This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Business News Legal Top Stories
Consumer groups call for more fair use in UK copyright laws
By CMU Editorial | Published on Thursday 16 April 2009
These guys will probably be lobbying the Tories too.
A report from digital rights campaigners the Open Rights Group and Consumer Focus, the new name for the old National Consumer Council (it’s merged with some other consumer groups), has said that the UK’s copyright laws fail to “balance the interests of rights holders and consumers”.
They have surveyed copyright laws in 16 countries, including India, South Korea, Thailand and Argentina, and say that the UK’s copyright systems are “the worst, by far”.
Not that I’d wish to question the two trade bodies’ research techniques, but I’m not 100% convinced of the approach this review took, and I suspect the main aim was to deliver a dramatic conclusion that backs up the two organisations’ long held belief that some of the ‘fair use’ provisions that exist in US copyright law, and elsewhere, and which provide situations in which individuals and organisations can legitimately make copies of content without the content owner’s permission, should be adopted in the UK. Some of the exemptions covered by fair use provisions in the US do actually exist under UK copyright law, but it’s true fair use is a much bigger doctrine in American copyright.
The Open Rights Group and Consumer Focus’ media release in relation to their copyright report centres in particular on the private copying situation in the UK. As much previously reported, in the UK it is, technically speaking, illegal to rip tracks from a CD onto a PC to be played on the computer or a portable digital music player, even for ‘private use’, and even though [a] the track ripper has legitimately bought the CD and [b] millions of people do exactly that every week. The two trade bodies are right, of course, to say this is a stupid law given that everyone disobeys it, many ignorant that what they are doing is illegal to start with. Not only that, but the then boss of record label trade body the BPI admitted during the government’s Gowers Review of copyright in 2006 that no record company would ever sue someone over private copying.
In most other countries private copying is legal, though in some a levy is charged on blank cassettes and CDRs which is then passed onto music collecting societies as compensation for the private copies of their music that are likely to be made onto them. There have been proposals in some countries to extend that levy system to digital music players – the so called iPod tax – though such proposals have not been without controversy.
Over here, most in the music business believe that private copying should be allowed, though some advocate, rather than a change in the law, the introduction of a licensing system whereby owners of licensed digital music players are given permission to make private copies of music off CDs etc. The manufacturers of said digital music players would pay for the privilege of offering such a licence.
Personally I think it’s a daft idea which would deliver nominal financial returns, and just give more ammunition to the likes of the Open Rights Group and Consumer Focus to say that the music business rips off customers at every turn. Not least because, of course, consumers will increasingly fill their iPods with tracks bought via legit download platforms, tracks which are licensed for use on portable devices in the first place. The record industry would be better off supporting a sort of fair use provision that allows private copying, and using it to generate some positive PR for the industry, for a change.
Anyway, I digress. Back to the ORG and Consumer Focus’ questionable research. Consumer Focus top man Ed Mayo told CMU: “UK copyright law is the oldest but also the most out of date. It’s time our copyright law caught up with the real world. The current system puts unrealistic limits on our listening and viewing habits and is rapidly losing credibility among consumers. A broad ‘Fair Use’ exception would bring us in line with consumer expectations, technology and the rest of the world”.
Jim Killock, Executive Director of ORG, added: “Rigid copyright stifles innovation and hurts citizens. It’s no coincidence that Google set up in America, where ‘Fair Use’ rights make copyright more flexible. The UK government needs to grapple with this now, so that new UK industries can spring up and consumers can benefit. It is ridiculous to ban copying, sampling and parody without payment, yet that is how the law stands today. The government is undermining copyright’s reputation by failing to give clear rights to users in a changed digital world, where we all rip, mix and burn. Copyright urgently needs reform, as this study shows”.
So there you have it. The Copyright, Designs And Patents Act 1988. It’s rubbish. Official.
