call +44 20 7096 1079

Blog


October 01, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

Should the term of copyright protection be extended or shortened in the UK?

RSA, IPPR, PCMLP Lecture Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Creative Commons John McVay, CEO of PACT (representing film and TV producers) Adam Singer, CEO of MCPS and the PRS (musicians' royalty collecting societies) Moderated by John Howkins, RSA My preamble I really enjoyed this debate, although I was a little surprised to see quite a lot of agreement between the panellists. Not sure how much of this was just out of a desire on the part of John McVay and Adam Singer not to get into a fierce debate in public, and how much was genuine agreement with the points that Larry Lessig was making. But I was pleased to see Adam and John take the stage with Larry - Adam joked a couple of times about how he'd get fired for publicly agreeing with Larry, and I there were definitely undercurrents that some of his constituents would likely not be happy with this event even taking place, so all credit to him for resisting pressure and helping make this debate happen. It would be easy to paint the industry as the antichrist, and in fact I have heard Adam described as just that (ironic, then, that he joked about how some people in the industry see Larry as the antichrist). But picking an extreme standpoint and sticking to it is not always the best way to progress towards a reasonable compromise and it was encouraging to see Adam acknowledging some of Larry's points as valid and to see Larry suggesting potential middle paths. I do have to disagree with Larry on one point, though. I don't think copyright term extension in the UK/Europe is inevitable. Maybe I'm just being optimistic, but software patents were defeated, and I think that we can defeat term extension too. But we need to start debating this in public now, not wait until it gets to a crucial juncture in parliament. So, now, on to the notes from the evening... Larry Lessig, Creative Commons RSA appropriate place for this discussion. It's remit is to encouraging new arts and invention, but through prizes rather than monopolies. In the 17th/18th centuries, monopolies were unpopular. Monopolies - such as those on golden thread or playing cards - were abused, and response to abuse was resistance to monopolies. Statute of Anne, to 'encourage learning', 14 years renewable once for new, 21 for existing work. 1731, interesting question was would copyrights expire? Publishers insisted copyright was perpetual, despite Statute of Anne, claiming that common law granted perpetuity. In 1735 they asked for a term extension but were defeated. In 1737 they asked again, and were again defeated. In 250 years since then, this history has been forgotten. Discussion of monopolies is not about limits or balance, specially in the context of copyright, instead have a race for increasing copyright term. Germany +70, 'to account for the war' Europe +70, to keep up with Germany USA +70, for 'harmonisation' But then in US corporate [sound recordings?] works was +95, but EU was +50. EU wants to harmonise now to +95 Mexico wants to go to +100, and Spain wants to match Mexico. Terms increase, never decrease. The radical arguments for terms are: - Radicals = Jack Valenti 'forever minus a day' - The Economist = 14 + 14, exactly as statute of Anne. Don't need to address the radical position. Extending the term for recordings, should it be +50, to +95? Two points. 1. Copyright is about encouragement, incentives, monopolies in exchange or creativity. Should we change terms should be about incentives to produce new creative works? Distinguish between prospective change of terms for a work not yet creative, and the retrospective change of terms for works that exist. For new works, the prospective increases: Is 50 years enough? Look at costs and benefits. How much more valuable is a 95 year stream of income over a 50 year stream of income? The difference between these two streams of income is tiny under any realistic calculation. 1% increase in value of 95 over 50 years. Is the 1% important? It could help... it's plausible. But the 'maybe' is the part that's important. This increase in incentive is so small it's implausible to imagine it would have an impact. Retrospective increases: No numbers to calculate at all. Benefits from the prospective of what copyright is to be about, producing incentives to create new work, the benefits are 0. Incentives are prospective. Anything we do about existing copyright cannot do anything to increase production from the past - Elvis can't create any more work in 1955 than he already has. Increasing terms doesn't increase incentive, but it will make people richer. Maybe the people use this money to make new work, but maybe they'll do up their house in the Bahamas instead. If the focus is on principle, there is no principled reason to extend copyright. But principles won't win. Larry thinks: We will extend copyright terms, despite principle. But there is a simple and obvious point about how that should be done. There is no reason to extend copyright terms indiscriminately and adopt a blanket term. Owners of Laurel and Hardy movies filed a brief saying "We make millions when you extend copyright, but if you don't strike down the act, there is a whole section of film history that will disappear, because the vast majority has no known owner. So no one will invest in restoring the work because someone may come forward and own it. Only when film is in the public domain does anyone invest in restoration. But the films will disintegrate, because the film stock cannot survive until it goes into public domain again." Vast majority of the work that would be affected is commercially unavailable - 98% of work is invisible to the current culture. If copyright is extended, it will remain invisible. 170,000 78s 383,000 vinyl records Are being digitising as they pass into the >public domain, but a tiny proportion has an owner. Shouldn't block access to the 98% for the benefit of the owners of the 2%. Instead, find ways to discriminate. Extend copyright only if it's needed. Proposal: if you want an extend term, then at 50 years file a form and attach

[Read more] (4 comments)


September 27, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

But what about Scotland?

Just spoke to a group of ISPs at the UK Network Operators Forum conference about ORG (Ian spoke about data retention), and from the audience came a very important question. What about Scotland? Scotland has a different legal system, different legislation and its own parliament, so that means a whole different group of people we need to be talking to. We are keen to be inclusive, and didn't intentionally leave Scotland out, but we'll need to find our counterparts there. We are talking to Digital Rights Ireland already, but I am not aware of a similar group in Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland, for that matter.) If you know whom I should be talking to, point them out to me. Meantime I shall put some feelers out to try and find the right people.

[Read more] (1 comments)


September 26, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

Briefing for members of the European Parliament on data retention

Privacy International have put together an excellent open letter to all members of the European Parliament, addressing the current proposals on communications traffic data retention. It begins:

Dear Members of the European Parliament, We would like to take this opportunity to address you regarding the current proposals on communications data retention. As you are well aware, both the Council and the Commission have put forward proposals on data retention. It now appears that the policy is finally shifting to the first pillar away from the third. This does not mean that the policy has improved. Despite many edits over the last two years, both the Council and the Commission proposals continue to be invasive, illegal, illusory and illegitimate. These proposals continue to require the collection and logging of every telecommunication transaction of every individual within modern European society. Almost all human conduct in an information society generates traffic data. Therefore traffic data can be used to piece together a detailed picture of human conduct.[1] Under the various proposals, this data will be kept for between six months and four years. There are clear challenges for these proposals with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Charter on Fundamental Rights and national constitutions. The case still has not been made that retention is necessary in a democratic society.[2] The claimed need for harmonisation is premature at best and challenges democratic process.
The letter, which is well worth reading, has been endorsed by:
  • Association Electronique Libre, Belgium
  • BBA Switzerland
  • Bits of Freedom, the Netherlands
  • Chaos Computer Club, Germany
  • Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility - ES, Spain
  • Digital Rights, Denmark
  • EFFi, Finland
  • Forum InformatikerInnen f

    [Read more]


September 24, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP: No justification for data retention

On her website, Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP worries that there has been no serious cost-benefit analysis of the UK's data retention proposalsfor Europe, and calls on other MEPs to question the necessity for such 'sloppy' legislation:

"[S]torage of everyone's phone, email and website use is costly as well as a massive invasion of privacy and increase in state surveillance, so the threshold for justification is a high one." "I am still worried by the absence of a serious cost-benefit analysis. Assertions are made about the need to keep records for a considerable time, but the evidence is thin. No decent rebuttal has been delivered of the case for a short retention time plus specific 'freezing orders' for communications records of suspects." "Since we will have the leverage to do so now, MEPs must probe the real necessity for invasive measures. Whilst EU-wide cooperation is crucial to stop terrorism and organised crime, Member States should first end cross-border turf wars and actually implement cooperative arrangements they've signed up to."

, , , , ,

[Read more] (1 comments)


September 23, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

The implications of wrongful arrest

Yesterday's Guardian ran the story of the wrongful arrest of David Mery on its front page, a story he's written up in a lot more detail on his site.

[Read more] (14 comments)


September 17, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

Mapping the digital rights landscape

A while back, when we first started talking about setting up ORG, I thought it would be a good exercise to explore the existing digital rights landscape in the UK. I wanted to create a mindmap which would allow me to see visually relationships between the various organisations working in this area (even if only very peripherally), and I based my map on work already done by Jo Walsh.

Unfortunately, events overtook me before I got to finish it, as you can see:

UK digital rights landscape

You can get the full-sized image from Flickr.

It really is a very much unfinished work, and I need your help to fill in all the gaps. For each organisation I need the key people, the issues that organisation addresses, and their website URL. Please leave info in the comments, rather than email me directly, so that then everyone can see what's already been found.

Right, over to you!

[Read more] (12 comments)


September 17, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

The Register: Phone cos and rights activists round on Clarke

i was so caught up in the conference I was at last Friday that I entirely failed to notice that we were in The Register, on data retention. As were ETNOA:

The European Telecommunications Network Operators's Association (ETNOA) called on UK Home Secretary Charles Clarke and his fellow ministers to engage in fuller discussions with industry.

Michael Bartholomew, a spokesman for the organisation, said the case for the compulsory retention of communications data had not been proven, and argued that tracking data for unsuccessful calls would be extraordinarily expensive, with operators having to make system changes costing in the region of

[Read more]


September 14, 2005 | Suw Charman Anderson

Expanding the public domain

A transcript of James Boyle's remarks on the public domain, copyright and Creative Commons, given at the Association of Research Libraries 146th Membership Meeting, May 26 2005. James calls for more evidence-based thinking on intellectual property issues, something that is currently sorely lacking.

Here

[Read more] (2 comments)


google plusdeliciousdiggfacebookgooglelinkedinstumbleupontwitteremail