0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
A report prepared for and endorsed by the British Screen Advisory Council promotes widespread digital-rights-management programs to manage content, while advising shrinking the "window" between theatrical and DVD releases. That position was echoed Thursday by U.K.'s Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, in a speech scheduled to be delivered to a intellectual-property and media conference here. Both of the BSAC's recommendations will be necessary in a world where video-on-demand services will eventually replace DVD rentals, pay-per-view, and premium television, according to the report. The 53-page document attempts to create a framework for Britain's film and television industries to adapt to an evolving consumer-controlled culture, where personal-video recorders and video-on-demand services will allow users to "time shift" content to their own schedules and pluck content from different sources to create their own libraries. Going forward, the report says, consumers will have increasing control of what they watch, when they watch it, and in what format – on-demand television, DVD, or over the Internet. While consumers will still watch "live" broadcasts of sporting events and news, PVRs will increasingly be used to "catch up" to the programs, while VOD will be used for archiving. That will require a rethinking on the part of content industries, which will also come with a price tag -- one that will likely be paid by consumers.
An unidentified UK ISP Blueyonder employee let slip to one of our readers that they routinely receive lists of IP addresses that are to be monitored for various “law enforcement” purposes, and that the resultant data was processed and provided to those requesting it. According to the information received, the Business Software Alliance and the BPI are amongst many requesting such information, although requests for any data identifying their clients go unanswered. Obviously if this is the case, it is likely to alter dramatically with the introduction of planned new legislation. They will simply have to comply.Slyck decided to ask John Moorwood Senior Public Relations Manager of Telewest - who are the owners of the hugely popular Blueyonder ISP. John refused to enter any discussion on their use of spidering techniques of the kind reported to us, neither confirming nor denying our report, simply saying that “It is safe to assume that we do (so) as part of our overview of the network, to analyze trends and usage, but I'm not prepared to discuss and risk compromising our formal law enforcement policies"This is of course a perfectly valid point, and so we asked him what exactly constituted a law enforcement agency. For example, did he agree that the BPI qualified as such, to which he responded " If it's a criminal issue, such as commercial piracy, then the police would initiate the formal request for identifying or personal data but we still require a court order"We then asked if they had been called upon to collate or provide data regarding accesses by users to specific web sites or IP addresses? John explained “We may be asked by a third party, using a court order, to verify the identity of a user, based on the third party's information and evidence” , going on to add “That evidence may have been obtained by the third party using 'honeypots' or news group posting headers, etc. We ourselves do not specifically collate data on users' behavior, although we do inadvertently collect some information due to day-to-day running of operational systems such as web caches.”.We went on to ask if they had collated data on the basis of specific internet activity (e.g. file transfers, ftp P2P, etc). John replied “We are constantly evaluating all forms of capacity planning systems, including some that could identify specific application traffic types, but we have never implemented such a system”
An inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG) into the issues surrounding digital rights management (DRM) has extended its deadline for submissions from the public due to popular demand, it claims. The inquiry, which was launched in November, is investigating issues such as whether free software licences need legislation changes to be effective, how consumers should be protected when DRM systems are discontinued and what legal sanctions those who circumvent DRM systems should face. DRM recently hit the headlines due to the discovery of Sony DRM technology that used a rootkit to hide itself and so could pose a security risk
Hmm this one is a bit closer for me, but as we are paying all sorts of stealth levies and taxes should we really be suprised ?http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=11587QuoteMembers of the UK music business are said to have given support to an iPod tax – a copyright levy that would be added to the price of every MP3 player sold, based on the assumption that some music on the device has not been paid for.Some criticise the move, suggesting that this means music purchased legally is being bought twice. There is also a suggestion that by adding the tax to MP3 players, the music industry would be monetizing P2P trading and legitimizing the piracy.Paid for twice again , lol This sounds like the recording industrys way of doing business for the last 5 years
Members of the UK music business are said to have given support to an iPod tax – a copyright levy that would be added to the price of every MP3 player sold, based on the assumption that some music on the device has not been paid for.Some criticise the move, suggesting that this means music purchased legally is being bought twice. There is also a suggestion that by adding the tax to MP3 players, the music industry would be monetizing P2P trading and legitimizing the piracy.
Two citizens of the United Kingdom have been successfully prosecuted by the British Phonographic Industry. The BPI is similar in function to the RIAA, as it aims to protect the intellectual property of its member companies. Like the RIAA, it has conducted a enforcement campaign against those making files available online. Albeit half-hearted compared to the American effort, it has sought damages against just under 150 alleged P2P pirates.Since no one has been found liable of copyright infringement via P2P networking in the United Kingdom, it seemed to be a risk worth taking. Two UK citizens learned the hard way yesterday their strategy against the BPI, at least for now, was in vain. The two individuals, one from King's Lynn, and the other a post man from Brighton, Sussex, were unable to convince Justice Lawrence Collins of their innocence.The summary judgments handed out by Justice Collins rejected the argument by the King's Lynn man. In his defense, he submitted there was no direct evidence of infringement. Additionally, the Brighton man's claim that he was simply unfamiliar with the law and did not gain financially was also rejected. The cases were separate, however the judge ruled simultaneously.The fact these two cases were ruled by summary judgment have some consumer rights groups concerned. A summary judgment is based on arguments presented in legal briefs, not a full trial. In particular, this has drawn the ire of Suw Charman, executive director of the Open Rights Group (similar to the American EFF.)"It's very disappointing that Judge Lawrence Collins saw fit to throw both cases out of court, handing summary judgments to the BPI without giving either defendant the opportunity of a trial. We have yet to see a full and proper debate on filesharing in the UK courts and to see Judge Collins siding so emphatically with the BPI is disheartening."
MPs were warned on Thursday that digital rights management systems are preventing consumers from exercising their fair-use rights.Appearing at a hearing conducted by the All-Party Parliamentary Internet Group (APIG), senior representatives from the British Library said they were frustrated that DRM is stopping librarians from giving the public long-term access to content."If an item comes into the British Library and it is protected by DRM, it makes it very hard for us to ensure long-term access to that copy," said Dr Clive Field, director of scholarships and collections at the British Library.As a copyright library, the British Library has a responsibility to keep a copy of everything published in the UK. And like all libraries, it must be able to allow members of the public to duplicate parts of the material in its care. But the Library is finding that in the modern age much of the material it collects comes in electronic form.
The BBC licence fee could eventually be replaced by a tax on having a PC instead of owning a TV, according to a Green Paper delivered this week. The government plans to retain the license fee for at least ten years but ministers are looking ahead to a time when high-speed broadband connections routinely deliver digital television channels to the nation's homes. In that event a fee based on television ownership could become redundant and the government could look at other ways to raise revenue, from subscriptions to taxing other access devices.In a statement to Parliament this week, Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said that "the changes in TV technology that will soon result in a wholly digital Britain... perhaps the greatest challenge the BBC has ever faced." The Times reports that a legal loophole means consumers could watch television or listen to radio over the net without having to pay a license fee, leaving the BBC with a funding shortfall that could run into the millions.
In 2013, copyright in the sound recording of the Beatles' first album expires, as it will for recordings from Elvis Presley, Cliff Richard and other performers of the same period. Of course, copyright of all works expires at some point. This is for a clear reason. Copyright is designed to provide reward and incentive for creators and innovators. It also recognises that innovators and creators build on works from the past, and that they need to access these works if art, culture and science are to flourish. Who loses out? In the midst of an explosion in digital music sales, and a flourishing new music scene, industry executives are lobbying the UK government to extend protection for sound recordings from 50 years to 95. Creativity in music, film and literature is a cyclical process. New artists borrow from the past to create works to be valued in the future This, they say, would protect existing revenue streams that bands like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones provide. The argument for the extension of copyright is often presented as win-win situation for all. If we do not extend copyright, then the Beatles' sound recordings could be packaged and released by anybody, and the recording artists would not receive any money from future sales of the songs they recorded and made popular. So it hurts the recording artists, the record company who owned the original copyright, and the consumers who will be faced with a deluge of low quality Beatles compilations. But it is not actually the case that the artist will necessarily lose out. While copyright in the sound recording itself may be due to expire, copyright in the original work belonging to the songwriter lasts for the length of their lives plus 70 years. For each sale of a Beatles recording, the owner of the copyright in the original work will continue to receive payment until this expires many years from now. What will disappear is the right of individual record companies to maintain a monopoly on release of certain recordings. And this is what worries them. The Beatles sound recordings emerging from copyright protection will no doubt prove a financial loss to some sectors of the UK's music industry. But it could also provide opportunities for other businesses, and for consumers alike
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4724664.stmSo it hurts the recording artists, the record company who owned the original copyright, and the consumers who will be faced with a deluge of low quality Beatles compilations.
The Internet Service Providers' Association (Ispa) singled out the UK for its role in pushing for Europe-wide data retention laws. The laws, requiring telecom operators to store phone and internet data to help fight terrorism, received its final go-ahead earlier this week. Net companies are concerned about the cost of holding and managing the data. Under the legislation, internet service providers and telecoms operators will have to keep details of their subscribers' communications for up to two years. The measures will require firms to keep records of all phone calls and internet communications for a period of six months to two years, although the content will not be recorded. The legislation has drawn the ire of industry representatives - as service providers will have to bear the costs of the storage themselves.
A little while ago, I received an e-mail from a lady in the Trading Standards department of a large northern town. They had encountered businesses which were selling copies of Firefox, and wanted to confirm that this was in violation of our licence agreements before taking action against them. I wrote back, politely explaining the principles of copyleft – that the software was free, both as in speech and as in price, and that people copying and redistributing it was a feature, not a bug. I said that selling verbatim copies of Firefox on physical media was absolutely fine with us, and we would like her to return any confiscated CDs and allow us to continue with our plan for world domination (or words to that effect).Unfortunately, this was not well received. Her reply was incredulous:"I can't believe that your company would allow people to make money from something that you allow people to have free access to. Is this really the case?" she asked. "If Mozilla permit the sale of copied versions of its software, it makes it virtually impossible for us, from a practical point of view, to enforce UK anti-piracy legislation, as it is difficult for us to give general advice to businesses over what is/is not permitted."I felt somewhat unnerved at being held responsible for the disintegration of the UK anti-piracy system. Who would have thought giving away software could cause such difficulties?
At the Enterprise Conference on 2 December 2005, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, as part of the Pre-Budget Report 2005 package, he was asking Andrew Gowers to lead an Independent Review to examine the UK’s intellectual property framework. Mr. Gowers will be assisted by a small secretariat of civil service officials. The review will report to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in Autumn 2006. The Gowers Review of Intellectual Property launched its consultation phase with a formal call for evidence on 23 February 2006.Intellectual Property is a critical component of our present and future success in the global economy. Our economic competitiveness is increasingly driven by knowledge-based industries, especially in manufacturing, science-based sectors and the creative industries. The IP framework must balance the need to encourage firms and individuals to innovate and invest in new ideas and creative works with the need to ensure that markets remain competitive and that future innovation is not impeded.While it has been suggested that the present UK system strikes broadly the right balance between consumers and rights-holders, it also appears that there are a variety of practical issues with the existing framework. The Review will look at both the instruments (patents, copyright, designs etc.) that are provided by government to protect creative endeavour, and also at the operations: how IP is awarded, how it is licensed in the market, and how it is enforced. The Review will examine whether improvements could be made and, as appropriate, make targeted and practical policy recommendations.The Review will be evidence led and has therefore issued a public call for evidence as part of its commitment to consult widely with interested parties
As Newsnight's resident ubergeek, I've been asked to respond to the torrent of abuse streamed our way over our piece on Friday 24 February about BitTorrent and encryption. First though, an apology. File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft. Anyone who says it is theft is wrong and has unthinkingly absorbed too many Recording Industry Association of America press releases. We know that script line was wrong. It was a mistake. We're very, very sorry. If copyright infringement was theft then I'd be in jail every time I accidentally used football pix on Newsnight without putting "Pictures from Sky Sport" in the top left corner of the screen. And I'm not. So it isn't. So you can stop telling us if you like. We hear you. Now we've got that out the way, let us ask you a question. Why is it that every time the media starts to talk about the internet they feel compelled to bang on about paedophiles and terrorists and generally come over like a cross between Joe McCarthy and the Childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
Bunt v. Tilley involved an attempt to hold AOL, Tiscali, and British Telecom liable for allegedly defamatory postings. The claimant relied on the Godfrey v. Demon Internet case to argue that the court could hold the ISPs liable. That case has generated concern among ISPs in Canada as it does hold out the prospect for liability. The court was clearly uncomfortable with that decision, however, issuing a decision that was generally sympathetic to the ISPs. In particular, the court concluded that "an ISP which performs no more than a passive role in facilitating postings on the internet cannot be deemed to be a publisher at common law." That is the good news as it provides some comfort to ISPs who can rely on this case to argue that they are not liable for doing nothing more than hosting content. The bad news for ISPs is that they still face liability where they are put on notice about allegedly defamatory content. The court did acknowledge that "if a person knowingly permits another to communicate information which is defamatory, when there would be an opportunity to prevent the publication, there would seem to be no reason in principle why liability should not accrue."
The Open Rights Group has agreed with MP Derek Wyatt that the British Library should organise the DRM debate, but disagrees with his call for a European Internet governance body The MP's suggestion that the British Library moderate the debate over digital rights management (DRM) and copyright law has been welcomed by cyber rights campaigners.Suw Charman, executive director of The Open Rights Group, said on Wednesday that the British Library would be "an excellent facilitator" of DRM debate."There definitely needs to be a wider debate around DRM. Libraries understand copyright in great detail, and the British Library especially has a great deal of experience in the nuances of DRM and copyright law. It would be a fantastic facilitator of public debate," Charman told ZDNet UK. Charman agreed with Wyatt's assertion that copyright often doesn't benefit the creator.The music industry is lobbying very loudly for the extension of copyright law, and would overjoyed if it was extended to 95 years. They claim the musician would benefit, but the biggest beneficiaries would be the music industry themselves," said Charman.
Most discussions, including the one that took place this week, are based on an assumption that it is possible to lock content away. But it's silly to believe that any encryption system which can only work when the decryption keys are placed in the hands of millions of consumers can be made effective. Yet, there seems to be a belief that rigorous enforcement of technological restrictions, backed up by the ruthless application of draconian laws that allow the replacement of copyright with contract law and criminalise activities which used to be considered legal - or acceptable even when not clearly legal - will enhance the market, keep customers coming back for more and ensure the future success of the "content industries". The music, movie and publishing industries do not deserve to survive if their only way to remain viable is to undermine copyright law and replace it with restrictive contracts backed by harsh penalties for breaking the inevitably flawed DRM they wrap around their products. Others will take their place, and I cannot see that this is a bad thing. The content industries have a choice. They can suffer a painful restructuring as the full force of the move to digital unmakes all their plans and invalidates their business models; or they can suffer the same painful restructuring with a far smaller chance of success by alienating their one-time customers as they try to shore up their position with restrictive rights management.
Urgent talks between Britain’s songwriters and leading music labels over royalties on digital music are close to collapse, the head of the songwriters’ lobby group said yesterday. Adam Singer, chief executive of the Music Alliance (MA), said that the talks had been unsuccessful and that an agreement was unlikely to be reached before a tribunal hearing in the autumn. Mr Singer, the former chief executive of Telewest, the cable company, said that he had held several private meetings with the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), the body that represents the big music labels, including EMI, Sony BMG, Universal and Warner Music. “I think most people assumed that a deal would be thrashed out before a formal tribunal proceeding began,” he said. “As far as we can see, that is now unlikely. But talks are still ongoing, as both sides would like to avoid going to court. We are determined to see that the creatives get their fair share of the cake in a digital age.”
