It looks like they're enabling something like fair use and realizing that the way orphan publications are handled doesn't make any sense. Not very exciting really considering these are regulations that are widely ignored by people who actually use any technology anyway.
Since there was a talk about abolishing patents etc. from the US system, I had my hopes up for a few seconds that England might've picked some of those ideals up. Looks like that isn't the acse. They're actually acting now on a study commissioned in 2006!
Sorry to be a little picky but it's not England, it's the United Kingdom. Of all of the member nations of the United Kingdom, England is the only one unrepresented in government. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all have devolved governments of their own. England has no such government.
The sad fact is that the British parliament could pass a law, which can then be overturned in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland leaving England screwed. Furthermore, MPs from those countries all get to vote in the British parliament, then their devolved equivalents can vote against it locally (except in England as there's no English parliament). This happened most recently with tuition fees but can apply to almost anything.
Keep in mind, the British parliament can over-rule the Scottish one. The British law could include a clause "none of the above may be changed by the Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Island, or Wales". But contentious laws are already hard enough to pass.
There's tons of little loopholes all over the place. For example, the Isles of Scilly have a slightly strange legal status, and if they're not explicitly mentioned in a law, it doesn't apply to them (I was told this by someone at the council in St. Mary's but didn't ask for the specific statute).
To be honest, if a law is contentious enough for the scots to vote against it, then the devolved parliaments are just as likely push for their national reps to vote against it on the principle that it overrules them.
On the contrary, Copyright is a reserved matter to Westminster, and the Scottish, NI, and Wales devolved governments have no power to overrule the UK government.
At the risk of talking cross-porpoises, I was referring to the parent poster's incorrect use of the term England as a country with the ability to make it's own laws, as opposed to copyright law in general.
If the United Kingdom is properly the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, why are the citizens and government British? Maybe because anything else would sound dumb...
"Dear Big Media, Lately we havent received enough campaign funding. We have made polite inquiries before, but they have gone unanswered. We're trying really hard to keep a hold on these pesky liberals, but they are doing a really good job on gaining seats. Here's our idea for new copyright laws. What do you think? Ideas / monetary contributions to the usual accounts. Also, we've just lost the Murdoch account so we need some of our other contributors to step up. Thanks, The Conservative Party"
The grandparent is a good example I think sarcasm should be verboten on any serious discussion forum. It's impossible to argue with because it shields the wielder from having to make an actual clearly stated argument.
Sarcasm can work, but it needs to be based on widely accepted truths that people can identify with.
Problems with great grandparent:
-Campaign finance is heavily regulated in the UK and about half of it comes from the state.
-UK media is less of a political frenzy. They have other things to talk about, like the premier league, or human affairs.
-The closest thing to US liberals language-wise are the Liberal Democrats, who are part of government. The closest thing to US liberals politically are the Conservatives (e.g., combating climate change is high on the conservative agenda)
This is true, in that there are limits both locally and nationality to how much candidates can spend on election campaigns.
> and about half of it comes from the state
AIUI this is not true; political parties have to raise their own money not get it from the state. There is funding of political parties, (see Short Money http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Money ), but it isn't for the running of campaigns.
Thanks for the link. Although you're right, Universal Music was the largest corporate contributor in that quarter the amount in question wasn't huge (80,000 pounds) and much smaller than a lot of private contributions (12th overall). Also looking at subsequent quarters (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-fi... and http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/party-fi...) there doesn't seem to be a pattern of ongoing contribution.....which maybe backs up the original poster's claim that the content industry is late on its payments.
We already bought off the Labour party to get the Digital Economy Act passed so we're a bit short at the moment. Just to be clear we're not happy with those rascally LibDems one jot - liberal policies? In my government?
