Digital Economy Bill

[Fayshun]

Thank you for your email.

I think there would be a real row if there was any attempt to deal with the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Commons in an hour!

My own view still is that this was too large a Bill, with too many complicated issues, being dealt with too late in the Parliament, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it ran into the buffers, unless it were possible for both Front Benches to agree a significantly watered down Bill.

I think, however, it is important to recognise that the Digital Economy Bill is about recognising intellectual property and intellectual property rights.

The UK is very dependent upon our creative industries and creative industries are in turn dependent on recognising intellectual property and that is a view shared by Government and Opposition alike.

Best wishes.

Tony Baldry

Thanks Tone. :/

[Mark]

Wrote a personal email (took a few attempts to get it concise enough). Figured that taking the time to do that was more likely to be noticed than a Pro Forma - though whether either would be noticed remains to be seen. I've had past contact with my MP though so I'm hopeful.

[Feek]

I emailed my local MP and have had the standard auto reply. He's such a waste of space though that I don't expect much back.

I tried the same thing a few years ago with a firearms issue and had such a wishy-washy reply that showed how laughable he was in his patheticness

[Kitten]

Originally Posted by Fayshun

Thanks Tone. :/

That's his response, really? Ask him to explain how this protects my intellectual property.

Until now, if someone found one of your photographs and wanted to use it commercially, they couldn't without first asking you. Clause 43 changes all that by allowing the use of “Orphan Works” - photographs, illustrations and other artworks whose owners cannot be found.

Clause 43 says that if someone finds your photograph, wants to use it and decides that they can’t trace you, they can do whatever they like with it after paying an arbitrary fee to a UK Government-appointed “licensing body”. You’ll never know unless you happen to find it being used in this way, in which case you might be able to claim some money.

There’s more. Clause 43 also introduces “Extended Collective Licensing”.

This means that if someone finds your photograph and can trace you, they still don’t have to contact you for permission to use it. They can go to a UK Government-appointed “collecting society” and ask them instead. They’ll pay an arbitrary fee and be able to do whatever they like with the photograph. Your photograph. Again, without asking you first.

At, least, so we think - because the Bill leaves much of this undefined, unclear and to be dealt with by secondary legislation based on “consultation” that the Government can ignore. Can you imagine what this would mean if we were talking about cars rather than photographs?

CLAUSE 43:
• destroys the concept that a property owner has control over his property
• In so doing it destroys any guarantee of exclusive use, and
• It breaks the contractual ties between models, their agencies, property rights holders, photographers and clients, because
• images will be used in ways that rights holders would have forbidden, had they known beforehand
• It says that images can be declared orphan after a "diligent search" for the owner without recognising the practical impossibility of such a search
• It proposes that images should be licensed at "the market rate" while ignoring the impossibility of determining such a rate for any specific image
• It breaches UK commitments under international copyright and trade laws
• It entirely fails to recognise that the owners of "orphan" works may not be UK-based, but based in places such as the USA which have a strongly litigious culture, and therefore
• It exposes licensees of works declared as orphans in the UK to litigation from their foreign owners
• It contains no mechanism to irrevocably establish copyright in a work via mandatory attribution; or to prevent deliberate orphaning, and no effective sanctions against those who so do
• It could have a strong chilling effect on the UK ad industry as multinationals shun UK agencies, photographers and shoots because we will no longer be able to guarantee exclusivity (our work can be orphaned and used by others beyond our control) and those multinationals seek to avoid their campaign assets becoming orphaned.

It's about the greedy government taking money for my work rather than protecting me. Bastards.

[Knipples]

Done it. As much as I despise my MP (Liam Fox) due to his objecting to the new Bristol City stadium (yet waving through the plans for the expansion of Bristol airport - whole other rant!) I have contacted him. He is usually pretty good about replying. We shall see.

[petemc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ll-debate.html

Just-in: Government proposes amendment to drop Clause 43 from the Digital Economy Bill: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=874087

[Zirax]

****s, less than 5% bothered getting their backsides in there after 20k people wrote directly to MP's. 20k! I feel like writing to mine and asking if despite the letters whether he was actually present at the reading.

[divine]

http://www.didmympshowupornot.com

[Kitten]

I followed this link on Pete's fb. Obviously mine didn't turn up!

[Will]

My MP, Tessa Jowell, is the biggest waste of space ever. She's a **** actually. Can't stand her.

Thanks for that link divine - it's rather telling.