Super Mario Bros. X Forums

So, if you didn't know, companies are preparing to screw over people in the UK. No, I'm not joking, I'm completely serious. I was browsing youTube, and I came across this video:



If you don't want to watch the video or don't understand it, basically, the UK government is making the objects you've bought the intellectual property of the company who owns and markets that object. So, if you take a picture of the living room couch in your home, and you want to post that in a magazine, you'll need to obtain permission from the company that "owns" the copyright to the couch, meaning that if, for example, you're a freelance photographer, and you take pictures of a person's home, you'll need to obtain permission from the company that holds the copyright to each item that's considered intellectual property (Most likely in the form of a kickback percentage from the photos containing their "property").

This is just like Nintendo does with YouTube let's-plays, demanding a percentage for the use of their "intellectual property". And this has SEVERAl negative repercussions. One of which is going to be many failing small businesses in the U.K., whose income relies on this (such as if they're photograph or home decorator, or magazine companies). They'll be just simply unable to afford the costs the companies will put on them.

So what do you guys think about this? Are you angry over this, or okay with it? Should companies have the right to do that? Has corporate corruption seeped into the United Kingdom's government? Let me know your thoughts below.

Disclaimer: (I don't want to offend anybody. I don't have anything against English people, the U.K. Government, the U.K. itself, or furniture or any type of company, business, or corporation)

It's probably just some desperate "insurance" in case the TPP/TTIP agreement falls apart.

I can't see this happening at all. I didn't watch the whole video, so I don't know if he references the particular proposed statute and I cannot be bothered to find it, but parliamentary law making isn't easy shit. From reading what you wrote it seems extremely unlikely that anyone in the House of Commons will agree with this.

The majority of parliament in the HoC must agree on the proposed law and they spend fucking hours sat in the same room debating the whole thing. That means they must get a majority of 326 out of 650 Members of Parliament. Once that's done the House of Lords has to approve the statute and after that obtain royal assent (the last two aren't necessary but it's customary, and the HoL can prevent a statute coming into law for a year).

I honestly don't believe half of the HoC will think this is a good idea.

Edit: Who the fuck takes a picture of their sofa?

Intellectual-Panda wrote:Edit: Who the fuck takes a picture of their sofa?

People who do interior decorating.

You don't necessarily have to 'take a picture' of your sofa, it just has to be in the background of a photo.

mariogeek2 wrote:

Intellectual-Panda wrote:Edit: Who the fuck takes a picture of their sofa?

People who do interior decorating.

You don't necessarily have to 'take a picture' of your sofa, it just has to be in the background of a photo.

I don't think parliament will make a bill regarding sofas. Do you know the name of the bill?

Intellectual-Panda wrote:

mariogeek2 wrote:

Intellectual-Panda wrote:Edit: Who the fuck takes a picture of their sofa?

People who do interior decorating.

You don't necessarily have to 'take a picture' of your sofa, it just has to be in the background of a photo.

I don't think parliament will make a bill regarding sofas. Do you know the name of the bill?

They're 'changing' a bill. And, the changes not only include sofas. They're changing things that can be copyrighted to include 'design' works, such as furniture or apparel. As far as I can tell, they're amending the CD&P act (copyright, designs and patents act), through the use of the Enterprize and Regulatory Reform Bill. I found all the info here:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign ... age-design
The changes are in section 65 of the bill, which will "omit section 52 of the CD&P act". The changes will also include extending the copyright hold from 25 years after creation, to 70 years AFTER THE CREATOR'S DEATH. They'll also have to request the copyright owner's permission. Did that answer your questions?

Intellectual-Panda wrote:I can't see this happening at all.

The majority of parliament in the HoC must agree on the proposed law and they spend fucking hours sat in the same room debating the whole thing. That means they must get a majority of 326 out of 650 Members of Parliament. Once that's done the House of Lords has to approve the statute and after that obtain royal assent (the last two aren't necessary but it's customary, and the HoL can prevent a statute coming into law for a year).

I honestly don't believe half of the HoC will think this is a good idea.

I read a lot of opinions on David Cameron in the comments. Unless Conservative Party MPs are truly allowed to think for themselves, the bill is probably going to pass the House of Commons.

mechamind wrote:

Intellectual-Panda wrote:I can't see this happening at all.

The majority of parliament in the HoC must agree on the proposed law and they spend fucking hours sat in the same room debating the whole thing. That means they must get a majority of 326 out of 650 Members of Parliament. Once that's done the House of Lords has to approve the statute and after that obtain royal assent (the last two aren't necessary but it's customary, and the HoL can prevent a statute coming into law for a year).

I honestly don't believe half of the HoC will think this is a good idea.

I read a lot of opinions on David Cameron in the comments. Unless Conservative Party MPs are truly allowed to think for themselves, the bill is probably going to pass the House of Commons.

Cameron doesn't have all of his party in the HoC. He holds a majority, but not all of them hold the same opinions as him. Jeremy Corbyn couldn't even get the Labour party to disagree with him regarding bombing Syria.

Also, after reading the article on the Guardian, I don't really see how bad it is to have to pay royalties. More than likely they'll just ammend the law to say "oh yeah and museums etc etc can use these for free" or something. Much like how you can show clips of movies or other videos under Fair Use.

This is an odd one, really. I'm more of a criminal law and civil negligence person.

When is the UK going to join the free world?

Who needs a license to do anything, especially something mundane like just taking pictures?

AeroMatter wrote:When is the UK going to join the free world?

Intellectual-Panda wrote:

Spoiler: show

When will the U.S. get free healthcare?

Intellectual-Panda wrote:Cameron doesn't have all of his party in the HoC. He holds a majority, but not all of them hold the same opinions as him.

No doubt there are differing opinions between MPs, but I'm sure Cameron will try to find a loophole.

Intellectual-Panda wrote:

Spoiler: show

When will the U.S. get free healthcare?

Where is the money for this "free" healthcare going to come from?

mariogeek2 wrote:

Intellectual-Panda wrote:

Spoiler: show

When will the U.S. get free healthcare?

Where is the money for this "free" healthcare going to come from?

The same place where we get it from.

"Healthcare in England is mainly provided by England's public health service, the National Health Service, that provides healthcare to all permanent residents of the United Kingdom that is free at the point of use and paid for from general taxation."

If this actually does get approved by Cameron, regardless of what a majority of the HoC thinks, expect other right-wing parties (and possibly even the Democratic Party in the U.S. in addition to the Republicans) to follow suit.

By the way, I love one of the YouTube comments about someone threatening legal action over being recorded on CCTV footage.

mariogeek2 wrote:

Intellectual-Panda wrote:

Spoiler: show

When will the U.S. get free healthcare?

Where is the money for this "free" healthcare going to come from?

They get it by not having super bloated prices, price/quality negotiations, and ofc taxes.

mechamind wrote:If this actually does get approved by Cameron, regardless of what a majority of the HoC thinks, expect other right-wing parties (and possibly even the Democratic Party in the U.S. in addition to the Republicans) to follow suit.

Since when has David "Porky" Cameron been leading any trends for international parties to follow behind?

AeroMatter wrote:Since when has David "Porky" Cameron been leading any trends for international parties to follow behind?

Not for international parties. Cameron may be trying to overpower his own party, but he is actually following a United States trend.

mechamind wrote:If this actually does get approved by Cameron, regardless of what a majority of the HoC thinks, expect other right-wing parties (and possibly even the Democratic Party in the U.S. in addition to the Republicans) to follow suit.

I don't quite understand what you mean. If the majority of the HoC says no, he can't approve anything. If everyone disagrees with him he's powerless to do anything.

He could still try to pressure Conservative MPs in private so that they say yes.

Well, regardless, I still read the part about the House of Lords, so I guess leave it to them to hold it off long enough so that the bill fails.

That just sounds dumb and it's just so unfair to the U.K., its just furniture that dosen't do anything!
Honestly, whoever made this law is just wanting to get money like the same way Nintendo does it.