... gone!
Yes, it finally happened, the one minister who I really wanted to see go is going to "step down" after the elections on Thursday, that's right, Jacqui Smith has left the building, gone, vamoosed, out-of-here, goodbye, seeya, so long, etc!
As regular readers of this blog will know I've not been a particular fan of Ms Smith and have grown to dislike her intensely due to the legislation and strategy she has been responsible for. I guess it would be too much to hope that her successor would reverse the mistakes already made but it would be good if she/he didn't make things worse!
Bet the CAAN are having a little party in celebration at Ms Smith's departure as well!
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Saturday, 16 May 2009
A lawsuit waiting to happen?
One of the principals on which the MPAA (Movie Picture Association of America) and similar organisations pin their continued lawsuit-fest against average people downloading copies of DVDs and movies, is that ever download represents lost revenue. You are stealing from the movie companies, affectively for some amount that is a multiple of the profit they make on, what would have been a sale.
If you accept the premise that one download equals one lost sale then it isn't too much of a jump to accept the conslusion that it is theft (by some definition). However, the premise is, at the very least, based on no actual concrete evidence or reliable statistics and at worst is plain wrong. So while it is most deinitely illegal to copy copyrighted works more fuss is being made than is really justified given that alot of those 'potential sales' would never really happen.
Anyway, a thought just occurred to me: in my previous blog post I was hyping up the latest Dan Brown movie, Angels & Demons, and, while I can't claim to have a fantastically wide readership there might be the odd person who I influence to see the movie. I also mentioned Star Trek in negative terms so might turn people off seeing that.
I doubt I'm going to get anything for the free publicity for Angels & Demons even if my opinion did affect a significant number of people and equally it would seem preposterous for me to be sued/charged for the lost in revenue caused by me saying Star Trek is a bit pants and not worth a look. However, if I let someone have a copy of the DVDs for these films when they come out I would be liable for a trip to court.
But what if the people I gave the DVDs to were the ones that would never have bought it? There is no potential lost sale there. If I did NOT let them have a copy they wouldn't have bought one anyway.
So, the question is, should the movie companies try and squash bad reviews of their films to protect their profits in the same way they attempt to do with 'illegal' downloads? No, they can't do that (bet they wish they could). Should they be able to claim lost sales as a reason to sue people, no, that doesn't make sense either. Should they try and provide more sensible ways to get their movies, e.g. cheap lower-quality downloads (supplemented with advertising revenue and other techniques), yep, that seems like a better idea :D
If you accept the premise that one download equals one lost sale then it isn't too much of a jump to accept the conslusion that it is theft (by some definition). However, the premise is, at the very least, based on no actual concrete evidence or reliable statistics and at worst is plain wrong. So while it is most deinitely illegal to copy copyrighted works more fuss is being made than is really justified given that alot of those 'potential sales' would never really happen.
Anyway, a thought just occurred to me: in my previous blog post I was hyping up the latest Dan Brown movie, Angels & Demons, and, while I can't claim to have a fantastically wide readership there might be the odd person who I influence to see the movie. I also mentioned Star Trek in negative terms so might turn people off seeing that.
I doubt I'm going to get anything for the free publicity for Angels & Demons even if my opinion did affect a significant number of people and equally it would seem preposterous for me to be sued/charged for the lost in revenue caused by me saying Star Trek is a bit pants and not worth a look. However, if I let someone have a copy of the DVDs for these films when they come out I would be liable for a trip to court.
But what if the people I gave the DVDs to were the ones that would never have bought it? There is no potential lost sale there. If I did NOT let them have a copy they wouldn't have bought one anyway.
So, the question is, should the movie companies try and squash bad reviews of their films to protect their profits in the same way they attempt to do with 'illegal' downloads? No, they can't do that (bet they wish they could). Should they be able to claim lost sales as a reason to sue people, no, that doesn't make sense either. Should they try and provide more sensible ways to get their movies, e.g. cheap lower-quality downloads (supplemented with advertising revenue and other techniques), yep, that seems like a better idea :D
Monday, 19 January 2009
More legislative idiocy
The Register reports that the government is seaking to close a loop-hole in current legislation so that cartoon images depicting children will become illegal.
On the second page of the article the author makes this point: "The second area for concern is the way in which this proposal further embeds in English Law the idea that possession of various materials should, in and of itself, be an offence". I think this is where I have a serious problem with this proposal and the equally ridiculous extreme porn laws.
An actual act of abuse or, in the case of extreme porn, something that someone does that actually inflicts real bodily harm are cases where something unlawful is actually happening and should rightly be criminalised. It's also not unreasonable to expect that pictures of the actual criminal acts are also themselves illegal (with loop-holes for reporting, evidence captured by an innocent 3rd party, etc).
When the images are either staged with all participants being consenting, and of an age/responsibility to consent (this is mainly the extreme porn law I'm thinking of here), or are totally artificial in nature I think it should be necassary to require more than just possession to make someone a criminal. You should have to show that they have inflicted harm or were using the images to, beyond a shadow of a doubt, commit abuse or some other illegal act.
The article mentions the case of an Australian man convicted of possessing smutty pictures of the Simpsons and points out that this sort of thing could happen over here with this legislation. You have to wonder at why these sorts of cases come to trial, I mean, seriously, this seems disproportionate. At worst he was guilty of dubious taste and wasting the IT resources of the works PC on which he downloaded (maybe forwarded) and stored the images. A simple slap on the wrist and an official warning from his company should have been enough to suffice.
The worrying prosecutions continue with the story concerning teenage girls in the US who sent nude pictures of themselves to male classmates using their mobile phones. They are all being prosecuted under child pornography laws which seems ridiculously insane given that there was obviously no abuse or criminal intent and that the ages of those concerned are very close (the article says the girls were 14 and 15 and the boys 16 and 17 - hardly a significant age gap) and what they did would appear to just be a childish prank.
Clearly common sense has been the first victim amid the hysteria and manic witch-hunt mentality behind the recent legislation.
On the second page of the article the author makes this point: "The second area for concern is the way in which this proposal further embeds in English Law the idea that possession of various materials should, in and of itself, be an offence". I think this is where I have a serious problem with this proposal and the equally ridiculous extreme porn laws.
An actual act of abuse or, in the case of extreme porn, something that someone does that actually inflicts real bodily harm are cases where something unlawful is actually happening and should rightly be criminalised. It's also not unreasonable to expect that pictures of the actual criminal acts are also themselves illegal (with loop-holes for reporting, evidence captured by an innocent 3rd party, etc).
When the images are either staged with all participants being consenting, and of an age/responsibility to consent (this is mainly the extreme porn law I'm thinking of here), or are totally artificial in nature I think it should be necassary to require more than just possession to make someone a criminal. You should have to show that they have inflicted harm or were using the images to, beyond a shadow of a doubt, commit abuse or some other illegal act.
The article mentions the case of an Australian man convicted of possessing smutty pictures of the Simpsons and points out that this sort of thing could happen over here with this legislation. You have to wonder at why these sorts of cases come to trial, I mean, seriously, this seems disproportionate. At worst he was guilty of dubious taste and wasting the IT resources of the works PC on which he downloaded (maybe forwarded) and stored the images. A simple slap on the wrist and an official warning from his company should have been enough to suffice.
The worrying prosecutions continue with the story concerning teenage girls in the US who sent nude pictures of themselves to male classmates using their mobile phones. They are all being prosecuted under child pornography laws which seems ridiculously insane given that there was obviously no abuse or criminal intent and that the ages of those concerned are very close (the article says the girls were 14 and 15 and the boys 16 and 17 - hardly a significant age gap) and what they did would appear to just be a childish prank.
Clearly common sense has been the first victim amid the hysteria and manic witch-hunt mentality behind the recent legislation.
Thursday, 27 November 2008
I think I CAAN
Well actually I never have, probably never will do and really it's not my thing! If you don't know that CAAN stands for Consenting Adults Action Network then you are probably a little confused at this point!
As well as Wacky Jacqui's legislation concerning prostitution, which I've already mentioned here, there is some more idiocy that I guess she at least is over-seeing now even if she didn't concieve it in the first place (not sure about the exact history).
Essentially from 26th January 2009 (as The Register reported) it will become illegal to "possess material that is both pornographic and extreme". You can read the full details of the bill here, having just had a more detailed look at this I'm intrigued by:
"(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery)."
I wonder why they felt it necassary to be so inclusive/specific? Maybe it's just thorough, or an attempt to avoid calls of discrimination (though I would pretty much think that any transexual would accept that "genitalia" covers them both pre and post-op). Or maybe there is some specific set of images that they felt should be included in the legislation and concerned GRS. If that is the case then that section seems pretty much like discrimination, victimisation, or at the very least a little too targetted.
I have no interest at all in extreme porn, or really any variety at the moment but I see no reason why other adults can't enjoy looking at the things that do it for them no matter what, assuming of course that in capturing the pictures they aren't doing anything illegal.
And that's the bizarre thing: with this legislation you can still do lots of pretty unpleasant things (or simulate them at least) but you can't take a picture of it. For example there are, apparently, people into the vampire/goth kind of thing which pretty much involves lots of fake blood and other tortuous things - they can still do all this but a picture of it would mean then would break the law, even if it was just part of a private collection and not published.
This seems like pretty weasely legislation; if you don't agree with extreme sexual acts then at least come out and say that and have an honest and open debate. Don't try and stigmatise people and effectively threaten them into not being so 'perverted'.
And, even worse, don't try and propogate stereotypes which some people will not be able to live up to, it's not governments role to dictate how our relationships and sex lives should be and certainly not when this is based on some archaic notion that there is a preferred and 'moral' ideal.
As well as Wacky Jacqui's legislation concerning prostitution, which I've already mentioned here, there is some more idiocy that I guess she at least is over-seeing now even if she didn't concieve it in the first place (not sure about the exact history).
Essentially from 26th January 2009 (as The Register reported) it will become illegal to "possess material that is both pornographic and extreme". You can read the full details of the bill here, having just had a more detailed look at this I'm intrigued by:
"(9) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery)."
I wonder why they felt it necassary to be so inclusive/specific? Maybe it's just thorough, or an attempt to avoid calls of discrimination (though I would pretty much think that any transexual would accept that "genitalia" covers them both pre and post-op). Or maybe there is some specific set of images that they felt should be included in the legislation and concerned GRS. If that is the case then that section seems pretty much like discrimination, victimisation, or at the very least a little too targetted.
I have no interest at all in extreme porn, or really any variety at the moment but I see no reason why other adults can't enjoy looking at the things that do it for them no matter what, assuming of course that in capturing the pictures they aren't doing anything illegal.
And that's the bizarre thing: with this legislation you can still do lots of pretty unpleasant things (or simulate them at least) but you can't take a picture of it. For example there are, apparently, people into the vampire/goth kind of thing which pretty much involves lots of fake blood and other tortuous things - they can still do all this but a picture of it would mean then would break the law, even if it was just part of a private collection and not published.
This seems like pretty weasely legislation; if you don't agree with extreme sexual acts then at least come out and say that and have an honest and open debate. Don't try and stigmatise people and effectively threaten them into not being so 'perverted'.
And, even worse, don't try and propogate stereotypes which some people will not be able to live up to, it's not governments role to dictate how our relationships and sex lives should be and certainly not when this is based on some archaic notion that there is a preferred and 'moral' ideal.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
