I am surprised the ruling of the premier league football last year hasnt had an impact on other situations.
Basically they lost a case on supposedbly illegal sattelite feeds using foreign sattelite channels that show the games for much lower cost then sky. I cannot remember the specifics but I know it was a shock result on copyright. The likely repurcussions of that case will be foreign sattelite channels been charged a substantially higher fee to counter people subscribing to them here cheaper than sky sports.
I have always been of the view enforcing copyright is fine when protecting income, with evidence and backed by a court order. My view however thinks it should be time limited to under 10 years at whioch point copyright would need to be renewed showing a business case its for income purposes and that no enforcement should occur without a court order and evidence. Lately we are seeing a glut of copyright enforcement simply for controlling spread of content when its not even available to buy so no loss of income. Youtube videos been banned with music in the background etc. completely ridiculous and gone too far.
Censoring the internet just to satisify a very small minority of people is wrong. We have seen already the IWF doesnt work properly with false positives etc. it will be far worse for anything similiar to do with copyright. Also I expect the vast majority of MPs are already brainwashed.
The problem is that the last legislation the DEA is just the beggining, the rights holders end game is probably no internet.
Edited by Chrysalis (Mon 27-Jun-11 09:18:27)