ANTICIRCUMVENTION RULES SPARKING CONCERN IN U.K.

U.K. govt. proposes to make even possession of circumvention devices illegal, prompting critics to claim that it would exceed scope of U.S. anticircumvention rules under Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). DMCA prohibits commercial trafficking in decrypting devices but doesn’t bar their private use, U.S. copyright lawyer Jonathan Band said. However, he said, right to possess or use circumvention device is illusory if it can’t be manufactured. Fact that U.K. proposes to ban possession in theory makes its law stricter than the DMCA, he said, but as practical matter, both laws are same.

Paul Mobbs, who identified himself as consultant for nonprofit electronics and human rights group GreenNet, said U.K. measure “hits ordinary users of information far harder than more specialist computer users,” because computer software and databases are exempt (they're covered by existing laws). But mainly, he said, it “seriously interferes” with traditional fair dealing provisions restricting copyright over certain types and quantities of information. It also could hurt academic and journalistic freedoms to quote and critically review information, he said.

For computer users, draft’s biggest problem is its broad definition of “circumventing copyright protection,” Mobbs said. It’s not just matter of anticopying measures, such as encoding discs to prevent direct copying, he said. Under proposal, he said, even designing software to make it incompatible with other systems by using proprietary scrambling system could mean that anyone writing filter to make digital information compatible could be prosecuted. “To enable the information society, we need to ensure that all law includes conditions to ensure the greatest level of compatibility and interoperability between systems,” Mobbs’s GreenNet review said. “The implementation of the Directive runs counter to this.”

EU directive gives content owners right to digitally mark their works, Mobb said. But U.K. plan would go further by making removal of those marks criminal offense and by giving copyright owners right to track use of their intellectual property (IP) via electronic networks (provided the data gathered were protected under existing European data protection laws). “What this means is that further information about our use of information online will be logged by servers,” Mobb said, making it available in U.K. to govt. and law enforcement authorities under Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000. That could lead to people being profiled according to the information they access, Mobb said. Antipiracy lobbying groups could “harvest” data from licensing organizations and pursue “suspicious” IP infringements, he said, essentially creating extrajudicial system for investigating and prosecuting IP violations.

Consultation paper even has raised flags with copyright groups. Although British Phonographic Institute (BPI) is pleased directive is now in force and govt. has been “suitably consultative” about implementing it, proposed legislation’s definition of “broadcasting” is too vague, BPI spokesman said. BPI has certain exclusive licensing rights already in place, he said, and if broadcasting is defined too broadly, BPI will lose those rights already existing in online environment.

Copyright collecting society Public Performance Ltd. (PPL) said it was disappointed govt. didn’t remove provisions from draft legislation that would bar PPL from licensing public performances of sound recordings (such as radio broadcasts in bars). It said provision would cost U.K. performers and recording companies ?10 million each year in lost royalty income. Every other country in Europe has rejected that provision, PPL said, and U.K. should, too.