CREATIVE CONTENT UK
education was at the heart of the drive, known as Creative Content UK.
T is is the fi rst scheme of its kind to be implemented in the UK and it is the focus on education which is, arguably, the most interesting aspect.
Crucially, unlike the much-discussed copyright regime intended to fall under the Digital Economy Act (DEA), which proposed that
measures” be introduced to deter downloaders, Creative
introduction of any sanctions for downloaders.
Aſt er the fourth (and fi nal) warning has been made, there will be no court summons; nor will internet access be completely shut off . Instead, the government hopes that lessons will have been learned.
How does this compare to what was proposed before?
Flora Greenwood, an associate at Bristows LLP in London, notes that the sanctions proposed in the DEA had not even been debated in parliament and have in fact been shelved in light of Creative Content.
“T e absence of any sanctions is perhaps in part why it has been possible for the ISPs and creative trade bodies to agree on the scheme,” Greenwood tells TBO.
“One could say that this industry-led initiative marks a step forward and arguably achieves more progress than has been possible via the legislative route.”
Using psychology
Although the scheme is in the very early stages, Gareth Dickson, associate at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP, highlights diff erences with previous government-backed campaigns, including ones against drink-driving and speeding which, he says, played on the fear of ‘harm’ as a result of one’s actions.
“Whether a degree of ‘harm’ or fear is a necessary component of an educational campaign against piracy will be assessed by the scheme. In that respect the scheme may off er an interesting insight into the psychology of internet users,” Dickson says.
Greenwood adds that the UK’s reluctance to
introduce sanctions or punishments may be partly down to failures in other jurisdictions when trying to implement similar schemes, and points to France’s ‘three strikes’ system as an example.
Known as HADOPI, the French law handed power to a judge to issue warnings and, if needed, cut off a user’s internet connection temporarily.
32 Trademarks & Brands Online
“technical Content does not propose the
T e law was dropped in the summer of 2013 aſt er it was deemed to have not achieved its goal of encouraging legal downloading.
Although more than two million notices were sent, only one person had his internet suspended, Greenwood says.
Referring to Creative Content, she says: “It is likely that the stakeholders, in voluntarily entering into this arrangement, and the UK government
Volume 3, Issue 3
considered the experience of graduated response systems in other jurisdictions before agreeing how to initially implement it.”
She adds: “T e failure of the HADOPI scheme may be one reason the Creative Content scheme did not choose to introduce end-user sanctions.”
Given its apparent focus on education rather than sanctions, how should the scheme’s emails be phrased in order to get their message across?
in part-funding it, carefully Adam Rendle, senior associate at Taylor Wessing
www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44