Scene: a primary school somewhere in rural England. There's a smell of new-mown hay filtering in through the open windows and the children's voices echo across the playground as they enjoy themselves in the warm sunshine.

Inside, a young teacher copies some sheets for the next lesson.

When all of a sudden, there's a screeching of tyres and a white van comes racing into the playground, scattering the terrified children. Half a dozen burly mouth-breathing Trading Standards officers charge into the building and throw the teacher to the floor.

"Hold it right there bitch! Lady, you is in such deep shit that you gonna drown! That goddam worksheet is copyrighted, muthafucka!"

And after a damn good Tasering and a dose of CS gas, the miscreant is dragged out in handcuffs and bundled into the back of the van. The photocopier is seized along with all the school's books, as these might also have been copied at some time in the past.

The children however have their trauma cured by a free sticker each with the proud slogan "Copy right - not copy wrong."

Give it three years max...

... what with all of the Trading Standards officers busy being the eyes and ears of the MPIAA. Gotta keep Bushie happy, and sod the ripped-off consumer.

(1) A duly authorised officer of a local weights and measures authority or of a Government department may, at all reasonable hours and on production, if required, of his credentials, exercise the following powers, that is to say,—

(a) he may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence under this Act has been committed, inspect any goods and enter any premises other than premises used only as a dwelling;

(b) if he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence under this Act has been committed, he may, for the purpose of ascertaining whether it has been committed, require any person carrying on a trade or business or employed in connection with a trade or business to produce any books or documents relating to the trade or business and may take copies of, or of any entry in, any such book or document;

(c) if he has reasonable cause to believe that an offence under this Act has been committed, he may seize and detain any goods for the purpose of ascertaining, by testing or otherwise, whether the offence has been committed;

(d) he may seize and detain any goods or documents which he has reason to believe may be required as evidence in proceedings for an offence under this Act;

(e) he may, for the purpose of exercising his powers under this subsection to seize goods, but only if and to the extent that it is reasonably necessary in order to secure that the provisions of this Act and of any order made thereunder are duly observed, require any person having authority to do so to break open any container or open any vending machine and, if that person does not comply with the requirement, he may do so himself.

It's about time someone corrected the Trade & Industry Minister (Malcolm Wicks) statement about the extra 4500 pairs of Trading Standards eyes.

I believe that that figure is made up of all staff working under the Trading Standards banner in local government. That'll include all the management, consumer advisors, money advice staff, animal health officers, various other specialised officers (safety, petroleum, weights & measures etc.), not to mention the office/support staff (typists, clerical etc.).

Not quite the 4500 eyes touted.

It's also unlikely that the already hard pressed and over-worked officers (including yours truly) will be able to drop everything else to use their newly gained powers.

The much heralded £5m, once shared out to each local authority will not be sufficient to employ more staff (our own authority will receive around £10 000 - and the money will not be ring-fenced - it'll probably disappear to fill some hole in the council budget).

Still, it's the thought that counts.

And......? The same powers have been available to Trading Standards under various Acts - originally from the Trade Descriptions Act back in 1968 - I haven't heard of many abuses of power since then.

Note the words ... 'reasonable hours' and 'enter any premises other than premises used only as a dwelling'. Basically that'll usually be business premises during opening hours.

Tasers, CS gas and handcuffs? All I get is a notebook and pencil. Must be working for the wrong authority.

"The UK film, music and game industries are among the most creative and innovative in the world, but peddlers of counterfeits are costing those industries up to £9bn a year," said Wicks. "The taxpayer is also losing out to the tune of £300m. It's a serious offence, whether committed by small-scale hawkers or international crime organisations."

--------------

Now I'll agree that counterfeit software (be it computer or movies or music) *does* cost the industry a certain amount.

But how the heck did they come up with "£9bn a year"? Did they ask the industry for a guesstimate (which said industry would only have been too glad to inflate to make sure the government acted)? Or did they do their own research? If so, where is it? Just fairly recently, a paper came out in Oz pointing out that the figures bandied about for the antipodal region were pure guesswork.

And what about the "£300m" that the taxpayer is "losing"? What the heck does *that* refer to? If it's the cost of policing the copyrights, then surely this is only going to go *up* as they increase the department's resources?

Someone kindly give me FACTS please. I feel like I am reading an Intelligent Design manifesto.

"The same powers have been available to Trading Standards under various Acts - originally from the Trade Descriptions Act back in 1968 "

And now they're extended to copyright enforcement too, extending it to even more areas and ever vaguer areas.

So we've gone from trading standards

1. checking that 'cows milk' is not 'rats milk'

to

2. checking that 'levi' trademark goods are not fake levis.

to

3. checking that 'levi' is levi intended for the UK and not for non EU markets. (As parallel importing of real goods for overseas markets was deemed to be trademark infringement in the UK).

now to

4. Checking copyright goods are properly licensed, i.e. checking civil terms of a civil contract for compliance.

Trading standards one sided powers being applied to ever vaguer areas of trading and more and more left up to the snap judgement of a guy with a clipboard.

I think the UK is heading toward 'presumption of guilt'. I see this again and again, 'enforcement' officers given powers that allow them to presume guilt and shift the burden onto the person to defend their innocence. Be it, on the spot fines, raids from trading standards, automatic penalties....

'Mouth breathing Trading Standards Officers' ; 'snap judgement of a guy with a clipboard'?

Rather dismissive comments of a group of people whose training has been described by universities as "too complex for an honours degree".