Fire Alarms Systems

Been a little hard to understand what is happening in the UK regarding the reform of copyright that we keep hearing two very conflicting messages. On the one hand there is the ridiculous law in the digital economy, which was proposed by the unelected, debated by the ignorant and voted by mail in order to implement much stricter intellectual property laws, including including putting a lot to pay for the service providers online. This process continues to grow with plans to be part of the censorship of Bill even clearer. Those behind the law, when pressed, admitted that he had absolutely no evidence to support the claimed need for this legislation.



Yet while all this happened, there was also the report Hargreaves, an author who was very reasonable, you get a bunch of recommendations beautiful tame (docile that the creation of a "fair use" policy was considered too controversial). Of course, it was equally clear that the UK should leave your faith based on the regulation of copyright, and no other changes are made to the law, without strong economic data.

So guess what the process is being attacked? I guess. The latter process, as a member of Parliament (MP) Peter Wishart apparently went on the attack against the report and Hargreaves Intellectual Property Office (IPO) who commissioned it. Peter Bradwell, plus the Open Rights Group, has responded by emphasizing that it is quite ridiculous to question the IPO regardless of what happens in the Digital Economy Act, which came to another part of the Government: The Ministry of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Bradwell article breaks down the differences here:

Thus, the caricature of the two departments: one is to ask for evidence and consulting widely and openly. We spent the last years of close cooperation, opaque, and without evidence or analysis to talk.

OPE been criticized in the speech of Peter Wishart to be careless with the evidence and ignoring the creative industries. DCMS 'proposals must be' followed by '. He calls the IPO "bureaucratic to devalue against the people they are supposed to support" the government should "get acquainted with."


It's a bit strange. The issue of copyright policy involves managing a complex mixture of tests, the principle and opinion. Disagreement and the management and channeling of disagreement in policy formulation, are two separate things. Whatever position is taken on the substance of the debate on intellectual property is a right way and a wrong way to do public policy. It must be democratically legitimate, open, transparent and involve a real debate. Over the last 12 months, the IPO beat hands down on this metric DCMS. not like
Find best price for : --Peter----Hargreaves--