Copyright - the UK IPO's way ahead

Yesterday, the UK IPO and BIS announced their strategy for
Copyright in the digital age. The full paper is here - it explains that it draws on previous work [to which some might add that the IPO is retreading the same ground again]. Anyway, the key findings (as annotated by the author) are as follows:

"The Investigation led by the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) over the course of the last year found that:

• For the first time, individual citizens have the means to create, use and distribute copyright works through digital technology. People want to make use of these opportunities but in doing so it is almost inevitable that they will violate copyright. This mismatch of expectations is significant because neither the law nor people’s attitudes is easy to change.

• Copyright is also complex for users. Much of this complexity can be addressed by rights holders and how they administer their rights. [and that means that we, the Government, don't have to carry the can for it] This would have many advantages over changes to the law, which can be slow and risks adding to rather than reducing complexity.

• Making non-commercial use less onerous for consumers, for example by removing the need to seek permission and make payment for personal use of individual copyright works, would help tackle the “mismatch of expectations” problem. But fair compensation for rights holders would be required. Action at a European level would be necessary [and that means we can kick this one into the long grass too].

• Processes for licensing copyright works need to be improved. The Government has already brought forward proposals in the Digital Britain Report, which noted problems with access to “orphan works” and the potential benefits of extended collective licensing in tackling some of these problems. Non-compulsory registration systems may also help rights holders manage their rights more effectively [and that will be down to rights owners not government, either - do I detect a theme developing here?]

• Creative industries face real challenges in monetising content. Firms must continue to
evolve products and services to offer consumers something they value at prices they are prepared to pay. [this one wins the "no sh*t Sherlock award for stating the obvious] Education and enforcement can support these efforts but cannot tackle infringement of copyright on their own.

Actions and recommendations

Based on these findings, the Government’s intentions are:

• for authors of copyright works; to support fair treatment through new model contracts and clauses and fair returns for use of their work by improving education about and enforcement of rights; [is this a commitment to do anything about education or enforcement, or just a statement of good intentions?]

• for rights holders; to help secure a viable future by encouraging the development of new business models, modernising the licensing process and maintaining support for education about and enforcement of rights; [ditto]

• for consumers; to allow them to benefit from the digital age by seeking to legitimise non-commercial use of legitimately-purchased copyright works and improving access to ‘orphan works’ such as out-of-print books;

• for educators and researchers; to support them by improving access to works, resolving issues around copyright and contract and ensuring exceptions to copyright are right for the digital age; and

• for businesses and other users; to work towards a simpler copyright system by, improving the copyright licensing process and encouraging the development of new business models.

This means:
• UK action to improve access to orphan works, enable extended collective licensing, encourage the development of model contracts and clauses, and tackle P2P fi le-sharing; and

• A willingness on the Government’s part to consider European action that provides
commonsense rules for private, non-commercial use of copyright material that will give consumers much more freedom to do what they want (such as creating mash-ups) and make clear what they cannot do.

There are a total of 51 pages of this paper, but a cynic might conclude that it contains nothing new.

The clash between copyright holders and personal data

The International Journal of Law and Information Technology (IJLIT), a three-times-a-year journal from Oxford University Press which is going quarterly in 2010, has asked me to draw the attention of 1709 readers to a pertinent article which considers the clash between two well-recognised rights, copyright and data protection/informational privacy.

The article begins by noting that one of Sweden’s anti-piracy groups, Antipiratbyrån (APB), in its bid to track copyright infringers, allegedly processed the personal data of Swedish peer to peer (p2p) file sharers in contravention of the Swedish Personal Data Act.

It goes on to say that this story is representative of the divergent perspectives that have been adopted by copyright owners and p2p file sharers. On one hand, a review of postings in some of the forums frequented by p2p participants indicates that some file sharers assume that there should be a legal rule by which copyright holders are prevented from invading their privacy. On the other hand, developments in the US go to show that the copyright holders seem to have taken the view that the fight against online copyright infringements should supersede all privacy considerations.

The article considers the clash which occurs when right holders track online infringements and harvest IP addresses and when right holders seek to unmask the infringers behind the harvested IP addresses.

This is undoubtedly a hot topic. The article is available to read online without charge and is called "When Rights Clash Online: The Tracking of P2p Copyright Infringements v the EC Personal Data Directive" by Okechukwu Benjamin Vincents (click here to read).

The IJLIT website contains lots of information about the journal and its distinguished editorial panel, together with instructions for would-be authors, subscription data and the contents of the current edition.

Joseph Smith and the Copyright Revelation

1709 Blog reader Arnold Thomas writes to ask whether it would have been possible for early Mormon leader Joseph Smith, an American citizen, to obtain in early 1830 a copyright for his book The Book of Mormon that would have been valid for Canada? According to Mr Thomas,

"Joseph Smith had registered an American copyright for The Book of Mormon on June 11, 1829 and the book was announced for sale on March 1830.

There is a discussion going on now on this topic [for which see link to The Fair Blog here], spurred by the recent publication of a previously unpublished document in which Smith sends his men to Canada in order to secure a copyright and attempt to sell it to raise money.

A complex and difficult-to-follow argument was posted in support of the position that it would have been possible for Smith to do so. Others have maintained that Smith couldn't, variously because he was an American citizen, or because the Statute of Anne did not apply to Canada.

I am wondering which argument is correct, or perhaps another answer is".

The Fair Blog, which I took to be an allusion to the copyright concepts of fair use or fair dealing, turns out to be subtitled 'Defending Mormonism'. If any readers of this blog have an interest in copyright history, the Fair Blog would greatly appreciate their opinions.

Copyright and A2K: a useful list

The abbreviation A2K is one with which not everyone is familiar: it stands for Access to Knowledge. In this context the 1709 Blog has just been introduced to Copyrightanda2kinfo, described by this blog's informant, Denise Nicholson (who runs the list) as

"a free online international Information Service covering various topics, including copyright, plagiarism and other IP matters, Open Access, open publishing, open learning resources, institutional repositories, scholarly communication, digitization and library matters, issues affecting access to knowledge (A2K), particularly in developing countries; WTO and WIPO treaties and matters; Free Trade Agreements and TRIPS Plus; useful websites, conference alerts, etc".

This looks pretty useful for people whose livelihood either depends on looking after their own copyright or advising others how to do so. The 1709 Blog welcomes users' comments.

More on the A2K movement can be found here.

God and Mammon are in the Detail

How refreshing to see the UK's PRS humbly admitting its mistake after it had demanded a licence fee from a singing shop assistant! Heaven forfend that the produce should be noisome. See Bath's Natural Theatre's Singing Underpants here.

How infuriating to see PPL's efforts to secure via the Copyright Tribunal an appropriate licence fees from bars, cafes, shops and office frustrated by the Tribunal's "one-size- fits-all" fee ruling.

PPL's statement reveals that "PPL had proposed a tariff, based on the principle of fairness, where larger establishments paid more than smaller ones. The Tribunal rejected this and took the view that small pubs and cornershops should pay the same as large bars and shops. This is currently £100 per annum. The result of the Tribunal's decision, therefore, is that bars with a thousand drinkers will pay exactly the same as a pub with a handful of regulars."

Fran Nevrkla, Chairman and CEO announced that PPL will, quite rightly, be appealing the decision. PPL's gorgeous, pouting Director of Government Relations, Dominic McGonigal, blogs briefly on the subject - shame his employer can't spell his name.

Are these the Top Ten Plagiarisms?

Thank you, Amber Johnson, for sending the 1709 Blog this link to the "Top 10 Plagiarism Scandals of All Time". The list opens with the rubric,

"Plagiarism isn’t just for procrastinating students or juvenile delinquents. Even high profile politicians, writers, artists and educators can be found guilty of plagiarism, whether it is on purpose or by accident. Check out these top 10 plagiarism scandals of all time that have affected some of the world’s most illustrious publications and individuals".

A quick perusal of the list leads to one of two conclusions: either the list is a little local in its outlook, or the United States is truly the epicentre of world plagiarism. In either event, the 1709 Blog invites readers to post below the details of any particularly egregious examples of plagiarism which we can all consult when doing serious research or preparing after-dinner speeches.

Better a live dealer than a dead artist

A press release from the United Kingdom's Intellectual Property Office today, "UK extends the derogation on Artists Resale Right for two years", conveys depressing news for dead artists:

"In 2008, the UK Government notified the European Commission that it intended to maintain its existing derogation from resale right for the works of deceased artists for a further two years. The instrument that extended this derogation was laid today and will come into effect on the 1 December 2009.

Resale right entitles authors of original works of art, such as paintings, engravings, sculpture and ceramics, to receive a royalty each time one of their works is resold in a sale involving an art market professional.

The decision to extend the derogation comes after consultation with a wide range of stakeholders including artists and traders [This rather creates the impression that the product of the consultation is some sort of consensus. The 'stakes' of artists and of traders are not however entirely congruent with one another].

Ministers decided that the current economic climate would accentuate the difficulty the art market would face when coping with the application of artist’s resale right to the works of deceased artists [Are the works of deceased artists more difficult to cope with than the works of live ones? And is this a precedent of sorts for treating the position of dead authors less favourably than the living in other areas, eg when dealing with 'orphan works', applications for injunctive relief or fair dealing?].

This extension to the derogation will apply until January 2012. The extension means that in the UK, resale right will apply to works by living artists only [note for slightly puzzled readers: you thought the word 'only' referred to the word 'until' which follows it and not to the word 'apply' which precedes it] until 1st January 2012".

Simpler Music Licensing in Sight?

Yesterday, European Commissioner Neelie Kroes hosted a round table (although judging from the photo on the Commission website, right, it was in fact an oval table) among licensors of music publishing rights (EMI Music Publishing, SACEM, PRS for Music, Universal Music Publishing) and other interested parties (including Amazon, iTunes, Nokia, BEUC).

The outcome was a joint statement (here) setting out general principles designed to deliver improved online music opportunities for European consumers, including working towards "an open, fair and transparent licensing process that secures an appropriate level of royalties for right holders and authors is in the interest of all players and therefore of cultural diversity in Europe."

It will be interesting to see whether the Commission can deliver on making this into reality - in the past, attempts to make life easy for licensees have foundered either on competition grounds (the Commission itself being instrumental in this) or on societies fighting to preserve their own parochial interests.

The Commission promised that it remained committed to work with the market to bring "real benefits to consumers", so we can all rest easy and look forward to a bright future.