DOCSLIB.ORG

The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: Where Next?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: Where Next? House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills Committee The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: Where next? First Report of Session 2012–13 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/bis Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 June 2012 HC 367-I (incorporating HC 1498-i, ii, iii, and iv of Session 2010-12) Published on 27 June 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £20.00 Business, Innovation and Skills Committee The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Current membership Mr Adrian Bailey MP (Labour, West Bromwich West) (Chair) Mr Brian Binley MP (Conservative, Northampton South) Paul Blomfield MP (Labour, Sheffield Central) Katy Clark MP (Labour, North Ayrshire and Arran) Julie Elliott (Labour, Sunderland Central) Rebecca Harris MP (Conservative, Castle Point) Margot James MP (Conservative, Stourbridge) Simon Kirby MP (Conservative, Brighton Kemptown) Ann McKechin (Labour, Glasgow North) Mr David Ward MP (Liberal Democrat, Bradford East) Nadhim Zahawi MP (Conservative, Stratford-upon-Avon) The following members were also members of the Committee during the parliament. Luciana Berger MP (Labour, Liverpool, Wavertree) Jack Dromey MP (Labour, Birmingham, Erdington) Dan Jarvis MP (Labour, Barnsley Central) Gregg McClymont MP (Labour, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Ian Murray MP (Labour, Edinburgh South) Nicky Morgan MP (Conservative, Loughborough) Chi Onwurah MP (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne Central) Rachel Reeves MP (Labour, Leeds West) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/parliament.uk/bis. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are James Davies (Clerk), Neil Caulfield (Second Clerk), Peter Stam (Inquiry Manager), Josephine Willows (Inquiry Manager), Ian Hook (Senior Committee Assistant), Pam Morris (Committee Assistant), Henry Ayi-Hyde (Committee Support Assistant). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 5777; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: Where next? 1 Contents Report Page 1 Introduction 3 History 3 Evidence-based policy 4 2 Copyright 7 Concepts 7 Proposals for new copyright exceptions following Hargreaves 8 Format shifting 8 The legal position on a copyright exception for format shifting 9 Evidence from the music industry and open rights groups 10 Options proposed by the Intellectual Property Office 11 Conclusion 11 Parody 12 Comparison with sampling 12 Hargreaves on parody 13 Relevance of moral rights and reputation 13 Free speech arguments 14 Intellectual Property Office proposals 14 Conclusion on parody 14 Content mining 14 What is content mining? 14 The legal issue 15 The proposals 15 The arguments for and against 15 Possible solutions 17 Public access to publicly funded research 18 Conclusion 19 Orphan works 19 Background 19 The issue of misidentifying works as “orphan” 20 A new copyright statute 21 EU draft Directive 22 Intellectual Property Office proposals 23 Conclusion 23 Orphan works and moral rights 24 The proposed Digital Copyright Exchange 24 Overview and status 27 Collecting societies 29 3 Designs and patents 31 Designs 31 Patent thickets 32 The proposed unified patent and patent court system 34 2 The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: Where next? Present system 34 Contrast with other jurisdictions and obstacles to a proposed supranational patent 35 The current proposals and concerns about them 35 European Scrutiny Committee review 36 Summary 38 4 Enforcement 40 Enforcement of copyright 40 The Digital Economy Act 42 5 Advice for SMEs 43 6 Conclusion 46 Annex: Glossary 47 Glossary of abbreviations 47 Conclusions and recommendations 48 Formal Minutes 52 Witnesses 53 List of printed written evidence 53 List of additional written evidence 54 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 57 The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: Where next? 3 1 Introduction History 1. The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property was commissioned by the Prime Minister in November 2010 to consider whether the UK’s intellectual property framework was up to the task of supporting innovation and growth. Its findings were contained in a report entitled Digital Opportunity, published in May 2011.1 Many of these findings recommended further investigation before determination of policy ; first, because the inquiry panel had had only six months in which to produce its report; and secondly because one of the most significant findings of the Review was the need for more evidence to support policy making in the field of intellectual property. 2. Following the Review, the Government published a response in August 20112 which largely endorsed Professor Hargreaves’ recommendations and set out a programme of consultation and policy development to take place over the following year. The programme contained an impressively detailed set of timescales for developing individual strands of policy, and it is commendable that those timescales have been adhered to. 3. Witnesses to our inquiry were invited to submit evidence on the recommendations of the Hargreaves Review and the resulting Government response, with particular reference to the overall strategic direction taken by the Hargreaves Review and the practicability of its proposals. We held evidence sessions on the proposals made in the Review in the latter months of 2011, following which, in late December 2011, the Government produced a Consultation on Copyright with a large number of greatly more detailed proposals.3 Responses to the Consultation were received in March 2012, and the Government is at the present time considering how to finalise policies in light of those responses. As they are current, we have taken the options presented in the Consultation as the main starting point for discussion of copyright matters in this Report. 4. Also in the period since our oral evidence sessions, the European Scrutiny Committee held its own set of evidence sessions on the proposed Unified Patents Court. As this was one of the topics we addressed, we have taken that Committee’s more recent evidence into account in reaching our conclusions on the Unified Patents Court. 5. As well as inviting written evidence to our inquiry, we held four oral evidence sessions: with Professor Hargreaves; with Professor Sir Robin Jacob, former Court of Appeal judge and Queen’s Counsel at the intellectual property bar; with representatives of industry bodies and interested organisations; and with the Minister and representatives of the Intellectual Property Office. The Intellectual Property Office also very helpfully briefed us on the background to the subject matter in a preliminary private session. We are grateful to all those who gave their time to contribute to the inquiry. 1 www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm 2 www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse 3 www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-policy/consult/consult-live/consult-2011-copyright.htm 4 The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property: Where next? 6. In line with the Hargreaves Review’s recommendation of more evidence-based policy, we have confined this Report to areas on which we believe we can usefully comment based on the evidence available to us. In particular, we looked at the Review’s proposals for opening up copyright exceptions as a means to stimulate growth, for new modes of copyright licensing, and at the position on matters relating to patents, enforcement and small and medium sized enterprises. In some instances it has not been appropriate for us to anticipate a detailed policy process based on full consultation and economic data. That is not to say, however, that we might not wish to scrutinise such policies at a later stage of their development. Evidence-based policy 7. The Hargreaves Review acknowledged that there were obstacles to greater use of evidence in the formation of intellectual property policy, identifying three main problems: • there are areas of intellectual property rights on which data is simply difficult to assemble; while patents are well documented, and traceable to their owners, unregistered design rights and copyright use are not; • the most controversial policy questions usually arise in areas (such as computer programs, digital communication and biosciences) which are new and inherently uncertain because they involve new technologies or new markets whose characteristics are not well understood or measured; • much of the data needed to develop empirical evidence on copyright and designs is privately held; it enters the public domain chiefly in the form of “evidence” supporting the arguments of lobbyists (“lobbynomics”) rather than as independently verified research conclusions.4 The Review went on to refer to The need for any machinery in this area of policy and public administration to be robust. This matters because there are strong and divergent interests in play and with some of the most skilful and influential lobbyists on the UK political scene.5 8. We put this point about so-called lobbynomics to our witnesses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bringing Nothing to the Party True Confessions of a New Media Whore
    ORION BRINGN Unit $$PR Page 3 Bringing Nothing to Party—PKY—234x153mm BRINGNPR01 Bringing Nothing to the Party True Confessions of a New Media Whore PAUL CARR Weidenfeld & Nicolson london Input Data Services Ltd 06-24-2008 08:56:45 ORION BRINGN Unit $$PR Page 5 Bringing Nothing to Party—PKY—234x153mm BRINGNPR01 ‘I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours’ Hunter S. Thompson Input Data Services Ltd 06-24-2008 08:56:45 ORION BRINGN Unit $$PR Page 6 Bringing Nothing to Party—PKY—234x153mm BRINGNPR01 Input Data Services Ltd 06-24-2008 08:56:45 ORION BRINGN Unit $$PR Page 7 Bringing Nothing to Party—PKY—234x153mm BRINGNPR01 Contents Prologue 1 1.0 ‘Hello World’ 6 2.0 ‘The interactive hit of the summer’ 43 3.0 ‘You can lead a leopard to dog milk . .’ 56 4.0 ‘Jealousy is the mother of invention’ 98 5.0 ‘Children, animals and the love of your life, oh my . .’ 109 6.0 ‘What’s a nice girl like you doing at a sausage fest like this?’ 119 7.0 ‘There must be an angel . .’ 136 8.0 ‘All the best meetings are taken’ 152 9.0 ‘This could be heaven or this could be hell’ 163 10.0 ‘Nice colour . .’ ‘. That’s Bone’ 181 11.0 ‘MySpace or yours?’ 189 12.0 ‘Relationship status: complicated’ 203 13.0 ‘Banged up’ 220 14.0 ‘Running on fumes’ 234 15.0 ‘Denial’ 252 16.0 ‘Two girls, one fuck-up’ 262 17.0 ‘Taking stock’ 266 18.0 ‘The End Game’ 271 Epilogue 273 Acknowledgements 275 Input Data Services Ltd 06-27-2008 13:03:50 ORION BRINGN Unit $$PR Page 8 Bringing Nothing to Party—PKY—234x153mm BRINGNPR01 Input Data Services Ltd 06-24-2008 08:56:45 ORION BRINGN Unit $$$1 Page 1 Bringing Nothing to Party—PKY—234x153mm BRINGN0101 Prologue September 2006, and deep in the bowels of the Adam Street private members’ club in London a very special group of people is crammed into a private room, supping imported Spanish beer from a free bar.
    [Show full text]
  • Textual and Visual Representation of Hijab in Internet Memes and Gifs
    The American University in Cairo School of Global Affairs and Public Policy TEXTUAL AND VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF HIJAB IN INTERNET MEMES AND GIFS A Thesis Submitted by Omneya Mohamed Nagib Sayed Ahmed Ibrahim to the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Journalism and Mass Communication under the supervision of Professor Shahira Fahmy (May/ 2019) ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I’m deeply grateful to my supervisor, Professor Shahira Fahmy, for all her efforts in teaching, guiding, and pushing me forward. Not only was she always there to aid me through the very first steps of my academic path, but she was also beyond supportive and encouraging to me. Dr. Shahira, you managed to surpass your academic role and became an irreplaceable mentor that I look up to and a true friend that I would forever value my relationship with. I’m beyond proud to be your student and mentee. I would also like to thank my thesis readers; Dr. Naila Hamdy and Dr. Hesham Dinana for giving me their valuable time and significant input. Dr. Naila, it was an honor to have you teach me over the years, to say I learned a lot from you would be a simple understatement. And Dr. Hesham, your granted time and supplied comments and feedback have been absolutely invaluable to me and my research. My heartfelt thanks are given to my family; my mother Mrs. Amal Mahmoud, and father Mr. Mohamed Nagib Sayed Ahmed, for always believing in me. You two are the most significantly invaluable humans to me, I’m blessed and proud to call you my parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Picture: the Regional Screen Agencies Building Community, Identity and Enterprise
    Greater investment would reap social, democratic and economic rewards... The Big Picture The Regional Screen Agencies building community, identity and enterprise John Holden May 2006 Who we are Demos is the think tank for everyday democracy. We believe everyone should be able to make per- sonal choices in their daily lives that contribute to the common good. Our aim is to put this demo- cratic idea into practice by working with organisations in ways that make them more eff ective and legitimate. What we work on We focus on six areas; public services; science and technology; cities and public space; people and communities; arts and culture, and global security. Who we work with Our partners include policy-makers, companies, public service providers and social entrepreneurs. Demos is not linked to any party but we work with politicians across political divides. Our inter- national network – which extends across Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Brazil, India and China – provides a global perspective and enables us to work across borders. How we work Demos knows the importance of learning from experience. We test and improve our ideas in prac- tice by working with people who can make change happen. Our collaborative approach means that our partners share in the creation and ownership of new ideas. What we off er We analyse social and political change, which we connect to innovation and learning in organisa- tions. We help our partners show thought leadership and respond to emerging policy challenges. How we communicate As an independent voice, we can create debates that lead to real change.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Information Disorder
    FIRST DRAFT'S ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO Understanding Information Disorder October 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 5 CHAPTER 1 Satire or parody 13 CHAPTER 2 False connection 19 CHAPTER 3 Misleading content 23 CHAPTER 4 False context 27 CHAPTER 5 Imposter content 33 CHAPTER 6 Manipulated content 45 CHAPTER 7 Fabricated content 51 Conclusion 56 2 INFORMATION DISORDER 3 ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Claire Wardle currently leads the strategic direction and research for First Draft. In 2017 she co-authored the seminal report — Information Disorder: An interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy for the Council of Europe1. Previous to that she was a Fellow at the Shorenstein Center for Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard's Kennedy School, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, head of social media for the United Nations Refugee Agency. She was also the project lead for the Introduction BBC Academy in 2009, where she designed a comprehensive training program for social media verification for BBC News, that was rolled out across the organization. She holds a PhD in Communication from the University of Pennsylvania. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. 5 WE LIVE IN AN AGE OF INFORMATION DISORDER The failure of the term to capture our new reality is one reason not to use the term ‘fake news’. The The promise of the digital age encouraged us to believe other, more powerful reason, is because of the way that only positive changes would come when we lived it has been used by politicians around the world to in hyper-connected communities able to access any discredit and attack professional journalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Everything and More
    Undergraduate Prospectus 2017/18 Birmingham City University Everything and more Whatever you want to achieve, we will give you the support, skills, knowledge and experience to make a difference. Located in the heart of the dynamic city of Birmingham, we are dedicated to transforming your future, ensuring you make the successful transition from course to career. 4 Welcome 30 An international university 6 The University at a glance 32 Why Birmingham? 8 On course to a career 36 A place of your own 10 Inspirational teaching 38 Financing your degree 14 More than a degree 40 Further opportunities 16 The Graduate+ advantage 42 Courses by subject area 18 Success stories 190 Planned new courses 20 First-class support 194 Keep in touch 22 Enhancing your study 195 How to find us 24 Our campuses 196 Apply here 28 Sport and Life Sciences 197 Entry requirements www.bcu.ac.uk 2 www.bcu.ac.uk 3 Undergraduate Prospectus 2017/18 Birmingham City University Welcome Choosing Birmingham City University means you will be part of a transformation. We are dedicated to inspiring you to become a maker and a doer. Someone capable of shaping the profession or field you choose to enter once you graduate. Our approach has enriched the lives of leading architects, designers, lawyers, engineers, healthcare professionals, musicians and many more around the world. Our innovative teaching methods, ground- breaking research and collaboration with industry are backed by almost 40 professional accreditations – an approach Opportunity... awaits that is constantly broadening the thinking of our staff, students and associates. As an integral part of the city of Birmingham we have a true world presence – one that embraces diversity, individuality, ambition, success; working with each other and enterprise to address the real world challenges of today and tomorrow.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Brother/1
    Cory Doctorow/Little Brother/1 always dreamed of having a book just materialize, fully formed, and come pouring out of my fingertips, no sweat and fuss -- but it Little Brother wasn't nearly as much fun as I'd thought it would be. There were days when I wrote 10,000 words, hunching over my keyboard in Cory Doctorow airports, on subways, in taxis -- anywhere I could type. The book was trying to get out of my head, no matter what, and I missed so [email protected] much sleep and so many meals that friends started to ask if I was unwell. READ THIS FIRST When my dad was a young university student in the 1960s, he was one of the few "counterculture" people who thought This book is distributed under a Creative Commons computers were a good thing. For most young people, computers Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. That means: represented the de-humanization of society. University students were reduced to numbers on a punchcard, each bearing the legend "DO NOT BEND, SPINDLE, FOLD OR MUTILATE," You are free: prompting some of the students to wear pins that said, "I AM A STUDENT: DO NOT BEND, SPINDLE, FOLD OR MUTILATE to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work ME." Computers were seen as a means to increase the ability of the authorities to regiment people and bend them to their will. to Remix — to adapt the work When I was 17, the world seemed like it was just going to get more free. The Berlin Wall was about to come down.
    [Show full text]