservations? Don't worry, the US won't let a bunch of Brits top us. They'll build a super-DMCA? We'll build a Super- DOOPER-DMCA!
    • It mandates installation of anti-circumvention technology built into your brain at birth?
    • Re:So I guess... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kcbrown ( 7426 )
      Don't worry, the US won't let a bunch of Brits top us. They'll build a super-DMCA? We'll build a Super- DOOPER-DMCA!

      People may laugh at this. They forget that it's exactly this sort of reasoning (modified to sound more palatable to the masses) that was used to justify the last copyright term extension act.

      In other words, don't laugh. It's a lot more likely to happen than you might think.

  • by zymano ( 581466 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:13AM (#7491789)
    These laws are not in stone. They will be changed . You have to let people make backups .

    From the article

    "Why shouldn't I be allowed to make a copy of a CD I have paid for so I can listen to it on my computer or put it on an MP3 player? This shows that the law can be an ass," said George Gardiner, technology lawyer and partner at law firm Stephenson Harwood.

    • How exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @07:33AM (#7492285)

      The parent wasn't insightful, it was wishful thinking. Copyright law in the UK has never allowed people the automatic right to make back-ups. Everybody does, and no-one's stupid enough to sue them for it, but technically it's only legal if the licence agreement allows for it.

      How exactly were you proposing that this law would be challenged? We have no written Constitution, in the sense that the US does, so the usual mechanism for overturning silly laws across the pond is out. There's nothing inherently wrong with this law in a legal sense: what it says sucks, but it was passed by the usual means. Sure, we can hope that in time copyright law in the UK will be changed to reflect common sense (in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does) but for now, there's simply no basis in law to challenge this.

      OTOH, the tinfoil hat brigade who are chanting "super-DMCA" should go and read what it actually says (and doesn't say) before getting all spooky on us.

      • Re:How exactly? (Score:3, Informative)

        by jarran ( 91204 )
        in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does

        I don't know about backups, but I'm pretty sure it does explicitly recognise "fair use".

        All the photocopiers in my (UK) university libraries have a poster above them which says "Make sure you stay within the law!" and gives details on how much you can legally photocopy from various different types of source.

        In fact, I've heard it mentioned explicitly in the UK media recently, with regards to the "Burrell affai
      • Re:How exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tjensor ( 571163 )
        Errr flaimbait? Your post is factually correct in that there is no written constitution in the UK, but after that its all downhill. Its not there, because it has never proved to be required.

        There is a complex, mature, respected legal system that works on a vast body of case law. It is simply not the case that the government can make up stupid laws and them expect the courst to just go ahead and enforce them. Plenty of Home secretaries (including David Blunket, the current one) have attempted to psuh trho
  • by heapacreep ( 701458 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:13AM (#7491790)
    They can write a book full of laws regarding the illegal usage of one's digital multimedia, but untill some incentive is offered for one not to do things illegally, it will run rampad. As such, I think that the majority in the UK could care less about this. Just think about it, were you on irc today, did you download mp3s of songs you do not own, did you copy a friend's cd, did you even make a full stop at a stop sign while drving or do a rolling stop? If we got penalized for every little things that humans do wrong, the only jobs would be working at a prison, on either side of the bars! I am quite sure that not many even care, and so the companies having their product used illegally need to provide some sort of incentive for those not to copy things and rather buy them..though this is not likely to happen any time soon...
    • i believe the generally accepted incentives are
      -staying out of jail
      -not getting fined to a pulp
      -not having the businesses that create content go out of business*

      we're spoiled brats when we expect those in authority to -give- us something to make up for us not doing some bad. extortion? "i won't tell mom where you went for $5" ... "i won't kill my neighbor for $5 million" ...

      dude, no.

      *yes, i know, they talk about that all the time and are still in business. that's because they still get some business. jus
      • Yeah, but this law will prevent other things. I don't fit into the category you're talking about because I don't copy CDs from friends, and on the few occasions I've downloaded music from the 'net, it's because I was wanting to sample the music of a particular band before going out and buying the CD. My main problem with this law, is that it would be illegal to transfer the music onto a portable MP3 player. If I can't have the music with me when I go walking or to the shops, then I might just choose not to
    • by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:46AM (#7491852)
      If we got penalized for every little things that humans do wrong, the only jobs would be working at a prison, on either side of the bars!

      Ah, but you haven't been reading the Evil Overlord manual.

      The purpose of legislation such as this isn't to put everyone in prison, it's to make it possible to put anyone in prison -- whomever the government wishes, in other words. That way governments don't have to worry about pesky things like public dissent: they can just arrest the key players before they have a chance to make a mess of things.

      Classic police state stuff.

  • by Qweezle ( 681365 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:13AM (#7491791) Journal
    Every country to implement this makes me ever more certain that if every major civilized country in the west implements this sort of a law, there may eventually be some sort of a UN mandate in the vein of the DMCA...

    ...that's a very worrisome thought indeed.
  • by a.koepke ( 688359 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:13AM (#7491792)
    From the article:
    "Once we have digested the implications of the revised copyright legislation and communicated this to our members we will consider the need for a wider awareness campaign..."

    Will this "wider awareness campaign" involve sending out subpoenas to ISP's and suing 12 year old children?
  • by troon ( 724114 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:17AM (#7491799)

    I have many of my CDs ripped onto my hard drive for playing on my HTPC setup [myhtpc.net]. I own the original CD for every single file, and never have a situation where the same file is used on more than one system simultaneously, and yet I'm all of a sudden a criminal. Thanks guys.

  • Excellent (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:19AM (#7491804)

    Once the US and EU jails are filled with teenagers, society can truly enjoy the New Renaissance. I for will be glad to see the earth cleaned of this scourge that is casual media duplication.

    All hail Great Enterprise, Who knows no international boundaries. Thou arst truly the Corporate Ruler in this modern age. Cleanse us of our sins, oh Corporate one. Show us how to become better Consumers! Without Thou we are lost; we canst not thinketh by ourselves. Help us think! Neigh, think for us! Please take our money, and tell us what to do. We are forever in Thy humble service.
    • by mormop ( 415983 )
      This could be part of a new UK Government scheme to cut the outsourcing of IT based labour to India, the far east etc.

      For instance, it costs 25,000 pa to employ a coder in the UK but only 3000 pa to employ his/her counterpart in India. Tech savvy people are quite likely to use peer to peer or copying so by criminalising even reasonable acts, e.g. ripping a CD to play tracks on your MP3 player, you can then fill prisons with tech savvy people and force them to code or remote administer networks without havi
  • Of course I'm nitpicking, but shouldn't this really belong in "The Courts" and not "The Internet" - just like the story below on mp3s?
    • hum, actually, this article (no, not this) is sitting in "your rights online" (yro) subdomain, so I was picking for nothing. Scuse my nose!
  • by kcbrown ( 7426 ) <slashdot@sysexperts.com> on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:24AM (#7491814)
    The UK, after all, is the nation which decided to pass a law requiring you to hand over your encryption keys without due process when asked, upon penalty of jail when you fail to do so -- and it doesn't matter if you actually have the encryption keys or not.

    It's also the nation that puts up monitoring cameras in many public areas.

    Oh, and it's also the nation that supports the U.S. no matter what, especially when it comes to invading another country in pursuit of "weapons of mass destruction" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, *cough*oil*cough*).

    The U.K. seems about as close to an Orwellian society as any "enlightened" country on the planet.

    No, the real question is whether or not most of the other members of the EU will pass the EUCD. I expect they will, because they're all in the pockets of large corporations these days. Because money and control, after all, are the only things that matter these days, and nobody gives a flying fuck about liberty, freedom, rights, or the general well-being of the population anymore.

    Cherish what few freedoms you have left. You won't have them for long.

    • by nicky_d ( 92174 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:49AM (#7491855) Homepage

      The U.K. seems about as close to an Orwellian society as any "enlightened" country on the planet.

      That's right, and it's all thanks to our right-wing "left-wing" government. And even if the people protest, it'll do no use - witness the recent war protests, or consider these excerpts from the Home Office report on ID card consultation, courtest of stand.org.uk:

      What was learned from the consultation exercise? 11. Individual responses, sample surveys, and polling results have demonstrated substantial support for an identity card. Of the 5,000 people and organisations who responded formally to the consultation, 4,200 expressed a view. Over 60% of these were in favour. We also received over 5,000 e-mails from an organised opposition campaign. Over 96% of these were opposed.
      12. We commissioned wider research which involved both focus groups and polling which confirmed, as independent polling has done, 80% of the general public were in favour of identity cards...

      In essence, theyd've carried on commissioning research until it said what they wanted it to say, spinning any existing results in the meantime.

      Frankly, nothing they say or do or agree to is going to surprise me, or a lot of other people. But because these activities aren't yet hitting people directly in the pocket, we won't see civil unrest on a scale of, say, the Poll Tax protests - people readily notice a few pounds a week being taken from them; a few freedoms here and there are perhaps harder to detect...

      Well, perhaps a more civilised country will invade and liberate us. Don't worry, we're flabby and apathetic - the Brits you know from black and white war films are all long dead.

      • I don't see the problem with ID cards. You need to prove your identity for anything important anyway - from renting a video , taking money out of a bank account over the counter to claiming benefits. Why not standardise the system, as many other countries already have.

        The UK has many 'freedom' problems, from the House of Lords to the ridiculous voting system that gives the government such a huge majority it can shove through whatever legislation it wants. I dont believe that ID cards, despite the paranoia
        • by kaiidth ( 104315 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @06:02AM (#7492113)
          I see the problem with it. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of ID cards in general (actually, as a frequent traveller within Europe I would very much like to have the ability to acquire one of these French/German style ID cards that functions as a sort of cut-down passport, principally for security reasons...) and somewhat less fine with the idea of compulsory ID cards. I'm not in the least convinced of the argument for them, other than the ability to stop random people in the street and demand to see their ID, which will result in one of a few scenarios,

          1) being 'I have it, here it is' (somewhat unlikely - you can prove your identity for video rental with something called a video club card after the initial effort, for example, so there's not much incentive to carry around fourty pounds (sixty dollars, ish) worth of ID card just so some prick can hit you over the head and nick it),

          2) being an honest 'I left it at home', in which case the police will have to give you a reasonable time period to go home, get it, and present it to them, thus putting you to some inconvenience for your honesty,

          or 3) being a dishonest 'I left it at home', in which case the police will give you a similar grace period, and you, being not a stupid illegal immigrant/criminal/whatever, will be unlikely to go back to the police station and admit it.

          And I'm totally creeped out by the idea that Blunkett and his Orwellian pals are demanding compulsory biometric registration. Biometrics isn't something to use lightly, even if it is a popular element in buzzword bingo. In summary, it could be stated that whilst, for example, EU-acceptable ID cards would be very handy, and whilst a national ID system would perhaps be a good thing - solving the 'proof of age' [portman-group.org.uk] problem, for example - this ID card system is not really about that sort of solution. Blunkett is probably not really after making European travellers' lives easier, so much as he is after that lovely-sounding Gattaca-style database of All The Biometric Information of Every Citizen And Visitor.

          I'm aware that there are arguments for the retention of biometric information. But I've worked in areas where there's an astonishing quantity of crime, and our problem has never been proving the ID of the criminal, so much as the fact that the criminals are either underage or consider themselves so far outside the law that nothing short of a prison sentence can stop them. ID is easy to establish where you have a photo or a fingerprint (this is presumably where biometric info 'helps'), and is hard to establish where you have neither and rely on witness identification or less (biometric info isn't going to help you here...) In short, unless the government were to come up with some very good reasons for force-collecting that information from every citizen, they shouldn't be permitted to go through with it. It could be harmful, it isn't much help, and given things like his fabulous extradition agreement [guardian.co.uk], it is extremely hard to see why anybody would consider Blunkett an even mildly trustworthy individual.

          Previously, many people in the UK have had the comforting illusion that the country, unlike certain others, did not display the 'you want human rights? Prove your entitlement first' attitude. Blunkett, (the prick), is proving otherwise. Sensibly, many [bbc.co.uk] people [bbc.co.uk] have the unsurprising opinion that Blunkett can fuck off.
        • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @07:50AM (#7492327)
          I don't see the problem with ID cards.

          OK, here's a summary of the major "anti" arguments.

          • There are some theoretical benefits, but little evidence supports the claim that they will work in practice.
            • A lot of the claimed benefits obviously won't materialise, because five-year-olds can identify why they won't work. (Yes, some of the practical problems are so obvious that five-year-olds have been quoted in the media.)
            • The remainder are dubious simply because the government has never yet managed to organise such a wide-scale system without numerous crippling flaws. (I speak as someone who was working full-time in two jobs on opposite sides of the country, living in two places simultaneously, for several months according to the tax office, and all because someone mistyped and put in my NI number -- note the "universal ID" there -- when updating someone else's record.)
            • If the cards aren't compulsory (as in, you must have one, and you must carry it at all times) then most of the anti-crime benefits are pointless anyway.
          • There is serious potential for abuse.
            • Historically, almost every identification scheme introduced in the UK has been abused by the authorities when it suits them. Notice the way that driving licences and passports -- neither of which is legally required and both of which cost money -- are the only acceptable forms of ID for many things these days. Note also my comments on NI numbers above. Don't even ask about TV licences, and agencies whose computer systems don't acknowledge the possibility that you might not have one, say because you didn't have a TV.
            • If card-carrying is made full-time compulsory, then anyone who, say, demonstrates vocally during a visit by a foreign head of state, can be stopped, have their identity demanded, and then be blacklisted and subject to further abuse in future.
          • Did we mention that it's going to cost billions to implement?

          Basically, it comes down to three things: it won't do its job, it will be abused, and it will cost a fortune that should be spent on more important things.

    • You may not understand how it works in the EU: basically, there are EU directives which each national government is required to implement via its own legislative processes. There's no real choice about it. The real problem about this is the EU is not a very democratic organisation, ie the EU Commission isn't even an elected body and Euro MPs don't expect to be bothered by those who vote for them (like when anti-software-patent activists were accused of "harassing" their Euro-MPs by lobbying them).

      So the UK
    • "Cherish what few freedoms you have left. You won't have them for long."

      We've never had them in the UK, but then we have an urbane approach to the law. We consider them mostly optional, which is unfortunate for any government that wants to emulate the American model.

      We have this propensity to riot at the drop of a hat, and the rumblings have already started again, simply because of the number of things that have been waved through since 9/11, however, the vast majority are being doped up with worry at
  • by zonix ( 592337 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:29AM (#7491821) Journal

    FYI, here in Denmark the interpretation of the EUCD has made DVD reselling illegal! That is all DVDs other than region 2.

    It pretty much sucks, as you have to privately import, say region 1 and region 4 discs now if you still want to absorb some kind of foreign culture and art.

    z
  • so.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by croddy ( 659025 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:42AM (#7491848)
    now you know how we feel.

    sucks, eh?

  • Depressed Pride (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Apple Acolyte ( 517892 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:47AM (#7491854)
    From referenced article

    Indivuals [sic] who make a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, whether for back-up or for use on another device such as an MP3 player, are committing a crime.

    And here we all thought the DMCA was the state of the art in draconian intellectual property legislation. Amazingly, while the US Constitution stands eviscerated, America remains the sweet land of liberty in comparison to the rest of the world. Is it possible to feel patriotic and disenchanted at the very same time?

    • Is it possible to feel patriotic and disenchanted at the very same time?
      Though the likes of Bush would have you believe not, I belive it is, and that in fact bis the most common form of patriotism alive today. By this, I mean that when one acheives the realization of a country's faults, and loves it still, to the point of criticizing these faults in an effort to improve it, one is expressing one of the deepest forms of patriotism. Deeper still is the ability to look abroad and say, "we must avoid becoming
    • Re:Depressed Pride (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nickos ( 91443 )
      "America remains the sweet land of liberty in comparison to the rest of the world."

      Riiight. I know things aren't perfect in the UK but at least we haven't set up anything like what you have at Guantanamo Bay, where the usual notions of justice don't even apply:Confess or die, US tells jailed Britons [guardian.co.uk]
    • > Amazingly, while the US Constitution stands
      > eviscerated, America remains the sweet land of
      > liberty in comparison to the rest of the world

      Yep, provided your "the rest of the world" comprises a maximum of 6 European countries...

      You might want to try heading *west* from California, and see what you find there. I promise you won't fall off the edge of the world
  • I've read the law. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kickasso ( 210195 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:50AM (#7491856)
    And beat me up with a 2x4, I cannot find anything in it that makes copying of your own media for your own use illegal. Moreover, I cannot find anything that makes DeCSS illegal. Can anyone point it out for me?

    Not that I care; I'm not even British.

  • So now what (Score:4, Funny)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:51AM (#7491860) Homepage
    So does Alan Cox move to Iceland now, or what?

    I have this mental image of Alan Cox a man on the run, moving from country to country, each time leaving just minutes before a law goes into effect making the distribution of software that facilitates the breaking of copy protection illegal, always staying just one step ahead of the DMCA as one by one, each country implements the DMCA or something like it..

    Until finally there is no where left, and finally, Alan Cox winds up in the most fitting place possible to spend the rest of his life working on the Linux kernel in hermitage: with the Penguins. In Antartica. Outside the dominion of any country. HA!

    Hmm, there's a thought. If in order to escape draconian DMCA-like laws, you get on a big boat and go out in international waters to perform copyright-dangerous actions, then does that make it Piracy on the High Seas?

    Okay I think I've been awake a bit too long.
  • Oh dear. It looks like I'll now have to delete all those pieces of music I have ogg'd up on my machine FROM MY OWN CD COLLECTION or else I'll be doing porridge. Anyway, I've been watching DVDs under Linux now for a couple of years and they haven't caught me. In fact, they've sold me a few DVDs that I wouldn't otherwise have bought. Music ones...

    Anyway, once old Blunkett gets his police state, and one surveilance is stepped up to the next level, we'll all be for it. They'd better start building more prisons

  • by nicky_d ( 92174 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @03:58AM (#7491878) Homepage

    Further depressing developments for those of us in the UK: the 'snooper's charter' [stand.org.uk] has now passed through the Lords. Ready your proxies and encryption plug-ins - but remember they might require you to hand over the key at some point.

  • by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:03AM (#7491885) Journal
    Labour is a bunch of right wingers who are fanatically supportive of the US and seem to be a puppet government. The Conservatives - assuming they've finally got their act together - are a bunch of businessmen who rarely show interest in anything that doesn't directly help big business.

    We need a party that focusses on rights for consumers. There are a million irritating little things that work against free competition or are not affected by it. The fact that I have no choice for a cable service, Mobile phone companies charging a fortune to other networks for connection charges and the EUCD. Offer some laws for the individuals who don't want to be tied into a 12 month contract for any and every service, and you get my vote.
  • just a thought (Score:3, Interesting)

    by narkotix ( 576944 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:05AM (#7491890)
    what if we encrypted the songs with a key. A website held all the keys (which arent illegal to host). Now technically if any organisation (RIAA,ARIA etc etc) broke the encryption then they will be of their own act right? If they download the key and decrypt it...they will also be guilty of the crime..
    maybe someone can implement this idea!?! or maybe im just smoking too much crack rofl
  • by L-s-L69 ( 700599 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:12AM (#7491909)
    I love my country, but i fear my goverment.

    The UK has some of the most draconian laws in the 'free' world, but in the case of the EUCD most people will ignore it. Except in high profile cases no one will ever go to court for copying a cd and giving it to a friend. Its just the high profile cases that bother me, thing like the skylov case etc.

    Aah well guess we should all just persue none violent resisance, now wheres that dvdlib code.....

  • 1)The BSA have stated that they're not interested in pursuing piracy cases against home users.

    2) The BPI (UK equivalent of the RIAA) takes a much less aggressive stance on piracy, and certainly isn't trawling Kazaa looking for people to sue.

    Without a plaintiff, there can be no (civil) lawsuit!

  • Its not all bad news (Score:5, Informative)

    by skeeve22 ( 589445 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:19AM (#7491926)

    1. They've allowed temporary copies (Section 8) - so "transients" created say while listening to the music aren't infringing :-)

    2. They've allowed "timeshifting" for domestic premises. Interestingly this opens a whole can of worms for them given the phrasing. A copy can be made for the purposes of timeshifting as long as it does not become an infringeing copy - i.e. one that is sold or let for hire. This would seem to allow at least the creation of "backup" copies for personal use.

    3. Section 15 - Observing Studying and Testing of Computer Programs. They've allowed this - as long as you own a copy - and even better this Copyright Act overrules any restrictive license imposed by the copyright holder. (2) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).".

    Of course the really stupid part of this is that any infringement is a criminal offense (why?) and you can potentially end up spending longer in jail than a burglar or rapist.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:22AM (#7491933)
    Article 6 of the EUCD is quite clear. What is illegal is to circumvent any copy protection technology for any purposes whatever. But if the material is not copy protected, and the vast existing stock of CD's are not, then it is legal to make a digital copy for personal use (as well as all kinds of fairuse, educational and club uses)provided that you own the original.
  • Digital media laws (Score:3, Interesting)

    by vanillaspice ( 612837 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:42AM (#7491973)
    I don't really feel it benefits anyone for me to reiterate this for each and every post about digital rights, but this seems like a decent one to use my umbrella statement.

    To all media distribution companies, big and small: You decided to go digital. Deal with it.

    It is not your right to bend legislation at any level to secure your profit margin because that's not free trade. Go ahead and use any copy protection schemes you wish. But don't you even dare try to legally sanction somebody because they've figured out how to get around it: they've just acted more intelligently and more efficiently.

    If you truly believed in free trade and the spirit of competition, you'd try to maximize quality while minimizing overhead. What causes so much overhead? Executive salaries and expense accounts, as well as advertising and payola. You've over-saturated your markets with expensive and inferior product, and people have gotten wise to you. The only companies who have any right to complain are the small independents, because the playing field isn't level to begin with.

    This was the case with video games piracy and the resultant bankruptcies of production houses during the 1980s and 1990s. If only their distribution companies would have given more back to the people who originated these products instead of fattening their wallets, we might still have diversity in our software.

    Creative people have a right to their intellectual property. Why not show them some respect by divvying up the rewards for their efforts more fairly?
  • Ok, so this ridiculous new law makes devices such as the SLIMP3 player, the Audiotron and god forbid the iPod worthless devices? Well, except for playing MP3's of yourself singing...

    Does that make iTunes ripping feature illegal?

    I wonder what Apple will make of this...
  • by dollar70 ( 598384 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:45AM (#7491982) Homepage Journal
    At this point I wonder why anyone bother's to believe in governements that adopt these kinds of laws. Why do we continue to endure the insult? Why? Throughout the ages, men have faced tyrany after tyrany. You'd think we'd have a clue as to what one looks like by now.

    But enough rhetoric... After actually reading the text of the law, I can honestly say it was not written to be clearly understood by the common man. If men cannot understand the laws set before them, how can they be expected to follow said laws?

    An Exerpt:

    "subsection (4) does not apply, but the Secretary of State may at any time refer the licence or licensing scheme to the Tribunal for a determination of whether the licence or licensing scheme is reasonable in the circumstances, or may notify the licensing body that he does not intend to refer it to the Tribunal."

    Wow... I'm glad we got that cleared up. I always enjoy it when someone can intervene and change the rules whenever they see fit. It makes life so much more predictable. Corperate lawyers love this stuff, because it's easy to twist and turn into a favorable position for any barratry they wish to inflict.

    I live in the US, so this law does not directly affect me, but it's still a global chilling effect on all the common people who are just trying to live comfortable lives without being nickle-and-dimed to death by corperations who feel they should be entitled to every portion of our lives.

    Where does this madness stop?

    • It stops when enough people get so annoyed that they decide to shoot everyone in the government and start over. That's pretty much what history teaches us. It goes something like this:

      A) Angry citizenry overthrow government, replace it with a new one;

      B) New government wary of being lynched, treads carefully.

      C) Time passes. Citizenry becomes fat and deliberately stupid, government starts amassing power and revoking rights.

      D) More time passes. More people go to jail. More people start getting pissed
      • It's been awhile since either the U.S. or the U.K. got riled enough to kill their politicians. I figure both countries are past 'D' and on their way to 'E' right about now. It remains to be seen if the process isn't short-circuited because today's proles are a bunch of bleeding cowards.

        I agree with your 'A' through 'G' analysis.I'm amazed that we're not on the verge of 'F'. Even more amazing is the fact that we're able to hold such a conversation without facing incarceration based on the laws like the on

        • I'm amazed that we're not on the verge of 'F'.

          I'll reserve judgement on that until *after* President Bush has finished his imminent visit to the UK. From some of the discussions I've seen on various boards I have a feeling that things could get really ugly at the demonstations that are being planned. There are a lot of Brits who are extremely pissed at Bush and Blair over the WMD thing, even amongst those who supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Add in a few militant types to stir things up and

          • Oh for certain! I'm a bit tense over this one, especially after reading this [guardian.co.uk]. Personally I'd prefer it if our President wouldn't engage in such risky behaviour. I find it hard to believe that his cabinet has kept him so sheltered that he doesn't realize he's made a lot of people from other nations very angry.
  • Maybe not *all* bad (Score:5, Informative)

    by flossie ( 135232 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @04:47AM (#7491984) Homepage
    I've just started skimming through the amendments. I haven't come across the stuff prohibiting back up copies yet, but I did come across this section, which appears to explicitly allow reverse engineering, regardless of any terms or conditions attached to the product:

    Observing, studying and testing of computer programs
    15. - (1) After section 50B there shall be inserted -

    50BA Observing, studying and testing of computer programs

    (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program if he does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he is entitled to do.

    (2) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).".

    • by villoks ( 27306 )
      Well,

      This section actually comes from much earlier EU software copyright directive, which was not changed by EUCD. The tricky part here is that sw-copyright directive applies to software only as copyrighted works, not as technical protection measures. So even if you don't break copyright by reverge engineering, you might do it by circumventing the technical protection measure.

  • Meet your MP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brian Blessed ( 258910 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @05:12AM (#7492021)
    I went to see my MP (Member of Parliament) about this and explained to him that because it was similar to the DMCA which the US has had for 5 years, we could expect it to have the same unintended consequences [eff.org].

    A few days later I received a letter from him saying that he was asking questions of the Government's Department of Trade and Industry, and would get back to me with their responses.

    Have others here tried this course of action? / Is there a coordinated effort out there?

    What can be done after this?

    - Brian
  • by JackJudge ( 679488 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @05:37AM (#7492067) Journal
    ...at least in part as being unenforceable.
    Several years ago the Home Office introduced a law banning VCR owners from keeping off-air recordings for more than 30 days.
    The police declared it unenforceable and the govt. had to back down.
    Now I don't know about you but I think the police have got more important things to do than checking to see if Kylie's latest warblings are on little Johnny Smith's MP3 player.
  • by Rozzo ( 630005 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @06:08AM (#7492124)
    I just want to focus on the timeline of EUCD implementation over European countries. Delaying the implementation among each country keeps the number of oppositors against it divided (and thus weakened), just those of one nation each time. They would have faced a different (and more consistent) opposition to EUCD if they had set it on in all countries at the same time. Obviously they did ponder it and act consequently. In Italy where it has been implemented on 29 April 2003, street prices raised a new level as a consequence of the EUCD act, yet original CDroms, DVD, book and other intellectual material are still remaining at untolerable high prices. This seems to me a confirmation that EUCD is only helping great companies to earn even more, without giving anything better (in price or quality) to the public. Sadly.
  • by sir_cello ( 634395 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @06:31AM (#7492178)
    Does it occur to people that this is actually also beneficial for copyleft and open source software ?

    Preventing alteration of rights management information and anti-circumvention also works to protect a ripp off of GNU / copyleft / open source software licenses.

    These mechanisms are for the benefit of all copyright owners, irrespective of what political stance they take. Effectively they just strengthen the use of rights management information, and are agnostic about the specific favour of that rights management information.

  • by Channard ( 693317 ) on Monday November 17, 2003 @06:41AM (#7492197) Journal
    So how would this affect software license agreements that state you can make one backup copy of the game/program? I know that my Operation Flashpoint, despite having 'FADE' protection, has a license at the back that states you can make a backup copy. Would the EUCD somehow retroactively invalidate past license agreements - would I be doing something illegal if I were to copy Op Flashpoint for my own use after the EUCD came in? There are so many impracticalities here, it's not even funny.
  • by ajs318 ( 655362 ) <sd_resp2NO@SPAMearthshod.co.uk> on Monday November 17, 2003 @07:02AM (#7492235)
    is that, traditionally at least, laws in the UK have never counted for much. Bad laws get broken all the time - but only criminals and minor traffic offenders get punished. If the politicians want to make stupid laws, it's easier just to let them - and then go ahead and carry on doing what we used to do anyway. The police have a hard enough job dealing with real crimes that they haven't time to waste on trendy new crimes. I guess it comes from the same thinking that gave us the class system: there are Law Abiding Citizens {who like to remenisce about the old days when you could leave your front door unlocked} and there are Criminals {who shoplift, litter, vandalise property &c}. Even amongst Criminals, there are Good Criminals {stealing from the rich without hurting anyone} and Bad Criminals {stealing from the poor, violence, sex offences &c}. Merely re-branding something that Law Abiding Citizens do as a crime will not turn L.A.C.s into Criminals.

    If the police don't actually want you for something, you're fine. What this law - or any new law passed since the infamous Criminal Justice Bill of '94 - actually means is that if they do want you for something, they will have an easier time pinning something on you. For instance, it's a common trick for the police to pick you up on a charge unrelated to your normal activities in order to be able to search your home without a warrant. This is usually a little easier than getting an actual warrant, but any evidence it turns up will be admissible in a court of law. Conversely, if a sufficiently high-ranking officer requests that the ordinary plods turn a blind eye to a particular activity, and they do, then the only thing the government could do would be to place the area under martial law - which would be political suicide and to the best of my knowledge has never happened outside N.I.

    It's technically already against the law in the UK to make a copy of a CD or LP you own onto cassette in order to listen to it in your car. But I'll dare bet you what you like if you went through a copper's car, or even a government minister's car, you'd find something taped at home; and to the best of my knowledge nobody has ever been sent down for that. Nor are they likely ever to start.

    Those at the top have lost the plot and the rest of us - who do all the real donkey work - just have to put on a bit of a show for them. It's a grossly inefficient system, and it carries with it the possibility of misuse; but as long as it works, it gets left as it is because any attempt to change it would probably make things worse.
    • Am I the only one who finds this reasoning foolish and naive? And I do not mean the poster is foolish (you actually seem upset that it is not different).

      There should never be a situation where foolish laws are passed because "only the criminals will be punished." Well, think about this: one day what is considered a criminal may change. Look at the hackers who find bugs in systems and report them to companies only to find themselves in trouble with the law. Notice how I used hackers, remember when that ha

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Working...