Pirate Party Plans for Copyright Reform

In recent weeks, copyright critics and author's rights aficionados in Germany have been waging a war of words in a multitude of open letters (eg here, here), newspaper articles (overview here) and at birthday brunches (or maybe that was just the birthday brunch I attended yesterday...). At the core of the debate is the political success of the Piratenparty ("Pirate Party") that runs, inter alia, on the slogan of "de-criminalisation of non-commercial file sharing". The Piratenpartei is keen to stress that they do not want to abolish copyright protection outright, but that they envisage a better deal for authors and users alike (at the expense of the much-loathed content industry). Others point out that "de-criminalisation" of file sharing amounts to much the same thing as the abolition of copyright.

This morning, the Piratenpartei published what they deem the ten most important issues that should be addressed in reforming the current copyright law (here). As it is only available in German, I have translated (and somewhat summarised) them below:

1) The term of protection shall be shortened to 10 years post mortem auctoris. Among other things, this would alleviate the orphan works problem.
2) Authors' shall receive stronger rights vis-à-vis right holders: authors shall regain their rights faster in case of non-exploitation and exclusive licences shall be limited to a maximum term of 25 years.
3) Beyond the initial purchase price, institutions of public education shall not be required to pay for using copyright works.
4) Libraries shall be entitled to store works in digital archives; free access for educational purposes shall be guaranteed.
5) The right to make private copies shall be defined and guaranteed; the creation of "remixes" and "mashups" shall be facilitated. Technological protection measures and digital rights management shall be abolished.
6) Basically the same as 2): reform of copyright contract law.
7) Private, direct, non-commercial file sharing and the passing on of works shall be de-criminalised.
8) New business models shall be developed (for instance "micropayment", crowd funding, levies). Authors shall receive equitable remuneration but data protection must be guaranteed; mutual trust and new distribution channels are essential.
9) The practice of sending warning letters to private individuals (asking them to cease and desist from infringing copyright and to pay the incurred attorneys' fees) shall be stopped; in order to have free WLAN networks, the concept of "Störerhaftung" ("disturbance liability" - secondary liability for someone else's infringement due to a breach of duty care) shall be abolished.
10) Copyright law shall meet the expectations of contemporary "media savvy" users and shall not restrict creative uses.

In addition, the Piratenpartei has appealed to authors, right holders and users to participate in a constructive dialogue on copyright law, with public debates concerning the following topics: collecting societies, rock and pop culture, classical music, authors/journalists, creators of films, software, and education/school (here). For each topic, there is a document on the Piratenpartei's website where anyone interested can add questions or comments to be discussed in the respective debate. The first two debates are scheduled for 6 June (on collecting society GEMA) and 7 June (on authors, journalists and photographers).

ISPs' six strikes enforcement plan delayed

How disconnection works in practice

A couple of months ago this Blog reported that the ISPs' six strikes enforcement plan (on which see here) was due to enter into force next July. 

The plan is the result of an agreement between some major US ISPs (AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and Verizon) and music and film industries (through RIAA and MPAA), aimed at adopting and implementing policies directed at discouraging their customers from illegally downloading copyright-protected materials.

The plan envisages a system through which, when a copyright owner complains to an ISP, that ISP sends a (possible) series of online alerts to the subscriber that he/she is infringing copyright. After six warnings ISPs may take a variety of repressive measures, which include slowing down offenders’ connections and temporary disconnections.

In any case, when entering the agreement, ISPs made it clear that they would (1) protect their subscribers' privacy and not filter/monitor their own networks for infringements and (2) never terminate an internet connection entirely, or otherwise interfere with subscribers' ability to receive calls and emails.

During a panel discussion at the annual meeting of the Association of American Publishers, RIAA's CEO Cary Sherman announced that most of the participating ISPs would begin implementing the enforcement program by next July.

However, as reported by TorrentFreak and Tom's Guide, now the start of the program has been delayed until later in the year. 

As commented by a spokesperson for the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), which is supposed to engage in the tracking down of pirates as part of the enforcement plan, 

ISPs are busy preparing their model online alerts

“The dates mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) are not hard deadlines but were intended to keep us on track to have the Copyright Alert System up and running as quickly as possible and in the most consumer friendly manner possible ... We do not intend to launch until we are confident that the program is consumer friendly and able to be implemented in a manner consistent with all of the goals of the MOU. We expect our implementation to begin later this year.”

In any case, participating ISPs remain in favour of voluntary and private enforcement solutions. For instance, Verizon has declared that it has 

"always said that copyright infringement is wrong and through this voluntary consumer friendly system, we believe we can educate our consumers and offer them access to legal alternatives ... [T]his  program offers the best approach to the problem of illegal file sharing and, importantly, is one that respects the privacy and rights of our subscribers. It also provides a mechanism for helping people to find many great sources of legal content.”

Apparently, as reported by TorrentFreak, the CCI has made it clear, that none of the ISPs has plans to terminate the accounts of subscribers. This does not mean, however, that temporary disconnection is no longer an option. 

In-cinema filming remains a major piracy problem - but does the UK government care?

The Cinema Exhibitors Association have said that 90% of illicit film downloads on the internet originate from recordings illicitly made in cinemas, despite the efforts of cinema chains such as Odeon, Vue and Cineworld to stamp out the practice. Now the cinemas trade association has accused the UK Government of being "soft" on movie piracy after rejecting plans to create a specific offence related to covertly videotaping screenings of new films, a move proposed by a film policy panel chaired by Lord (Chris) Smith, the former Labour Culture Secretary. The Department of Culture Media and Sport says that the practice is adequately covered by the 2006 Fraud Act. Charges can also be brought under section 107/1(e) of  the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. 


The CEA says that pirates offer bounties of up to £20,000 a time for a copy of a new film, that illegal recordings cost the UK cinema industry £220 million per annum in lost sales, and that they make substantial efforts to reduce the filming including providing staff with infra-red glasses to detect suspicious activity. The 'cammers' are now so organised they make stereo recordings at the 'production' stage - and even re-lay foreign language soundtracks in 'post production'. The CEA say the police have little interest in prosecuting alleged offenders and that there have been just five successful prosecutions under the Fraud Act since 2010, not least as there is a need to show the defendant who illicitly mad the recording in the cinema was acting for financial gain.


The Top five pirated films of all time (by illegal downloads)


1   Avatar  21 million
2. The Dark Knight 19 million
3.  Transformers  19 million
4.  Inception  18 million
5.  The Hangover  17 million


(source: Torrentfreak).


The Time, page 46, 19th May 2012 and for some background see http://torrentfreak.com/uk-movie-cammer-faces-jail-sentence-100814/ and for the CEA's response to Gowers see http://www.allpartyipgroup.org.uk/pdfs/CEA%20Response%20to%20All-Party%20Inquiry.pdf 

Performers in Africa ask to be paid

The Ghana Association of Phonographic Industries (GAPI) is considering filing a legal suit against the Government of Ghana because government and other state institutions used Ghanaian music works without paying royalties. Project Coordinator for GAPI, Francis Mensah Twum told Adom Entertainment News the Information Services Department (ISD), and the National Commission on Civic Education (NCCE) use Ghanaian music in their vans that go round to educate the public, but they do not pay royalties. GAPI also cited political parties for the same offence, saying that GAPI is speaking with its lawyers to prepare a legal suit against the offenders which, including the government.


Mr. Twum Mensah however noted that alternatively, government could support the forthcoming Copyright Bank/Fund with seed capital to compensate for the millions of cedis of accumulated in unpaid royalties it owed the industry. He explained that apart from government not paying royalties due the industry, government also delayed the passage of the Copyright Law, and it took another four years before it enacted the Legislative Instrument to make the law operational which “allowed piracy to continue and the industry lost an average of $30 million a year, which amounted to about a $400 million loss over the period,” he said


In Kenya, Music producers and performers including guitarists, drummists and dancers will start getting equal remuneration from television and radio royalties, if proposed changes in the copyright laws are passed. This will be the first time that dancers, guitarists and other instrumentalists will start earning royalties from their talents and from the works that they participate in. While proposing the new laws, Attorney-General Professor Githu Muigai has factored in the rise of public performances and use of video recordings by local musicians and producers without remunerating back-up artistes. Previously, the Music Copyright Society of Kenya (MCSK) collected royalties on behalf of composers and singers and left out the bulk of producers and acoustic players. Prof Muigai has proposed amendments to the Kenya Copyright Act 2001 (No 12 of 2001) by inserting a new clause (30A) which now gives music producers the right to claim and equitably share remuneration for sound recordings and visual works among themselves.


http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/AG+pushes+for+changes+in+sharing+of+music+cash+/-/539546/1408300/-/57w0tsz/-/ 


http://entertainment.myjoyonline.com/pages/news/201205/85991.php

Image of a Mauritian sega drummer from http://www.edwebproject.org/mauritius/sega.html : The sega is the national dance a of Mauritius. Introduced by African slaves during the French colonial period, the sega is an exotic, often erotic dance. The dancers are backed a a group of drummers and other instrumentalists. 

IFPI welcomes court ruling finding vKontakte liable for copyright infringement

The IFPI and the global recording industry have welcomed the verdict of the Russian appeal court (17th May 2012) that confirmed social networking and downloading site vKontakte is liable for copyright infringement. The case against vKontakte was brought by SBA Music Publishing and SBA Production and members of the Gala Records Music Group, a subsidiary of EMI in Russia. The cases were based on vKontakte making many of Gala’s music compositions and sound recordings available without licensing agreements in place. 

The judgment by the Saint Petersburg appeal court upheld the earlier ruling by the commercial (“Arbitrazh”) Court of Saint Petersburg in January.Frances Moore, chief executive of IFPI, said : “This judgment sends a clear signal to those in Russia that seek to build their businesses on the back of other people’s content. We urge vKontakte to take immediate steps to stop its service being used to infringe copyright on a massive scale" adding “Widespread digital piracy is preventing Russia from developing a thriving legitimate digital music sector and this in turn denies Russian artists a chance of success and starves them of investment by producers.” 


The IFPI say that the Russian market has declined substantially since 2007, from US$191 million to US$76.6 million. During that time, the digital market has grown, yet last year saw a substantial fall even in digital revenue, which the IFPI attribute to piracy vKontakte is Russia’s most popular online entertainment platform with more than 110 million registered users and is one of the top 50 most visited sites in the world, attracting more traffic than BBC Online or CNN.com. Its valued at upwards of $1.5 billion (though in facebook world, who knows what its worth today - or what it might be worth tomorrow!). The unlicensed vKontakte music service allows streaming of music from an extensive catalogue of Russian and international sound recordings and encourages software developers to create apps for illegal downloading of content using vKontakte.

source: www.ifpi.org

Deadline for Submissions to HADOPI Consultation on "Exceptions to Copyright and Related Rights" Extended to July 15, 2012

HADOPI, the French administrative authority tasked with implementing the three-strike graduated response to unauthorized P2P file sharing has extended the deadline for responses to the very interesting public consultation it is conducting on Exceptions to Copyright and Related Rights.

Interested parties now have until July 15th to submit their contributions.

Relevant information and the Questionnaire can be found (in French and English) here: http://www.hadopi.fr/actualites/actualites/consultation-sur-l-exercice-effectif-des-exceptions-au-droit-d-auteur-et-aux-d

No more UK legislation on Internet Piracy (yet)

Hunt describes the size of the
internet piracy issue in the UK

The Guardian reports tonight that the long-awaited Communications Green Paper, originally promised to be unveiled to an expectant public last November, has been postponed until at least September.

Apparently the responsible minister, Jeremy Hunt, has some other stuff going on involving something called the Leveson enquiry and his relationship with certain newspaper proprietors, so it is felt to be an inauspicious time for him to be launching a new flagship policy.

Now, some of us would be surprised to learn that a Communications Green Paper, which is supposed to be the next step on the route to updating communications and broadcasting regulation, has anything to do with copyright law at all, but at least according to the Guardian, setting out the Government's position on Internet piracy is one of the areas which the paper is expected to cover.

This blogger is very surprised that the Government is planning to start poking its hand around in that particular hornet's next in a hurry. After all, the previous Government's Internet piracy legislation, passed some 2 years ago, is not really operative yet and the first letter writing campaign under it is not expected now to emerge until 2014, just as the French equivalent, the Loi Hadopi is under threat of being repealed by the new French administration, despite its apparent success.

Similarly, the hostile reception given to ACTA - riots in Brussels followed by Commissioner Kroes announcing its imminent demise and, in the United States, to SOPA might lead a pragmatic Government, let alone a Secretary of State who has other things on his mind (or possibly even his successor) to wonder whether further legislation on this particular topic is really such a bright idea, or whether a Communications Bill that could focus on other things might be better. After all, there might be said to be a good argument to hang fire until a measured judgement could be taken about the effectiveness of a combination of the forthcoming DEA implementation and the new ISP injunctions involving Newzbin and Pirate Bay.

We look forward to finding out in September (or, at least, not before....) where this issue is going.

Copyright Tribunal's final decision in Meltwater now available

As readers of this Blog will remember, last February the Copyright Tribunal published its interim decision in the fascinating case of Meltwater Holding v The Newspaper Licensing Agency (see 1709 Blog's coverage here and here).

Now, the Tribunal has issued its final decision.

Controversy arose out of a new pair of licences promoted by NLA in 2010, called the Web Database Licence ("WDL”) and Web End Users Licence (“WEUL”). The WDL/WEUL relate to the particular type of media monitoring activity carried out by Meltwater. 

The NLA contended that the nature of Meltwater’s business meant that both it and its customers needed to take out WDL and WEUL agreements. Meltwater’s position was that it was prepared to enter into the WDL and undertook to do so, but that its customers did not have to enter into the WEUL at all. This was because Meltwater’s customers, by receiving the Meltwater service, did not commit any of the acts restricted by copyright and therefore did not need a licence. As clarified by the Tribunal in its interim decision, 

Surely there is more expectation about the 
Supreme Court's Meltwater ruling
than the release of The Dark Knight Rises ...
Definitely.

In a nutshell Meltwater’s point was that the material sent to customers was too insubstantial to be a copyright work or to be a substantial part of the original news article. Copying the material would not infringe (if there was no licence) and so copying the material was not a restricted act.

The findings of the Tribunal were however that 

end users of a headline only service should enter into the WEUL just like end users of the normal Meltwater News service of headlines plus extracts and should be subject to the same tariff rates.

This said, the Tribunal agreed with Meltwater and the PRCA's contention that the NLA's proposed licensing scheme was not reasonable and required amendment.

As reported by journalism.co.uk, since the interim decision of the Copyright Tribunal, the parties have worked together in close consultation to reach an agreement on the finer details of the licensing payment model, with a revised fixed price agreed upon.

Now, the Tribunal has accepted the terms proposed by the parties as "reasonable".

Some copyright enthusiasts are already camping
outside the Supreme Court,
waiting for the start of the Meltwater's hearings

Compared to the first licensing scheme, the agreement now includes - inter alia - reduced rates for the very smallest users (low number of employees) and, in parallel to this, increased rates for the users with high numbers of employees.

Co-founder of the Meltwater Group Jens-Petter Glittenberg explained that the NLA and Meltwater are now committed to ensuring that UK end users of such monitoring services are licensed quickly, fairly and efficiently. 

So far so good -- but fans of this saga will have to keep holding their breath for a year or so. Meltwater and PRCA appealed aspects of the Court of Appeal's decision on web browsing to the Supreme Court (see here). Release of the sequel is expected in early 2013.