UK Government Censors Copyright Consultation Submission About How Awful Collection Societies Are

from the the-wrong-kind-of-evidence dept

When the UK Hargreaves Review of intellectual monopolies in the digital age came out last year, Techdirt noted that one of its innovations was an emphasis on basing policy on evidence. The fact that this was even notable shows how parlous the state of policy-making has become. One important way to gather evidence is through public consultations, and in the wake of the Hargreaves Review, the UK government conducted a major exercise in gathering views and information in this field.

The responses to that consultation have now been published -- all 471 of them. That's a surprisingly high number for what was once an arcane area of interest only to a few lawyers, and a measure of just how important the subject has become. On that Web page there's the following slightly unusual statement:

in the course of reviewing the responses received, it became clear that a small number of respondents had advanced criticisms or inappropriately criticised the activities of others in the sector. The Government has now carefully reviewed the submissions to establish any potentially defamatory material and has redacted any inappropriate or defamatory comments.
One of the people whose submissions were redacted is Andrew Norton. He's written a fascinating blog post detailing what exactly was taken out. The first and biggest redaction occurs in his answer to the following question:
What aspects of the current collective licensing system work well for users and rights holders and what are the areas for improvement? Please give reasons for your answers
Here's what the UK government published of Norton's response:
Almost no aspects work well for users or rights holders. The standard operating system for collecting societies is to demand all, demand often. There have been many cases in the recent past where agencies have gone above and beyond their mandate, and targeted people in shakedowns.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In short, what aspects work well? None. What needs to be done? First of all, an audit needs doing, to ensure compliance with the law. Then, shut them down. At the very least start a new, independent one with significant oversight, because this one just DOES NOT WORK.
So what exactly did the UK government think was "inappropriate or defamatory"? This, apparently:
… and targeted people in shakedowns.

In the past few years, there have been reports of UK Collection societies calling up small businesses, and threatening them if they hear music in the background (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0128383597.shtml), carollers, charities (http://torrentfreak.com/charity-forced-to-pay-copyright-police-so-kids-can-sing-071209/) have been targeted for fees, as have schools (http://torrentfreak.com/uk-copyright-cops-target-kids-schools-community-centers-081015/). Even people who sing to themselves have been targeted because they're doing so at work (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm) and let's not forget their targeting of employers like Kwik Fit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm) and even the police (http://torrentfreak.com/police-chief-faces-high-court-anti-piracy-action-120608/). Incidentally, The EU Court of Justice just ruled that in cases like these, there are no fees to pay (http://euobserver.com/871/115621#.T2cCyGfYteQ.twitter)
That's just one of three such paragraphs, all linking to external sites. As you may have noticed, the first link above is to Techdirt, and the others are to sites like the BBC, El Pais, Die Welt and TorrentFreak. None of them is defamatory, since they are all reporting on established facts. This means that the UK government must think that these facts are somehow "inappropriate". That's a pretty extraordinary state of affairs. The UK government has taken it upon itself to hide what UK collection societies get up to, in an absolutely key consultation, one of whose purposes is surely to get the facts about what's happening in this sector.

What makes this censorship of linked information even more striking is that alongside the main consultation document itself (pdf) the UK government also published guidance on providing "open and transparent evidence" (pdf), where we read:

When you draw on other work, a reference, and link to the original work should be included. References to other people’s work should have the relevant web link
That is, the guidelines specifically ask for precisely the kind of scrupulous linking to sources that Norton provided, and yet the UK government censored them all because it didn't like the unequivocally dire situation they delineated.

This does not augur well for the results of the consultation. It suggests that the UK government is happy to gloss over one of the key failings of the present copyright system -- the UK collection societies -- and is seeking to present a very partial view of the real situation. It also undermines confidence in the whole consultation process: if the UK government has arbitrarily redacted true information that it finds inconvenient once, what's to say it hasn't done so multiple times elsewhere? If people aren't allowed to provide all the evidence what's the point of conducting a consultation in the first place?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:25am

    Like most governments the UK's knows which side its bread is buttered on. How do you think they receive their bonuses if not for collection societies bravely lurking amongst the pirate scum of society so they can pounce on (gasp!) horses listening to free music, or people humming to themselves? The tragedy! Pirate Glyn won't debate me on all this because I can ad hom him any time I want. Chubby little pirate chicken.

    /sarc

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    WysiWyg (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:25am

    Could still be defamation.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but "it's established fact" isn't a defense against defamation in UK, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:33am

    Well the UK government can't follow those links anyway, loading webpages is copyright infringement remember? So obviously they had to take them out.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tunnen (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:35am

    Nothing to see here, move along...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:38am

    Obviously they object to the word shakedown. It is an accusation of illegal behavior. Although that may be correct, it would have been smarter to use another word, such as overreaching.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Richard (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:39am

    Same thing again

    The same thing happened before under the previous government with the DEA consultation.

    Anyone rritical of the status quo was first insulted and then ignored.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:47am

    Actions are defamatory?

    Uh... so they were bothered by 'inappropriately criticized the activities of others'. The response was to leave the opinionated criticism intact and the redacted 'potentially defamatory material' are the actual activities of the 'others'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DogBreath, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:28am

      Re: Actions are defamatory?

      That was so they could dismiss any arguments not in favor as baseless.

      Public Quote: "Sure, you argued against collection societies, but where are your facts to back up your assertions?"

      Private Quote (that the public will never hear): "Oh, that's right, we censored your evidence out of the published articles to make you look like mouth breathing fools."

      It was their plan from the beginning.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    arrow101 (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:55am

    lets kills BMI ASCAP SESAC and GEMA while we're at it...

    bunch of leeches

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Beta (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:58am

    never attribute to malice...

    I'd like to suggest another hypothesis: the censor didn't actually think that those paragraphs were "inappropriate or defamatory", but just didn't want to go to the trouble of following all those links, reading all those articles-- and taking the risk of declaring them all completely free of evil words.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    jupiterkansas (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 7:59am

    While I'm sure the TechDirt article was not defamatory, I'm sure the comments in that article were.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:05am

    "The responses to that consultation have now been published -- all 471 of them. That's a surprisingly high number for what was once an arcane area of interest only to a few lawyers, and a measure of just how important the subject has become"

    Actually, I would say this is more a result of "sky is falling" crap from this site and others, which has lead to a group of people with nothing better to do filing questions about things that they never use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:14am

      Re:

      about things they never use


      like sound, or words.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:33am

      Re:

      Yeah, what's the problem with giving up your rights? It's not like you ever really use them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DogBreath, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:54am

      Re:

      Actually, I would say this is more a result of "peoples eyes finally opening to the world around them about the rights they are losing to corporate interests", from this site and others. It has lead to a group of people with morals and integrity filing questions about things (rights) they and others use everyday, and who now have a pretty good idea that those same things (rights) are being "legislated" away to the highest bidder.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Tim Griffiths (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 9:01am

      Re:

      I and a large number of my friends are active in the music scene. Some in bands, some as promoters other who run labels and venues. The issues with collection societies, copyright and everything else are vastly more important to this group in this day and age then it ever has been before.

      We actually now how grounds to operate outside of the walled garden tended by the gatekeepers in ways that can make us just as successful as those with in. So we have to understand our rights and we have to be able to argue correctly for changes that support and protect those rights and against the changes that legacy industry wants to see which is mostly aimed at retaining a monopoly and business model that no longer make sense.

      When, as "that sky is rising crap" points out, there are more people than ever making more music and more money than ever the number of people who these issues effect and who need to have a educated voice in the debates is bigger than ever.

      This is before we even start to consider that the laws the legacy industries are lobbying so hard to put in place spill over greatly from simply an issue that effects the creative industries. We are seeing laws being created to "protect content creators" that are treating the very basic structure of a free and open internet and that effects EVERYONE.

      I have and will keep arguing that the defining act of our age will be if we keep the internet free and open or let it be restricted and censored. I don't think there are many such debates who's outcome will have such wide reaching effects. To me it is going to be the single biggest indicator of if our future is going to be a good or a bad one. Having a free and open internet will, in my view and that of many others, have a positive effect on almost every other major issue we face as a society. I strongly believe that open debate, open information and education are the keys to gaining positive out comes in everything from the fight against racism to solving or at lest dealing with problems like global warming.

      In other words everybody and everything is in line to be effected by a small group of people who seem to be willing to burn the place down rather than face having to adapt to a world in which they are no longer as important as they were. It's in the best interests of everybody to be informed and aware of the battles going on over IP laws because how those laws effect the internet could have very dire outcomes.

      We are told that we have entered the information age and it's with in the creative industries that we are having the first fight over what that actually means to us as society and how we are going to change our laws to face it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anon, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:17am

    resubmit

    easily resolved , resubmit with the offending word removed, they cannot ignore it then. Or write a small piece explaining two or three instances where the collection agencies have taken advantage of there copyright monopoly, and advising that there are many more instances available.

    I disagree with the government but in all honesty to get them to look at the real problems we are going to have to bombard them with facts that they do not like, letting them know we are all onto the problems that they wish to ignore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Andrew Norton (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:30am

      Re: resubmit

      Can't. Deadline was March 21 2012

      It's now LONG past time they'd accept submissions.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:40am

      Re: resubmit

      It wasn't a offending word. It was a list of examples that "offended" them. So I don't think removing a list of examples to replace it with a list of examples is going to help.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:25am

    Ah.

    Perhaps the government editor was just squeamish about raw internet stuff. For instance:
    http://torrentfreak.com/charity-forced-to-pay-copyright-police-so-kids-can-sing-071209/
    It's scary! Try this:
    Cute Bunny Rabbits
    Ahhhh. Same link but much better!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Andrew Norton (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:28am

    you missed out the best part

    I think the most amusing one was the last one, Glynn.

    The one where when referring to the MegaSong fiasco on YouTube, they redacted only one thing, "Universal Music Group" in reference to the company behind the takedown.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 9:29am

    FreeTard. \s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Andrew Norton (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 9:47am

      Re:

      Sorry, perhaps you'd like my book (www.nosafeharbor.com book 2 will be out by years end, and 3 more books working on) or perhaps you'd like to see the TV shows I worked on (you can see me in an episode of Spaced, a few seasons of BBC's Robot Wars, and 3 seasons of Comedy Central's BattleBots (oh, and the 'thing' that kinda started Mythbusters). I've got a patent somewhere too, and what got me started in *this* field was working as a copyright enforcer for a UK record company.

      Freetard be THY name, not mine.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 10:00am

        Re: Re:

        \s (which should be /s) means he is ending his sarcasm. As in: GEMA is a venerable organization that contributes greatly to the public's well being.

        Just FYI so you don't spend too much time fighting "ironic" trolls.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 9:29am

    FreeTard. \s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 9:48am

    this is no different to the practice carried out by ALL governments now, whether in supposed democratic countries or not. anything that can be construed as the people being left out, is left out. anything that is of benefit to the governments, the entertainment industries and the collection agencies is left in. the Hargreaves report was a complete farce, done just to make it appear that the UK government was doing the 'right thing and actually gave a fuck' about the people. it has a good deal of common sense suggestions in it but will be ignored, simply because it will inconvenience the entertainment industries and make them work for their money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    shoddily written submission to Consultation on pro, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 10:08am

    They left my links in

    though they were just to studies like the GAO one saying piracy wasn't really a problem.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 1:53pm

    When I was in Spain, a tour promoter told me about the aggressive tactics used by SGAE the spnaish collection society there (who I think have now all been arrested).

    They would turn up to gigs with thugs to demand 10% of the ticket sales to 'help' the artist actually performing on stage. Of course, none of that money ever got back to the artist they were 'helping' that day. It was a total protection racket. Concert promoters were actually physically scared of them!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dave (profile), Aug 1st, 2012 @ 3:14pm

    Money--Who Gets Da Money????

    The only reason I can see for this sort of activity is somebody getting paid, or, more likely, being afraid their cash-cow will dry up. Best answer: remove them from the equation entirely.

    Most GOOD artists, of all stripes, seem to do quite well for themselves WITHOUT the "benefit" of the gatekeepers, so let's eliminate the gatekeepers. They're redundant and useless.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 5:22pm

    Read up on the history of copyright, this is par for the course.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 1st, 2012 @ 8:54pm

    Has His Blog Been Slashdotted?

    Here is what I see when I try following the link:

    Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network. Please try your request again later. Why did this happen?


    IP address: 27.252.183.220
    Time: 2012-08-02T03:52:10Z
    URL: http://www.ktetch.co.uk/2012/07/uk-ipo-redacts-responses-critical-of.html

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nathan, Aug 17th, 2012 @ 8:34pm

    troll

    Final fucking lly. Hopefully they can do the same for the rest of the world so that ED and Metokur and the like will be shut down.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This