| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Mar 2003 : Column 705—continued
Michael Fabricant: Before I conclude, I will be generous and give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Mole: The irony of multi-region DVDs is that most manufacturers will sell a multi-regional DVD player in this country because there was a massive market in pirated software to replace the firmware in DVD players to enable people to play DVDs from other regions.
Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Where there is a will, there is a way, and where there is a 15-year-old hacker, he will hack through it.
Mr. Timms: We have had an interesting discussion. The Government certainly believe that copyright theft over the internet is a serious issue for many rights holders. It is essential that those who invest in creative activity can gain a fair reward from their work, whether in movies and music, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)
said, or in other parts of the publishing industry. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining the importance of the matter in new clause 1.The lead responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said, lies with the Patent Office in consultation with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The Patent Office is responsible for intellectual property, including copyright, in the UK. The DTI and DCMS sponsor the affected industries. It is important not to confuse those responsibilities by suggesting that somebody else might share them.
Michael Fabricant: The Minister is surely not suggesting that the DTI and more especially the Patent Office would pull groups of people together to try to agree international standards?
Mr. Timms: I am suggesting that the Patent Office can and does bring together different parts of the industry. Indeed, the Patent Office acts as the chairman for the counterfeiting and piracy forum, which brings together the relevant interests in the public and private sectors to discuss better co-operation and co-ordination against this crime. In the past year, for example, its members have discussed closer working between affected industries and the police hi-tech crime unit. In addition, the proposals that we have made in the context of the UK implementation of the copyright directive include a new criminal offence in copyright law to apply to those who wilfully make copyright material available on the internet without a licence in the course of business proceedings or on a commercial scale. That will assist enforcers seeking to deal with piracy of digital material.
Different approaches are needed to combat illegal private copying on the internet. The proposals for implementation of the copyright directive would strengthen the action to be taken against those who circumvent technical protection measures or provide equipment or services for doing so, which we discussed. Those are particularly important in the internet environment and provide copyright owners with statutory backing to develop their use of the technology. However, the copyright directive does not mandate the use of particular technology; that is an issue for rights holders to decide for themselves. The fact that recent pirate copies of films were reported to have been traced back to unprotected copies given pre-release to academy award judges suggests that the film industry needs to reflect on its own use of appropriate technology.
The recitals in the copyright directive emphasise the importance of all the parties involved—rights holders, intermediaries and equipment manufacturers—reaching voluntary agreements on standards. That must be the right way forward, not least in view of the inherently international character of the net.
Digital rights management is important for the content industries. We are already working with industry on that as part of the work of the broadband stakeholder group. It is aimed to create an inventory of current content management systems, and to spread wider knowledge about likely value chains and the major economic, legal and technical issues at different points in those chains. A framework is to be set up within which to evaluate the various elements of digital
rights management. Much work is going on in this area. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be reassured that we are taking the issue seriously.The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) called for better procedures around notice and take-down for internet service providers. He has given us an example of why, the week before last, he was designated "internet hero" at the annual award ceremony of the Internet Service Providers Association. The e-commerce directive, which we have implemented in the UK, provides a defence for internet service providers as mere conduits. Officials are discussing with internet service providers whether there is a need for guidance on notice and take down—the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
I would not favour giving Ofcom a specific remit in this field, as that would have only tangential relevance to its core remits set out in clause 3(1) or to the functions set out in the Bill or in existing legislation that the Bill will transfer to Ofcom. Of course, there is nothing to stop Ofcom conducting the kind of discussion envisaged in the new clause and proposed by my right hon. Friend. I know that those at Ofcom will read with great interest the discussion that we have just had, and what he and others said in the debate. The issue is one to which the Patent Office is fully committed, in consultation with the two Government Departments. I believe that that is the right institutional lead for policy work in this area, and on that basis I hope that my right hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.
Mr. Chris Smith: The debate has been extremely interesting and valuable. Part of my purpose in tabling the new clause was to ensure that the House had a chance to air some of the issues around the developing problem. Every contributor to the debate recognised that the issue is real. There is a serious problem, and as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, there is potentially a disincentive to creativity if unauthorised downloading of material takes off in a major way.
Various solutions have been proposed by hon. Members in all parts of the House, highlighting the need to change the culture, as young people in particular see unauthorised downloading as a natural activity; the need to get a move on with the implementation of the EU copyright directive; the need to improve the notice and take down procedures where unauthorised material has been identified; the need to make the legitimate purpose of material more valuable, more desirable, more affordable and more accessible; and the need to make the opportunity to take material legitimately more attractive than the opportunity to take material in an unauthorised way. There may well be some technological answers too, especially if global agreement can be reached. I hope that all the issues raised will be taken into account by the DTI and DCMS, and even by the Patent Office, perhaps.
2.15 pm
That brings me to my final point. I was a little disappointed that the Minister placed such emphasis purely on the role of the Patent Office. One of the reasons for wishing Ofcom to take an interest in this area of activity is that Ofcom has the clout vis-à-vis the parts of the industry concerned. It is Ofcom that will be
the regulator of broadcasting and telecommunications. It therefore has considerable muscle to persuade the various parts of the digital landscape to get together and find various means to tackle the problems. Ofcom has that muscle; the Patent Office does not. The Minister says there is nothing to prevent Ofcom taking an interest in this area of activity. I hope Ofcom will take note. As soon as Ofcom is up and running, I hope that it will discuss with the Patent Office how they can work together to develop the lines of attack necessary to make sure that the problem is taken seriously.With that hope in mind, and with the hope that the matter may be aired in another place, I believe that it will assist the progress of debate if, at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Duty to Promote New Telecommunications Technologies
'It shall be the duty of OFCOM to promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for telecommunications consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies, including broadband.'.—[Mr. Yeo.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord) : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 27—Creator consultation—
'(1) It shall be the duty of OFCOM to establish and maintain effective arrangements for consultation about the carrying out of their functions with—
(a) creators, including a person from the United Kingdom music creating community, in the markets for television content supply for independent producers and the public service and commercial broadcasters in relation to which OFCOM have functions; and
(b) creators, including a person from the United Kingdom music creating community, in the markets for radio broadcasting in relation to which OFCOM have functions.
(1) The arrangements must include the establishment and maintenance of a panel of persons (in this Act referred to as "the Creator Panel") with the function of advising both—
(a) OFCOM; and
(b) such other persons as the Panel think fit.
(3) The arrangements made by OFCOM under this section must also secure that the Creator Panel are able to do each of the following—
(a) make arrangements for the carrying out of research into matters appearing to the Panel to be relevant to the carrying out of OFCOM'S duties and the Panel's functions as they think fit;
(b) give advice to OFCOM in relation to any matter referred to the Panel by OFCOM for advice;
(c) publish such information as the Panel think fit about the advice they give, and about the results of research carried out by them or on their behalf.
(4) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the carrying out of their functions, to consider and, to such extent as they think appropriate, to have regard to—
(b) any results notified to OFCOM of any research undertaken by that Panel.
(5) It shall also be the duty of OFCOM (subject to subsection (6))—
(a) to provide the Creator Panel with all such information as, having regard, in particular, to the need to preserve commercial confidentiality, OFCOM consider appropriate to disclose to the Panel for the purpose of enabling the Panel to carry out their functions; and
(b) to provide the Panel with all such further information as the Panel may require.
(6) OFCOM is not required to provide information by virtue of subsection (5)(b) if, having regard to:
(a) the need to preserve commercial confidentiality; and
(b) any other matters that appear to OFCOM to be relevant, it is reasonable for OFCOM to refuse to disclose it to the Panel.
(7) It shall be the duty of OFCOM, in the case of any advice or opinion received from and published by the Panel which OFCOM propose to disregard in whole or in part, or with which OFCOM disagree in whole or in part—
(a) to ensure that the Panel know of OFCOM's reasons for disregarding or disagreeing with the advice or opinion; and
(b) to ensure that those reasons are or have been published in such a manner as OFCOM consider appropriate for bringing them to the attention of persons who are aware of the Panel's advice or opinion.'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 4 [Clause 3], after 'markets', insert 'and the public interest'.
Amendment No. 278, in page 3, line 33 [Clause 3], at end insert
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |