More can be done to streamline digital copyright licensing, says Richard Hooper, who has been appointed by the government to investigate it. However, in a sharp rebuke to the Shoreditch nontrepreneurs – and by implication the government – he said many of the whinges the study has so far heard from webtastic startups about the …
All your Copyright are belong to Google
c/o David Cameron, Tories are Us, never knowlingly undersold.
"The future of Britain’s economy depends largely on the digital innovations occurring among the Silicon Roundabout community"
Oh dear. Economic emmigration while be having a bit of a surge then, unless they've found a way to generate wealth from recycling unrealistic business plan documents and buzzwords.
The next Google
If the UK govt wants us to create the "next Google" perhaps it could help out by providing some funding for business ideas which are hard to monetize within a few years. Current funding offerings are tied to specific areas the govt feels are important (because, sure, they'd know) and they are only offering like-for-like investment (you want £30K? show us the £30K you already have). They are also intractable to the college students and early-career professionals who need the money; it's all going to companies and academics who are well-versed in the funding game.
"a lot of assertion but less hard evidence"
Finding hard evidence that "digital start-ups were being stopped by copyright licensing processes" would be very hard, I'd have thought, unless people could produce business plans showing that they had assessed an opportunity and turned it down / declined to proceed on the basis of copyright licensing.
If I were looking for a new business model, I'd be ruling out areas which were "too hard" first, to focus on areas easier to access and make money, and likely not give the problem areas a second though — why spend time working on something fraught with problems, unless there's a clear profit at the end, and sufficient time/money to overcome the problems before making a profit? If something is sufficiently hard, the volume of evidence that people have tried and failed is likely to be low, as, once people become aware of the likelihood of failure, they are less inclined to try it for themselves. The presence of a problem with copyright licensing may be the very reason for the lack of evidence of a problem.
It may not, of course. But it's not clear whether the question was asked whether the lack of evidence was because there was no problem, or whether there is a problem (as likely put forward in the "assertions"), for which evidence is hard to find. If not, whilst the conclusion reached seems right as a matter of fact, it does not necessarily tell the whole story, nor form a good basis for policy making.
A while back I licensed a piece of classic music from a well known music library for use on a Youtube video.
Imagine my surprise to be told that there were suddenly adverts all over the video. Turned out BMG had falsely identified the track in question as one of theirs and decided they wanted some revenue from me.
It was impossible to get the adverts removed. Youtube were not interested and BMG Music were not interested. The music library tried to help and even put me in touch with the orchestra who recorded the track who confirmed BMG had no claim. But I was on a deadline so all I could do was change the music track.
Very annoying and I'm told its happening every day. Music companies claiming "copyright" to cream off revenue from music they have no claim over.
Fair enough the music companies need to make some money but when they have no claim over the track and their automated software has a false positive, there needs to be legislation in place to allow people like myself to appeal.
Re: Music licensing
It's more likely- I think- that YouTube's fingerprinting software was at fault here. Pro-active takedowns were very rare from labels (especially for classical, which I imagine must be particularly difficult to auto-identify when there are so many multiple recordings of the same piece in existence).
Also YouTube and BMG (record company) never co-existed. YT started in 2005, and the Sony BMG merger was begun in 2003, and completed in 2004. Maybe more likely BMG Publishing.
Not denying that the appeal process is annoying and unfavourable to the individual complainant, though.
And what protection is there for those of us who release material under a Creative Commons license? As far as the collection agencies are concerned we don't exist and our stuff can be pillaged at will - and, as if that's not enough, charged for too.
No pressure then.
"The future of Britain’s economy depends largely on the digital innovations occurring among the Silicon Roundabout community,"
That's a very small group to put all that burden on. Also I'm a bit saddened to learn that my work will never amount to anything as I work in another part of Great Britain.
- Xmas Round-up Ten top tech toys to interface with a techie’s Christmas stocking
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- NSFW Oz couple get jiggy in pharmacy in 'banned' condom ad