Lord Sumption
First name Ass, by any chance?
The highest European Court today confirmed that the internet can carry on working just like it has for 20 years. In doing so, it was batting away a strange request for "clarification" on copyright from the UK's Supreme Court. For the internet to function, it was established very early on that certain devices - such as routers …
to provide technical support to the bewigged-ones and prevent they from hitting the STOP button on the internet whenever they get a panic attack from all this newfangled tech-knowledgery that has suddenly appeared all around them.
If so, maybe it IS earning the billions we chuck at it every year </ohcraphowdiditgetthisbad>
How did this idiot end up in that position...what if he had to make this decision for himself, I am actually for leaving the EU but that would leave this man and his colleagues with the responsibility to decide on these things, which he doesn't seem to be able to do. He should be relieved of his position for showing his ineptitude.
"How did this idiot end up in that position.."
I don't know the man, but based on the couple of run of the mill country court judges I have known, I'd wager that he's a damn sight clever than most of the people commenting. Not withstanding the idiot MP's passing dreadful legislation drafted by well meaning but collectively incompetent civil servants, British judges are amongst the most highly regarded in the world, which is why so many international contracts are written under the laws of England & Wales, and disputes arbitrated in English courts.
Typically the actual coverage of a judgement is so abbreviated of the often lengthy technical and legal basis of a judge's opinion that it is easy to assume these people are clowns. I would guess that Lord Sumption is well aware of the surrounding law, but was (for specific reasons) seeking clarification, because that's how law works.
What if I accidentally put a mirror next to a newspaper, should I be fined for making a copy? What if nobody looks at it, is the copy still there?
And if there happened to be two mirrors facing each other, should I be fined an infinite number of times?
These questions must be answered, lest civilisation as we know it collapse into utter anarchy!
Talking of newspapers and printing, did our forebears have to go through this farce when printing was developed (all that type you've set up there is a mirror image of my book, pay me!). I suspect not.
Tar the noble Lord, feather the noble Lord and run the noble Lord out of town.
He just wants to be remembered for something... even if it is taking that thing that works pretty well and messing it up so it doesn't work anymore.... at least he'll be remembered.
So when our EU overlords hire some techno-caveman like this, when exactly can i ask for my 14 billion back?
The techno-caveman was appointed by and is employed by Her Majesty's Government. He referred the issue out of the UK court system, and up to the "EU overlords" at the European Court.
They would appear to know a little bit about law and technology, because it was they who told him to not be such a bloody idiot.
And if you really paid £14bn to the EU, you need a better tax consultant.
The same effect can be achieved by the server end stating effectively "this content must not be cached" in the header (ie "Cache-control: private")
The point in question though is more like the stage of re-assembling the bitstream in ram in order to be able to render the page.
So temporary copies that are 'essential' to the process of delivering the content to the user are fine. But what about temporary copies held as part of the delivery process such as ISPs monitoring your web traffic for security/advertising reasons?
Obviously there are all kinds of other reasons to be concerned about that happening but could an ISP be sued for copyright infringement over that?
Same goes for the NSA and GCHQ et al. While they may have disturbing legal protections allowing them to snoop our email and storage etc. Could they be sued for copyright infringement over the content they've snooped (assuming of course you some how knew they had snooped it).
It would be hard to argue (though I'm sure both ISPs and security agencies respectively would try) that any of the temporary copies are 'essential' to the process of content delivery.
This post has been deleted by its author
wait, is the temporary data part of the plumbing of the internet (in which case i'm not responsible for it) or is it part of the content (which i am responsible for).
cos i think we can all trot off a few examples of "content" if found in the browser cache of your computer that could get you in serious trouble.
can someone please explain this apparent inconsistency?
I for one am glad he asked the question. This schoolyard culture of pointing the finger at someone when they ask a question that others deem obvious needs to stop. I've seen it happen far too often in I.T. and it results in even more feckless decision-making born out of fear of looking stupid.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
Socrates