The Gowers Review came out today and the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right Honorable Gordon Brown (the expected next Prime Minister when Tony Blair steps down as promised) wasted no time promising to incorporate part of the government-commissioned report into UK law. In Brown's pre-budget report speech today, he had this to say:

It is because the future success of our creative and knowledge based industries depends upon Britain having a robust intellectual property regime that the Secretary for Industry is announcing today he will tighten the penalties for copying and piracy while giving individuals new rights for personal use; and he will introduce a new fast track protection for small companies to safeguard their trademarks.

Encouraging words from the Rt Hon Brown. And while I'm not through the 150-page Gowers Review, there's some encouraging language there too. How does 10 years in jail for piracy sound?

UPDATE (12/8/06): My former colleague Dugie Standeford has an interesting article on the Gowers Review on IP Watch. Noting the Review calls for action on orphan works, Dugie writes this:

Several recommendations aimed to recalibrate the balance between consumers and rights-holders through various “fair use” exceptions to copyright. One urged the government to seek an amendment to the 2001 EU Copyright Directive to add an “orphan works” provision making it easier for artists to re-use copyrighted material whose authors cannot be found.

The proposal is predicated on the premise that either the creator of a particular work is unknown or there are problems with clearing the rights to it, said London IP attorney Laurence Kaye. But as more and more content is digitalised, creators will have readier access to tools enabling works to be easily identified via metadata. Legislating now will remove the incentive for artists to use those tools, he said.

The more I speak with watermarking and other tech experts, the more concerned I grow about rushing to legislation on orphan works here in the US. Again, this is an area where we don't want to cut off assistance from the market, nor do we want to unnecessarily restrict rights of artists. She also quotes Kaye on the notion of fair use:

The report called for creation of a private copying exception. The proposal that consumers be allowed to copy content in order to shift it across different formats prompted AIM to warn that such a right, without an accompanying levy on physical media such as CDs and DVDs, “may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable” private copying.

Kaye argued that creating US-style “fair use” rights is “very risky” because it could lead to a new set of exceptions atop those already granted by existing UK case law. But Johnstone said, “Plans to allow people to copy CDs for personal use from 2008 - which is illegal at the moment - is a welcome recognition of the need to improve consumers’ rights.”

As Jim has pointed out, the recording industry has said it doesn't necessarily object to copying from one's own unprotected CDs to one's personal device here in the US, and as the Gowers review points out, the number of iPods being sold in the UK relative to the number of iTunes songs downloaded suggests many UK consumers are copying. But Kaye is right to be wary about piling up exceptions; even "fair use" champion Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has told me on more than one occasion that while he promotes more fair use aggressively, he's wary of creating specific carveouts because a few months after passage those specific carveouts might not apply to current technology.

If anyone's curious, I am still working my way through the Gowers Review. It seems I no longer read as fast as Dugie.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 11:25 AM | Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain, International

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)