Sign in / up

back to article 'Oppressive' UK copyright law: More cobblers from IP quangos

A new report by intellectual property campaigners has again put the UK on the naughty step. This year, as last year, activists list the UK alongside Brazil and Thailand as having the most "oppressive" copyright laws in the world. The report was published by an international NGO called Consumer International, but this delegates …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Tony Paulazzo
      Reply Icon

      Re: Where's the incentive to be creative?

      >Once the return on creativity is zero who will bother being creative?<

      What, you mean people like Beethoven, William Blake, John William Waterhouse, Lowry, Mozart, Oscar Wilde, Vincent van Gogh, the pyramid builders, hieroglyphics....

      The need to (pro)create is a burning need in the breast of (wo)man, they'd do it for nothing (Oscar Wilde (imprisoned for his art) and Van Gogh died penniless), they do it because they need to do it - it's probably worse than a junkie cold turkeying...

      DISCLAIMER: I'm for 'reasonable' copyright and rewarding creatives.

      PS. Still waiting for justification about the Malawi drugs reference in the original article (cheap no brand drugs killing off poor third world citizens).

      1 0
  2. daveeff
    IT Angle

    Fair Use

    If it is OK to rip a CD to my MP3 player (i believe it is morally if not legally) is it OK to download the MP3 of an album I own on vinyl?

    If I am paying for the ip of the s/w / music / literature / movie am I entitled to my money back if it's not fit for purpose? Says it runs on Xp but doesn't, says it's a comedy and I never laughed ....

    Dave

    0 0
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Article appears to be point missing sophistry and ironically anti-Capitalist.

    Yes, Soros has some unfortunate collectivist ideas, however he is a successful commercial predator, so there is some truth in his organisations ideas.

    Ironically Patent and Copyright law is collectivism and based on ideas which Adam Smith strongly argued against in the Wealth of Nations e.g. protected Guilds, a precursor to Corporations!

    Copyrights and Patents are a Corporatist state mechanism not to protect property (which is only physical) but to provide state subsidised anti-Capitalist monopolies on arbitrary public ideas, many derived from "Prior Art", and at tax payer cost, for Corporate profit i.e. a form of Corporate Welfare. This is the externalised 'right' of Corporations to stop other people and businesses from using existing ideas thus have to "reinvent the wheel", thus cause a profusion of redundant and wasteful design tweaks which have nothing to do with progress or a sound economy! Worse the duration of these rights often far exceeds the time period for any conceivable justifiable pay-back period, thus caused unnecessary damage and has brought 'IP' law into disrepute.

    e.g. Dyson and Apple may make some nice products, however their patents are often for slight modification of "Prior Art", thus abusive and parasitic plagiarism, so definitely a bad idea and not helpful for genuine Capitalism and human progress!

    The reason we see so many 'fakes' of products is because of the significant price differences between over regulated and so-called IP protected original designer products, and counterfeit copies, thus ample room for arbitrage by opportunists. Ironically some of this 'fake' products are the same product made on the same production line but to different channels or even just grey imports.

    Counterfeit could be dealt with by use of registered Trade Marks on goods and Caveat Emptor education, rather than Copyright or Patents.

    1 1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like