BBC Funding

I have taken an interest in the BBC’s financial balance of trade on Intellectual Property. Their annual report can be found here … while the National Audit Office undertook a landscape review on their commercial services.  The annual report is a typical haven’t we done well and getting the answers to the questions I am asking is very hard, almost as if they’re hiding it. Here are some notes. Continue reading “BBC Funding”

Yet more Copyright

Last week, the JURE committee of the European Voted to approve the current draft of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market this includes proposals to implement a link tax and that ISSPs must implement something akin to Google’s Content ID, to defend copyright from whatever. These are now it seems called upload filters. I’ve read a bit and here are my notes. Continue reading “Yet more Copyright”

On Copyright

As a result of the EP’s LIBE committee report on the EU Copyright Regulation, in Feb 2015, I built a Storify page and propose to write a blog article. This page captures some of the resources I used to write it. They come from my blog, the IP Kat,, torrentfreak and flickr, where martin Fisch’s picture is embedded in the text and used as a featured image. Continue reading “On Copyright”

UK Parliament Embedding Terms of Use

I chose to embed a parliamentary video cast in one of my blog articles and this is the agreement required before it can be embedded. I can’t find a link, otherwise I’d do so. This was created in Dec 2013.

UK Parliament Embedding Terms of Use

UK Parliament permits you to embed its video and audio material on your website as long as you agree to various conditions (see below). Please note:

  • This is for use on not for profit websites
  • Only the supplied code can be used
  • The video or audio of the recordings cannot be edited in any way.
  • UK Parliament can remove the recording without notice
  • UK Parliament makes this recording available at your own risk
  • The Recordings cannot be placed on sites that contain illegal or offensive material
  • The Recordings cannot be placed on certain sites that contain advertising
  • The embedding of UK Parliament recordings is not a UK Parliament endorsement of your website

UK Parliament Embedded Recording Licence Terms

By embedding UK Parliament Recordings on your website (“Site”) you agree to the terms set out below.

1. Licence

  • 1.1 Subject to these Licence Terms UK Parliament grants you a non-exclusive licence to display on your Site recordings of UK Parliament Proceedings.
  • 1.2 All rights including intellectual property rights shall remain the property and copyright of UK Parliament.

2. Use of UK Parliament Recordings

  • 2.1 You may only embed UK Parliament Recordings on websites that are not excluded by UK Parliament. The categories of website that are excluded are set out below. Sites that:
    • Advertise or Promote Commercial activity
    • Promote, encourage or facilitate illegal activity
    • Encourage hatred on grounds of race, religion, gender, disability, age or sexual orientation or promote, encourage or facilitate anti-social behaviour
    • Lower the dignity of either House or that of individual members.
  • 2.2 Unless expressly permitted by UK Parliament in writing, the recordings are for not for profit use only and may not be used for corporate, commercial or professional purposes. Whilst you may use the recording on an ad-enabled blog or website, you may not charge users to view the recording.
  • 2.3 There should be no advertising displayed on the same screen as the embedded video recording comprising the Services where that video recording represents the majority of the content on any page of the website or where the page would not exist without the video recording. In other cases, advertising may be permitted, but not where there is any connection between the advertising and the video recording;
  • 2.4 You may not alter or add to the UK Parliament Recording in any way, nor combine the UK Parliament Recording with any other material.
  • 2.5 You may not suggest any endorsement or approval by the UK Parliament or any individual Member of your Site
  • 2.6 You may not use the UK Parliament Recordings in any way that could bring the UK Parliament or any individual Member into disrepute.
  • 2.7 You accept and agree that UK Parliament has sole editorial control over all UK Parliament Recordings at all times and it may change or remove any recording at its sole discretion.

3. Warranties & Liability

  • 3.1 You warrant that your Site fully complies with all applicable laws and regulations.
  • 3.2 The UK Parliament Recordings are made available on an “as is” and “as available” basis and UK Parliament gives no warranty of any kind in relation to the availability and use of the Recordings
  • 3.3 The UK Parliament has taken reasonable care to ensure that the recording and any related software code contains no errors, viruses or defects, however UK Parliament does not warrant that this is the case. You use the UK Parliament recording at your own discretion and risk and you are advised to take all reasonable precautions to protect your computer from virus infection.
  • 3.4 UK Parliament will not be liable for any loss or damage which you may suffer as a result of, or connected to your use of the UK Parliament recording.
  • 3.5 Each provision of this Clause 3 operates separately in itself and survives independently of the others.

4. Indemnity

  • 4.1 In the event that a third party commences legal proceedings against the UK Parliament as a result of your use of the UK Parliament Recording in breach of these Licence Terms you agree to indemnify UK Parliament in respect of any and all damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and litigation expenses, UK Parliament suffers or incurs as a result of such action.

5. Termination

  • 5.1 The UK Parliament may restrict, suspend or terminate any or all UK Parliament recordings or your access to the recordings at any time at its sole discretion without liability.
  • 5.2 Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 shall survive termination of this Agreement.

6. General

  • 6.1 You may not transfer or sublicense any of your rights or obligations under the Licence Terms to any third party.
  • 6.2 This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with English Law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of England and Wales
  • 6.3 Any failure or delay by the UK Parliament in exercising its rights under these Licence Terms shall not be construed as a waiver of those rights.

Intellectual Property Law

November 2009

I wrote to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, (BRERR) and submitted evidence to the review on Laws regulating Illegal File Sharing. I blogged about it on 3rd November 2009, in an article called, Filesharing, Economics & Human Right. When I finish the white paper, I’ll host it here.

What I said elsewhere

I blogged on Monopoly Copyright and Efficiency on my Sun Blog and on Free, the right price for software there as well, where some of my ideas were first developed.

I blogged here about Mark Thomas on the Culture Show and the music industry’s response

I reflected on my contributions to Paul Carr’s TechCrunch article in a blog called Perhaps its not so bad

I blogged here about Billy Bragg’s contribution to the Panorama article, are the net police coming to get you. This is an iplayer url, and so may not be available next week. 18 March 2009.

I blogged in an article called Wifi and academic freedom about the results of the refusal to offer the public sector, university and libraries protection against the copyright liabilities of Digital Economy Bill. 24 March 2010

Later I attended the picket/demo at parliament. I took a few pictures which are hosted in a group called debate the bill at flickr. 24 March 2010

Another post here, where I posted some of my current thoughts on the Digital Economy Bill at I hope to provoke Labour Party members and supporters into campaigning to see the bill defeated or amended. 27 March 2010

I posted a short article called Copyright Stakeholders, provoked by Jessica Litman‘s paper Real Copyright Reform. This is a must read article and while about the US and their law, is really insightful. I hope to review this soon. 30 March 2010

I posted an article called Real Copyright Reform, half review, half derived polemic based on Jessica Litman’s academic paper of the same name. 4 April 2010

So the Bill became an Act in the last days of parliament, I reflected on the vote and the following weeks events as the General Election took off in an article called A week’s a long time in Politics 16 April 2010

After meeting Joan Ruddock, the week before I posted my thoughts on voting and the post election campaign in an article called Get your own facts on this bliki 26 April 2010

I blogged about how I was going to vote, and commented about what to do if the DE Bill, now Act was important to you. 5 May 2010

A silly note on the US Constitution’s take on Copyright, on 18 May 2010.

In the summer of 2010, I blogged in an article called, Music Copyright, Qui Bono? about the economic dominance of four companies and how, the British participant in this oligopoly is now owned by Citigroup private equity. This was meant to be a look at the resultant monopoly structure that copyright monopoly rights create, and an introduction to the International Trade implications of intellectual property law. I managed to avoid mentioning the singer’s tax affairs.

In September, Glynn Moody blogged in an article called “The Origin of Europe’s Suicidal Copyright Policies where he reviews the most comprehensive piece of independent research on current Media Economics, a report called Media Economics in the Emerging Economies, which is available for free download at Its chief author, Joe Karaganis also precises the report on Torrent Freak in an article called Europe’s odd anti-piracy stance: Send money to the US!. These documents are worth reading.


The Open Rights Group seem to be the noisiest opponents to the proposals to warn people on the accusation of rights holders, and use the warnings in evidence so lets see how open they are.


I found these notes lying around my computer, and so have posted them here.

The copyright law is broken. It creates a market in rights which generates super-profits and sub-optimal resource allocations. It defends the wealth of non-creative distribution business, i.e. sales staff, lawyers and accountants. It is fair and efficient to pay for time, and pay for materials. It is not fair and efficient to pay for ‘rights’. The licence has become a proxy by which rich corporations seek to recover their costs and make profits. There profit levels and the fact that lawyers own more than artists show the failure of this to work. Intellectual Property is not ‘Property’.The internet and free downloading has been the platform for a number of acts and bands to launch and obtain the notice

It should also be noted that in the case of UK public policy, research needs to be done to see how much of the allegged ‘lost revenue’ will in fact be imports.

Copyright should be shorter

Copyright should not license for use. i.e. a consumer should be free to buy a CD have unlimited personal right to use.

File downloading should not be illegal. They are not scarce goods. The record companies loose no income because

Making this illegal and pursuing downloaders is not a neutral act. It is taking sides in innovation markets.

ISP customers should not pay for civil suit.

Music has always lobbied to protect their economic interests.

Its because they want to charge for use, they need these laws. Why should internet users pay a tax to help the record companies pursue a license for use.

A number of successful music acts today used the internet and free distribution to launch themselves using and creating sites like myspace and facebook.

Pay for radio license, listen to music, buy a CD, buy an itunes download, buy an .mp3 why?

Billy Bragg is quoted as saying

Capitalism is killing music

He is also quoted as having the veiw that digital downloading/hosting is marketing and should be free.

When writing to the Lords, I considered the macro economic value of sharing and the example of BT FON & OpenView, I said

Another example of sharing sunk cost is BT’s FON offering where BT home hub customers share their wireless signal to other BT customers.

which doesn’t say very much. BT’s licence prohibits you from sharing your bandwidth, unless you subscribe to BT FON & BT Openview, which then allows you to use all the other people, businesses that share their wifi infrastructure. They then offer this as benefit to their sharing customers. Its a buy-in club, and you can of course pay cash to get more openview time. Its also an example of hardware, i.e. physical resources or capital that has a marginal cost to consume of zero.

Music Industry

Wikipedia has a page, Music Industry which documents the dominance of Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and EMI in the supply of recorded music, shipping 71.6% Worldwide in 2005. EMI had a 13.4% share worldwide. (The UK figures more recently would be good, although I believe that EMI are loosing money).

Let’s see what happens, please comment if you see fit