The UK courts have argued in Ashdown v Daily Telegraph , Hyde Park Residences v Yelland and Imutran v Uncaged Campaigns that they should not consider Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which guarantees freedom of speech) directly when they are deciding what the public interests exceptions are to the enforcement of copyright. The reason given for this is the right of free of speech has been sufficiently provided for in advance by the specific defences to copyright infringement listed in the Act. However, the new Copyright Regulations limit these defences. The IPKat wonders whether the courts will still assume that the streamlined defences meet the UK’s Article 10 ECHR obligations, or whether they will feel the need to reassess the situation.

IPKAT MUSING: COPYRIGHT CHANGES AND FREE SPEECH <strong>IPKAT MUSING: COPYRIGHT CHANGES AND FREE SPEECH</strong> Reviewed by Jeremy and Ilanah on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.