Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Buscombe
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 84AEA. We had a very good debate in Grand Committee about orphan works, and the Minister gave some very useful assurances about how the orphan works regime would operate. However, there are one or two loose ends, and I want briefly to raise them.
Amendment 84AE is essentially a retabled amendment designed to establish definitively the nature of diligent search. I was slightly disconcerted by the way the Minister replied to this amendment last time. Surely diligent search must cover each work involved, and I hope the Minister can demonstrate how such search should be undertaken. There is no amendment to this effect, but I should say in passing that many of those who have debated this subject believe that it is very important that orphan works cannot be sublicensed. The argument is clear that to permit sublicensing would risk the distortion of the market through, for example, enterprises that sought orphan works licences and then resold them to all comers, circumventing the safeguards promised in the regulations. I do not know whether that is a loophole or simply a fear that will not be realised.
Amendment 84AEA relates to an objectionable feature of Clause 69, which is found in the new Section 116A(6) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This states:
“The regulations may apply to a work although it is not known whether copyright subsists in it, and references to a missing owner … are to be read as including references to a supposed owner and a supposed right or interest”.
The objection to this is that if copyright does not subsist, the work or performance is in fact in the public domain and there is no rights owner who could reappear.
It seems rather unsatisfactory to introduce what I believe is called the domaine public payant in this surreptitious way. If there is going to be an orphan works licensing scheme it should surely be confined to orphans. If it cannot be determined whether a work is still in copyright, surely an orphan licence should not be available. It should be plain in the Bill that this should not extend to works that may be in the public domain. It would be helpful to have a ministerial assurance on this point. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I support my noble friend in relation to diligent search. I think the amendment speaks for itself, and I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones
In moving Amendment 84AEB, I wish to speak also to Amendments 84AEC to 84AEG and Amendment 84AF.
I will speak first to Amendment 84AF as it falls outside the scope of the other amendments. Clause 69 as drafted does not factor into the opt-out of ECL the situation where the rights holder is not the creator. A firmer commitment from the Government in the Bill is necessary to give more reassurance to rights holders on the ECL provisions in Clause 69 before the legislation completes its passage. This amendment was tabled as Amendment 28X in Grand Committee. An opt-out is available to copyright owners in the Bill as it stands. The amendment would extend this opt-out to exclusive licensees and authorised representatives.
In Grand Committee, the Minister committed the orphan works and extended collective licensing working group to look into this issue as part of its deliberations. While this commitment is welcome, there needs to be certainty that any regulations for extended collective licensing will include such provision. Since ECL has the effect of exercising property rights, potentially against the will of the rights owner, the ability to opt out under subsection (3) of what will be the new Section 116B must be as straightforward and easy to implement as possible. To effectively administer the repertoire they have invested in, music publishers will need to make catalogue-wide arrangements applicable to hundreds, thousands, or potentially, millions of separate works. The grant of rights and arrangements between creators and music publishers are very often not exclusive assignments of copyright; grants can also be made by way of licences, both exclusive and non-exclusive.
It will be unworkable to have an opt-out which is exercisable only by the copyright owner or exclusive licensee. This would require a publisher to go contract by contract, checking the nature of each grant of rights and, where necessary, asking composers to sign opt-out documentation to be sent to the body seeking to operate the scheme. If the opt-out could be operated by the composer’s authorised representative, this would give a publisher or other representative the right to seek the permission from its composers to exercise an opt-out on their behalf, which could then comprise one repertoire-wide opt-out from a rights owner in a manageable way.
Practical experience abroad is that, in the absence of this possibility, ECL provisions can be manipulated by bodies operating schemes to make it impossible for right owners to opt out in any manageable way. I am informed by representatives from music publishing that one example of this is the operation of the extended collective licensing provisions enshrined in Hungarian copyright law in relation to the performing right. In Hungary, one reason for the failure of being able to rely on the opt-out came from the requirement of Artisjus that the rights owner—not any representative—provide due diligence evidencing ownership of each title in question. In relation to a repertoire of many thousands of works, this represents a huge barrier to successfully exercising the opt-out in terms of tracing the title back to its source. It is often via a complicated chain, redacting and copying documents to comply with confidentiality restrictions and then shipping these across to Hungary.
This example of abuse of proprietary rights provides ample evidence that, in the context of ECL, the burden of challenging any opt-out must sit with the entity operating the scheme and not with the individual rights owner. I believe that it is not the intention of this legislation to create such problems but it is important to guard against potential abuse. Can the Minister give assurances on this?
At the end of the day, I cannot see any downside to giving composers a choice in being able to elect to have their trusted authorised representative act on their behalf in this context. I am also not aware of a prevailing view that would be opposed to creating such a modest requirement. Indeed, in Grand Committee, the Minister stated that the Bill does not rule out such a provision.
With the experiences of ECL in other territories in mind, I hope that Report stage is an opportunity for the Minister to clarify responsibility for overseeing due diligence in an opt-out process. I hope that the Government will use this stage of the Bill to clarify that regulations will be clear that the burden of proof for the due diligence in an opt-out will be on the body applying for ECL.
On Amendment 84AEB, copyright licensing bodies are indispensible in many circumstances. For example, no composer could keep track of all the playings of his or her song on television, radio, the internet and in concerts, pubs, hairdressers, department stores and so on; PRS for music does this collectively. However, this kind of licensing is voluntary, meaning that the rights owner gave his or her permission to PRS to license his or her works for use in broadcasts and public performances. Extended collective licensing means that the licensing body can also license works whose authors have not given permission.
Therefore, ECL—and we have debated this in Grand Committee—is potentially dangerous to rights owners. A rights owner may not know about extended collective licensing and find that his or her work has been licensed without their permission. Perhaps they would not have wanted it in that particular publication, or perhaps they had given another publication an exclusive deal. Perhaps they would have charged a different fee; if they had given permission direct, their fee would not have suffered deduction of the licensing body’s commission. Foreign composers in particular may not be aware of the licence at all and may grant conflicting rights or may not collect their fee.
The Government’s explanations always described ECL as “voluntary extended collective licensing”, but the fact is that ECL allows the licensing body to license its rights without their prior authorisation. It is government policy that the author can opt out, but this acknowledges that the licensing body has permission to license his or her rights in the first place. This permission is ultimately given by the Government by authorising the organisation to license rights that it does not in fact hold, not by the author who must withdraw by opting out.
To their credit, the Government have acknowledged the dangers inherent in ECL, and in Grand Committee on 31 January, the Minister explained the Government’s policy regarding safeguards for rights owners. However Clause 69, which enables ECLs to be created by statutory instrument, only very minimally reflects the safeguards as the Minister has now enunciated them. The Government have claimed that the Nordic ECLs provide a strong precedent. However, the safeguards are set out in the Nordic primary legislation. By “Nordic”, I mean Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Iceland. Setting out the safeguards in primary legislation is clearly an aspect of the Nordic precedent that the UK Government should follow.
My amendments are essentially translations of the Nordic statutory provisions, adapted to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. The safeguards usefully include a requirement on licensing bodies to qualify, the need to explain the type of licence being granted, the need for the authorised body to be representative, the adoption of a code of conduct, the ability to refer to the Copyright Tribunal where a claim is being made that the body is not representative or that licences go beyond scope of existing copyright licences, a limitation on the term of authorisation to five years, and clear provisions about the ability to give notice of exclusion of a work.
The Minister has said that there must be flexibility, but he has been fairly detailed in his description of what the secondary legislation will consist of. Flexibility is not therefore necessarily an argument for excluding safeguards for rights holders from the Bill, and there can be no reasonable argument against including those safeguards. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 84AF, to which I have added my name. I spoke at some length in Committee on the extended collective licensing measures in Clause 69, and I made it clear then that I do not like the principle of ECL. I cannot see how it materially benefits the UK and it will bring uncertainty by not being truly voluntary.
I believe—and I have said so previously—that such a scheme should be opt-in, rather than opt-out, whereby rights holders who want to license their content through others can do so. However, I welcome the Minister’s assurances thus far that safeguards to such a scheme are vital, but—I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—the safeguards should be included in the Bill, not left to secondary legislation. If the Government are backing ECL because it works in the Nordic countries, why not follow the Nordic lead and put the necessary safeguards in the primary legislation? Whoever may benefit from such a scheme can then benefit, and whoever feels threatened by it will have some comfort in knowing that the Government have protected the rights of rights holders.
As I said on an amendment on Report last week, China has just announced that it will implement ECL in its copyright law and has said that the details will be in regulations yet to be published. Where have we heard that before? The UK Government will not be in a position to demand appropriate safeguards for licensing of UK copyrights by ECL in China if we do not have them in our own legislation, as the Nordic countries do, nor will UK rights holders or their representative bodies be in a strong position to safeguard UK rights abused by ECLs in foreign countries if the UK’s own statute lacks the necessary safeguards. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I have tabled a series of amendments to this clause which does just that, putting into statute the very safeguards that the Minister himself has articulated.
Again, I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept these amendments, and avoid a situation in which companies can seize the intellectual property of others and license it on their own terms.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, there is currently in many cases an imbalance in economic power between the creator and those with whom they are dealing on copyright. I moved an amendment similar to this in Grand Committee, and at that time the Minister said that the Unfair Contract Terms Act is intended to regulate only business to consumer relations. Of course that is correct. The Minister has, however, agreed to see what can be done by way of review within the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills of this type of issue.
The amendment is designed to elicit from the Minister an assurance that this work will be undertaken. I have sent the Minister a paper suggesting how such a review might take place. It would be an independent review of copyright contracts for creators and would explore how copyright contracts could be made fairer to ensure that creators receive a fair share of the money that consumers pay for copyright content and that the purpose of copyright in stimulating and sustaining creativity is met.
The kinds of contracts that such a review might consider are those with publishers, broadcasters, record labels and film studios; creator’s contracts with, and mandates to, collecting societies; and contracts with internet platforms such as Flickr. Some possible solutions for the review to explore—I am not going to go through them all—might include whether the doctrine of undue influence that applies when a person in a dominant position uses that position to obtain an unfair advantage for himself or herself could be codified in statute law; or whether, for instance, a right to equitable remuneration for creators is a necessary underpinning to fair contracts for creators; and whether model licences and codes of conduct could extend the benefit of collective negotiations through professional bodies to a wider range of creators, particularly new entrants to the entertainment industries and consumers-turned-creators. I very much hope that the Minister can indicate how a review might take place and who would be responsible for it. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have added my name. I support everything my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones has already said. This amendment would go some way to mitigate risks to the individual creators, without whom there is no creative economy. We have here more risks of unintended consequences of the government proposal for extended collective licensing. Already before the passage of the Bill, there is renewed pressure on individual creators to sign away to publishers all their rights, including rights to income from extended collective licensing. While creators are vulnerable to the take-it-or-leave-it approach in contracts offered by powerful organisations, the likelihood is that creators will thus be deprived of the compensation for the use intended by the drafters. I should add that we have had so much correspondence in this regard that we are looking to my noble friend the Minister for strong reassurance.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Buscombe(11 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I think we gave the issues a pretty good airing on Monday, so I will not tax the patience of the Committee for too long today. The Minister is well aware that there are many who think that we should align ourselves to the EU directive and that the extended collective licensing arrangements go well beyond where we should be at present, given that the digital hub could solve some of our problems.
The first thing I want to do is return the compliment to the Minister for the care and attention that he has given in his capacity as the Minister for Intellectual Property, and for listening to the arguments that have been made. I thank him particularly for his clarification and assurances and, latterly, for his letter which, although directed at the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, seemed to encompass most of the questions that I had asked, so I was pretty satisfied with that way of dealing with things. In particular, I welcomed the assurances he gave about the ECL on Monday: the Government are clear that an opt-out must be as simple and as low-cost as possible for rights holders; and further safeguards to be drafted in the regulations will require the licensing body to set out the details of opt-out systems, why they are appropriate to meet the needs of rights holders and how it plans to publicise the scheme so that rights holders can opt out in advance. Moreover, the Secretary of State will be able to impose conditions on an authorisation relating to the opt-out if necessary. I found all that very reassuring.
Above all, I hope that the Minister recognises that many bodies and institutions—many of them represented by FOCAL and BAPLA—are still very unhappy about both ECL and orphan works. I hope he will continue to listen and engage with all those organisations. I also mention Stop43 in that context. There is certainly a very strong feeling that the impact assessment—particularly for orphan works, which have a range of 9 million to 91 million—is hardly credible as a business plan. I have made the point directly to officials that genealogy or genealogical services are not a great basis on which to work out a business plan. The Minister has answered many questions but there will be others coming down the track, such as whether the Copyright Tribunal is really suitable and exactly what a “diligent search” consists of, especially when there are several works by the same author. My wording might not have been as good as it should have been, but we were trying to get at the fact that care needs to be taken in respect of individual works and where there are multiple rights holders. What copyright items will be included in the definition of orphan works?
The EU directive does not include photographs, and for that very reason, photographers and the whole of that sector have become very exercised about the new provisions. Therefore, particular care needs to be taken in respect of that sector, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. I recognise that if the museums and universities and so on want to see ECL, then they have to justify how it is used and its impact on rights holders.
As regards ECL, the impact assessment states that the UK’s existing rights clearance system is complex, involving multiple users and rights holders seeking and granting permissions. Hargreaves recommended that it be simplified. Government intervention is required to introduce ECL as a tool for simplification. Is that not precisely what the copyright hub is designed to do? There is the concern very strongly held by foreign rights holders—I mentioned the letter from the US photographers to the Secretary of State—that they will have very inadequate means of monitoring what is happening in the UK.
There are many other questions and I do not want to prolong the session today. There is the whole question of what “substantial support” means for a collecting society in what the Minister said on Monday. What sums of money will be paid to copyright owners under ECL? What will be the duration of licences? Will ECL societies have the right to license just UK content or content from overseas? How will copyright owners know which of their works have been licensed, and so on? Considerable clarification is needed, not least that for the Association of Authors’ Agents. When we were talking about that, the Minister distinguished between certain warranties and other warranties. That was perfectly fair, but nevertheless clarity will be all when dealing with these matters.
The task of the Intellectual Property Minister, especially in these circumstances—holding the ring between different interests—is not easy, but I commend the newsletter from Victoria Espinel, who is the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in the States. As a statement of the balancing of intellectual property rights with innovation and growth, I cannot fault what she has said about the new United States-Russian Federation intellectual property rights action programme. How about that for a salient? She states:
“Strong IPR protection and enforcement are vital to promoting innovation and creativity by securing the rights of innovators and the creative community, attracting high-technology investment, and fostering the jobs necessary for long-term sustainable growth”.
That seems to me to balance very well the interests of all parties and I commend that to the Minister.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I rise briefly to add a few words in support of everything that my noble friend has said thus far. I also want to refer to a letter addressed by the Minister to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and thank the Minister because it addresses some of the questions which I raised in the Committee’s previous session.
The Minister and the Government agree that when licensing bodies operate ECL, they should do so transparently and should provide for fair treatment for non-member rights holders whose works are licensed through ECL. Any licensing body that wishes to operate a scheme will be required to have a code of practice that complies with the Government’s minimum standards for collecting societies. This will include specific protections for non-member rights holders. We welcome that statement and the statement about the applicability of UK ECL schemes for the use of works outside the UK. The Minister has said that the Government’s proposals would apply only to use within the UK. It is not possible to extend these provisions to other jurisdictions.
I thank the Minister for that but would just say that, where the Minister refers in response to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones about the operation of ECL in Nordic countries, while the Minister said that, since the 1960s, ECL has operated in the Nordic countries without challenge and is explicitly recognised in EU law, there is a difference. This is something to which we will have to give more thought between now and Report. In Nordic countries, the system operates against a background of legislation that guarantees remuneration for creators and the identification and integrity of works. I feel that we are making real progress on this Bill, and I support the Minister’s helpful responses to our concerns thus far.
Finally, I add my continuing concern in relation to photographers. A number of noble Lords spoke on this issue on Monday. It remains a serious concern, and it might be helpful if we could have more thought prior to Report about how the future viability of being a photographer in this digital age could be addressed in the Bill.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the series of amendments in this group and for his explanation. Although the government changes to Schedule 21 are to be welcomed, I suggest that the Government could edge even closer towards improving the Bill yet further. Briefly, I should like to respond to the government amendments and then introduce those in my name; namely, Amendments 34 through to 51, excepting Amendment 49, which is in the next group.
Amendment 33A responds to the concerns of the 10th report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Its concern, as we have already heard, was that the Bill will allow the requirements of the default code, enforced by penalties, to be imposed or revised without parliamentary scrutiny, given that failure to comply may lead to sanctions. Equally important as parliamentary scrutiny, in my view, is the fact that it is indispensable that the code criteria should be subject to consultation by interested, informed parties. That would be the effect of my Amendments 43 and 51.
I very much welcome the Minister adding his name to Amendment 46, which I tabled. That will help to ensure that the regulations must now set out the process for determining non-compliance, determining the type or size of the sanction and for providing a right of appeal. I also welcome Amendments 46A and 46B. As financial penalties will ultimately be borne by the collecting society’s members, fines should be imposed as a last resort. A right of appeal is essential. Also Amendments 50A, 51A and 51B are welcome additions to the Bill.
I turn to the series of amendments that I have tabled. Although the government amendments put forward are very welcome and a big step in the right direction, my amendments address separate issues which, with respect, still need to be considered. The purpose of these amendments is to provide even greater clarity in the Bill for Schedule 21, which would help to ensure that the Bill meets the stated aim of fostering successful self-regulation. The effect of the changes would be to reduce the considerable uncertainties surrounding future regulations because the powers currently provided for by this legislation are simply too vague, even with the Government’s latest amendments.
Collecting societies have invested considerable time and money in adopting and operating voluntary codes of conduct. PRS for Music introduced a voluntary code of practice for licensees as far back as 2009 and then one for its members in 2010. Many other collecting societies have followed suit. The British Copyright Council’s Principles for Collective Management Organisations’ Code of Conduct, known as the BCC principles, are important to reference here, as many of these codes of conduct for members and users comply with these guiding principles, which have at their heart a commitment to transparency, accountability and good governance. I suggest that those are all good Conservative principles.
These collecting society voluntary codes also have regard to the Government’s recently published minimum standards for collecting societies and, therefore, include an independent complaints review ombudsman. Independent adjudication of a complaint is obviously an important feature of any sensible self-regulatory system. Those BCC principles also include provision for an independent code review process. This first such review is intended to start in November 2013. In short, the principles of good self-regulation are established and are generally being operated successfully by collecting societies.
Amendments are necessary to the Bill to make the path from voluntary to statutory regulation much clearer than is currently outlined in the legislation. It is only reasonable, I suggest, to give businesses the certainty that they deserve. After all, it is a big step to move from self-regulation to underpinning with state regulation.
First, it should be clarified that the majority of the powers in Schedule 21 are exercisable only in a scenario where it has been adjudged through a fair, robust and transparent process that there has been an unremedied failure of self-regulation. The imposition of a statutory code, and/or any statutory appointment of an ombudsman or code reviewer, will lead to significant additional costs and potential exposure to penalties, and should therefore be imposed only when it is clear that self-regulation has failed. Collecting societies need to have visibility of what triggers the imposition of statutory regulation so that they are not left in the dark about whether they are close to or far from crossing the line.
Equally, given that collecting societies are already offering, or on the point of offering, ombudsman dispute-resolution services and providing for a code reviewer, the regulations should also make it plain under what circumstances the Secretary of State would appoint a statutory ombudsman or code reviewer. Amendments 34 and 50 serve to clarify the processes and specific circumstances that would enable the Secretary of State to impose such regulation.
Improvements to the Bill can also be made so that the penalties for non-compliance much clearer and more proportionate. This is why I am proposing Amendments 44, 45 and 48. The Bill provides for sanctions in case there is failure to abide by a code. These sanctions include financial penalties that may be imposed on directors and other personnel. The highest fine stated in the legislation is £50,000. Under the Companies Act 2006, penalties on individuals arise in relation to very specific failures. Codes of conduct are typically of a general nature. I therefore believe it is unacceptable to impose personal liability and financial penalties for undefined offences that are less specific than UK company law.
Let us remember that all collecting society revenues are distributed to members after management costs are deducted, and fines are therefore a direct penalty on the membership itself. Any fines would be paid for by the members of the collecting society. There is a strong argument that fines on societies should be imposed only as a last resort. Instead, it would be more sensible to provide appropriate help or assistance to a society that has been deemed to have failed, as opposed to simply punishment.
I have also tabled Amendments 35 to 42, which are effectively technical. Paragraph 3 refers to a licensing code ombudsman. Codes of practice typically govern a collecting society’s relationship with its members and its licensees. I propose that the phrase “licensing code” should be deleted because it is not appropriate.
Let me conclude by saying that we should not forget that compliance with regulation is costly; and, ultimately, the resources which are devoted to regulation must in effect be paid for by the creator members themselves. It is entirely reasonable that the penalties for non-compliance are clearly set out and proportionate. This Government support the principle of good self-regulation; they should therefore take this opportunity to do just that and reduce the uncertainties provided for by the current drafting.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lady Buscombe. In fact, while she mentioned good Conservative principles, I can pray in aid of self-regulation good Liberal principles. The essence of the issue is that these should be backstop powers, and as she said, we should be fostering successful self-regulation. It is important that there is as much transparency and clarity about these rules as there is in UK company law. Some of the sanctions could be just as high as those in UK company law and, of course, they will ultimately be borne by the collecting societies’ members, and a right of appeal is essential in those circumstances. I thought that my noble friend argued eloquently for why we should be aiming for that kind of regime.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Buscombe(11 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 28C and then to my own Amendment 28D. I support the amendment proposing a director-general of intellectual property rights, put forward so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. I was extremely interested to hear about his Scottish connections, his great-grandfather and his relationship with Kelvin. There was a programme recently on the BBC about innovation that described how Matthew Boulton, James Watt's partner, succeeded in making sure that Watt derived benefit from his inventions and the modifications that he made to the Newcomen engine. It must be one of the few cases where innovators and inventors received a proper reward for their inventions. That was heartening. Perhaps it was as a result of Matthew Boulton's commercial enterprise that the Scots have been so inventive over the past couple of centuries.
As my noble friend mentioned, the UK is a world leader in intellectual property. He put some significant figures forward in terms of employment and the value of the creative sector. Therefore, how the Government develop IP policy is vital for our economy. We hear much about becoming a knowledge-driven economy. IP is vital for that and for those whom it supports, such as in manufacturing.
There is concern, however, extremely well reflected by my noble friend, that the IPO is not in fact a champion of intellectual property. I was a member of the All-Party Parliamentary IP Group inquiry into the IPO. From the evidence that I saw, officials did not see their role as being to champion intellectual property. Indeed, officials found it difficult to describe intellectual property as a property right even though nearly all creators believe that fundamentally. In fact, there were three important conclusions. My noble friend mentioned them but they bear repeating: IP is a vital foundation of economic growth, there is no champion of IP policy within government and that the IPO's policy-making function has lost the confidence of a large number of its key stakeholders. That is pretty unusual. The third point bears repeating as it is a very important conclusion.
It is significant that in their paper last year on the role of the IPO, the Government came to certain conclusions, which I think bear quotation:
“In coming to this conclusion, he”—
Hargreaves—
“argued that intellectual property policy had been insufficiently directed towards the objective of economic growth and that there had been instances in which IP policy had been developed in ways that were inconsistent with the economic evidence”.
Noble Lords can see the thrust. They continued:
“To improve the focus of IP policy on growth, the Review proposed that the Intellectual Property Office, as the Government body responsible for advising Ministers on the development of IP policy, should have an overarching legal mandate to promote innovation and growth, and state that IPO decisions will be based in evidence and take due account of the impact of the IP system on innovation and growth”.
I should say in parenthesis that your Lordships will note that there is no statement about the importance of intellectual property in the middle of that statement about innovation and growth. They go on:
“The Government wishes to retain the current structure of the IPO as an Executive Agency, combining practical experience of the IP system, gained through rights granting and advisory services, with policy responsibility. There are advantages in maintaining an organisation which has a blend of technical expertise and policy development skills, and the development of policy should not be done at arm’s length from Ministers”.
That was the major conclusion—that the IPO would pretty much stay as it is, with a stronger emphasis on innovation and growth.
Some of this is disappointing, especially in the light of the kind of proposal that we have here, but it is also fairly breathtaking. I shall not dwell on those comments unduly but the fact is that, as was recently demonstrated by Professor Hargreaves before the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the evidence base for his own reports has been flimsy at best when justifying certain copyright exceptions. The impact assessments for most of the relevant clauses in this Bill are also wholly inadequate as a result. The mantra that somehow copyright is a barrier to innovation and growth runs through the Hargreaves report and the work of the IPO, I am afraid.
Let us contrast that with the recent report on access to finance for the creative industries by Ian Livingstone, which is very positive about the need to recognise and build on the value of creative content. He fully recognises the benefit derived from promoting the creation and retention of intellectual property, alongside finance, skills creation and other factors.
Therefore, I hope—especially in the light of this amendment—that the Government will rethink their approach to intellectual property policy. As the feasibility studies by Richard Hooper and the work thereafter show, ambition within the UK’s collective licensing bodies and the creative industries to form hubs with other copyright owners—for example, for licensing music for services of every kind—right across the globe, making the UK a global licensing centre, really does exist to a powerful degree. The UK’s collective licensing bodies are investing in the technical expertise, processing power and administrative efficiency to handle billions of uses of music and other intellectual property, and to charge, collect and distribute income with precision.
I believe that that is of far greater significance across the board in the technology sector and the creative industries than the copyright law reforms proposed, whether in this Bill or in the proposed exceptions put out before Christmas. The Government should match this ambition and champion IP as much as possible. The IPO clearly needs to be more overtly a champion for IP. The United States has obviously benefited from having an IP tsar, otherwise known as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, who is responsible for a national strategy and works directly to the White House. Creating a director-general of intellectual property rights to sit within the Intellectual Property Office and serve as a champion of IP rights within and across government would increase the influence of the IPO across government and also strengthen the hand of the Minister responsible for IPO, if I may say so to my noble friend.
My noble friend quoted the Alliance for Intellectual Property and I should like to take another quotation. It says:
“We believe such a post is needed to ensure that this success is properly recognised, celebrated and built upon to ensure its contribution to growth, employment, culture and society is properly maximised; for IP to be championed in a way it is in other nations”.
Statutory underpinning of the IPO will give British IP-based industries the confidence that they need both at home and abroad.
Turning to Amendment 28D, as I mentioned, one of the most significant developments—in my view, far more significant than changes to copyright law—is the work following from Richard Hooper’s feasibility studies into a digital copyright exchange, otherwise known as the digital hub. Now the work following that feasibility study has been entrusted to a broadly representative voluntary group, the Copyright Licensing Steering Group. That has proved to get buy-in right across the creative sector. It is important to have an annual report on the follow-up to Professor Hooper’s recommendations and the progress made by the group in streamlining copyright licensing. He refers to that in paragraph 167 of his final report. We need to keep momentum going: how? He sets out several possibilities, but the one that I am attracted by is his fourth recommendation:
“Industry and the Government could also look at whether there is any productive and cost-effective overlap between reporting on and monitoring all the work described in this final report and Ofcom’s reporting requirements under the Digital Economy Act. This approach has the advantage of an independent voice but the disadvantage of perhaps moving away from the industry-led and industry-funded philosophy underpinning all this work. Given Ofcom’s new role in relation to copyright enforcement this may be an important idea for industry to consider given their concerns about copyright enforcement not being forceful enough”.
That is one suggestion; there are others; but they all surround the need to keep the momentum going and have a proper report to Parliament about progress on licensing. There is support for that approach from the Government’s paper on the role of the IPO that I mentioned previously. It states:
“The Government therefore considers that the most effective way of strengthening the IPO’s focus on innovation and growth would be to require it to report annually on the extent to which its activities had promoted those two ends. This increased transparency would act as a powerful incentive to develop policy based on the best available evidence, and to be clear about the respective weightings given to economic and social impacts on individual policy issues. Where the data are not as robust as we might like, a requirement to report will act as a spur to improve the quality of evidence”.
Surely, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in that respect.
I close by citing some very wise words from the closing paragraphs of the second Hooper feasibility study. I think that they apply across the board to both amendments.
“In conclusion, the political dimension of our work, introduced in our first report, remains constant: if the creative industries ensure that they have done all they can to make licensing and copyright work easier for rights users and therefore consumers, then the ball is firmly at the feet of politicians to ensure appropriate measures are in place to reduce the incidence of copyright infringement on the web … There must be a sensible balance between the rights and requirements of licensors and of licensees, of producers and of consumers, a balance that is beneficial to both parties leading to further and sustained growth and innovation in the UK creative and internet industries … But intellectual property across copyright, trademarks, design rights and patents is at the heart of the success of a modern knowledge-based economy it must be sensibly protected against theft and improper use”.
Amen to that.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 28C, following my noble friends Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Clement-Jones. It was interesting to hear from my noble friend Lord Jenkin about his genes. It made me think about my genes, and my grandfather, who invested a great deal of time, energy, love and passion in developing motor racing cars back in the 1950s and 1960s. I remember as a young child the privilege of being able to stand within what we called the works to watch those incredible machines being built. That was wonderful. The specifications used to build those machines, and their protection, were paramount to their success as flagship examples of British industry, for jobs, investment and advancement of technology within the motor industry and the motor racing industry. Of course, the principles that were clear then, in the 1950s and 1960s, are no different today. The protection of copyright is crucial for certainty. Everybody involved in the creative industries needs certainty. Often, as we know, people in the creative industries are taking enormous risks—very often on their own—whether they are a lone photographer or a filmmaker or a record company representing multiple interests.
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill
Debate between Lord Clement-Jones and Baroness Buscombe(11 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, it would be a shame not to savour the final quarter-hour of Committee today—although I have probably learnt more about agriculture than I ever wished to. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is still here; he is clearly incredibly versatile in all these matters. Seeing him and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I am afraid that I am reminded of the passage of the Digital Economy Bill, which may or may not be a good thing. As we know from that, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is never knowingly underprovocative, particularly on the question of intellectual property rights, and I am not going to enter the lists with him on the issue of the format-shifting exception that was the subject of the Christmas present he mentioned.
Amendment 28A is an incredibly sweeping amendment that would have a massive impact on the cloud computing industry in the UK, which is forecast to grow from something like £2 billion to £6 billion. It would have an incredibly damaging effect, which makes it highly undesirable for various commercial reasons. Quite frankly, it also happens to be in contravention of the existing EU directive on computer software, which gives the exclusive rights to copyright owners in those circumstances. Of course, there are issues about the ownership of digital content, but this is not the way to deal with them. There are issues about who owns what you have on your iPad or tablet from other manufacturers, but this is an incredibly sweeping way to do it. In the way the amendment is phrased, I doubt whether it will cure the issue by itself.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I rise to resist the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas and to support what my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said. My noble friend Lord Lucas’s argument in relation to Amendment 28A; that if someone has a book they should be allowed to own it, enjoy it and pass it on to others sounds, emotionally, like a good thing. Indeed, I have done that on many occasions among my family and friends. But passing one book among one or two friends is a million miles from what is now possible because of the speed of technology. Because of the digital world we inhabit, the whole of the creative being of that book can be out in the ether and transmitted globally within moments. The creative right is all but destroyed rather than shared in a small and special way. While I entirely understand the emotion behind the idea that we should continue to feel that we can share something we really enjoy, it is neither wise nor sensible to do that in this world because it will deter creators from creating more wonderful books. That is the tragedy of this. It is a perverse consequence of technology.