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.

Copy-protected

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

As schools grapple with coding revolution many may get left out

A new drive to give children a better set of technology skills is being announced, but are schools prepared?

Read full article

More on This Story

More from Rory

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    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
    0

    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
    -1

    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
    0

    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
    -1

    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.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 72.

    Why do we need NEVER ending Copyright laws at all.

    For lets say, many Craft and Designer people work for a living making lets say "Staircases", or perhap "Wedding Cakes", then why cannot these inventors also go on forever claiming royalities on their creative Designs.?
    In truth, it has been a Gravy - Train in expected royalities for Song Writers, to make an endless profit from old Songs, etc:.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 71.

    @66.DaveSimonH
    ...Not as if the police are going to be knocking down doors at 4am to confiscate their ipods. They are too busy dealing with, and investigating real crimes

    If only you were right, too busy sitting having donuts on the slip roads of motorways waiting to add tax to 'speeding' motorists - motorists who can do whatever speed the like in villages

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 70.

    Another issue that's fundamental to this story is the way that search engine indexes work. In the past, people have posted comments that suggest that pages are the only thing that's indexed. The words on the page are also indexed, so the index is a substantial copy of the page (it's an index of word stems excluding noise words). For an explanation search on "full text indexing".

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 69.

    Having read a bit more on this, it seems the current law allows fair use exemptions. However, instead of defining a principle of fair use there is only a list of exemptions. Ideally statute should define principles which are interpreted by case law.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 68.

    It's a shame fair use isn't working out, but we certainly need something more radical than this. Don't get me wrong - this is a massive step in the right direction, and certainly better than the government coming out with that Digital Economy rubbish. But it needs a lot more added to make a real impact and bring things up to date.

  • rate this
    -1

    Comment number 67.

    @Graphis Not entirely true.

    You design a dress, I see it on the catwalk, I copy it and sell it. Fasion industry operates on this principle.

    BUT: I photo your dress, give you a copy (the designer) and I can restrict your usage. I can deny you the right to use it to advertise your dress to your customers.

    What's the difference between the dress designer and the photographer? Fair use.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 66.

    The current UK copyright laws are frankly antiquated. Anyone with a mp3 player that has music on it obtained via ripping from the CD is breaking the law. It's laughable really. Not as if the police are going to be knocking down doors at 4am to confiscate their ipods. They are too busy dealing with, and investigating real crimes.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 65.

    PGM @ 63

    The problem starts when I take something you created and sell it on as something I created (HINT: the clue is in the word "copy"). If you sold me a painting of yours for £50, and I pretended I did it and sold it for £500,000, and got world famous for it, you'd understandably be a little miffed. That's why copyright exists, to stop me doing that.
    It's not like selling second-hand goods.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 64.

    So we don't adopt the less restrictive practices that would foster innovation because... it would be too difficult to implement the legislation across the rest of Europe? Pathetic... just who are our laws supposed to serve? Certainly not us...

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 63.

    I make a chair and sell it. You are free to do what you want with it. Resell it, charge for people to sit on it, copy it in lego, whatever.

    I paint a picture. Again, you are free to paint over it, cut it up, hang it the wrong way round, sell it on after 'altering' it.

    Other commodoties don't have these restrictions so why does certain 'media' get special rules?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 62.

    re. Eponymous Cowherd @52
    I just read Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to check what you said. It looks like you're right. Section 28A covers this.
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents
    It's annoying because there are loads of things in there that contradict what I was taught on my computing degree. There's actually quite a lot of fair use exemptions in chapter III.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 61.

    Ian Savall(42) & Nemesis(39) you miss the point, if u have a talent and create something in 5 mins that people want, they're paying for your talent & ideas not ur time. (Tho you may have studied for years unpaid to get to that level) Some don't have that talent, that's just tough. Get over it.

  • Comment number 60.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 59.

    Copying copyrighted content is nothing new. I think we've all have a few mix tapes in our youth! Its just now there is no loss in quality with every generation. I must admit I still prefer a CD to an MP3 and a DVD/Blu Ray to a digital download. Its something physical, something I can lend and something that won't dissapear in a keystroke, not to mention often better quality.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 58.

    No matter what the law is changed to, no matter what the copy protection software is, technology i.e. software for copying the files and software to make sure that the copying goes undetected will always be at least one step ahead.

 

Page 1 of 4

 

Features

BBC © 2014 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.