The flow of public sector content and the maximisation of the potential of its value is being disrupted by both the resources necessary to manage copyright and, in particular, Orphan Works. Despite the recognised extent, impact and problem of Orphan Works, particularly for digitisation activities across the globe, there has been a lack of credible evidence to evaluate the scale of the problem across the public sector in the UK. The absence of such an evidence base means that it is nearly impossible to address this problem legislatively and/or through the implementation of suitable licensing schemes. It also means that the problem cannot be managed nor solutions sought to prevent the occurrence of these works in the future.

Source: Open Access News

Reclaim The Commons is a manifesto launched at the World Social Forum (Belem, Brazil, January 27-February 1, 2009). …

“Humankind is suffering from an unprecedented campaign of privatization and commodification of the most basic elements of life: nature, culture, human work and knowledge itself. In countless arenas, businesses are claiming our shared inheritance - sciences, creative works, water, the atmosphere, health, education, genetic diversity, even living creatures - as private property. A compulsive quest for short-term financial gain is sacrificing the prosperity of all and the stability of the Earth itself. …”

Source: Open Access News

A multinational journal giant is understood to be courting vice- chancellors in an effort to win their support for an alternative to open-access institutional research repositories.

Elsevier is thought to be mooting a new idea that could undermine universities’ own open-access repositories.

Source: Times Higher Education
via: Open Access News

Justice and home affairs committee, European parliament. Press release

No legislative documents should be kept secret: this must be a basic principle of the reformed policy on access to documents, the European Parliament says in a vote on a new EU rules on the issue. Members adopted amendments to the draft proposal but postponed the vote on the legislative resolution, leaving the door open for further negotiations and a first-reading agreement.
The European Parliament adopted amendments on the basis of a codecision report drafted by Michael CASHMAN (PES, UK) in order to revise the 2001 regulation on access to documents, which has been followed by a number of rulings by the Court of Justice. The revised regulation will incorporate these rulings into a single framework for all the institutions, but MEPs want to go further.

Legislative vote postponed

MEPs adopted the amended proposal by 439 votes in favour, 200 against and 57 abstentions, but postponed the vote on the legislative resolution in order to leave the possibility for the European commission to modify its proposal, and for the European Parliament to negotiate a first reading agreement with Council after the summer, as a new parliamentary term will start in June. Council will then be chaired by the Swedish presidency, which made a priority of the issue of transparency and already welcomed the Cashman report in a public declaration.

In its report, the House includes amendments clarifying the term “document”, defining it as any data or content, whatever its medium, concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution’s sphere of responsibility. MEPs also make a distinction between legislative and non-legislative documents: the former should always be available to the public and may not be kept secret on the grounds that this could undermine the decision-making process of the institutions. Measures of general scope adopted by the Council and the Commission without associating the European Parliament shall also be considered “legislative” by way of exception.

Transparency in Member States too

Documents originating from a Member State and received by the EU institutions should also be disclosed, after consultation of the Member state - but this does not give them a right of veto, MEPs say. Member States shall seek to ensure that an equivalent level of transparency is granted in relation to national measures implementing acts of the EU.

The text also protects political activity and independence of MEPs, reminding that documents and electronic records which an MEP has received, drafted or sent are not to be considered as “documents” in the sense of this regulation, as they are covered by the Statute for Members of the European Parliament.

A single EU portal on the web

Parliament added an article on legislative transparency, stating that these documents must be available on an inter-institutional website. Preparatory documents, impact studies, legal opinions and other documents must also be published.

“EU classified”: a new category of documents

MEPs have also devised a scale for classifying documents, from “EU restricted” to “EU top secret”, for documents whose unauthorised disclosure could harm the interests of the European Union or its Member States. Reasons must be given why access to a document is refused. And documents on legislative procedures must not be classified, say MEPs.
Exceptions shall only apply for the period during which protection is justified and may only apply for 30 years, unless the exception relates to the privacy or integrity of the individual.

Financial transparency

Information relating to the EU budget, its implementation and beneficiaries of EU funds and grants should also be public and accessible to citizens via a specific website.

Documents on International agreements to be made public

International accords on the sharing of confidential information concluded in the name of the EU (such as the agreement with the USA on passenger name records or “PNR”), must not give a non-EU country or an international organisation the right to prevent the European Parliament from accessing confidential information.

Members also call the Commission to make available all documents related to the ongoing international negotiations on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - which will contain a new international benchmark on intellectual property right enforcement.

A register of lobbyists

MEPs call for an inter-institutional register of lobbyists to be set up, and the names, titles and functions of the lobbyists should be made public, as should those of EU officials, unless this information would affect the privacy or integrity of the individual.

A special oversight committee made up of MEPs should be set up and should have access to classified documents. Each directorate-general of every institution should designate a person responsible for ensuring that the regulation is properly implemented.

Lastly, requests for paper copies of documents must be processed within 15 days, as compared to the 30 days suggested in the initial proposal.

Source: Justice and home affairs committee, European parliament. Press release

Open Source has been one of the most significant cultural developments in IT and beyond over the last two decades: it has shown that individuals, working together over the Internet, can create products that rival and sometimes beat those of giant corporations; it has shown how giant corporations themselves, and Governments, can become more innovative, more agile and more cost-effective by building on the fruits of community work; and from its IT base the Open Source movement has given leadership to new thinking about intellectual property rights and the availability of information for re–use by others.

This Government has long had the policy, last formally articulated in 2004, that it should seek to use Open Source where it gave the best value for money to the taxpayer in delivering public services. While we have always respected the long-held beliefs of those who think that governments should favour Open Source on principle, we have always taken the view that the main test should be what is best value for the taxpayer.

Over the past five years many government departments have shown that Open Source can be best for the taxpayer – in our web services, in the NHS and in other vital public services.

But we need to increase the pace:

1. We want to ensure that we continue to use the best possible solutions for public services at the best value for money; and that we pay a fair price for what we have to buy.
2. We want to share and re-use what the taxpayer has already purchased across the public sector – not just to avoid paying twice, but to reduce risks and to drive common, joined up solutions to the common needs of government.
3. We want to encourage innovation and innovators - inside Government by encouraging open source thinking, and outside Government by helping to develop a vibrant market.
4. We want to give leadership to the IT industry and to the wider economy to benefit from the information we generate and the software we develop in Government

So we consider that the time is now right to build on our record of fairness and achievement and to take further positive action to ensure that Open Source products are fully and fairly considered throughout government IT; to ensure that we specify our requirements and publish our data in terms of Open Standards; and that we seek the same degree of flexibility in our commercial relationships with proprietary software suppliers as are inherent in the open source world.

This open source strategy addresses these key points. It sets out the steps we need to take across Government, and with our IT suppliers, to take advantage of the benefits of open source.

Tom Watson MP
Minister for Digital Engagement

Source: Cabinet Office

the government has now decided to abandon the vote after opposition parties said they would not support it

Source: BBC

…Members may well wish to ask the Government why the Order is necessary, what is its policy objective and what is the explanation for the exceptional hurry which has limited the normal scrutiny process. (The Order was laid on 14 January and is scheduled to be debated on 22 January.) …

The supporting material is deficient: no justification is given…

…5. The Committee also records its dissatisfaction with the accelerated timetable imposed[2], which has prevented us from seeking any evidence on the Order, and limits our ability to make a considered report to the House. We would have wished to seek views from interested parties such as the Committee on Standards in Public Life, whose Chairman was reported in the press as saying “MPs above all should be subject to the Freedom of Information law since they are the ones who made it. I do not think that anyone has really made the case for this change.” Similarly Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, is reported as commenting on the disparity this instrument would introduce, saying “Chief Constables, local authority chief executives and others have to release individual expenses claims” and arguing that MPs should be treated the same as other public figures. Members may well therefore also wish to seek an explanation for the haste which has limited the normal scrutiny process. …

Source: House of Lords - Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee

Politicians often do and say silly things when they come into contact with celebrities.

So it was last Thursday when a star-struck Andy Burnham, Britain’s secretary of state for Culture, Media and Sport, showed up for a speech and photo-opportunity with the former lead singer of the Undertones, a punk-pop combo of the 1970s. In addition to the usual pleasantries about Britain’s creative industries, Mr Burnham set out a novel argument about the law of copyright protecting musicians’ work.

There was, he said, “a moral case” for performers – who often do their best recorded work in their 20s and 30s – to benefit from it throughout their lifetime. The government would therefore consider extending copyright for recordings to 70 years from the present 50.

As political speeches go, this is pretty silly. A moral case? You might just as well say sportspeople have a moral case to a pension at 30.

Source: Finacial Times

The International Music Score Library Project - a “a virtual library containing all public domain musical scores, as well as scores from composers who are willing to share their music with the world without charge” - has re-opened after a 10-month hiatus:

It is with great joy that I bring you news of the resurrection of IMSLP. We continue to believe that the access to our culture and the Arts is a fundamental right of every human being. And holding this belief, we continue in our journey towards the goals of providing public access to the musical public domain, and the facilitation of the study of music, the understanding of music, and the enjoyment of music.

via Slashdot.

From the Times

Britain’s artistic community is battling against leading auction houses and dealers to bring in a law forcing the payment of a royalty on artists’ works for 70 years after their deaths — in line with writers and musicians.