call +44 20 7096 1079

Blog


March 27, 2014 | Ed Paton-Williams

Thanks to ORG supporters copyright takes a great leap forward into the 21st century

Good news! After pressure from ORG supporters over the last week, the Government has just published its proposed changes to copyright law.

This is a big victory for ORG. We've long argued that UK copyright law wasn't fit for the digital age and this is a big step in the right direction.

The new laws will finally give us the right to parody and legalise personal copying of our digital media. We're also seeing important changes allowing non-commercial research to carry out text and data mining.

The laws should come into force on 1st June but we're not done yet. MPs and Peers first have to approve them. We'll let you know when the debates and votes are as soon as we find out.

It's taken a lot of work to get to this point.

Back in February 2011 we made an important submission to Professor Ian Hargreaves' Review of Intellectual Property. Professor Hargreaves then published recommendations on copyright that the Government accepted and were the basis of the changes that they published today.

Despite promising to bring the changes in, the Government were very slow to make the reforms. In November last year ORG wrote to them urging them to get a move on. Lord Younger replied in December promising them "in the New Year" to come into force this April.

But again, the reforms were slow in coming. So over the last week ORG supporters sent over 350 unique emails to Vince Cable and Lord Younger demanding that they publish the changes to copyright.

It's been a long fight and we're nearly there. We now need to make sure MPs and Peers back the laws so we can finally get on with making parodies and transferring our CDs onto MP3 players without breaking the law!

We'll do a fuller write-up of the changes in the next few days but here's a quick summary of the two new copyright exceptions that we campaigned for over the last week.

Parody
The parody exception is fairly simple. The draft law itself is only two pages long! It says that using a work "for the purposes of caricature, parody or pastiche does not infringe copyright in the work." It also makes clear that contracts can't be written to make using a work for parodic purposes an infringement of copyright.

Personal copies for private use
The personal copies exception is a bit more complicated. It will finally allow you to make back up copies of music, films or ebooks you have purchased or been gifted. That doesn't include computer programmes though. You can also convert your files to another file format or to play on a different device. And you can make personal copies of your files in the cloud.

There are limitations on the copying. For example, you cannot pass these copies or the original files on to another person. And you can't make any commercial gains from making the copies either.

The new legislation brings in restrictions on rightsholders or vendors imposing technical or contractual measures to stop you from making private copies. This is one area where we'll be looking for greater clarity on how to interpret the new law.

[Read more]


March 26, 2014 | Ed Paton-Williams

Why is parodying Sky's Captain America filtering adverts still illegal?

Captain America, Marvel Comics' World War II supersoldier, is the star of Sky Broadband's latest advert. And he's taking a break from fighting 1940s comic book bad guys to promote Sky's default Internet filters.

He's "Here to serve and protect your family" with "Heroic new internet protection that lets you filter which websites can be seen in your home."Sky's Captain America advert

Now, I'm not suggesting that Sky is actually using Captain America's cultural values of 1940's America to decide what's appropriate in the UK in 2014. (They've already told ORG they're using Symantec to draw up their filtering categories.)

But the idea that a character so perplexed by new technology in his recent films would be the best person to implement complex Internet filtering systems is pretty funny.

And you can see how editing the advert to replace Captain America with other people or changing the text could be funny too. The whole thing is ripe for parody.

But if you wanted to highlight some of the problems with default Internet filters by making a spoof of Sky's advert, you'd be breaking the law in the UK.

It's currently illegal to make a parody of a copyright work in the UK without the permission of the copyright holder. Last year the Government promised to reform copyright law to legalise parody by 6th April 2014. But it looks as if they're going to miss that deadline and it's not clear when they'll bring the changes in.

ORG's asking Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, to put the reforms in front of Parliament now. You can take action now by sending Vince Cable a quick email calling for the right to parody.

And if anyone wants to make some Sky superhero filtering parodies to point out problems with filtering and also how archaic the UK's copyright laws are, feel free!


The image here is a photograph of Sky's advert in the Metro of 26th March 2014. It is used here under the fair dealing copyright exception for the purposes of criticism or review under Section 30(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

[Read more]


March 21, 2014 | Pam Cowburn

Bingo and beer spoofs show that our copyright laws are a joke

After the Conservative Chairman, Grant Shapps, tweeted an advert praising cuts to beer and bingo duty, Twitter responded with a series of spoofs ads that derided this seemingly clumsy attempt to engage with the working classes. So far, so normal. Pastiches of music, film and brand are an accepted and important part of online culture.

But the beer and bingo spoofs may be breaking the law. Unlike Germany, France, the Netherlands, Australia and the USA, the UK does not have an exception from copyright law for parody. This means that thousands of us are engaging in illegal activity everyday. Upload a film of you singing Adele’s Someone Like You, create a Downfall spoof or make a meme based on a well-known advert, and you’re infringing copyright law.

No one is saying that artists should not be paid correctly but the fact that so many other countries have exemptions for parody suggests that there is little commercial damage to rights holders. In fact, a 2013 report Evaluating the Impact of Parody on the Exploitation of Copyright Works, commissioned by the Intellectual Property Office, noted that:

”There is no evidence for economic damage to rightsholders through substitution: The presence of parody content is correlated with, and predicts larger audiences for original music videos.”

So being sent up might actually make you more money in the end.

On a positive note, there is general agreement that the law needs to change. Two different reviews by two different governments have said as much and the coalition, in response to the 2010 Hargreaves Review pledged to introduce an exception for parody.

That was two and a half years ago. More recent promises to bring in changes before 1st April have also failed to materialise. More worryingly, if no action is taken in the next two weeks, it is likely that nothing will happen until after the next election. The next available parliamentary session in September will be dangerously close to the general election and no political party wants to upset a ‘rights holder’ aka celebrity who just might be willing to endorse you.

You can email Vince Cable to ask him what's happened to our right to parody here.

The need to protect satire is even more important in the run up to an election. Last December. Iain Duncan Smith was reportedly furious at a campaign created by Church Action on Poverty, which satirised the famous Saatchi and Saatchi Labour isn’t Working poster, produced for the Conservative party in 1979. The updated version, Britain’s isn't Eating, brought public attention to the issue of poverty and the rise in the number of food banks. The campaign showed how effective parody can be in creating debate - especially for a small charity with a limited marketing budget, which doesn’t have the same access to journalists as a government minister.

But other organisations have had their campaigns stifled by rigid copyright laws. In 2011, Greenpeace produced a video that satirised Volkswagen’s ‘Star Wars’ adverts. The campaign aimed to raise awareness about apparent lobbying by German car manufacturers who opposed European legislation that would limit CO2 emissions. Just as their campaign gained momentum, the film was removed from YouTube for copyright infringement.

Even the threat of removal can chill free speech and denies campaigning organisations a vital tool for starting conversations that might change public opinion.

This is why Open Rights Group and a coalition of campaigning organisations that include Article 19, ActionAid UK, the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Church Action on Poverty, English PEN, Index on Censorship, Global Poverty Project and Greenpeace, are calling on Lord Younger and Vince Cable to take action now. If they don’t, it could be years before the law is changed. Now that would be a joke.

[Read more]


March 20, 2014 | Emily Goodhand

Why UK copyright reform is needed

This is a guest blog post by Emily Goodhand. You can find her on Twitter as @copyrightgirl

As the Government last week admitted that changes to copyright law on 1st April are unlikely to go ahead as planned, it is worth pausing for a moment to understand the repercussions of this slippage for consumers. Why is it important for these copyright exceptions to become law?

1. Copyright law is out of balance with everyday consumer practice

There has been a trend in legislation over the last ten years or so to strengthen rights for creators of copyrighted works. Whilst it is important that creators of copyrighted works have ample recognition for their works and the ability to monetise those works, this trend has not been offset by amendments or additions to user privileges. As a result, copyright law is now out of balance with practices which have become commonplace in the digital world (such as making copies of lawfully purchased music to backup or play on another device). Making copyright law more appropriate for the digital age may help it recover some credibility and relevance in the eyes of consumers.

2. A balanced copyright framework enables economic growth across all sectors

The investigation into copyright reform was initiated by the Prime Minister David Cameron, who stated that Google could never have started their company in Britain owing to the ‘unfriendly’ copyright system. Although a system of fair use (similar to the US) is not on the cards, it is fair to say that the UK’s copyright framework does not adapt quickly enough to keep pace with technological advances. This was echoed by Professor Ian Hargreaves in his ‘Digital Opportunity’ report following the initial review of intellectual property. The government’s subsequent report, ‘Modernising Copyright’, estimated that bringing the law into the 21st century could contribute around £500 million to the UK economy over 10 years. Several reports (such as the one on the Singapore economy following changes to Singapore’s copyright law) have indicated that exceptions and limitations actually contribute to economic growth without damaging the creative and copyright industries. Exceptions and limitations should therefore not be overlooked or diminished when considering the economic benefits of copyright.

3. Our audio-visual cultural heritage is at risk

The permitted acts in copyright law at present do not extend to copying audio-visual works for preservation purposes. Archivists all over the country who are custodians of large collections of 20th century music, films and broadcasts are faced with the risk of losing older works as technology moves on and the ability to copy from one format to another disappears altogether. An update to the preservation exception would significantly help archivists and librarians in the cultural heritage sector and ensure that films, sound recordings and broadcasts are preserved for all to enjoy.

4. Research and scientific discovery is being held back

Research has rapidly become an activity which occurs across borders. The Internet allows researchers to collaborate quickly and effectively, and technology has enabled data processing on a vast scale. Current provision in copyright law for researchers restricts copying to non-audio-visual works only, which often puts researchers in the subject areas of film, TV and music at a disadvantage. There is also no provision for text and data mining, which could speed up knowledge discovery and save research costs. The proposed exceptions for research would be beneficial to researchers in all areas and accelerate scientific discovery.

5. Copyright law needs to take into account modern teaching practice

The blackboard and chalk of the classroom of thirty years ago has been replaced by interactive whiteboards, digital displays and multimedia software. Yet copyright law still reflects the literal ‘chalk and talk’ approach of yesteryear. Teachers are required to make lessons visually stimulating and accessible to all but often do not have the time to think about copyright clearance. Teachers should be able to include images and other content in their presentations without having to worry about copyright issues. The proposed exception for education takes into account the modern day teaching practices and will allow teachers to use any type of content in their lesson presentations.

6. Lack of accessible content for print-disabled people

Copyright law is currently too narrow to be of much use to those who are not covered by its definition of ‘visually impaired’. It does not cover, for example, people with a learning difficulty, such as dyslexia. Where accessible copies are available commercially, thereby negating the provisions in law, the cost is often too high for the user to afford. The proposed exception would level the playing field for people with any sort of disability which prevents them from accessing a copyright work and enable libraries to better provide loan copies for them.


It is fitting that last week heralded the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the Web. It is also 25 years since the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act received Royal Assent. Since 1989, the Internet and other types of new technology have changed the world dramatically. The copyright framework needs to reflect these changes and fit with the digital world so that information is preserved, respect for the law is regained and opportunities are not lost to competitor countries who have more flexible frameworks.

[Read more]


March 20, 2014 | Jim Killock

Will 'voluntary' copyright enforcement protect users' rights?

The Digital Economy Act is stalled. But ISPs and rightsholders are apparently closing in on a voluntary letter writing scheme to replace it.

It is approaching four years since the Digital Economy Act was passed, and still measures within it to deal with individuals alleged to have infringed copyright have not been implemented. It’s an Act that was so poorly conceived, planned and written that it has proven almost impossible to implement in practice. 

In response to these delays, copyright holder trade associations have been seeking a voluntary deal. That would mean ISPs and copyright holders working together to identify and write letters to alleged copyright infringers. The scheme would work like the Digital Economy Act was supposed to, just without being driven by the law.

Looking at what was said at a recent Westminster Hall debate (on 13th February), it looks like that voluntary deal is edging closer. It has an acronym and everything - ‘VCAP’ (the ‘voluntary copyright alert programme’. John Whittingdale MP asked about progress in a debate about the creative industries report written by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee (which he chairs.) He said:

“Despite the difficulties in enacting the DEA, the recent development of a voluntary agreement is in many ways preferable, if it can be made to work. In America, that is already working well. A voluntary copyright alert programme would involve an agreement between the rights owners and the ISPs that there would be a system through which letters were issued to those identified as illegally downloading. If that can be done voluntarily, that is preferable, and we should get on with that as quickly as possible. The Committee’s report is clear: we prefer a voluntary system, but if agreement cannot be reached, the Government need to stand by to bring into force the provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2010, and to use legislation.”

In response, the Minister Ed Vaizey said:

“Perhaps that is the appropriate moment for me to pick up the point that the Select Committee Chairman made about the VCAP proposals. It has been difficult to implement the details of the Digital Economy Act 2010. The Government have not resiled from it, but there are significant technical obstacles, including the fact that we were being sued by BT and TalkTalk for at least two years from the time when it was passed. Other technical obstacles have presented themselves, and we are actively seeking to overcome them, but nevertheless we welcome the industry initiative, not only because we hope it may be up and running before the end of the year, but because it requires a partnership between both sides of the debate, and because it brings important flexibility to make it possible to adapt. I suspect that it will be easier to adapt the system as technology changes.”

You can also watch the Minister’s response from about 2 hours into this video.

With discussions seemingly only between ISPs and rights holder trade associations, there is nobody representing the public interest or overseeing how the scheme will work to that end. The government are playing the now familiar role of watching as an ‘industry initiative’ develops - allowing them to look like they’re doing something whilst disowning themselves of any responsibility. The only online reference from DCMS I can find to the voluntary scheme is in last year's policy paper, in which they say "the Government continues to implement the Digital Economy Act 2010, whilst encouraging industry-led alternatives".

All the familiar issues with the Digital Economy Act apply to this new scheme. For instance, what personal information will be used, and who will have access to it? What standards of evidence will rights holders use, or will ISPs demand, when allegations of infringement are made? (Lots of work, particularly by Consumer Focus, went in to looking at this issue when the Digital Economy Act was being discussed.)

Will there be any sanctions against households whose accounts have been allegedly used for infringing? Will there be any appeals process for those who feel a mistake has been made? And will the scheme include public wifi? Who is addressing any of these questions?

We did mention problems like this in our oral and written evidence to the Committee. Given we appear prominently in paragraph four of their report, it’s clear they noticed us even if they singularly failed to listen to or understand anything we actually said.

You can read our comments on the CMS Committee in our previous post, in which we explain why the parts about copyright enforcement and reform are a pretty weak effort.

[Read more]


March 17, 2014 | Javier Ruiz

EU crucial vote on Net Neutrality

Net neutrality is a fundamental aspect of the Internet as we know it. Right now all bits are treated equally, so traffic from big companies like Microsoft and Facebook gets the same speed as your blogs or podcasts. Different types of traffic are sometimes optimised, for example games or video. But the idea is that nobody's traffic should be slowed down. Internet users and website owners shouldn't have to pay Internet Service Providers a premium to be given access to the Internet fast lane.

Tomorrow, 18 March 2014, the Industry (ITRE) committee of the European Parliament is voting on a proposal for a new Regulation for a Telecom Single Market that promises to enshrine net neutrality into law across the EU. The initiative is to be commended, but the current version of the text contains some very dangerous loopholes. The good news is that these could be easily fixed if MEPs struck down a couple of articles.

Specialised services

The proposed Regulation that would allow Internet providers to charge extra money for so called "specialised services", for example video-on-demand such as Netflix. Many people are worried this will lead to a two-tiered internet, where companies with deep pockets hog the fast lane, leaving the rest of us in the dust.

ISPs policing the internet

Unless the Regulation is amended, Internet Providers will be able to block content without any judicial oversight. Internet Service Providers should not be allowed to decide what content you can and cannot access.

Weakening the principle of net neutrality could make your Internet more expensive. Your bill could start looking like Sky or Virgin TV, with basic services and confusing added packages. But tinkering with net neutrality would also impact freedom of speech and plurality of the media, as independent voices struggle to reach into the mainstream.

The outcome of the vote remains uncertain and depends on the vote of a small number of MEPs who might still be swayed. For more information and If you want to take action, check out the campaign site www.savetheinternet.eu

[Read more]


March 12, 2014 | Alan Cox

Openness and Privacy in Big Data

This is a guest blog from ORG Advisory Council member Alan Cox.

Balancing openness and privacy is often a false division and one that it seems a lot of those involved with a big data agenda either don't understand or choose not to.

Big data people are obsessed with putting everything they can into their system and crunching it to the point they have no idea how the answer arose. The fact they haven't got a clue why their system reaches an answer is a problem in itself but it also means they haven't got a clue whether the stuff they threw into it was important. In a lot of cases openness and privacy and doing exciting things with data is not a balancing act but a question of proper implementation, ownership and control. The latest NHS insurance data fiasco could have been handled far better if the insurance businesses had paid the NHS to do the crunching. There was no need for the NHS to hand insurance companies vast quantities of sensitive personal data that could trivially be de-anonymized.

Had the NHS kept the data it could instead have provided the insurers with the results they needed, and also kept the ability to use that knowledge to improve the NHS as well. Instead it sold on the data for peanuts to allow a commercial business to put up its insurance premiums. All the benefits promised by data sharing are there for the NHS to achieve by doing the crunching for third parties and keeping the results open.

Our universities for years operated on the model that the state paid researchers to write papers for free that went into commercial journals who then charged us to read them. Open journals are now fixing this. How sad and ironic would it be for the NHS to give our personal data to researchers for peanuts so that they can use it to make the NHS pay vast amounts for overpriced patented drugs based upon that data.

Such parasitic bottom feeding from open content is not new. In the rest of the world beyond government we solve it with 'share alike' licensing. At the very least any use of NHS and other government open data should be a share-a-like fashion. Allowing people to freeload off public data enables amazing things to be done, but we don't have to allow the mega-corporations to sell us back our own data.

Likewise we've had not-so-open data messes including abuse of the DVLA database. This could have been mostly prevented by having a processing system where the DVLA forwards claims from approved parties, or meeting an approved form rather than giving out drivers personal data to random people.

Who manages the bits and who is trusted to manage the bits is key. This is why it is so important that people are able to keep control of the use of their personal data. This is becoming increasingly evident as not only are current "pseudonymisation" techniques completely inadequate but the mathematicians tell us that the problem is for the most part not soluble.

Big data and open data is also part of open governance. Open data isn't however enough to achieve the proper holding of the state to account.

Instead I would argue the parallel is actually in openness in science. In the ideal world a conclusion made from data in government should be - based on open data - based on a published policy which is open and transparent - sufficient that a third party can run the data set and policy and duplicate the result - sufficient that a third party should be able to demonstrate flaws in the policy and run the data set to produce their result - sufficient that a third party should be able to run different data sets (eg what if sets, or differing sources) and generate a comparison result

For personal data this is going to raise some interesting challenges - how do you authenticate conclusions drawn upon personal data, who do you trust to validate the raw data-sets you can't share ? Open data and policy is not the same as decision making and we need to be careful because it's clear that many of our politicians do not understand science, and also do not understand the distinction between scientific results and their job. The obvious example is drug policy. Instead of saying "we acknowledge the science, but the public want otherwise" politicians repeatedly attack the data. The current government spends enormous effort attacking anyone who dares disagree with them, or any data which shows they are not doing the optimal thing, without it seems understanding that their job isn't public school bully but to provide actual policy based upon informed understanding of both the evidence and of the desires of those whom they represent.

[Read more]


March 12, 2014 | Javier Ruiz

Open Rights Group at RightsCon

ORG participated in RightsCon, an international conference organised by Access that saw 700 participants convening in San Francisco to talk about censorship, surveillance and digital rights in general. Many workshops focused on the activities of less democratic countries, such as the use of targeted malware against activists by the Vietnamese government. But quite a few of the panels also discussed the pervasive surveillance by Western nations revealed by Edward Snowden.

I presented our successful crowdfunding efforts with PrivacynotPrism.org.uk in a panel with Indiegogo among others. I also held several meetings and workshops with groups campaigning against mass surveillance in the US, Latin America and Asia.

The day after RightsCon, I participated in a satellite event, the Responsible Data Forum. The Forum is an effort to develop useful tools and strategies for dealing with the ethical, security and privacy challenges facing data-driven advocacy. ORG's contribution centred on the challenges around open data and privacy.

[Read more]


google plusdeliciousdiggfacebookgooglelinkedinstumbleupontwitteremail