AfterDawn: Tech news

UK government rejects extended copyright term

Written by Rich Fiscus (Google+) @ 25 Jul 2007 8:03 User comments (10)

UK government rejects extended copyright term Ministers yesterday issued a response to recommendations made by the Parliamentary culture'n'media committee, which said the government should push the European Union for a copyright term of "at least 70 years". The suggestion was rejected on the grounds that most works that would be affected have previously signed contracts assigning their royalties to record labels, and therefore wouldn't benefit from the extension.
Overall the response is a mixed bag for consumers. It mentions the possibility of legalizing "format shifting", which would allow the copying copyrighted recordings from one format to another.

It's currently illegal in the UK to even Rip a CD or convert songs to MP3 format. Besides allowing both of those practices, considered commonplace in most parts of the world, it would also be beneficial to audiophiles with older, analog recording they'd like to convert to newer digial formats. Both HD DVD and Blu-ray support lossless audio Compression originally designed for the high quality DVD-Audio format, and this could finally open the door for owners of older vinyl records to copy them to digital formats.

On the other hand, the report highlights a serious problem in modern copyright law. While it frequently mentions costs to the entertainment industry, occasionally artists, and once or twice even to consumers, it never once mentions the foundation of all intellectual property laws - public good.

In particular, what's not explained is how the financial interests of privately owned media companies equate to public interest. Without that basic underpinning it's difficult to see laws designed to validate a few companies' business model anything but corporate welfare. Meanwhile many consumers, and even some small businesses, suffer the consequences.

Sources: The Register, Department for Culture, Media, and Sport

Previous Next  

10 user comments

125.7.2007 17:16

Quote:
It's currently illegal in the UK to even Rip a CD or convert songs to MP3 format.
Wow ive lived in the uk all my life and never knew that was illeagal :)

226.7.2007 11:19
riphack
Inactive

They can't lock us all up

326.7.2007 11:42

Originally posted by riphack:
They can't lock us all up

But they can sue everyone for monetary damage. Then only poor people gets locked up...

426.7.2007 12:09

I believe they can raid homes and confecate your blacklisted imported games and black listed porn 0-o
the UK is scary *L*
the US is just dumb :P

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 26 Jul 2007 @ 12:10

526.7.2007 16:18

This is nuts you need to be at least able to rip your music from the CD you bought either to your computer or a portable device. What a joke.

628.7.2007 1:31

Yip but if you ask me the goverment only ever takes notice to copy right when it suits them.

On the Ipod/Digitial Media players and going to court.

If they ever did, why not just argue the store was at fault for selling you an item that broke uk law or better yet the manufacture for creating a device thats not in accordance for the law....

Its like the speed camera... detector thing again.

However with the ipod/mp3 generation the problem grew out of hand so fast it created a stale mate where they cant do anything to anyone as everyones already doing it and all the manufactures have completely ignored the law.

So why not just take it out of the law then...? well mostly because the wigs in hollywood and riaa would start to shit bricks if a country started to actually de-restrict some of its copy right laws, as it would give the wrong idea to the consumer, it like sayin its ok to copy :)

However when everyone is anyway, frequently host of TV programs refer to shows that they have watched season x of or listen to new music, which they could have only of listened to or watch by the means of getting it from an naughty source.

Society has already adopted a copyright free aproach, i think the Companies are starting to catch up.

The bbc in the uk here now posts some of its content on youtube and has a BBCi Video Player in beta test.

Which has just made me think, if the BBC is paid for by the licence payer, ie everyone with a telly in the uk and then the BBC post a show to youtube.

Does the youtuber have to pay towards the licence fee ?

it does some what murk up the definition of broadcasting when it comes to the law regarding licence fees.

728.7.2007 11:13

Originally posted by plazma247:
Yip but if you ask me the goverment only ever takes notice to copy right when it suits them.

On the Ipod/Digitial Media players and going to court.

If they ever did, why not just argue the store was at fault for selling you an item that broke uk law or better yet the manufacture for creating a device thats not in accordance for the law....

Its like the speed camera... detector thing again.

However with the ipod/mp3 generation the problem grew out of hand so fast it created a stale mate where they cant do anything to anyone as everyones already doing it and all the manufactures have completely ignored the law.

So why not just take it out of the law then...? well mostly because the wigs in hollywood and riaa would start to shit bricks if a country started to actually de-restrict some of its copy right laws, as it would give the wrong idea to the consumer, it like sayin its ok to copy :)

However when everyone is anyway, frequently host of TV programs refer to shows that they have watched season x of or listen to new music, which they could have only of listened to or watch by the means of getting it from an naughty source.

Society has already adopted a copyright free aproach, i think the Companies are starting to catch up.

The bbc in the uk here now posts some of its content on youtube and has a BBCi Video Player in beta test.

Which has just made me think, if the BBC is paid for by the licence payer, ie everyone with a telly in the uk and then the BBC post a show to youtube.

Does the youtuber have to pay towards the licence fee ?

it does some what murk up the definition of broadcasting when it comes to the law regarding licence fees.
they have not taxed the net yet? *shock*

828.7.2007 12:16

Quote:
they have not taxed the net yet? *shock*
Shuussh, dont go giving them idea's !!

928.7.2007 12:19

Quote:
Quote:
they have not taxed the net yet? *shock*
Shuussh, dont go giving them idea's !!

LOL
they may wait and see how it might effect trade before doing it.

1029.7.2007 5:02

Quote:
Yip but if you ask me the goverment only ever takes notice to copy right when it suits them.

On the Ipod/Digitial Media players and going to court.

If they ever did, why not just argue the store was at fault for selling you an item that broke uk law or better yet the manufacture for creating a device thats not in accordance for the law....

Its like the speed camera... detector thing again.

However with the ipod/mp3 generation the problem grew out of hand so fast it created a stale mate where they cant do anything to anyone as everyones already doing it and all the manufactures have completely ignored the law.

So why not just take it out of the law then...? well mostly because the wigs in hollywood and riaa would start to shit bricks if a country started to actually de-restrict some of its copy right laws, as it would give the wrong idea to the consumer, it like sayin its ok to copy :)

However when everyone is anyway, frequently host of TV programs refer to shows that they have watched season x of or listen to new music, which they could have only of listened to or watch by the means of getting it from an naughty source.

Society has already adopted a copyright free aproach, i think the Companies are starting to catch up.

The bbc in the uk here now posts some of its content on youtube and has a BBCi Video Player in beta test.

Which has just made me think, if the BBC is paid for by the licence payer, ie everyone with a telly in the uk and then the BBC post a show to youtube.

Does the youtuber have to pay towards the licence fee ?

it does some what murk up the definition of broadcasting when it comes to the law regarding licence fees.
Agree 100%

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive