UK opposes copyright exemptions for mash-ups
You ain't got a bootleg to stand on, chum
Regcast training : Hyper-V 3.0, VM high availability and disaster recovery
There should be no new exemption from copyright law for users' adaptations of copyright-protected content, the UK Government has said. To create such an exemption for user-generated content would ignore the rights of content creators, it said.
The Government has responded to a consultation paper published by the European Commission on copyright reform. That consultation asks whether the European Union's Copyright Directive should be amended to introduce exemptions for 'user-created content'. User-created content can include individuals' use of professionally-produced music, film, video or images for a new or different purpose to the original.
The Government rejected proposed changes that would exempt such users of copyrighted material from restrictions in copyright law.
"The suggestion for an exemption for user-created content seems to create a distinction between those who use and those who create works, which in many cases is not justified," said the Government's response to the Commission's consultation.
"Another significant concern is the extent to which such an exemption might allow others to use the works in a way that the existing rights holders do not approve of and the impact that exemptions in this area might have on remuneration," it said.
The Government suggested that legislators focus more on improving licensing of material by copyright owners to allow other people to make works using parts of their content. It said that companies had already found some success in negotiating such agreements themselves.
"In addition to the 'Creative Commons' licence we have seen the 2007 agreement between [music licensing body] the MCPS-PRS Alliance and YouTube which enables YouTube users to include certain musical works in their video clips under a licence given to YouTube," said the Government. "In considering any possible exemptions in this area it is important to consider carefully the potential impact on existing rights holders, in terms of both commercial and non-commercial [user-generated content]," it said.
The Commission's consultation is designed to help it review the EU's Copyright Directive and it focused particularly on when people should be exempt from copyright laws.
The consultation asked whether some of the exemptions which countries are allowed to include in their own copyright laws be mandatory. The Government said that not enough work and research had been done to ascertain whether or not that was wise.
The Government had the same view in relation to exemptions for libraries and for schools, though it did say that there were bodies which were worried that a clarification of educational exemptions to copyright law could lead to a widening of those exemptions.
The Government said that any plans to make it compulsory to provide material in specific formats for disabled users should be resisted.
"We do not believe that stipulating formats in law will be helpful," said the Government's response. "Keeping legislation up to date with changes in technology is likely to be extremely difficult, and locking particular technologies into a legal framework could hamper efforts to deliver improvements."
The Government did back the creation of one new exemption, though. The EU's Database Directive does not have an exemption for people with disabilities in the way that the Copyright Directive and copyright laws have. The Commission asked whether a new exemption in that Directive should be created. The Government said it should.
"Subject to evaluation of the impact of making such an amendment, it would seem appropriate to ensure that the same conditions apply to an exception including databases as apply to the current exemption dealing with other works," it said.
See: The Government's response (11-page/546kb pdf)
Copyright © 2009, OUT-LAW.com
OUT-LAW.COM is part of international law firm Pinsent Masons.
COMMENTS
If the government is so keen on copyright...
can we have a level playing field then and some enforcement of copyright law against big business flouting the rights of website owners and creators ?
Text of email sent to UK IPO With copy to European Commission
Quote
There should be no new exemption from copyright law for users'
adaptations of copyright-protected content, the UK Government has said.
To create such an exemption for user-generated content would ignore the
rights of content creators, it said.
End quote
The above quote is taken from an article here
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/03/mashup_copyright/
The following are facts which are indisputable concerning the operation
of PHORM a deep packet inspection system which BT and other ISP's are
anxious to employ.
The ISP, using Phorm supplied equipment, create a 100% literal copy of
the web page in transmission.
That is a copyright violation (because the ISP is not licenced to hold
a copy for any purpose other than onward transmission, particularly a
copy with an independent economic value).
But Phorm go further. Phorm also create an adaptation, the digest
summarising the recurrent words.
Copyright also recognises the 'value' (rather than the literal) nature
of what is copied in an adaptation. If you take the best scene of a
play, and incorporate it in another play, that's still a Copyright violation.
Likewise, by copying recurrent words which summarise the page content,
Phorm are capturing the essence of the page in the adaptation they
create.
The adaptation has economic value, and it violates copyright too.
But the most obvious Copyright violation is the literal copy they make
first, compounded by the fact that at no time do PHORM obtain the
permission of the copyright holder, in this case the website creator in
order to undertake any of the above actions. This is illegal and a
breach of copyright.
The website creator grants 'limited' rights to
users to view and use the site for personal and non profit ends only,
and unless specific permission is asked for by Phorm and given the
actions listed above which are unarguably and undeniably part of the
operation of the system are illegal.
In view of these facts and the recent statement by the government
regarding user content I quote..
"The suggestion for an exemption for user-created content seems to create a distinction between those who use and those who create works, which in many cases is not justified," said the Government's response to the Commission's consultation.
"Another significant concern is the extent to which such an exemption
might allow others to use the works in a way that the existing rights
holders do not approve of and the impact that exemptions in this area
might have on remuneration," it said.
I would be grateful if your department would confirm my assumptions, or
where it disagrees and feels I am mistaken in my interpretation of the
UK copyright laws and the governments intentions please correct my
errors.
Purely from a technical standpoint...
...it is hard to imagine how one might frame a law to allow mash-ups without driving a coach and horses through the whole show. After all, it isn't exactly *hard* to dress copyrighted material in new clothes. If you are against copyright in principle, fine, but don't pretend that this is some trivlal thing that rights holders *could* have permitted were they not such a bunch of evil bastards.
Wait a sec...
...the anti-copyright slogan is now "Artists: Get a real job!"? To paraphrase The Daily Show, at last someone is saying what the people, who aren't thinking, are thinking...
And, for the white-collar dabblers who create their art for love and cuddles, congratulations. Just so you know, artists feed their kids too. The vast majority take on all sorts of pissy little jobs and gigs and commissions and freelance work and even sell a few paintings and they patch it all together into a life so they can buy themselves enough time to express their own ideas, because that is what they need to do and it is what they are are good at. And when they create something, sure they want to see it received well and provoke something in others. If someone wants to buy it and help them keep on going, all the better. They dont want some sticky chav cutting it into his Beat Box Spaztacular, or some right wing neo-nazi group using it as their next fight song, or some multinational drug company using it to advertise their restless-leg syndrome cure.
This is more than just money (though money is in there too) and to characterise artists as pimped-up record execs or freeloading hippies is intellectually dishonest strawman'ery. You admit by your own preening that art makes people happy so imagine the chilling effect that loss of artistic rights will cause - not just to the artists and creators, but to us all.
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
