UK Report Suggests Tougher Copyright Laws

danpsmith writes "The BBC has an article about a government report which proposes new powers against copyright infringement. Interestingly, however, it also says that 'private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player' and further 'recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended,' saying, 'The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators.' While satisfied with most of the report, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says it will 'continue to press for the copyright extension.'"

Legalize file sharing already.

"By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format."

I've got some bad news for you.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

The summary didn't cover the part where intentional copyright infringement can land you in jail for up to ten years. Yes, the DMCA sucks and is overly draconian, but I'd rather violate that within my home than endg up in the slammer for having accidentally including a snippet of something copyrighted in something I upped to Youtube.

Best of both worlds would be nice, though.

So much time, so many wasted days

Its a shame really that so much of the world is caught up in wasting their time trying to argue with the **AAs of the world, or trying to help them protect their (stolen) products. Why are our governments wasting so much time on this? Could it be that they are all being paid on the hush hush to do so? If that is the case, why don't we revolt?

Seems that stubborn headed ignorance is the rule of the day?

Its a shame... No matter what decision is made, all this time, money, and resource has already been wasted to try to equalize what one industry wants made into law to line their own pockets. Yeah, I know, this is just one industry, but this is the industry that is on topic... its a start if we all, and I mean all, simply stop buying music. See how that suits them. Don't buy any for gifts this year; don't buy any for personal use. They can't possibly prosecute all downloaders, nor could they afford to continue to do so without revenue. We can't all be put in jail...

signed: frustrated

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

How else would you suggest they stop the problem? No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.

Ah yes, and the fact that it is illegal is the end of the argument of course. The law is the ultimate decider of morality, right? The fact that certain groups have purchased law that leans heavily in their favor, in direct contravention of the stated premise of the area of law in question, that is immaterial, yes?

I do not have to supply an alternate solution to the "problem". The "problem" is the solution. If a small cartel of non-producing corrupt money-grubbers think they can erect a permanent fence around our common freakin' culture and charge us admission, the only solution is to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the fence and knock it down wherever we can.

"but it's against the law!"
moron

Flame away, but I agree to an extent

I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes. I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.

While most of us here at /. buy our music legally, this is not the case for the majority of people with MP3 players and digital music collections. While the move to independant music publishers and online distribution of legal music is good for some (particularly those who like to listen to non-mainstream music), it won't address the problem.

Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

"Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?"

Make all downloads legal, and there will be no more illegal downloads.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

Yes much tougher and much shorter, say 15 years.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

So you're saying that you could get ten million people to invest ten dollars, sight unseen, into a movie, for the eventual hope that they'll possibly like it? Do you think a business model like that would genuinely fly?

Yes and yes. If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would. That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?

We have enough trouble just getting people to donate money to people who really need it, let alone to people who just want to create entertainment/art/whatever. The entire idea is completely against human nature.

No, it isn't. See, this isn't a donation, it's payment for a service, which incidentally benefits more than just the people who pay for it.

It's like if ten people live on a dirt road, and eight of them get fed up with the dust, so they pool their money and hire someone to pave the road. They aren't donating money to the paver, or to each other; they're paying for the benefit of living on a paved road. Now, it happens to be the case that the two people who didn't pay, and any of their visitors, will also get to enjoy that benefit, but the reason it got paved in the first place is because those eight people felt strongly enough about it to open their wallets.

If enough people feel strongly enough certain types of movies, those movies will get made. It's just like what we have now, but with a more direct connection between funding and production - studios won't have to drop $100 million on a movie just to find out that it only sells $50 million worth of tickets.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

You are almost right. Musicians have to worry about this because they sold their souls to companies that belong to the RIAA or equivelant. They sold out because of the monopoly that the music industry forced on musicians, and now they can't sell directly. The problem IS the RIAA, not just what they wish to be enacted as law. The entire business model of the RIAA is fscked, outdated, and not even compatible with current technologies. Let the RIAA die!

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

"I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes."

Well, if you mean better protections, I don't think it is needed, but... However, if you mean harsher penalties, they are already way over the top. I think I know why, but that doesn't excuse things.

As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.

all the best,

drew

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

They have decline in music sales, but they are getting more at their concerts? And they are complaining???? WTF? AOL proved that a CD is an advertisement, they should be loving it. You pretty much prove the point, make sharing legal and they will get more concert revenue! Hell, some people will even buy the CD of the show they saw as they are walking out the door if you give them a chance.

Uh...yeah.

"private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player"

Well, that's mighty fucking white of them. Next up: Reports from Herefordshire indicate a possible end to meat rationing starting mid February.

Stealing...

From TFA: Peter Jamieson, chairman of the BPI, said: "Stealing music is effectively stealing the future of British musicians and the people who invest in them.

Copying is NOT stealing.

Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work?

Only if you invest your weekly paycheck. I don't understand why copyrights have to last longer than 20 years. If have a successful song or book, invest the money. If you want to continue making money by making music or writing, create new material. Otherwise, there's always demand for new MacDonald's employees.

Patents expire. Does that mean that no one can make money on patents? Ignore patent trolls and American lawyers for a moment. Think of a company that files a patent and makes the product described by a patent. They have a monopoly for a set period of time, allowing them to sell a product that no one else has. Because the patent will expire, the company needs to continue innovating. Competitors will have access to the patent eventually and will be able to release different (often better) products based on the technology. If the patent system wasn't profitable, no one would file patents.

The ideal copyright system...

• Is one that only allows copyrights to be owned by people, not corporations.
• Is one that is of a definite scope and duration, with possibly shorter durations for works that are intrinsically transient, such as software.
• Is one that has a limited-scope exemption from copyright infringement for purposes that would qualify as fair usage.
• Is one that has an unlimited exemption from copyright infringement for personal and private copying.
• Is one that does not get ammended to legally inihibit people from excercising the priveledges afforded by the above two exemptions merely because of the obstacles posed by enforcement.

Innovation crap - as usual

They cant find any reason to bark more copyright crap other than 'innovation' hullabaloo.

They just cant say 'the copyright holders need more heaploads of money for longer durations' to the public of course, hence they come up with 'innovation' crap.

You cant innovate nothing if you dont already have huge capital behind your back. There are millions of people trying to 'innovate' under the current system, yet the percentage of those who succeed are comparable to the rates of people winning lotteries.

More bought 'opinion', i say, about this 'report'. Give me 2-3 million dollars extra, ill go buy you another 'respectable' 'report' that is saying copyright is bad.

What's their point?

Not sure what these guys's point is. You can always ask a recording executive what their opinion is and get a vote for more copyright laws. The fact that we study European copyright laws brings up an interesting point.

There's a drastic difference in the number of copyright laws and the attitude of the country towards licenses.

Europeans take copyright laws much more seriously than u.s., they analyse the licenses exhaustively before they touch any IP even if there's no consequence to them, so they don't have as many laws enforcing the licenses. Because they care about the license, open source software has become much more popular in Europe.

U.s.ahans don't take copyright laws seriously at all, so they've created more laws. U.s.ahans go by whether it's downloadable and what the password is. When the emphasis is on downloadability over licensability, you get less attention to open source in u.s..

Each year the ultra-rich try to steal more n more

I say to heck with copyright extensions. What was written in the US and UK Constitutions way back when (e.g. 17 or 20 years max) is good enough for then, and it's still good enough now.

And trying to pretend you can make me sign a DRM contract that's on a website at the bottom of a file drawer in the local planning office is just as insane.

Don't get me started on patents. My granddad had a patent, and 17 years was good enough for him, and it was for something real, not some fake software "concept".

here's an idea

Not having read more than the headline but having followed the copyfight with more than a passing interest, I have an idea which I haven't seen expressed anywhere. That is the biggest problem with copyright isn't anything to do with copyright per se, it is that it is a privelege granted without the compensating responsibilities that go along with it. Make it so that anything out of circulation, that is anything copywritten that cannot be purchased new at a reasonable cost in any five year window reverts the rights to the author/artist who will have a further five year period to find a new publisher/distributer or to make it available in an digital format for non-commercial use. The copyright traders should not be allowed to pick and choose what the public can use. If the industry chooses to abandon their products by not offering them for sale their exclusive rights should go along with it.

Lobbyist newspeak

"Criminals made over £270m from film piracy in 2005, making this the worst affected single sector for intellectual property crime out of all IP industries.

"This is revenue that has been lost to the local and national economy and is affecting British jobs."

SO the supposed £270 million lost suddenly disappeared from the British economy? If you are going to make a case for more copyright protection, at least be honest about it. Stop trying to look like you are working for "the people" cause we all know "the people" want free movies.

Article needed one more comment...

While satisfied with most of the report, The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says, "it would continue to press for the copyright extension."

It is surprising that the viewpoint of the largest supplier (at least in terms of bandwidth) of Internet content is ignored by the authors of the original article. It would be more interesting to hear what the other BPI (British Pornographic Industry) would have to say about the new copyright proposal...

OH! The Irony

In the sidebar is this little gem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214512.s tm [bbc.co.uk]

When you click the link, as it turns out the recording industry has cheated Olivia Newton John out of royalties related to her Grease movie.

Doesn't that put it all into perspective. Some poor slob gives a copy of a CD to his mother and he's a criminal. The recording industry cheats millions from performers and it's just an accounting practice.

Holy cow.

"Tougher" laws, as if this is a crime

I could understand a headline about "tougher" laws for people who have murdered, where the act fundamentally violates another person, but "tougher" copyright laws makes it out as if copying things is similar. The very concept was created for the ultimate purpose of making more things available for sharing freely, in a way that also provided new benefits to content producers. It never was a fundamental human need that only recently became protected by law, as the title suggests. Since I'm stating the obvious, I'll also remind you that water is wet.

Gowers Report Link

I know nobody here even read TFBBCA, but here's the full Gowers report [hm-treasury.gov.uk] (see PDF under Final Report), with background etc.

Lawrence Lessig blogged [lessig.org] about one interesting recommendation -- that copyright term not be altered retrospectively. I think that's British for "retroactively".

Copyright is wrong

Not that it's anything we don't already know but the current copyright laws do not serve the purpose that they were intended to. Protecting the rights of the author to profit from his ideas while protecting the public to make use of and grow from the benefits provided by the idea.

Personally, I feel copyright laws should be abolished and redone from scratch.

My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent??? Ask the 'A' in "RSA" about this sometime. He's not dead but the protection of his property is. Walt disney has been dead for 40 years, yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.

Is a song worth more than a fusion reactor? No. Is a fusion reactor worth more than a song? No. (Well, I think it is but I'm generally considered uncultured.)

My point is that both are intellectual property and both should be treated fairly and equally with regards to each other. Whether your view is "Copyrights should last 20 years after the filing of the copyright" or "Patents should last 70 years beyond death and be renewable", I don't care. But the intellectual effort of all authors should be treated with a measure of equality.

My view point is 20 years after filing for both. That seems to strike the right balance of the author gets to make a huge profit for 20 years while the public can derive a benefit in the foreseeable future.

It's a lot more than tougher laws

OK, since <obligatory moan> for some reason the eds posted a story about a BBC article and not my version straight from the source</obligatory moan>, let's get a few things cleared up.

We're talking about the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property [hm-treasury.gov.uk]. This was a wide-reaching review, covering a lot more than just copyright, though of course copyright is a major component in our IP framework.

In terms of copyright law, here are some of the major recommendations from the review:

• The EC should not extend the copyright term for sound recordings and performers' rights. Moreover, if any extensions are proposed, they should not be retroactive. (The arguments given for this approach would make most Slashdotters proud, I imagine!)
• The UK should introduce a tightly specified private copying exception, to legalise format-shifting.
• Enforcement needs to be stronger, with tougher penalties and consideration given to a fast track procedure.
• It is too early in the development of DRM to start legislating about it, but it should not be allowed to interfere with legitimate uses of copyright material that are non-infringing. An existing mechanism to report such abuses of DRM is noted, but is so convoluted that no-one has ever used it. The Review recommends making this process much more obvious and easier to use. The Review also recommends taking another look at some of these issues further down the line to investigate whether the system is working fairly.

Personally, I agree with most of the review's conclusions and recommendations. I was, however, disappointed that they felt the need to limit their recommendation for a personal copying exception so much. The Review acknowledged that some personal uses were perceived, incorrectly, to be legal by many people, and that banning such uses by law damages the credibility of copyright as a whole in the public eye. They also acknowledged that some of these uses do not harm the interests of the copyright holder. They have also stressed throughout their process that their review would be evidence-led. I find it intriguing, therefore, that they have completely failed to address other reasonable personal uses mentioned in several of the submissions, such as backing up, recording broadcasts, and making compilations.

Some submissions gave quite reasonable arguments based on existing law in favour of explicitly legitimising these. For example, under blanket UK consumer protection legislation, any article purchased from a shop must be (a) fit for purpose, and (b) capable of lasting for the expected lifetime of the product. Since the expected lifetime for information is indefinite, abusing copyright and/or DRM so that when someone's CD wears out they have to buy a whole new CD because they couldn't take a back-up should be a violation of UK trading laws. (Bizarrely, under the proposed system, you could take a back-up as long as it's in a different format, and if your original copy wore out you could then shift the information back again as you would still have only a single copy in any given format of material you had legitimately obtained.)

On the whole, I give them 8/10 given the huge scale of what they were attempting. At least pretty much everything I've read of the review so far is a reasonable position, and most of it is a clear improvement on where we are now. My complaint, such as it is, is more that they didn't go far enough in some areas than that they went in the wrong direction. But such is progress, perhaps.

News to me!!

"By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format."

Wha.. huh? Do they really think people have been sitting under a rock all these years and haven't already thought of sharing their music either physically or electronically? Yea, I`m sure there's billions of people just WAITING for this to be legal so they can finally do it!

a refreshing view

Wouldn't it be nice to hear an artist like cliff richard say something along the lines of "oh, i'm wealthy enough as it is. Who cares if my music will soon gradually make it's way into the public domain, as i'll never have to work another day in my life!" ? Or perhaps something more like, "I look forward to people having a chance to make some cash from my material that stopped generating me any significant amount of money forty five years ago! It'll make me feel slightly better about this vast fortune i've accumulated over the course of my career."

Nice try but ...

Tougher laws will do about as much to stop file sharing as the CAN-SPAM Act has done to stop unsolicited email. I'm guessing this report was written by a bunch of bureaucrats who just don't get it.

In these "digital times"...

The planet is much smaller. The exchange of information and culture is much faster. Technological development grows and changes at a pace that isn't easily contained by the interests of copyrighted content holders. Indeed, the amount of intellectual property claims also seems to be growing at ever-increasing rates.

I argue that the current mass of IP is already beyond managable levels and in fact has grown to the point that it impedes new artistic works and inventions which is contrary the original intent of "IP" as a concept and institution. As a means to reduce the present condition and in the interests of preventing the stagnation of technology and human advancement, I propose that a REDUCTION in the term limits of copyright and patents such that they not extend beyond five years for patents and ten years for copyright from the point of such claim is initially granted.

We don't need to extend copyright and patent terms. We shouldn't keep them at their present duration. They should be reduced as it is quite obvious that patent claims are used and traded to the exclusion and extortion of smaller, emerging business. Copyrights serving beyond the death of the original creators are not serving the purpose commonly cited which is to compensate artists for their work. Indeed, it is being harvested by non-creative parties whose interests are not those of the public which represents a complete abuse of both parties intended to benefit from the creation of copyright as a concept and institution. A reduction in copyright terms would restore copyright to better serve the public's interests and those of the creators of copyrighted materials.

not extending copyright != stealing music

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which represents the mainstream recording industry, broadly welcomed the report but said it would continue to press for the copyright extension. Peter Jamieson, chairman of the BPI, said: "Stealing music is effectively stealing the future of British musicians and the people who invest in them. "The decision on extension is ultimately for the European Commission and we will be putting our case vigorously when it reviews the relevant directive next year."

I love this bit - they don't even try to justify the reason for copyright extension which is they want to continue making money of something old - and they probably can because *some* people will still buy 51 year old stuff if they find it valuable. The point is that the material has passed into collective conciousness if its still wanted after 50 years and it ought to be free (I mean in the public domain not free as in beer). Putting things in the public domain doesn't translate to free as in beer - you still have to get it from someplace and unless its widely available someone can certainly charge you for the convenience of making it available. Ofcourse you can turn around and host it yourself and they can't do anything about that.

What putting things in the public domain does do is allow anyone anywhere to study it freely, edit it, really do whatever they damn well please with it and not have consequences. Yes I'm being a heretic and saying that something that is old but still profitable should be given away to anyone for anything for essentially free because that will encourage creativity. It will also help ensure those works actually get preserved. If something is available freely and openly and anyone can make copies of it (books, music, movies software, whatever) then it stands a much better chance of survival then if its still controlled by one company.

Theres a massive disconnect here - Jamieson is talking about stealing music and copyright extension at the same time but not extending copyright terms is not stealing from the artist or the people who invested in them - its allowing them to make money of older stuff which they wouldn't have otherwise - in a sense its really stealing from the general public who IMHO have a right to work that is part of our common "heritage" (for want of a better term).

The Association of Independent Music (AIM) said it was particularly unhappy over the issue of allowing more private copying. A spokesman said: "This is taking pragmatism to the point of capitulation, and falls drastically short of creating the progressive copyright framework needed in the digital age. "By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format."

This one is od coming from AIM precisely because they are supposed to be independent and I thought the issue of pivate copying was more of an issue for the major labels - I've not had time to follow the money yet. I think they misunderstood something though - Gowers advocated private copying and format shifting yes but they did not say without DRM. This ofcourse begs the $64,000 question - how the heck do you get something under a DRM scheme into the public domain after the copyright term is up. Frankly I'd hope that with 50 years in the interim we could break any DRM there was quite easily by brute force if need be but the question is if the format will remain readable over that period at all. I'd say obligate companies to release material into the public domain after their copyright term is up in a current format without any restriction. Yes this costs money but they did profit of the damn thing for 50 years - its minimum payback and the cost is already pretty damned low.

Yeah, sure.

1. Make your weak, long ranged laws strong but short ranged.
2. Back stab people and extend them with the DMCA 2.0.
3. The RIAA profits (you don't).

silly

private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player'

They already can and do.

and further 'recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended,' saying, 'The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators.'

50 years is not "balanced"; "balanced" copyright, in today's world would be 10-20 years. Furthermore, copyright should go back to applying only when the work has been explicitly registered, so that things actually can fall into the public domain and people can determine ownership.

Re:silly

Under current UK law, such format-shifting is actually illegal. The report notes that this is an anomaly. The BPI won't be suprised, it was something Peter Jamieson had already agreed with a while ago (maybe he had a sneak preview)

oh for goodness sake

Two things.

Remember the "warnings" on record sleeves "Home taping is killing music" - did it?

Precisely.

Copyright was supposed to be to protect the melody and words of a song so that another artist cannot copy large parts of the song/melody without paying royalties. Not to stop the audience getting hold of the song.

It's a greedy, ugly industry trying to scare governments into passing laws to make their income stream bigger and easier to maintain.

Want to know why sales are falling?

Because a lot of mainstream music is bland, boring crap. Where are the protest singers in the charts? Where are the artists? It's all family oriented, safe for the children, shrink wrapped, corporate approved, vaguely pornographic nonsense.

"Musicians sign copyright advert"

Sounds like Cliff Richard et al aren't happy about the idea of copyrights on their old recordings 'expiring': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6216152.s tm [bbc.co.uk]

People *knew* the copyright on recordings was only 50 years when they made them. Tough.

So...

Any advice on immigrating to the UK?

Misleading Headline?

The report suggests:
* Not extended copyright length (as some have campaigned for).
* Legalising copying for private use (between devices, or reencoding between formats - yes, it's sad that this has to be made legal, but it's still a step forward).

The "tougher regulation" appears to be for "people who sell pirate versions of music and films on the internet" and furthermore it is merely saying that penalties should "be brought in line with those who make hard copies".

Whilst many including myself are against tough penalties for file sharing, I'm not sure many people have a problem when it comes to those profitting from piracy?

Having said that, I am worried about the mention of "bootleggers" - I would worry if this covered those selling (often rare) live recordings which have never been published by the record companies; many of these would have been lost forever if it wasn't for bootlegging.

even better

Reading the report it applies to video too so all those DVDs I've ripped to watch on my palm will become legit!

Don't be stoopid now!

It's time to choose just don't fall for another ruse you only lose watch as they abuse You keep it up And you're only asking for Moore you need to stop believing they work for (you) As time goes The lies unfold But once you know you forget what you were told They twist and redefine The truth they tell is true to them only They claim divine And assemble at the frontlines You're out of line if you question or speak your mind they want you blind Stupid and behind What to believe? Nowhere in sight in industry can you receive without being deceived This is your brain and this is your brain on Fox news you are insane if you buy their sell-out truth Don't be stoopid now! Just like the (R)ecording (I)ndustry (A)ssholes of (A)merica They promote mass ignorance cause that's what floats their aerials Don't let them turn you into legion of stoopid Don't let them turn you into drones Right now, knowledge is the one weapon that you can not throw away Or else we all will pay