

UK Govt accepts all 10 points of the Hargreaves IP Report - swombat
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse

======
tomelders
I personally took part in the public consultations and workshops that formed
the basis of the Hargreaves Report and was genuinely surprised not only by the
committees detailed understanding of the issues involves (I learned a lot),
but also their genuine openness to discuss new and controversial ideas.

However, I have close links with the Carbon trust and understand all too well
how reports such as these are paid lip service by the government, and to a
large degree used to force through unpopular and even corrupt legislation with
tenuous links to original issue for political points or monetary gain for
individual MPs.

Take for example the Carbon Trusts recommendation that _old refrigerators
posed a significant environmental risk_. The trust put forward the idea that
people should no longer be able to dump their old refrigerators along with
regular waste, but should instead send their refrigerators to dedicated
recycling centres where they could be properly dismantled. The Labour
government took that idea, but failed to follow through on the dismantling
process, so we ended up with _fridge mountains_ up and down the UK, causing
more environmental damage than the old system of just chucking them where ever
you wanted to. Not only did this score some serious political votes with
environmentalists, but a lot of money changed hands in the process of creating
this new "infrastructure"

So it is with a cautious mindset that I approach the governments acceptance of
the Hargreaves report. And there are a couple of things I think we need to be
careful of, but most importantly, we need to keep a very close eye on this...

 _Point 4: A digital copyright exchange will facilitate copyright licensing
and realise the growth potential of creative industries_

We have to be careful that this doesn't open the door to a new kind of patent
troll. If the government puts this out to the private sector (which they
probably will), we could find ourselves lumbered with an Intellectual Ventures
style monster who didn't even have to buy the original patents in the first
place. It's a guaranteed certainty that someone out there is looking at the
notion of a Digital Copyright Exchange from the point of view of making an
absolute killing, and given the UK governments willingness to grant
unreasonable favours to the private sector over the past 20 years, this has to
be a very serious concern. Nothing that follows point 4 in the governments
response is legally binding.

I'm not saying a DCE is a bad idea, I think it's a great idea, but it needs to
be a not for profit venture, ideally controlled by the state. The second the
people responsible for running the DCE start making profit, the game is up.

~~~
swombat
Whilst I agree that the DCE could be a disaster if applied to patents, I think
they are very explicitly aiming that at the copyright problem, which is very
different.

I also don't think the DCE can or should avoid aiming to make a profit. On the
contrary, the only way to get a decent DCE in place will be to have multiple
players competing in the space, which seems to be both the Hargreaves report's
and the government's view.

Effectively, what we're talking about is a kind of iTunes-like marketplace for
automated, mass licencing of copyrighted works, to make the process
straightforward, transparent, predictable, etc. I don't see how preventing
those from making a profit would help.

~~~
tomelders
If the desired effect a a DCE actually manifest themselves, it would be better
to keep it non profit and state run since any operating costs would be offset
by the increased productivity in the wider economy. And if the mandate was
issued by the public, based on frequent public consultation, it would
essentially future proof itself.

That's not to say it shouldn't generate a lot of money, it easily could. I
imagine a world where a DCE becomes so successful that it generates enough
money to create new and advanced institutions for the arts and sciences,
enabling Britain to invest heavily in its long term future.

However, if it were private, that revenue would not be put to such a good use,
and the public would have no say in how the DCE operated. Any attempts to
correct any inefficiencies or inequalities in the DCE would meet fierce legal
opposition.

We don't know what the landscape will look like in 20, 30, 50 or a hundred
years. Why saddle ourselves with an immutable, or near-immutable DCE?

------
swombat
Some good quotes:

Orphaned works:

 _There are opportunities too in respect of so-called orphan works
(Recommendation 4). The Government agrees with the Review’s fundamental
premise that it benefits no-one to have a wealth of copyright works be
entirely unusable under any circumstances because the owner of one or more
rights in the work cannot be contacted. This is not simply a cultural issue;
it is a very real economic issue that potentially valuable intangible assets
are simply going to waste. The Government will this autumn bring forward
proposals for an orphan works scheme that allows for both commercial and
cultural uses of orphan works, subject to satisfactory safeguards for the
interests of both owners of ‘orphan rights’ and rights holders who could
suffer from unfair competition from an orphan works scheme._

No software patents:

 _The Government will resist extensions of patents into sectors which are
currently excluded unless there is clear evidence of a benefit to innovation
and growth from such extension_

Anti-patent trolls:

 _IPO will investigate the scale and prevalence of issues with patent
thickets, including whether they present a particular problem to SMEs seeking
to enter technology sectors. IPO will then explore options for addressing any
problems identified, which could include coordinated international changes to
patent fee structures if the issues prove to be international in scope._

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _No software patents:_

We _have_ software patents in the UK, we just don't have them "as such"(!).
I'm pretty sure your quote means business methods.

Whilst Aerotel/Macrossan has reinforced the notion of requirement of a
technical effect the MPP says that the Macrossan methodology of assessing
patent applications against SS1(2) is in effect the same as the "technical
contribution" assessment given by following the previous established case law,
Fujitsu et al. [MPP 1.10.2].

The EPO's position has liberalised somewhat and UKIPO hasn't followed (though
they're supposed to assess similar parts of the law consistently with the EPO
approach).

~~~
swombat
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant.

------
StrawberryFrog
"Plans to create new exceptions to copyright laws, including a "limited" right
to copy legitimately purchased copyrighted material for private use were
announced in the Government report. "

<http://www.out-law.com/page-12128>

So if I read this right, they are _planning_ on legalising the act of ripping
music off your Cds and listening to them on an iPod.

This isn't radical. It isn't even up-to-date.

------
peteretep
All governments, everywhere, suck, but the UK coalition appears to have been
sucking less than most recently...

~~~
arethuza
Give them time - I will admit that they do seem to be doing an unexpectedly
decent job so far, but even New Labour seemed to be decent enough in their
first couple of years.

Edit: Maybe what we need is a limit on the number of years a PM can serve for?

~~~
peteretep
I have this pet theory that coalition is always going to be the way forward
for the UK. All the mainstream parties have some pretty good ideas, with a few
pieces of radical idiocy on the edges. In coalition, parties can drop the
radical bullshit parts, while implementing all the sensible ideas they have.

~~~
Zumzoa
However, this system also blunts such 'radical edges' as civil unions,
equalizing the age of consent, reform of drug laws and large infrastructure
reforms.

~~~
arethuza
We should have some way of the public identifying "extraordinary" issues (e.g.
online petitions) and then having periodic referendums where the public can
vote directly on these topics.

Otherwise, as you point out, there are many topics that will simply be
ignored.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
We do have an online petition system, <http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/>.

I'll agree that we need some system like that in Switzerland where a large
enough proportion of the population can force a referendum.

------
mattvot
To sum it up, it seems like it's a step in the right direction.

IPO's response to each 10 points: <http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse-full.pdf>

------
flarg
Make it law and then I'll be impressed.

