Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK Citizens May Soon Need License To Photograph Stuff They Already Own (arstechnica.com) 197

An anonymous reader writes with this story from Ars Technica UK: Changes to UK copyright law will soon mean that you may need to take out a licence to photograph classic designer objects, even if you own them. That's the result of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death. In most cases, that will be well over a hundred years after the object was designed. During that period, taking a photo of the item will often require a licence from the copyright owner regardless of who owns the particular object in question. This sounds like a great kernel for a short story, and a terrible idea for a law.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Citizens May Soon Need License To Photograph Stuff They Already Own

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12, 2015 @01:38PM (#51105737)

    ...but without any of the freedom that came with lack of surveillance technology. Conservative policy since Thatcher has been solidly about contracting out as much of the apparatus of State, including the laws themselves, for the benefit of business-friends.

    The best thing to do is laugh at the 1/6 or so of the population stupid enough to have voted in this government, and encourage the rest of the population to vote them out again.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by prefec2 ( 875483 )

      The strangest thing about the UK is that only 30% voted for the Tories, but the they got over 50% of the seats. How is this in any way fair and democratic? Sadly, the UK converts back to a feudal society. I loved to stay in the UK every now and then, but if this development continuous it will be Manchester all over again.

      • by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @02:48PM (#51106119)

        That is by design of the First Past the Post electoral system though. I agree that it does sound pretty dumb on the face of it, but it's arguable as to whether the alternatives are that much better. You could have direct democracy, where each bill is put to referendum. This would even be practical with modern technology. But are members of the voting public really going to put effort into understanding the intricacies of complex or niche bills so as to ensure the best outcome for society at large? Maybe, but then you could see many ways this process would just allow big money to hijack the democratic process even more efficiently. It could also lead to a situation where everyone vote for their own self interest, which may create lots of tragedy of the commons like situation.

        A more intermediate option is to move to a proportional representation system, such as MMP. The problem this has is that it is possible (and even likely in a partisan environment) for a fringe party to appear and prevent either main party from reaching a majority. This party then holds the balance of power, which can make it impossible for an effective government to form.

        Indeed the main argument for FPP is that it allows effective governments to form, and that having an effective government is better than having a proportional one that can't do anything. One of those is good at preserving the status quo, while the other is better at getting things done. I guess which you think is better depends on how bad you think things are now, and whether you have any faith in politician's abilities to improve things.

        I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.

        • by prefec2 ( 875483 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @03:01PM (#51106173)

          On the continent many countries use proportional representation based on lists of candidates. And usually parties must form coalitions to govern. This is not necessarily a problem as long as political parties are able to compromise. It even allows to make the process of democratic consensus more transparent. For example, in Germany the conservative party is in a coalition with the social democrats and they worked out a treaty for this coalition which is a compromise between both party programs. In addition Germany has direct candidates. So the first all winners of a direct seat go to parliament and then they check if this fits the proportional representation scheme. And if it does not the under represented parties can seat additional politicians from their list.

             

          • Yes, it does seem to work well for Germany, though note that the reason they have a proportional system is precisely so that no single party could easily gain total power as in the weimer republic days. It is by design a less 'effective' form of government. My main problem with MMP, from my experiences with it in New Zealand, is that it causes parties to become extremely populist. What I mean by this is that the political discourse gets obsessed with media driven trivial issues (like the current flag debate

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Triviality is used to distract the populace from voting on real issues. This is just as much of a problem (actually even more so) for FPP systems. The big parties want more power that may not be beneficial to the public as a whole, so they create media circuses around trivial issues. Now the populace is voting based on this disproportionate media coverage for issues that do nothing for anyone (except pander to the bigotry and fear of the average voter).

              A government that is prevented from enacting unreasonab

          • One of those countries is Italy, and another is Belgium.

            They're both crap.

            • by prefec2 ( 875483 )

              Yes Belgium has some issues. For example, they actually do not want to part of Belgium. It would be best they had a referendum and become part of France, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. Italy is a totally different thing. Their main problem is the weak law system. Look at Berlusconi, he cheated and got away using many different tricks. And they have a problem with compromise. However, it got better in the last couple of years. And it most likely will become better in future.
              They should also give more autono

        • Generally true, but

          I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.

          The upper house is bizarre, and needs reform, but they proved their worth in one swoop and defended democracy when they blocked the tax credits bill.

          http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/29/manifesto-promise-broken-general-election-david-cameron-child-tax-credits [theguardian.com]

          The monarchy has little to no influence in politics- it's only there for tourism.

        • Approval Voting is the method that's almost always Condorcet-complete yet most people can still understand. It's nearly impossible to imagine how those in power because of FPP would ever allow more fair methods to come into place.

          Which is really just a clue that fancied-up mob-rule systems like "democracy" ought to be abandoned for more morally-acceptable alternatives.

        • Democracy is an interesting beast. It has so many imperfections, but as soon as you try and improve it, you just make it worse.
          We've all experienced the flaw of FPP when a minor party can get double digits in the overall vote, but not win a seat in parliament. And I've experienced MMP where the fringes held the balance of power for decades and just ground the system to a halt
          I've also seen in smaller local governments where it all inclusive, everyone gets a say, but nothing gets done. The best you can hop
        • by jonwil ( 467024 )

          Australia seems to get it right. We have a preferential voting system and 2 houses of parliament. The last few elections have resulted in minor parties (not necessarily fringe) holding the balance of power and requiring negotiations to get legislation through.

          Means the government can't do whatever the hell it likes and has to negotiate to get anything through. And so far in the current term of government there have been over 300 bills passed (so you cant argue that the Australian system means nothing gets d

          • by jrumney ( 197329 )

            The last few elections have resulted in minor parties (not necessarily fringe) holding the balance of power and requiring negotiations to get legislation through.

            This only really works if the minor parties are more centrist than the major parties. But in general it tends to be the other way around, so the major party has to make their policies more extreme to get the votes of the far-right or far-left coalition partners.

            • But in general it tends to be the other way around, so the major party has to make their policies more extreme to get the votes of the far-right or far-left coalition partners.

              So the government's policy will be a compromise between positions people voted for, rather than dictated solely by the biggest interest group? How's that bad?

              • Except it won't. It'll be a compromise between positions very few people voted for and positions a tiny number voted for.

                The "watermelon" greens were in that position in Belgium for a long time. In Israel it was some Zionist nutbags. Even with FPTP, UK Tories have had to rely on the "fuck the pope" brigade on many occasions.

                P.S. how do you work out a compromise with single-issue parties?

          • It works so well that Australia has had something like four Prime Ministers in the last five years. Plus I wouldn't count the number of bills passed as how well the government is working. Why does the government need to be passing so many bills? When you are passing that many the members don't have a change to properly investigate and debate them before voting. (I know I'm being optimistic but I do think that's their job.) By pushing through so many pieces of legislation the government becomes less accou

        • a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.

          Complete nonsense.

          Will you be voting for Trump, or Clinton?

          • It depends how you define monarchy. The House of Windsor is a tourist attraction, but they merely represent the more visible parts of a deeply entrenched feudalistic tradition that continues to permeates UK society. The House of Lords is just one example of this. The fact that some guy called the Duke of Westminster owns large parts of central London is another. The special privileges of the City of London is another. I mean, most people have no idea that Winston Churchill was the son of the incredibly weal

            • It depends how you define monarchy.

              Humpty-dumpty defined it as a turnip.

              The fact that some guy called the Duke of Westminster owns large parts of central London is another.

              You don't have such a thing as inherited wealth over there? The fact that he gets to wear a gold hat and a weasel-skin coat on special occasions isn't particularly relevant.

              a big clearing out of your ruling class and its institutions

              Like in 1066? Plenty of them in the late 16th/early 17th centuries too.

              I just think many British p

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          I think the more immediate problem for the UK is that it still has a bizarre upper house and a far too cosy relationship between the monarchy (and its periphery) and parliament.

          That bizarre upper house, when it had more power, used to stop the stupid things that democracies often do like this copyright act. Look at the history of copyright. Back at the beginning of the 18th century when Parliament decided on copyright, the House of Commons got tricked by the publishers (stationers) argument that it was "for the artists" and almost gave indefinitely long copyright. The House of Lords put the brakes on this and argued that copyright should be for a limited time and then works should

          • Ultimately she has veto power, can dissolve the Government forcing an election for a new Parliament

            Bollocks.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Another way of looking at it is our childish politicians can't work together effectively, so they prefer a system that gives a minority all the power, and keeps the opposition ineffective. The ruling party also gets to rig the next election by changing the rules and boundaries, and gets to stuff the House of Lords with cronies.

          Strong government just means disenfranchisement for the majority.

    • I believe that it should be illegal for people to take pictures of themselves. These so-called "selfies" are obviously a form of soliciting themselves for immoral purposes.

      And it is a mortal threat to the Empire.

  • extends the copyright of artistic objects like designer chairs from 25 years after they were first marketed to 70 years after the creator's death

    So, they sky must've fallen already — if the write-up and the title are to be believed, it was already illegal to photograph those objects in many circumstances...

    • by Anonymous Brave Guy ( 457657 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @01:51PM (#51105815)

      The point is that there was an exception to the usual rules for copyright that meant the duration was shorter for works created via an industrial process. That exception and the associated rules are being repealed.

      The argument for this seems rather hypocritical in light of the recent changes regarding private copying. In the latter case, basically the government was in favour of introducing the private copying exception and did so, but then failed to get it upheld in court based on some weasel words about compensating rightsholders that apparently primary legislation can't overrule. (If you're thinking "WTF?!" at that point, you're not the only one.) And yet in this case, it seems anyone who for example already publishes a book about these works that was perfectly legal until the changes under discussion is considered collateral damage and there is no talk anywhere of compensating them for potentially having to pulp all of their creative works, i.e., the books about the other works that happened to contain relevant photographs.

      And of course there is the usual logical argument about how copyright is supposed to incentivise the creation and sharing of new works, so retrospectively extending it to works several decades old so the rights will last longer than an entire human lifetime is surely going to be an effective incentive for the long-dead creators of many of those works to create more.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by mi ( 197448 )

        That exception and the associated rules are being repealed.

        The shitty write-up omitted this crucial bit...

        And of course there is the usual logical argument about how copyright is supposed to incentivise the creation and sharing of new works, so retrospectively extending it to works several decades old so the rights will last longer than an entire human lifetime is surely going to be an effective incentive for the long-dead creators of many of those works to create more.

        • - Dear, you got to stop messing with
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          OK, the patent should last for 20 years whether the original inventor is alive or dead. Either way the original inventor or the kids are going to inherit the debt after 20 years if the inventor is bad at business or wasted his time on an invention that won't pay off during the life of the patent. As the AC says, this is common for non-ip business startups and is the way things work.
          There is no natural right to intellectual property, it is just a government granted privilege to advance society (learning in t

          • by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Sunday December 13, 2015 @04:44AM (#51108781) Journal
            I believe there should be two types of intellectual property protections: private and commercial. Private is for things like personal photos and trade secrets; things that are not intended for public consumption. If something IS intended for public consumption, like a book or a film, then it must be registered. Registration lasts for one year, and is not automatically renewed. The cost of registration starts off at 1 cent for the first year of protection; and for each subsequent year, the cost is double the previous year. The owner of the intellectual property is free to renew registration for as long as they can afford to do so. Once the registration expires, the work becomes public domain.

            The first 20 years of protection would be fairly easy for a corporation to pay for: a little over $5000 for a year's protection. At 30 years, you'd better have a lucrative item, because it would cost $5million to protect. At 40 years, it would cost nearly 5.5 billion dollars.

            The system has three advantages:
            1 - It is easy to tell if something is still under copyright. Simply look up the registration number and see if it has been paid for.
            2 - It is self cleaning. No corporation on the planet has deep enough pockets to keep something registered forever. I doubt even Disney could afford the 5 trillion dollar price tag for keeping a movie until the 50th anniversary of their release.
            3 - It is a revenue stream for the government. Someone has to collect those license fees.
            • by dryeo ( 100693 )

              I don't know about having private vs public copyright and trade secrets are just that, secrets can be protected by laws on stealing. Break into Cokes headquarters and into the safe where it's kept, that's theft over as well as breaking and entering. Coke loses their secret by not guarding it, tough.
              As for your main idea, perhaps the first 5-7 years are free, then the charges start at $1and double every year. This is better for the small person who doesn't have to scramble to renew all their copyrights at fi

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            whether the original inventor is alive or dead

            Yes, my little hypothetical dialogue was meant to address exactly this part of Anonymous Brave Guy's argument [slashdot.org]. Just how long — 20 or 75 years — I am not sure.

            But I would not object to it being perpetual, actually — tangible property has no expiration date, why should intellectual property be different?

            There is no natural right to intellectual property

            There is no natural right to physical property either. It is an abstraction some societies mai

      • by KGIII ( 973947 )

        I have a hobby. I have several but, for this discussion, we will be talking about woodworking. I make a variety of wooden items such as chairs, tables, benches, mirrors, etc... I also make a lot of them with few power tools meaning; I can make a dovetail joint faster by hand than you can set the jig up and make one with a router. Give me a coping saw, chisel, and a pencil and we're good to go. I spend, sometimes, a couple hundred hours on a piece. Then I give them away. Sometimes I make cabinets and I give

        • If we're talking preferences for what the law should be, I don't really feel like copyright is a good fit for this kind of work anyway. It seems to me that other types of IP, such as design rights or patents, would be more appropriate, but those have much shorter durations and different rules generally. Then again, my view of copyright is also that both the scope of what is protected and the duration of that protection are now absurdly large, so in my ideal world there wouldn't be so much difference between

          • by KGIII ( 973947 )

            Yeah, I kind of find it disheartening that my designs would be considered copyrighted by default. I'd prefer an opt-in for something like this. There are patents, trademarks, design patents, etc... Copyright? No, that's not the kind of protection that I'd want even *if* I wanted protection. In fact, I want the exact opposite and have gotten it.

            In other words, I want people to copy it, change it, tweak it, and make use of it. That's why I make it. In the list of things that I mentioned, you'll notice that ev

        • Oh, and as an aside: Mix instant coffee with just enough warm water to break it down into a paste. Use a lightly damp sponge and apply the paste to the wood, let it sit until dry (wipe it off for a lighter stain), and then lightly sand with a fine grit sandpaper. It is one of the most beautiful stains out there. You can do repeat applications depending on the color desired. I like to finish some surfaces with Butcher's brand bowling alley wax - multiple coats. The person I give it to should apply a new coat

          • by KGIII ( 973947 )

            I recommend Butcher's brand bowling alley wax and you should be able to find it easily enough. If you can't find it then you can substitute another brand. Any ol' instant coffee will do. You only want the sponge to be lightly damp at the very start. I've never measured out the amounts of liquid that I use so I can't help there. It should be just slightly more moist than a paste, it spreads well.

            The other thing with the above mentioned wax - coat your dad's old tools with it - especially things like a saw. I

  • by harvey the nerd ( 582806 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @01:43PM (#51105773)
    The UK is becoming chaotic. Leave and ignore. When that sh|t shows up here, or elsewhere, hopefully people will laugh it off, or stomp them.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This has nothing to do with socialism you idiot.

    • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      The UK is becoming chaotic.

      So is the USA. I suspect the Internet and cable TV have allowed people to filter their news to be what they want it to be, and this gives more extremists, turning the political systems into a battle of extremists.

      • Hah, you think people are choosing to filter their news?

        More like, expressing a slight preference for certain links causes search engines and advertising to shift in that direction, feeding back to form the bubble. Eventually you're just not even presented information from outside the bubble. Our only hope is that big data is as incompetent implementing the results bubble as Netflix is and people start to get wise to it when they are only presented with a list of two-dozen or so items they've already seen a

      • by dryeo ( 100693 )

        Back in the days before the Internet and TV we had newspapers that were very partisan and allowed people to filter their news to how they wanted it.

  • by Revek ( 133289 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @01:48PM (#51105797) Homepage

    That is the dream of any manufacturer that they sell you something you never own. You can use it but heaven forbid you talk about it. I'm sure they will want to charge for chairs by the sitting next. Hey! you can't sit in that chair. I'm only allowed fifty sittings a month in that chair. Sounds crazy, just like this article.

    • by sudon't ( 580652 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @02:04PM (#51105893)

      It's not a joke, manufacturers are really pushing us towards this idea that you don't truly own the stuff you buy. That said, I doubt you will need a license to photograph stuff you own. You may a license to publish such a photograph, which is bad enough.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > You may a license to publish such a photograph

        Clothes may have a copyright on their design. Putting on facebook may be publishing. Do not put up photos of anyone wearing clothes, only of people without clothes.

    • by monkeyxpress ( 4016725 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @03:03PM (#51106187)

      Yes, that is the goal. The problem is that physically making stuff is quickly becoming a very low barrier for competition. 20-30 years ago, if you wanted to, say, make furniture, you would need an enormous amount of capital expenditure, a big factory, lots of workers. Now you can buy the machinery (or just outsource it to china) for probably 10% of that cost. It means it is very hard for a big incumbent to maintain large profit margins because a small up-start can jump in and start competing.

      Big corporates hate this. The whole idea of being a big corporate is that you can stomp around being wildly inefficient but have so much money you can either crush or buyout anyone who might threaten your position. Reducing competitive barriers to entry scares these people a lot because it may very well expose their incompetence.

      So the natural avenue of attack has been to compensate for the loss of scarcity on the physical side with made-up scarcity through this whole notion of 'intellectual property'. First they will get people to accept that someone who admittedly came up with a nice original design, should have this crazy (70 years after their death) monopoly on that design. Then they will expand it to cover things that you would not consider very original at all. Then they will get really sloppy with even checking if there is any originality. Before you know it you will have to have millions of dollars to go to court and invalidate a government-enforced-monopoly if you want to make anything that looks like it could be a chair, which you won't be able to do if you are a small up-start, and so mega-corp goes back to not working very hard and flying around on junkets in corporate jets.

      This is the way the world works. What will kill it is the march of technology, and globalisation. The Chinese still don't really care about copyright, and when Westerners realise that they are living in relative poverty because of all these government enforced monopolies that keep a bunch of incompetent lawyers rich, they will get really annoyed. Sadly we are probably a decade or so from that.

      • Except nimble competitors who outsource everything will NEVER be able to compete long-term against massive vertically-integrated companies like IKEA, if only because their vertically-integrated competitors will always be able to under-bid them to get the Walmart purchase, and will be the only ones with the means to shave that last fraction of a cent that means the difference between eventual bankruptcy and ongoing profitability.

        Nimble companies that outsource everything are good at driving innovation and br

  • Just one more example of how giant, multi-national corporations are increasing their stranglehold on governance of western countries. Can you image taking a family picture in your own home that happened to include some stupid designer chair or couch, then posting to FaceBook to share with your relatives, only to get a DMCA takedown notice to remove it or else? What if that was the last pic of dear old Aunt Granny that you ever took??

    From what I understand, you can't post a vacation picture of the Eiffel T

    • by dwywit ( 1109409 )

      So, some person buys a designer dress, and he/she (let's not judge) wants to brag, so takes a picture and puts it on facebook/instagram - "Look how pretty I am!", and BOOM! Takedown notice.

      How will shops advertise these "classic designer" items, either first sale or subsequent sale/s? Presumably a first-sale situation will come with a licence to display photos in ads in glossy magazines, but what about high-end second-hand shops? Will they have to seek a licence, too? If they're not allowed to advertise, is

      • Or you put a picture up and you are wearing something similar to a designer outfit, enough to confuse an algorithm at least. You get a take down notice.

        How about you take a vacation picture in a hotel lobby and post it online but it gets taken down because the chairs are designer made and you needed a license?

        • by Cederic ( 9623 )

          I'm looking forward to this happening. It'll cause a public backlash which will hopefully extend to background music captured in videos of live events.

          The sooner copyright law starts reflecting modern realities the better. It just looks like we need to slide down the slippery slope into the cesspool before the public wakes up and demands change.

  • That country is working hard on becoming a toliet. The movie 'V' for Vendetta. Start thinking about Brits.
    • by moonlandingchap ( 3934575 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @02:23PM (#51105997)
      Too damn right! It's a shithole that is only getting worse. Lived in lovely france for 9 years and came back to the UK to find a hostile, unfriendly, big brother watching you, tax the shit out of the them, country. All the good things of the past are gone and the future is looking more and more bleek. Back to France soon me thinks. This is one rat that is going to swim for it!
  • Or the article is to simplified.

    For private use, e.g. as a reference for an insurance or to show it to your friends it most certainly will always be allowed to photograph it.

    However making photos and publishing them, in books or on the internet, might be a copyright infringement.

    But, again, that would usually not be the case if you e.g. write an educational book about design epochs and use a photo from a chair as "an typical example" ... otoh ... if you would really need a license for that, which I doubt, t

    • How can I "show it to friends" if posting on the internet is considered a publishing act already?
    • if you e.g. write an educational book about design epochs and use a photo from a chair as "an typical example" ...

      The government has said this specific case is collateral damage. People who make books like that are already being forced to explore destroying their inventories.

  • by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @02:29PM (#51106029) Homepage

    Think about it.. the more photos of your "designer object" are out there, the more people will find out it exists and decide to buy one from you.

    This is not like taking a photo of a painting where the image itself is what's valuable.

    • This is not like taking a photo of a painting where the image itself is what's valuable.

      How is an artist's work, as seen in the form of the designs on a three dimensional piece of interior decor, different than an artist's work in the form of two dimensional piece of interior decor? Please be specific.

      • Parent makes total sense here.

        The newly placed night illuminations on the Eiffel Tower (one of the examples in the article's do-not-phoptograph list) are an original work of art that is under copyright protection. The copyright would prevent a person from putting similar lights on some other tower.

        Photographs taken of the illuminations are my own original work, not part of the Eiffel Tower, and any European law against my photographing them is crap that I will gladly violate whenever I please. Feel free to

      • Because the two dimensional photograph of a three dimensional object does not fill the same purpose. You might be willing to settle for a framed photo of a painting as both act as wall art, but a framed photo of a statue or chair does not replace the actual object.
        • My point exactly. If someone builds another London Eye or La Defence or whatever I think the architect has a right to be more than a bit miffed. A photo of it? They can go suck a badger's nads.

  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @02:33PM (#51106051) Journal

    No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.

    It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).

    • You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.

      You can already have your video pulled from YouTube because someone drove by with the radio blaring some copyrighted song. This law will allow you to be sued over photos of your vacation because some copyrighted object happened to be in the background."Publishing" was a lot more distinct back in the days when you had to sell a photo to a newspaper or magazine. Now you can post it on Facebook or YouTube and t

  • Brainwave-reading technology, that all citizens will be required to have implanted in their heads at birth, that detect when you're thinking about anything copyrighted. Embedded wireless technology will automatically generate a charge on your credit card or against your bank account to pay a royalty fee.
  • The law will apply to those subject to the law because they live in the country, not all the citizens of the UK - or rather the subjects of the Crown, as we aren't citizens, just subjects, unless that's changed recently!
  • Fuck itself with a live grenade minus the pin...

  • by Jack Griffin ( 3459907 ) on Saturday December 12, 2015 @04:28PM (#51106589)
    Ok so we all know the drill about how totally fucking ludicrous copyright is getting. So instead of continually bitching and moaning, who are the candidates pushing for reform that we can all go out and support them?
    Democracy works by action, not all sitting around moaning. I need a hero....
  • If it were a good idea, they would patent it.

  • Increasingly we seem to be paying to lease goods and services. It would be easy to say then, stop buying stuff you can't actually own.

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?

Working...