UK, Ireland Conduct Studies on Fair Use Copyright Reform
9 Comments
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 229: My Digital Access Day Keynote – Assessing the Canadian Digital Policy Record 
Queen’s University Trustees Reject Divestment Efforts Emphasizing the Importance of Institutional Neutrality 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 228: Kumanan Wilson on Why Canadian Health Data Requires Stronger Privacy Protection in the Trump Era
…
So many counties looking to loosen up their copyright laws and yet our government is looking to make ours tighter than most other countries, other than perhaps France.
PERFECT!!! I’m sure it’ll be a great success…at least as successful as the DMCA since that was such a model law with almost no unintended consequences!!! Sarcasm is really lost in text, but I think most can imagine my tone. 😉
Step 4?
So Ireland, one of the few countries in the world where 3-strikes was being implemented (through lawsuits against ISPs, not national legislation) is now pulling back from that brink. The UK is also taking a second look at it’s digital act that was shoved through at the literal last minute before parliament was dissolved for elections. The only holdout is France and that experiment has certainly been anything but a success.
Lets take a look at the content industries track record in fighting digital infringement:
1) DMCA … so many unintended consequences, need I say more?
2) Sue the fans … an EPIC failure that caused much more damage in terms of public relations than any mitigating effect (if any).
3) 3-Strikes … a policy so out of proportion with actual damages that even the lobbyists are having a hard time convincing politicians that this is a voter safe move.
4) What is next? It is fearful to contemplate but I suspect it will be something on this escalating scale of ludicrousness.
Of course, they could try providing better value and more flexible up front fair use rights. Leverage new technology to bring in distribution systems that offer both better returns for creators and less costs and hassle for consumers. This along with creating a atmosphere of good will rather than ‘big brother with a hammer’ would be a ‘radical’ departure from their current path but I think much more effective in addressing the challenges the market faces.
…
It becomes a question of how many failed attempts at market control will they implement before they realize they cannot legislate consumers to buy something they don’t want. The vast amounts of money spent on litegation and government lobbying could have been much better spent on market research and actually implementing change.
James updated his blog …
http://fakejamesmoore.blogspot.com/
…
“Fair” is an empty word for “the industry”. Remember that it’s a business, and whenever you’ll question them about their doings, they’ll give you the standard answer “our sole responsibility is to provide value to the shareholders”. Artists? Couldn’t care less. Consumers? Screw them. Government? Let’s bribe or fool them into passing favorable laws.
“Fair” has no particular meaning for them, they will try to define and re-define it as they see fit for their purpose. Which is only one – make shareholders happy so the execs can cash a bigger bonus.
Nap.
…
Fair is all about how much they can legally get away with. What I don’t get get is that how they can expect to maintain profit growth without investing. It’s simple mathematics, when you first introduce a “hot” product, you will have a frenzy of buying which quicky slows down and over time gradually becomes pretty flat…similar to a hyperbolic curve. You have to keep modifying parameters to maintain growth. If given long enough and if not properly modified, your flat curve will start to move down indicating negative growth. This is what the recording industry is experiencing, and it’s their own fault for not investing in or embracing the technology people wanted 10 years. All it did was push people underground and 10 years later it has become this force that is no longer controlable.
What I don’t get get is that how they can expect to maintain profit growth without investing …?
Hmm, let me count the ways; greed, laziness, denial, entitlement…
…
I realize that, but they’re all obvious flat-liners to anyone with a half a brain. Don’t they have analysts that look at this stuff? Even an incompetent business analyst should be able to pick such things. It’s not a far stretch to come to the conclusion that if 10,000,000 people are using Napster that this is where the business is ultimately heading. I’d be willing to bet that if we had access to their files (Including those which were shredded), there would be something there highlighting concerns from one or more business analysts…filed under “ignore” of course.
…
@IanME: “It becomes a question of how many failed attempts at market control will they implement before they realize they cannot legislate consumers to buy something they don’t want.”
That’s where the levies come into play. They could collect even when no one buys their products anymore.
So yes they’re worse than the “locks” thing.
Nap.