3 ms·

> If the government decided that it does want to do this, it can't just pass a law that says "the PAF is now free" without paying hundreds of millions of pounds

> If the government decided that it does want to do this, it can't just pass a law that says "the PAF is now free" without paying hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation to Royal Mail. You can pass the law, get sued and pay whatever the PAF is worth. But that's just.. fair? The govnerment spent 5 mio just for a survey concluding that it's impossible to recreate the PAF. So hundreds of millions sounds like a good deal.

scott_w 2y ago
Just to be clear: UK Parliament is sovereign. If it passes a law forcibly legalising it, the privatised Royal Mail can sue the government but would need to find an international treaty obligation to win. Even then, if Parliament flagged it and said "we're ignoring this treaty in this case" then the courts are bound to the law, not treaty obligations. If it has knock-on impacts in other areas, it's hard to say, but that's separate to the law.
- ascorbic 2y ago
  Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR covers exactly this, so the Supreme Court (and ECtHR if it came to that) would probably find in favour of Royal Mail if this were to be done without compensation.
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    The court would make a "declaration of incompatibility" with the ECHR which leaves it up to Parliament to change the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_incompatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_incompatibility
  - scott_w 2y ago
    If it were done by an Act of Parliament, no they wouldn’t. If that Act explicitly overrides external concerns, the Supreme Court must find in favour of the Act and the ECHR would have to find against it, which the UK Parliament is free to ignore, if it so chooses. As I point out, this isn’t “free” because it can invite consequences from other parties. But that’s a different domain to law.
- spacebanana7 2y ago
  International courts - especially US ones - have de facto overrides on UK sovereignty in many domains. If Royal Mail put the asset into a US subsidiary then US courts must protect it. Regardless of what the UK domestic authorities say, very few entities would be willing to risk violating US copyright laws.
  - scott_w 2y ago
    They can try to protect it but anything inside the UK is subject to UK law and no other law. As I said, there may be practical concerns (read, consequences) for a course of action but this is separate to the domain of law. Inside the UK, if a law explicitly counteracts, say, an international treaty, the British courts MUST find in favour of British law.
    - spacebanana7 2y ago
      > anything inside the UK is subject to UK law and no other law This is true in theory but not in practice. If you’ve been sanctioned by the US then you won’t by able to get a bank account in the UK. Even if you’ve not violated any UK law. The Americans can give a British bank an ultimatum between dealing in US dollars and dealing with a particular individual. Every bank will always choose the former. Similarly anything with US assets is subject to the US court system any its interpretation of copyright. Naturally this means US companies need to obey its rules. But also given the reach of copyright law, so do foreign companies that interact with US ones. Visa, Mastercard, Google, FedEx, and Stripe can’t do business with someone who openly violates US copyright. So perhaps a local council using self hosted services could use nationalised data but that’s about it.
      - scott_w 2y ago
        The examples you gave are nothing to do with Parliament creating a law, they’re all based on individual actions. And in any case, my disclaimer already covered the bases you’re discussing: > If it has knock-on impacts in other areas, it's hard to say, but that's separate to the law. I’d hoped it was clear that I was referring to UK law but perhaps not.

scott_w 2y ago

Just to be clear: UK Parliament is sovereign. If it passes a law forcibly legalising it, the privatised Royal Mail can sue the government but would need to find an international treaty obligation to win. Even then, if Parliament flagged it and said "we're ignoring this treaty in this case" then the courts are bound to the law, not treaty obligations. If it has knock-on impacts in other areas, it's hard to say, but that's separate to the law.

ascorbic 2y ago
Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR covers exactly this, so the Supreme Court (and ECtHR if it came to that) would probably find in favour of Royal Mail if this were to be done without compensation.
- jjmarr 2y ago
  The court would make a "declaration of incompatibility" with the ECHR which leaves it up to Parliament to change the law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_incompatibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_incompatibility
- scott_w 2y ago
  If it were done by an Act of Parliament, no they wouldn’t. If that Act explicitly overrides external concerns, the Supreme Court must find in favour of the Act and the ECHR would have to find against it, which the UK Parliament is free to ignore, if it so chooses. As I point out, this isn’t “free” because it can invite consequences from other parties. But that’s a different domain to law.
spacebanana7 2y ago
International courts - especially US ones - have de facto overrides on UK sovereignty in many domains. If Royal Mail put the asset into a US subsidiary then US courts must protect it. Regardless of what the UK domestic authorities say, very few entities would be willing to risk violating US copyright laws.
- scott_w 2y ago
  They can try to protect it but anything inside the UK is subject to UK law and no other law. As I said, there may be practical concerns (read, consequences) for a course of action but this is separate to the domain of law. Inside the UK, if a law explicitly counteracts, say, an international treaty, the British courts MUST find in favour of British law.
  - spacebanana7 2y ago
    > anything inside the UK is subject to UK law and no other law This is true in theory but not in practice. If you’ve been sanctioned by the US then you won’t by able to get a bank account in the UK. Even if you’ve not violated any UK law. The Americans can give a British bank an ultimatum between dealing in US dollars and dealing with a particular individual. Every bank will always choose the former. Similarly anything with US assets is subject to the US court system any its interpretation of copyright. Naturally this means US companies need to obey its rules. But also given the reach of copyright law, so do foreign companies that interact with US ones. Visa, Mastercard, Google, FedEx, and Stripe can’t do business with someone who openly violates US copyright. So perhaps a local council using self hosted services could use nationalised data but that’s about it.
    - scott_w 2y ago
      The examples you gave are nothing to do with Parliament creating a law, they’re all based on individual actions. And in any case, my disclaimer already covered the bases you’re discussing: > If it has knock-on impacts in other areas, it's hard to say, but that's separate to the law. I’d hoped it was clear that I was referring to UK law but perhaps not.