The international umbrella body for consumer rights
organisations, Consumers International, has surveyed the copyright
laws of 16 countries and has concluded that the UK's is the
worst for protecting users' rights.
The UK was the only country to be given an overall 'F' score by
the report. All the other countries were rated between A and D.
"'A' to 'D' rates how well the country in question observes
consumers' interests in its national copyright law and enforcement
practices. 'F' is assigned if the country abjectly fails to observe
those interests," said the report.
Consumers International is funded in part by the UK Government
and Government-established consumer protection body Consumer Focus
is a member.
"UK copyright law is the oldest but also the most out of date.
It’s time our copyright law caught up with the real world," said Ed
Mayo, chief executive of Consumer Focus. "The current system puts
unrealistic limits on our listening and viewing habits and is
rapidly losing credibility among consumers. A broad ‘fair use’
exception would bring us in line with consumer expectations,
technology and the rest of the world."
Jim Killock, the executive director of digital rights activist
body the Open Rights Group (ORG), said that the Government did have
a plan for copyright reform in the aftermath of former Financial
Times editor Andrew Gowers' Treasury-commissioned review of
intellectual property in 2006, but that it seemed to have given up
on reform.
"The process seems to have stalled since the Gowers Report and
they need to not lose the opportunity to reform copyright law
because the opportunity will just disappear," Killock told
OUT-LAW.COM. "There is a lack of courage and vision. The Government
is listening to the big established players and understanding their
arguments about what copyright law does for them but not
understanding the more interesting uses of copyright material that
might lead to new businesses, which will depend on a more flexible
copyright law."
"There is a paradox that innovation does't happen because the
laws are so strict, which means the businesses aren't there and
their voice isn't heard," he said.
Consumers International produced the report, which is the first
edition of its planned IP Watch List. It surveyed copyright laws in
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, India, Indonesia,
Israel, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Spain,
Thailand, the UK and the US.
"UK copyright law is substantially different from that of other
countries," said the report. "Copyright is treated as property
right…and hence copyright owners have the right to decide whether
and how the copyrighted work is used."
"There are no fair use exceptions in UK law, only some limited
permitted acts. There is no provision that may be termed “private
copying” exception and UK copyright law does not distinguish
between private or corporate copyright infringement. However
private infringement is generally treated as a civil offense, where
commercial infringement may be treated as civil or criminal
offense," said the report.
Gowers' report made recommendations for the updating of
intellectual property laws and many were implemented by Government,
which accepted that all of his recommendations should be put into
practice.
Crucial recommendations such as the legalising of 'format
shifting' legally owned music on CDs to MP3 players and the
introduction of a right of parody have not been implemented.
"The industry said that it would not prosecute, that it wasn't
bothered about format shifting, so the Government's view seems to
be that that takes the pressure off," said Killock. "You would
think that if the law is out of date they would bring it into
line."
The five countries rated best for user protections in copyright
law by Consumers International were India, South Korea, China, the
US and Indonesia. The five worst were the UK, Thailand, Argentina,
Brazil and Chile.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
