Intellectual Property Office says public has until March 30th to comment on the creation of a Digital Rights Agency as recommended by Lord Carter’s Digital Britain Report.
The UK govt is asking for public input on the role a ‘digital rights agency’ should play in protecting and promoting the legal use of copyright content online, and how industry, consumer groups and government can work together to create an environment where investment in creativity is rewarded.
The agency – a key element of Lord Carter’s Digital Britain report – would encourage people to use legal sources of copyrighted material.
Creators, commercial rights-holders and consumer groups are all asked to respond to a discussion paper exploring the potential benefits of a new agency and the impact it would have in combating unlawful online file-sharing and piracy.
David Lammy, Minister of State for Intellectual Property, writes:
A properly worked out rights agency could be a real step forward. We can’t have a system where even net-surfing 12 year olds have to understand copyright in order to keep themselves and their parents safe within the law.
The real prize here is a rights agency that sorts out the complexities that keep consumers on the right side of the law, and ensure artists get properly paid.
We need to make it easier for consumers to do the right thing. The internet has become an integral part of daily life. You shouldn’t need to be an underwriter to take out an insurance policy, and you shouldn’t need legal training to surf the web.
At least he understands that copyright laws are overly complex, products of a bygone era that preceded today’s digital age.
“In the new digital age, copyright infringement has become easier and more socially acceptable, so it’s clear we need some form of legislative backstop for the protection of rights as well as new and innovative ways to access legal content,” said Stephen Carter, Minister for Technology, Communications and Broadcasting. “Today we have published proposals in the form of a Straw Man on digital rights. That Straw Man could be torched, tolerated or a touchstone for the start point of constructive debate and design.”
The IPO poses the following questions to the public::
- How to educate and change consumer behavior towards copyright material;
- How to support industry efforts in developing new and attractive legal ways for consumers to access content
- How to support legislation to address consumer activity that breaches civil copyright law and how to tackle persistent infringement;
- How to enable technical copyright-support solutions that work for both consumers and content creators;
- Whether or not the Agency should be an independent industry body with back-up legal powers held by Ofcom
- How such an agency can be funded
A key issue is also the development of an ISP code practice for protecting copyrighted material and which would require them to take further action against repeat illegal file-sharers.
One option would be to restrict network access of repeat infringers. Legislation could provide examples of such measures (e.g. protocol blocking, bandwidth capping) but leave it open to an industry body – the rights agency, subject to
approval from Ofcom – to specify what, when and how.
These actions would not be limited to tackling unlawful P2P activity, but rather geared towards finding effective ways of reducing the overall levels of online copyright infringement over time, allowing for changing behaviors and technologies. Should there be no agreement between industry on the utilization of such measures it would be for the regulator – Ofcom – to chose whether to impose such measures, judging their appropriateness and need within the policy principles within which they work.
Another, less attractive, option would be to specify in the legislation what
types of action the code should include and the basis on which they should be
applied by ISPs. The risk here is that it merely solves the problems of today, leaving the problems of tomorrow without a solution.
If you’re a UK citizen I hope you’ll take a moment to submit your answers to the questions above.
Comments on the Rights Agency discussion paper should be forwarded via e-mail to [email protected] by 30 March 2009
I like the idea of a digital rights advocacy organization but I fear that such an organization could be tainted by comercial interests who would exploit such an organization in a way that doesn’t benefit the people they are charged to protect.
If I remember right the Home Office was suppose to protect the safety of British citizens but when the Phorm company came around the Home Office was tumbling over themselves trying to sell out the rights of people to the distress of many watchdogs just for the benefit of a company wanting to hijack people’s browsers at the expense of consumer privacy. What Phorm was wanting to do was actually illegal but since money could be made laws and morals be damned.
I’m not against a digital rights advocacy organization just don’t let them become another mouth piece for the IFPI an organization that has been trying to transform laws into what they feel is most suitable – at the expense of everyone including the industry.
I have an option for them revert copyright back to a commercially applicable law revert the extensions that have been illegitimately added over the years and let the industry re sort how to function under fair copyright. The current copyright systems creates unfair monopolies that hinder creative development and competition among artists. Independent research keeps showing that filesharing and the like has no measurable effect on sales so why are we punishing society for sharing culture a long standing human quality? Government is here for the people and to follow what the society that elected them believes is fair so lets start listening to them rather than giving some elitists some ill deserved power.