Politics

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
enforcement, ip czar, uk



UK Thankfully Rejects Plans For New IP Czar With Mandate To 'Increase, Protect & Enforce'

from the good-move dept

The UK has been surprisingly open to reforming copyright law in a more reasonable direction over the past few years, though (not surprisingly) copyright maximalists have been pushing back on such plans. Paul Keating alerts us to the news that, thankfully, a proposal to establish a special "IP czar" in the UK, whose role would only be to increase IP, has been rejected by the House of Lords:
Conservative Party peer Lord Jenkin of Roding had tabled an amendment to establish a new post of Director General of Intellectual Property Rights. The holder would have responsibility for promoting the creation of new intellectual property; protecting and promoting the interests of UK IP owners; coordinating effective enforcement of UK IP rights; and educating consumers on the nature and value of intellectual property.
Note those four responsibilities. Increase "new" intellectual property (it's unclear if they mean laws or content itself...), protect IP owners, increase and coordinate enforcement and "educate" consumers. Notice that nowhere in there is any recognition that the supposed purpose of those laws is to benefit the public. It would seem a lot more reasonable that any such role should be about increasing the spread of knowledge, watching out for over-enforcement, protecting the interests of the public and educating IP owners on not abusing the law. But, apparently, that sort of thing is what governments are interested in these days.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Call me Al, 4 Feb 2013 @ 8:40am

    Re:

    Afraid I'll have to follow this tangeant a bit away from the topic of the article.

    You know that public spending has actually increased since the last general election right?

    There is also no evidence that they are trying to do away with the Welfare State. They want to restrict it sure but that is quite a different matter. Your comment is complete hyperbole.

    The way I see it is simple. Our costs of furnishing our government debt is currently more than we spend on education. On this basis we must decrease our debt. There are not enough rich people in the country who can pay enough tax to cover the debt. Therefore we must cut costs.

    Yep there are plenty of corrupt people at the top but one might also argue it is pretty corrupt of the former government to hire so many people into the public sector and put so many people on Welfare that they have effectively constructed a client state of people wholly dependent on the government for their livelihood. Add that this was paid for through debt and you see that they bribed the people not just with their own money but with their children's money too.

    Hyperbole such as your's get us nowhere.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.