UK's Ofcom Recognizes That Copyright Can Be A Threat To User Generated Content

One of the central problems of laws that deal with copyright is that they are essentially products of a time when the distinction between creator and audience was clear-cut. The move to digital and the rise of the Internet has changed all that, allowing hundreds of millions of people to become new kinds of creators. They may not write entire symphonies or paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, but what they lack in scale and intensity they make up for in frequency and spontaneity. 

On Techdirt.

Consumer Focus and the Digital Economy Act

I've written a couple of articles recently about Ofcom's consultation on the implementation of the Digital Economy Act. That consultation has closed now (it was only open for a month), but I'm conscious that in those posts I was making quite a lot of technical claims about Internet security, an area in which I am certainly no expert. 

On Open Enterprise blog.

Time to Fight for Net Neutrality in the EU

Net neutrality is one of those areas that most people are vaguely in favour of, without giving it much thought. Governments take advantage of this to make sympathetic noises while doing precisely nothing to preserve it. For example, following a UK consultation on net neutrality two years ago, Ofcom came out with a very wishy-washy statement that basically said we think net neutrality is a jolly good idea but we won't actually do anything to protect it. 

On Computerworld UK.

Don't be Neutral about Net Neutrality

A little while ago, I noted that Ofcom was seeking input on the subject of Net neutrality. I also promised to post my own submission, which I've included below.

Ofcom has put together a very useful discussion paper [.pdf], and invites comments via an online form. Alternatively, you can send comments directly to traffic.management@ofcom.org.uk. In either case, responses need to be in by 9 September.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Shame on Ofcom, Double Shame on the BBC

Readers with good memories may recall a little kerfuffle over an Ofcom consultation to slap DRM on the BBC's HD service:

if this scheme is adopted it is highly unlikely free software projects will be able to obtain the appropriate keys, for the simple reason that they are not structured in a way that allows them to enter into the appropriate legal agreements (not least because they couldn't keep them). Of course, it will probably be pretty trivial for people to crack the encryption scheme, thus ensuring that the law-abiding free software users are penalised, while those prepared to break the law are hardly bothered at all.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Last Chance to Save BBC from DRM

Six months ago, I wrote about a shabby attempt to slip through a major change at the BBC that would entail adding DRM to its HDTV output. Thanks in no small part of the prompt letter-writing of Computerworld UK readers, Ofcom extended the consultation period on this; subsequently, it also held meetings with the Open Rights Group, which I attended.

Despite all those representations, the BBC is still hell-bent on throwing over decades of public broadcasting and becoming in thrall to commercial interests through ineffective DRM:

On Open Enterprise blog.

Three Strikes and You're *Not* Out?

Now this is rum.

A little while back, there was a petition on the 10 Downing site:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to abandon Lord Mandelson’s plans to ban individuals from the internet based on their use of ‘peer to peer’ file sharing.”

I didn't bother signing it because it seemed pretty hopeless in the face of the government's unbending statements on the subject. And now we have the response:

The Government wants as many people as possible to enjoy all the benefits that broadband internet can bring. New technology has changed the way people want to use and access media content, in some cases faster than products and services commercially on offer have developed. We are also clear that the benefits of the internet must include economic benefits for our creative industries and artists. We therefore take extremely seriously the problem of on-line copyright infringement, and have been working closely with rights holders, media companies and internet firms to develop practical solutions to reduce and prevent this.

Yes, yes, yes - *do* get on with it.

There then follows a long, and fairly intelligent commentary on the area and the issues it raises:

We also recognise the need to ensure proper education of consumers, for new attractive legal sources of content as well as a system of notifications. Notifications will play a significant part in that education role, but it is vital that there are attractive legal offers available so that unlawful behaviour is no longer the “default” for many seeking content on-line. Rights holders need business models which work in the new digital environment. That is why we welcomed the announcements such as the Virgin Media and Universal agreement, the development of Spotify and the music offers announced by Vodafone and Sky. These are the types of agreement which will play a critical role in moving the great majority of people away from piracy.

And then, tucked away at the end, there is this:

We will not terminate the accounts of infringers - it is very hard to see how this could be deemed proportionate except in the most extreme – and therefore probably criminal – cases.

We added account suspension to the list of possible technical measures which might be considered if our measures to tackle unlawful file-sharing through notifications and legal action are not as successful as we hope. This is but one of a number of possible options on which we would seek advice from Ofcom – and others – if we decided to consider a third obligation on technical measures. However what is clear is that we would need a rapid and robust route of appeal available to all consumers if we decided technical measures were needed.

"We will not terminate the accounts of infringers": really? Do you think they mean it? Is it a trick? Answers on the back of a CD... (Via ZDNet UK.)

Update: Open Rights Group has a good explanation for what may be going on here: that, as usual, the UK government is simply playing with words, and has no intention of actually listening to reason... (via the Guardian.)

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.

The Google Generation Don't Respect Copyright

This interesting report from the British Libary and JISC says that the "Google generation" - those born after 1993 - aren't so hot when it comes to Googling. But what really caught my eye was the following:

Findings from Ofcom surveys reveal that both adults and children (aged 12-15) have very high levels of awareness and understanding of the basic principles of intellectual property. However, young people feel that copyright regimes are unfair and unjust and a big age gap is opening up. The implications for libraries and for the information industry of a collapse of respect for copyright is potentially very serious.

Oh yes, indeedy.

Spectrum Commons Catching On

I've written about the idea of treating radio spectrum as a commons - something owned by no one, but available for the use of all - subject to constraints on behaviour that might lead to a depletion of that resource, in this case through interference. It looks like the UK's Ofcom, which regulates this kind of stuff, is really getting in the commons groove:

Ofcom believes that, in general, application-specific spectrum allocations for licence-exempt devices result in inefficient utilisation and fragmentation of spectrum. Ofcom prefers the “spectrum commons” model, where a block of spectrum can be shared by as wide a range as possible of devices, subject to regulatory-defined mandatory constraints on radiated power profiles as functions of frequency, time, and space (i.e. politeness rules), in addition to standardised or proprietary polite protocols. We believe that this model would maximise the value derived from any spectrum set aside for licence-exempt uses.

Wow. Now if only the UK government could follow the same logic when it came to non-personal public data.... (Via openspectrum.info.)

BBC Listens - or Pretends To...

Good to hear:

The BBC Trust has asked to meet open source advocates to discuss their complaints over the corporation's Windows-only on demand broadband TV service, iPlayer.

The development came less than 48 hours after a meeting between the Open Source Consortium (OSC) and regulators at Ofcom on Tuesday. Officials agreed to press the trust, the BBC's governing body, to meet the OSC. The consortium received an invitation on Wednesday afternoon.

Since they had to be shoved into doing this by Ofcom, I somehow can't see the BBC actually doing anything as a result. But I'm willing to be proved wrong.

Time for BBC to Face the Music

Great to see the plucky Open Source Consortium getting its terrier-like teeth into the corpulent flesh that is the BBC:

The Open Source Consortium has written to Ofcom, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and the BBC Trust, asking for a re-examination of the effects of the BBC's iPlayer (TV on-demand) service being tied into Microsoft Windows Media Player for at least two years and, by extension, new versions of Windows, to be considered.

OSC Chief Executive Iain Roberts said "This action from the BBC effectively promotes one operating system vendor at the expense of others. It is very disturbing that the BBC should be using licence payers' money to affect the operating system market in this way. Imagine if the BBC were to launch new digital channels, but only make them available on a certain make of television - there would be uproar."

We can't let the BBC get away with this, and it's great to see the OSC stepping into the arena to take on the bloated behemoth.

Microsoft Backs Open...Spectrum

Interesting:

Today UK regulator Ofcom released its review of the ~750 responses it received during a public consultation earlier this year on reallocating the "digital dividend" (frequencies released by the switch-off of analog TV broadcasts).

The exceptionally large number of responses shows that the public recognised the importance of this consultation. It also shows that Ofcom's proposals were controversial. Many commenters question whether auctions of service-neutral licenses can ensure that non-economic factors are considered in the redistribution of spectrum.

Ofcom's review of the responses gives a surprising amount of space to Microsoft's submission, which was only 8 pages long. Since that response argued strongly for license exempt use of the "dividend" we find it especially interesting, too.

I've been remiss on this one - in fact, mea culpa, I didn't even get around to making a submission myself (shocking, I know). So it's great to see Microsoft doing it for me....

The Sergeant's (Digital) Song

Well, here's a right rollicum-rorum:

Yesterday, UK telecom regulator Ofcom issued a Consultation paper on future uses of the "Digital Dividend" - the frequencies to be released when TV broadcasters migrate from analog to digital transmission.

At the same time, they released a related set of "preparatory reports" by several teams of consultants.

There is a significant difference of opinion between Ofcom and the consultants on the question of whether to reserve "Digital Dividend" frequencies for license exempt applications.

This difference leads Ofcom to encourage the public to use the just-launched consultation to provide better arguments and new proposals for worthwhile license exempt applications in the UHF band.

Ignoring highly-paid consultants? Whatever next:?

Then Little Boney he’ll pounce down,
And march his men on London town!

(Via openspectrum.info.)

Tripped up for Want of a Commons

I'm not a poddie myself, but the idea behind Griffin Technology's iTrip - being able to broadcast your MP3 files to nearby FM radios - is a great one. A pity, then, that's it's currently against the law in the UK because it "trespasses" on someone else's "property" - the radio spectrum that has been allocated for their use.

The current fix, apparently, is to use the 2003 Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) Regulations Act. But the real solution is to create a much broader spectrum commons where people can start trying out all sorts of wireless innovation - without having to jump through these kind of hoops.

Update: Wow, that was quick. Here's Ofcom with a consultation on Wireless Telegraphy Licence Exemption that amends the 2003 Wireless Telegraphy (Exemption) Regulations Act. Powerful things, these blogs. (Via openspectrum.info.)

Hats Off for Ofcom

Ofcom (Office for Communications), the regulator for UK communications industries, is a grey and rather amorphous body. So it comes as something of a surprise to find that Ofcom is getting positively right-on when it comes to open spectrum - the unlicensed part of the electromagnetic spectrum that has given us things like WiFi, and which potentially could see a tremendous blossoming of ideas, given half the chance.

One step in the right direction is the latest report looking into whether it might be possible to increase the maximum permissible power used in parts of the unregulated spectrum - which would also permit new uses. (Via OpenSpectrum.info.)