[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
technology

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 24332)
Message
File  []
close
evolution-300x199.jpg
243322433224332
>> No. 24332 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 9:42 pm
24332 spacer
On Friday the High Court decided that the "private copying exemption" was unlawful because it didn't provide for compensation for rightsholders. Apparently rightsholders are harmed by individuals deciding to listen to music they have already purchased on another device.

On the upside, as we found out with the militant daft woggery Act, the government's options in response to this include "ignore it", because the High Court can't tell Parliament what to do (something the article leaves out).

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/european-copyright-madness-court-strikes-down-law-allowing-users-rip-their-own-cds

Fair warning: the judgment itself makes for very dry reading.
Expand all images.
>> No. 24333 Anonymous
21st June 2015
Sunday 11:36 pm
24333 spacer
That's an insane (or at the very least ridiculous) decision, as the article makes very clear. What the bloody hell were they thinking?

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password