It is called a will, last I heard.
Which is probably why I wrote "your will, or under some separate legal instrument..."
If you own the copyright yourself I presume you can state in your will that you wish the executors of your estate to place any copyright you hold into the public domain. Property is property, last I heard.
In which case you are relying on the beneficiaries of the will not to challenge it. If the rights were valuable I could imagine someone might be tempted to.
I realise that, at the moment, the copyright is really with the publisher, but is there anything I can do to make sure they don't apply for extensions when I'm dead?
If your publisher owns the copyright, then most probably the only rights you retain any control of will be your moral rights (to the extent you haven't waived them under your contract with the publisher).
If you were the copyright holder, then you might be able to abandon or renounce your copyright in the work at some future point in time in order to bring it into the public domain. I suppose you could provide for this in your will, or under some separate legal instrument that comes into effect upon your death. The problem, though, is that in most countries there isn't any formal legal mechanism for abandoning copyright, so any abandonment might not be legally enforceable if your heirs decided to challenge it. There's certainly some doubt legally, anyway.
I suppose you might be able to issue a waiver of copyright, to the effect that you will not seek to enforce your copyright against anyone who wishes to copy or reproduce your work. This would probably be not that different to some types of creative commons licences.
It seems to have a new meaning these days.
Compulsory voting immediately raises turnout and in so doing goes some way to remedying the ills of unequal turnout. It promotes and enhances rather than diminishes the right to vote
I don't see how anyone's rights can be enhanced by the state compelling people to participate in a process they have no desire to participate in. How can it be a right to participate if I have no choice? Sounds more like an obligation to me.
If people don't want to vote, we should ask why that is, and find ways to encourage them to get involved (yes, I know, this will be difficult). It's up to our politicians to promote policies and behaviours that make people want to participate.
Some of our politicians and political parties are so dreadful that it's no wonder so many people don't bother voting.
Pete George seems to spend a goodly portion of every working day commenting on various sites about how terrible/evil/awful/unfair The Standard is. I fear he may have found a new venue for his obsession.
Nation isn’t available yet, so what did Slater say that contradicted that?
The interview is here.
Brilliant news. I'm glad you'll be back on the telly.
How does that usually work? My understanding was that the truth defence was quite hard to beat, that the plaintiff had to actually prove the statements were untrue, which can be quite difficult.
It's actually the other way round. If a defendant wants to claim truth as a defence then the onus is on the defendant to prove that what was said was true, or not materially different from the truth. This isn't always easy to do.
If he does, it's an extremely low bar, rendering the s68 of the Evidence Act almost pointless. It might as well read "You're allowed to defame people on the internet, period".
Although journalists and their publications are not infrequently sued for defamation. Even if the court on appeal decides that Slater is a journalist, he may still end up losing the defamation action.
I am ashamed of you all. By refusing to read Mark Hubbard's blog you are violating his rights.