Starting to look at what is going on in this area, I can see that there are several initiatives for developing the law in the Copyright and anti-Piracy space, examples:
Commission asks ECJ to rule on ACTA compatibility:
The European Commission is to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule whether a controversial international anti-piracy agreement is compatible with "fundamental EU rights and freedoms".
As mentioned in the earlier Blog discussions, it seems that copyright infringement might be considered a criminal offence according to ACTA!
Member countries of ACTA must ensure that IP that exists in "the digital environment" can also be enforced through civil and criminal legal procedures.
This is a UK measure, requiring ISPs to combat illegal file sharing based on a procedure provided by OFCOM.
----
I wonder if the UK (or any other EU country) would suffice by having their own regulation rather than enforcing ACTA?
I would prefer international regulations, especially in the case of Internet, where no borders exist.
Commission asks ECJ to rule on ACTA compatibility:
The European Commission is to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule whether a controversial international anti-piracy agreement is compatible with "fundamental EU rights and freedoms".
As mentioned in the earlier Blog discussions, it seems that copyright infringement might be considered a criminal offence according to ACTA!
Member countries of ACTA must ensure that IP that exists in "the digital environment" can also be enforced through civil and criminal legal procedures.
Introduce anti-piracy measures now, says shadow culture secretary
The Government must introduce anti-piracy regulations under the Digital Economy Act (DEA) in order to tackle illegal file-sharing, the shadow Culture Secretary has said.This is a UK measure, requiring ISPs to combat illegal file sharing based on a procedure provided by OFCOM.
----
I wonder if the UK (or any other EU country) would suffice by having their own regulation rather than enforcing ACTA?
I would prefer international regulations, especially in the case of Internet, where no borders exist.
The Government must introduce anti-piracy regulations under the Digital Economy Act (DEA) in order to tackle illegal file-sharing, the shadow Culture Secretary has said.!
ReplyDeleteHarman is right when she says that "now is the time to take things forward and for the government to strike the right balance between the content industries, including music, and the technology companies to create a climate where innovation can flourish," but then she adds an odd addendum — "while copyright is protected."
To my mind, the only test is whether innovation can flourish — innovation is not limited to a particular class or type. Innovation and creativity are at the core of the purpose of copyright, and copyright has no reason to exist otherwise than to encourage innovation — to my mind, it is entirely wrong to suggest that it is a goal in its own right, which is what Harman appears to be saying here.
For a most eloquent description of copyright, see, for example, Thomas Macaulay's two speeches to Parliament in 1841, when the extension of term of protection was under discussion.
(Harman's comments do not surprise me, however; it was under her administration that the Act was pushed through, controversially, in the wash-up period, and seems to be rather unfit for purpose.)
ReplyDeleteI would prefer international regulations, especially in the case of Internet, where no borders exist.
I think that this is a sound sentiment in principle; enforcing rights without Europe is no easy task, and, given national differences in law, is not necessarily even that easy within Europe — all measures for enforcement of IPR are directives, and not regulations, and thus approximate rather than standardise.
I do have a number of major concerns with such an approach, though which, in my opinion, should be sufficient to quash more international notions of copyright.
Firstly, it suggests that "intellectual property" should be considered a global notion, and mean the same things to all people. Thus, copyright as it is important to the US is inflicted on other nations of the world, where there are substantial cultural differences, and where there is no benefit to a particular nation in having US-derived law enforced on them.
Countries with weaker economies, for example, or where education is more of a struggle, are likely to benefit from a regime where copying is permitted — indeed, even the copying of books produced by the US. Imposing US standards is not always appropriate, as not every country is like the US.
It is worth bearing in mind that the US was a haven for copyright infringement not so many years ago, paying no regard at all to the English laws on copyright — copying works protected in England and exported to the US was in the interests of the US, and so it was done with abandon. Now that the US has passed that phase, it wishes to prevent other countries from doing the same.
(For two references on this sort of issue, see a.) Adrian John's excellent book, "Piracy" and b.) Alan Story's fascinating look at copyright in the "global south", here)
Secondly, albeit somewhat relatedly, I do not recall ever reading about copyright law becoming less stringent — we seem to be on an ever-upwards trajectory, whereby the rights granted by copyright, and the means of enforcing those rights, become ever stronger, without necessarily considering the fundamental compact at the heart of copyright — that every increase in rights detracts from the public domain, and must thus have a clear justification. If the benefit to innovation and creativity does not outweigh the harm to the public domain (a harm which is very real — see a quite modern example, Eldred v. Ashcroft), the compact is broken, as the rights granted are disproportionate to the benefit. It seems to me that, over the last 300 years or not, the system of copyright, as it has evolved, has become ever more disproportionate to its objectives. Similarly, one cannot help but wonder whether copyright has become seen as a goal in its own right, rather than as a means of accomplishing the real goal, the stimulus of creativity. If we proceed on the basis of international laws, we run the risk of always increasing the bar — as demanded by various rich and clearly-interested lobbying groups — rather than reappraising it.
Thirdly, I have a concern about the way in which treaties are negotiated, and the respect (or lack) for the rule of law, and the principles of a democracy. ACTA was — but for the leaks — negotiated in secret, and it does not strike me that this is an appropriate way for laws to be made. I'm perhaps foolish enough still to believe that the government should fear, and represent the will of, the people, rather than the people being subject to the independent machinations of the government, and I fear that, with treaties, lack of accountability is pushed even further.
Thank you Neil for providing your comments/view.. you make very good points :-)
ReplyDelete