tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post2459893474407744163..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Yeeeesssssssss! (yes, some more on the Response to Hargreaves)Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-14955614050768281522011-08-04T21:54:52.942+01:002011-08-04T21:54:52.942+01:00@ Ben Challis.
The Musicians Union are bound to sa...@ Ben Challis.<br />The Musicians Union are bound to say that: it's their job to get the best deal for their members, but a media levy cannot be justified on any reasonable grounds. Under the new rules, the owner of a recording will merely be able to legally copy his legally purchased music, for which the artists already receive a royalty, onto another format or device for his personal use. There is no expansion of the audience or any enhancement faciltated by the artist in this process. Since owners of commercial computer programs are permitted to make back-up copies, then so should the owners of music CDs. <br />If bringing the UK in line with other EU countries is such a good thing, perhaps we should join the Euro!AndyJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-67449393052486791032011-08-04T17:23:09.575+01:002011-08-04T17:23:09.575+01:00The Musicians Union are the first of the UK trade ...The Musicians Union are the first of the UK trade bodies I have seen to post a response to the Government's announcement of a consultation on a new exception for format shifting and the MU has called for a fair compensation scheme to be introduced. Yes, they want a levy!<br /><br />John Smith, MU General Secretary said: “We are not opposed to the introduction of an exception for format shifting, as long as a system of fair compensation for rights holders is brought in alongside it. This would bring the UK in line with most other European countries, where such levy systems already exist" adding “The device manufacturers readily pay for patents and the like on each device sold and yet the act of copying onto these devices the very content that the consumer is most concerned with – music, is not currently generating any income for the creative individuals who compose and perform and entertain the public.”Ben Challishttp://www.musiclawupdates.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-81969234727813022412011-08-04T02:09:46.047+01:002011-08-04T02:09:46.047+01:00"pro-active regulatory role to police the ple..."pro-active regulatory role to police the plethora of new collecting societies which are likely to emerge, increasing the number of snouts in the trough but not necessarily increasing the benefit to the rights holders."<br /><br />Understatement of the year.<br /><br />Such 'regulation' ,if it is to be effective will be very expensive, who will pay for it?<br /><br />AndyJ- given the very global nature of the market (and the EUs marginal/declining role as a producer ) I suggest that all this extra management/regulation will simply result in extra costs (and inefficiency) for the consumer, in the UK/EU.John R walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-66332393814534226832011-08-03T17:47:13.850+01:002011-08-03T17:47:13.850+01:00A reasonably positive response so let's hope t...A reasonably positive response so let's hope they can deliver it all. I have a number of concerns though.<br /><br />Meeting the innovation challenge. The 1988 Act before amendment was clearly drafted without any expectation of the birth of the World Wide Web some ten years later, and so the courts are constantly trying to make 20th century concepts fit 21st century technology. Copyright and Design Right legislation needs to be more conceptual (eg more 'fair use' than 'fair dealing') in its approach so that technologies not yet conceived can be dealt with without endless piecemeal amendments. While this will make the law less certain, perhaps if coupled with a less costly arbration and small claims court system. this could free up entrepreneurs to bring new ideas and business models to the market. Up to now the strength of the rigid law has favoured the big players like the movie and record companies. In the interests of innovation, their powerful conglomerates should be challenged by innovative upstarts (and by that I don't mean ACS:Law!).<br /><br />The issue of additive manufacturing (the paper refers to 3D printing which is but a subset of AM) is a good example. Not only will this technology make copying easier, it will make the creation of derivative works a home industry and so it will impact more on design right and patents than on copyright. This needs to be considered now, and not left for the courts to try and muddle through using the existing legislation. Since this is a new area, we may be able to move forward more boldly without having to worry as much about the seaweed around the propeller in the form of existing EU directives and international treaty obligations.<br /><br />Orphan Works. As the legislators found during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill, this is not such a simple subject is it at first appears. Inevitably no-one is interested in orphan works for purely ultruistic reasons. The driving force will be money. The minute that big commercial concerns (eg Google) get into bed with the museums and libraries it will need extremely close regulation or authors rights will be trampled on. This leads on to my final concern.<br /><br />Collecting Societies. They are likely to play an even larger role both in terms of orphan works and the Digital Copyright Exchange. Whilst they are technically not for profit organisations, they are not neutral either. One has only to look at the fiacsco over <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/01464615221/university-calgary-refusing-to-pay-access-copyright-any-more.shtml" rel="nofollow">Copyright Access</a> in Canada raising its fees by 1300% to see how things can get out of hand. The Copyright Tribunal or a body like it, will need to take on a more pro-active regulatory role to police the plethora of new collecting societies which are likely to emerge, increasing the number of snouts in the trough but not necessarily increasing the benefit to the rights holders.AndyJnoreply@blogger.com