The Open Rights Group often receive calls from UK citizens who have found themselves on the wrong end of online copyright disputes. Because we’re not a legal advice service, very often we cannot offer them any help. We’re working on a way to change this situation - watch this space for an announcement in the Autumn. In the meantime we tend to pass these queries onto our informal law-discuss list for further analysis.

This week, Andres Guadamuz, who sits on the list, has published details of a very interesting dispute between the BBC and a knitting enthusiast and Doctor Who fan who goes by the screen name of Mazzmatazz. Mazz has been posting knitting patterns to help other people re-create characters from the cult series using only two sticks and ball of wool. Impressive? The BBC, producers of the series, didn’t think so. They sent Mazz a letter, which states:

“We note that you are supplying DR WHO items, and using trade marks and copyright owned by BBC. You have not been given permission to use the DR WHO brand and we ask that you remove from your site any designs connected with DR WHO. Please reply acknowledging receipt of this email, and confirm that you will remove the DR WHO items as requested.”

Fearing legal action, Mazz has now removed the knitting patterns from the Web.

As part of our response to OfCom’s public service broadcasting review, we’ll be making arguments similar to those we made last Summer during the iPlayer/DRM debate. That is, that in the future, organisations like the BBC with a public service remit should have a role in stimulating the creative economy in the UK, by allowing budding creators to remix its content. Even if this is only allowed to happen in a non-commercial context, the BBC could seed a new generation of creators and remixers, just as it nurtured a generation of computer games developers in the 1980s with its computer literacy project, centred around the iconic BBC micro.

This approach doesn’t mean giving all the BBC’s content away for free, although in some situations that might be appropriate. But it does mean being more flexible in the approach the BBC takes to controlling who gets to use its content and how. The approach the BBC have taken with Mazz’s knitting patterns demonstrate a distinct lack of flexibility. It is quite possible that through transforming the characters in Doctor Who into knitting patterns, Mazz may have infringed upon the BBC’s copyright. But it’s hard to see how Mazz’s non-commercial knitting patterns actually damage the commercial interests of the BBC.

The situation also touches on the growing need for UK copyright law to allow transformative use of works. In 2006, the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property asked the UK Intellectual Property Office to propose amendments to the European Copyright Directive that allowed for creative, transformative or derivative works. In ORG’s recent submission to the UK IPO, we urged the UK IPO to take this recommendation forward. For a compelling legal analysis of the issues that Mazz’s sitaution touches upon, including the tricky area of transformative use of works, visit Andres’s blog, Technollama.

Thanks to a generous grant from the Open Society Institute, we’re seeking to expand our campaigning team. We’re looking for an experienced and committed digital rights campaigner to amplify our work on issues around copyright reform and copyright infringement, taking the concerns of ORG and its supporters to Europe and beyond.

The right candidate will be a self-starter, someone who can set their own goals, delegate and prioritise and who has the ability to initiate and successfully execute projects. It’s an exciting opportunity to be part of a small, committed team working to protect civil liberties and consumer rights in the digital age.

If you’re interested in applying, please read this job description for further details about the position. CVs and covering letters should be sent in .pdf format to michael [AT] openrightsgroup.org by midnight on Sunday 11 May. Interviews will take place in central London in the period 14-16 May.

This morning, the European Parliament has voted to condemn member state plans to disconnect suspected illicit filesharers from the internet. In a fairly narrow vote, MEPs adopted an amendment to the so-called Bono Report on the Cultural Industries, which

“Calls on the Commission and the Member States to recognise that the Internet is a vast platform for cultural expression, access to knowledge, and democratic participation in European creativity, bringing generations together through the information society; calls on the Commission and the Member States, therefore, to avoid adopting measures conflicting with civil liberties and human rights and with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness, such as the interruption of Internet access.”

The report is not legally binding, but it does signifiy resistance among MEPs to measures currently being implemented in France to disconnect suspected illicit filesharers. This is especially relevant as France will take over the European presidency in July, and many fear that President Sarkozy would use the opportunity to push the so-called “Oliviennes” strategy Europe-wide.

The UK government will consult UK citizens on their plans to tackle illicit filesharing this Spring. We’ve already blogged about ORG’s objections to UK proposals here. In short, and as the European Parliament have recognised today, they are disproportionate, they lack consumer safeguards and they won’t stop illicit filesharing.

Update: here’s a recording of Becky’s introductory remarks to the Westminster eForum on the future of copyright:

We don’t always trumpet the work we do, such as talking to civil servants, journalists, students or other groups interested in digital rights, so its nice when others compliment our efforts. On Monday of this week, we were at the Westminster eForum’s seminar on Intellectual Property and the Future of Copyright. Ray Corrigan (Open University), who opened the event with a great talk on UK copyright, has posted these remarks :

The other highlights of the seminar were contributions from Becky Hogge of the Open Rights Group and film-maker, Jamie King, director of Steal This Film II. On the industry side Shira Perlmutter of the IFPI was quietly effective though I disagreed with some of what she had to say; Richard Mollet of the BPI started out well as you would expect of a confident, experienced PR professional but then, from my perspective, slightly misjudged the mood and came across as irritated that others, such as Andrew Gowers, had a different world view which was taken seriously. What was interesting was when he admonished us to get our language right - we should apparently be labeling the ‘3 strikes’ laws/memorandums/agreements as a “graduated response” approach. Kettles, pots and a certain colour come to mind and anyway I think I prefer Louise Ferguson’s “Internet ASBOS” as a more appropriate tag.

The full text and slides from Ray’s talk, which covered the history of copyright legislation and the current reform landscape, are available from his blog. We’ve asked the WeF to supply an audio recording of Becky’s contribution and will link if it becomes available.

Last weekend, international divisions over how to deal with those who illicitly share copyrighted material online began to appear. It was announced on Saturday that Japanese internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to cut off the internet connection of anyone who illegally downloads files, in plans that mirror France’s Olivennes Bill. Meanwhile Sweden’s Minister of Justice and Minister of Culture have rejected similar plans to disconnect filesharers, stating in an article for the Svenska Dagbladet daily that such an approach is not practical in modern society where Internet access is a prerequisite for so much else. Instead, Sweden will favour a process where rightsholders must prosecute suspected filesharers in court.

The UK government will consult UK citizens on their plans to tackle illicit filesharing this Spring. If you need to brush up on the arguments ahead of time, there are still a few places left at Musicians, fans and online copyright. This event, which takes place on Wednesday, will gather representatives from the recording industry, ISPs and consumer welfare groups together with academic and legal experts to discuss whether ISPs should monitor customers to try and spot copyright infringement, and disconnect downloaders. It promises to be a lively and informed afternoon, so do come along if you can. The event is being held from 1400 at the London School of Economics. It is free to attend, but you must register here.

Thanks to everyone who wrote to their MPs over the last few weeks to ask them to object to Pete Wishart’s Private Members Bill to extend copyright term.

I’m pleased to report that an honourable member did indeed object to the Bill when it came round. He is as yet unidentified (although Hansard will hopefully reveal all over the weekend). You can spot him on the far left of the screen, sitting in the front row of the Labour benches at exactly 04:56:57 in this video of the day’s proceedings in the Commons. Look closely - is that your elected representative standing up for your rights?

Because there was no time debate the Bill, the second reading will happen again next Friday. So there’s still time to write to your MP and ask him or her to represent you on this issue. And if you haven’t already, please do sign our petition against copyright term extension in Europe.

I’m pleased to announce today the launch of a Europe-wide campaign against the extension of copyright term. Thanks to ORG volunteers, and some very nice people I met at FOSDEM, the new campaign site - soundcopyright.eu - is available in English, French and German.

Please visit the site, and sign the petition.

The recording industry has been lobbying for copyright term extension in sound recordings for many years. In the UK, the Government commissioned an independent study to examine whether term extension was a good idea for the UK creative economy. The review found that all the evidence pointed against extending term, and based on this, the UK government rejected the recording industry’s call for an extension.

Now the recording industry has taken its fight to Europe, and it looks like they’re winning - Commissioner Charlie McCreevy announced in February that he intends to extend the copyright term in sound recordings from 50 to 95 years. This is surprising, since the Commissioner’s own Internal Market Directorate have also published evidence that shows that the arguments in favour of extending term lacked substance, especially compared to the reasons for maintaining the status quo.

If you care about this issue, please sign our petition, which states simply:

The following individuals state their opposition to a copyright term extension for sound recordings.

We ask the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers to ensure that policy in this area reflects all concerned stakeholders, including consumer and public interest organisations, and not just the commercial rights-holders who advocate for extended copyright term.

It’s time for European citizens to get their voices heard in this debate. Back in 2006, over 1,000 people signed ORG’s petition asking the UK government to reject term extension - and it worked. We want ten times that many to sign this new Europe-wide petition. So please, tell as many people as you can about our campaign to stop copyright term extension in Europe. We’ll use your support to lobby individual Commissioners, and to ensure that this misguided policy is rejected.

Together, we will stop copyright term extension.

European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy may have surprised us with his rogue call for copyright term extension from Brussels last week, but there are battles to be fought closer to home, too.

On 7 March, a Private Member’s Bill proposed by Pete Wishart MP will have its second reading in the House of Commons. It is vital that you write to your MP now to ask him or her to attend the Commons on 7 March and stand up and object to this Bill. If you don’t the Bill is likely to pass through to committee stage without debate.

What can you say to persuade your MP to show up to the Commons on a Friday? Perhaps you might point out that all the economic evidence points against term extension. Or that every other UK citizen is expected to contribute to their pension out of income earned in their working life. Or that retrospectively extending copyright term won’t encourage Elvis Presley to record any more new tracks. Or that if governments continue to draft intellectual property legislation on behalf of special interest groups, it will only further erode the respect that ordinary citizens have for the letter of the law.

However you choose to pitch it, you should find the ORG briefing pack on copyright term extension useful. And remember to specifically ask your MP to oppose this Bill on 7 March in the House of Commons. Writing to your MP doesn’t take long, and we’ve developed a handy guide to help you get the results you want.

And as for the European front, expect news very soon of how you can get your voice heard as an EU citizen. Together, we can stop copyright term extension, but only if we take action!

When the government mailed half the nation’s bank details to the darknet at the end of last year, it looked like 2008 was going to be the year privacy issues hit the headlines. But, when it comes to digital rights stories, privacy has been seeing stiff competition from that old foe of the digital society: regressive intellectual property policy.

At the beginning of this week, The Times leaked a DCMS document that promised tough action on illicit filesharers via a disproportionate and ineffective “3 strikes and you’re out” model of disconnection.

Then yesterday, over in Brussels, Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy resurrected the zombie of copyright term extension in sound recordings. McCreevy said he “had not seen a convincing reason” why term should not be extended from 50 to 95 years. Must we therefore conclude that he has not read the research commissioned by his own Directorate that shows that term extension makes no sense?

The UK has already come out against copyright term extension. To find out why copyright term extension is a non-starter for the UK’s creative economy, download the Open Rights Group briefing pack.

If you’re feeling the need to brush up on all of this, then you’re in luck. The Oxford Internet Institute, encouraged by ORG Advisory Council member Dr Ian Brown, and in partnership with the London School of Economics, have just announced an afternoon of talks entitled “Musicians, fans and online copyright”. Here’s the blurb:

Is home downloading killing music? Should Internet Service Providers monitor customers to try and spot copyright infringement, and disconnect downloaders? Do musicians need new laws to benefit from the opportunities of the internet? Join us to debate these questions and more with leading copyright thinkers from the music world, government, consumer groups and universities.

It’s happening on Wednesday, 19 March, from 1400-1730 at LSE’s Old Theatre on Houghton Street. I’ll be speaking, along with confirmed speakers John Kennedy (IFPI), Paul Sanders (Playlouder), Lilian Edwards (Southampton University), Rufus Pollock (Cambridge University) and Michelle Childs (Knowledge Ecology International). Entry is free, but you’ll need to register here if you want to attend.

It’s that special time of year again, when we let the ones we love know how we feel about them. Here at ORG towers, we’d like to dedicate this Valentine’s Day to the recording industry. They may not always get it right, but good relationships are about listening, and about giving credit where it’s due. So we’d like to use today to thank the recording industry for listening to their customers over the past year and dropping restrictive DRMs.

Back in the analogue age, a starry-eyed lover would sit up all night making a compilation tape for his one true heart. The ORG email lists have been busy resurrecting this tradition over the past week (thanks, guys!), and the result is this - the ORG Valentine’s Day love mix. Each one has been suggested by an ORG supporter - and each one has a link to where to download the track DRM-free. Easy listening indeed.

Open Rights Group Valentine’s Day love mix

• Gary Numan and the Tubeway Army, Me! I disconnect from you
  Available from amazon.com at $0.99
• Clor, Dangerzone
  Available from iTunes Plus* at £0.79
• Chris Rainier & De Wet Van Der Spuy, You’re A Distant Voice On The Radio
  Available from bleep.com at £0.99
• Datblygu, Y Teimlad (”The Feeling”)
  Available from amazon.com at $0.99
• Cinematic Orchestra, All That You Give
  Available from play.com for £0.70
• James, Laid
  Available from amazon.com at $0.89
• Jeffrey Lewis, Don’t Let the Record Label Take You Out To Lunch
  Available from Playlouder and eMusic as part of a monthly subscription deal
• Kraftwerk, Computer Love
  Available from amazon.com for $0.99
• Joy Division, Love will tear us apart
  Available from amazon.com at $0.99
• Dionne Warwick, You’re Gonna Need Me
  Available from iTunes Plus* for £0.79
• Reel Big Fish, Sell Out
  Available from amazon.com at $0.99
• Ulrich Schnauss, Clear Day
  Available from bleep.com at £0.99
• Queen, Who wants to live forever?
  Available from amazon.com at $0.99

*Note that to get the tracks we’ve suggested from iTunes Plus DRM-free, you’ll need to have an updated version of iTunes

Finally, a note of warning to UK residents - do not try making this compilation at home. Why? Because despite the fact these tracks are DRM-free, creating the compilation on a USB stick or CD would be in breach of the civil provisions of UK copyright law. If you’re interested in seeing this law changed, you’re in luck - the UK Intellectual Property Office are consulting on changing the law on “format shifting” right now. Help us respond here. And Happy Valentines Day.