4 ms·

I personally took part in the public consultations and workshops that formed the basis of the Hargreaves Report and was genuinely surprised not only by the comm

I personally took part in the public consultations and workshops that formed the basis of the Hargreaves Report and was genuinely surprised not only by the committees detailed understanding of the issues involves (I learned a lot), but also their genuine openness to discuss new and controversial ideas. However, I have close links with the Carbon trust and understand all too well how reports such as these are paid lip service by the government, and to a large degree used to force through unpopular and even corrupt legislation with tenuous links to original issue for political points or monetary gain for individual MPs. Take for example the Carbon Trusts recommendation that old refrigerators posed a significant environmental risk. The trust put forward the idea that people should no longer be able to dump their old refrigerators along with regular waste, but should instead send their refrigerators to dedicated recycling centres where they could be properly dismantled. The Labour government took that idea, but failed to follow through on the dismantling process, so we ended up with fridge mountains up and down the UK, causing more environmental damage than the old system of just chucking them where ever you wanted to. Not only did this score some serious political votes with environmentalists, but a lot of money changed hands in the process of creating this new "infrastructure" So it is with a cautious mindset that I approach the governments acceptance of the Hargreaves report. And there are a couple of things I think we need to be careful of, but most importantly, we need to keep a very close eye on this... Point 4: A digital copyright exchange will facilitate copyright licensing and realise the growth potential of creative industries We have to be careful that this doesn't open the door to a new kind of patent troll. If the government puts this out to the private sector (which they probably will), we could find ourselves lumbered with an Intellectual Ventures style monster who didn't even have to buy the original patents in the first place. It's a guaranteed certainty that someone out there is looking at the notion of a Digital Copyright Exchange from the point of view of making an absolute killing, and given the UK governments willingness to grant unreasonable favours to the private sector over the past 20 years, this has to be a very serious concern. Nothing that follows point 4 in the governments response is legally binding. I'm not saying a DCE is a bad idea, I think it's a great idea, but it needs to be a not for profit venture, ideally controlled by the state. The second the people responsible for running the DCE start making profit, the game is up.

swombat 15y ago
Whilst I agree that the DCE could be a disaster if applied to patents, I think they are very explicitly aiming that at the copyright problem, which is very different. I also don't think the DCE can or should avoid aiming to make a profit. On the contrary, the only way to get a decent DCE in place will be to have multiple players competing in the space, which seems to be both the Hargreaves report's and the government's view. Effectively, what we're talking about is a kind of iTunes-like marketplace for automated, mass licencing of copyrighted works, to make the process straightforward, transparent, predictable, etc. I don't see how preventing those from making a profit would help.
- tomelders 15y ago
  If the desired effect a a DCE actually manifest themselves, it would be better to keep it non profit and state run since any operating costs would be offset by the increased productivity in the wider economy. And if the mandate was issued by the public, based on frequent public consultation, it would essentially future proof itself. That's not to say it shouldn't generate a lot of money, it easily could. I imagine a world where a DCE becomes so successful that it generates enough money to create new and advanced institutions for the arts and sciences, enabling Britain to invest heavily in its long term future. However, if it were private, that revenue would not be put to such a good use, and the public would have no say in how the DCE operated. Any attempts to correct any inefficiencies or inequalities in the DCE would meet fierce legal opposition. We don't know what the landscape will look like in 20, 30, 50 or a hundred years. Why saddle ourselves with an immutable, or near-immutable DCE?
bricestacey 15y ago
The DCE sounds like the Copyright Clearance Center in the US. By the way, it is a total racket.

swombat 15y ago

Whilst I agree that the DCE could be a disaster if applied to patents, I think they are very explicitly aiming that at the copyright problem, which is very different. I also don't think the DCE can or should avoid aiming to make a profit. On the contrary, the only way to get a decent DCE in place will be to have multiple players competing in the space, which seems to be both the Hargreaves report's and the government's view. Effectively, what we're talking about is a kind of iTunes-like marketplace for automated, mass licencing of copyrighted works, to make the process straightforward, transparent, predictable, etc. I don't see how preventing those from making a profit would help.

tomelders 15y ago
If the desired effect a a DCE actually manifest themselves, it would be better to keep it non profit and state run since any operating costs would be offset by the increased productivity in the wider economy. And if the mandate was issued by the public, based on frequent public consultation, it would essentially future proof itself. That's not to say it shouldn't generate a lot of money, it easily could. I imagine a world where a DCE becomes so successful that it generates enough money to create new and advanced institutions for the arts and sciences, enabling Britain to invest heavily in its long term future. However, if it were private, that revenue would not be put to such a good use, and the public would have no say in how the DCE operated. Any attempts to correct any inefficiencies or inequalities in the DCE would meet fierce legal opposition. We don't know what the landscape will look like in 20, 30, 50 or a hundred years. Why saddle ourselves with an immutable, or near-immutable DCE?

bricestacey 15y ago

The DCE sounds like the Copyright Clearance Center in the US. By the way, it is a total racket.