Dear Reader
Lord Carter's 'digital britain - interim report', published on January 29th, reads well. It may be light on detail in some areas, but it contains a very good 'state of the digital nation' analysis and highlights the key issues affecting the roll-out of next generation digital networks and the development of digital content services. To get a snapshot of the report, read 'Digital Britain: 5 objectives' on page 5 of the PDF version and the 22 Action Points on pages 5-11.
But In this post, I want to concentrate on some of the apparent contradictions about copyright that are picked up in the interim report and the reasons for that. But before I do that, I want to highlight a few key economic and commercial points made in the report.
Economic importance of UK's Creative Industries
In the current economic climate, with the UK's financial services industry in the doldrums, the report asserts the importance of our creative industries, especially for exports. It cites OECD estimates that "..the UK cultural sector is relatively more important (at just under 6% of GDP) than its equivalent sectors in the US, Canada, France and Australia." It also quotes Unesco's estimates that "...the UK is the world's biggest exporter of "cultural goods", surpassing even the US."
Four commercial challenges
The report says that there are four commercial challenges which need to be addressed to preserve a healthy content market in the digital age:
1: Downward pressure on digital revenues caused by lowering of digital distribution and copying costs.
2: Downward spiral of revenues from advertiser-funded businessess resulting from huge increase in advertising inventory ( we're talking search here!).
3: The need for wholesale access to important content to satisfy bundled content and services offered across a range of distribution platforms and digital services.
4: Unlicensed and illegal copying and distribution. I'd like to add a 5th: How to create revenue - whether in the form of subscription, 'pay as you go' or otherwise, from digital conent which is currently be made available without charge for users to use lawfully without having to pay for it.
The contradiction about copyright
Put bluntly, the implied question in the interim report is whether copyright is an enabler or a barrier in the new digital media world.
An enabler
It's true that it states unequivocally that: "Copyright is vital for our content and communications industries. It is the framework through which people can protect their creations and seek reward."
And on the 'enabler' side of the equation, the report promotes a cross-industry, mult-track approach to dealing with copyright infringement. It floats the idea of a 'Rights Agency', a working forum of stakeholders - although it sounds like another quasi-Governmental body. - It would use education, the promotion of technical solutions to deal with infringement, information provision and promoting innovative services.
The interim report also hints at 'regulatory assets' and levies as alternative revenue streams for digital content services.
Furthermore, the interim report also refers to the outcome of the Government's consultation on dealing with the issue of unlawful 'P2P file sharing. This is not a 'Digital Britain' initiative. The result of the Consultation was inconclusive. The Government's preferred co-regulatory approach did not win universal support. Instead, we are left with what is ultimately a Court-based approach: the legislation will require ISPs to collect anonymised information on serious repeat infringers to be made available to rights-holders together with personal details on receipt of a court order. You can see the result of the Consultation on BERR's website here
A barrier?
In the context of the internet, the interim report says "..there is a tension between providing reasonable rewards for creativity, which have historically required a measure of protection for the creator's rights, and the freedom to allow that content to be used to permit further innovation and creativity."
So here's the thing: is copyright stifling further innovation and creativity and the growth of new innovative services? Is there something missing, some vital link in the copyright chain?
It is dangerous to generalise across different sectors. The games industy is calling for tax incentives; the newspaper industry is faced with the flight of advertising to search; the music industry is still grappling with the problems of P2P and online services; the book publishing industry is still only experimenting with digital delivery and so on.
21st century rights management
But there definitely is something missing: it's the use of 21st century rights management tools. The interim report picks up on this when it mentions, as one of the possible functions of the Rights Agency, "...to support and legitimise technical solutions". It then mentions the work of ACAP.
We are not talking here about is DRM in the sense of technical measures such as Apple's 'Fairplay' technology which restricts the use of content on different devices.
What we are discussing is digital rights management in the sense of attaching permissions to all types of content in a way which enables websites, consumer electronic devices, digital televisions, search engines, e-book readers and all other network connected machines to link permissions to content. 'ACAP, 'Creative Commons', 'ONIX' (for books) are all examples of open standards for automating the expression of permissions.
It is these tools which will unlock the digital networks' potential to make new content available, and to get permission to use existing works quickly, easily and effectively in accordance with the permissions set by rights owners within the boundaries of copyright law. The 'rights holder' is, of course, free to set these permissions and may permit non-commercial use for free or for financial reward. It is a matter of choice.
In many if not most instances, these permissions will not be enforced by technical protection measures. That is a matter of choice for the content provider dictated, to a large extent, by the type of content and what consumers want and are willing to accept. For example, Apple recently made available part of its catalogue free of these technical measures. In the newspaper industry, permissions attaching to their web-based content which are designed to be readable by search engine are unlikely to be enforced by these these measures.
Although these standards are 'techie', their adoption and use have direct relevance to user's respect for copyright as well as making it easier to clear rights, make existing and new works available to citizens and consumers and to remunerate creators and everyone else in the copyright chain. They are the engine to getting copyright to work in an advanced networked economy. Nor does their adoption need any change to the copyright framework - they sit fairly and squarely within it.
Promoting widespread adoption of these standards - now that's a possible job for the Rights Agency!
Laurie Kaye
Comments