Maybe I'm having a slow day but....
.... can someone explain what this actually means ?
There's an assumed level of knowledge that I just don't have :(
Still, I get to use the WTF icon :)
The Parliamentary committee which monitors the Business Department has warmly backed No 10's copyright revolution, and urged the Hargreaves' Independent Review of IP and Growth – aka the Google Review – to speed ahead. MPs recommend going further than many copyright radicals, supporting greatly expanded powers for the …
Basically media users (publishers for example) want to avoid having to pay for content (pictures and video) if they can find an 'orphaned work' basically they find a picture or video clip online and use it for free if they cannot easily identify who created it. If the creator finds out they are only able to claim a token fee and cannot stop further usage (so a publisher wouldn't have to reprint a book cover for example, they could continue using the stolen image).
Google wants a similar arrangement for images / video / music as it has for books. It can sell orphaned works, pocket the moolah and if the author ever turns up they get tuppence and bugger all else.
So basically that is the suggestion of the hargreaves review, legalise copyright theft for big business. The big sell was it would make the UK a huge media empire blah blah trillions in taxes and we all get to ride on unicorns round our palaces. Another report suggested that if you stop drinking googles coolaid and do some real maths, the benefits are not there, it would do more harm than good. So another report comes out glossing over all this and saying we can even pick what collour unicorn we want. The govt is basically 'sexing up' a proposal it wants to push through because it owes the murdoch publishing empire some favours.
It is this kind of crap that played a significant part in my choice to get the hell off the sinking ship. It's sad and somewhat ironic that I have more protection for my work in the home country of google than I will in the UK should this become law.
Politicians have been bought as per normal. Your loss, photography is a tranferrable skill and its much nicer working on a tropical beach than bleak North Yorkshire (although the suppin and tuppin is better back home :-) the excolonials have no idea how to make cheese either). This will not promote industry, it will start an exodus of content producers. Kiss goodbye to all that lovely tax revenue.
"This is a serious failure of Parliamentary scrutiny." What's new? The politicians cheerfully commission and allow publications of "factual", "independent" reports containing serious errors of logic. NB opinion can be debated but these are errors of the 2+2=5 variety. They, prinicipally Claire Perry, have then used those reports to justify trampling on freedoms "fundamental to a democratic society". The remit of the Office for Naitonal Statistics must be expanded to include the audit of reports for errors of logic and methodology.
Oh and there's no improper relationship between MP's and the press! Dave's just doing his best mate old Rupert a solid by legalising his media companies stealing content. It's in no way a thank you for supporting him in the last election. And no, I'm not a new labour fan either, the jug eared smarmy twat was as much Murdochs bitch as Dave. Both should be locked up.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020