Digital Copyright Exchange feasibility study

[Duke]

Not quite sure how I missed this (although it could be an indication of how widely they're consulting), but the IPO has launched a "feasibility study" of the Digital Copyright Exchange suggested by the Hargreaves Review. Despite involving "rights owners, rights managers, rights users and end users" they only seem to be interested in hearing from the first two (no surprise there), but it might be worth us trying to muscle in.

They have helpfully provided a word document with their call for evidence, it would be helpful if people could have a look through that and see if it is worth the Party looking into (or even if the Party might have anything worth saying about it).

[borgs8472]

We're pretty much a consumer advocacy group, so I'd say fall under the end users category.

Non end user pirates are actually 'Rights users' by their definition, but PPUK rarely claims to represent this group.

[M2Ys4U]

Anybody who writes anything, takes any pictures, records any videos etc. is a rights owner - which is pretty much everybody.

These distinctions are pretty meaningless tbh.

[Duke]

Right; now we've got past that point, any thoughts on the actual call for evidence itself?

[M2Ys4U]

Section 1 would be tricky for us. AFAIK we don't have any hard data to submit, but I think we should certainly try and get something in about the definitions.

Definitions shape the language and style of the debate; we don't want the lobbyist's propaganda terms to be used extensively when there are also neutral terms available.

[topperfalkon]

I heartily agree with Jack. We need to make sure the definitions are in such a way that they don't overly benefit the lobbyists...

[Gavman]

I heartily agree with Jack. We need to make sure the definitions are in such a way that they don't overly benefit the lobbyists...

Well technically the wording will always benefit lobbyists just a different set...

I do not believe the Party has a definitive stand on whether a Digital Copyright Exchange would be a good thing or not at the moment, we want to see the evidence on both sides of the argument ourselves!

[topperfalkon]

Regardless of the view we have on the DCE, we can still express our issues with the current copyright regime, and at least look at a workable basis for a DCE regardless of if we agree with it or not, if it's better than the alternatives.

[azrael]

Also if such a thing is constructed I think it is important to indicate the reasons it is being constructed, for whose benefit. That will influence the balance of how it is set up. I believe that the benefit to society should be the motivator, with society and public maximum benefit the objective. Note I refer to society and the public rather than 'customers' or 'consumers'.

Regarding our existing manifesto objectives, I would go so far as suggest that perhaps a digital copyright exchange must allow non-commercial entities to freely put in and take out. With commercial entities paying into the system if they want to take out. Commercial-use costs should then be set at a level to support the entire system.

[aramoro]

I would say that is a good intention Azrael but how do you say it's a benefit to society as a whole if it does not benefit business in some way. You need a balanced approach which benefits everyone, not just the consumer as your proposal would.

[topperfalkon]

The discussion following the above post was split to here