UK Copyright Industries Suddenly Become Fans Of Evidence-Based Policy Making
from the pot,-kettle,-black dept
Building on the solid work of the Hargreaves Report on copyright, the UK government took a surprisingly sensible attitude in its proposed implementation of most of Hargreaves’ suggestions. The consultation period for those proposals ends shortly, and the panic among the copyright industries that the UK government might actually make copyright slightly less biased in their favor is evident. Here’s a Daily Telegraph piece where they try to undermine the economic rationale behind the moves, professing scepticism about UK government claims that modernizing copyright will add billions to the UK economy:
UK Music, the music industry body, said the growth projection was “based upon underlying assumptions and extrapolations that are facile and deeply flawed”.
Its chief executive, Jo Dipple, called on the Government to “re-examine the evidence”.
“Re-examine the evidence” is precisely what the Hargreaves team did when it explored to what extent digital piracy was causing harm to the copyright industries. Here’s what it found:
The Review team has examined numerous studies, 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, bar one report, there was no reliable evidence, despite the fact that the copyright industries have been claiming the contrary for years, and using those claims to push for harsher laws against online copyright infringement.
A typical case is the TERA report that came out in March 2010. As I have shown elsewhere, its headline result that piracy in the EU was likely to cause losses of 1.2 million jobs and 240 billion euros ($325 billion) by 2015 was based almost entirely on figures supplied by the recording industry — in other words, of no value as independent evidence. And yet its “assumptions and extrapolations” were widely used in the debate running up to the vote in April 2010 that saw the passing of the UK’s Digital Economy Act.
Also quoted in The Telegraph piece is Pete Wishart, an MP and a musician chiefly associated with the folk-rock band Runrig. Commenting on the UK government’s projections, he said:
“How the Government has got away with such bonkers figures is beyond me.”
The real issue is how the copyright industries got away with its bonkers figures, and for so long. Let’s hope their new-found love for evidence-based policy making doesn’t vanish when the facts turn out to be very different.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Filed Under: copyright, politics, studies
Companies: uk music
Comments on “UK Copyright Industries Suddenly Become Fans Of Evidence-Based Policy Making”
The wheel is turning
The wild west days of ever expanding copyright power at the peril of the public is ending.
Re: The wheel is turning
I wish I shared your optimism.
Re: Re: The wheel is turning
Well, either its stopping, or the copyrightists are getting a boot to the head. Which will stop it just as well until they recover from cranial injury. Practical optimism like that is the most reliable.
“The wild west days of ever expanding copyright power at the peril of the public is ending.” This is 100% correct, however if mickey mouse is about to fall into public domain this will be tossed aside 🙁
Re: Mickey Mouse
I think there should be a difference between characters and content “actively used” and those that are only help for the purpose of preventing other from using them. Of course them we fall in to the pit of holder trotting out remakes and remixes every so often to claim they are actively used. This does not qualify as “active use” by my standards.
Additionally there should be different standards between retelling a story or using characters in new ways vs. simply doing a verbatim copy. Copying Homer’s Odyssey and telling it as he told it is just copying (even if it is a wonderful performance), But re-telling the story as was done with “O’ Brother Where Art Thou” is using stories and characters in new ways.
In today’s world Homer would have sued The Coen Brothers, Touchstone and Disney Studios in to the ground over infringement claims.
Here’s hoping this is a start of the pendulum’s swing back into something remotely rational. But who am I kidding, money will eventually speak its marvelous wonders to the politicians and things will get worse.
Bonkers.
T_T, stop expanding copyright to absurd time scales. Thankyou.
Re: Re:
Where were you back in 1976 or 1998, when we needed you?
“…we have either not been able to examine the methodology of the studies or, where we have, we have discovered problems with the methodology.”
It makes me sick to my stomach that laws that greatly impact people’s rights and freedoms are being based on what amounts to hearsay.
It’s like legislating about national curfew, because you know, the boogeyman. We have to think of the children!
the SNP only agree on one policy sadly
my SNP MEP, Alyn Smith, has replied to a few of my emails about ACTA and seems to be siding with the Greens and Pirate Party: ‘Please rest assured that Alyn’s group in the European Parliament, the Greens/European Free Alliance, have been very active on this matter and their opposition to ACTA’
Sadly the SNP only agree on one thing: independence, so that txxt Pete Wishart (and Runrig, dear god what an awful band) can have a different opinion. I want to vote for the SNP, and have a few times, but Wishart/Runrig are the down side.
hang maybe there is a good side to this
If they enforce copyright successfully and nobody can share Runrig anymore maybe i won’t have to hear that dreadful music ever again and the band will be forgotten. Its a thin sliver of positive to cling to though.(i still remember the first time i heard Runrig, one night in the mid 80s, it made me want to bang my head on a rusty nail).
What’s bonkers is that the “content” industry has been able to make up any figures they’ve wanted to prove “losses” their profits say aren’t happening. Certainly the amounts they toss into lobbying and pay their CEOs and other executives say aren’t happening.
They use the creative accounting they use not to pay artists their residuals/royalties and so on to come up with their numbers on “piracy” and they’re believed.
Now THAT’S truly bonkers.
Re: Re:
It’s called creative math. They think the concept of imaginary numbers means they can make anything up.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s still bonkers that politicians seem to have so little mathematical knowledge that they believe it. Or at least can be bought.
Re: Re:
” Certainly the amounts they toss into lobbying and pay their CEOs and other executives say aren’t happening.”
That’s probably where all their losses are coming from
makes no difference what figures are looked at, taken into account or actually used, the UK has already sold it’s soul to the entertainment industries. they have listened to the absolute bull shit those industries put out in court and now allows for website blocking, internet censorship and internet disconnections based on accusations only, again from those industries. i hope that there is something similar to the US anti-trust law in the UK and EU so that ISPs can be sued for taking money from customers in return for supplying a service, whilst at the same time, passing personal information to another company so that the same customers can be sued.
Wasn’t the Industry Canada study the one that concluded that P2P file sharing tended to increase music purchasing?
Re: Re:
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/eng/h_ip01456.html
‘Its chief executive, Jo Dipple, called on the Government to ?re-examine the evidence?.’
and by “re-examine the evidence” – re-count the money in the envelope we gave you
I notice how the regular detractors of this site fail to make appearances in the comments on articles such as this. Nothing to share, folks?
Brown and dim eco-friendly pieces might be donned only inexpensive Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses contacts function the colour is saying there is not significantly romantic relationship among the UV400 generally additional a layer of membrane. As for what colour to put on contacts which are generally aesthetic and every person?s pores and skin color, inexpensive replica oakley sunglasses clothes donned through the problem, Cheap Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses is incredibly fundamental with the summer，because it safeguards the eye balls loads of pals with the Oakley sunglasses of choice, generally far more interest could be the product or service price, good quality and design and so, in fact, the option of sunglasses lens colours are also incredibly important. So, what colour is generally a very good inexpensive Oakley sunglasses Statistics display that most folks commonly select dark font size=”+2.415″>Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses Outlet frame shade mainly because of fake Oakley sunglasses can withstand the path to keep away from the expression of mild reflected back again from your drinking water or light, or other conditions arising from your reflection, inexpensive Oakley sunglasses to provide the driver a obvious visual experience.Believe this could be the greatest question. Indeed, now for the industry sunglasses lens colours multi-colored and dazzling, colour will not harm inexpensive Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses Sale you to definitely carry a diverse feel. Brown University: Brown college recognized Oakley Outlet low cost as the most effective sunglasses contacts in color.Cheap Oakley Sunglasses far more designer. oakley sunglasses outlet far more artist new Oakley sunglasses.
Here’s a Daily Torygraph piece where they try to undermine the economic rationale behind the moves.
FTFY.