A quick update (we’re all hard at work this end) – the Bill’s Second Reading debate in the House of Lords will take place on Wednesday, currently scheduled to start at around 3.30 pm.
For those unfamiliar with Parliamentary procedures, more information about Second Reading debates can be found here. (And for the especially interested, the debate will be live on Parliament TV.)
For recent coverage of the Parliamentary passage of the Bill, you might be interested in the coverage of last week’s debates on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Lords (video | Hansard).
We’ll be back with more after Second Reading.
(Update: Bill now read for a second time in the House of Lords – ‘a wide-ranging discussion was held’, as they say in Parliament. The Hansard record of the debate is up on the Parliament website here.)
(Download the Copyright factsheet as a PDF)
What are we trying to do?
We want to achieve two things:
- To simplify copyright licensing and to facilitate access to some works that are currently locked up; and
- At the same time we want to make it easier for rights holders to enforce their rights – to get people to stick to the rules – both now and in the future.
We want a framework for copyright and performers’ rights that reflects the needs of the digital age, and gives the UK’s creative industries the chance to develop new legitimate digital products delivered in the way people want, at a price that is fair. That means we need to make doing business easier in this area, and to significantly reduce the amount of online infringement of copyright.
This need for action on several fronts – education, commercial offers and enforcement – which underpins this work is also reflected in the Government’s copyright strategy which looks at what may be needed to ensure that the copyright framework keeps pace with technological developments and remains fit for purpose.
We describe in more detail below what the different measures mean and what they will do – but it is important also to keep in mind that this is part of a bigger picture. Copyright, if it is to maintain respect, must be seen as a fair deal – for the creator, the investor, the re-user and also the consumer. This legislation aims to take some important steps in that direction.
What is copyright licensing and what are you doing to modernise it?
Copyright and performers’ rights licensing is the means by which right holders (such as artists or musicians) grant permission for the use of their work, usually in return for a fee. Licensing is often handled by collecting societies on behalf of their right holder members but may also be negotiated on a work by work basis.
This legislation takes three powers for improvement, and one power to help with later changes to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), as well as making some changes to the existing financial penalties for criminal copyright infringement.
It makes provision for the legal use of “orphan works” (copyright works or performers’ rights, but where the owner of the rights cannot be identified or found). The law currently prevents some uses of orphan works or rights without the consent of the right holder, meaning that some material of real cultural value cannot be accessed, or included in digitisation initiatives.
It makes provision for extended collective licensing to help streamline the rights clearance process. It will permit collecting societies, subject to appropriate safeguards, to assume a mandate to license the use of works and collect fees on behalf of rights holders who have not signed up to that society, subject to the rights holders retaining the ability to opt out of such arrangements. There is a similar provision to improve the situation for performers’ rights.
The Government intends that any new powers for collecting societies and other bodies that will be authorised to license the use of orphan works or rights, or set up extended collective licensing schemes should be balanced with appropriate safeguards, including codes of practice for collecting societies. There are powers to introduce authorisation and regulatory requirements to ensure a correct balance between consumer and rights holder interests.
It increases the maximum financial penalty that can be imposed on summary conviction for some criminal infringement of copyright and performers’ rights to £50,000. This is in recognition of the importance of having penalties that are proportionate to the harm caused to UK industries and which are effective deterrents against infringement. It is worth noting that this £50,000 fine will apply only to criminal offences, and not to cases such as the majority of file sharing cases for example, which comprise civil rather than criminal infringement.
It includes a power that will allow the Secretary of State to amend the CDPA for the purpose of preventing or reducing online copyright infringement, in relation to technological developments that have occurred or are likely to occur. This is in recognition of the fact that the measures also in this legislation specifically to tackle online infringement of copyright (see below) will not, by themselves, tackle the whole range of such infringement. Technology develops at a great rate and it is likely that the coming years will bring new challenges in terms of tackling copyright infringement. This power will provide the Government with a flexible approach to dealing with emerging threats quickly and in a targeted way, but we will have to consult on anything we propose, and Parliament will have the opportunity to check that it is fair and proportionate to all parties.
Why are you doing this now?
The advent of digital media has brought into sharp relief the need to review the structures for authorising the use of copyright material and performers’ rights through licensing. Designed for an analogue age, they are sometimes ineffective at managing copyright and performers’ rights in today’s digital world to the disadvantage of rights holders and consumers.
What are the benefits to business?
This creates powers to streamline some licensing procedures (saving time and money), to open up new opportunities for use of orphan works and rights, and to discourage illegal use of works. All of these will help to underpin and further support this important economic sector.
What are the benefits to consumers/citizens?
As well as reducing the complexity of the licensing process, which should make it easier for new content services to be created (and at less administrative cost), these proposals may also allow legal access to culturally valuable material that cannot currently be used legitimately because right owners cannot be identified or traced. Taken together these measures should increase the number of works that can be accessed, from new commercial services, to important historical records.
Will this reduce the ability of creators to control uses of their work?
It will not. Both in the case of rights covered by an extended collective licence, and orphan works or rights being used under licence, the rights holder (if identified or traced in the case of an orphan work or right) will retain the ability to opt out of the arrangements and stop the use being made of their work or right. In both cases, the rights holder will be paid royalties for any use of their work or right licensed by a collecting society or other body able to authorise such use. In practice, we expect opt-outs to be rare because the rights holder (where identified in the case of orphan works or rights) will benefit from the licences entered into.
What about online infringement of copyright?
Online infringement of copyright includes peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing, and currently this is estimated by rights holders to account for the bulk of online infringement. This is a technology which is used to transfer large volumes of data online. Although it has many legitimate uses, it can be used for sharing copyright material in breach of copyright. Typically the material shared is music, films, TV, software or games but this is spreading as technology develops
We are introducing two obligations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) – to send notification letters to their subscribers linked with an alleged on-line copyright infringement and to record the number of these notifications with which each subscriber is associated and make this data available to rights holders on an anonymised basis on request. This would allow rights holders to apply for a court order to get access to the names and addresses of serious repeat infringers and thus take targeted legal action against those who appear to be responsible for the most damage to the industry. We will also introduce a reserve power to impose a further obligation to require technical measures (such as bandwidth capping or temporary account suspension) against the most serious infringers in the event the initial obligations do not prove as effective as expected.
Why are the changes needed now?
Current legislation allows rights holders to take civil action against individuals who breach copyright. This is ineffective against online infringement of copyright in cases such as P2P file-sharing because it is difficult and costly to identify the individuals concerned and the number of individual infringements is huge (industry estimate some 6.5m people file-share in the UK). To date, civil action is only possible against an individual on the evidence of a single infringement. The changes should educate and deter people from such unlawful activity and provide a stimulus for the development of new commercial content models.
What are the benefits to business?
Industry estimate file-sharing costs music £180m pa (source BPI) with film and TV a further £150m (IPSOS). Other genres (video games, sport and software) also suffer considerable losses. Significantly reducing the amount of file-sharing should translate into increased revenue for the content industry. For ISPs, the development of new commercial models should provide them with new (shared) revenue streams and legitimate content sources to stimulate further demand for higher broadband speeds and the next generation broadband infrastructure.
What are the benefits to consumers/citizens?
Twofold. Consumers should benefit from a wider range of competitive content offers from safe (virus-free) sources. They will also benefit from the continued re-investment in new content and talent. More generally, society should benefit from the increased awareness of the importance of copyright.
What about account suspension?
Introducing account suspension is by no means a given. If the initial obligations prove as effective as we expect, we will not need to introduce technical measures. If we do need further measures, then suspension is but one option. But it would only be introduced after several warnings to subscribers, and in conjunction with a clear route of appeal, including up to a First Tier Tribunal. We recognise that there is some concern over the proportionality of this measure, and so we will ensure that the interests of consumers are properly recognised.
How does this fit with the objective of universal broadband access?
We want everyone to enjoy the benefits that follow from access to broadband. But that means we expect people to behave responsibly. We want to educate consumers about both the importance of copyright and provide the legal alternative but ultimately if they ignore clear repeated warnings and carry out with unlawful behaviour then they should face the consequences.
What about new business models?
There is widespread agreement that the continued development of new business models which give consumers the type of content they want at a fair price will have a positive effect in reducing online copyright infringement. Most people do not want to commit an offence, and will use legal services if they are appropriately priced and convenient. It is also clear that industry needs a regulatory baseline and time to develop these new business models. This legislation will provide a clear framework for tackling the problem and provide some incentives for all parties to develop new content offers.
Another way in which we are assisting in the creation of new business models is through the provision of Digital Test Beds. This allows for the first time the opportunity for companies to test innovative technologies and concepts over a representative network. They are being delivered by the Technology Strategy Board on behalf of BIS and the first studies and projects are now underway. The Test Beds will provide a facility and environment to develop and test concepts such as micropayments and innovative IPR solutions.
What about educating consumers?
We will be looking for the creative industries affected by online infringement of copyright to do their bit by making the terms on which material is available clear, and by making consumers aware of the legal services which are available. In addition, the letters sent to alleged infringers will provide clear and easy to follow advice on what they are alleged to have done, where they can get the material legitimately, background on the importance of copyright and advice on how to secure their Internet connection.
Related papers: Copyright strategy
(Download Video Recordings Act 1984 as a PDF)
What is our aim?
To repeal and revive the provisions of the Video Recordings Act 1984 so that the offences contained within it are enforceable again.
What is the Video Recordings Act 1984?
The Video Recordings Act (VRA) 1984 introduced a system of classification for films and some video games contained on physical products such as video cassettes and DVD’s. That Act provides a series of offences concerning the supply of video recordings. For example it is an offence to supply a video recording that is unclassified and it is an offence to supply a video recording in breach of its classification certificate.
Why is it necessary to repeal and revive the 1984 Act?
Unfortunately, during preparations for the Digital Economy Bill in August 2009, the Government became aware that the VRA 1984 was no longer enforceable in UK law because of a failure to notify certain provisions of the Act to the European Commission, , as required under the Technical Standards Directive. The provisions of the 1984 Act have now been notified to the Commission under that Directive, and the repeal and revival of these provisions will make the offences in the 1984 Act enforceable in the courts once again.
What are the benefits to business?
Once the VRA is revived businesses wishing to sell videos and DVDs in a responsible manner will no longer face competition from those who are selling unclassified material and material outside its age rating.
What are the benefits to consumers and citizens?
Until the VRA is revived publishers of DVDs and 18-rated video games can distribute their goods free of classification requirements, and retailers can sell or supply classified and unclassified material to anybody regardless of age with limited statutory powers to stop or prosecute them. This means that material depicting extreme violence or sexual content can be sold to anyone, including young people. The revival of the VRA will restore the proper protections that the public have come to expect around video classification and distribution.
What can’t you deal with this in the Digital Economy Bill? Why are you seeking separate legislation for this?
Our concern is to ensure that these public protections are in place as soon as possible. Taking early steps is the quickest way to achieve this. The Digital Economy Bill will introduce changes to the Video Recordings Act to bring in a new system of classification for video games specifically. It is important that the 1984 Act is put back on a proper footing so that it can be amended by the Digital Economy Bill.
What about classification of video games?
We plan to amend the VRA 1984 (VRA) as part of the Digital Economy Bill to introduce a new system of classification for video games, using the enhanced Pan European Games Information (PEGI) system and to appoint a new statutory body (the Video Standards Council) to undertake the role of classifying games.
What about protecting the public in the meantime?
The purpose of reviving the VRA is to close the loophole in the enforceability of the offences and to restore the public protection as soon as possible. We have spoken to the retailers’ trade associations and have agreed with them that retailers should not change their current policy concerning the sale of entertainment goods covered by the Act. We have been working with the Crown Prosecution Service to draw up clear guidance for prosecuting authorities (including Trading Standard officers) on how to deal with prosecutions pending or forthcoming, until the VRA is revived.
(Download Broadband factsheet as a PDF)
What is our ambition?
To strengthen and modernise the country’s communication infrastructure equipping the UK to compete and lead in the Global Digital Economy.
What is Broadband?
Broadband is a fast, permanent internet connection. It has become the key technology driving the take up of the Internet for economic and social use. Broadband is regarded internationally as vital to the future prospects of a country’s economy. The upgrade of communications networks to cope with the massive growth in Internet traffic is essential over the next decade. Currently the UK has one of the most extensive broadband networks in the world, reaching well over 98% of the country, and with investment now being seen in high speed networks in some parts of the UK. But there are still many people who have no access, or only relatively low levels of access, to broadband.
What are the changes?
For over a decade the broadband market has grown with comparatively little intervention from the state, but there are two significant challenges ahead, a) to ensure, through a Universal Service Commitment (USC) that virtually every household in the UK can get access to a line capable of delivering at least 2Mbps, and b) to facilitate the significant investment required to deliver the Next Generation Broadband to those with little prospect of getting it through private investment alone. To meet these challenges Government has concluded that the private sector will need some incentive to make the necessary investment required.
Why are the changes needed?
The USC is needed to ensure that people are not disadvantaged by being unable to get access to broadband and internet services. All the evidence suggests that people are better off, financially and socially, if they can access and use the internet. And it is important that the UK should see next generation broadband across as much of the country as possible. Otherwise we will see another digital divide, disadvantaging not only those in more rural areas, but the whole economy.
Why are these important issues not in the Digital Economy Bill?
In the case of next generation broadband it will be necessary to introduce legislation for a tax raising regime to pay for the targeted public investment, although this will be through the Finance Bill 2010, not the Digital Economy bill. Allocation of the required £1bn – £1.5bn funds could not be made available from within existing resources. It is not necessary to have new legislation for spending the funds raised through the new tax for either Next Generation Access, or the USC and the £200m funds to meet the USC were made available from existing sources.
What are the benefits to business?
The Digital Britain White Paper included a impact assessment which set out the potential benefits to business. These come in two ways, a) with the industrial development of the telecommunication sector there is greater scope for service innovation and competition amongst a wider group of suppliers and b) with significant improvement to the telecommunications infrastructure there are increased opportunities for businesses to make efficiency gains through lowering costs, accessing new markets, more remote working, reduced environmental impacts.
What are the benefits to consumers and citizens?
More consumers will have increased access to a wider range of goods and services at lower cost. There will be a greater choice of communications suppliers with the potential for lower prices and/or better service quality. There will be benefits to a wide range of society with easier communication, for commercial, domestic and social use.
What about the 50p levy and those on low incomes?
New tax raising powers are required to deliver the next generation broadband funds, particularly in the final year of a parliament will require cross party co-operation and considerable drive to deliver within the truncated timeframe. We have recognised that those on very low incomes might find it hard to afford the levy and consequently those on a social telephony tariff will be exempt.
Is 2Mbps the right speed?
We are making a commitment that virtually every household should have access to a line that can deliver at least 2Mbps by 2012. But this is a floor, not a ceiling. Wherever possible we will be looking to use next generation technology that will give users higher speed and better functionality. In practice 2Mpbs will allow users to enjoy virtually all of the services that are available today. But our ambition doesn’t rest there, which is why we are also planning to invest in next generation broadband.
What proportion of the population will this reach?
Our analysis shows that commercial providers are likely to roll out high speed broadband (i.e speeds well above the 2Mpbs of the USC) to around 60% of the population but that it is not clear that they will go further. This would risk creating a new digital divide and would limit the economic benefit to the UK of having a high speed broadband network. We therefore propose to use public funds to incentivise roll out of high speed broadband to the final third of the population. This does not necessarily mean that high speed broadband will get everywhere, since the costs become prohibitive in some areas, but is should ensure that most people in the UK are able to enjoy the benefits of fast broadband.
(Download Video game classification as a PDF)
What is our ambition?
We are extending the scope of the Video Recordings Act 1984 to encompass a strengthened system of classification for video games by ensuring that all video games suitable for viewing only by persons aged 12 years and above are properly classified and this is subject to a statutory requirement enforced under the Act.
What is this strengthened system of classification for video games?
The Pan European Game Information (PEGI) system of classifications, currently used in most European countries. The enhanced system will combine the best of a pan-European system designed specifically for video games which has the same symbols in the online environment making it future proof, and a robust UK based statutory body that will be able to ban a game if necessary.
What are the changes?
The Bill will make it illegal to sell games in breach of the age rating if the game is only suitable for persons aged 12 years and older. Video games will also be subject to the same offences and penalties that currently apply to other video works, like films. The PEGI system will become the sole method of classifying video games in the UK. The Video Standards Council (VSC), an organisation which is independent from the games industry will take on a statutory role, with a mandate to implement the PEGI classification system for all video games in the UK.
Why are the changes needed?
Professor Tanya Byron’s independent review to Government (“Safer Children In A Digital World”) identified the need to improve the video games classification system and ensure that parents have the tools they need to make informed choices and keep their children safe.
What are the benefits to business?
Producers will only have to obtain one PEGI classification in order to distribute across a large number of European countries; they will not also have to pay for a BBFC classification in order to supply their game in the UK. The new authority (VSC) designated to carry out this task under the Bill should help businesses get their works classified more quickly.
What are the benefits to consumers and citizens?
Adopting a Pan European approach makes sense in this age of increased mobility, both physical and in the online world. The new system mirrors the way games are classified across much of Europe. This is increasingly important as more games are played online and across international borders; choosing PEGI is an important milestone in an international approach. PEGI is designed with child-safety as its main priority; it is highly adaptable and works well for games distributed both on and offline. PEGI is already used for downloadable games; and as more and more games are likely to be made available this way, means that the classification system is future proofed to a certain extent.
What about the role of the British Board of Film Classification?
This new system will work alongside the robust regulation of films and DVDs, carried out by the British Board of Film Classification, to ensure that consumers have the strongest possible protection across these media. There is no intention to disturb BBFC’s jurisdiction in respect of linear material. The BBFC will continue to provide Blu Ray distributors with a one-stop service as at present. It is important that the BBFC and the VSC continue to work together to share best practice in a rapidly changing and demanding media landscape.
