Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

This is my analysis and response to Thomas Babington Macaulay's speech to the House of Commons, delivered on the 5th of February 1841, opposing the then proposed "Life + 60 Years" copyright term.

First I should state that I also oppose any extension to the copyright term, but moreover I oppose copyright in general, and seek its total abolition.

Macaulay's speech is good overall, inspired in places and clearly well-intentioned, but makes what I believe to be a fundamental logical fallacy which must be addressed. He also tends to waffle, giving far more examples than is necessary, most of which I've edited out. Therefore the following comprises a summary of the relevant parts of the original speech to which I wish to respond, and my indented responses (in blue) to each point. With the exception of Macaulay's final summary, I will only respond to those points I disagree with, so you may assume that I agree with the rest.

My objective is to demonstrate that copyright is not only morally indefensible, but also quite unnecessary.

Read this background summary of the Timbaland plagiarism controversy.

Basically, Mosley got off on a technicality.

Kernel Records Oy v Timothy Mosley Appellate Brief

AJE does not qualify as a United States work under § 101(1)(B) because at the time of first publication in 2002, Australia's term of copyright protection (the life of the author plus 50 years) was not the same or longer than the term of protection provided in the United States (the life of the author plus 70 years).

After discovering that the BBC is considering implementing DRM for its forthcoming HD service, I felt compelled to write yet another letter of complaint, this time to OFCOM:

To: High-Definition_DTT[AT]ofcom.org
Subject: BBC's HD Service Encryption

Dear Sir/Madam,

With reference to your request for comments regarding the BBC's proposal to encrypt the programme information stream of their forthcoming HD broadcasts, I wish to register my concerns.

I find it wholly unacceptable (and quite ironic) that a service I am forced to pay for, simply because I own a television set, is now proposing to limit my ability to view their broadcasts.