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. 

Replace Crown Copyright for government works with public domain

Published works of the UK government, including works created by government employees in fulfilment of their work, should be in the public domain, instead of being covered by Crown Copytight. 

This would be similar to the provisions that exist in the United States regarding works of the US federal government.

Unlike the US situation, this should also apply to works created by local government.

None of the above would be intended override official secrecy or privacy laws; they would simply replace the default of Crown Copyright with a new default of the works entering the public domain.

Why is this idea important?

Published works of the UK government, including works created by government employees in fulfilment of their work, should be in the public domain, instead of being covered by Crown Copytight. 

This would be similar to the provisions that exist in the United States regarding works of the US federal government.

Unlike the US situation, this should also apply to works created by local government.

None of the above would be intended override official secrecy or privacy laws; they would simply replace the default of Crown Copyright with a new default of the works entering the public domain.

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).