Update: deadline for applications is Friday June 22nd

It’s hard to believe, but the Open Rights Group is nearly two years old! Over this period, ORG’s Board have steered the organisation on a steady course. But there’s still a long way to go yet, and we’re looking to refresh our ranks with new folks interested in dedicating their time to building a sustainable digital rights organisation that can continue to make a real difference in the way the media and policy-makers approach networked, digital technologies.

So we’re looking for applications to become a non-executive member of ORG’s board. This is a position that requires serious dedication – at least two days out of every month plus the commitment to attend monthly evening meetings, and quarterly Advisory Council meetings. It is also a formal position – collectively, the Board ensures that ORG remains solvent and financially strong and takes responsibility for ensuring that ORG activities comply with all legal requirements. The position is unpaid, although out-of-pocket expenses will be refunded.

But it’s also a position that promises significant rewards:

• Playing a major part in the success of an innovative young campaigning organisation that is already making a significant impact on the UK’s politics and media.
• Being at the cutting edge of politics and technology.
• Working with a strong community of like-minded staff, advisers and volunteers committed to strengthening human rights and freedoms in the digital era.

If you’re interested in applying, take a look at our detailed job description.

The House of Commons voted last Friday for legislation “designed to protect MPs, not their constituents” by exempting themselves from the Freedom of Information Act. The story is well covered by blogs and traditional media. There is some hope at least the Lords will prevent this Private Members Bill reaching the statute books.

Here’s a list of who voted which way. If your MP voted ‘aye’, you should drop them a line to ask how this measure increases accountability and transparency in government. If your MP was absent from the vote, then write and tell them why this legislation only increases our distrust of the political establishment so must be opposed.

And if one attempt to limit use of the FOI regulations wasn’t insult enough, the Ministry for Justice are also trying to save politician’s blushes under the guise of saving a few quid. Please help us submit to the ongoing consultation by contributing to our consultation wiki page.

The House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has today released its Fifth Report - an investigation into New Media.

The report endorses performing artists’ call for an extension to the term of copyright in sound recordings (although, as Copyweb points out, this slightly confuses rights in performances with rights in sound recordings).

The Committee’s logic looks simple:

“Gowers’ analysis was thorough and in economic terms may be correct. It gives the impression, however, of having been conducted entirely on economic grounds. We strongly believe that copyright represents a moral right of a creator to choose to retain ownership and control of their own intellectual property. We have not heard a convincing reason why a composer and his or her heirs should benefit from a term of copyright which extends for lifetime and beyond, but a performer should not.”

Gowers did couch his report in economic terms. His idea of balance matched the needs of creators against those of consumers and innovators.

But he didn’t just do this because he was commissioned by the Treasury. He was reflecting the current position of UK law. Current UK law regards copyright as an economic incentive to create, or, as Gowers puts it “a purely statutory right created for the utilitarian purpose of encouraging literary efforts”.

It seems the House of Commons Select Committee is not arguing for an extension to term, it is arguing for a fundamental change to the law, a law for which there are plenty of “convincing reasons” which can all be couched in moral terms.

But it may just as likely be the case that the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture Media and Sport simply doesn’t know its law properly.

Update 2: Nick Pollard says Stephen Williams MP has responded to his letter by agreeing to take his name off the EDM. Well done, Nick (and Mr Williams MP). Anyone else had a response? Let us know so we can strike their names off the list below.

Update: 7 more MPs have signed the EDM this week. If you are a constituent of one of these members, please write to explain why we should all oppose this copyright extension.

• Alan Simpson - Nottingham South - Labour

• Janet Dean - Burton - Labour

• Jeffrey Donaldson - Lagan Valley - Democratic Unionist Party

• Frank Doran - Aberdeen North - Labour

• Pete Wishart - Perth and Perthshire - SNP

• Alasdair McDonnell - Belfast South - Social Democratic and Labour Party

• Colin Burgon - Elmet - Labour Party

Here we go again.

Top-level reviews of intellectual property regulation reject proposals to extend the length of copyright protection for producers and performers. An independent economic study grounds the Gowers Review’s recommendation that “The European Commission should retain the length of protection on sound recordings and performers’ rights at 50 years.” This recommendation, endorsed by the British government in December 2006, is affirmed by a report authored for the European Commission that rejects in even stronger terms proposals for extension.

Yet certain politicians appear to be neglecting their IP studies. Seventy MPs have now signed an Early Day Motion calling for extension: perhaps they’re simply studying from the same textbooks as Mick, Katie and Cliff? Please write to tell your MP that term extension will neither benefit starving musicians nor guarantee profits for the recording industry.

We must remind politicians to debate this issue on the basis of evidence – which points firmly against extension – rather than nostalgia. It is particularly important to write if you are a constituent of one of these 70 MPs:

If you need fuel for your letters, watch the videos (or listen to the audio) from our Release the Music debate (thanks, Tim!). The first part is a fantastic speech by Jonathan Zittrain, which explains this issue and other aspects of copyright reform in clear terms. The second is a panel debate, featuring representatives from the music industry as well as an academic and recording artist.

We’ll be updating our Release the Music briefing pack before taking the campaign to Europe later this year. If any readers are excited to get involved, please drop me a line so we can coordinate our efforts.

If you want to keep informed of our events, discuss digital rights issues, or actively help us out - there’s a list for you. Follow the links to sign up yourselves, or email me and i’ll happily do it for you.

• ORG-Announce
  For events information, please join the low-volume ORG Announcements list.

• ORG-Discuss
  To talk about digital rights issues with other ORG supporters, please join the ORG Discussion list.

• ORG-Tech
  For those actively involved in ORG operations. Not restricted to, but mainly, Techy things.

• ORG-Designers
  Got graphics / visual flair and want to help out with ORG activities? Here’s the place.

A huge thank you to our entire team of Election Observers who went way beyond the call of duty in their work monitoring last week’s elections.

Our team found procedural and technical problems some of which, particularly in Scotland, have already been reported in the media. Each observer is preparing a detailed file which will be used in drafting our comprehensive report on these elections. The report will be launched on 20 June at the Royal Academy of Engineers, London.

In the meantime thank you for all your hard work team, and thank you to all the election workers, candidates and voters who made us feel so welcome.