tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post9154149651128364913..comments2024-03-28T13:45:42.289+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Members of Parliament debate IPVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26621106285602201382011-07-13T09:22:57.333+01:002011-07-13T09:22:57.333+01:00Your post summary sadly suffers from the same main...Your post summary sadly suffers from the same main failure as the Hargreaves Review itself. Although it was originally billed as a Copyright Review and sent out for consultation from the "Copyright Directorate" it, rather like Wallace and Gromit, was remoulded at last minute into a review of IP. This meant that the few who spotted the term IP realised this theoretically covered other IP subjects such as patents and trademarks and were forced into a response after checking with Professor Hargreaves that it had widened considerably. The Terms of Reference indeed were far broader than "Digital Opportunity" so it appears even the panel failed to notice what they were supposed to be considering such as access to justice for SMEs. Indeed Professor Hargreaves admitted at the recent Westminster Legal Forum that he had run out of time and had not finished his work on patents - but still published. The Sunday Times [yesterday] surely cannot be right when it writes about No 10 being too close to Google and the Hargreaves review aimed at meeting the needs of Google? Or as one review respondent put it "Who cares what Google wants?"<br /> <br />In the parliamentary debate on Thursday, your reviewer, possibly submerged by the riveting copyright exchanges, may not have noticed the points made by Lorely Burt MP. Ms Burt turned the attention of the debate to patents and the woeful job that Hargreaves had made of dealing with the issues raised by those Hargreaves noted as the main innovators in the UK - the SMEs. She started by pointing out that Hargreaves had said that patents were more important to business than copyright and that patent enforcement was more of an issue than copyright enforcement thus raising the obvious question as to Hargreaves less relevant focus on copyright. She complained about the make-up of the panel as not having any SMEs within it and thus representing the minority. She bemoaned the failure to adapt the review and even the failure to actually list and show the submission from the national SME Innovation Alliance ('The Economic Failure of the Patent System'). She went on to note how the maximum damages now available with the PCC make it 'a bargain' for corporates to infringe in the UK. She added that the review failed to consider the real difficulties SME in particular face enforcing IP abroad which affects exports and is thus highly relevant to growth and job creation.<br /> <br />Indeed, the Minister's unhappy look may have come from the furious notes obviously being passed to him from the people who had really done the review, the UKIPO. Ms Burt had compared the the use of the term 'independent' in conjunction with a team from the UKIPO with Rebekah Brooks (Wade) reviewing News International. Having had to admit that the team had indeed received the SME Innovation Alliance submission with the odd excuse that it was "received informally rather than through the official channels" [it was sent and received by Professor Hargreaves leading this so-called independent review] Ms Burt was offered a meeting with the Minister for IP together with the Minister for Universities and Science plus the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport for good measure. Such was the embarrassment. No-one else got any solid commitments apart from Government promising to respond within a month.John Mitchellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-49224847762678568562011-07-12T11:01:46.829+01:002011-07-12T11:01:46.829+01:00I understood from a recent Herschel Smith lecture ...I understood from a recent Herschel Smith lecture that the collecting societies had given undertakings that they would not take action against anyone who format-shifted any of their own legitimate recordings. This is akin to the existing voluntary agreements not to demand royalties for public performance of copyrighted works used in the course of divine worship. To that extent, legislation to permit format shifting seems unnecessary.Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88566798209159385202011-07-11T14:07:32.434+01:002011-07-11T14:07:32.434+01:00Is it me, or is it beginning to look like this rev...Is it me, or is it beginning to look like this review will be debated over and over again, and in the end, after all the arguments have been somewhat exhausted, everybody will simply pack their filed and go, leaving next to nothing done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30427695112684120042011-07-11T09:34:02.188+01:002011-07-11T09:34:02.188+01:00I am concerned that in this supposed evidence base...I am concerned that in this supposed evidence based approach that there seems little discussion on quality of evidence and what weight to give it.<br /><br />this may seem obvious to lawyers (I would hope) but this doesn't come across in the politicians, or industry, statements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69975463770047208432011-07-10T19:50:25.391+01:002011-07-10T19:50:25.391+01:00Humm... it would appear that this large hot potato...Humm... it would appear that this large hot potato is being thrown over the wall to the as yet, not fully set up Creative Industries Council. Merpel - a man with more information on the status of the CIC can be found at darren.holness@culture.gsi.gov.uk <br /><br />A Digital Copyright Exchange DCE (or more than one as it is now being stated) should be industry led. I don't disagree with that suggestion.<br /><br />See our own original response to the Hargreaves Review recommendations http://www.creativebarcode.com/newsitem?item=34<br /><br />Creative Barcode would happily shoulder an industry-led DCE for our faction of the creative industries, in collaboration with other such as ACID but so long as Government provide the financial means to enable it to happen quickly and in a robust way. <br /><br />Forbes.com already cited CB as the first permission based DCE - although I think we can achieve a lot more to take it up to another level.<br /><br />I will be at an IPAN meeting on 13/07 which current IP Minister Baroness Wilcox is attending. <br /><br />I will take the opportunity to ask the all important question regards government £ support to enable the private sector to deliver on the DCE recommendations so that they don't have to.<br /><br />If I get a chance to do that I'll let IPKAT know what the response was.Maxine Hornhttp://www.creativebarcode.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45479451810500761622011-07-10T18:33:20.247+01:002011-07-10T18:33:20.247+01:00Like many people of a certain age I have purchased...Like many people of a certain age I have purchased and repurchased the same recording (I have one specific work in mind) - vinyl (several times due to wear and tear), CD, CD released with tracks in the right order, CD from restored tapes, 24bit). I'm sure if I could ever find the complete licence agreement I have no rights. However if there is going to be a levy on format shifting, should there be a commensurate licence refund for new format purchase (e.g., an exchange scheme)? Or, if one irreversibly damages a CD or similar a refund of a portion of the licence fee? <br /><br />If not, why not?Gentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.com