Sep 5 2011

Evidence or political will? DEA, Hargreaves and the future of UK copyright regulation

Having launched a policy brief in March criticizing the Digital Economy Act (DEA) in relation to copyright and file-sharing and with Parliament’s BIS committee looking into the Hargreaves Report on intellectual property, it seems to be a good time to re-examine the issues at stake. Here is what happened since March on the copyright regulation front.

  • In April, the high court rejected the UK’s Internet service providers BT and TalkTalk’s challenge to the DEA.
  • In May, Professor Hargreaves released his review of intellectual property and growth commissioned by the Prime Minister. Titled Digital Opportunity, the report contends that the UK’s intellectual property framework falls short of what is needed.
  • In June, the court refused BT and TalkTalk’s application to appeal the high court’s April decision.
  • In July, the high court ordered BT to block its customer’s access to a file-sharing website Newzbin2 on the request of the Motion Picture Association.
  • In August, as part of the government’s response to the Hargreaves report, business secretary Vincent Cable said that plans to block illegal file-sharing websites under the DEA are probably unworkable.

In our policy brief we said that the DEA got the balance wrong between the interest of corporate copyright holders and of citizens and the economy as a whole. We said that there is a need to move away from disproportionate protection for the incumbents in the creative industries and that public debate needs to reflect this. Our view was echoed in the Hargreaves report, which refers to the spread of digital technologies as an “opportunity” rather than a threat to the creative industries. The question is how to seize the opportunity to stimulate economic growth.

Hargreaves’ report calls for evidence-based policy making, which some readers have found “staggeringly refreshing” because independently produced empirical evidence might counter the lobbying power of partisan stakeholders. The outcome of the DEA judicial review, however, illustrates the limitations of this. The Judge acknowledged the disproportionality of the DEA and the potential chilling effects of repressive measures to curb P2P file-sharing.  But he concluded there was insufficient evidence to evaluate the magnitude of any negative impact. The evidence game is never going to be played on a level field: opponents of the DEA would have to provide counterfactual evidence about the future, whereas DEA supporters already have a long list of studies about the present and past of their industries?

In the case of P2P file-sharing and its legal and infringing uses, the stakeholders including citizens, consumers, ISPs, and small businesses do not have empirical data to reveal the likely detrimental impact of the DEA measures. The data available are on 1) the widespread practices of file-sharing and 2) the changing market conditions faced by the creative industries. The creative industry incumbents and academics they deploy interpret these data in a way that favours the conclusion that striking harshly on file sharing is the best means to breathe new life into these firms and encourage their contribution to revitalizing the digital economy. From this perspective, the call for evidence-based policy making is likely to result in a conservative analysis rather than in a progressive move to adapt the copyright law to better reflect today’s realities.

In the Executive Summary and the section on enforcement of the Hargreaves report, there is a clear message that taking draconian measures to enforce IP protection is not the right way forward. But when it comes to the DEA, it is suggested that the measures that allow monitoring of the online activities of ISP subscribers should be implemented so long as their impact is “carefully monitored”. This is seen as the only way to generate hard evidence that could support the argument to rescind these measures. In fact, there are other ways to find evidence and there already is some out there that suggests good reasons for providing incentives for the creative industry incumbents to move quickly to introduce new open access business models and to generate their profits in new ways – without needing to promote repressive measures that disproportionately impact on citizens’ creative uses of the online world.

The Hargreaves report also recommends a cross sector Digital Copyright Exchange, a “one-stop shop” for anyone who wants to acquire a license for using copyrighted works. An exchange could help to expand the market for legal digital online content and foster a conducive environment for technological and business innovation, which we advocated in our policy brief. In the face of the creative industries’ lobbying power (the DEA win being a clear manifestation of their influence and the court decision on Newzbin2 being another), most new online services have to fight an uphill battle against the incumbents when they try to negotiate licensing terms (e.g., this is a reason for the delay in making Spotify digital music service available in the U.S. market) and the citizens’ voice is almost completely absent in the policy making process.  If a new Digital Copyright Exchange is launched this will be step in the right direction, but it will need strong political will and leadership to achieve.

In the meantime, if the ISPs do start monitoring their subscribers’ online activities and court cases start to be brought by the copyright holders leading to subscriber’s Internet access being curtailed or suspended, we can expect a media frenzy about the injustice of it all. This could result in a eventual reversal of the DEA provisions by the government, based not on evidence but on the common sense observation that at stake are more than just the interests of those currently holding copyrights.  In the meantime, much damage may be done to the prospects of stimulating the creative industries in the UK in a way that is likely to maximise the economic benefits for all.

This entry was posted in Copyright and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Evidence or political will? DEA, Hargreaves and the future of UK copyright regulation

  1. Luca Schiavoni says:

    I think the UK Government has decided to find a ‘third way’ between copyright owners and final users, which are no less important stakeholders since they are ultimately voters. This might not be the ideal approach, but at least they are not listening to copyright owners’ requests wholesale.
    I still believe that the judicial review was in part wrong as it didn’t consider the fact that a user might appear as an infringer without being really guilty. Anyway, there is now no obstacle for the DEA to come into full force and we will indeed see ISPs monitoring our connections. We’ll have to wait for courts to brush these measures aside when they will most likely acknowledge that evidence of breach will be unobtainable for most users.

    As regards website blocking, I believe we won’t see any more of this as it is unfeasible and would place yet another burden on ISPs, something that regulators are not keen to do. Feel free to read my recent comment about the UK Government’s decision and the Italian regulator’s U-turn on the same issue here:

    Even Turkey is reconsidering its initial intention to introduce thorough blocking measures:

    However, We might well see “three-strikes” laws flourishing throughout Europe, before courts – European Courts above all – rule them out.

  2. Glyn Moody says:

    Good post, but I think you are being too kind when you write:

    “DEA supporters already have a long list of studies about the present and past of their industries”

    As the Hargreaves Report noted:

    “The Review team has examined numerous studies [of online piracy], including those in the table above, and a supporting paper looks at the methodological strengths and weaknesses of this work. With the exception of the Industry Canada study, we have either not been able to examine the methodology of the studies or, where we have, we have discovered problems with the methodology. Consequently, we have not found either a figure for the prevalence and impact of piracy worldwide or for the UK in which we can place our confidence.”

    In other words, with one possible exception, those studies are pretty worthless. There simply is not any independent evidence for the alleged negative effects of file sharing. Unfortunately, judges, like politicians, can be bamboozled by smart-looking reports with lots of numbers and graphs, even if neither is backed up by hard data.

  3. Pingback: – EU Recognizes Need To Modernize Copyright, Announces Plan To Consider Reforms

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>