Sign in / up

back to article UK gov squeezes copyright law into cheat sheets

The UK Government will produce 'model contracts' to be used in copyright dealings in an attempt to make copyright law more useful and understandable. It will also standardise the way copyright exceptions to copyright law are dealt with in contracts. The Government has published a paper outlining new policies on copyright. It …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. irish donkey
    FAIL

    Another waste of time from the people that sack their expert advisers

    of course copyright holders will be under no obligation to adopt these new contracts.

    So what is the point really?

    Got an expert opinion . Best keep it to yourself

    0 0
  2. Chris G

    No change there , then

    `Adaptable to specific situations´ Still sounds like grist for the lawyers mill.

    0 0
  3. copsewood
    Big Brother

    Reinventing the wheel or timewasting

    Those who imagine it's a good idea to control uses of works for the purposes of private interest already seem to know all they want about how to draw up copyright licenses which protect their own interests at the expense of the consumers' interests, e.g. which attempt to justify gross violations of user privacy as with the Sony rootkit and Kindle 1984 debacles, or which suppress open criticism, disclosure or debate as applies to restrictive technology NDAs.

    Those who give a toss about consumer rights are already using Creative Commons or Open Source approaches. I don't see what the government can contribute here to square this particular circle, other than making certain gross violations of section 8 of the ECHR (right to privacy) matters for criminal law and/or unenforceable in civil law.

    0 0
  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    good idea (if)

    I think such standard basic contracts are a good idea. If widely adopted, they'd get tested and hopefully any defects fixed. Also, once you'd got a grasp of how the standard contract terms worked, then you could instead concentrate on all the additional terms.

    At the moment, you have to read (or possibly ignore and hope, or skim in an optimistic frame of mind) rather than having to carefully read every single part of a fairly-standard-but-may-well-contain-trickery contractual stuff.

    0 0
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    @copsewood

    I assume there are people who fit into a third way though, those who wish to retain control over their copyrighted material, make some money out of it but not actually shaft the consumers. I would hazard a guess that this includes the majority of rights holders.

    Some of the things mentioned:

    "The paper also called on the EU to debate increasing the number of activities that users of copyrighted materials can undertake without payment or permission."

    That seems good for consumers to me. And potentially so for publishers and creators, certainly in the long term.

    "..possibilities include: creating mash-ups of sound and/or images for personal use, such as sampled music or putting a sound-track to family photos; format-shifting from CDs to MP3 on computer, phone or player; sharing mash-ups and photos with friends and family," said the paper."

    These are all things that we (in the UK at least) seem to think is legal but actually is not. So how can this all be bad to consumers?

    0 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    WTF?

    so it'll ...

    give advice to young musicians about how not to be screwed by record companies? Somehow I doubt it....

    0 0
  7. Oliver 7
    FAIL

    @Lee

    "These are all things that we (in the UK at least) seem to think is legal but actually is not. So how can this all be bad to consumers?"

    Because even when we know these things are illegal we do them anyway, because no one could give the steam from their piss about copyright. Copyright law is so anachronistic, tinkering around the edges like this doesn't mean a thing.

    0 0
  8. Trevor Pott o_O Gold badge

    @Lee

    "These are all things that we (in the UK at least) seem to think is legal but actually is not. So how can this all be bad to consumers?"

    Oh, how young and naive. Or is it me who is old and jaded? Give it time. Anything that sounds like it is to benefit consumers merely hasn't been "reviewed" by "interested parties."

    When was the last time laws were passed for the good of the people, and not big business?

    Neelie Kroes for president of the world!

    0 0
This topic is closed for new posts.