[cstross]

More specifically, it takes place in Scotland.

Which has a very different legal system from England and Wales (or anywhere else, for that matter). Primary legislation from 1707 through 2000 was enacted in Parliament in London, but the judicial system itself is based on Roman law rather than Common Law or the Napoleonic Continental System.

This affects me (I'm in Edinburgh and so is my colo server). You, whoever you are, are probably safe.

[aaroncrane]

Charlie, while both you and Cutbot are in Scotland, this is actually a UK issue. First, copyright is an issue reserved to Westminster. Second, the High Court (and Court of Appeal) ruled that normal web browsing is a potentially infringing activity. In the case of newspaper content, the NLA for the rights-holders now require commercial users to obtain a licence — initially for those receiving briefings from monitoring firms, but the ruling covers all commercial use, which includes simply visiting a relevant web page while at even a charitable place of work.

Also, please note that this isn’t about the location of colo servers: the law as interpreted by the courts concerns viewing a web page while in the UK.

The court rulings in question are:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/3099.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/890.html

Disclosure: I’m one of the founders of Cutbot.

[mtgx]

If it's based on the Roman Law, then precedent is pretty much irrelevant right? So we just have a judge without any common sense here, and most likely this won't be repeated in other such cases.

[w1ntermute]

> the judicial system itself is based on Roman law rather than Common Law or the Napoleonic Continental System

Says on Wikipedia[0] that it's a hybrid of Roman and English law. Why did they even use Roman law at all? The Roman Empire had been gone for several centuries, and England was in control after the 1707 Acts of Union, so it's surprising they didn't reform the system to follow English procedures.

0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_law

[rmc]

Why did they even use Roman law at all

One of the difference between Roman (aka civil) law and English (aka common) law is the that precent matters differently.

Lots of countries in Europe are based on civil aka Roman law.

The Act of Union in 1707 Scottish law was guaranteed to continue after the union, that was a demand. Why didn't they change it? Probably for the same reason the USA adopt Mexican law? Why should they? It's a different country with different legal systems.

[bdunbar]

Probably for the same reason the USA adopt Mexican law?

Bad analogy. The US and Mexico are not connected by an Act of Union.

And actually - parts of Mexican law were incorporated by states in the Southwest, where they made sense: primarily land-use and water rights.

It's a different country with different legal systems.

Act of Union - as I read it - united Scotland and England into the same Kingdom. You guys shared a flag, your armies are the same, the currency is the same.

A difference with no distinction.

Now, a prickly Scot could want to keep his oddball legal system and more power to him. But don't get all irate if the rest of the world looks at that choice and wonders that two countries that share currency, an army, a monarch, and etc should not also share the same legal system.

[endersshadow]

A better example is the US and Louisiana. While obviously, Louisiana is a state of the union, its laws are based on civil law rather than the common law that the rest of US is based on [1]. It's a real pain when dealing with Louisiana contracts and business.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_law

[aaroncrane]

Another distinction is that Scotland has its own devolved parliament. Some issues, including copyright, are reserved to the UK government, but Scotland can (and does) pass its own laws on devolved issues.

[stfu]

And of cause that Scotland likes to emphasize its independence, as probably best illustrated by Scotland's current push to leave the United Kingdom.

[rmc]

It's a bit of a political minefield to start saying "X isn't a real country". It's easy to come up with subjective rules about why X and Y are the same country but A and B aren't. E.g. is Australia a different country from UK (same queen, based on english law, queens appointee can dissolve parliament, etc.)? Is USA and UK same country (same language, legal system similar (but diverged earlier), similar measuring system (inches and miles!), militaristically have been working together). Is UK and France same country? Both in EU, different currency, but EU law taking precendence? Is France and Germany same country? Same currency, similar (civil) legal system, EU law.

These rules about what makes a country are mostly arbitrary and are often made for political reasons to either give power or take power from certain people.