martsky

Nick Clegg’s Email to me re: Clause 43 in the Digital Economy Bill

Edit: It appears that the Lib dems have proposed an amendment which will negate most of the issues around clause 43, so my apologies to Nick Clegg on that one.

This does not alter the fact that huge swathes of the rest of the bill are deeply flawed, or the larger one of rushing through an un-debated bill in the wash up, after an election has been called, is utterly un-democratic and should not be supported by a party campaigning on electoral reform!

Original Post: The second email I received from my MP, Nick Clegg, regarding the Digital Economy Bill. Again, all emphasis is mine, relating to statements I do not feel were truthful after last night’s debate and the apparent support from his party for pushing the bill through in the wash up.

26 March 2010

Smit091/3


Dear Mr Smith

Thank you for writing to me regarding the Digital Economy Bill and the new rules it creates for the handling of orphan works.

An ‘orphan work’ is defined by the Intellectual Property Office as a work “protected by copyright in circumstances where the copyright holder cannot be traced - even after a diligent good faith search has been carried out - and hence the copyright work cannot be used without infringing copyright.”

Estimates suggest that, across the UK’s public sector, over 50 million orphan works exist. The British Library puts the figure at over 40% of existing works. We believe it is unacceptable that such a wealth of material goes unused. A commonly cited example are the thousands of photographs of servicemen taken in the First and Second World Wars, a significant part of our heritage, which the British Library is unable to digitise and make accessible online. Other examples include oral histories, personal letters, films and drawings which are held by libraries, museums and archives that have no right to make them accessible. We accept that there should be a way to make such works usable even when the owners cannot be traced.

Currently, the only way to use an orphan work is without authorisation. Should an owner later come forward, the only way for them to seek redress is to sue. This can be a lengthy and expensive process. The Digital Economy Bill creates bodies to licence these orphan works in exchange for payment. These payments are then held for the copyright owner, so owners can more easily discover if their works are being used and seek payment without having to sue.

Many photographers have contacted us about the new arrangements and we have been working with them to address their concerns. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Clement-Jones recently challenged the government in debate over the issues photographers have raised.

Lord Clement-Jones pointed out that, under the new rules, photographers might have much less control over their works; that they could no longer offer exclusive use of their images or refuse permission if their work is to be used in a way they disagreed with; that the new rules may breach EU law; that a distinction should be made between the commercial and non-commercial use of works, with commercial works to be excluded if necessary; and that deliberate misidentification of works as orphaned must carry a severe sanction.

The government conceded many of our points, and have assured us that excluding some types of photography will be possible if necessary. The full text of the debate can be found here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100308-0008.htm

Although we want to help educational establishments and others who wish to legitimately use orphan works, the Liberal Democrats believe photographers’ rights to be absolutely imperative as well. Safeguards must exist to protect their work. If the only way to do this is by excluding commercial photography from the new scheme altogether, then we will be prepared to call for this.

I hope this has explained my position on this issue. Thank you again for writing to me on this topic.

Yours sincerely

Nick Clegg MP

Tagged: debilldigital economy billnick clegglibdemliberal democratsclause 43photography

Nick Clegg’s Email to me re: The Digital Economy Bill

This is the email Nick Clegg, my MP, sent to me in response to my email regarding the Digital Economy Bill. Note, by the way;

1. My email stated concerns both with the filesharing aspects and with Clause 43. I received no response on Clause 43 until I sent another email asking for clarification. This response is here.
2. I asked immediately if he would mind me publishing this email, as this seemed polite. An answer would have been polite too, and as I haven’t received one I’m publishing anyway, after 1 Lib Dem MP turned up last night for the second reading and frankly did nothing.
3. All emphasis is mine, relating to statements I do not feel were truthful after last night’s debate and the apparent support from his party for pushing the bill through in the wash up.

24 March 2010
Smit091/3

Dear Mr Smith

Thank you for your email concerning the rushed proposal of the Digital
Economy Bill.

 The Digital Economy Bill is wide ranging and covers issues such as a
new remit for Channel 4, the classification of computer games, plans for
switchover to digital radio and the future of regional news on ITV as
well as the issue of illegal downloading.

The Liberal Democrats support the creative industries and believe that
many aspects of this Bill are vitally important to the continuing
success of our radio, television and content industries.

We are also concerned about the financial implications of illegal
downloading of copyright material and recognise the importance of
protecting intellectual property.

 A report published on 17th March 2010 predicted that a quarter of a
million jobs in the UK’s creative industries could be lost by 2015 if
current trends in online piracy continue.

 Commenting on it, Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC, said:
“The results of the study stress that the growth of unauthorised
file-sharing, downloading and streaming of copyrighted works and
recorded performances is a major threat to the creative industries in
terms of loss of employment and revenues. The scale of the problem is
truly frightening now - let alone in the future if no firm actions
against illegal file-sharing are taken.”

For these reasons we do believe that some action is needed and must
form part of the Digital Economy Bill.

 However, we have opposed - and helped defeat - government proposals
(contained in Clause 17 of the original Digital Economy Bill) to give
itself almost unfettered powers to act against copyright infringement.

 Further, as a result of debates instigated and amendments passed by the
Liberal Democrats in the Lords, the government’s original proposals
relating to illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing have been significantly
improved.

 As a result, no action to introduce “technical measures” (whether
temporary account suspension, bandwidth throttling or whatever) can be
introduced until;

1. soft measures (letter writing) have been used
2. an evaluation of their effectiveness has been undertaken
3. an evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of, technical measures has been undertaken
4. further consultation has taken place
5. proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision, and
6. there is an explicit assumption of innocence until proved guilty

The Liberal Democrats remain concerned by some aspects of the system for
tackling peer-to-peer file-sharing being introduced in the Bill and will
take further action in the Commons to scrutinise and improve the
legislation. In particular, we are concerned that there will not be
enough time for in-depth consultation on the initial code that Ofcom
will draw up. We also feel that there is currently inadequate protection
in the Bill for schools, libraries, universities and other businesses
offering internet access to the public.

 We are also unconvinced of the merits of the various technical measures
that have been proposed, including bandwidth shaping and temporary
account suspension. For this reason we have amended the Bill to ensure
that any such measures cannot be introduced without proper consultation
and not until evidence has been produced to prove that this is the best
available option. We are further seeking to ensure that any measures
brought before parliament will be subject to maximum scrutiny in both
Houses and that it will be possible for changes to be made to them
before a final decision is made.

 We are urging the creative music, film and video games industries to
work more vigorously to develop new business models which will make it
easier and more affordable for people to legally access their products.
We hope that this combined with “soft measures” and an effective
education campaign will mean that further action will not be required.

 Liberal Democrats have agreed at their Spring Conference to establish a
working party to address these issues. With at least a year before there
will be any attempt to introduce “technical measures”, this will provide
an opportunity for the party to consider the outcome of research into
the effectiveness of the early stages of the implementation of the
legislation in the digital economy Bill.

 The Bill has now completed all stages in the Lords but cannot proceed
unless it has, as a minimum, been debated at a “Second Reading” in the
Commons. We believe that many of the measures in the Bill that do not
relate to illegal file sharing are important and must be allowed to go
into law. However, in respect of those that relate to illegal file
sharing we will not support them in the Commons if we are not satisfied
that the procedures in place are fair and allow for full consultation
and scrutiny before their introduction in the future.

Yours sincerely

Nick Clegg MP

Tagged: nick cleggdebilldigital economy billpoliticspower corruptsLiberal Democratslibdem