UK Parliament Asks For Public Comment On Six IP Policy Questions
from the get-your-thoughts-in dept
It appears that the UK Parliament is asking for thoughts from the public on six key policy questions around intellectual property. You can be assured that the large lobbying organizations will make their voices heard, but it would be great if others in the UK, who have a more modern and nuanced view of what's happening around intellectual property issues, would make their voices heard as well:1) What should the objective of IP policy be?If you do decide to respond, obviously take time to carefully detail your position and back it up with facts and analysis, rather than any sort of emotional response. The details of how to respond to the request can be found in the official announcement (pdf) of this inquiry. It's worth noting that the group organizing this does appear to come at these questions from an already biased position -- in that the person collecting these responses works for "the Alliance Against IP Theft." So, you're already dealing with someone who falsely defines infringement as theft. That's all the more reason to be careful, thorough and detailed in any response.
2) How well co-ordinated is the development of IP policy across government? Is IP policy functioning effectively on a cross-departmental basis? What changes to the machinery of government do you believe would deliver better IP policy outcomes?
3) There have been numerous attempts to update the IP framework in the light of changes brought about by the digital environment. How successful have these been and what lessons can be learnt from these for policy developments?
4) How effective is the Intellectual Property Office and what should its priorities be?
5) UK IP policy sits within European and supranational agreements. How should the UK government co-ordinate its policy at an international level and what should it do to promote IP abroad to encourage economic growth? Do you have examples of good and poor practice in this area?
6) Protecting, and enforcement of, the IP framework often sits in very different departments to those that develop IP policy and those that have responsibility for the industries most affected. What impact does this have and how can it be improved?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: comment, copyright, policy, uk, uk parliament
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How long do you think IP lengths should last?
Should there be a one size fits all length?
What would be considered a balanced and fair penalty structure, for example,
What's considered to be a fair penalty against those who infringe?
Against those who raise false infringement claims?
Should copy protection be opt in or opt out?
Should there be a centralized database where people can register their works for storage so that when the works finally do enter the public domain, the public can enjoy the fruits of its unowed state granted monopoly and for others to reference?
Should there be licensing caps?
What safe harbors should be further included in the laws to prevent service providers from being deterred from providing for valuable services?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 16th, 2012 @ 5:40pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It doesn't surprise me in the least that the Alliance Against IP Theft is behind the APG. The "Alliance" has been lurking in the background as a giant enforcement lobbying group in the UK for a few years now, a combination of all those acronymed groups, that want to make more money for themselves, technology be damned.
I'll try to get something in for this, but I have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's the sort of misrepresentation that Mike is famous for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
VERY MISLEADING AND TOTALLY HORRIBLE and I think it WOULD BE TOTALLY UTTERLY INSANELY MISLEADING!
For the rest of us, it's just very misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Unconstitutional?
The copyright clause was part of the original Constitution. The Bill of Rights came after which included the 1st Amendment barring the free exercise of speech which means that amendment essentially repealed copyright law in the context of free speech.
If I quote a copyrighted poem the 1st Amendment should protect me from any kind of government action which includes being sued via the courts. If I perform a song or perform a play or post a photo or news article in connection with speech then that must be protected under the Constitution.
Now when it is not in context of speech such as using the content for commercial use then the free speech aspect would not apply.
It would be interesting if copyright law was challenged under the 1st Amendment.
http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Unconstitutional?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
For instance if I were to recite a copyrighted poem the 1st Amendment should protect me from any government action including being sued via the courts. If I perform a copyright song I should have the same protection. Anything in context of free speech should not be actionable by a copyright holder because of the 1st Amendment.
If I use copyrighted material outside of free speech such as using it for commercial purposes then that would be actionable and Congress can make laws barring that activity.
The public should have virtually unlimited rights to use any copyrighted material in connection with free speech. It would be interesting if someone made this argument to the courts. Framed correctly this would be a very compelling argument.
http://c4sif.org/2011/11/copyright-is-unconstitutional/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1.) Just like Trademark laws, IP laws should cover COMMERCIAL activities only.
Just let businesses fight it out after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promote progress, through the spread of knowledge.
2) How well co-ordinated is the development of IP policy across government? Is IP policy functioning effectively on a cross-departmental basis? What changes to the machinery of government do you believe would deliver better IP policy outcomes?
End of IP laws.
3) There have been numerous attempts to update the IP framework in the light of changes brought about by the digital environment. How successful have these been and what lessons can be learnt from these for policy developments?
Disastrous.
4) How effective is the Intellectual Property Office and what should its priorities be?
Ineffective to promote progress and the spread of knowledge.
5) UK IP policy sits within European and supranational agreements. How should the UK government co-ordinate its policy at an international level and what should it do to promote IP abroad to encourage economic growth? Do you have examples of good and poor practice in this area?
The right mixture to create an enviroment that creates sustainable economies can't be based on infinite growth, that is not realistic, what everybody wants is increase in wealth and that means increase in goods and services delivered to more individuals, now how do we achieve that? Not through granted monopolies that can't and will never respond rapidly enough to market forces, not by excluding others from that market, not by locking up knowledge that is for sure.
6) Protecting, and enforcement of, the IP framework often sits in very different departments to those that develop IP policy and those that have responsibility for the industries most affected. What impact does this have and how can it be improved?
End the monopolies and there will be no need to protect anything, the best protection against stagnation and scarcity is openness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Questions where:
As a member of the public my interest in IP law is that it should benefit me somehow and that means it should show some benefit to me the public, if it doesn't promote the progress or spread of knowledge and only grants monopolies to people who will threaten democratic values like free speech and can be used as a powerful censor tool with a hint of legitimacy without providing financial benefits to me the public why should IP law even exist?
To make it more expensive for me the public to buy something?
To make it harder for me the public to find an "authorized" seller?
To censor me the public in a way that seems legitimate?
Why should me the public abide by such things then?
It does not even stimulate commerce, it does exactly the opposite, it is an exclusion tool and one that we have thousands of years of accounts of how bad monopolies are and how detrimental their effects are.
Extremely coordinated, the government and the IP holders are at times almost like one and the same.
Apparently yes.
The end of IP policy would have a better outcome in policy terms, it sheds the burden of having to waste money on "protecting" monopolists that through unfair advantage stop the production of goods and the delivery of services. That is no small amount, further it free the courts for attending to more important matters like real crime, not invented crimes that no one can prove harms anything.
We have undeniable proof that IP law is not necessary, Arduino is a open source hardware manufacturer based in Italy, their designs can be copied, modified, distributed and even sold by others without having to pay anything back and still they make millions, like Arduino there are others doing the same.
Disastrous, it criminalized and burdened the public, it eroded the public trust on government institutions and their ability to command and it showed people that they should be very aware of their own government and pay more attention to what it is doing. Lessons learned? IP like any other monopoly is an horrendous thing to inflict upon the public and there will be consequences to it.
Ineffective and I find it amusing that it needs to be stated again what the priorities of it should be, it should promote the progress through the spread of knowledge or their priorities should be whatever the answer to question "1)" is.
Promote openness and curtail monopolies? But of course that means not promoting IP abroad or at home but actually ending it, so the market can find their own solutions.
- Speculative invoicing which is the act of sending threatning letters to people with the intuit of not righting a wrong but to cash in on the fear of the law. (bad)
- Patent trolling where non-practicing entities threaten the people who make something. (bad)
This one also highlights the problem with an IP system that allows the transfer of IP to others, which innevitably will converge into a single super pool which will exclude everyone except the wealthiest of the wealthiest and can be used against countries since others can just buy the IP and stop locals from being able to enter the market.
There are more reasons why IP should end.
It has no negative impact since IP cannot be protected from the public and if done so it will generate the right environment for rebellion to improve matters end IP laws and open the market, that is better protection against external forces and competitors that won't be able to exclude the locals from doing anything and force those people to find solutions based on cooperation and mutual interests instead of mandated obedience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The UK government didn't even attempt to make it look like they took any notice of their report, not even the prime point that any future laws on copyright should be based on objective evidence.
Why should they bother listening now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They'll get a bunch of feedback, then handpick the stuff that supports the conclusions/positions they have already decided are right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Request for help.
Please help us Mike.
Every response helps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP law the 21th century heredited anachronism that threatens the world.
Source: BBC News: The myth of the lone genius by Quentin Cooper on the 16th of March 2012.
Without open research there would be no innovation, but somehow some people believe we should grant a monopoly to the last individual on the chain of events that lead to some discovery, but in a world where you need dozens of others to work with you so you can have that aha moment it doesn't seem fair that only that one person would get it all does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And it's also very sweet that most people thought the new tech billionaires would be nice, as opposed to every other example in history of robber barons being greedy, blood-sucking gutter vermin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
"Many"? Or you? And what evidence do you have? You said you have "empirical evidence", so let's see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
Many people think that the world will end sometime this year.
Many people think that the earth was populated by souls brought here by some alien dude called Xanadu(or something like that).
You point being?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
"In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasuredome decree..."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanadu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanadu_%28film%29
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 3:45am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not seeing the parallel between robber barons and "tech billionaires".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"learnt"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "learnt"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]