As Eleonora
reported earlier over on the IPKat,
the Government has finally issued an extensive pile of paperwork dealing with its implementation of the new Exceptions recommended by the Hargreaves report.
There are to be five separate exceptions, dealing with:
- what used to be called private copying and what we must now learn to call Personal Copying for Private Use;
- Quotation and Parody;
- Public Administration;
- Research, Education, Libraries and Archives; and
- Disabilities.
While the process that has led to these drafts has been long and convoluted, at least (from a purely legal perspective) the drafting has been much improved since the initial attempts were put out for consultation in July of last year.
To take personal copying as an example, the new Regulations have made clear that the personal copying right does not extend to copies that have been made pursuant to other exceptions, such as time shifting; they have also made clear that the exception only applies to (purchased or gifted) copies that can be kept forever and does not apply to streams or to rented or other temporary copies - including time limited downloads. The right is backdated so that a copy made before implementation which would have been permitted if it was made post-implementation becomes lawful.
However, other controversial measures remain in place - the much-debated "contractual over-ride" and the Secretary of State's powers to intervene to protect user rights where technological measures (such as DRM) are being used to prevent permitted personal copying. The latter power is now at least modelled on the existing powers to intervene - so the delightfully numbered section 296ZEA is, at least in form, very similar to the existing section 296ZE which applies where technological measures prevent other permitted acts. There is also a recognition that the Secretary of State needs to take account of what rights-holders are offering voluntarily in terms of copiability of DRM protected works.
Finally - there is still no provision of fair compensation for private copying - which appears to be a requirement of the Directive.
Alongside the draft laws, the IPO has issued an Explanatory Memorandum, an explanation of the outcome of last Summer's consultation, new Impact Assessments - and a set of guidelines designed to explain the new laws to a range of different interest groups. All of this is available
here. Once the 1709ers have had a chance to read the other exceptions, further coverage may follow.
The Regulations are set to come into force on 1 June, having been approved by a vote in both Houses of Parliament after Easter.
Breaking news from the IPKat, prompted by an initial tweet from Iain Wright MP yesterday, who said "After two years in the making and committee sitting on Monday, Govt pulls copyright exceptions on private copying and parody. Farcical" with the IPKat explaining that following the rather surprising news of the withdrawal by the Government of the exceptions on parody and private copying, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looking at the Statutory Instruments implementing the Hargreaves Review is now interested in just three provisions for the Statutory Instruments (the remaining copyright exceptions regarding regulation on access by individuals with a disability, on research, education, libraries and archives (here) and on public administration) and it is these and only these which will be going to Parliament for their implementation in June. While no mention was made of it during the Committee, the exception for quotation and parody has been pulled along with the private copying exception. More here on the the reasons the latter was pulled. 
I found a very interesting blog piece on copyright law in China - particularly focussed on the music industry. Beginning with a historical perspective - and it's a brief history - prior to the 1990 Copyright Act there there had been a decade of intense internal debate over the appropriateness of copyright in a socialist system - and as author Eric Priest says, the more recent 24 year development is nothing compared to three hundred odd years of development in western nations - and partially explains why copyright protection is "substandard" in China - this legal infrastructure is very new. It's all on a blog called China Music Business which I was unaware of until this blog popped up; Professor Priest is also of the opinion that "The law also lagged notably behind international standards, but laid the formal groundwork for legal recognition of authors’ rights in their creations and made copyright infringement an actionable offense for which civil remedies were available. The law also signalled China’s desire to show the international community that it took copyright protection seriously." And if you want another perspective take a look at Dan Harris on the China Law Blog who updates Priest's piece with a more positive take on some recent successes by the music industry in getting Chinese websites to take down infringing material - and indeed securing injunctive relief in the courts.
And finally: some call them trolls - some rely on their services - and they send out a lot of press releases - and now it seems "US copyright enforcement agency" RightsCorp is set on bringing its services – and controversial methods – to Europe and the UK: “We are expanding in Canada first, but we are investigating a launch in Europe. I can’t give any specific dates, but we are getting a great reception from everyone we have spoken to [in the UK],” RightsCorp co-founder and CEO Robert Steele told TechWeekEurope. The company's mission statement is this: "Rightscorp, Inc. is dedicated to the vision that digital creative works should be protected economically so that the next generation of great music, movies, video games and software can be made and their creators can prosper."
