The BBC obviously knows something we don’t. The IPKat almost choked on his (metaphorical) porridge on hearing James Naughtie’s spectacular misunderstanding of copyright during this morning’s Today programme. Cutting through the kitty litter, the upshot was that the BBC is predicting that the Gowers Review will not recommend extending copyright in sound recordings beyond their current 50 year term of protection, despite the calls of luminaries such as Sir Cliff Richard and Jethro Tull.

Mr Gowers (left) thinking about what to write in his long-awaited report

What the IPKat wants to know is, when will the Gowers Review actually be published?
What Merpel wants to know is, how did the BBC get inside information about the contents of the report?

Listen to the piece here (7.40 slot)
Read about the issue on another BBC site here.
GOWERS - THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME? GOWERS - THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME? Reviewed by Anonymous on Monday, November 27, 2006 Rating: 5


  1. If the story is true, I'm glad to see that sense was seen, and that an extension to the (already too long) copyright on sound recordings was not recommended. It is a bit depressing though that the BBC report concentrated on arguments about artists not receiving royalties once copyright in the sound recordings expires. This is, of course, almost entirely wrong, as anyone who knows the slightest bit about copyright will know.

  2. To answer your question how did the BBC know; "a well-placed government source has said" from news.bbc.co.uk.

    or a leak by any other name...


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.