Copyright Law – personal backup of video games

The existing UK copyright law recognised that computer and video games were easily succeptable to damage, be it from magnetic or electrical damage, or young children scratching disks rendering them useless. As such, according to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase.

However, the corporate giants such as Sony are perfectly happy for you to go and spend another £40 on a replacement game that your child has just rendered useless by scratching the disk, so they ensure that their video games consoles cannot simply play backup disks. Their protection methods also prevent the software piracy that would in fairness be rife if they werent in place.

These protection methods prevent the consumers legal right to take a personal backup copy, but in order to exercise your rights, you could modify the games console that you have purchased and own to counteract any protection methods put in place by the manufacturers, therefore allowing you once again to make a personal backup copy of your purchased games.

The Copyright And Rights Regulations act (hereafter referred to as the CRRA) was introduced around 2003 and was a series of amendments to the UK’s copyright laws. The section of the law allowing consumers to make a personal backup copy has NOT been changed by the CRRA. You are still entitled by UK law to make a backup copy of any piece of software you buy legally. Where things start to get interesting, though, is in Section 296Z of the new law. Section 296 makes it an offence to do anything at all which is designed to circumvent any piece of copyright protection technology put in place by the manufacturers or distributors of any copyrighted work. In short what it means is that if a disc has some form of anti-copy protection, it is a criminal offence to either circumvent that protection yourself, or to give anyone else any device or piece of information which will enable them to do so. In other words, if you exercise your legally-enshrined right to make a backup of your legally-purchased game, you are automatically and necessarily breaking the law, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

The revision to the law is contradictory and a restriction in consumer rights, making a criminal out of a parent who is just fed up of having to put games in the bin sometimes just days old, because their young childen have scratched the game disk rendering it useless.

Why is this idea important?

The existing UK copyright law recognised that computer and video games were easily succeptable to damage, be it from magnetic or electrical damage, or young children scratching disks rendering them useless. As such, according to Section 50(A) of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, legal purchasers of computer games are explicitly permitted to make a backup copy of their purchase.

However, the corporate giants such as Sony are perfectly happy for you to go and spend another £40 on a replacement game that your child has just rendered useless by scratching the disk, so they ensure that their video games consoles cannot simply play backup disks. Their protection methods also prevent the software piracy that would in fairness be rife if they werent in place.

These protection methods prevent the consumers legal right to take a personal backup copy, but in order to exercise your rights, you could modify the games console that you have purchased and own to counteract any protection methods put in place by the manufacturers, therefore allowing you once again to make a personal backup copy of your purchased games.

The Copyright And Rights Regulations act (hereafter referred to as the CRRA) was introduced around 2003 and was a series of amendments to the UK’s copyright laws. The section of the law allowing consumers to make a personal backup copy has NOT been changed by the CRRA. You are still entitled by UK law to make a backup copy of any piece of software you buy legally. Where things start to get interesting, though, is in Section 296Z of the new law. Section 296 makes it an offence to do anything at all which is designed to circumvent any piece of copyright protection technology put in place by the manufacturers or distributors of any copyrighted work. In short what it means is that if a disc has some form of anti-copy protection, it is a criminal offence to either circumvent that protection yourself, or to give anyone else any device or piece of information which will enable them to do so. In other words, if you exercise your legally-enshrined right to make a backup of your legally-purchased game, you are automatically and necessarily breaking the law, with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.

The revision to the law is contradictory and a restriction in consumer rights, making a criminal out of a parent who is just fed up of having to put games in the bin sometimes just days old, because their young childen have scratched the game disk rendering it useless.

Repeal 1997 Protection from Harassment Act

The 1997 Protection from Harassment Act was originally brought in to protect people from stalkers. Since it was created the act has been twisted so much that even writing two letters to your MP with a six month period constitutes harassment if your MP decides to complain.  Fair complaint about your treatment by a hospital or a school – then their easy remedy is a complaint.

Police chasing statistics know that a conviction under the Act is easy.  Don't take my word but have a look at a site operated by a barrister on the same dodgy law which has no comparable anywhere in the world.  The dirty man of Europe has become the dirty man of the world.   http://www.harassment-law.co.uk/

Consider this independent barristers point of view "Where harassment does occur it is often difficult for the victim to prove because there may be little physical evidence of what has happened. For the same reason however it is often difficult for persons to defend themselves against false or malicious accusations of harassment behaviour."

It is bad law.

 

.

Why is this idea important?

The 1997 Protection from Harassment Act was originally brought in to protect people from stalkers. Since it was created the act has been twisted so much that even writing two letters to your MP with a six month period constitutes harassment if your MP decides to complain.  Fair complaint about your treatment by a hospital or a school – then their easy remedy is a complaint.

Police chasing statistics know that a conviction under the Act is easy.  Don't take my word but have a look at a site operated by a barrister on the same dodgy law which has no comparable anywhere in the world.  The dirty man of Europe has become the dirty man of the world.   http://www.harassment-law.co.uk/

Consider this independent barristers point of view "Where harassment does occur it is often difficult for the victim to prove because there may be little physical evidence of what has happened. For the same reason however it is often difficult for persons to defend themselves against false or malicious accusations of harassment behaviour."

It is bad law.

 

.

Revision of the Digital Economy law (2010)

Revisiting this very rushed law which doesn't understand the technology.

I have two main points on this.

1. The forcing of ISPs to give information

2. The prosecution of offenders

Why is this idea important?

Revisiting this very rushed law which doesn't understand the technology.

I have two main points on this.

1. The forcing of ISPs to give information

2. The prosecution of offenders

scrap ban on all seater football stadia

I feel the law on banning standing in football stadia should be scrapped, and the alternative safe standing terraces which are used widley in europe can then be introcuced.

Why is this idea important?

I feel the law on banning standing in football stadia should be scrapped, and the alternative safe standing terraces which are used widley in europe can then be introcuced.

Abortion Act 1967

Although brought in allegedly to remove the scourge of back street abortionists, it has in fact been routinely abused such that abortion on demand, for reasons of convenience and very minor disability are de facto routine

Why is this idea important?

Although brought in allegedly to remove the scourge of back street abortionists, it has in fact been routinely abused such that abortion on demand, for reasons of convenience and very minor disability are de facto routine

Why must I keep insurance certificates for 40 years

I run a very small business with two employees. I am required by law to have employees liability insurance which is just as it should be. To prove this I am required by law to display (for my employees to see) a valid copy of the pertaining insurance certificate which again is acceptable.

However, by law I am required to keep each year's insurance certificate for 40 years. I am nearing retirement and my business will end with my retirement. As the law stands and for my particular circumstance,  I will be required to keep the last issued certificate until I am 105 years old which is barmy. The chances of my living to this age are remote and what happens if I die before the 40 years is up I am not sure. Perhaps I shall have it stipulated in my will  that the certificates be interned with me in my coffin so that  those responsible will have to dig me up to get their putrifying paperwork.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I run a very small business with two employees. I am required by law to have employees liability insurance which is just as it should be. To prove this I am required by law to display (for my employees to see) a valid copy of the pertaining insurance certificate which again is acceptable.

However, by law I am required to keep each year's insurance certificate for 40 years. I am nearing retirement and my business will end with my retirement. As the law stands and for my particular circumstance,  I will be required to keep the last issued certificate until I am 105 years old which is barmy. The chances of my living to this age are remote and what happens if I die before the 40 years is up I am not sure. Perhaps I shall have it stipulated in my will  that the certificates be interned with me in my coffin so that  those responsible will have to dig me up to get their putrifying paperwork.

 

 

disappearance of Great Britain?

We are neither in nor out of the EU.  Give the public the facts on costs, disadvantages and advantages AND HOLD A REFERENDUM (for the british citizenship) AS HAS BEEN PROMISED SO MANY TIMES.

We can then either opt in or out of ALL EU law and should do so immediately the referendum results are known

Why is this idea important?

We are neither in nor out of the EU.  Give the public the facts on costs, disadvantages and advantages AND HOLD A REFERENDUM (for the british citizenship) AS HAS BEEN PROMISED SO MANY TIMES.

We can then either opt in or out of ALL EU law and should do so immediately the referendum results are known

Outlaws

The term outlaw comes from the olden days refering to people that operated outside of the law, ie criminals.

There have been a number of suggestions regarding criminals being able to sue whether they are in prison or they are in the act of breaking into your home. Why can we not have one law that encompasses this ethos and say ' if you operate outside of the law then you cannot then use it for your own good' This would stop all prisoners suing for 'lack of gaming facilities' or burglars suing for injuring themselves whilst trying to steal your telly !!!!!

Why is this idea important?

The term outlaw comes from the olden days refering to people that operated outside of the law, ie criminals.

There have been a number of suggestions regarding criminals being able to sue whether they are in prison or they are in the act of breaking into your home. Why can we not have one law that encompasses this ethos and say ' if you operate outside of the law then you cannot then use it for your own good' This would stop all prisoners suing for 'lack of gaming facilities' or burglars suing for injuring themselves whilst trying to steal your telly !!!!!

Anonymity for those accused of rape or sexual assault until found guilty

Anyone, men and women alike, who are accused of rape or sexual assault should have the same right to anonymity as those who have been raped. If they are found guilty then their names should be released to the media.

Why is this idea important?

Anyone, men and women alike, who are accused of rape or sexual assault should have the same right to anonymity as those who have been raped. If they are found guilty then their names should be released to the media.

TV LICENCE LAWS

Scrap the TV licence.  It results in teenagers and impoverished families being harassed, fined and criminalised.  What's the point?

Enormous resources are wasted in collection, enforcement, punishment.  Yet this is a near-universal tax that could be rolled seamlessly into basic income tax, saving the millions spent on TV licence bureaucracy.

The TV licence is the modern Glass Tax.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap the TV licence.  It results in teenagers and impoverished families being harassed, fined and criminalised.  What's the point?

Enormous resources are wasted in collection, enforcement, punishment.  Yet this is a near-universal tax that could be rolled seamlessly into basic income tax, saving the millions spent on TV licence bureaucracy.

The TV licence is the modern Glass Tax.

Trespassers (inc thieves) unable to sue in case of injury

Trespassers, especially those trespassing with the intent to break the law such as thieves, vandals, etc, should not be able to sue those who own the property in the event that the trespasser hurts themselves.

Why is this idea important?

Trespassers, especially those trespassing with the intent to break the law such as thieves, vandals, etc, should not be able to sue those who own the property in the event that the trespasser hurts themselves.

CSA have too much power

People have committed suicide over mistakes the CSA have made

They now have the power to take you to a magistrates court just because you have not received a letter from them

I am all for parents (that is both parents) paying their way but fathers are being prosecuted and persecuted so that the CSA (or whatever it is called now)  can clear up their books

They have the power to take you to magistrates court if

You dont reply to one of their letters

If you move address without telling them

They also send in the bailiffs whilst they are assessing you. That cannot be right

Reduce the power of the CSA

Why is this idea important?

People have committed suicide over mistakes the CSA have made

They now have the power to take you to a magistrates court just because you have not received a letter from them

I am all for parents (that is both parents) paying their way but fathers are being prosecuted and persecuted so that the CSA (or whatever it is called now)  can clear up their books

They have the power to take you to magistrates court if

You dont reply to one of their letters

If you move address without telling them

They also send in the bailiffs whilst they are assessing you. That cannot be right

Reduce the power of the CSA

Revise the smoking ban

Update the smoking ban so areas in pubs and clubs can be designated areas, or even allow whole premises to make themselves smoking areas.

Tax these places higher if you want, but stop telling us what we can and can't do!

Why is this idea important?

Update the smoking ban so areas in pubs and clubs can be designated areas, or even allow whole premises to make themselves smoking areas.

Tax these places higher if you want, but stop telling us what we can and can't do!

Make “format shifting” of music etc. legal.

At the moment, technically, it is illegal to "format shift" data, because of copyright laws. For example, I own a lot of music CDs. Technically, I am not allowed to copy the music from these onto my computer as MP3s to put on my MP3 player. I have to purchase every song I want, again, as an MP3. A similar issue will soon arrive with the advent of e-book readers. This is simply because the copyright law has not yet caught up with technology. The law should be altered so that, if someone legally owns music, video, book etc *in any form* they should be allowed to convert it into any other form, for their own, personal use. i.e. the purcahse and copyright should apply to the  material (i.e. music, film, book etc), rather than the specific physical or digital representation of the material purchaed.Obviously the restrictions on supplying this new form of the material to other people should remain in place.

Why is this idea important?

At the moment, technically, it is illegal to "format shift" data, because of copyright laws. For example, I own a lot of music CDs. Technically, I am not allowed to copy the music from these onto my computer as MP3s to put on my MP3 player. I have to purchase every song I want, again, as an MP3. A similar issue will soon arrive with the advent of e-book readers. This is simply because the copyright law has not yet caught up with technology. The law should be altered so that, if someone legally owns music, video, book etc *in any form* they should be allowed to convert it into any other form, for their own, personal use. i.e. the purcahse and copyright should apply to the  material (i.e. music, film, book etc), rather than the specific physical or digital representation of the material purchaed.Obviously the restrictions on supplying this new form of the material to other people should remain in place.

human rights

Human Rights greatly restrict Immigration staff at overseas missions in assessing visitors to UK. Someone who is anxious to get into our country, has no job or future in their own country, can easily gain access by applying to visit a relative. Human Rights say that they have that right even though all the evidence is that they have no intention of returning to their own country. 

Why is this idea important?

Human Rights greatly restrict Immigration staff at overseas missions in assessing visitors to UK. Someone who is anxious to get into our country, has no job or future in their own country, can easily gain access by applying to visit a relative. Human Rights say that they have that right even though all the evidence is that they have no intention of returning to their own country. 

Prostitution

The current law which allows prostitutes to sell sex but not to work in brothels is postiviely dangerous and forces women onto the streets.  The buying and selling of sex should be completely legal and there should be liscences brothels set up with Health checks for sex workers. There should be increased stringency against sex worker trafficking and forced sex work.

Why is this idea important?

The current law which allows prostitutes to sell sex but not to work in brothels is postiviely dangerous and forces women onto the streets.  The buying and selling of sex should be completely legal and there should be liscences brothels set up with Health checks for sex workers. There should be increased stringency against sex worker trafficking and forced sex work.

Children/Teenagers should pay for criminal damage

Is there a way an individual can create a debt on the National Insurance number? This debt could be paid off when that person begins working and would operate in very much the same way as the government student loan system.

For example:

Four 12-13 year olds vandalise a bus stop and cause £1000 of damage. £250 worth of damage should be recorded on each of their National Insurance numbers. When they start working they would repay this money to the initial council/person/company who carried out the repairs.

Why is this idea important?

Is there a way an individual can create a debt on the National Insurance number? This debt could be paid off when that person begins working and would operate in very much the same way as the government student loan system.

For example:

Four 12-13 year olds vandalise a bus stop and cause £1000 of damage. £250 worth of damage should be recorded on each of their National Insurance numbers. When they start working they would repay this money to the initial council/person/company who carried out the repairs.

Anti social behaviour

Anti social behaviour was coined as a phrase to cover all sorts of behaviour.  In fact, in this country we already had sufficient laws to deal with  behaviour that was criminal from Breach of the Peace to Harassment Law, noise legislation,  drunk and disorderly, criminal damage, etc etc.

What the creation of anti social behaviour legislation did was to empower public bodies and the Police to move some behaviour that was not previously criminal into the area of prosecution.  Anti social behaviour in itself is not a criminal offence, but by making the breach of an ASBO a criminal offence, the Government of the day (New Labour) effectively criminalised people where there was no offence to meaningfully prosecute.  The discretion and use of orders is at the whim of local bureaucrats and Police. 

I have noticed in our area we now have the "crime" of anti social driving, which is actually speeding, to be policed by volunteers out with speed guns.  In this way this legislation is being used as a back door way of legitimising the policing of driving by  private individuals, without the bother of proper legal  process and the courts, and the right to a defence.

Many of us will remember the News headlines about ASBOs for a person who answered the door undressed, and sad stories of ASBOs used inappropriately to address persons with mental illness and handicap who offended someone's sensibilities.

There is enough legislation out there for anything that is a crime to be prosecuted, and what ASBO legislation really does is enable persecution or prosecution where there is insufficient evidence of a real crime, by organisations that would prefer more control than the law allows.  Unfortunately, this is wide open by abuse, as well as adding a layer of policing in the widest sense of the word that is intrusive and in some cases against Human Rights.

I believe that the removal of anti-social behaviour legislation from the Statues would remove an unnecessary and often bureaucratic process from our lives which is open to abuse by authorities and which is used to criminalise non crimnal behaviour.  Where a crime is in existance we already have the laws to cover that.  ASBOs are the modern equivalent of the stocks, and are an insult to civil liberties.

Why is this idea important?

Anti social behaviour was coined as a phrase to cover all sorts of behaviour.  In fact, in this country we already had sufficient laws to deal with  behaviour that was criminal from Breach of the Peace to Harassment Law, noise legislation,  drunk and disorderly, criminal damage, etc etc.

What the creation of anti social behaviour legislation did was to empower public bodies and the Police to move some behaviour that was not previously criminal into the area of prosecution.  Anti social behaviour in itself is not a criminal offence, but by making the breach of an ASBO a criminal offence, the Government of the day (New Labour) effectively criminalised people where there was no offence to meaningfully prosecute.  The discretion and use of orders is at the whim of local bureaucrats and Police. 

I have noticed in our area we now have the "crime" of anti social driving, which is actually speeding, to be policed by volunteers out with speed guns.  In this way this legislation is being used as a back door way of legitimising the policing of driving by  private individuals, without the bother of proper legal  process and the courts, and the right to a defence.

Many of us will remember the News headlines about ASBOs for a person who answered the door undressed, and sad stories of ASBOs used inappropriately to address persons with mental illness and handicap who offended someone's sensibilities.

There is enough legislation out there for anything that is a crime to be prosecuted, and what ASBO legislation really does is enable persecution or prosecution where there is insufficient evidence of a real crime, by organisations that would prefer more control than the law allows.  Unfortunately, this is wide open by abuse, as well as adding a layer of policing in the widest sense of the word that is intrusive and in some cases against Human Rights.

I believe that the removal of anti-social behaviour legislation from the Statues would remove an unnecessary and often bureaucratic process from our lives which is open to abuse by authorities and which is used to criminalise non crimnal behaviour.  Where a crime is in existance we already have the laws to cover that.  ASBOs are the modern equivalent of the stocks, and are an insult to civil liberties.