Mickey Mouse extraditions …

Sorry about the downtime … busy life … this one couldn’t wait though.

The BBC has reported that a UK student is to be extradited to the US. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-16544335

Apparently the “crime” he committed isn’t actually a crime in the UK.
Nobody in the UK has voted for this law. Not Parliament. Not the electorate.

We were sold the extradition treaty on the basis that it would prevent terrorism. Not that it would be used to enforce Micky’s commercial interests.

I’ve written to my MP (through http://www.theyworkforyou.com/).

Here’s the text (I’ve added some bolding). Maybe a bit more formal than my normal style, but I think it speaks for itself

I’m writing to express my disquiet at the decision to extradite Richard O’Dwyer.
I do not know Mr. O’Dwyer, and I’m not writing this letter as part of any organised campaign.
I’ve had serious concerns over the process to extradite others under this arrangement, but then, at least, there was the excuse of the national interest – for example, with a threat on Pentagon security.

Let me also say that I do not endorse copyright theft. You may remember from my letter in February 2010 that I am in favour of enforcing copyright.
I have been generally cheered by the government’s intention to adopt the proposals in the Hargreaves Report, which I believe will introduce a reasonable balance between rightsholders and citizens.
As a consequence, I believe it that there are (or shortly will be) proportionate civil remedies under UK law.

As I understand it, Mr. O’Dwyer’s actions do not contravene UK law.

Britons have had no say in the election of the US representatives who passed the legislation.
To paraphrase the cry of the American Revolutionaries, I would say “No extradition without representation“.

At a time when so many parliamentarians are complaining of the loss of UK sovereignty to the EU, it would appear that we’ve just handed the liberty of our citizens to the whims of an extreme US legislature.
Where was our referendum on this surrender of these powers ?

It is totally unreasonable to expect UK citizens to have a detailed knowledge of the laws of all countries with whom we have an extradition agreement – particularly when those laws extend beyond their own territories.

And it’s a completely draconian, disproportionate measure to remove the liberty of a British citizen to the jeopardy of a trial under a foreign legal system (with all the costs and disruption that causes in itself), because he has upset the entertainment industry and its (very effective) lobbyists.

You may be aware of reports of the US threatening other EU nations with trade sanctions if they didn’t pass laws reflecting its own interpretation of copyright – irrespective of the wishes of the electorate (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/06/leaked-memo-usa-blackmailed-s.html).
The general disquiet over the proposed SOPA legislation shows that this is a very active area of concern.

I’m aware that Parliament has recently debated the extradition arrangements with the US, and the consensus seemed to be that a “forum bar” needed to be introduced (I’m not a legal expert, so I don’t know if this is indeed the case).
I feel that Parliament now needs to resolve this as a matter of urgency.

Digital Copyright Exchange – How would that work, then ?

One of the most contentious areas of the Hargreaves proposals is the Digital Copyright Exchange.

Some critics claim that it’s, for example, “not well organised, nor is it always very clear”. Well, I’m not surprised – a system specification wasn’t part of the brief. You don’t get into the database design before the project gets the green light (unless, of course you’re the NHS).

What I’ve tried to do here is, I’m afraid, a rather technical document, outlining how this proposal could work in practice.

So what would the DCE look like ?

Firstly, this isn’t going to be a single database. The different media types have – as Hargreaves identified – different dynamics, in terms of production, consumption and replication. Most photographs are created by individuals, for example, and may be created for individual or collective consumption. They may be created under commission, or on spec.

Most feature films, OTOH, are created by large studios. And a number of individuals may have a “slice” of the rights – the director and leading actors may well earn “points” of the box-office. Those rights may be different for different distribution media – DVD sales, cable or network broadcast may each have a unique formula.
As an aside : most TV/media companies will already have complex systems to manage that side of the equation, so they should already have a means of referencing their intellectual estates.

Books typically fall in between, although again there are new media implications (eBooks, Audio Books) which may carry different rights (the actor reading the book, for example).

Music is different again with samples from one track often being remixed into a derivative track. The music industry – which of course contains relatively few major players – seems to have found a way to measure (and award royalties for) the rights between each of many samples in a track.

… And there will be similar unique requirements for other IP, such as games and software.

So Hargreaves – if I read it right – recommended that each medium has its own repository. In some cases (section 4.22) he sees that the UK element may be part of a global repertoire database.
Critically, however, he identifies that these repositories would be a “network of interoperable databases to provide a common platform for licensing transactions” (my italics).

The interoperability is important – there should be a common language to define the license transactions. From an automation perspective, it would mean that software – particularly to search for and evaluate licenses – would need defining only once. More importantly, upgrades would involve only once development cost.

Won’t this be very complicated ?

Of course. And Hargreaves identifies that the design shouldn’t be left to government – who don’t have the best track record in commissioning software in any case.

Again, critically, he identifies that any solution must be “open” and “standardised”. Well, goody, that leads us into the realm of XML. This is how a huge amount of the web is driven now. For those who aren’t familiar with it:

• It’s an open technology, that can be accessed through development languages, spreadsheets and web browsers.
• Subsets – to perform specific purposes – can be defined. So there’s a subset for companies to deliver their accounts to the Stock Exchange. The same format is used to submit Tax Returns. There’s another for Google to find the pages in your website (although it then ignores much of the content) – and this has a subsubset for images within the pages.
• Photographers may be familiar with Adobe Photoshop’s .xmp “sidecar” files. Yup. That’s XML again.

So the technology’s there. What is needed is the definition of what the content should look like. This is the bit that geeks love – at least, a special kind of geek – a Data Analyst. If you think this may be geek chic, take a look at the Dublin Core work.
These guys start by working out a “schema”.
After a few consultation drafts, the schema is proposed as a standard and (if it doesn’t break) eventually gets adopted.
There’s an example of this going on in your browser updates right now – as HTML5 functionality is gradually integrated. Different browsers (Firefox, IE, Safari etc.) are implementing these features at different speeds.

Anyhow… So yes, it’s complicated, but it’s not rocket science. (Although NASA does use XML as well ..)

If it’s complicated, won’t we lose control ? Will we be left out ?

I suspect that this maybe at the heart of some of the concerns.

The nice thing about using XML is that it can be extended as new conditions arise. So if a new class of rights arises, then that should be capable of definition within the standard.

And that means that the software houses can build software to deal with it.
So in the same way that Lightroom and iPhoto can upload to on-line services such as Flickr, they would (within a short space of time, and most probably through a plugin) be able to upload image reference data to the DCE. This may or may not include your metadata tags, so the images could be searched – the IPTC taxonomy (also, of course, XML) already defines content for many media.
There may even be open-source projects initiated to perform some of the rights management functions. And I’m sure there’d be an app for it.
So you (as a creator) would be have your copyright covered and (quite possibly) the capacity to reach a greater market, without having to do much more than at present.

IPTC also defines the creator and copyright holder (yes, I know these get stripped but the would be recorded on the DCE).

The big gap to be defined is probably the license terms. Again, this need not be difficult – in broad terms, you need to recognise that a license has been sold. But these have parallels in English Property Law.

• There may be constraints about the uses to which a photo can be put – no model release may mean no commercial use. In the same way that a covenant may limit a propert to residential use only.
• There may be an exclusive license for a period of time – paralleling a leasehold tenancy. Or a perpetual licence (effectively, the sale of a leasehold)
• Or there may be many different “tenancies”, as licensees are each able to reproduce the content for different periods and rents (and, in fact, different media)

All of these rights models are capable of being defined and modelled – and the rights recorded. Again, there’s an opportunity for software houses to help copyright holders to manage the licenses on their “property” – possibly including interaction with the DCE. Or a web front-end could allow manual recording of licenses.

Oh … and using XML, you aren’t limited to a single, fixed-length record. You can have multiple records (for multiple licenses), and not all fields have to be populated.

So all of this would save time in automating searches for those seeking to buy rights – if they wanted exclusive rights, then they could exclude images where a licence was already granted.
Similarly, searches could ignore those images where the content had already been licensed exclusively.

So … that’s how I read Hargreaves talk of removing “Deadweight administrative costs” (1.11). Not just the metadata entry (where, yes, the rights holder may have to do a little bit more work), or the requirement to record details of licences (although that could actually add value to creators*). But the time needed by the consumers of the content to track down the rights holder and agree a fee.
And that means that the real pressure is likely to fall on the Image libraries, who will find it difficult to justify their commissions, They will be competing with more agile competitors, who could have access to (if not exclusive licenses to) a massive pool of content.

[Edit 4/7/2011 10:30]

Moving On …

I can understand that people are concerned about this, but there are huge parts that have yet to be defined. And yet we know that they can be defined. I feel that creatives (or their representatives) need to participate in this process to get the solution we need, rather than assuming some master plan.

The difficult part to get through is that, as Hargreaves has said, that one size won’t fit all. So don’t pick on the bits that may be appropriate for music (or books) and extrapolate it to photographs. There’s a real risk that – like the blind men describing an elephant – we think that the DCS should only reflect what we want.
But each sector needs to define its own needs.
So, rather than worrying about Hargreaves’ agenda, we need to start a debate, so we can make sure the data structures have the right shape. Or the IPO will end up parachuting in something unworkable.

 

* Adding value to creators : If the DCE structure allows creators to record some of their own data, then there’s an inventory of IP assets – potentially in different (web) locations.
And if customers can enquire, then they won’t need to bother you with a question on their rights.
And there’s the potential for additional use licenses to be automated. No negotiation needed – the extension could be agreed, the money goes straight into the bank, and the license is recorded on the database.

There are actually about three business opportunities in this paper. I really must activate my Chennai development team …

Hargreaves Review – the Government response

Vince Cable has announced the government’s response to the Hargreaves Review, and to their credit (IMO), have adopted the recommendations pretty much in full. The government’s response can be found at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresponse.

I’m glad about this, because I wrote a long post about it a couple months ago. I would hate for it to have gone to waste. I’ve had a quick scan through the response for the bits I was after. As with that report, I’m (perhaps parochially) concerned with Photographers’ rights.

Most of the media attention has been focussed on permitting families to “format shift” CDs and DVDs.

And (apparently) backing off the blocking websites enabling illegal downloads etc.

Most photographers will be upset that orphan works will be enabled – the issue, of course, that Stop43 so successfully campaigned on. But it’s not just that the goal posts moved with Hargreaves – the game moved to another pitch.

Bad News

Consider the impact of format shifting when applied to photographs. Section 6 of the response (on page 7) :

“This will include proposals for a limited private copying exception”

Although this is expected to cover ripping CDs and DVDs to iTunes, it isn’t a big stretch to think it could cover scanning and reprinting photos. Photographers may wish to adjust their business models accordingly….

Good News …

Now, I had to search quite hard for the bit that really interests me. The bit that could – if it works – really change things for photographers. It’s hidden away on page 12, in Section 9 of the response :

“The Government will, subject to establishing the value for money case, introduce a small claims track in the Patents County Court for cases with £5000 or less at issue, initially at a low level of resource to gauge demand, making greater provision if it is needed.”

and

“the Government will consider renaming the PCC to be the Intellectual Property County Court.”

Designed to cover trademarks and copyrights – such as photographs.

Once the Digital Copyright Exchange (and hence ownership of works) is established, this could mean creators have a very quick, very cheap way to enforce their IP rights. You won’t be hit with fees for the Daily Mail’s QCs if you lose.
And (potentially) it gives a route to a campaign for penalty fees – arguing negligent (or serial) infringers should have known that the image was copyright – because it’s registered.
Yes, I know that this contravenes the letter of the international agreements (which agree that rights holders shouldn’t have to jump though hoops), but in the real world, this could be very, very powerful. It works very effectively in the US with their Library of Congress registration.

In fact, this could be the best news professional photographers have had in decades.

Now, it would be nice if we could get copyright asserted and metadata stripping criminalised. But – if faced with recurring legal actions (and especially recurring penalty damages) – the big media outlets may find it more cost-effective to keep a track of where they stole the images from.
It’s going to be in their own interests to comply.
(Of course, it is possible that I’m my own little world here …)

The IPO should be pressured to make sure this happens.

And then it’s up to us. Use it or lose it …

The Hottest Ticket in Town ..

“Mr Murdoch – at what point did you find out that criminality was endemic at the News of the World ?”

Tom Watson’s question (on the lines of “when did you stop beating your wife ?”) was one of the highlights of the Media, Culture and Sports SubCommittee meeting for me. Leaving aside the foam pie and Wendi’s impressive defence. One of the most fascinating days (for me) was played down by many of the media analysts – who were perhaps expecting more dramatic exposées and cross examination.

Because of everything else that’s scheduled, that was never going to happen.

But this was Round One. There was a lot of sparring, and – as the John Whittingdale (the Chairman) said later – it was important to get this information on the record. Because there’s going to be a long enquiry, there’s still a police investigation running, and probably a few court cases. So that position has been set down, and it’ll be difficult to change it (unless, presumably, there are more solicitors with document stashes waiting to be discovered).

Those same analysts were pointing out that there wasn’t much information gleaned by asking Rupert questions he couldn’t answer, and characterised it as a failure. I couldn’t disagree more. It clearly showed that the person responsible for the Corporate Governance of News Corp. didn’t know what was going on. People let him down. People he trusted – or people they trusted – didn’t pass on the message.

I wrote on this subject just over a week ago, but I don’t think most of the journos have cottoned on yet – they’re looking only at the words, rather than at the overall picture that’s painted.

It looks like this is already delivering results, as Jeremy Hunt says he’s “shocked” that people at the top didn’t know what was going on. That’s likely to be taken into account when Ofcom review the “fit and proper” status.

And that’s the thing about Corporate Governance. you’re supposed to have systems and processes that force these things up the line. And the significance of the Gordon Taylor pay-off wasn’t in the amount of that settlement alone – it was in the risk posed to the organisation from all of the other – several thousand – claims that were still in the pipeline.

That’s a risk that could have run (at that rate) into hundreds of millions of dollars. An unquantified potential liability that (perhaps) should have been reported in the company accounts.
And the Chairman knew nothing about it.
Or about the criminal activities which – it is alleged – had been rife throughout the paper.

Now, NotW may not form that great a part of the News Corp. empire, but it formed a significant and influential part of the UK media, so we’re entitled to expect it to be run properly. Or why should we entrust its owner with BSkyB – our biggest broadcaster ?

Taxing Questions

The other question I found interesting came from Jim Sheridan MP. He asked if the witnesses were were aware of any investigations into News International by the SFO. Or the FSA. Or HMRC. I suspect that it’s the last one that’s of particular interest.

Of course, it has been reported that NI has arranged its tax affairs so that it doesn’t pay tax in Europe. But that might not be the point – the point may well be that PAYE wasn’t deducted from the bungs to coppers and sleuths. This is more “fit and proper” stuff. And – as I wrote in that last post – it’s the stuff that put Capone away.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if Wapping is visited by a plague of Inspectors in the next few weeks.

Who’s to Blame ?

Fair Play to Rupert for coming back to finish the session.

Louise Mensch asked whether questions were being asked in the other News Corp companies. Apparently not. So … it’s being taken seriously, then.

“Have you considered suing Harbottle and Lewis”. “That’s a matter for the future” (James). Of course, if the solicitors were sued, they may find documentation to throw the blame straight back.
James said that the company’s confidence rested on 1) the Police ceasing their case 2) Harbottle and Lewis and 3) The PCC decision (SERIOUSLY ?)

Now, I’ve not been able to track this down on the rerun, but I seem to recall Rupert being asked who he thought was to blame. My recollection is that he blamed competitors for stirring things up.
If I’ve remembered right, that suggests that – at heart – it’s the disclosure he resents, rather than the original acts.
He doesn’t understand that he should have processes which drive these things to the attention of the News Corp. Board.
And ultimately, that may be the sin of omission that leads to the collapse of his UK business – including satellite broadcasting.

It’s a bit like a Wall coming down …

Wow.

Murdoch’s withdrawn his bid for the rest of BSkyB.

And there’s going to be an examination of his existing holding.

Lots of talk about “Corporate Governance” going on in the USA.

And a review into Press regulation.

I’m actually feeling a bit safer, and a little bit more liberated…