Feeds

The XXX Clause is Obscene

This article may be freely reproduced

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

5 things you didn’t know about cloud backup

Last summer, the EU passed a new Copyright Directive, which is intended to limit your future ability to listen to, share, trade and enjoy digital music, films or books. The UK's proposed implementation of that Directive (available at http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/eccopyright/summary.htm ) appears to have been written solely with industry -- and not consumers -- in mind. In short, we all may lose our ability to share digital media unless we speak up.

While there are problems with the Directive and its UK implementation which may only be interesting to a copyright lawyer (and I am one), there is one provision in particular which should scare everyone (except a few global media conglomerates). A new section is proposed for the Copyrights, Designs & Patents Act 1988 entitled “XXX.” The XXX provision will virtually eliminate all vestiges of fair dealing, and eventually of file sharing.

Here's why. Music and film companies are doing everything they can to eliminate file sharing (just look at what happened to Napster). One of the weapons in their arsenal is technological measures to protect their files -- encryption, copy protection, etc -- ie, digital locks. Previously, however, it was not entirely clear that fashioning or distributing a key to that lock (ie, a decryption code like DeCSS) without the media company's authority would actually be illegal. The EU's new Copyright Directive mandates that member states make it illegal, but does leave some wiggle room (if you're really interested in some of the background to this and why the Directive might itself be illegal, see the article here).

The UK had at least two choices under the Directive -- put the burden of protecting consumer rights on the global media companies (where it belongs) or put the burden on consumers. The Patent Office has made its choice – and is putting the burden squarely on consumers. Under proposed provision XXX, if you buy a CD which is copy-protected, and it doesn't play in your computer disc drive, or won't download to your MP3 player, your only remedy will be to send a letter of complaint to the Secretary of State.

If Mr. Blunkett in his magnaminity (and spare time) decides that you actually should be allowed to exercise your legal right to play the disc you bought, he will then send a letter to the offending media giant instructing it to ensure that you (and probably only you) are able to play the bloody disc. If Bertelsmann tells him (and you) to take a long walk off a short pier, only then will you (but no one else who may have experienced the same problem, but failed to contact the Secretary of State) have the right to hire a lawyer and sue Bertelsmann. How many people do you think are actually going to go through the bother?

The burden must be on industry to comply, not for consumers to complain. Section XXX of the proposed changes to the Copyright Code should be altered to make clear that media companies cannot employ technology which does not allow for existing fair dealing rights, including time-shifiting, and that circumvention of that technology is permitted to exercise any exception to copyright. UK law should also make clear that home copying by consumers is a right, not a privilege. Consumers should not have to complain to the Secretary of State before being allowed to sue when sold a defective product -- and any digital product that does not permit the full exercise of all copyright exceptions is such a defective product.

© Brian Esler 2002. The right of Brian Esler to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with CDPA 1988. This article may be freely reproduced.

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
6 Obvious Reasons Why Facebook Will Ban This Article (Thank God)
Clampdown on clickbait ... and El Reg is OK with this
No, thank you. I will not code for the Caliphate
Some assignments, even the Bongster decline must
Kaspersky backpedals on 'done nothing wrong, nothing to fear' blather
Founder (and internet passport fan) now says privacy is precious
TROLL SLAYER Google grabs $1.3 MEEELLION in patent counter-suit
Chocolate Factory hits back at firm for suing customers
Mozilla's 'Tiles' ads debut in new Firefox nightlies
You can try turning them off and on again
Sit tight, fanbois. Apple's '$400' wearable release slips into early 2015
Sources: time to put in plenty of clock-watching for' iWatch
Facebook to let stalkers unearth buried posts with mobe search
Prepare to HAUNT your pal's back catalogue
prev story

Whitepapers

Endpoint data privacy in the cloud is easier than you think
Innovations in encryption and storage resolve issues of data privacy and key requirements for companies to look for in a solution.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Advanced data protection for your virtualized environments
Find a natural fit for optimizing protection for the often resource-constrained data protection process found in virtual environments.
Boost IT visibility and business value
How building a great service catalog relieves pressure points and demonstrates the value of IT service management.
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.