Bloomberg Anywhere Remote Login Bloomberg Terminal Demo Request


Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.


Financial Products

Enterprise Products


Customer Support

  • Americas

    +1 212 318 2000

  • Europe, Middle East, & Africa

    +44 20 7330 7500

  • Asia Pacific

    +65 6212 1000


Industry Products

Media Services

Follow Us

Bloomberg Customers

Global Economics

British Group Wades into DRM Debate

An MP's suggestion that the British Library moderate the debate over digital rights management (DRM) and copyright law has been welcomed by cyber rights campaigners.

Suw Charman, executive director of the Open Rights Group (ORG), said on Wednesday that the British Library would be "an excellent facilitator" of DRM debate.

She said: "There definitely needs to be a wider debate around DRM. Libraries understand copyright in great detail, and the British Library especially has a great deal of experience in the nuances of DRM and copyright law. It would be a fantastic facilitator of public debate."

The British Library seemed surprised at MP Derek Wyatt's suggestion on Tuesday that it lead the debate on DRM and present results to government but has indicated its willingness to "play a part".

Lynne Brindley, chief executive of the British Library, told the Westminster eForum on DRM: "The library will maintain a balanced view between extremes in debates on rights protection. A healthy creative economy needs an intellectual-property framework that rewards creativity."

Charman agreed with Wyatt's assertion that copyright often doesn't benefit the creator.

She said: "The music industry is lobbying very loudly for the extension of copyright law, and would overjoyed if it was extended to 95 years. They claim the musician would benefit but the biggest beneficiaries would be the music industry themselves."

Charman added: "We have to make sure we don't bow to spurious arguments by companies with vested interests. We definitely shouldn't bow to industry moves towards copyright legislation that will compel governments to police industry interests."

But music industry representatives reacted angrily to suggestions that the industry exploited artists, and hit back saying those calling for "free music" were only serving their own interests.

Jeremy Fabinyi, executive director of the Mechanical-Copyright Protection Society, a royalty collection organisation, said: "The system is set up so money goes to the creator. The music industry isn't a scam."

He added: "The pressure for free music comes from those who want to sell their [music download] services on the internet."

Charman said technology was changing the nature of business and creativity, and that the music industry needs to wake up to this. "The next generation see the internet in a different way. Kids don't see any problem with P2P, sharing songs and mash-ups. Now we have the tools to take original work and rework it, which is a natural part of human creativity. There is no creation in a vacuum - people are inspired by what came before."

Wyatt also broached the subject of internet governance.

He said: "We need a new governance body that isn't governmental, as it gets constipated. Twentieth century organisations like the UN and WTO are out of touch - we need new organisations."

Wyatt said that this body should consist of representatives of business, consumer groups, academics, and politicians from across Europe.

But the ORG disagreed with Wyatt, warning that internet governance could affect civil liberties.

Charman said: "This is tackling the wrong question. It's not who should govern the internet but which aspects of the internet need governance? I don't think anyone would argue that online child pornography should be tolerated but we have to be careful we don't sacrifice freedom of speech and expression."

The ORG said that having different groups in an internet governance body may be counterproductive.

Charman said: "It's an interesting suggestion because each of the groups would have differing agendas. It would pull in different directions, and not all of them would have the technical knowledge necessary to govern the internet."

She added: "I'm not convinced that politicians have the ability or time to understand technical nuances, so having them in charge of the internet would worry me."


Quocirca's Straight Talking: RFID - what can it do for the business?

Opinion: What a year it's been for e-crime

Leader: Bird flu threat highlights disaster-planning flaws

Analysis: The CIO's legacy IT nightmare

blog comments powered by Disqus