In December 2005, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Andrew Gowers to conduct an independent review into the UK Intellectual Property Framework. The Review was published on 6th December 2006. ALPSP has produced a briefing paper for members on the Gowers Review which can be downloaded as a PDF file and is repeated below:

ALPSP Briefing on the

Gowers Review of Intellectual Property (UK)

In December 2005, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked Andrew Gowers to conduct an independent review into the UK Intellectual Property Framework.
The Review was published on 6th December 2006

Much of the report concerns patent, rather than copyright, and is thus of little direct concern to ALPSP members; the same is true of those sections which address copyright in music and film, rather than publications. However, in those sections which do directly concern scholarly and professional publishers, the following are of particular note:

Some of the proposed changes in UK legislation would require prior changes at European level (since the existing Copyright Directive does not permit any exceptions, beyond the specified list of some 20 exceptions, and explicitly does not allow existing print exceptions to be extended to digital).

Whether the necessary legislation is at European or UK level, careful drafting will be crucial to avoid unintended consequences such as damage to rightsholders' interests.

There are several proposals that ALPSP believes members can support.  Specifically:

·         Recommendation 4 - stating that no alteration to the term or scope of IP protection should have retrospective application.

·         Recommendation 8 - private copying to permit 'format shifting'; rather than paying for this separately (e.g. via levies or a licence), the cost should be built into the sales price. Works published prior to the relevant legislation being passed would need to be covered by some kind of block licence (however it is not quite clear how this would work - where the money would come from, or who it would be paid to).

·         Recommendation 9 - private copying to cover all forms of content (but only in relation to copying, not distribution).  While the examples given are for sound and film, the wording would cover all content types, including electronic.   This would therefore seem to prevent 'Library Privilege' electronic distribution.

·         Recommendation 10 - copying to be permitted by libraries for archival/preservation purposes (although wording will have to be very carefully monitored, particularly with relation to subsequent copies, access, and distribution).

·         Recommendation 12 - exception for parody, caricature etc.

·         Recommendation 13 - legislation on Orphan Works. ALPSP is working closely with Reproduction Rights Organizations on practical solutions, such as a portal providing ready access to information about copyright status and ownership details (we feel this is more practical than the proposed voluntary copyright database (Recommendation 14b), which would inevitably be incomplete). In addition, the High Level Expert Group within the European Digital Library project is already working on Orphan Works proposals.

·         Recommendation 14 - involve publishers and rightsholders in drawing up guidelines for what constitutes 'reasonable search' - ALPSP would be very keen to be involved.

·         Recommendations 35-45 - strengthening legal protection for IP rights, in particular making penalties the same in the digital as in the print world.

·         Recommendations 46-54 - improving governance. In particular, the recommendation of a new strategic advisory body (Recommendation 46), and the provision of industry placements for staff (Recommendation 49) - ALPSP would be happy to offer places on its seminars and training courses, and to identify members who can offer short-term work placements.

Some recommendations, however, do not seem optimal from ALPSP's point of view:

·         Recommendation 2 - exception for educational use on interactive whiteboards and for distance learners. This can be perfectly adequately handled through the CLA education licences (indeed, such additions are already being discussed); this approach will also enable a much more rapid solution since new legislation is not required.

·         Recommendation 14b - as mentioned above, a voluntary copyright database seems of very limited usefulness, since users will not be able to rely on it to be comprehensive. 

·         Recommendation 15 - making it easier to complain when DRM prevents legitimate uses, and labelling products to clarify what DRM is being used. There seems to be some confusion here between Digital Rights Management (conveying, but not enforcing, terms and conditions electronically) and Technical Protection Measures (which enforce). Numerous projects, such as ACAP and ONIX for Licensing Terms, are already developing major improvements to the former. In addition, it is important that any wording not lose sight of the fact that uses (even under legal exceptions) only apply to someone who has legally acquired the work in question. 

·         Recommendation 33 - OFT to carry out a market review of collecting societies. Although the example given of unnecessary complexity comes from the music licensing sphere, the same might be observed, to a more limited extent, in relation to the Copyright Licensing Agency and its supporting and related agencies. Greater simplification (even a single 'RRO UK') would be highly desirable; however, it's hard to see how we could get there from here!

January 2007