Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters1
10
The core ethos, and success, of the internet to date lies in its ability to stimulate shared ideas and content. It also promotes participation, pro-activity and creativity. But there is a tension between providing reasonable rewards for creativity, which have historically required a measure of protection for the creator’s rights, and the freedom to allow that content to be used to permit further innovation and creativity. In the new digital world, the ability to share content legally, becomes ever more important and necessary. Traditional mechanisms to identify rights-holders and acquire legal consent to share often need radical updating to meet the near-instant demands of this new world. There is a clear and unambiguous distinction between the legal and illegal sharing of content which we must urgently address. But, we need to do so in a way that recognises that when there is very widespread behaviour and social acceptability of such behaviour that is at odds with the rules, then the rules, the business models that the rules have underpinned and the behaviour itself may all need to change.
10
The core ethos, and success, of the internet to date lies in its ability to stimulate shared ideas and content. It also promotes participation, pro-activity and creativity. But there is a tension between providing reasonable rewards for creativity, which have historically required a measure of protection for the creator’s rights, and the freedom to allow that content to be used to permit further innovation and creativity. In the new digital world, the ability to share content legally, becomes ever more important and necessary. Traditional mechanisms to identify rights-holders and acquire legal consent to share often need radical updating to meet the near-instant demands of this new world. There is a clear and unambiguous distinction between the legal and illegal sharing of content which we must urgently address. But, we need to do so in a way that recognises that when there is very widespread behaviour and social acceptability of such behaviour that is at odds with the rules, then the rules, the business models that the rules have underpinned and the behaviour itself may all need to change.2
Across both old and new media, if we have an ambition to be the leading international destination for creative businesses, we need to combine an environment where opportunities abound for rights holders and digital distributors to develop exciting new ways to package and sell the content that people want. It must have a digital content protection framework in which such international businesses can have confidence. This will be increasingly vital in a Digital Britain where everyone has access to video capable broadband and many have access to much higher bandwidths. We must make sure that together we address the threats. But at the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that a truly broadband Britain promises huge opportunities for digital content producers.
Across both old and new media, if we have an ambition to be the leading international destination for creative businesses, we need to combine an environment where opportunities abound for rights holders and digital distributors to develop exciting new ways to package and sell the content that people want. It must have a digital content protection framework in which such international businesses can have confidence. This will be increasingly vital in a Digital Britain where everyone has access to video capable broadband and many have access to much higher bandwidths. We must make sure that together we address the threats. But at the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that a truly broadband Britain promises huge opportunities for digital content producers.3
The Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The Intellectual Property Office has launched a debate on the future of copyright building on the recommendations of the Gowers Review, which we will consider as part of our final report. This work aims to build a long term vision for copyright, considering what changes may be required domestically, at EU level and internationally. Although the IPO’s work is not limited to digital issues, most of the key issues are highly relevant to the digital environment.
4
9
Already the UK has achieved a world-first in this regard: the Memorandum of Understanding between the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and rights holders to tackle unlawful file-sharing by consumers – it has shown that these two groups with very different agendas can engage in an intelligent conversation about how to secure action in respect of legal offerings, education and enforcement. We need to ensure that all the work, and the increased understanding it has engendered, is not wasted. Quite apart from the specific work on unlawful file-sharing we need to make sure that there continues to be a space where different interests can come together and talk. If that helps develop new legitimate offerings (being careful to avoid any possibility of anything anti-competitive being discussed) then that is something that Government should be willing to facilitate. It’s clearly for industry to do the commercial deals – but Government should smooth the path where it can.
9
Already the UK has achieved a world-first in this regard: the Memorandum of Understanding between the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and rights holders to tackle unlawful file-sharing by consumers – it has shown that these two groups with very different agendas can engage in an intelligent conversation about how to secure action in respect of legal offerings, education and enforcement. We need to ensure that all the work, and the increased understanding it has engendered, is not wasted. Quite apart from the specific work on unlawful file-sharing we need to make sure that there continues to be a space where different interests can come together and talk. If that helps develop new legitimate offerings (being careful to avoid any possibility of anything anti-competitive being discussed) then that is something that Government should be willing to facilitate. It’s clearly for industry to do the commercial deals – but Government should smooth the path where it can.5
Of course much of the digital content sector still depends on non-digital and long-established business models for the bulk of its revenue, and we should not pretend that adapting to a digital environment will be easy or simple. But there can be little doubt about where the future lies, as an increasing range of content becomes digitised, for example e-books becoming part of the mainstream. What worked in the physical world will often not work online, and rights holders must find new partners, and new ways of creating value from their Intellectual Property.
Of course much of the digital content sector still depends on non-digital and long-established business models for the bulk of its revenue, and we should not pretend that adapting to a digital environment will be easy or simple. But there can be little doubt about where the future lies, as an increasing range of content becomes digitised, for example e-books becoming part of the mainstream. What worked in the physical world will often not work online, and rights holders must find new partners, and new ways of creating value from their Intellectual Property.6
We need to support rights holders as they adapt their way of thinking and working. This is not to support business models that will become increasingly obsolete, and nor do we want to try and pick the new business model – in any case there will almost certainly be many competing ones. But we should look at the environment within which they operate, and for rights holders that means the sea of unlawful activity within which they have to swim.
We need to support rights holders as they adapt their way of thinking and working. This is not to support business models that will become increasingly obsolete, and nor do we want to try and pick the new business model – in any case there will almost certainly be many competing ones. But we should look at the environment within which they operate, and for rights holders that means the sea of unlawful activity within which they have to swim.7
2
As well as the Government support for rights holders we need to acknowledge the issues which their customers are raising. Businesses need to understand the best ways of responding to the changing demands and behaviour of potential customers, winning their trust and securing income. Winning the trust of customers will be vital to the success of the sector as it finds a way to seize the opportunities the internet has to offer.
2
As well as the Government support for rights holders we need to acknowledge the issues which their customers are raising. Businesses need to understand the best ways of responding to the changing demands and behaviour of potential customers, winning their trust and securing income. Winning the trust of customers will be vital to the success of the sector as it finds a way to seize the opportunities the internet has to offer.8
1
An effective enforcement framework must address both criminal and civil law infringements. In terms of criminal enforcement the Government is already taking a leading role, one that is recognised internationally. Since the launch of the National IP Crime Strategy in 2004 we have continued to increase our capability to rise to the challenges of criminal piracy. The Intellectual Property Office sits at the core of this initiative, leading a co-ordinated response to improve awareness and expertise on IP crime issues within our enforcement agencies and facilitating the sharing of best practice and intelligence. The Creative Britain Report published in February 2008 heralded the creation of a new National Centre for IP Crime to help drive further improvements – which will be up and running later this year. The benefits of this co-ordinated approach are recognised internationally.
1
An effective enforcement framework must address both criminal and civil law infringements. In terms of criminal enforcement the Government is already taking a leading role, one that is recognised internationally. Since the launch of the National IP Crime Strategy in 2004 we have continued to increase our capability to rise to the challenges of criminal piracy. The Intellectual Property Office sits at the core of this initiative, leading a co-ordinated response to improve awareness and expertise on IP crime issues within our enforcement agencies and facilitating the sharing of best practice and intelligence. The Creative Britain Report published in February 2008 heralded the creation of a new National Centre for IP Crime to help drive further improvements – which will be up and running later this year. The benefits of this co-ordinated approach are recognised internationally.9
More directly, funding has been provided to help trading standards officers tackle IP crime at the local level. In 2008 this funding was over £7million with similar funding for 2009 and 2010. This work is delivering real results.
More directly, funding has been provided to help trading standards officers tackle IP crime at the local level. In 2008 this funding was over £7million with similar funding for 2009 and 2010. This work is delivering real results.10
But it is not only criminal scale copying that poses a threat to our digital future. The copying and sharing of content online has become a commonplace activity for many consumers. Where such activity is unlawful, the tackling of such infringement raises clear challenges, both in terms of the scale of such activity and in the kinds of responses that may be appropriate in respect of individual consumers. We must rise to this challenge and consider what role there is for government in helping industry to address civil infringement in the online world.
But it is not only criminal scale copying that poses a threat to our digital future. The copying and sharing of content online has become a commonplace activity for many consumers. Where such activity is unlawful, the tackling of such infringement raises clear challenges, both in terms of the scale of such activity and in the kinds of responses that may be appropriate in respect of individual consumers. We must rise to this challenge and consider what role there is for government in helping industry to address civil infringement in the online world.11
2
The copying of content without permission by consumers is not new – it’s been an unwanted companion of creative goods for as long as there have been means of copying material without paying. In the analogue world, though, it is a manageable problem, both in the control of such copies and in terms of consumer demand: there is usually a detectable deterioration of quality – video tapes were never as good as the original, and taping music from vinyl or the radio was a poor substitute. The digital world changes all that: copies are near-perfect and can be shared widely with the online community. Entirely legitimate technologies such as file-sharing can be abused such that millions of people can access material, unlawfully but for free.
2
The copying of content without permission by consumers is not new – it’s been an unwanted companion of creative goods for as long as there have been means of copying material without paying. In the analogue world, though, it is a manageable problem, both in the control of such copies and in terms of consumer demand: there is usually a detectable deterioration of quality – video tapes were never as good as the original, and taping music from vinyl or the radio was a poor substitute. The digital world changes all that: copies are near-perfect and can be shared widely with the online community. Entirely legitimate technologies such as file-sharing can be abused such that millions of people can access material, unlawfully but for free.12
5
This has led to a fundamental change in consumer expectations, particularly among the young. There is now a growing expectation that content can be found and shared for free. There is a corresponding resistance to paying for content, or accepting that an inability to pay means an inability to access the content. The collective impact of small scale individual infringement is considered to be significant while recourse for such infringement is delivered through individual civil court actions which can be costly and time consuming for the rights holder and which are perceived as disproportionate by consumers. This has affected different sectors to different extents; music is most exposed. Film, games, broadcasters and the publishing industry are also increasingly being affected. Indeed, it is a phenomenon all the digital content sectors will have to face sooner or later.
5
This has led to a fundamental change in consumer expectations, particularly among the young. There is now a growing expectation that content can be found and shared for free. There is a corresponding resistance to paying for content, or accepting that an inability to pay means an inability to access the content. The collective impact of small scale individual infringement is considered to be significant while recourse for such infringement is delivered through individual civil court actions which can be costly and time consuming for the rights holder and which are perceived as disproportionate by consumers. This has affected different sectors to different extents; music is most exposed. Film, games, broadcasters and the publishing industry are also increasingly being affected. Indeed, it is a phenomenon all the digital content sectors will have to face sooner or later.13
4
It is clearly in the interests of rights holders to produce the creative products that people actively want to buy in the way they want to buy them, and to ensure people are educated about how digital products can be used and why there may be limitations, we also need to work together to find ways to prevent such infringement and to enable action to be taken against those who insist on infringing copyright. If, we expect the whole value chain to benefit from new ways legitimate content can be accessed and consumed then it is reasonable to expect the whole value chain to work together to tackle unlawful activity.
4
It is clearly in the interests of rights holders to produce the creative products that people actively want to buy in the way they want to buy them, and to ensure people are educated about how digital products can be used and why there may be limitations, we also need to work together to find ways to prevent such infringement and to enable action to be taken against those who insist on infringing copyright. If, we expect the whole value chain to benefit from new ways legitimate content can be accessed and consumed then it is reasonable to expect the whole value chain to work together to tackle unlawful activity.14
1
What will help to deter copyright infringement online by consumers in both the short and longer term is a combination of things. A strong message is needed about the importance of respecting copyright as a necessary part of creating new high quality content. There must be a more intelligent and nuanced appeal to what consumers value – the on-going availability of compelling content.
1
What will help to deter copyright infringement online by consumers in both the short and longer term is a combination of things. A strong message is needed about the importance of respecting copyright as a necessary part of creating new high quality content. There must be a more intelligent and nuanced appeal to what consumers value – the on-going availability of compelling content.15
2
This needs to be backed up by a substantially higher chance of repeat infringers getting caught. The University of Hertfordshire[2] research into attitudes towards music and copyright by young people showed that only 10% of those surveyed are currently deterred from file-sharing by a fear of being caught. The current approach to civil enforcement is not working as well as it needs to. This may be due to a lack of resource – although many rights holders assign significant sums to tackling copyright infringement. The issue may be one of spending more but it may also be one of working smarter. While there is little if any evidence that the remedies against infringement are themselves outdated, the processes by which those remedies can be reached are the product of the analogue age. They need up-dating to be workable in a digital world; and to enable new business models to get enough financial air to breathe and survive. [2. 42% of those surveyed admitted to uploading. Of the 68% who did not, only 15% said this was because of the fear of being caught. http://www.ukmusic.org/cms/uploads/files/UoH%20Reseach%202008.pdf]
2
This needs to be backed up by a substantially higher chance of repeat infringers getting caught. The University of Hertfordshire[2] research into attitudes towards music and copyright by young people showed that only 10% of those surveyed are currently deterred from file-sharing by a fear of being caught. The current approach to civil enforcement is not working as well as it needs to. This may be due to a lack of resource – although many rights holders assign significant sums to tackling copyright infringement. The issue may be one of spending more but it may also be one of working smarter. While there is little if any evidence that the remedies against infringement are themselves outdated, the processes by which those remedies can be reached are the product of the analogue age. They need up-dating to be workable in a digital world; and to enable new business models to get enough financial air to breathe and survive. [2. 42% of those surveyed admitted to uploading. Of the 68% who did not, only 15% said this was because of the fear of being caught. http://www.ukmusic.org/cms/uploads/files/UoH%20Reseach%202008.pdf]16
1
Perhaps most importantly the availability of legal content in the forms that consumers want is crucial. In the short and long term, the rights holders must find the innovations that once again enable them and their customers to respect each other’s point of view. These are businesses where the customers and content creators alike have been used to paying for and rewarding emotional commitment, enjoyment and admiration. This has been an historic strength and one that businesses need successfully to innovate to recover.
1
Perhaps most importantly the availability of legal content in the forms that consumers want is crucial. In the short and long term, the rights holders must find the innovations that once again enable them and their customers to respect each other’s point of view. These are businesses where the customers and content creators alike have been used to paying for and rewarding emotional commitment, enjoyment and admiration. This has been an historic strength and one that businesses need successfully to innovate to recover.18
2
By the time the final Digital Britain report is published the Government will have explored with interested parties the potential for a Rights Agency to bring industry together to agree how to provide incentives for legal use of copyright material; work together to prevent unlawful use by consumers which infringes civil copyright law; and enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators. The Government also welcomes other suggestions on how these objectives should be achieved.
2
By the time the final Digital Britain report is published the Government will have explored with interested parties the potential for a Rights Agency to bring industry together to agree how to provide incentives for legal use of copyright material; work together to prevent unlawful use by consumers which infringes civil copyright law; and enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators. The Government also welcomes other suggestions on how these objectives should be achieved.19
Such an approach would need rights-holders and distributors of all digital material (e.g. music, film, television and radio, software, computer games, e-books) to work together to develop ways of making this kind of piracy more difficult to do and easier to trace and prevent. This could involve working with authorities in other countries to act against damaging sources of infringing material. It could also include the exploration of new technical approaches to the content itself or its transmission, including common standards.
Such an approach would need rights-holders and distributors of all digital material (e.g. music, film, television and radio, software, computer games, e-books) to work together to develop ways of making this kind of piracy more difficult to do and easier to trace and prevent. This could involve working with authorities in other countries to act against damaging sources of infringing material. It could also include the exploration of new technical approaches to the content itself or its transmission, including common standards.20
This body could carry on the work started by the Memorandum of Understanding on unlawful file-sharing. It should provide the forum within which all elements in the value chain – content creators, initial aggregators (e.g. studios or broadcasters), theatrical distributors (e.g. cinema chains), networks, ISPs and other parts of the chain – could come together. Within the boundaries of competition law, this could lead to the development of models that provide incentives for all for legitimate downloading and use, a framework of common responsibility to discourage and prevent illicit use, and to support and legitimise technical solutions that can achieve both. Developing new business models is primarily for industry to do, not for Government or any new body. But working together on enforcement and education mean there needs to be clear advantages to all sides – a win/win/win for rights holders, intermediaries and consumers. Rights holders and intermediaries should each reap the economic benefits of delivering a better service to consumers.
This body could carry on the work started by the Memorandum of Understanding on unlawful file-sharing. It should provide the forum within which all elements in the value chain – content creators, initial aggregators (e.g. studios or broadcasters), theatrical distributors (e.g. cinema chains), networks, ISPs and other parts of the chain – could come together. Within the boundaries of competition law, this could lead to the development of models that provide incentives for all for legitimate downloading and use, a framework of common responsibility to discourage and prevent illicit use, and to support and legitimise technical solutions that can achieve both. Developing new business models is primarily for industry to do, not for Government or any new body. But working together on enforcement and education mean there needs to be clear advantages to all sides – a win/win/win for rights holders, intermediaries and consumers. Rights holders and intermediaries should each reap the economic benefits of delivering a better service to consumers.21
1
1
Possible technical solutions. Automated Content Access Protocol is one example of a technical solution. Digital Rights Management (DRM), properly applied, also has a role (i.e. where it allows users to access content on any device that they own, rather than being device limited – which is the paradigm that the film industry has encouraged and one that, in music, Apple’s iTunes has now embraced, in a welcome recent co-operation between rights-owners and a device/ distributor). Both can work when they are technical-enabling solutions that match market trends and go with the grain of the market and legitimate consumer demand. But they have yet to command the assent, let alone active support, of all the necessary players along the internet value-chain.
24
Before the full Digital Britain Report is published we will explore with both distributors and rights-holders their willingness to fund, through a modest and proportionate contribution, such a new approach to civil enforcement of copyright within the legal frameworks applying to electronic commerce, copyright, data protection and privacy to facilitate and co-ordinate an industry response to this challenge. It will be important to ensure that this approach covers the need for innovative legitimate services to meet consumer demand, and education and information activity to educate consumers in fair and appropriate uses of copyrighted material as well as enforcement and prevention work.
Before the full Digital Britain Report is published we will explore with both distributors and rights-holders their willingness to fund, through a modest and proportionate contribution, such a new approach to civil enforcement of copyright within the legal frameworks applying to electronic commerce, copyright, data protection and privacy to facilitate and co-ordinate an industry response to this challenge. It will be important to ensure that this approach covers the need for innovative legitimate services to meet consumer demand, and education and information activity to educate consumers in fair and appropriate uses of copyrighted material as well as enforcement and prevention work.25
The Government also recognises that there is a more specific problem that needs addressing on unlawful file-sharing, where we have been clear in the Creative Britain paper and elsewhere that we would legislate if necessary.
The Government also recognises that there is a more specific problem that needs addressing on unlawful file-sharing, where we have been clear in the Creative Britain paper and elsewhere that we would legislate if necessary.26
The consultation on how we might tackle this issue closed at the end of October. We have today published a Response to that consultation which can be found on the BERR website, which sets out our analysis of the responses and how we intend to proceed. None of the options highlighted in the consultation attracted widespread support. Rather there was a marked polarisation of views between the rights holder community, consumers and the ISPs over what action should be taken.
The consultation on how we might tackle this issue closed at the end of October. We have today published a Response to that consultation which can be found on the BERR website, which sets out our analysis of the responses and how we intend to proceed. None of the options highlighted in the consultation attracted widespread support. Rather there was a marked polarisation of views between the rights holder community, consumers and the ISPs over what action should be taken.27
A number of key issues were identified by respondents including copyright protection, protections afforded under eCommerce legislation and the impact on the wider economy. Consumers (individuals and consumer organisations) in particular highlighted concerns over data protection and privacy. The role of technology was addressed by most respondents but there were conflicting views as to whether it could offer all or part of any solution. For almost all the options, questions were raised as to their legality under the existing legal frameworks and again, views varied.
A number of key issues were identified by respondents including copyright protection, protections afforded under eCommerce legislation and the impact on the wider economy. Consumers (individuals and consumer organisations) in particular highlighted concerns over data protection and privacy. The role of technology was addressed by most respondents but there were conflicting views as to whether it could offer all or part of any solution. For almost all the options, questions were raised as to their legality under the existing legal frameworks and again, views varied.28
Our preferred option of co-regulation did not attract widespread support. The key problem highlighted was the lack of certainty over the nature of the obligation on ISPs and the resulting legal uncertainty this would create for all parties. There remained major concerns how consumer protection would be properly addressed, while developing the self-regulatory aspect through a code of practice raised significant questions on how to accommodate other rights holders, the smaller ISPs and consumer bodies. This was borne out by the experience of the current Memorandum of Understanding group which showed that despite the best endeavours of all concerned, reaching voluntary agreement where there is little perceived common interest between the various participants is extremely hard.
Our preferred option of co-regulation did not attract widespread support. The key problem highlighted was the lack of certainty over the nature of the obligation on ISPs and the resulting legal uncertainty this would create for all parties. There remained major concerns how consumer protection would be properly addressed, while developing the self-regulatory aspect through a code of practice raised significant questions on how to accommodate other rights holders, the smaller ISPs and consumer bodies. This was borne out by the experience of the current Memorandum of Understanding group which showed that despite the best endeavours of all concerned, reaching voluntary agreement where there is little perceived common interest between the various participants is extremely hard.29
There was, however, a degree of consensus that any solution must involve the provision of new legal sources of attractive content, and that there is a need for education on the importance of copyright in the wider economy.
There was, however, a degree of consensus that any solution must involve the provision of new legal sources of attractive content, and that there is a need for education on the importance of copyright in the wider economy.31
Our response to the consultation on peer-to-peer file sharing sets out our intention to legislate, requiring ISPs to notify alleged infringers of rights (subject to reasonable levels of proof from rights- holders) that their conduct is unlawful. We also intend to require ISPs to collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers (derived from their notification activities), to be made available to rights-holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order. We intend to consult on this approach shortly, setting out our proposals in detail.
Our response to the consultation on peer-to-peer file sharing sets out our intention to legislate, requiring ISPs to notify alleged infringers of rights (subject to reasonable levels of proof from rights- holders) that their conduct is unlawful. We also intend to require ISPs to collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers (derived from their notification activities), to be made available to rights-holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order. We intend to consult on this approach shortly, setting out our proposals in detail.32
5
This should provide a good evidence base, to make it significantly easier for rights-holders to take targeted legal action against the most significant infringers. International experience of action of this sort suggests that more than two thirds of infringers change their behaviour when receiving notification. These obligations will form the central elements of a Code on unlawful file-sharing which Industry would be required to have in place, supported by backstop powers overseen by Ofcom. The Code would cover among other issues practical supporting measures, including appeals and standards of evidence. It would also cover cost-sharing.
5
This should provide a good evidence base, to make it significantly easier for rights-holders to take targeted legal action against the most significant infringers. International experience of action of this sort suggests that more than two thirds of infringers change their behaviour when receiving notification. These obligations will form the central elements of a Code on unlawful file-sharing which Industry would be required to have in place, supported by backstop powers overseen by Ofcom. The Code would cover among other issues practical supporting measures, including appeals and standards of evidence. It would also cover cost-sharing.33
We think the concept of a new Rights Agency and legislative action aimed specifically at addressing unlawful peer-to-peer file-sharing could be major steps forward. But this is new and difficult territory, and we want to get it right. So we will review the impact of any new measures, and will not hesitate to examine other options if these do not prove to be effective.
We think the concept of a new Rights Agency and legislative action aimed specifically at addressing unlawful peer-to-peer file-sharing could be major steps forward. But this is new and difficult territory, and we want to get it right. So we will review the impact of any new measures, and will not hesitate to examine other options if these do not prove to be effective.Tags: Britain, broadband, broker, civil copyright law, communications industries, communications network operators, competition law, content creators, copyright-support solutions, creative products, criminal and civil law infringements, device/ distributor, digital, digital products, e-books, e.g. cinema chains, eCommerce legislation, electronic commerce, Entirely legitimate technologies, European Union, file sharing, government, Internet Service Providers, internet value-chain, legitimate services, legitimate technologies, National Centre for IP Crime, online community, online world, peer-to-peer, Possible technical solutions, Rights Agency, search engines, tackle IP crime, theatrical distributors, UK, United Kingdom, University of Hertfordshire, value chain
“There is a corresponding resistance to paying for content” – is there any evidence to support this assertion?
[...] regulation or legislation is inevitable. For example, the recent Digital Britain report signals possible legislation compelling ISPs to notify infringers of third party rights, and keep anonymised data, which seems [...]
‘There is a clear and unambiguous distinction between the legal and illegal sharing of content which we must urgently address.’
While there are some infringements that are blatant, there are also many cases (usually called Fair Use cases because they often involve US laws or companies) where content has been mashed up, parodied etc. or otherwise transformed where it’s not clear, and there are cases where copyright law has been used to have material removed because of its point of view rather than its supposed infringement. See http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N37/youtomb.html for examples. It’s not possible to educate people where this area is both murky and abused.
I agree. But the overall point to make is that there is no justification – economic or otherwise – for the taxpayer to foot the bill for enforcement of the entertainment industry’s IP rights.
“Clear and unambiguous” is hardly a term I’d use to describe the distinction between legal and illegal sharing of content.
How about when I have bought a CD, it’s got scratched and want to download a replacement? I can download the album art through iTunes automatically- which is covered by the same copyright laws as the music. Can I download the music and save ripping the CD?
Or if I buy a CD, leave it in a taxi on the way home, and want to listen to it there and then- can I download shared files if I already “own” them?
Never mind the fact that the European Union Copyright Act creates yet more complicated offences. Suppose the CD I left in a taxi is copied by the taxi driver before I pick it up the next day. Have I “made available to the public” a copyrighted work? What if it’s a friend’s car, rather than a taxi. What if I lent it to a friend, rather than accidentally left it in his car? What if I store it on a computer on a private network, but the folder is visible and accessible to others on the network- are those granted access to the network “the public”? Are they allowed to download the music? Are they allowed to listen to it if they don’t download a copy?
I can copy a CD to my computer, and then to an MP3 player. Can I do the same with a DVD or Blu-Ray disc? Bypassing copy protection for “fair use” is allowed, but making a product available that will let me actually do it is illegal
Creative Commons and similar licences make it legal to make copies of copyrighted works for non-commercial use. So what happens if they are played in public places- shops, bars, offices etc. Is that legal or illegal sharing of content? Is there a legal framework to protect content that’s allowed to be copied and shared for personal use that protects it from being used for commercial purposes?
Like I said, “clear and unambiguous” isn’t really an appropriate term for something if I don’t think I’d be able to explain the rights and wrongs to a child.
I see little societal advantage of the gvt becoming embroiled in civil matters.
This section talks around the issue and much of what it says is quite sensible, but it fails to really get to grips with it. We need to start at the beginning. This is primarily about economics and law enforcement.
The economics issue is that there is a large gap between what it costs to reproduce a work and what the media companies are selling it for. It may cost £10 or more to buy a CD and the bare media costs one twentieth of this. That creates an economic incentive to copy. It also creates the profits for the media companies.
The legal remedy against this is that violation of copyright is a criminal offense.
These two facts together create the problem. You have an incentive to commit a crime on a large scale, and it is being committed. It has also lost the social stigma that usually attaches to criminal conduct, and is seen by those doing it as no worse than (say) underage drinking.
The normal processes of deterring criminal conduct are to investigate, arrest and prosecute. It is clear that on the scale that copyright violation is occurring, and the damage being done compared to other sorts of criminal activity, this is simply not practical. The US experience of the RIAA is instructive.
If we look at the various proposals that have been made, the first suggestion is to reduce the burden of proof. This seems unwarranted. The burden of proof exists to prevent false convictions. There is nothing about copyright violation as a crime which makes a higher rate of false convictions socially acceptable. But this is what is implied by the ‘three strikes’ policy in France.
The second possibility is that the media companies should reduce the incentive to copy by lowering prices. To do this, they would doubtless have to reduce costs significantly. This is unpleasant, but the arrival of the Internet has forced lots of companies to rethink where their expenses are going, and reduce their prices.
The third possibility is to make copying more difficult. Various forms of locking are possible, but their acceptability is a real question, and their robustness even more so.
It is clear that at the moment what the industry is focussed on is preventing peer to peer downloading and maintaining their pricing power and thus margins.
However, this is probably only the main source of copyright violation because of its ease. Make it more difficult, and something else will spring up. It is just the transmission mechanism. If you do not tackle the economic incentive, and the ease of untraceable copy duplication, this is going to be an unending struggle with diminishing returns and an increasingly alienated customer base.
And all your other proposed efforts to increase bandwidth available to individuals and companies is going to make the problem worse. At the moment we do not see email as a vector for copyright violation. When homes have Mbps links, and email bandwidth catches up, it will be. P2P will become increasingly hard to tap and identify.
There is a real problem with copyright violation, simply because it is law breaking, and the toleration of large scale law breaking is very socially destructive. But nothing in the present proposals is going to make much of a dent in it. The industry is going to have to face the fact that much of its current model is incenting piracy to an extent that is counterproductive, and that the costs of criminal enforcement in the face of these incentives will, if they are to stamp it out, probably be greater than the price reductions which would be needed to achieve the effect in less confrontational ways. The margin has been lost to technology. Its not coming back. The only question is where the best place is to invest that loss. If you are the industry, you can lose sales and keep margins, and spend a fortune on enforcement. Is this really the scenario that gives the best ROI? One has not seen the numbers, but seriously doubts it.
It is also doubtful whether a new Rights Agency is either necessary or useful. The problem is not lack of agencies. The problem is doing something about incentives so as to reduce the scale of the problem to the point at which conventional solutions to the issue of law breaking can be effective. So this section needs to be rewritten from the point of view of the incentive, what it is, how to reduce it. Once you get that clear, the rest will fall into place much more easily.
Two things are strikingly missing from this section. One is the issue of pricing and margins and overheads. The other is some account of what the customers want, and why they behave as they do.
So bottom line, quite a few sensible ideas, not organized into any coherent or effective whole, largely because of lack of attention to the key underlying issues, which thus go unaddressed.
(This should relate to Paragraph 5- beginning “Already the UK…”- currently showing as paragraph 4.)
“Internet Service Providers” and “Rights holders” don’t seem to me to have “very different agendas”. While that might have been true 5 years or so ago, today, the major UK ISPs also buy and sell TV services (specifically, Virgin Media, Sky and BT.) So it’s very much in their interests to make sure that their users aren’t downloading films that they might otherwise buy from their ISP.
If preventing illegal file sharing means tracking or shaping users’ internet connection and changing the role of an ISP from a telecommunications service to a media provider, choosing what information we can or cannot access and policing the internet- for example, making the decision about what I am allowed to download (my own copyrighted work? “Fair use” of copyrighted work? Professional research over a personal connection?), or using their knowledge of my personal communications to then sell me on to advertisers, then it’s the role of the government to protect both our privacy and our freedom.
(Not just to block potential monopolies that amalgamate competing offline businesses to a single online equivalent.)
I’d like to second the above comment. I’d emphasise, again, that central to the huge growth and development of the internet has been Freedom: to experiment, to mix and match, to move from a model of passive receptivity (television) to content creation. The most successful companies on the web (a good example being Google) open up their applications for development and experiment – anything that stifles this potentially stifles success.
Political freedom is also important – freedom to read the news from sources that aren’t controlled by the ISPs, for example, is, and always will be, vital to a functioning democracy. Squeezing the flow of content from alternative suppliers would most assuredly not be the way the optimise competition, creativity and innovation.
I’d like to second the comment immediately above my own.
Sorry, and I’d like to add that trying to corral information according to national borders, might be intermittenly possible (in the sense that it can be done until someone comes up with a method of bypassing the restriction) but in the long run is both futile and counter to the very spirit the internet is trying to foster. Take medical research, for example, and the argument for restricitions across borders immediately becomes almost immoral in its wrong-headedness (sorry for the ugly grammar – getting tired here).
I agree “clear and unambiguous” in this case is about as straight forward as euthanasia but it’s not too difficult to evaluate these scenarios and answer each with law. We’ve done so with most every act thus far.
I think the rights and wrongs are clear but the gray area comes when we consider that the producing parties of said content either make exorbitant fortunes off the backs of the creative parties even before governments and retail businesses take their cut.
If you draw up laws to protect content you need to draw up laws to protect everything, creators and consumers along with corporations.
“…sea of unlawful activity within which they have to swim.” seems a little prejudicial to me.
There is no mention of the overpriced media that consumers have endured for years.
The problem here is that it starts with an unchallenged base assumption “Copyright is vital for our content and communications industries. It is the framework through which people can protect their creations and seek reward.”
Is it? Sure having some rights, such as those set out under a creative commons licence are important, but actually what is ‘vital’ about copyright is the protection of existing business models. Far from being a plan to create a thriving digital economy, this is a blueprint for creating a digital backwater.
Online content becomes free – there is nothing you can do about it – wishing it wasn’t so, or creating legislation to make it not so, simply doesn’t work. It is only by accepting this fundamental change that the content industries can begin to find new business models. As long as they divert their attention into protecting the existing ‘pay for content’ model they’ll go the same way as the newspaper and music industries.
This paragraph represents what is the problem with this whole report – it starts with the assumption that we should be listening to the incumbents to inform the way new industries should be shaped.
I think it is fair to say that copyright is the framework through which people can protect their creations. After all, creative commons licenses wouldn’t work without the foundations of copyright to build on. I should be able to take photographs and distribute them freely online, without worrying that someone else can print them and sell them on. Copyright provides a framework that can stop that from happening.
For a “Digital Britain” to work, we need leadership by example. For example, the publication here of the interim report is strictly speaking a breach of copyright (although “fair use” might make it exempt as it’s published for the clear purposes of criticism.) Government reports should be published under a creative commons-type licence, if they are supposed to be the property of the people.
(If the charter of the BBC is that “it answers only to it’s viewers and listeners”, then there’s an argument that public service broadcasting should be covered by a similar licence as well.)
This paragraph states that “[the] music [industry] is most exposed” to the collective impact of small-scale copyright infringement, along with the cost of civil action. But it could easily be argued that this is because the music industry (for the most part) operates according to one of the obsolete business models mentioned in paragraph 7 and elsewhere throughout this report. The music industry expects to spend a comparatively large amount of money marketing a small number of releases and charging a large amount for each one. In an age where high fidelity copying was expensive for the distributor and difficult for the consumer this made sense. But this is no longer true, and many people no longer seem willing to pay £10-£20 for a CD when blank CDs can be bought in bulk for around 20p. Looked at this way, the phenomenon of large-scale infringement of music copyright appears not as a problem that needs the government (and public money) to help solve, but as the consumers voting with their feet against an outdated business model.
There have been some successes with alternate business models for music (Radiohead’s ‘In Rainbows’ release is one example). There is a lot of music being made and distributed by independent musicians (e.g. on MySpace and other web sites), in spite of the traditional music industry rather than because of it. I am one of them. These independent musicians thrive on the redistribution of their products; some even release music under Creative Commons licenses that are designes to encourage it. Perhaps a more forward looking music industry could be build that capitalises on this.
Perhaps putting public money into supporting the old model with its basis in analogue technology could prevent the growth of new ways to capitalise on music; perhaps this could turn out to be damaging to the economy in the long run.
These are issues that need to be debated; one gets the impression reading this report that the solution of supporting the old model has been assumed, despite a few claims to the contrary.
Just to duplicate my comment from the Digital Britain Forum (and no, I don’t condone “unlawful file-sharing”):
The interim report suggests an intention to legislate in the area of copyright in order to prevent copyright violation via peer to peer file-sharing. The fact that this “intention to legislate” has already materialised into wild and unfounded accusations flying around from ISPs to innocent citizens and consumers demonstrates that no thought has been given to the unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion and safeguarding of other rights of individuals: namely the basic human right of privacy and those other rights accorded, inter alia, under the European Directive (95/46/EC) on the processing of personal data. The informal memorandum of understanding between ISPs and the government amounts to an ultra vires act on the part of public authorities and will be challenged, alongside Phorm, at the European level. ISPs are already in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 via their current activities, irrespective of the fact that no personal data is being transferred to third agencies (such as the BPI) in a broadly compliant manner with the ECJ’s recent ruling in Promusicae.
Good points, Peter. Yet another costly agency chasing thousands/millions of individual licence fee avoiders is starting at the wrong end of the problem. Encouraging attitudinal change and creating more options for paying (‘donating’ in much online-speak) are perhaps more practical. Attitudinal change can be started within schools and universities by building on existing plagiarism schemes and strengthening their implementation.
The original purpose of copyright was to provide an incentive for producers of content to do so, by providing them with the ability to earn money by distribution of that content, with (and this is important) the aim of enriching the public domain when the term of copyright expires.
The current understanding of copyright is increasingly far from this – especially as regards the effectively unlimited terms for copyright duration (as they keep being retroactively extended when they are about to expire).
We should fix copyright to properly take into account the original intent to enrich the public domain, as a matter of importance.
It is also not clear that copyright is, actually, “vital” for our content and communications industries – it appears, in its current form, to benefit the distributors of content much more than the actual producers of the content.
So, I’d like this entire section reworded.
And, of course, fixing copyright so that it actually expires! People see copyright as a wholly restrictive right currently, which permanently restricts the distribution of copyrighted content.
Fixing the expiration time for copyrights at a more reasonable value than the current excessively high duration, and *never extending it, despite lobbying from those with vested interests* would probably do a lot to restore its image as a complex balancing act between encouraging content production and enriching the public good.
Plagiarism, of course, is not copyright violation – and is something that illegal filesharers don’t engage in. (The issue for them is not that they want to falsely claim ownership of content, but that they want to distribute “someone else’s” content without restrictions – something which is rather hard to change attitudes towards when copyright has moved from its original “balance between the public and producer rights” to “purely rights of the producer” formulation. Indeed, when donations have been possible for content, the fileshared copies of that content have often been distributed with notes urging those who enjoy the content to donate to the producer!)
I agree with your point- but I’d like to make a small and nitpicky correction: the original purpose of copyright was to suppress Protestant texts in Catholic England by creating a Guild with a monopoly right to own and use printing presses. It was about a century later when it’s purpose changed to giving control of information to the author, rather than the Crown- as you say, to provide a benefit to the author to encourage the benefit to society that their works could create.
Fair Use MUST get a mention in this report, if only to clarify that “legal” does also encompass sharing of copyrighted works without consent.
For balance it should be noted that Apple has started removing DRM from music.
Doctorow’s critique of both the DRM design process, and the non-viability of an information economy based on paid content, can be downloaded here:
http://craphound.com/content/download/
This isn’t an issue of rights, its an issue of business models and of government intervention in free exchange. Looking forward there needs to be a discussion of the “post-copyright” economy, rather than assuming that customers will continue to pay for DRM and for taxpayers to continue to pay for government protection for outdated media business models.
It should be noted that the UK does NOT have “fair use” in copyright. It only has “fair dealing”, which is much narrower, and in particular does not extend to private copying for time/space/format-shifting or backup. We *should* have fair use, and indeed the Gowers report from 2007 recommends the UK adoption of a “fair use” regime.
Also under present UK law bypassing copy protection is not allowed, even for “fair dealing”, or even for doing something that’s nothing to do with copyright, like watching an out-of-region DVD. You need to get permission to do this by writing to the Secretary of State, who then gives permission in writing, for each act of circumvention [I kid you not!]. This ought to be changed. Alongside a proper “fair use” regime that explicitly exempts some activities from copyright, the law should be changed so that circumvention for non-infringing purposes is explicitly legal, and so that tools that allow this are legal. If we must have anti-circumvention law (as it appears we must due to the European Copyright Directive of 2001) then it should be enacted in a way that’s similar to “breaking and entering” as an extra offence on top of occupying someone’s house illegally. [you can't be prosecuted for "breaking and entering" your own property!]
“This has led to a fundamental change in consumer expectations, particularly among the young. There is now a growing expectation that content can be found and shared for free.”
This should worry anyone who has an interest in the legal status quo. Today’s young people are tomorrow’s voters, and they could insist that large parts of our intellectual property law be dismantled.
The solution is fair, proportionate IP law. For example, for many years content providers were able to charge more for DVDs in the UK than in other countries, thanks to region coding and the restrictions on parallel imports. Eventually we ended up with the bizarre situation where American DVDs could be imported legally, provided they were sent one at a time and dispatched direct to the consumer. Meanwhile, techniques for bypassing region coding had been published for most players, even though technically this is probably illegal. Together these factors caused UK DVD prices to come largely in to line with American ones.
Our young people might accept a simple copyright law, but this legally-enforceable unfree market looks too much like what it is: regulatory capture by content providers. We should amend the first sale doctrine so that content may be imported once it has been published anywhere in the world. We should also allow the publication of text and software which is designed to circumvent measures such as region coding.
A similar example is the refusal of the DVD copy control association to allow playback of DVDs on certain operating systems. Users wanted to play back legally purchased DVDs on legally purchased hardware, but they were told that they could not do this. Again progress was only made when technical control measures were bypassed illegally.
If government and the content industry wants to preserve IP law for the future, it must stop making honest people into law-breakers. It is not immoral to want the low prices that result from a free market in DVDs. It is not immoral to watch legally purchased DVDs on the computer equipment that happens to be at your disposal. If the law criminalises people like this, voters will see the system as corrupt–justifying piracy, and encouraging them to seek wholesale repeal through the democratic process.
“In the analogue world, though, it is a manageable problem, both in the control of such copies and in terms of consumer demand: there is usually a detectable deterioration of quality – video tapes were never as good as the original, and taping music from vinyl or the radio was a poor substitute.”
I find myself a bit puzzled by this comment. Does the author often watch pre-recorded video tapes and play vinyl records?
The reality is that we haven’t lived in an analogue world for fifteen to twenty years. CDs became widely used in the early ’90s, and DVDs in the late ’90s. In spite of this, we still have vibrant content industries; they have not been killed off by the emergence of digital distribution.
Because these changes represented a change from analogue to digital, they were far more revolutionary than the current shift to online distribution. We must not panic and think that draconian measures are needed to protect our content industries. They have survived far bigger changes in the past.
As I have commented on the whole of 3.1, providing incentives for legal use will help content creators, if this is made an easy process. However, rather than concentrate on preventing illegal use, compulsory licencing schemes should be used to turn this in to legal – and revenue generating – use. the incentives should be scalable so they apply to individuals as well as large businesses.
This is absolutely the most critical paragraph. Digital Restrictions Management make the lawful purchase of content on-line totally unacceptable to many people. I refuse to purchase music, that can only be played on one type of player (Apple, Windows etc.) Whilst I am sure that DRM has stopped some copying, it has also put lots of honest people off purchasing music on-line.
The same is true of DVD content with its encryption systems which are used to enforce marketing, anti-piracy horror movies and other inappropriate and un-necessary content – I don’t want to read restrictions text for many countries every time I turn the DVD on! I paid for the content, and within reason, I should be allowed to use it how I wish, as long as I don’t abuse the privilege.
As long as the content companies impose restrictions on law abiding citizens which we feel are inappropriate and unreasonable they will continue to lose the battle for hearts and minds. The opening up of DRM free shops is a major step forward.
So, whilst I do not condone piracy in any form, neither do I condone the disgraceful conduct of the music and film industry. I expect to purchase my music, dvds etc in any country, expect to play them on any device and if the content owners go out of their way to stop me then don’t be surprised if I don’t purchase their content. They are killing the golden goose.
There are a number of different issues here:-
a) Peter has very eloquently put the case for rights owners to close the gap between cost and price, as it is driving the illegal copying issue.
b) There is a second, separate case to be made against the attempts by content owners to restrict free trade across the globe, by enforcing DRM on DVDs, in particular, which stop the playing of content purchased in one part of the world on players in another region. (There are no good technical reasons for this – it is to support restrictive, cartel arrangements)
c) And then there is the third problem, DRM systems on-line, which stop those who have legitimately purchased content on-line from using it for fair and reasonable purposes.
Now I am no expert, but I suspect that none of the systems listed above will actually stop a dedicated copier, but they do irritate and annoy the honest folks who purchase content in good faith. Personally, I refuse to purchase DRM encoded music on-line, as DRM is a scourge that I will not encourage or endorse, and I avoid DVDs from companies who put “Horror Videos” on the front of their DVDs – 99% of those watching the DVD have every right to do so and playing a scary, stealing video is just not acceptable.
I don’t think we need a new agency. We need content companies who stop looking for ways to protect their over-inflated profits and instead look at how they can better serve their customers. Customers have rights too!
[...] Action 11 By the time the final Digital Britain report is published the Government will have explored with interested parties the potential for a Rights Agency to bring industry together to agree how to provide incentives for legal use of copyright material; work together to prevent unlawful use by consumers which infringes civil copyright law; and enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators. The Government also welcomes other suggestions on how these objectives should be achieved. 5 [...]
I think the digital britain team should concentrate on improving the infrastructure and delivering a decent broadband connection to everyone in this country, rather than trying to protect an outdated industry. It would also reduce the amount of drugs these so called stars use. The get paid far too much and the industry around them leeches and panders to them. Live concerts and merchandise make more money for the artists, and free song share promotes them. If the digital britain team interfere too much the pirates will gain even more power over the kids. The internet is supposed to be free from interference and available, don’t spoil it because of one industry. You let the shipbuilders, coalminers, steelworkers and fishermen and farmers die out, let the anchors robbing the kids die out too. Freedom on the ether. Power to the people. Light blue touch paper and retire…
[...] paper is not intended to form the consultation on the specific legislative proposals outlined under Action 13 of the Interim Digital Britain Report. We intend to issue a formal consultation on the [...]
Just found a lovely example of how modern innovation has made sharing and selling possible. check out this site and see what you think, they let you make playlists, share and listen to any song you like, then you can buy the mp3 of it. Looks legal enough to me…
http://blip.fm/cyberdoyle
just listening to queen, its a kind of magic… the bell that rings inside your mind…
[...] protection of intellectual property in a ‘digital Britain’. These are discussed under Action 11 and Action 12 in the Digital Britain – Interim Report. The deadline for the consultation is the [...]
Responsibility needs to be taken on by companies who make significant profits from allowing ‘unfettered’ movement of content across the sites for which they have responsibility. These organisations need to amad eto accept such responsibility for the obvious breaches etc. that they permit instead of allowing them to use (and hide behind) phrases such as ‘We are not responsible for…’ etc.
Hi Joseph, that is like saying the state should be responsible for anything transported illegally on our roads. The internet is free space, we shouldn’t try to stop movement, we should encourage legal use of media by rewarding the innovators who make such sharing easier, and the best way to do that is to get the pirates to help, they have the skills, so pay them to do it on the right side of the tracks. Legislation, rules and reports force innovation underground.
I don’t see how enforcing ISPs to spy will gain you any trust, it will just put the price of a connection up and stop poorer people using the internet.
I went to see ‘We will rock you’ – the musical yesterday, it was excellent. This govt will turn us all into gaga girls and boys and kill rock if we let it. We want to stay free. Don’t let the music and film industry control us. The internet is where people can share and enjoy entertainment of our own making. As time goes by there will be even more work from people available, and downloads of copyrighted stuff will not be as important. If you like someones work you can make them a star, without the media heist that goes into promoting the ‘stars’ of today.
Compulsory licensing of any sort runs into Berne 9.2 problems; imo it would either need to be accompanied by some sort of levy, or be so limited in scope as to be almost useless. Besides which, there is the fact that it would require controversial primary legislation.
Copyright in terms of the author having control is necessary, however the language of this report often refers to the ‘rights holder’ which is not necessarily the author. Often the ‘rights holder’ will pursue legal action against people that are engaging with the authors work through creative reconstitution. Meanwhile it is increasingly becoming the case that the authors no nothing about this action being committed in their name and in fact oppose the actions of the ‘rights holder’.
Creative Commons copyright is the way forward for creative authors. With cheaper access to professional quality production tech, easier methods of digital advertising and digital distribution, I’m not quite sure why we are trying to maintain these obsolete middle-men if they refuse to adapt their role.
I agree with the prior posters, this paragraph needs major reform.
I am yet to see any evidence produced by independent parties (i.e. not reports produced by the rights holder lobbying groups) that this sea of illegal activity, illegal or not, actually negatively impacts on sales. All the (independent) studies I have seen state that it either has no negative impact, or promotes sales.
“But there is a tension between providing reasonable rewards for creativity, which have historically required a measure of protection for the creator’s rights, and the freedom to allow that content to be used to permit further innovation and creativity.”
Historically, content protection is a recent phenomenon. Human beings have produced music for as long as they’ve been human beings, and for most of that time there was no government mandated system of compensation. Musicians performed for money; they had to make a living like everybody else did.
This paragraph, this section and indeed this entire report assumes the right of people to be compensated for the reproduction of their work. Nothing is done to try and establish how this is a fundamental right and not just a historical anomaly.
“Copyright is vital for our content and communications industries”
Copyright is not vital for communications industries – I am fairly sure I cannot acquire a broadband connection of a phone line via BitTorrent. If it is vital for the content industry, this simply raising the question, why is the content industry vital?
Note, I am not asking why we need music, television, and other content. I am asking why we need the content industry. People produced creative content before it became an industry, and human creativity will not simply cease if the people who have monetized it go out of business.
There is none for the citizen, but there is for the monopolist. To them, government enforcement of civil matters is an externality – someone else pays to increase their profits.
This paragraph in particular is written with a complete obliviousness towards the rights of the citizen (here, very tellingly, referred to as the consumer). The only question that is considered is how to punish the consumer for not paying the set price, not if it is right to do so, or if it is the governments job to do so.
Whoever wrote this seems either to be part o the content industry themselves or advised only by those in the content industry.
“This has led to a fundamental change in consumer expectations, particularly among the young. There is now a growing expectation that content can be found and shared for free.”
Again, people in this document are referred to solely as consumers, and the desire to access information merely as the desire to get hold of a product without paying.
I think the largest gulf between the ‘young people’ that the authors seem so mystified by and the authors themselves is the notion of information as a commodity.
Young people don’t see it that way. I don’t think many older people see it that way either. In fact, I think it is a very minor viewpoint in society that is disproportionally represented here.
“to ensure people are educated about how digital products can be used and why there may be limitations”
The use of the word ‘educate’ by a government, outside the context of schooling, should be an alarm bell to concerned citizens.
It isn’t used here in the context of granting knowledge and skills to someone, but in the context of believing someone who disagrees (in this case, with the boundaries of IP) of being ignorant and therefore needing to have their thought processes reformed.
Content providers may begin by trying to rationally explain their position (in the mistaken belief that people don’t understand them) but when this doesn’t work – because people do understand their position but they don’t agree with it – they will seek to ‘educate’ through threats, fines and ultimately criminal charges.
“Education” used in this paragraph means the same as in the sentence “The Chinese dissident was sentenced to 20 years re-education through labour”.
The text here is pointedly not specific about the nature of the ‘strong message about the importance of respecting copyright’. It comes across as nothing more than a veiled threat.
The point that, if such a ‘strong message’ is needed to force people to comply with copyright law, is copyright law worth it?
“The University of Hertfordshire[2] research into attitudes towards music and copyright by young people showed that only 10% of those surveyed are currently deterred from file-sharing by a fear of being caught. The current approach to civil enforcement is not working as well as it needs to.”
In other words, if only 10% of young people are frightened of the authorities, we aren’t scaring them enough.
Emotional commitment? This report seems to swing from Stalinist police state to needy girlfriend without skipping a beat.
Those who own content providers do not have an emotional commitment to their customers; they simply use customers to make money. Why should customers, or potential customers, treat the relationship any differently?
I agree. Copyright is not a fundamental right, rather an agreement between society and content creators, it grants a monopoly to content creators and takes some freedoms from the people in order to encourage the production of creative works.
In bygone times these freedoms were small; few people owned a printing press or could print records. Nowadays everyone has a publishing platform and recording studio on their desktop and so they are giving up a lot more creative freedoms.
In its current form, British copyright law is stifling the production of the new creative works it was designed to protect.
“copies are near-perfect”
This sounds technically wrong. Copies are usually near perfect, but also often a perfect copy. Many file sharing sites are now using FLAC, which is a lossless compression for audio files. In time we’ll see similar technologies for video.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for lossless video compression (at least for files of a reasonable size). Video has to have much more data removed from it to get it into downloadable chunks than music does.
I can’t see there being widespread use of lossless video compression until we have much faster download speeds; and judging by recent events and the contents of this report, getting access to the next tier of speeds is likely to require users giving up on the idea on any sort of privacy, and quite possible network neutrality as well.
Without getting into a debate about the technical practicalities of lossless video formats, it’s safe to say that entire retail DVDs are often shared on the p2p networks without the need to recompress the data and lose quality.
TPB have a section dedicated to full 9GB DVDs and I imagine that full Blu-Ray images will be shared once people have the bandwidth.
Laws which specifically target P2P will become worthless as soon as they are enforced because public peer to peer file sharing services just happen to be the current easiest way to share files. Any legislation which effectively stops public P2P services will just make people go elsewhere: private P2P sites, chat rooms, instant messenger files transfers, email attachments, download only services (such as Usenet), private FTP sites, shared folders, file drop services and even physical sharing of media.
Anonymous P2P networks already exist, there’s no way to tell who’s doing the uploading or downloading in a network like Freenet.
Both DVD and Blu-Ray have lossy compression, so my point still stands. However, the visual difference between Blu-Ray and raw video, and even between DVD and raw video, is so slight that as far as most users are concerned the video now available on p2p networks is as good as lossless. There are always a minority of users who will hanker for more quality, and they are likely to consume a disproportionate amount of media.