A large number of women and ladies will say they cannot reside without any their hair straighteners. In point, it is not just gals. A Facebook team has been built for all these who love their GHDs. And the members feature a fair handful of boys and adult males as effectively as women of all ages. The 'So what if I can't reside without any my GHD hair straighteners?' group is explained as a consequence: "Regardless if you have the extensive kinds, thin types, pink ones, purple kinds or the tiny types you know you are unable to are living without your GHDS. This team is for all people many people who will willingly admit, that their GHDS are an essential portion of their lives!"

When it comes to finding a hairstyle for short hair, bob cuts are the most well-known preference. These short haircuts appear incredibly cute, specifically on curly hair. Also, they are hassle-free to keep and do not want special styling. If you want some funky and messy short hairstyle, then go for short pixie haircuts, that give a toothed edge to your hair. A further funky and trendy hairstyle for limited hair is a Mohawk hairstyle. With this punk hairstyle you hair is styled to provide all the hair at the major of your head. This normal pop hairstyle is a fine possibility for teens who want to make a exceptional fashion assertion. Any small haircut can be styled with exquisite hair clips. You can portion your hair sideways or in the center and safe your hair with a cheap ghd hair clip or a hair band.

Just not flying out of 10 feet,ghd radiance to get that the former Fang Baiguang flash, an oddly formed square magic fly more than. Baguio second not see what that is, not Yingjie, had to eliminate and figure, his ideal hand a shift in the wind, like the fingers of jade have appeared in a white flower, is proud of her magic unfortunate flower . Act as the Baguio Flower unfortunate tactic, the sky, withstood the sinking peculiar factors. Baguio closer appear,ghd dark do not come to feel very good and angry, funny, viewing issues in front of the six sides of the box, also engraved with the minimal quantities over, definitely is a dice, can not imagine of becoming the right route, there is even now this deviant magic, is in truth a rare.

Find Out More: http://www.straightenerbrands.com/

We must copyright brain dead marxists and their stupidity for futrue geenerations!

I feel that for the Arts, the world wouldn't be that different - some of the greatest works were created before copyright. The cost to reproduce a production is quite a high margin to overcome.

The issue comes with things like software, and more recently music and video media where copying and distributing is now virtually zero cost. If only one person pays for one of these and is free to distribute it to whomever wants it, how are developers and producers to recoup costs?

One obvious answer would be in the ancillary products offered. For software, your customer support (and increasingly, online cloud products requiring a continuing subscription).
For cinema, this could be extra features, nice packaging and other premium costs, as well as controlling the distribution channel - recoup your costs in the cinema. Similarly for music, live gigs are much harder to copy.

Also worth considering is the duration of copyright, which has been continually extended, particularly in the USA, over the last century. Was that in the public interest, or the minority interest of the Walt Disney Corporation?

Yes, of course copyright should be abolished, moreover it shouldn't have been enacted in the first place.

I written on this latter point quite recently here: http://digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=276

Christine - that would be a breach of my "moral right" to attributation that exists under law.

If you took my post and improved it (whilst correctly attributing it in part to me), however, should I be able to legally restrict you? Is that in the public interest?

Copyright is merely an artificial mechanism designed to reward the creators of works and originally introduced to prevent their exploitation by publishers.

Hence, assuming a need to reward authors, artists, etc., all that is needed is an alternative model to reward them sufficiently for the work they produce and the need for copyright disappears.

David Berry hits the nail on the head. Debates about whether there should be copyright are intellectually interesting, but the most practically important question is the length of copyright protection, and the exceptions to it.

Personally, I favour both a fixed term (as opposed to the indeterminate Life+ terms currently favoured) and a shorter one. 50 years from publication would grant a substantial exploitation period to artists, well exceed the payback periods involved, and allow broader cultural use of the material within a reasonable period.

Hi,

I work for The Copyright Licensing Agency and we recently commissioned a report by PwC that suggests that the changing copyright laws could strike a blow to investment in literature.

If you'd like a read you can find it at www.cla.co.uk/about/publications_and_submissions

From my column in MacUser, 15 April (exclusive sneak preview, don't tell anyone):

The idea that the right to claim credit for your own work, control how it can be used and be rewarded for other people’s enjoyment of it is not a ‘natural right’ is patently false. Imagine no possessions; I wonder if you can? No, you can’t.

Human beings in every society we know of, Polynesian fictions notwithstanding, respect private property and are frustrated if their rights to it are infringed. It’s not theft, it’s a genetic legacy. How could we preserve the sense of self and identity that’s so central to being human without also claiming parts of the world as our own?

Those we create, rather than only annexe, are surely bound to be our most prized possessions; and it’s typical of us that what we create with our minds matters to us even more than what we create with our bodies. As is, of course, our ability and tendency to conceptualise those creations as if they were real property, just as we gain more from manipulating ideas than sticks.

David Berry is right, finding the optimum duration and set of exemptions is the real issue. Only if the optimum set of exemptions is 'everything' would it make sense to abolish.

The Pirate Party UK (which I was the leader of in the last general election) campaigns for a 10 year duration, and more exemptions (Incidentally this duration has the approval of Richard Stallman, the guru of Creative Commons and Open Source).

We've ended up with copyrights that last for life + 70 years + next January the first, because all the lobbying money has been on one side. The Pirate Party are working to try and redress the balance a bit by putting the opposing side of the argument.

I'm not convinced we could do away with copyright altogether. I dare say a lot of creative works could exist without it (was there such a thing as copyright in JS Bach's day?), but it would dramatically reduce the incentive for people to write books, both fiction and non-fiction.

Plenty of books are really useful.

The duration of copyright strikes me as the real biggie. Why on earth does it need to last so long? Patents last for a much shorter time. Why does society give a greater incentive to write some totally boring and pointless song than to find a cure for cancer?

The duration of patents has been arrived at by powerful maufacturing lobbies on both sides, I woudn't interfere with those market forces just for the sake of neatness.

There are big and worsening issues with patents (submarine patents, trolling, lock-down of potentially life saving medicines, and the burden of wading through millions of pages of imprecise legalese if you want to manufacture anything), but those have more to do with the quantity and quality of patents than the duration of them.

@DAG

It is rather unsporting of you to misrepresent my words by selective quotation. It is also rather interesting that you have suddenly slipped from talking in a general way about copyright, i.e. "could there be a world without copyright", to suddenly referring to particular legislation, namely UK law. I know that you are a Liberal Unionist, but expecting the rest of the world to be subject to British copyright law strikes me as a little anachronistic, even for a Liberal Unionist ;-)

The reason I wrote this paragraph:

copyright is not a property right as such, rather it is a limited right, sometimes called a 'bundle of rights' and after a certain period of time these rights expire and work enters the public domain.

Is because I am highlighting that copyright works defined as *property* is what copyright maximalists are gesturing towards. In other words, fundamental, eternal, absolute property that they 'own' and have a 'right' to.

In distinction, I am merely highlighting that intellectual property laws more broadly, and copyright in particular, do not subsist ontologically in the 'work' as such, rather they are created expressly through legislation. Copyright is therefore a limited set of rights that applies to works and is mediated through specific national legislation. Physical property, of course, and its original claim to ownership is claimed to be lost in the mists of time, and itself mediated through the mythology of the social contract of Hobbes and Locke (and of course, is necessarily mediated through the state and common law/legislation).

But without wishing to confuse the issue under discussion, I wish to emphasise that there is something specific about copyright (and IPRs more generally) in that their ontological status as 'property' has been made more contentious, read political, through continual changes over time in what is copyrightable, the length applied to it, and the restrictions that are enabled (i.e. the created rights). This is an issue that Lawrence Lessig has written very interestingly about.

Anyway, this gives me a good opportunity to post up the famous quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay who argued in 1841 to the British parliament:

"Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly ... the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad ... It is good that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good" (Macaulay, quoted in Boyle 2003).

Gah!

...of Shakespeare...

Would have to deny the existence of the works of Shakespeare. Created in a world with no copyright, and given the amount he borrowed impossible to create now.

As a programmer I absolutely support limited term copyright as a surprisingly appropriate tool for supporting software development.

The two main alternatives would be Patent law and Contract law.

Patent law is a disaster for the software business - by being determined entirely the interpretation of terms (is a PDA "card-shaped"?) rather than the determining disputed events (was X copied from Y) is clearly the tool of the best paid lawyer.

Contract law (eg "you can only see this code if you sign a contract promising to pay us damages if you reveal it") would be even more of a disaster.

Stick to short term copyright, please.

it needs modifying as the current rules are archaic and don't reflect modern technology (for example using a ripper to put your bought CD tracks onto your PC or MP3 player) but removal would be, imo, be terrible as it would reduce the ability to make money off of your own product as you would only have until someone copied it to make a return on the R&D / production.

Not copyright, but if you want to build a car and call it an Escorter, you most likely won't be able to, because it sounds too close to Escort, which Ford "own" the rights to. There has been quite a few case on that in the auto industry, regarding trade names, some quite recently.

Same goes for EU food rules, where only Cornish Pasties made in Corwall itself can be called Cornish Pasties. Not sure about Cumberland sausages though. Italian foods are loaded with region made only foods.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8340861/Cornish-pasty-given-EU-p...

With copyright, it is suprising in the www internet age, the very few copyright court prosecutions there has been on words strung together. It is usually just a warning to "remove content please", or else, which is quite polite for a change.

To answer Mr. Green's question: hell yeah we need a law of copyright.