| 5:29 pm on Nov 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Speaking at an event in the East End of London, at which he announced a series of investments by IT giants including Facebook and Google, Mr Cameron said the founders of Google had told the government they could not have started their company in Britain. |
And he believed them because like many politicians he is a halfwit when it comes to matters IT and Internet.
| 5:48 pm on Nov 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|The announcement was welcomed by internet campaigners who say it will boost small business. |
Boost which small business, scrapers an other copyright offenders?
Copyright laws only stop those that don't want to work for a living from getting into business.
| 6:35 pm on Nov 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Worth a read through the article.
It speaks about the UK and suggests there is some intention to look at US copyright laws relating to the internet to see if any are worthwhile bringing over.
Doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Already the US system seems to be a de-facto standard.
| 7:52 pm on Nov 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
About time, be cause if a artist really want there photos not to be published anywhere there are many options to do so with login bla bla you also dont let the door open at your house
| 7:56 pm on Nov 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
vordmeister, what part of the US system is good? Maybe the bit that allows a megacorp to set up a video site stamping all over the copyright of artists, TV channels, movie studios and a hundred others in muddy size 12 boots and when met with a torrent (pun intentional!) of abuse and complaints say "well, it's too hard to police" and a court sides with them. That part?
| 9:20 pm on Nov 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I smell some anti-Google changes on this, you just can't go around making enemies over privacy, especially when you rely on other people's content to make a buck.
| 9:28 pm on Nov 5, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Well it's certainly time for a shake up of our copyright laws. Although in practice everyone agrees that its ok to copy a cd that you own for your own use, as I understand it, this is technically against the law.
| 12:33 am on Nov 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
No, you have always been able to copy a CD for your own use, HOWEVER, you are not permitted to have both in use at the same time, i.e. you can't have a copy in your car whilst your husband/wife is listening to it at home.
In other words, you can copy a CD for the purpose of backup or change of medium only, not duplication.
Provided the change is about a clearly defined UK fair-use rule as has been suggested, then that's ok, but any relaxation beyond that is likely to be fought tooth and nail by a whole load of interested parties.
| 8:51 am on Nov 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Actually sometimes I do, and when I do I don't expect someone to walk in and take my stuff.
|you also dont let the door open at your house |
Smells more like pro Google to me.
|I smell some anti-Google changes on this |
| 5:35 pm on Nov 6, 2010 (gmt 0)|
BeeDeeDubbleU - well some thinks it could be a open house sale or something when the door is wide open
| 12:42 am on Nov 7, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Great - this means I can start robbing loads of text with my bots and spreading it all over the net to boost me up - hey I could replicate the entire internet in a year or so - ill call my net web 3.0 all ill do is name my source (web 1 and 2).
Sounds good to me - thank god we have cameron - lets hope goofle have enough disk space to index all my junk.
| 10:38 am on Nov 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
UK copyright laws hold back the archiving of a lot of printed, photographed and other artistic works as you can't use this material until 70 years after the death of the author or artist. I recently read a copyright notice on an Australian library site that put copyright on a work as 2060 - the material was published prior to 1935 and nobody appears to know when the author died - so for safety's sake they added more than 100 years to the date of publishing.
I am not saying copyright is a bad thing, just that there needs to be a sensible approach to it and when nobody can contact the original author or publisher (as they do not exist anylonger) then material should be able to be used on the Internet.
| 11:50 am on Nov 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
How do you establish this?
|and when nobody can contact the original author or publisher |
In any case, orphaned works (I think that's the right term) are a red herring in this discussion for one very simple reason - if they were popular they would be making money and if they were making money, it would find its way to someone (maybe not the right someone but that's another matter).
If Google, or anyone else, wants a digital copy of a book they are free to go out and buy it (from a charity shop if they want) and then digitise it. The only thing they can't do is reproduce it until copyright has expired. If whomsoever runs out of storage for all the paper books they have bought, they can burn them (but not resell them while they hold digital copies).
| 1:03 pm on Nov 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
that wont last that long ime sure Mini Rupe will make sure that any changes favor the old media - just like Ofcom was set up to keep Murdoch Snr Sweet (and thats a direct quote from the chair of the Telecoms Interest Group)
if you not sure who Mini Rupe is
| 2:44 pm on Nov 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Alternatively you could have used his proper name instead of trying to appear clever (and failing).
|if you not sure who Mini Rupe is |
Ofcom is useless, as was its predecessor Oftel (but the Broadcasting Standards Commission was ok). Equally useless is the OFT who waved through Sky's acquisition of Virgin TV channels. Amazingly, the very next day, Sky announced closures - that shows how much respect they have for the OFT. However, none of this is relevant to the discussion of potential changes to copyright law.
Frankly, there's not much point worrying about changes to UK copyright rules before even a green paper is published. Governments around the world have much more pressing concerns at the moment so nothing is likely to change overnight.
| 4:17 am on Nov 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|well some thinks it could be a open house sale or something when the door is wide open |
If you're ever in my area I would suggest finding out before entering as you might find yourself looking down the barrel of a gun. People don't take kindly to uninvited strangers walking into their house where I live.
Continuing with your open house analogy if I open my house to the world it doesn't give people the right to rob me blind.
| 10:45 am on Nov 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
| 11:49 am on Nov 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I am not saying copyright is a bad thing, just that there needs to be a sensible approach to it and when nobody can contact the original author or publisher (as they do not exist anylonger) then material should be able to be used on the Internet. |
Just because you can't find an author doesn't mean he's abandoned his copyright.
There's no law requiring an author to be found, privacy is paramount.
The minute you pass laws about orphan copyrights is the minute you force authors to expose their privacy.
Which is more important, the right for an author to maintain privacy or your rights to be a scraper?
Talk to Salman Rushdie about privacy if you have any questions.
Privacy wins, scrapers lose, every time IMO.
| 12:13 pm on Nov 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
unfortunately there is already a precedent in books and magazines. if you look at one with a lot of old photos you will frequently see a phrase like "we made every effort to find/contact the photographer" and if they get in touch then they will happily update the credit in any reissue... which is pretty much useless for the photographer, as the original issue will still be on sale untouched.
| 6:32 pm on Nov 15, 2010 (gmt 0)|
londrum, wouldn't they be risking a lawsuit?
I'm kind of in the same boat, I have hundreds of images I scanned from an Uncles collection that were professionally taken from about 1900 to 1925 but I'm hesitant to put them online. I'd imagine the copyright has run out on some of them but I can't be positive. They have a lot of historical value in this area and I'd love to share them. Of course the traffic is an inducement too. :)