The UK government has announced plans to terminate the internet access of UK citizens who use peer-to-peer networks to share files over the web in breach of copyright.

This would mean that ISPs would be required to become an element of the policestate, examining all data sent across their networks. The system is proposed to be a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ operation, the first strike being an emailed warning, the second account suspension and the third, account termination. Quite how the ISPs are expected to filter and examine every packet sent is anybody’s guess and we all know the kind of false-positives that are generated when people or systems start guessing. Of course, this all seems rather ridiculous coming at a time when the recording industry is seeing record sales due to the success of online music retailing.

The ‘content’ industry has been vociferous as usual, wheeling out the usual falsehood that every illegal download = a lost sale.

I was also horrified to see a comment from a BBC Have Your Say user who said “…while I understand that copyright infringement is basically theft…” No! No! No! dammit. Copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. If it’s done by the person it’s a civil matter which you can be sued by the copyright holder over. If you infringe copyright commercially (copy then sell) it becomes a criminal matter akin to fraud, not theft.

Just because the ‘content’ industry repeatedly bleats on about piracy and theft, does not mean that UK file sharers are forcing people to walk the plank or breaking into movie studios!

The Internet Service Provider Association points out that UK data protection laws make deep packet inspection illegal and even if it wasn’t, complete monitoring would be economically impossible without driving costs up for UK consumers who already pay over the odds for a sub-par service when compared to much of Europe.

If enacted, this would make the UK one of the most draconian corporate police-states in the world.

According to Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, soon you will have to pay royalties if you want to utilise a reproduction of a pharaonic site such as the Great Pyramid at Giza or the Sphinx. Egyptian MPs are expected to pass a bill into law which would effectively claim copyright for the design of these ancient constructions. Zahi Hawass, the head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities stated that this law “will be applied in all countries of the world so that we can protect our interests”.

Now, it appears that the media have taken AFP’s lead and just looked at how (if given credence) this law would affect people who already use the likeness of the pyramids. What they perhaps should have done is investigate whether this law could actually be enforced in any way outside of Egypt. What the Egyptians are essentially trying to do is two things. Firstly, they are trying to extend the term of copyright to ~4,000 years and secondly, they are assuming the right to hold the copyright which would have originally been held (had copyright law existed then) with the pharaohs themselves.

For a start, the law probably isn’t going to hold any water with countries who are not signatories to the Berne convention. Secondly, in countries that are signatories, the rule of the shorter term usually applies:

Berne Convention Article 7 (8)

In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed; however, unless the legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work.

This means that when the protection of copyright is claimed or utilised in legal action by the author, the legislation of the country where the claim or infringement occurs will be in force. So, if somebody in England made a copy of the Great Sphinx, UK law would be in force and if the Sphinx were categorised as an ‘artistic work’, it’s copyright would have lapsed 70 years after the death of it’s author or creator. Upon it’s lapse, the copyright of the Sphinx would transfer into the public domain in the UK. Now, we estimate that the Great Sphinx is around 4,500 years old and it’s creator (presumably a pharaoh or similar) would not have lived into modern times*. We can’t be certain of the actual date but we do know that the Sphinx was first depicted in a photograph around 1867 [pictured] and the copyright of this private work is now lapsed too.

It would appear that the Egyptian MPs are either unaware of how copyright law works or are perhaps being supremely arrogant by assuming that Egyptian law can be enforced throughout the world. It is also possible, of course, that the media have misconstrued a story that did not come out well in translation.

*It did cross my mind that they might be trying to claim copyright due to the pharaohs having ‘eternal life’ as gods but I don’t think that will wash with most Berne Convention countries.

Header Photo: Ricardo Liberato cc-by-sa-2.0
Article Photo: Przemyslaw Idzkiewicz cc-by-sa-2.5