Clause 18 of the DEB removed? – And its different because…..?

I won’t repeat myself about my objections to the DEB.  Whilst my articles and opinions are strongly anti-piracy, I think that there is so much wrong with the implementation and current copyright laws, that there are issues on both sides.

What I want to look at is it is now reported that Clause 18 has been removed in the final throes of the DEB debate. Before I do that though, many sites report:

Copyright holders will be able to apply for a court order to gain access to the names and addresses of serious infringers and take legal action.

In respect of the DEB (and this article is found here)  its reported like its some new piece of legislation or right.  Listen people, you put a civil case together in regards to someone infringing on your copyright, you can go to court to get an order for the ISP to disclose the details of the alleged infringer.  This is nothing new and its what law companies are doing to get these warning letters to you.

So clause 18 has been removed? Great? Well it doesn’t matter because clause 8 of this ambiguous piece of legislation allows the secretary of state to “block locations” on the net.  Of course pro-piracy opinion which for the most part seems only to be consisted who support file sharing because they want something free, would want/have you believe that sites such as Wikileaks et al would be blocked and would like to bring people into the anti DEB argument on the basis that this in some way will lead to infringement of the right to free speech.

Let me go on record now (and please hold me to this) Wikileaks will NOT be banned in my opinion, this legislation which appears to be led by the commercial sector (who coincidently are making more profit now than ever before if reports are to be believed) what we will see will be the blocking of tracker sites, Im sure in the spirit of copyright infringement many of the orphan works used to illustrate these articles will have a copyright owner who in theory, could use legislation to block the site.   If anyone thinks that this bill is about anything other than file sharing I would love to hear from you.

Now what people have missed are the two targets in the DEB.  Should legislation be passed and remain, there will be less gold for the firms who go after file sharers.  As soon as sites are blocked and the average user can’t file share then the moneypot in the main disappears. To be fair, I suggested the blocking of sites an alternative to civil cases and I think its a far more proportionate response.  So whilst it appears 18 has been replaced by clause 8 in a rather bad example of stealth tactics, I have no issue to that at all.

Another quote from the article Ive linked:

In the past the lawyers had to go after the infringers, with actual proof. Now, the holder of the Internet account (Mum, Dad, Grandparents and the small startup that can’t afford the legal fees) will be held to account for what happens over their connection.

Im sorry? Lawyers will still have to go after the infringer if they wish to seek recompense from the courts, thats not changed.  A civil court will not grant damages against an individual if evidence of that individuals guilt can’t be proved.  What it is saying is that forgetting any civil case for a second, there will be three chances for the owner of the connection to remedy a common defence…ie secure the connection, before disconnection is sanctioned.  Good idea in theory, but in practice again opens the flood gates to a logistical nightmare of paper trails and resulting challenges.

I’d suggest if users are convinced they cannot secure their connection or prevent family members from file sharing then they should consider getting rid of the connection and using an internet cafe instead.  For any parents out there, how do you stop your children from accessing unsuitable material on your sky box?  Simple you put the parental lock on.  It’s called being responsible.

And here’s some more from Techcrunch

Parents who have no idea their teenage children, neighbours, or even someone parked outside their house, has been slurping their WiFi and downloading the latest movies and music, will now be up in court.

Really? So that hasn’t happened before?  Look at the Copyright and Patents Act 1988 then comment again.  The DEB is not about changing the burden of proof if the matter goes to court the DEB is about remedies to the problem of copyright infringment and lets face it at the end of the day, we are talking about the internet, not your ability to feed your family.  Lets put this into perspective, the world will not come crashing to an end if your internet is cut off.

I am hoping with the finalization of the unworkable DEB, the matter will be laid to rest on this site.  Unfortunately what we will continue to see is a migration to IRC or the binaries and the element of sharing removed.  Unless there is a part in the DEB which Ive missed where it says DPI is authorised so interested parties can go on fishing trips to see if their material is being downloaded and what of recording material off TV?

If anyone objects to the DEB, I think the best way to get the legislation you want discussed is to generate the same amount of revenue as the entertainment industry.  You’ll get all the attention you want then.

I wonder how many (out of the 20 that attended last night to discuss the bill) actually had any real clue about file-sharing and the technologies involved.

Goblin – bytes4free@googlemail.com

If you are new to this blog (or have not yet read it) please take time to view the Openbytes statement, here.

33 Comments Add yours

  1. Foudn this wonderful explanation of FSF.ORG:

    “Piracy”

    Publishers often refer to copying they don’t approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

    If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

    As the debill#, you should follow Corey Doctorow on Twitter, he is keeping up to date on it, and it’s implications. I posted some of his tweets about it in my last article which is here.

  2. Chips B Malroy says:

    I usually make a comment, but this time will only ask you a question.

    Do you really think if the DEB passes into law, that it will stop or even decrease long term file sharing, copyright infringement, or piracy?

  3. goblin says:

    Firstly to mad batter….the person who I will never agree with in respect of our definitions of piracy but who I always love debating with. No real answer in respect of your definition except to say that until the day filesharers stop receding to themselves as such (certainly in respect of the larger crews) then the term is a haemless meaning for the act of filesharing, which even, dare I say it, is fashionable in the context of filesharing.

    Chips, in answer to your question, id say no. I’ve said as much in the past and I think in the short term it will see a migration towards the newsgroups. In the long term, there’s always a new tech around the corner and I think that if anything the deb will merely make infringing fashionable. I’ve seen no evidence of eitger mps or the creative industry knowing enough about the tech to legislate and counter it.

    I hope I’m wrong.

    1. Chips B Malroy says:

      And we agree. So its not going stop, only some will get more draconian fines, cut offs of internet service, etc. The media companies cry out for even more severe penalties every year, and get them. The gal that got fined 2 million in the USA, remember that one?

      Where does it stop my friend? Whats next, prison time for filesharer’s? Its not out of the question. Its only takes a change of law from civil to criminal to accomplish that. I don’t know about your country, but here in the USA, we have a very high percentage of our population already behind bars. The taxpayers here are angry, as they should be.

  4. goblin says:

    Sorry about above typos, I’m mobile at the moment.

  5. Chips B Malroy says:

    Here is one reason its not going stop: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/windows_7/windows_7_sp1_beta_supposedly_leaks_online.html

    Now here’s a site you know, that is paid with advertising bucks from MS, to promote its products. And we know that MS gains from piracy. To me it looks like MS is promoting piracy to get users off xp, by using its proxy eweek.

    That is not to say M$ would not sue latter those who go for that leaked product.

    This goes back to what I said a long time ago, piracy is not right, be it is de facto. The moral argument here is not the right one here, only the finial outcome or end result is. Because the moral argument is only a side show, that will not effect the outcome anymore. As in the genie is out of the filesharing bottle, and all the government’s attempt to put it back in the bottle and find the cork on behalf of the corporations that bribe them are going fail.

  6. openbytes says:

    Quote “As in the genie is out of the filesharing bottle,”

    I think that sums it up nicely. There is no solution to be found within DEB’s or similar, if one is to be reached, it will require co-operation from both sides of the file sharing debate.

    1. Chips B Malroy says:

      “it will require co-operation from both sides of the file sharing debate.”

      Not going happen IMO.

  7. You do realize that the Digital Economy Bill was designed to wipe out the independents? Seriously, it’s an attempt to lock the independents out of the market, so that they only sources of music are those that the BPI approves of.

    Let me explain. Clause 8 allows the government to block websites that they have received complaints about. So someone complains about The Pirate Bay, and the government blocks it. This means that Nine Inch Nails has lost their distribution platform, because they have been releasing their albums on The Pirate Bay.

    I’m going to be recording my song ‘Halloween’ at the end of the month (waiting on some new equipment). I’m using the torrent sites and the Gnutella network to distribute it. If the UK government blocks those sites (and protocols) they are blocking me from distributing my music.

    Anti-competitive actions should not be rewarded.

    I should mention that I’m currently sitting in a hotel lobby with a guy from the Beeb, and he’s told me that his MP is going to get a piece of his mind when he gets back home.

  8. openbytes says:

    Quote “Seriously, it’s an attempt to lock the independents out of the market, so that they only sources of music are those that the BPI approves of.”

    I can’t see how as it empowers the copyright owners to act on infringement.

    If you make a product that you want to release freely to all, you are completely free to do so. The trouble comes if that material contains the copyrighted works of others, but then nothings changed there and even before the DEB you could still fall foul of copyright law.

    Quote ” I’m using the torrent sites and the Gnutella network to distribute it. If the UK government blocks those sites (and protocols) they are blocking me from distributing my music.”

    And I’d agree, although are you really saying that there are not other outlets which don’t infringe on copyright that will be blocked?

    We haven’t even yet seen the extent in which (if anything) is going to be blocked. Currently ISP’s can make the decision to block a site anyway and thats prior to the DEB. The DEB changes nothing except that maybe repeated infringers could be disconnected. However it should be noticed that would be on a material basis not a location, so if for example someone was downloading copyright free material from saw Waffles, they wouldn’t get a warning letter and would get disconnected. If on the otherhand they were downloading Harry Potter, then that might change things.

    Are you really saying Linux trackers would be banned under this legislation? I don’t think so.

    I would also remind you that Torrent is not the only way to distribute your material, but presumably if you are marketing it for free with a homepage, you could offer plenty of alternatives anyway.

    Quote “Anti-competitive actions should not be rewarded.”

    But one could argue that for a small production company that DOESNT want its material to be shared for free is going to find some trackers anti-competitive since its taken the decision away from them.

    Quote “I should mention that I’m currently sitting in a hotel lobby with a guy from the Beeb”

    I hope that its not someone from the Click show, I have been critical of its simplistic, late reporting. If thats a flagship tech show of the BBC then its a good reason for the license fee to be scrapped.

    1. Um, no. What it does is it allows the BPI to claim that a site is infringing, without having to show proof in a court of law, or for that matter notifying the site owner. So you could be blocked without your knowledge, for distributing a song that you wrote and recorded yourself.

      In which case you are not free to distribute your product.

      Another point that you missed, is that Rupert Murdoch and that other newspaper owners wanted to be able to use digital photos without paying for them, and the DEBill allows for this, by allowing them to pretend that they don’t know who the copyright owner is. In effect, the DEBill is making slave labour out of the creators.

      And lastly, in most cases the BPI member companies do not own the copyrights, the singers/songwriters own the copyrights. The BPI is only a distributor. So you end up with the copyright owner wanting one thing, and the BPI member wanting another. Since the BPI is bigger, guess who wins?

      1. openbytes says:

        Im off to work now, so Ill make a more comprehensive reply later if required.

        Where does it say in the DEB that sites will be blocked merely on the say so of BPI? The bill hasnt even been tested yet.

        If you care to look at the Copyright and Patents Act of 1988, there are plenty of interpretations that could have already been applied….in particular I believe 17(1) which is vague at best (I’ll have to confirm the section later)

        Quote “n which case you are not free to distribute your product.

        True. If you put your free material on Waffles then it may get blocked as part of the tracker block. But lets not get ahead of ourselves. The decision rests with the secretary of state (I believe) and it hasn’t even been applied yet. We have no indication of the burden of proof or how much.

        Quote “And lastly, in most cases the BPI member companies do not own the copyrights, the singers/songwriters own the copyrights. The BPI is only a distributor. So you end up with the copyright owner wanting one thing, and the BPI member wanting another. ”

        Then I suggest that they are more careful with who they sign up with. They are not forced to go with anyone. Maybe the lesson here is, read what you sign. If you are not happy with your label then maybe you should have read and considered the terms of contract first.

        If a label has invested money, it wants a return. If a band has signed with a label, then it has nobody to blame but itself if it disagrees with its actions.

        Lets see what (if anything) gets blocked as part of the DEB before its challenged. (now that its through)

      2. Then I suggest that they are more careful with who they sign up with. They are not forced to go with anyone. Maybe the lesson here is, read what you sign. If you are not happy with your label then maybe you should have read and considered the terms of contract first.

        If a label has invested money, it wants a return. If a band has signed with a label, then it has nobody to blame but itself if it disagrees with its actions.

        And what do you do when a label claims to own the copyright to your work? Easy the artist gets fucked. There’s a couple of posts where I’ve put links to articles covering this elsewhere among the comments on this page.

      1. Oh, and here’s another beauty, The Day I Infringed My Own Copyright.

        The labels are the biggest enemies that the artists have.

  9. openbytes says:

    But then if this is the case there is remit within Civil Law for the matter to be resolved. The point was, if as a band you sign up with a label on whatever terms that are in the contract, then surely you are bound by those terms.

    If the label is acting beyond those terms or in breach, there is a civil recourse, if its not then people should consider more what they sign. In the case thats exampled “the day I infringed my own copyright” the matter was resolved, as I say, you have a legal claim, then there is a civil recourse (and in his case the matter was rectified.) Mistake? Maybe, but whatever happened, due to there not actually being a stake by Warner the matter was resolved.

  10. If the label is acting beyond those terms or in breach, there is a civil recourse, if its not then people should consider more what they sign. In the case thats exampled “the day I infringed my own copyright” the matter was resolved, as I say, you have a legal claim, then there is a civil recourse (and in his case the matter was rectified.) Mistake? Maybe, but whatever happened, due to there not actually being a stake by Warner the matter was resolved.

    You assume that the artist can afford to hire a lawyer, and fight this through. Since there is no effective punishment for falsely claiming to own a copyright, but there is a punishment for holding a copyright and having someone steal it (legal costs), as far as I’m concerned the system doesn’t work.

    1. openbytes says:

      I’ll accept that, but then your argument is more with arbitration/civil recourse re: contract law within the creative industry isn’t it? How can this be applied to the DEB specifically anymore than current copyright law and the civil process?

      As you highlight, there have been issues between artist/label/distributor already and these are occurring without the existence of the DEB.

      In my opinion and interpretation, the DEB is more geared towards effecting the consumer and I can’t see how it changes anything in regards to the artist that isn’t already in place. Sites can be blocked presently and I’d suggest for the artist who wants music to be freely available on bittorrent (for example) has plenty of choice in trackers which don’t contain any claimed infringing material. I know of 4 of the top of my head and if I was looking for free material (with the blessing of the creator) I would look at first. I certainly wouldn’t get a Linux distro from TPB for example.

      For people like yourself who want to release their material to the masses I think the only “inconvenience” that you will encounter is have to consider other trackers in which to deploy it. I don’t believe you will suffer any ill effects distribution wise……and thats only IF there are any site blocks at all. Since we have a general election coming up and we’ve yet to see the evidence required to block a site (and if ISP’s will comply) then its a little early yet to second guess anything.

      1. You should compare it, with the predecessor legislation. One of the more evil parts literally declares virtually all photos to be orphan works, and that orphan works are free for use. If you don’t believe me, read Draconian UK Digital Economy Bill passes: huge blow for digital privacy, security, freedom from BoingBoing.

        Nice article from the Daily Grauniad titled Shame Peter Mandelson didn’t download some common sense which starts

        What happens when an inadequate legislative process meets networking technology? Answer: the Digital Economy Bill (aka Mandy’s dangerous downloaders act), which finally staggered, slightly frayed, on to the statute book on Wednesday night.

        The damage that this bill will do to the creators (as compared to the distributors) will shock you. Copyright is supposed to exist to encourage creators. In this case it will discourage creators, because they are going to loose control over their works (with the exception of a very few big name acts who can afford the legal costs to fight the labels).

  11. Institutions Will Seek To Preserve The Problem For Which They Are The Solution, with the BPI being considered an institution.

    UK Musician’s Open Letter To Musicians Union Over Its Support Of The Digital Economy Bill which states:

    The BPI wrote the bill as a protectionist measure of an outdated and unworkable business model. It was a model that was NEVER to the advantage of musicians who cared about the music they played and the culture it existed in, but one that made sense at a time when physical distribution was required to reach anyone, and the costs involved were prohibitively high. At that point, labels lying to musicians about how much they dig the music, while making a fortune for themselves but still never “recouping” on the album was deeply unpalatable but a necessary part of recording and releasing music.

    All the costs have dropped. I’ve written extensively about this — most notably here — but nothing has changed in the industry. They still spend money on the behalf of musicians, pay themselves that money, recoup it (AGAIN) and own the product at the end. None of that is remotely to our advantage.

    ….

    So, the premise of the bill — that the situation is desperate — was spurious. The figures quoted for industry ‘losses’ are insane. Utterly nonsensical if mapped against spending trends on ‘physical and download entertainment media’ — we are part of a much bigger entertainment industry now that we ever were, and we don’t dominate it in the way we did from 1956 to 1998. Games and DVD are a bigger part of it than ever. And entertainment spending continues to rise. So 200 million hasn’t been ‘lost’, it’s being spent elsewhere. Meanwhile, the cost of making and distributing records is tiny, and download sales go up and up.

    How you can see that as a situation that needs legislating is utterly beyond me. To shut down sites and services on suspicion of illegal activity is a civil liberties travesty. To have my internet traffic monitored ‘in case I do anything bad’ is like the royal mail reading my post, in case my letters contain naughty words. While threatening to brick up my front door if they find them, or think they might have found them.

  12. openbytes says:

    @Mad Hatter

    I am going for lunch around my parents house with the family so have no time for a reply until later, however:

    Quote “The damage that this bill will do to the creators (as compared to the distributors) will shock you. Copyright is supposed to exist to encourage creators.”

    Ive read it (and since UK law is that which Im based workwise with) its rather more applicable to me than you.

    That being said, creator wise the DEB doesn’t seem to have stiffled your creativity since you put alot of effort and time into typing about something that doesn’t even effect you.

    The net value of the DEB (which Ive said everytime) will be cost in relation to this switch offs of alleged infringers, the logistical nightmare of trying to keep up with technology and the amibiguetity of the bill itself.

    Like I say the DEB has not even been put into action yet, so neither you nor I know what the outcome of the DEB will be.

  13. openbytes says:

    Furthermore

    Quote “How you can see that as a situation that needs legislating is utterly beyond me. ”

    A very valid point and in need of addressing.

    It’s often cited that the industry has made/is making vast amounts of money (even more than before allegedly)….now to suggest in someway that justifies disregarding copyright law is really a rather poor show. Even if what is reported is true, its not up to anyone to make the decision “Right folks, company XXXX has made enough money now, lets distribute their material without permission.”

    Furthermore speak to some of the indi developers who are trying to sell their products and see what they think about their material being shared without their consent. These are not big software houses, Im talking about the bedroom coder trying to make some money through shareware. If we are agreed that the practice of sharing his/her material is wrong, when they don’t wish it to be shared via p2p then it has to be wrong in every other case. We can’t have copyright law where its ok to share material without consent of the owner “as long as they have made enough money already”

  14. It’s often cited that the industry has made/is making vast amounts of money (even more than before allegedly)….now to suggest in someway that justifies disregarding copyright law is really a rather poor show. Even if what is reported is true, its not up to anyone to make the decision “Right folks, company XXXX has made enough money now, lets distribute their material without permission.”

    You seem to have misunderstood my arguments. What I am calling for is changes to copyright law, to prevent the corporate leeches from stealing money that should be going to the artists.

    Furthermore speak to some of the indi developers who are trying to sell their products and see what they think about their material being shared without their consent. These are not big software houses, Im talking about the bedroom coder trying to make some money through shareware. If we are agreed that the practice of sharing his/her material is wrong, when they don’t wish it to be shared via p2p then it has to be wrong in every other case. We can’t have copyright law where its ok to share material without consent of the owner “as long as they have made enough money already”

    I don’t recall saying that it’s ‘ok to share material without consent of the owner as long as they have made enough money already’. Where did I say that?

  15. Quote “The damage that this bill will do to the creators (as compared to the distributors) will shock you. Copyright is supposed to exist to encourage creators.”

    Ive read it (and since UK law is that which Im based workwise with) its rather more applicable to me than you.

    That being said, creator wise the DEB doesn’t seem to have stiffled your creativity since you put alot of effort and time into typing about something that doesn’t even effect you.

    And that’s because I’m fighting an attempt to do something similar in Canada. Oh, I could ignore the UK, however the next argument that we will see here is that the UK has a law like this, so now we need one.

    The net value of the DEB (which Ive said everytime) will be cost in relation to this switch offs of alleged infringers, the logistical nightmare of trying to keep up with technology and the amibiguetity of the bill itself.

    Like I say the DEB has not even been put into action yet, so neither you nor I know what the outcome of the DEB will be.

    Ah, but we know how it will work out, because we’ve see the consequences of the changes to Korean and American copyright law, and the Digital Economy Bill has bits and pieces of those laws included.

    1+1=2 whether it’s in England, South Korea, or the United States.

  16. openbytes says:

    Quote “You seem to have misunderstood my arguments. What I am calling for is changes to copyright law, to prevent the corporate leeches from stealing money that should be going to the artists.”

    I do understand your point but we are having two different conversations under the banner of copyright.

    My point has always been even though I think copyright law is flawed (and probably share your viewpoint) people cannot merely flaunt that law whilst it is still in place, I don’t believe the p2p community that distributes material without permission has any care in the welfare of the artist or anything, what they are interested in is getting something for nothing.

    In respect of the artist my point is that anyone who creates works should be very careful in what they sign up to, artists should have the right to release their work in anyway they choose but conversely if they enter into a contractual agreement with a label then the label has the right to do what it likes within the remit of that contract.

    As it stands things cannot go on, if the artists didn’t need the labels then they wouldn’t enter into the contracts. The material being shared via p2p is not as simple as “giving extra exposure” and some artists do not want their material shared. If we are to enter a new world of sharing/freedom then there has to be agreement on both sides.

    Quote “1+1=2 whether it’s in England, South Korea, or the United States.”

    Not in respect of law. There are similar offences in respect of law in all countries, look at the finer points though and they can be vastly different.

  17. An interesting article about how the ‘entertainment industry is trying to change copyright law.

    1. openbytes says:

      It makes sense…maximize profits in the easiest way, which doesn’t appear to be going after the individual.

      This is one of the reasons why I suggested a while ago that the DEB should have had ISP’s taking responsibility for data passing through rather like a license holder of a pub has a responsibility for the running of the premesis.

      If the entertainment industry want to sue, let them go after the ISP’s who (IMO) make alot of money offering faster and faater speeds, knowing very well just what users will do with it. The ISP’s can then self-regulate although they will have to still keep the user in mind as competition will still be present.

  18. This is one of the reasons why I suggested a while ago that the DEB should have had ISP’s taking responsibility for data passing through rather like a license holder of a pub has a responsibility for the running of the premesis.

    If the entertainment industry want to sue, let them go after the ISP’s who (IMO) make alot of money offering faster and faater speeds, knowing very well just what users will do with it. The ISP’s can then self-regulate although they will have to still keep the user in mind as competition will still be present.

    That would be like the Canadian CD Levy. $0.25 Canadian of the price of every CD goes to a fund which is supposed to be disbursed to artists. Note that I said ‘supposed’, because in fact what happens is that a large amount of the money collected goes to salaries, and the remainder is disbursed based on airplay, so if you sell a lot of music, but don’t get airplay, you get screwed. And of course the smaller artists, the ones I work with, get screwed both ways, because they don’t get airplay, and they pay for every CD that they cut.

    And of course the easiest way for the ISPs to handle the situation that you are suggesting, would be to block all Torrent and Gnutella traffic. All. If every ISP is doing it, competition isn’t a factor, and you can bet that the BPI would push to make sure that all ISPs would have no choice.

    I’m sure that Blizzard would be delighted with that idea.

    Oh, and of course you’d also have to block all downloads. All downloads. And all streams. Forget about YouTube. Forget about downloading a Linux distro, or Open Office. For that matter forget about ITunes.

    And you’d also have to block uploads. All uploads, Otherwise you couldn’t be sure that you’ve stopped infringement.

  19. Hum, and now we have a study done by the United States Government which states that the effects of ‘piracy’ are unclear, and that it may actually be beneficial to the economy. As I and others have pointed out in the past, there have been no scientific studies up till this point, and the studies paid for by industry have not been peer reviewed, so their accuracy is questionable.

    1. goblin says:

      And I’d happily agree, its impossible to say if piracy harms the industry any more than if it doesn’t. That being said though, one cannot disregard the laws in place. If people disagree with the laws they should do so as we have seen, by letters to mp’s, reports and articles, they should not continue to infringe copyright in the meantime. I would be the first to admit there is ambiguities with copyright law and issues with the DEB and I spoke about them a long time ago.

  20. And here’s a report on all 45 sections of the Digital Economy Bill. It’s somewhat simplified for easy reading.

  21. Can’t remember if I posted this link about how photos are regarded as orphan works under a ridiculous set of rules. Quite frankly it’s one of the greatest corporate copyright grabs ever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s