Hargreaves Review: Who has won the copyright wars?

Newport State of Mind Spoof videos can fall foul of current copyright laws

It's the document that could, according to which lobby you believe, either kick-start innovation in the UK or deal a fatal blow to our creative industries.

The Hargreaves Review of copyright is published on Wednesday and I've now got a pretty good idea of what it will look like.

So who has won the battle between the radicals who wanted sweeping changes to our system, and the conservatives who said it was working just fine?

What the review does not do, according to several people in the know, is go down the radical route suggested by the prime minister last November.

'Google review'

David Cameron pointed to the "fair use" doctrine in American law, which he said had allowed companies like Google to flourish without fear of infringing copyright.

Those in the creative industries who dubbed Professor Hargreaves' mission "the Google review" feared that our copyright regime would be torn up and replaced with a fair use law.

That, I'm told, will not happen. While the Hargreaves panel was convinced by the argument that the American system was friendlier to innovative young firms than our own, it also accepted that fair use just wasn't going to work in the UK.

For one thing, it would mean convincing all the other EU countries to go down the same route. One-nil to the conservatives in the creative industries then, and what one of their lobbyists described to me as "a slap in the face for the Google/Cameron nexus."

Even if it does not recommend a whole new system, it seems the Hargreaves report will call for extensive reforms to the existing regime.


In particular, it will say that recommendations in the last report on copyright, the Gowers review, which were ignored by ministers, should now be implemented.

Intellectual property sign Will a fair use law be among the recommendations?

These include getting rid of restrictions on "personal format shifting" - in other words, allowing you to copy music from a CD onto an MP3 player, or "rip" a copy-protected movie from a DVD so that you can play it on a computer.

In reality, nobody has gone after consumers for these copyright offences, and even the content industry lobbyists accept that the law is now daft in this area.

Mind you, some in the movie business still seem concerned that any change will encourage a practice which is still a bit too geeky for most DVD buyers.

There will also be a recommendation that use of video for parody should be protected from copyright suits - so that makers of videos like the Newport State of Mind parody on YouTube should not find themselves getting threatening letters from record companies.

Start Quote

One way to judge how radical it really is will be the reaction of the creative industries”

End Quote
One-stop shop

In general, Hargreaves will seek to ensure that the spread of copyright law into areas where it was never supposed to apply is halted.

The most radical idea in the review may be the attempt to shake up the licensing of copyright works, a process which both young technology companies and small creative businesses told the review panel was a nightmare right now.

The plan seems to be to launch some kind of one-stop shop with automated processes, a digital exchange for licensing. The music industry says there isn't a problem - just look at the number of new digital services with licensing deals.

But talk to the likes of Spotify about the endless meetings and uncertainty involved in licensing music and you get a different picture.

On Wednesday you can expect the Hargreaves review to be painted as a radical document which will make the copyright regime less confusing and more equitable, while making Britain a more hospitable place for innovation.

One way to judge how radical it really is will be the reaction of the creative industries. Perhaps they will jump up and down shouting foul about measures to allow format shifting or parody videos.

But my suspicion is that they will be cracking open a few bottles and celebrating the fact that the "Google review" has not delivered the recipe that the search giant had recommended.

Rory Cellan-Jones Article written by Rory Cellan-Jones Rory Cellan-Jones Technology correspondent

Zuckerberg - the unasked questions

Mark Zuckerberg's appearance at the Mobile World Congress was a missed opportunity.

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Rory

Related Stories


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 77.

    Quite frankly, the idea of the commercialism being removed from art forms such as film making and music sounds pretty darn good. How many more times can we stand to see a cloned blonde heroine act in a dumbed down version of Emma or Romeo and Juliet and how much more manufactured "pop" do we have to endure before creative industries go back to being creative? Hit them in the wallet.

  • rate this

    Comment number 76.

    @ Paul Ellis - How do you feel about people taking pictures of their family where your "IP Protected" photograph was in the background? Current DRM makes that situation a crime. How would you feel about people buying one of your photographs that they can only look at through an e.g. "kodak" photo viewer and they can't make a copy to carry around in their wallet? DRM says it is a crime to do so.

  • rate this

    Comment number 75.

    Certainly! As it gives one more level of security. That is assuming you are sensible enough to password protect your phone in the first place.

  • rate this

    Comment number 74.

    @ 73. anonymous_4. - The problem has been that not "only" doe's the Singer get royalities for each Song they record, for so doe's the Record Companies, whereas the Carpenter and his designer Table has a much longer journey to be re-created unlike a Record that can be mass produced in minutes.
    The Question is: How do you stop the Rip-Off recording Companies from making more Royalities on old hat.

  • rate this

    Comment number 73.

    @72 LondonHarris -- exactly. If you are a carpenter and make a table, do you expect to get paid every time someone uses it? No? Then why should you get paid when someone uses your music?

    You make it once, you sell it -- job done. Just because you can copy it and make 'lots of tables' why should you get lots of money but not the carpenter?

    The answer: Greedy bar stewards.


Comments 5 of 77



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.