Commentary on International Copyright Act 1838

Legislation providing that the British monarch could, by Order in Council, grant copyright protection, within Britain and its Dominions, to the authors of literary works first published abroad for a period specified within the Order but not exceeding the domestic copyright term. The Act provided the first occasion on which the British legislature offered the possibility of copyright protection for the work of foreign authors. Its timing is indicative of the widespread attention which the issue of international copyright had begun to attract in Britain, on the continent, and in the United States. The commentary describes the background to the legislation in relation to British attitudes to the importation of foreign works throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and in the context of early nineteenth century debates before the courts as to whether the work of foreign authors was in any event protected under existing legislative measures (see also: uk_1854). The commentary also explores the reasons for the failure of the British government to successfully negotiate any bilateral agreements under the legislation, but nevertheless suggests that the 1838 Act provided an important platform upon which to build a subsequent and more successful regime of international copyright protection (see also: uk_1844; uk_1852; uk_1886).

Commentary on International Copyright Act 1844

Legislation replacing the International Copyright Act 1838 (uk_1838) and providing that the British monarch could, by Order in Council, grant to foreign authors both copyright protection for works of literature, drama, music and art, as well as performance rights for dramatic pieces and musical compositions. The document contains the following associated material: Bill to amend Law relating to International Copyright 1844 (uk_1844a).
This Act addressed perceived inadequacies of the International Copyright Act 1838 (uk_1838) by expanding upon both the subject-matter and the nature of the rights that might be included in a reciprocal copyright arrangement with a foreign state. It also specifically linked the protections that foreign authors would enjoy within Britain to existing domestic copyright legislation. Following this legislation Britain successfully negotiated a series of bilateral international copyright treaties the first of which was concluded with Prussia in May 1846.
The commentary locates the Act within existing legislative provisions designed to address the problem of the market for cheap foreign imports of British books. It suggests that, regardless of the existence of stringent measures targeting unlawful foreign imports, the British government regarded a system of international copyright protection as integral in both addressing the import issue and in fostering a more secure overseas market in the interests of the British book trade.

Commentary on International Copyright Act 1852

Legislation introducing the concept of translation rights within British copyright law. The document contains the following associated material: Hansard: 119 (1852): 498-502 (uk_1852a); 121 (1852): 4 (uk_1852b); Anglo-French Copyright Treaty (uk_1851).
Introduced to implement the obligations of the Anglo-French Copyright Convention, agreed in November 1851, this Act provided that the British monarch could, by Order in Council, provide foreign authors with the right to prevent the reproduction and performance of their literary and dramatic works in translation. The Act also introduces the first statutorily defined permitted acts within the UK, and is indicative of the increasing influence that international standards and obligations began to exert upon the content and substance of domestic copyright law.
The commentary locates the Act within the context of the two previous International Copyright Acts (see: uk_1838; uk_1844) and the Anglo-French Convention, highlighting the selective manner in which the British legislature implemented its obligations under the 1851 Convention, in particular in drawing a distinction between the reproduction of political and non-political material, as well as the difficulty that foreign authors experienced in complying with the provisions of the legislation.

MODERN SPORT COACHING AND THE LAW: IMPLICATIONS FOR COACH EDUCATION

Introduction
The intersection between the law of negligence and sport coaching in the UK is a developing area (Partington, 2014; Kevan, 2005). Crucially, since the law of negligence may be regarded as generally similar everywhere (Magnus, 2006), with the predominance of volunteer coaches in the UK reflective of the majority of countries in the world (Duffy et al., 2011), a detailed scrutiny of this relationship from the perspective of the coach uncovers important implications for coach education beyond this jurisdiction.  
Argumentation
Fulfilment of the legal duty of discharging reasonable care may be regarded as consistent with the ethical obligation not to expose athletes to unreasonable risks of injury (Mitten, 2013). More specifically, any ‘profession’ requiring ‘special skill or competence’ (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582), including the coaching of sport (e.g., Davenport v Farrow [2010] EWHC 550), requires a higher standard of care to be displayed than would be expected of the ordinary reasonable person (Lunney & Oliphant, 2013; Jones & Dugdale, 2010). For instance, volunteer coaches with no formal qualifications (e.g., Fowles v Bedfordshire County Council [1996] ELR 51) would be judged by this benchmark of professional liability (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Further, as the principles of coaching are constantly assessed and revised (Cassidy et al., 2009; Taylor & Garratt, 2010), so too is the legal standard of care required of coaches (Powell & Stewart, 2012). Problematically, ethical concerns may include coaches being unwilling to increase knowledge, abusive treatment of players and incompetence/inexperience (Haney et al., 1998). These factors accentuate coaches’ exposure to civil liability.
Implications
It is imperative that coaches have an awareness of this emerging intersection and develop a ‘proactive risk assessment lens’ (Hartley, 2010). In addition to supporting the professionalisation of sport coaching, coach education/CPD focused on the legal and ethical aspects of coaching (Duffy et al., 2011; Telfer, 2010; Haney et al., 1998) would enhance the safety and welfare of performers, safeguard coaches from litigation risk, and potentially improve all levels of coaching (Partington, 2014). Interestingly, there is evidence to suggest a demand from coaches for more training on health and safety issues, including risk management and (ir)responsible coaching (Stirling et al., 2012). Accordingly, critical examination of the issue of negligent coaching would inform coach education by: enabling the modelling and sharing of best practice; unpacking important ethical concerns; and, further informing the classification of coaching as a ‘profession’.

Work Ethic, Social Ethic, no Ethic: Measuring the Economic Values of Modern Christians

Benito Arruñada finds evidence of a distinct Protestant social ethic in the ISSP’s 1998 Religion II Survey (Economic Journal 2010; 120: 890-918). We replicate Arruñada’s results using his broad definition of Protestantism and our new narrow definition, which includes only those ascetic denominations that Max Weber singled out for possessing a strong capitalist work ethic. We then extend this analysis to the ISSP’s 2008 Religion III Survey, the most recent comparable international questionnaire on religious attitudes and religious change. We find no evidence of a Calvinist work ethic, and suggest that Arruñada’s Protestant social ethic continues into the twenty-first century.

At the dawn of Italo-Chinese modern relations: Ludovico Nocentini's experience

In 1904 Ludovico Nocentini described China as a hub of colonial and commercial development for European powers. Europe in the Far East and the Italian Interests in China was Nocentini’s last and most critical book, in which he compared the performance of the Italian government with that of other countries and showed Rome’s inefficiency overseas. The book expatiated on the “carving up” of China into spheres of influence by the Western powers, while examining how the Italian government’s scant regard for the definition and pursuit of the country’s national interest jeopardized not only the development of its colonial policy, but also its foreign trade and industrial progress.