April 03, 2014 | Jim Killock

Join to found ORG Scotland

Last month, we asked our Scottish supporters whether we should set up an office to deal with policies from Holyrood.

The support was pretty overwhelming. Nearly everyone thought it was a good and important idea, people offered their help, and others listed IT projects and policies that concerned them, some of which we hadn't heard about before. We knew from our activists in Scotland that the government approach to digital matters seems to be very centralising, but we haven't been able to work on these issues to find out how concerning these policies really are.

This week I'm in Scotland talking to our supporters and Scottish policy makers asking them what they think is needed from a group like ORG. At the moment, there seem to be a range of very real concerns:

  • The lack of a strong voice advocating for privacy-respecting government IT
  • Projects including Entitlement Cards, data sharing, health data and measures to block sectarian websites
  • Attacks on Freedom of Information in Scotland
  • The lack of a digital rights debate in the referendum campaign

ORG obviously cannot and would not take a position on Scottish independence, which is a matter for the Scottish people, not a digital rights organisation. Nevertheless, we think politicians that are both for and against independence need to explain how citizens rights will be protected in their vision for the future.

It's clear the UK has failed to protect digital rights in many key respects, including by instigating secret mass surveillance. How would an independent Scotland differ? And does the track record of the devolved regime so far point in the right direction?

While we think ORG has a strong role to play in both a devolved and an independent future, we are also worried by the lack of a strong network of rights organisations in Scotland. Currently, there are very few organisations dealing with these issues, most of whom are also quite under resourced. Many UK organisations dealing with other policy areas have set up offices in Scotland, but this is less true for human rights groups.

Meanwhile, the most important thing is that ORG hears from you. First, we need you to join so we can hire staff in Scotland to work on policy and campaigns. Secondly, we need you to tell us what you think we should be doing, and how you can help.

We're holding a discussion day on Saturday May 10th in Edinburgh: keep the date free, and come along if you can!

If you are an existing ORG supporter who would like to support the project, you can increase your donation and tell your friends about it.

Twitter Share Button  Facebook Share button  Google Plus Share button

[Read more]

March 28, 2014 | Jim Killock

Copyright: it's a long fight to get it right

Copyright is an important part of our legal framework. For many artists, it helps them control and negotiate profits flowing from the use of their work, in all kinds of media. Since the advent of digital technology, it has been hard to square the legal right to stop people copying text, pictures, video and audio with the technological realities. The global companies dependent on copyright revenues have also had a hard time learning that in the Internet era, customers are likely to decide the terms you play on, rather than the rights holders.

The result is that ORG has been fighting since 2005 for sensible copyright laws, and resisting overblown attempts by rights holders to control the flow of information on the Internet. The biggest such push in the UK has been the three strikes regime introduced in the Digital Economy Act 2010, a strategy so difficult to implement that it still hasn't fully taken shape.

Let's take the question of how the digital world and copyright come into conflict. Copyright is a right to stop people making copies, starting with books in the 1709 Copyright laws. However, copying is just what computers do, when they back up, move data across networks, when a file is read into memory, or you look at a website. EU Copyright has "exceptions" to allow "transient or incidental" copying. It's the only compulsory European copyright user right.

Still, it has taken arguably 20 years for the law to catch up with the advent of the MP3 revolution, as computer users started to copy their legally purchased music onto hard drives in compressed formats. It's long been a part of everyday life, but only yesterday did we get the final signal that UK copyright law would be updated to reflect our everyday use of legally purchased copyright works.

Part of the reason is that many "format shifting" exceptions come along with a "compensatory" levy: in much of the EU you pay, via an ipod tax, for the right to copy your music. The UK has rejected this idea, but they may have a fight on their hands. In any case, the push for compensation explains much of the delay.

The data mining exception, to allow researchers to check through electronic texts they have licensed, and the parody exception are also reactions to the new possibilities of use and creation that come with the digital age. Parodies are part of everyday Internet expression. While the exception may not end legal uncertainty, and may yet prove not to be wide enough, it is a huge step forward.

At this point, it's worth remembering that DVDs and other 'copy protected' works still won't be legally format shifted. You will, however, be able to ask the Secretary of State to help you obtain new personal copies!

Format shifting and parody were both supported by ORG in the 2006 Gowers Review, and again in the 2011 Hargreaves Review, which we are now finally seeing implemented. Back in Gowers, the report also recommended that copyright terms stay the same: which was ignored after rights holders pushed for an increase in for sound recording copyright from 50 to 90 years; we eventually got a 70 year term. Not very coincidentally this protects revenues from Beatles' sound recordings; unfortunately it also means a lot of 1960s music will likely remain out of print and inaccessible to the public.

Gowers did recommend greater online enforcement, including a possible three strikes arrangement, which became law as the Digital Economy Act 2010. This was the major part of Gowers that ORG disagreed with. However, in the DEA Lords debates, they noticed that questions like format shifting had still not been resolved, which led back to calls for the next review under David Cameron's administration, in 2010, known as the Hargreaves Review. It may even have been mentioned in the truncated three hour Commons debate before washup.

You might ask, why does it take repeated independent reviews to settle questions of copyright, when things like format shifting and parody are so obviously needed? The reason seems to be the extraordinary pressure that government is put under by copyright lobby groups, including the BPI and Motion Picture Association (MPA).

These groups push for term extension, enforcement measures, argue against exceptions or attempt to narrow them and insist compensatory levies are imposed. They have run a campaign claiming the Intellectual Property Office is anti-intellectual property, because it believes in greater exceptions. Most recently, a report by the IPPR noted to have been funded and advised upon by these groups concuded that:

the government should not proceed with the planned introduction of a series of new copyright exceptions at this time. The benefits of them are unproven, and their risks uncertain (Culture, media and sport select committee 2013). In the case of a private copying exception (to allow consumers to transfer content from CDs to digital storage) there is a clear risk that the government will pass laws to enable a form of consumer behaviour that is rapidly becoming technologically out of date.

The copyright lobby groups have international political power, and have been instrumental in creating measures such as TRIPS and push for measures like ACTA. In the USA the representatives of the same companies pushed for Internet censorship measures in SOPA and PIPA.

They are very powerful, politically influential and hard for governments to deal with rationally. This is why reviews are set up: a balanced view is easier to obtain, independent of long lobbying strategies. However, even after the reviews conclude, it is why implementation takes so long, as groups bargain, cajole, oppose and lobby.

Still, these exceptions represent a significant victory for copyright, even if copyright lobby groups don’t see it. Copyright comes into conflict with free speech and customer expectations, so to remain legitimate it needs significant user rights. When those rights are met, copyright can achieve greater legitimacy and acceptability, can claim to be fair and reasonable, and continue to claim widespread support. If the copyright lobby groups continue to complain about these very sensible and modest new user rights, remember that they are arguing against their better interests.

[Read more] (1 comments)

March 27, 2014 | Ed Johnson-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.

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 Johnson-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

[Read more]