Michael Barnier of the Internal Market Commission has called for copyright infringements to be prevented 'at source'. Any proposals involving ISP's as an authority against intellectual property rights does not sit well with me. Similar ideas have been implemented via the Digital Economy Act in the UK and while the concept of the idea is understandable the practicalities of it are questionable. Should boot sale/music fair organisers be forced to police what is being sold at the stalls? Should charity shops refuse to accept books or CD's (because to re-sell them is breaching copyright)? Should Royal Mail/couriers be held liable for counterfeit goods being posted in the mail?
ISP's are providers of a service, they should not be legislatively charged with the burden of ensuring that all information transferred is of a legitimate nature. Progressive steps towards 'Internet Police' would be better placed with the correct authorities such as Trading Standards, the Police or another newly appointed body to ensure not only impartiality but correct and proper procedures for determining illegitimate use.
Idealistically, the concept that Internet Service Providers can police what is transmitted will work in a similar fashion to Youtube copyright infringments, whereby the copyright holder can inform them of any breaches. The volume of information which is being passed on the internet however could potentially open a massive can of worms.
Say I had a gallery of publically available pictures online, with no owner information provided - just pictures. Imagine a handful of people decided to use those pictures because not only were the pictures available to the public but the owner unidentifiable. The reasonable person would not assume that those handful of people had done anything drastically wrong. What is to stop me, the owner, then coming out of the shadows once the pictures had been copied and suing for copyright infringement while simultaneously contacted the 'copyright cops' (ISP's) to ask them to deal with the matter.
How many hundreds of people could claim copyright infringement when there is no actual monetary loss through the sharing of such material? How much strain would that put on the ISP as the police? Is it right that they are being held responsible for the information which is transferred amongst internet users?
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
25 May 2011
24 May 2011
Copyright in tattoo?
The Hangover II may be delayed due to a court case over the tattoo on Mike Tyson's face. While you can sympathise with 'creators' of photographs and tattoos there is a question of where to draw the line. If the tattoo is on a person, should that person be effectively covered by copyright where the artist will benefit? Should artists relinquish rights when its on the body or person of another? Or does the 'art' still belong to the creator?
Interesting questions are raised, although with the case being held in America it is still unknown how that will affect the release of Hangover II in the UK. Could an injunction be applicable worldwide? Its doubtful to say the least and while it may delay the release in USA, it will probably not affect the UK. What it does do is raise interesting points to consider regarding ownership of copyright and how far it extends.
My personal view is that personal outcomes such as photographs or tattoos should be owned by the subject, ie Mike Tyson in this case because to rule in favour of the artist creates an unfair hold over the people he has tattooed.
Maybe there will be a rise in self styled tattoos or commission based tattoos originally created on behalf of the person who will be tattooed?
Comments welcome.
Interesting questions are raised, although with the case being held in America it is still unknown how that will affect the release of Hangover II in the UK. Could an injunction be applicable worldwide? Its doubtful to say the least and while it may delay the release in USA, it will probably not affect the UK. What it does do is raise interesting points to consider regarding ownership of copyright and how far it extends.
My personal view is that personal outcomes such as photographs or tattoos should be owned by the subject, ie Mike Tyson in this case because to rule in favour of the artist creates an unfair hold over the people he has tattooed.
Maybe there will be a rise in self styled tattoos or commission based tattoos originally created on behalf of the person who will be tattooed?
Comments welcome.
18 May 2011
Copyright - robust or weak?
The Hargreaves review raises some interesting points about the strength of copyright protection in the UK. Strong IP rights have created a world class IP regime in the past but recently, due to technological changes, there has been an ever increasing strain on the legitimacy of copyright in particular.
Patent rights have its own issues which will be addressed in later posts, but copyright has been the main victim to the changes in technology. There are however, distinct advantages to the very same technological changes such as digital technology and the Internet. iTunes, Spotify and LOVEFiLM have clearly spotted the niche in the digital market and grasped it with both hands, creating viable and successful businesses using the 'root cause of piracy' - the Internet and MP3 players. Amazon has also successfully managed to tap into the digital market by promoting e-books and the Kindle.
Individuals now have access to various sources of information, many requiring little or no effort to access. The information is susceptible to unauthorised copying, not least because it is available to more people but due to misconceptions amongst the general internet using public. Misconceptions such as unauthorised copying CD' to MP3's breaching copyright in the UK, as well as other innocent uses of information protected by copyright like copying parts of news articles for discussion amongst friends and copying pictures found on the internet.
What the review will do is highlight these misconceptions and re-iterate the legislative stance on each particular matter. Whether the private copying exception is introduced or not is still unknown, its introduction however may reinforce what is legitimate copying and what is not.
The two main opposing arguments are:
The arguments are both valid and finding the balance will never be a simple task, not only because of difficulties in deciding who should benefit most from copyright but because the boundaries of such are always changing. Previously it may have been suitable to have broad copyright protection because enforcing those rights were largely easier, now with the amount of individual activity (as opposed to organised crime - bootlegging) those same rights are more difficult to administer and also to justify.
The justification for copyright changes through time depending on the needs of the government, authors/creators, competitors and consumers. Currently those needs are all equal as there are no preferred interested stakeholders. The review may strike that balance perfectly, while failing to recognise the practical constraints on the recommendations and therefore transferring these recommendations into legislative provisions may prove more difficult.
Easy entry into the copyright protection realm should mean that the resulting protection that copyright offers is equal to and representative of that entry. Unlike patents, which are extremely difficult to obtain and worthy of the robust protection that IP rights give, copyright protection should be relatively weaker than the patent protection.
Patent rights have its own issues which will be addressed in later posts, but copyright has been the main victim to the changes in technology. There are however, distinct advantages to the very same technological changes such as digital technology and the Internet. iTunes, Spotify and LOVEFiLM have clearly spotted the niche in the digital market and grasped it with both hands, creating viable and successful businesses using the 'root cause of piracy' - the Internet and MP3 players. Amazon has also successfully managed to tap into the digital market by promoting e-books and the Kindle.
Individuals now have access to various sources of information, many requiring little or no effort to access. The information is susceptible to unauthorised copying, not least because it is available to more people but due to misconceptions amongst the general internet using public. Misconceptions such as unauthorised copying CD' to MP3's breaching copyright in the UK, as well as other innocent uses of information protected by copyright like copying parts of news articles for discussion amongst friends and copying pictures found on the internet.
What the review will do is highlight these misconceptions and re-iterate the legislative stance on each particular matter. Whether the private copying exception is introduced or not is still unknown, its introduction however may reinforce what is legitimate copying and what is not.
The two main opposing arguments are:
- Robust copyright - called for by publishers, record industries, some authors: copyright should be robust as a financial incentive to create more material. If the investment dries up because of a lack of faith in returns of said investment, the quality of material will be reduced.
- Weak copyright - open rights organisations, individuals (consumers) and some authors: copyright should be weak because its entry threshold is so low. Permitted uses of material enables further creation of material because it can be easily accessed and shared amongst creators.
The arguments are both valid and finding the balance will never be a simple task, not only because of difficulties in deciding who should benefit most from copyright but because the boundaries of such are always changing. Previously it may have been suitable to have broad copyright protection because enforcing those rights were largely easier, now with the amount of individual activity (as opposed to organised crime - bootlegging) those same rights are more difficult to administer and also to justify.
The justification for copyright changes through time depending on the needs of the government, authors/creators, competitors and consumers. Currently those needs are all equal as there are no preferred interested stakeholders. The review may strike that balance perfectly, while failing to recognise the practical constraints on the recommendations and therefore transferring these recommendations into legislative provisions may prove more difficult.
Easy entry into the copyright protection realm should mean that the resulting protection that copyright offers is equal to and representative of that entry. Unlike patents, which are extremely difficult to obtain and worthy of the robust protection that IP rights give, copyright protection should be relatively weaker than the patent protection.
17 May 2011
Copyright Review - Hargreaves (May 2011)
The Hargreaves review is due to be made public tomorrow following a comprehensive review into intellectual property. Whether the review aims to clarify the current copyright laws to be more in tune with current needs, is as yet unknown. It would seem unlikely that the 'Google Review' will take place, not only because of the implications it may have for the impartiality of the review following David Camerons remarks but mainly because of the 'groans and sighs' from publishers and content providers (note - not the actual authors per se!).
While certain organisations have already been made privy to the information contained within the review, its contents will be available for public consumption tomorrow. Privileged bodies afforded early readings were not OFCOM, ISP's, the police nor Trading Standards I hasten to add, but major record labels.
Whether the review will have any impact other than opposition to the subsequent recommendations leaves an air of trepidation amongst the interested stakeholders but not earth moving for the UK's overall copyright regime. The main changes proposed are thought to be the introduction of central digital clearing houses (similar to the way in which PRS operates), a new private copying exception (for personal use, such as copying a CD onto an MP3 player) and the 'Google review' would appear to be shelved.
If the review does indeed include more relaxed fair use provisions, by way of implementing the private copying exception then the privileged bodies may not be so agreeable with the proposition that the review is the deciding factor on the 'copyright war' (expressed by the BBC new report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13422652 "Who has won the copyright wars?").
Without wanting to analyse too deeply before reading the actual recommendations, theorising about whether the copyright protection afforded to owners should be enhanced or decreased or whether the enforcement of licensing rights should be the main target is all just that... theory.
While certain organisations have already been made privy to the information contained within the review, its contents will be available for public consumption tomorrow. Privileged bodies afforded early readings were not OFCOM, ISP's, the police nor Trading Standards I hasten to add, but major record labels.
Whether the review will have any impact other than opposition to the subsequent recommendations leaves an air of trepidation amongst the interested stakeholders but not earth moving for the UK's overall copyright regime. The main changes proposed are thought to be the introduction of central digital clearing houses (similar to the way in which PRS operates), a new private copying exception (for personal use, such as copying a CD onto an MP3 player) and the 'Google review' would appear to be shelved.
If the review does indeed include more relaxed fair use provisions, by way of implementing the private copying exception then the privileged bodies may not be so agreeable with the proposition that the review is the deciding factor on the 'copyright war' (expressed by the BBC new report: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13422652 "Who has won the copyright wars?").
Without wanting to analyse too deeply before reading the actual recommendations, theorising about whether the copyright protection afforded to owners should be enhanced or decreased or whether the enforcement of licensing rights should be the main target is all just that... theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
