Intellectual Property

Eric Joyce Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the value of patents to the UK economy. Hargreaves described patents in several choice words and phrases, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has paid close attention to the drift of Government policy. The attitude and policy towards patents that we are beginning to observe are alarming.

Let me say a little about why I have called this debate. I remember turning on the BBC news and thinking that it was great that the Prime Minister was taking an interest in intellectual property—I do not think that I had ever heard a Prime Minister hold a press conference on the issue. He was alleging that restrictive practices in our intellectual property laws would stop the emergence of something similar to Google in the United Kingdom, and he tasked Ian Hargreaves to look at intellectual property laws and our copyright regime to see if something could be done to amend the laws and regulations.

Ian Hargreaves was notionally in charge of that process, but having observed evidence being taken, and the report and recommendations be delivered, I suggest that the hand of the Intellectual Property Office was all over it. I believe that Ian Hargreaves was perhaps a figurehead, because the IPO seems to have driven the agenda. We will discuss some of the exceptions to copyright that the IPO proposed as part of its consultation, but it has been steering the process all the way through.

What is that predicated on? It is predicated on the belief that economic evidence should be at the heart of every initiative and everything that we do concerning intellectual property law. Ian Hargreaves has been perhaps a little cavalier when it comes to intellectual property, and we could say that he has made heroic assumptions about the value of some of the proposed recommendations and exceptions. Perhaps his most heroic statement claimed that if the Government implemented all the recommendations, GDP would increase by 0.6%. That is a huge figure.

I do not know whether the Minister thinks that such assumptions are based on reality. I think—I am not absolutely sure—that the Business Secretary described such figures as “ballpark.” If that is ballpark, the ball has not only been hit for six but has gone right out of the stadium, such is the relationship to reality of some of the economic assumptions and analyses made by Professor Hargreaves.

Let me give the Minister a couple of examples that I find funny—one cannot look at Hargreaves’s economic assumptions and analyses without needing a good sense of humour, and I will get on to parody later in the debate. The first assumption that we should consider—perhaps the Minister can write to me if he thinks that it comes anywhere close to reality—relates to an exception for private copying for format shifting. It is incredible. We are told that implementing the recommendation for an exception for format shifting for private use would bring some £2 billion per annum to the UK economy by 2020. That extraordinary figure is arrived at by assuming that the absence of a private copying exception has been responsible for restraining lots of UK technology firms that have been bursting with ideas for new pieces of hardware. I think the contention is that the iPod could have been invented in this country if it were not for that pesky copyright rule, which everyone ignores anyway. Seemingly, if format shifting were dealt with, the UK would be flooded with innovations. Lots of brand-new and fantastic products would materialise; the iPod would be reinvented; and millions and millions of pounds would flow into the economy. That is evidence and economic analysis Hargreaves and IPO-style.

Then there is the real rib-tickling one—parody. It is said that an exception for parody would be worth £600,000. Do you want to know what that figure was predicated on, Mr Caton? This is quite funny. The figure is arrived at by first taking the total value of the global entertainment market, which I think the IPO reckoned was $2 trillion. It estimated that, with a parody exception, the UK’s share of that market could grow by up to 0.05%, translating into annual growth of £130 million to £650 million.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that parody is supposed to be rib-tickling?

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that, because I intend to give an example of something that is really rib-tickling. I will explain how things work without an exception. Say that you wanted to parody the work of some famous group, Mr Caton. Let us take one at random. Let me see. How about the world’s only parliamentary rock band, the fantastic MP4? Say that you wanted to parody one of its fantastic works—perhaps even one penned by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). If you were intending to do that parody, you would come to me and the hon. Gentleman and ask us, and we, being reasonable folks, would agree to you doing that. If it became a worldwide hit—with your involvement, Mr Caton, there would be a very good chance of that—we would get our share and you would get your share. It would be absolutely fair. That is what professional parodists do now, and it works. Any suggestion that somehow our parody industry, our comedy industry, is being restrained and constrained by the lack of an exception is utter nonsense.

The IPO tells us that an exception will be worth £600,000. That is what the whole of the UK television industry reckons is the value of new parody each year. Again, it is a nonsensical figure. That seems to be the case through the whole of the Hargreaves review when we look at the economic assumptions. Those economic assumptions disappear as quickly as snaw off a dyke when put under any sort of challenge or assertion. For the benefit of my good friends in Hansard, that is what we say in Perthshire for snow off a wall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I have some brief remarks. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on his speech, much of which I agreed with, and some of which I did not. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made an important and powerful point about China and the implications for the way business is done. That is not to say that we must yield to the way business is done in China and places like it, but that is an important part of the way things are done across the world. The market is huge, and that will unquestionably have implications for the way we do business, for copyright and for many business practices. We must accept that the way business is done elsewhere has implications for the creative industries. Sometimes we are slow to recognise that.

I agree with all hon. Members who have spoken that the importance of creative industries and intellectual property is enormous. The Publishers Association, the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society and others have produced some good briefs. However, I want to make a few counter-comments. There is a general trend in debates such as this to laud the importance of intellectual property, and, sometimes—as at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire—to see the counter-argument as a matter of big bad Google lobbying No. 10 in a somehow illegitimate way. I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in saying that kind of stuff about special contacts inside Downing street.

[Jim Dowd]

I shall try to speak about this later if I catch Mr Caton’s eye, but the issue is not the fact that anyone has access to No. 10, because everyone should be able to have input into the political system; the fear is of the disproportionate influence that some people have.

[Eric Joyce]

I hear what my hon. Friend says, but in debates about intellectual property and copyright, as we have seen today—with one exception, on the matter of parody—the traffic all goes one way. It is quite easy to understand the importance of copyright, intellectual property and the creative industries. Conversely, it is easy to label people who copy things without paying for them as pirates and say they are committing illegal acts. However, without lauding that, it is a fact that the internet is a fantastic copying machine, and that is what happens. If we want to criminalise everyone who does it, we are on a hiding to nothing. We are criminalising everyone’s children to start with.

People sometimes say, “It’s exactly the same as theft. People download a record track and don’t pay for it. That is money that the industry forgoes.” That is a highly debatable and questionable proposition. Frequently, people want their stuff to be spread around the place and be copied, because it encourages other revenue streams.

[Kevin Brennan]

Of course my hon. Friend makes a valid point about criminalising everyone’s children, but is not the issue that powerful business interests effectively direct those who are searching for something on the internet to illegal sites that do not just copy the odd thing, but are factories for ripping off people’s intellectual property rights; and that if companies such as Google were more responsible and had some corporate social responsibility they would not be directing people, effectively, to the illegal end of the market?

[Eric Joyce]

Again, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Let us consider the propositions that Google polices the entire internet or the realm that it can police, and that internet service providers make their own judgments about what they should close, and let us imagine that they close down domains and that people cannot access all sorts of things out there on the basis of judgments made by commercial entities. There is a trend in the governance of the internet by some countries to want heavily to regulate its use. Looking across the world, such Governments tend to be those who are not particularly democratic. In democratic states, the trend is to say that the internet should have a degree of laissez-faire and, as Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn said—in many ways, they instigated the internet back in the ’60s and ’70s—it should be impartial as to its use and there should be no state governance.

That is the general assumption in theory in western and democratic states. However, we have heard the recent comments by the EU Justice Commissioner on the data protection directive on the right to be forgotten—that people should be able to take down accurate, legitimate data if they do not like having them up there and that they should be able to scrub out bits of history. Commercial interests want ISPs to police the internet and to take stuff down based on their commercial judgments, or that some Government-led body should make judgments about what is on the internet. The general trend is to have a high degree of directorial control by Governments over the internet and that sometimes extends to such corporate arguments.

[Kevin Brennan]

With your permission, Mr Caton, I have just googled “Empire State of Mind” by Alicia Keys and Jay-Z, and the first five results offered a free download of that track on Google. Why does a Google search not direct people to a legal site where they could purchase the track?

[Eric Joyce]

That is exactly the point I am making about censorship of the internet. The problem is that that is the way it is. In due course, industries will have to adapt to that way. The fact is that things will continue to be copied and industries with current business models will have to adjust. Of course, we have to do what we can within the realms of possibility to protect those industries but, inevitably, there will be a degree of evolution. Each time we have such a debate, the overwhelmingly dominant argument is for the protection of current business models, but people in those industries must know that things have to change.

Things will continue to be copied, and I would not advocate the degree of censorship of the internet that my hon. Friend seems to do. Essentially, it is straightforward for mirror sites to pop up, and it is virtually impossible to close down a site and prevent another one opening up to sell the same stuff. Yesterday, I thought that it would be quite interesting to set up an experiment with a page, with some people trying to keep the page alive and with the ISPs trying to close it down. I absolutely guarantee that those trying to keep that page up somewhere on the internet—it would inevitably appear in a Google search—would always win the day. The ISPs can close a site, but they cannot prevent the existence of the ideas in the site.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once again. May I clarify that I am not advocating censorship, as he put it, of the internet? I am simply saying that the corporate social responsibility of a large corporation would surely require it to ensure that its algorithms and systems generate a search that directs people to legal sites. Such corporations are perfectly capable of doing that, even if illegal searches appear way down in the list of pages. The fact that those sites are listed at the top—often in the paid advertising part of a Google search, so contributing to Google’s profitability—does not show corporate social responsibility.

[Eric Joyce]

I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right about paid advertisements for illegal sites. I entirely understand the frustration at the Google algorithm producing sites that have unlawful content—we are talking about unlawful rather than legal content—but he is advocating censorship of the internet. Google would have to censor hundreds of thousands or millions of sites out there.

I am currently on the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions. It is interesting that its members are sometimes tempted to say, “Hang on, we could censor that, because that is done in China or because Twitter now has a new business model so that it can constrain certain types of tweets—especially those with references to religion or politics—for regimes in certain parts of the world.” It is true that Twitter could do that and that Google could constrain what is said on the internet, but we have to look at the flipside and ask whether that is particularly healthy in a democratic society.

[Mark Field]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting contribution to this debate. It strikes me that he is overly pessimistic, given his view, which is absolutely right, that the interest is essentially a slightly chaotic and libertarian organisation. As he made clear in his example, the power of the individual will overcome the influence of even the biggest and best-funded international organisations. However, does he not have the slight concern that the crime is not entirely victimless? Much high-profile organised crime and terrorism is funded through the abuse of copyright and patents, and through the lucrative sale of DVDs and the like. It would make more sense to try to address that directly, rather than to look just to uphold intellectual property laws.

[Eric Joyce]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I may sound as if I am making a polemical argument against copyright, but I am not. Of course it is true that many bad organisations can profit and that money can go to ropey or even to dangerous things at one end of the spectrum, but at the other end is a fat bloke in Australia who is buying cars and boats. I suspect that much of the fraud is not done by those committing heinous acts.

I shall start to conclude, because my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) wishes to speak. The root fact is that, however powerfully one lobbies to protect copyright, Hargreaves has tried to look in an intelligent, evidence-based way at copyright law and the existing rules. He did so in a limited way, because sovereign states in Europe are constrained in what we can do. I do not agree with the assessment of the IPO made by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, although I agree with some of his points about the DCMS and BIS. As we know, that originated with an unfortunate comment about the very odd structure by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. The IPO and Hargreaves are endeavouring to have a proper evidence-based assessment. The consultation that is currently under way is entirely in earnest.

Hargreaves has urged the Government

“to ensure that in future, policy on Intellectual Property issues is constructed on the basis of evidence”.

That is not an unreasonable claim. It is true that the exceptions raised, including about education and data-mining, are possibly entirely valid, but until we see evidence and figures, we cannot tell. It is therefore important that people come forward not only with emotive arguments—they are often based simply on retaining the status quo and without any movement, regardless of technological shifts—but with evidence.

We have had the Hargreaves review and the Hooper review on the digital copyright exchange, against which I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire will rail in a future debate. They are genuine efforts by good people to get to the root of a complicated issue. Within the copyright industry and among High Court judges—I have spoken to judges at all different levels, including those in the High Court—everyone recognises that copyright law is very old and outdated, and that it is difficult to make it fit into a modern context. Essentially, Hargreaves was trying to resolve that, as will Hooper.

To conclude, the doom and gloom with which the hon. Gentleman presented the Hargreaves review and the consultation is not a fair reflection on the efforts of Hargreaves and the IPO. I have every respect for creators who want to retain the maximum benefit for themselves—of course they do—but we must set that in the realistic context that people will copy stuff. That is the way it is, and criminalising everyone is not a particularly constructive way forward.

[Martin Caton (in the Chair)]

Mr Dowd, I will call you now but will be grateful if you could resume your seat by 10.40 am to allow time for the wind-ups.