back to article Government's 'Google Review' copyright rules become law

The dog-ends of the “Google Review” of copyright sailed through the Lords yesterday and will become law on 1 October – creating work for the courts and quite possible, legal headaches for the government. Having given itself the power, last year, to make sweeping changes to copyright by the back door – through secondary …

  1. Annoyed Grunt

    This country is going to the dogs.

    Next the NHS will be selling our details for profit and American companies will get away with massive Tax evasion on a gross scale... Oh wait...

    1. phil dude
      WTF?

      what do you mean....

      WILL sell???!!!

      I guarantee all our data has already be shipped off for $$$ to some $CORPS.

      When you travel abroad enough, the junk mail you receive gives quite a picture of what information of yours has been sold, especially between connected markets - i.e. US and UK.

      What's that "joke" going around the interwebs, "1984 was not supposed to be a plan..."

      P.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    I invent a cure for cancer.....

    that took fifteen years hard work and hundreds of millions of pounds investment. For that I get twenty years protection from proof of concept which will drop to about ten years after testing and clinical trials.

    I knock up song about it in an afternoon. For that I get protection of death plus seventy years.

    No sympathy for copyright whatsoever.

    1. arrbee

      Re: I invent a cure for cancer.....

      Yes, but these new regulations don't change any of that as far as the large copyright holders are concerned, since they have the clout to make sure they get paid. This is aimed fair and square at individual "creatives", i.e. everybody, and its intent is to enable companies such as Google to use any and all material they can find for whatever purposes they wish without having to worry about irrelevancies such as ownership. The only thing they can't do is sell the stuff for cash.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I invent a cure for cancer.....

        @arrbee

        You may wish to read this about rights collection agencies:

        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140728/17321728038/recording-industry-files-insane-lawsuit-against-ford-gm-having-built-in-cd-rippers.shtml

        "2010, it notes that AARC collected $1.75 million... and paid out just $7,894.84."

    2. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      Re: I invent a cure for cancer.....

      I knock up song about it in an afternoon. For that I get protection of death plus seventy years.

      Well, your publisher does anyway...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I invent a cure for cancer.....

      "For that I get protection of death plus seventy years."

      The correct solution, IMO, would be "until death, or at least 14 years".

      As for patents, just scrap them.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Arrrrr

    So by this analysis, I'm free to download stuff to make myself a private copy? Or rip my mates CDs?

    Kinda makes the ISPs blocks on torrent site pointless if users aren't doing anything wrong

    1. Gordon 11

      Re: Arrrrr

      Or rip my mates CDs?

      I don't think so. You can rip your own (but would presumably have to keep the original too).

      1. Kevin Johnston

        Re: Arrrrr

        @Gordon 11 and @Anonymous Coward

        Actually the wording is such that it does not require you to own the original. We are heading to the same state that exists in Switzerland (and I think Portugal) where copying of copyright material for personal use is permitted regardless of the source and yes, The Pirate Bay is accessible in Switzerland.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Arrrrr

      No. Really, really no.

      You will be allowed to format shift things which you already own. So you can rip your own CD to an MP3 player. Something which many people do already without being aware (or not caring) that it is currently illegal.

      It is bringing the law into line with what the vast majority of people think is perfectly acceptable. It's the government siding with the majority of their citizens rather than large companies who would rather sell us the same thing multiple times, once for your CD player, once for your car MP3 player, another for your phone, etc., etc.

      It's almost like living in a democracy...

      1. The_Idiot

        Re: Arrrrr

        @Anonymous Coward

        Having driven for no few years (though not for now few recent years) on British roads, both motorway and otherwise, I'd be tempted to say (though without being able to cite experimental data) that the majority of people driving think exceeding the speed limit (_especially_ on the 'fast lane' of motorways) is perfectly acceptable and something they do already. So by the argument you appear (to my Idiot wit) to offer, democracy should rule and there should be no police action on speeding.

        Shortly after that lesson has been learned, the populace will have the potential to elevate tax evasion and passing the port to the right, or even across the table, to the same status.

        Or maybe I'm not taking this seriously enough - though with my author hat on, I might contend otherwise...

        1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

          Re: Arrrrr

          "I'd be tempted to say (though without being able to cite experimental data) that the majority of people driving think exceeding the speed limit (_especially_ on the 'fast lane' of motorways) is perfectly acceptable and something they do already. So by the argument you appear (to my Idiot wit) to offer, democracy should rule and there should be no police action on speeding."

          Errrrrr, that's the idea behind democracy - the government is there to SERVE the people, not rule them. Laws are designed to enforce consensus opinion.

          If thr *majority* of people support a speed limit on motorways of over 70mph, then that should be enacted. If the current government won't, then elect one that will....

          However, that's the problem - it's often hard to find a party that will out such changes without messing up somethin else, which is why a referendum is a good idea as long as the population is correctly informed (yes, I know... big caveat there too)

          So yes, there are practical problems, but you seem to be of the view 'majority conscensus doesn't matter. We must blindly do what the gpvernment says " - I know of many dictators that woul welcome you as a subject.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Arrrrr

            The elected parliament made the speeding laws. Just because a lot of motorists (not necessarily the majority and certainly not the majority of the population, including pedestrians and cyclists) disregard or break some limits some of the time does not justify changing them.

            One could argue that most people have been dishonest to the point of petty theft at some time, probably more than ignore speed limits. Probably most of committed and assault (note that assault is not battery). Should theft, assault and similar be legalised? After all, thousands of years of human history have included prohibitions that, it seems, are ineffective.

            Foolish arguments.

    3. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Arrrrr

      In Germany you have to buy the first copy, but you are free to make a reasonable number of copies for yourself and to give away as presents to friends (a reasonable number was defined by the Government as 10).

      You can make copies, as long as you don't circumvent copyright.

      You cannot however upload to the Internet and make available to others (E.g. torrent), because you cannot guarantee that a maximum of 10 people will download a copy. As part of torrenting is making your part of the torrent available to others, torrenting copyrighted material is illegal here. That also means you cannot take a photo, for example, that you don't own the copyright to, and post it online (blog, Instaflickr etc.) without getting permission first.

      So in order to make a copy, you have to have purchased the original in the first place and you can only make a copy for your own personal use (or as a present), you cannot use it commercially and you cannot make it available to others without limit.

      You can receive a copy from a friend, as long as he doesn't charge you for it, but as you did not buy the original, you are not free to copy it again and pass it on - home burnt CD mixes were a common birthday present when I first moved to Germany.

      The downside is a couple of cents added to the price of CDs, disk drives, MP3 players, photocopiers etc.

      It works very well, in general.

  4. Gannon (J.) Dick

    Nothing is certain except death and taxes. - Ben Franklin

    This all makes perfect sense, you see, because extending Copyrights to death + 70 enables artists to cheat death and Google to cheat .... um, lost my train of thought. Carry on.

  5. Paul 5

    Parody...

    It's entirely appropriate for the question of whether something is a parody to be decided by a court - Parody is more a "know it when I see it" thing than something that is straightforward to define.

    As for quoting complete works for purposes other than parody or "traditional" fair dealing, that's a different question

  6. William Donelson

    GREED is a SICKNESS. It's why people with a million times as much money as the poor still feel they don't have enough.

    1. Buster

      Why do you assume that copyright is only for the mega rich. Most photographs and illustrations, for instance, are produced by one person businesses. No large organization actually employs artists or photographers any more so most of the images you see are made by freelancers who have to buy their own equipment and materials as well as public liability insurance. They pay for the place they work or run their own studio with the overheads and do all the admin. and accounts often spending time chasing late payers and people who undermine their business and standing with their clients by using their images without paying or even asking can they use an image. The most simple decent thing to actually ask for permission seem to have almost disappeared and instead people at best are thoughtless or at worst know precisely that they are publishing other peoples intellectual property without permission.

      What me, you and every person has lost today it the right to control and profit from our skill, imagination and vision in order to satisfy some jumped up PR twat who happens to be the Prime Minister and who has a deluded wet dream of a UK Google springing forth from the plague of faux entrepreneur hipsters infesting East London. The best that shower hope for is for is that their start ups might one day become noticed by Google and that Google might just be kind enough to give them some money and not just steal it from under them (most are candid enough to say so). The only way that is going to happen is if they have their IP zipped up water tight. I effect they are funded by the government to be no different than the hope filled drones that want to make it on YouTube as Google serfs. (now Twitch as well).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Why do you assume that copyright is only for the mega rich."

        Because it is. Google proved that when they industrialized copyright infringement with their Books project and got away with it.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    FAIL

    Jobs for the boys (and girls)?

    There are a lot of Barristers etc sitting as MPs, so they *should* know better. Or was the legislation created just to keep their mates still practising in business? Coz there's sure gonna be a load of new work coming their way real soon...

  8. UKLooney

    Ignorance of the Statutory Instrument is No Excuse.

    Anyone got any guesses on how many of these they have accumulated now?

  9. OmgTheyLetMePostInTheUK

    El Reg Parody...

    So I could now go to a pub, have a few pints, go home, make an exact copy of El, Reg, post it online, add in some sad jokes about El Reg, The geniuses at The House of :Lords, the UK in general, and call it a parody, and get rich roo? and never give a dime of my wealth to anyone but me, myself and I?

  10. synonymous cowherd
    Pirate

    It's about time

    We rebranded ourselves properly. Any one like United Kingdom of America or the good ol' UK of A. I think it's quite catchy.

  11. Colin Brett
    Unhappy

    I have a bad feeling about this ...

    I get the impression that Dave, George, Nick et. al strongly suspect they are going to lose at the next election and end up out of a job. Thus they are making these "laws" so they can use their golden parachutes to land in a nice directorship role in one of the Silicon Roundabout startups (or even as a roving ambassador for Google).

    Makes me feel decidedly queasy.

    Colin

  12. cracked
    Unhappy

    Should authors earn more than burger flippers?

    The capitalist answer is: No, but they can if they work hard enough.

    Before publishing was mechanised, and so not much of it was done, tellers made up stories and shared them orally, being paid for a single performance.

    Because the tellers could only remember so many stories, they walked for miles and miles and miles, from little town to little town, telling the same set of stories, but to different groups of people.

    The industry expanded and, after a teller had performed, a local comedian would enter the stage and make jokes, about the previous content. For a long time, everything went well.

    Publishing was invented by a storyteller, who couldn't be bothered to walk any further than the local post office.

    The problem encountered wasn't that people started to copy the words - the local comedian had done that when the words were only spoken - it was that the audience had started posting free copies to people in the next town.

    And so, although it made the teller sad, the teller stopped telling and became a burger flipper.

    And the audience was sad too; because after a while, jokes about burger flipping aren't funny.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like