Westminster eForum: IP and the Future of Copyright

UK Copyright: How it compares internationally and who are the

winners and losersMarch 2008Ray Corrigan

Open University

Outline UK

Background History Gowers

International comparisons WWW Term, TPM, P2P

Winners, losers and evidence Creators Agents (business) Public

Background

Types of copyright Literary, dramatic, artistic, musical works Books, music, software, films, databases,

packaging, tickets, lists of rules, ads… Protects expression of “idea”, not idea

itself Creators use earlier work

UK Copyright Context History

Statute of Anne (1709) Macaulay – tax on readers to benefit writers Berne Convention (1886… 1908… 1951… 1971…) UK Copyright Acts (1911 & 1956) Rome Convention (1961)

CDPA 1988 TRIPS (GATT/WTO 1994/’95) 1996 WIPO Treaties EU directives - IPRED, e-commerce, EUCD,

databases, sw, semiconductors, cr term…

Gowers Review UK 2006 IP enforcement

IP crime – police and trading standards 10 years jail

Reform of copyright Balance – fair dealing & exceptions for private format

shifting Libraries, archives, education No term extension on sound recordings - economics

Patent Office → IPO Advisory Board on IP Policy

WWW Mid 1990s WWW Copyright upheaval Many changes internationally US DMCA, CTEA 1998 EU EUCD, IPRED, ECD Mexico life + 100 France: 3 strikes Antigua: Gambling + WTO = Infringement

Term, ISPs EU & US life + 70 Mexico life + 100 Others Berne norm life + 50 US CDA s230 + DMCA s512 safe harbours E-commerce directive – protect ISPs?

UK 2002 ecommerce directive regulations s17-19 But +EUCD in SABAM v Tiscali/Scarlet

Belgian court Nov. 2007 Mandate filters for CR?

China notice and takedown law 2005

ISPs, P2P Ireland: music cos. v Eircom Israel court: ISPs must block torrent site Canada BMG v Doe 2005: ISP can’t ID Irish High Court: ISPs must ID users 2006 English High Court: ISPs must ID users 2006 German court: ISP can’t ID p2p users 2008 France 3 strikes memorandum

Stakeholders (winners & losers)

Public(Consumers)

CreatorsAgents*

* Business e.g. Music, film, software, media companies, publishers

Creators

Strength of copyright (Z)

Cre

ativ

e A

ctiv

ity

Zero ZC

(a) Creators

Z depends on i) term ii) scope iii) penalties iv) case law v)enforcement

Consumers

Societal welfare equals (weighted) sum of consumers, creators & agents

Strength of copyright (Z)

Tot

al c

on

sum

er

we

lfare

Zero Zconsumer

(b) Consumers

Agents of creators

Music, film, software, media companies and publishers

Strength of copyright (Z)

Ag

ent

pro

fita

bili

ty

Zero ZA

(c) Agents Za > Zc

Lined up

Strength of copyright (Z)

Cre

ativ

e A

ctiv

ity

Zero ZC

Strength of copyright (Z)

To

tal s

oci

eta

l we

lfare

Zero ZS

Strength of copyright (Z)

Ag

ent

pro

fita

bili

ty

Zero ZA

(a) Creators

(b) Society as a whole

(c) Agents

PossiblyZa > Zc > Zconsumers

Evidence Optimal strength varies for creators, agents and

consumers Possibly Za > Zc > Zconsumers

We don’t know Very little empirical evidence

Case study of specific firms Surveys of creators, firms, lawyers, etc Data & econometrics National or sector trends/comparisons Sales of CDs, films, etc Collecting society data Legal cases matched to firm-level data

Recent proposed changes 3 strikes

Winners - agents & creators Losers - agents & creators & public

Term extension Winners - agents & creators Losers - agents & creators & public 4% > 20 years old available 96% locked up

PublicCreators

Agents

When regulating technology…

Audience 15 million Radio 40 years TV 15 years www 3 years (600 million+ in 7 years)

Law can’t keep up Reed – doctrine of creative inertia Empirical work/evidence needed

On creators, agents, consumers and technology