Circumvention of copy protection measures?

The BBC report on their "Click" program that a person living in Scotland who uses BBC I-Player through their satellite internet connection is breaking the law. The satellite provider is based in France, so that person needs to use a network tunnel to fool the I-Player web site into believing that they are in England. Although they have a right to watch BBC TV and therefore I-Player, they must circumvent the copy protection to do so.

Why is this idea important?

The BBC report on their "Click" program that a person living in Scotland who uses BBC I-Player through their satellite internet connection is breaking the law. The satellite provider is based in France, so that person needs to use a network tunnel to fool the I-Player web site into believing that they are in England. Although they have a right to watch BBC TV and therefore I-Player, they must circumvent the copy protection to do so.

PRS for Music – investigate them.

The workings of this "apparently" non-profit making organisation should be investigated and the laws under which they purport to operate should be abolished. A recent appraisal conducted by this limited company was carried out late, due to a backlog of work; the license it granted contained totally false information and applied a penalty for the late appraisal. Upon appeal, the false information was corrected, the penalty remained in place and the vendor had to pay the full, penalised amount.

Why is this idea important?

The workings of this "apparently" non-profit making organisation should be investigated and the laws under which they purport to operate should be abolished. A recent appraisal conducted by this limited company was carried out late, due to a backlog of work; the license it granted contained totally false information and applied a penalty for the late appraisal. Upon appeal, the false information was corrected, the penalty remained in place and the vendor had to pay the full, penalised amount.

Make jailbreaking legal

Today, the USA made Jailbreaking legal. This allows people who own mobile phones to remove the manufacturer's restrictions. This means they can install their own applications.

The UK needs to do the same.  We need to make Jailbreaking legal.

Why is this idea important?

Today, the USA made Jailbreaking legal. This allows people who own mobile phones to remove the manufacturer's restrictions. This means they can install their own applications.

The UK needs to do the same.  We need to make Jailbreaking legal.

Repeal copyright protection for dead composers and authors

It is bad enough that 20 minutes of scribbling on the back of an envelope can provide wealth for life for the author but totally illogical that royalties can still be claimed by the estate after the composers or authors death.

All of our technological and artistic evolution has been possible by one generation learning the skills and ideas of their predecessors, improving and building on them then leaving their legacy for the next generation to do the same again.

Royalties for intellectual property restrict education, development, innovation and at a corporate level are in restraint of trade to ensure that the copyright holders can obtain profits far in excess of what would be possible if they were determined by fair application of market forces.

A reasonable time to reward talent, inovation, research and development should be allowed but beyond that everything should be in the public domain.

Why is this idea important?

It is bad enough that 20 minutes of scribbling on the back of an envelope can provide wealth for life for the author but totally illogical that royalties can still be claimed by the estate after the composers or authors death.

All of our technological and artistic evolution has been possible by one generation learning the skills and ideas of their predecessors, improving and building on them then leaving their legacy for the next generation to do the same again.

Royalties for intellectual property restrict education, development, innovation and at a corporate level are in restraint of trade to ensure that the copyright holders can obtain profits far in excess of what would be possible if they were determined by fair application of market forces.

A reasonable time to reward talent, inovation, research and development should be allowed but beyond that everything should be in the public domain.

Amendments to Digital Economy Act 2010

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Why is this idea important?

At the current moment parts the the Digital Economy Act 2010 introduced by Lord Peter Mandelson on 8th of April which  is simply unenforceable and too draconian in statue to implerment properly.  The following changes which I propose would benefit not only Internet providers but aswell compensate Industries who lose said money to digital piracy. 

Proposel

  • The right to download copyrighted work for home use, educational purposes without any economical benefit or the intent to redistribute.
  • Creation of a new independant government body of which handles copyright on digital and internet use of said copyrighted materials and which collects payment of monies collected from a new tax .
  • A marginal tax all Internet providers would charge on top of all subcriptions made and passed to the new independant government body who then distributes the monies to the various lobbies who own the said copyright.

Ensure that “Digital Rights Management” is not abused to claim more rights than are allowed in law.

As a repeal: Remove the restrictions on circumventing electronic locks on content. Remove any restrictions on modifying equipment or tinkering.

Why is this idea important?

As a repeal: Remove the restrictions on circumventing electronic locks on content. Remove any restrictions on modifying equipment or tinkering.

Repeal the Digitial Economy Bill – new thinking required on filesharing

The Digital Economy Bill should be repealed for two reasons:

1) it is rushed and vague, and did not receive appropriate review in order to fully assess the validity and impact of it's unclear proposals

2) it representatives 20th century thinking being applied to a 21st century way of life, we should be be innovative and forward thinking in this matter

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Bill should be repealed for two reasons:

1) it is rushed and vague, and did not receive appropriate review in order to fully assess the validity and impact of it's unclear proposals

2) it representatives 20th century thinking being applied to a 21st century way of life, we should be be innovative and forward thinking in this matter

Open up the BBC’s archives

Any BBC programme, 10 years or older, should be freely available on the BBC website to stream and/or download, with no DRM. Any licence should be in the form of copyleft i.e. you can copy, share, modify, distort, clip or whatever any programme on there. The only restriction should be that those who make use of the BBC's content in this way simply state where they got the content from. The internet is not total anarchy, so most people would be happy to give the BBC credit.

Why is this idea important?

Any BBC programme, 10 years or older, should be freely available on the BBC website to stream and/or download, with no DRM. Any licence should be in the form of copyleft i.e. you can copy, share, modify, distort, clip or whatever any programme on there. The only restriction should be that those who make use of the BBC's content in this way simply state where they got the content from. The internet is not total anarchy, so most people would be happy to give the BBC credit.

Copyright Legislation

The issue of copyrighted work needs to be tightened so that if offers greater to protection to the creator of the original work, that is the author, composer or designer during their life time and only 25 years after their death.

However, work which is wholly or in part based on the work on an original work during the original copyright holders period of copyright will be protected for a period of 50 years only. Work based on an original work after the original copyright holders period of copyright has expired is not protected by copyright as the original creater directly does not benefit.

Work which is based on work which is wholly or in part based on an original work is not protected by copyright during the lifetime of the original creator or at anytime in the future.

Once the period of copyright has expired, the  work must be made available to the general public for free or for a nominal charge to cover reproduction.

Why is this idea important?

The issue of copyrighted work needs to be tightened so that if offers greater to protection to the creator of the original work, that is the author, composer or designer during their life time and only 25 years after their death.

However, work which is wholly or in part based on the work on an original work during the original copyright holders period of copyright will be protected for a period of 50 years only. Work based on an original work after the original copyright holders period of copyright has expired is not protected by copyright as the original creater directly does not benefit.

Work which is based on work which is wholly or in part based on an original work is not protected by copyright during the lifetime of the original creator or at anytime in the future.

Once the period of copyright has expired, the  work must be made available to the general public for free or for a nominal charge to cover reproduction.

Copyright modification for internet use

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

Why is this idea important?

Currently copyright makes it illegal by default to use bits downloaded and uploaded via internet. This default behaviour that all bits on the internet are illegal by default and you need to ask a permission to use those bits from someone other side of the world. This should be modified so that bits are legal by default and illegal activity happens only when something more serious than normal internet use is happening. The limits of the copyright protection should be checked. Why current system is not working is because anyone could be successfully sued based on current rules and it takes huge amount of effort to avoid those arbitrary restrictions that are preventing _all_ use of bits downloaded over internet.

Legalise Filesharing

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Why is this idea important?

Filesharers have long been accused of stealing, with ad campaigns telling is that downloading a film is the equivalent of stealing a DVD.

That is simply not the case:

For a start, when filesharing one is not taking anything of material or intrinsic value. One is taking copying and taking a file, that is, a collection of 1s and 0s.

Digital media can be copied instantly and sent to anyone on the globe with an internet connection at incredible speed, free of charge. To allow large corporations to charge money for this sort of media is absurd; it's like making people pay for air.

The media conglomerates say that they are losing revenue. They are only losing a nominal sum of money. Truth be told it cannot be quantified, but let me just say this: someone who downloads a film or album free of charge, illegally, in 90% of cases would not have purchased it anyway. Therefore they are not depriving anyone of any income.

Films and music will always be profitable; there is such thing as a cinema and a concert. To say that a downloaded copy of a film or album is the same as a cinema showing or concert (which one must pay for to enter) is complete nonsense. To say that people will prefer the former to the latter is also nonsense; fans will always want the true, immersive experience you get in a cinema or concert.

Copyright changes

Start to reverse the escalations in copyright legislation. For example reduce the period of time, limit the situations and/or periods wherin copyright can be transferred from the original holder to companies.

Why is this idea important?

Start to reverse the escalations in copyright legislation. For example reduce the period of time, limit the situations and/or periods wherin copyright can be transferred from the original holder to companies.

Stop the tax on the personal use of music in the workplace and public places

I imagine most workers and office managers will be shocked to know/find out that if you listen to your radio or mp3 player on loudspeaker in a workplace, that you are breaching copyright law.

To ensure you aren't breaking the law when playing any music in your workplace, a 'Music Licence' must be obtained from PRS for Music.

To find out more about the rates you should be paying at work you can have a look here:

http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/I-2010-03%20Tariff.pdf

Even more worrying is that if you have a radio or mp3 player playing over a loudspeaker in a public space (for example you are sitting in a public garden enjoying some of the brilliant weather we've had recently and enjoying some music with your friends), you too could be breaching copyright law and would require a 'Music Licence'!

More details on the rates you need to pay can be found on the same organisation's website, here:

http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/O-2009-07%20Tariff.pdf

Please eliminate this ludicrous tax on human society's right and abilities to relax!

Why is this idea important?

I imagine most workers and office managers will be shocked to know/find out that if you listen to your radio or mp3 player on loudspeaker in a workplace, that you are breaching copyright law.

To ensure you aren't breaking the law when playing any music in your workplace, a 'Music Licence' must be obtained from PRS for Music.

To find out more about the rates you should be paying at work you can have a look here:

http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/I-2010-03%20Tariff.pdf

Even more worrying is that if you have a radio or mp3 player playing over a loudspeaker in a public space (for example you are sitting in a public garden enjoying some of the brilliant weather we've had recently and enjoying some music with your friends), you too could be breaching copyright law and would require a 'Music Licence'!

More details on the rates you need to pay can be found on the same organisation's website, here:

http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/O-2009-07%20Tariff.pdf

Please eliminate this ludicrous tax on human society's right and abilities to relax!

Complete Invasion of Privacy

Discard the Digital Economy Act, it’s a complete invasion of privacy. Indroduced by an unelected offcial at the behest of media giants. How many millions are being wasted on Ofcom strong-arming ISPs to SPY on their clients. Media giants can’t control the game anymore so this is their answer, a complete invasion of privacy introduced by Mandleson. Who elected Mandelson to introduce policy? No one did, therefore it is illegal and unjust.

Why is this idea important?

Discard the Digital Economy Act, it’s a complete invasion of privacy. Indroduced by an unelected offcial at the behest of media giants. How many millions are being wasted on Ofcom strong-arming ISPs to SPY on their clients. Media giants can’t control the game anymore so this is their answer, a complete invasion of privacy introduced by Mandleson. Who elected Mandelson to introduce policy? No one did, therefore it is illegal and unjust.

Clarification of consumer rights vs content publisher rights, with consumer rights held paramount

Introduction:

Content duplication laws have recently run amok, but it's not required to perform a massive overhaul of copyright laws to solve this.  What's required is that a definitive list of consumer rights is produced, and considered to have a higher priority than the definitive list of content publisher rights.

For example:

Consumer rights

  1. Consumers have the right to duplicate content for the purpose of backup / disaster recovery
  2. Consumers have the right to duplicate content by transferring to a digital media format, for the purpose of playback on digital media equipment, such as portable media players, digital media adapters, computers, etc.
  3. Comsumers have the right to play media in a private context such as a private party or family gathering.
  4. Consumers have the right to access offline content whenever, wherever, and however they choose.  (which makes Ubisoft's PC DRM illegal – yay)

Consumer right exclusions

  1. Consumers do not have the right to duplicate media for the purpose of sale or free transfer to an unrelated individual or group, or piracy.  (Knowingly uploading to a public website, for example, would be illegal)

Clarifications

  1. Piracy is defined as illegally procurring a copy of content that is reasonably available in the country where the act occurred.  (which means that releasing The Shield DVD in the US does not mean it's available in the UK, thank you very much, Fox)
  2. Anti-piracy ads automatically exempt content from any anti-piracy protection afforded by the law.

Publishers would have the right to protect their IPs, but not at the expense of my rigt to use content that I have paid for. 

Why is this idea important?

Introduction:

Content duplication laws have recently run amok, but it's not required to perform a massive overhaul of copyright laws to solve this.  What's required is that a definitive list of consumer rights is produced, and considered to have a higher priority than the definitive list of content publisher rights.

For example:

Consumer rights

  1. Consumers have the right to duplicate content for the purpose of backup / disaster recovery
  2. Consumers have the right to duplicate content by transferring to a digital media format, for the purpose of playback on digital media equipment, such as portable media players, digital media adapters, computers, etc.
  3. Comsumers have the right to play media in a private context such as a private party or family gathering.
  4. Consumers have the right to access offline content whenever, wherever, and however they choose.  (which makes Ubisoft's PC DRM illegal – yay)

Consumer right exclusions

  1. Consumers do not have the right to duplicate media for the purpose of sale or free transfer to an unrelated individual or group, or piracy.  (Knowingly uploading to a public website, for example, would be illegal)

Clarifications

  1. Piracy is defined as illegally procurring a copy of content that is reasonably available in the country where the act occurred.  (which means that releasing The Shield DVD in the US does not mean it's available in the UK, thank you very much, Fox)
  2. Anti-piracy ads automatically exempt content from any anti-piracy protection afforded by the law.

Publishers would have the right to protect their IPs, but not at the expense of my rigt to use content that I have paid for. 

Limit copyright to 15 years

Copyright terms have been extended over and over again. Corporations and sucessful (not to mention rich) artists claim that it is to protect their "right" to make money from something decades after it was produced. This is to the direct detriment of the public domain and our culture.

More than 95% of copyrighted material is out of print and thus largely unavailable, depriving us of knowledge and cultural heritage simply because the copyright holder is either not inclined to re-publish it or cannot be found. This material could be used by others to generate wealth for the economy, e.g. by re-issuing out of print books formatted for electronic readers or re-mixing music into something new.

The reality is that having a long copyright term harms artists and stifles creativity. There is less incentive for artists to produce new work when they can milk their old material for the rest of their lives (and probably their childrends.) Furthermore artists draw on popular culture for inspiration. They benefit from the public domain but expect not to have to contribute back to it for 70+ years. 15 years is more than enough time to exclusively exploit work.

Why is this idea important?

Copyright terms have been extended over and over again. Corporations and sucessful (not to mention rich) artists claim that it is to protect their "right" to make money from something decades after it was produced. This is to the direct detriment of the public domain and our culture.

More than 95% of copyrighted material is out of print and thus largely unavailable, depriving us of knowledge and cultural heritage simply because the copyright holder is either not inclined to re-publish it or cannot be found. This material could be used by others to generate wealth for the economy, e.g. by re-issuing out of print books formatted for electronic readers or re-mixing music into something new.

The reality is that having a long copyright term harms artists and stifles creativity. There is less incentive for artists to produce new work when they can milk their old material for the rest of their lives (and probably their childrends.) Furthermore artists draw on popular culture for inspiration. They benefit from the public domain but expect not to have to contribute back to it for 70+ years. 15 years is more than enough time to exclusively exploit work.

Repeal Digital Economy Act

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Why is this idea important?

The Digital Economy Act was brought into force as one of the last acts of the outgoing Labour government, with the support of the Tories and against the wishes of the LibDems. This undemocratically enacted act must be repealed and the parliament must be given a proper debate about its future.

Enact broader safe harbours for internet businesses

  • Initiate a consultation into whether current protections for internet business are adequate;
  • Consider how compliance costs for ISPs, search engines and other online intermediaries might be reduced;
  • Consolidate existing safe harbours into a single regime that is simpler, fairer and technology neutral;
  • Consider the enactment of broader immunities in respect of third party defamation, copyright and trade mark infringement, negligence and other misconduct;
  • Make network neutrality (not discriminating against network traffic on the basis of source, destination or content) a condition of immunity;
  • Engage with UK internet businesses and consumers to determine legislative priorities in the upcoming parliamentary term.

Why is this idea important?

  • Initiate a consultation into whether current protections for internet business are adequate;
  • Consider how compliance costs for ISPs, search engines and other online intermediaries might be reduced;
  • Consolidate existing safe harbours into a single regime that is simpler, fairer and technology neutral;
  • Consider the enactment of broader immunities in respect of third party defamation, copyright and trade mark infringement, negligence and other misconduct;
  • Make network neutrality (not discriminating against network traffic on the basis of source, destination or content) a condition of immunity;
  • Engage with UK internet businesses and consumers to determine legislative priorities in the upcoming parliamentary term.

Reform of Intellectual Property Rights laws

The wholesale reform of Patent and other Intellectual Property Rights laws to ones based upon the principle of a COMMON TREASUARY OF KNOWLEDGE & IDEAS rather than on the individual ownership of intellectual property.

Existing laws are currently hindering the development of ideas and the application of new technology such that many ideas are only developed to the extent that they make sufficient financial return for the IPR holder who then often chooses not to develop the idea further. In many cases the ideas behind patents are not developed at all, but registered to prevent the development of products that could compete with those of the IPR holder. Patents are often held by companies with no intention of making any investment in the idea, but with the hope of claiming royalties from someone else who subsequently develops the idea (often independently).

Why is this idea important?

The wholesale reform of Patent and other Intellectual Property Rights laws to ones based upon the principle of a COMMON TREASUARY OF KNOWLEDGE & IDEAS rather than on the individual ownership of intellectual property.

Existing laws are currently hindering the development of ideas and the application of new technology such that many ideas are only developed to the extent that they make sufficient financial return for the IPR holder who then often chooses not to develop the idea further. In many cases the ideas behind patents are not developed at all, but registered to prevent the development of products that could compete with those of the IPR holder. Patents are often held by companies with no intention of making any investment in the idea, but with the hope of claiming royalties from someone else who subsequently develops the idea (often independently).

Repeal the Digital Economy Act.

I think the Digital Economy Act, which was rushed through in closing business of the last government should be repealed as it is ill-considered, and severely disadvantages ordinary members of the public, leaving them open to blackmail by unscrupulous law firms and big business.

Those who gave it the nod through should hang their heads in shame at their betrayal of our civil liberties!

Why is this idea important?

I think the Digital Economy Act, which was rushed through in closing business of the last government should be repealed as it is ill-considered, and severely disadvantages ordinary members of the public, leaving them open to blackmail by unscrupulous law firms and big business.

Those who gave it the nod through should hang their heads in shame at their betrayal of our civil liberties!

Create a modernized “opt-out” option for the DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The DMCA "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is so overbloated and obtuse, that the following circumstances could make you a criminal:

 

A) If you download a song off the internet that belongs to someone else, who can claim they have proprietorship.

 

B) If you download something off the internet that may have at one time belonged to someone else, because they can claim you have "infringed" them.

 

C) If you sell something that is similar to something else, and because it is similar a famous music artist/corporation can point at you and say "they broke the law"

 

D) Because the DMCA is a modern day bureaucratic bumbling of epic proportion, and rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior.

 

E) It has so many restrictions that anyone on the internet could become a potential felon.

Why is this idea important?

The DMCA "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" is so overbloated and obtuse, that the following circumstances could make you a criminal:

 

A) If you download a song off the internet that belongs to someone else, who can claim they have proprietorship.

 

B) If you download something off the internet that may have at one time belonged to someone else, because they can claim you have "infringed" them.

 

C) If you sell something that is similar to something else, and because it is similar a famous music artist/corporation can point at you and say "they broke the law"

 

D) Because the DMCA is a modern day bureaucratic bumbling of epic proportion, and rewards bad behavior while punishing good behavior.

 

E) It has so many restrictions that anyone on the internet could become a potential felon.

Our copyright laws need a “fair use” clause.

If I legitimately buy a music CD, then I should be able to make a backup and to transfer that music to my MP3 player or phone. Under our current laws, both are illegal – and that's just ridiculous!

Why is this idea important?

If I legitimately buy a music CD, then I should be able to make a backup and to transfer that music to my MP3 player or phone. Under our current laws, both are illegal – and that's just ridiculous!

Allow tinkering with electronics you own

Once we buy a piece of hardware (e.g. mobile phone), we should be allowed to tinker with it, add, remove and replace software on it, and even break it if we want to.

Current UK DRM laws prohibit us from removing software from a device, and replacing it with our own. Sometimes, even open-source software (against the will of the author) is surrounded by a "DRM wrapper" that prevents you from removing it!

I am asking government to restore the freedom to allow people to "remove" or "replace" software on hardware, and to forbid manufacturers from restricting people from doing such acts.

Why is this idea important?

Once we buy a piece of hardware (e.g. mobile phone), we should be allowed to tinker with it, add, remove and replace software on it, and even break it if we want to.

Current UK DRM laws prohibit us from removing software from a device, and replacing it with our own. Sometimes, even open-source software (against the will of the author) is surrounded by a "DRM wrapper" that prevents you from removing it!

I am asking government to restore the freedom to allow people to "remove" or "replace" software on hardware, and to forbid manufacturers from restricting people from doing such acts.