Maybe it is time that we all struck back against the Empire. The Empire of course being the Entertainment Industry.The draconian statutes that have been passed into Copyright Law are all products of the US film and entertainment industry in their attempt to protect their intellectual property. These laws are now being used to frighten and persecute ordinary folk rather than actively pursue the real pirates. This may not have been the original intention of the lobbyists who persuaded the various representatives and members of Parliament, but it is certainly a by-product.However, in their zeal to create protection for themselves, the film-makers may have just stepped over the mark, and now face the possibility of serious action being taken against themselves, their suppliers, their distributors and their retailers. The recently amended Copyright Act imposes unlimited financial penalties on prime infringers of copyright, with also the possibility of incarceration. Secondary infringers now include the box and label makers and printers; who make the packaging; the retail and wholesale distributors; who sell the DVDs; the agents who make money by promoting the product, and any publishers and broadcasters, which will include the BBC and Sky. Poor BBC, but isn’t it about time that the good Lord Patton at last took a bit of responsibility for something, and fell gracefully on his sword ?Returning to copyright and the film-makers. Films have been mass produced for more than a hundred years and have processed through a number of metamorphosi, or is the plural .......es ? During this period the film stock has given way to video tape, which in turn has been overtaken by DVD, Blu-ray, fibre optic and hard drives. All new processes and undreamed of when the first reels were dunked in developer. These developments, and the renaming, coloration, sub-titling, dubbing etc., of original films, constitute, under the terms of the recent Copyright Act, new publications. As these works are usually carried out by the current owners of the films they are not infringing their own copyright, as they are the beneficial owners.Many films were produced in outdoor locations, the Keystone Kops, Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy used, used again and reused the suburban streets of Los Angeles and Hollywood. But, moving into the 1930’s, films were becoming more serious and longer, and still using outdoor locations where possible and, with the advent of faster film stock, the bright Californian sunshine was no longer necessary. Films, or photographs, taken from a public place, of a structure or a building, unless specifically protected; as for example a military installation; become the property of the cameraman, and the copyright rests with him, or his employer, and he is free to use it at will. If however the film-maker moves onto private property then he needs permission; a simple “location agreement” is usually sufficient; and many hundreds of householders have been flattered by the attention of the film crews, been in awe of the film stars, and been grateful for the cash that they received for the use of their property, over which they had, and still have, copy rights. A survey has been undertaken and it has been found that in the UK alone there are some 500 films made over the last seventy-five years where ordinary folk’s homes have been used as scenes in major features. It is to be supposed that all the location releases were signed, sealed and paid for in full. But, here’s the rub, in the 30’s, those agreements could only have been made for the existing technology, usually 35mm film, by the 70’s, video film, by the 90’s, DVDs and so forth. Agreements would not have covered the new “publication” of the transfer from 35mm – video tape – DVD – fibre optic etc., etc., and as such the entertainment industry , under the terms of the amended Copyright and Related Rights Act 2003 are prime infringers of the householder’s intellectual property and will certainly be called to account. Bernard Wallace