At a fringe event at the Labour Party conference on Monday, the British Library launched their manifesto for reform of UK intellectual property (IP) law. Speakers included representatives from Microsoft UK, Google, the National Consumer Council, the British Phonographic Industry and - on behalf of the Open Rights Group - Ian Brown. Pre-empting the publication of the Treasury's Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, the succinct manifesto makes six key recommendations for reform, placing them in a broad social, cultural and political context.

“Our IP Manifesto sets out the unique role that the UK national library must play as both a leading voice and an honest broker in the debate that the digital revolution has generated,” said Lynne Brindley, Chief Executive of the British Library. “As a publisher in its own right, the Library understands the opportunities and threats presented by digital to the publishing industries. As one of the world's great research libraries we are equally mindful of the threat that an overly restrictive, or insufficiently clear, IP framework would pose to future creativity and innovation. For example: currently the law does not permit copying of sound or film items for preservation,” she explained. “Without the right for libraries and archives to make copies, the UK risks losing a large part of its recorded culture.”

The manifesto's key recommendations:

1. Digital is not different– Fair dealing access and library privilege should apply to the digital world as is the case in the analogue one.
2. Contracts and DRM – New, potentially restricting technologies (such as DRM/TPM) and contracts issued with digital works should not exceed the statutory exceptions for fair dealing access allowed for in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.
3. Archiving – Libraries should be allowed to make copies of sound (and film) recordings to ensure they can be preserved for posterity in the future.
4. Term of copyright – The copyright term for sound recording rights should not be extended without empirical evidence and the needs of society as a whole being borne in mind.
5. Orphan works – The US model of dealing with orphan works should be considered for the UK.
6. Unpublished works – The length of copyright term for unpublished works should be retrospectively brought in line with other terms – life plus 70 years.

Intellectual Property: A Balance - The British Library Manifesto

This is very encouraging news indeed. Historically, IP debates have been dominated by corporate interests, with alternative voices simply not heard by legislators. Now the British Library joins the RSA and the British Council in calling for the return of balance to our IP framework. Balance in this context is shorthand for better representation of public - as opposed to private - interests entailing, for example, protection and expansion of the public domain and a more robust 'fair dealing' mechanism. The Open Rights Group wholeheartedly supports this suggested direction for reform of IP law.

Finally! Somebody gets it that DRM is altering the copyright law bargain, by not allowing fair dealing/fair use. And it's the British Library that is speaking out and saying that the same rules of the road should apply in the digital world as they have always done.

The British Library Gets It! - Groklaw

[Read more] (2 comments)

This Saturday 30th September there is an anti-DRM event in Central London, outside the Apple Store at 235 Regents Street, starting at 1400 until 1700.

As with the previous DefectiveByDesign events this will be a HAZMAT suit parade which should be colourful, fun and effectively convey the message about restrictive technology and it's problems across to the general public.

I hope to see some of you there!

[Read more]

More than a year has passed since the European Parliament’s historic rejection of the Commission’s and Council’s software patent bill. Now this zombie legislation is shambling through parliament again: on October 11 or 12, the EP is set to vote in Brussels on two competing motions for a resolution on future European patent policy. Next week, internal market commissioner McCreevy will speak in the EP in Strasbourg and outline his patent policy plans, which have already come under fire.

The European Patent Litigation Agreement would impose an integrated judicial system and appeals process across Europe. It would do this by taking the power to rule on patents from national courts and putting it into the hands of a court made up of European Patent Office (EPO) members. This is really just a cunning way of making software patents enforceable across Europe. The law as it stands now states that software patents are illegal in Europe, but the EPO tends to ignore that and grant patents for software anyway. This has not been much of a problem as they are unenforceable — whenever someone tried to enforce these patents they had to do so in an particular national court. These courts would then say 'you cannot patent software' and rule against them.

Commissioner McCreevy proclaimed blissful ignorance about the consequences of the European Patent Litigation Agreement. In a series of six non-answers to Members of the European Parliament, the Commission failed to comment on cost, judicial independence, jurisprudence and treaty-related concerns. Meanwhile McCreevy keeps praising the virtues of said draft agreement.

A joint proposal of three groups — PES, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL — calls for “balance between the interests of patent holders and the broader public interest in innovation and competitive markets”. The motion criticizes McCreevy’s preferred measure, the European Patent Litigation Agreement, for weakening EU democracy, compromising judicial independence, increasing litigation costs and “exposing SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] to greater risks”. The proposal also warns against the effect the European Patent Litigation Agreement would have on the scope of patentable subject-matter, and a decision of the European Patent Office to uphold a Microsoft software patent (on clipboard data formats) is mentioned as an example.

[Read more] (8 comments)

There are two distinct concerns connected to the proposed WIPO Broadcast Treaty, one is structural / organisational - in terms of a lack of democratic accountability - and the other relates to an unprecedented expansion of protectionist legislation.

Two years on from the proposed 'Development Agenda at WIPO', member states, NGOs and technology firms remain unhappy at this global legislative body's evident lack of democratic accountability. WIPO officials this week paid little attention to objections from India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa or even the United States: “Despite WIPO’s claim that it is ‘member-driven’ and ‘consensus based’ in its decision making, SCCR [Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights] Chairman Liedes unilaterally decided it would be the recommendation of the Committee to the WIPO General Assembly to convene a diplomatic conference in July 2007 to finalize the treaty,” said Robin Gross, Director of IP Justice.

As for the specific content of this new legal code, Boing Boing reports it will "give webcasters the right to steal from public domain, Creative Commons and GPL." We are yet to consider the proposals in detail so have no firm policy, however the creation of broad, new IP rights without empirical certainty of their economic, social and cultural benefit is quite clearly mistaken.

We are very keen to hear your opinions on these concerns.

The UK Podcasters Association have a petition to WIPO against the proposed legislation.

Further information / links on our Broadcast Treaty wiki page

[Read more] (3 comments)

Digital Rights Ireland has started a High Court action against the Irish Government challenging new European and Irish laws requiring the retention of telecoms and internet traffic data retention.

ORG campaigned strongly against the Data Retention Directive, particularly when the music industry said they wanted a piece of the action, but once the Directive was passed, there's been little to do here in the UK but sit and wait for government implementation. Although Germany's Bundestag have voiced serious doubts that the Directive could be implemented "in a constitutional manner", it has already been established that their constitution is subordinate to European Law. It's therefore unlikely we'll see a challenge from that direction.

This means that DRI's action is profoundly important for everyone who values their privacy, because if they win, it will mean an end to data retention in the UK and Europe.

You can read more on the DRI blog, and press release.

[Read more]

If anyone wondered why we - as individuals or together - fight the copyfight and why we support Creative Commons, and whether it really makes any difference: this is the reason why and the difference it makes. It really is great to hear that making things available under a CC licence can genuinely improve the quality of someone's life.

[Read more] (1 comments)

As revealed in detail by Bruce Schneier, Microsoft this week rushed a patch out the door, well ahead of their usual once-a-month Patch Tuesday.

Included in this 'security patch' is code designed to break a utility called FaireUse4WM a program designed to remove the DRM from Windows Media Files.

More disturbing of course is that it's being called a security patch in the first place. While technically it is making *someone* more secure, but that someone is not you. Of course, you still need to spare the bandwidth, system downtime for restart, and far more importantly, the inherent risk of system-damaging errors that come from installing a patch to give those other people their security.

Given that system-threatening security holes are regularly made to wait for a fix until said Patch Tuesday by Microsoft, but this minuscule threat to their DRM is addressed almost immediately, it's not hard to see what priorities are at work here. Breaking DRM will bring immediate action, but turning your computer into a spam-spewing component of a bot net? Well, those kind of holes in your system will just have to wait.

(My sentiments exactly, but not my words, they came courtesy of Ryan Alexander)

[Read more] (5 comments)

As part of the Gikii workshop leading up to the VI Computer Law World Conference, the Open Rights Group will be sponsoring an open reception for everyone to get to know ORG. This is a HAPPY HOUR with free wine and snacks!

We are especially looking for interested lawyers and academics for the new ORG advisory body, ORG-Law. But don't be afraid if you simply just want to come by and check us out. Come out, meet other people interested in bringing fairness and balance back into the debate over intellectual property law and internet law!

When: 5 September from 18:00 to 19:00 Where: Lorimer Room, Old College, Edinburgh

While you're in Edinburgh, don't forget, the Computer Law World Conference is open to the public! Programme includes Creative Commons general counsel Mia Garlick, famed cyberlaw professor Michael Geist, and tons of great lectures on cybercrime, privacy, and file sharing!

Register here for the conference.

[Read more]