UK Government Updates Copyright Regulations – Copying for Personal Use Now Legal

640px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svgGood news everybody! The UK is taking steps towards refining their copyright law, publishing new exceptions to their current set of regulations.

At play is new language which makes personal use copying way less illegal than it was before, and brings intellectual property law overseas into the 21st century. From the GOV.UK press release:

The changes make small but important reforms to UK copyright law and aim to end the current situation where minor and reasonable acts of copying which benefit consumers, society and the economy are unlawful. They also remove a range of unnecessary rules and regulations from the statute book in line with the government’s aim to reduce regulation.

The government has consulted extensively on these changes and on the draft legislation, and listened carefully to the views of a wide range of stakeholders. As a result of this process, the legislation published today strikes an important balance between enabling reasonable use of copyright material in the modern age with minimal impact on copyright owners.

Making personal use expressly clear could help clear up some of the legal grey area surround digital media duplication. Obviously this changes almost nothing in regards to distribution of copied files and file sharing.

Here in the USA, there’s often confusion as to whether personal copies are legal. Thanks to the DMCA, often the resulting copy is legal, but any methods used to circumvent copy protection are illegal. It would be nice if we could get similar clarification here as well, so hopefully this sets some kind of precedent for future negotiations with the RIAA and MPAA.

Changes to IP law should go into effect on June 1st. More info on the GOV.UK press release site.

Drivers Can Read Maps on Phones in CA, but You Should Still Be Cautious…

using maps on a phone while drivingThe courts are starting to catch up with technology, but I would still use a BOATLOAD of caution when using your phone while operating a motor vehicle in California.

Steven Spriggs was pulled over and issued a $165 ticket in January of 2012. He was using his iPhone to look up a map, but the officer wrote out the ticket saying he violated Vehicle Code 23123 which pertains to talking on a phone without a hands free kit. Specifically 23123 (a):

(a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.

Of course most of what happens on our phones isn’t necessarily tied to talking anymore. The 5th District Court of Appeals sided with Spriggs, stating that this part of the vehicle code could have been worded clearer, and that it did not pertain to looking at maps.

We’ve won one small victory for common sense, however there are still plenty of reasons to exercise caution while utilizing your phone for navigation and communication while operating a motor vehicle. Continue reading “Drivers Can Read Maps on Phones in CA, but You Should Still Be Cautious…”

Google and Samsung to Share Patents for the Next Decade

google samsung bffIf we needed any more proof that Samsung was the top dog in Android, we just got it.

Google and Samsung have arrived at a “Global Patent Cross-License Agreement”, which will allow the two companies to share tech free from the worries of patent litigation through the year 2024.

As Samsung is the number one manufacturer of Android devices, it’s in Google’s interest to keep them happy, however Sammy could get more of a benefit from this agreement, as it would likely give them access to the treasure trove of patents Google received in their Motorola acquisition. Having access to that intellectual property could be a significant benefit to a company which is also examining the possibility of releasing their own mobile operating system which would become a competitor to Android.

While it probably wasn’t likely that Google would ever take Samsung to court or vice versa, an explicit cooperation agreement between these two companies has to be good for consumers. The short official press release is below.

Continue reading “Google and Samsung to Share Patents for the Next Decade”

Appeals Court Rules Against FCC’s Open Internet Order and Net Neutrality

FCCI’m disappointed, but I can’t say I’m terrifically surprised.

Back in September Verizon filed a claim against the FCC’s Open Internet Order, claiming the FCC was infringing their First Amendment rights to degrade the quality of service for their competitors services and products. In today’s ruling, it seems the courts largely questioned the FCC’s authority to manage broadband networks.

That said, even though the Commission has general authority to regulate in this arena, it may not impose requirements that contravene express statutory mandates. Given that the Commission has chosen to classify broadband providers in a manner that exempts them from treatment as common carriers, the Communications Act expressly prohibits the Commission from nonetheless regulating them as such. Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order.

Not all of the OIO was scrapped however. The section dictating that carriers must disclose when they throttle or degrade service remains, as there were plenty of instances to draw upon where carriers had acted to disrupt services. So now Verizon can wreck a competitor’s service, but at least now they have to let you know they did it. How helpful.

In support of its conclusion that broadband providers could and would act to limit Internet openness, the Commission pointed to four prior instances in which they had done just that. These involved a mobile broadband provider blocking online payment services after entering into a contract with a competing service; a mobile broadband provider restricting the availability of competing VoIP and streaming video services; a fixed broadband provider blocking VoIP applications; and, of course, Comcast’s impairment of peer-to-peer file sharing that was the subject of the Comcast Order.

That might be the most frustrating aspect of how our telecommunications networks are being managed. The courts acknowledge that abuse has occurred, and is likely to occur again, but because the FCC hasn’t been explicitly granted authority to regulate the web, we’re stuck with a gaping hole in online consumer protections.

Where do we go from here?

There’s not a lot of wiggle room for the OIO. It’s pretty much wrecked. If the Legislative arm of our government were to make the FCC’s authority in this arena explicit, we could revisit those protections. However, I think it highly unlikely that there will be any traction on granting a government commission more regulatory authority in this political climate.

There’s also the Consumer Choice in Online Video Act presented by Senator Jay Rockefeller, which reads like a watered down version of the OIO. It might be a decent stop gap measure, but House Republicans have been holding it up, refusing a vote. This industry will need something more robust to insure that the internet remains a level playing field. At some point we’ll need to just admit that allowing telecoms to manage our access to the internet and prioritize their own services over competitors, is a glaring conflict of interest. In the long term, it will be bad for consumers and bad for business.

Today’s ruling stands as yet another example of how the evolution of our technology is rapidly outpacing our legal system’s ability to adapt. You can read the ruling below. Continue reading “Appeals Court Rules Against FCC’s Open Internet Order and Net Neutrality”

Reddit explains new Terms of Service, responding to user concerns

reddit-alienWho owns what you create online?

In this age of social online services, we produce a lot of content. Every comment, photo, video you share is being stored on a server far away from you. Depending on where you share, you may or may not actually own the media you make. Take Facebook for example, it’s even become popular with Facebook users to post their own legalese renouncing Facebook’s control over their property. Though signing up for Facebook means you agreed to their Terms of Service, and such moves are pretty much bunk (Snopes).

Social news site Reddit recently updated their terms of service, and during any transition, users grow concerned about changes to the platform they invest so much time in. One passage in particular generated a lot of discussion:

Continue reading “Reddit explains new Terms of Service, responding to user concerns”