CREATIVE CONTENT UK The cost of piracy


Right holders have oſt en estimated how much they lose to illegal downloading.


According to John Smith, president of the International Federation of Musicians, creative industries around the world lose around 20% of their revenue every year due to piracy.


But Dickson warns that any claims about lost revenue lost must be objective and reliable.


“It will not be long before forums appear online to counter the various claims made in these notices, so it is important that those claims cannot be easily undermined,” he says.


Although Creative Content is targeting the


casual downloader with education, more serious sanctions are available through other schemes such as Operation Creative. Run by specialist police force the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), Operation Creative targets website owners and can result in websites being seized (see story on page 22).


T e two, although connected by their wider aim of promoting the importance of copyright, have separate messages.


While Greenwood agrees it is important to educate, she warns that many people may already be aware of the legal alternatives yet choose not to use them.


“THE FAILURE OF THE HADOPI SCHEME


MAY BE ONE REASON THE CREATIVE CONTENT SCHEME DID NOT CHOOSE TO INTRODUCE END-USER SANCTIONS.”


LLP in London, says there are two main things to consider.


First, he says, the warnings should point people in the direction of the “many services off ering high quality, good value and easy access content”.


Second, he says, they should point out the impact piracy has on the creative industries.


“T e more revenue that is lost through piracy, the less new content that can be created,” he explains.


www.trademarksandbrandsonline.com


With that in mind she suggests extra incentives are put in place to encourage a change in behaviour, including the possibility of free trial periods or discounts for paid-for services such as Spotify.


However, Dickson says, the notices should remain educational-only and steer clear of promotions.


“Given the diversity of content that will prompt these notices, and the corresponding diversity of owners who hope to benefi t from them, it is hard to see what incentives could be put before recipients on behalf of all aff ected content owners,” he says.


“It might also make the notices seem more about commercial gain than about respecting the law. So it is likely that the notices will remain non- commercial and educational only.”


Possible sanctions


In light of Creative Content and the government’s previous attempts to tackle piracy, is there a possibility ministers could use the results of the scheme to ‘test the waters’ with the hope of lining up further sanctions in the future?


Greenwood disagrees, and says any decision on that would be some way off .


“Perhaps the government and other parties involved will wait


to see how eff ective the


educational scheme is fi rst, and review further evidence of the impact of sanctions in other countries such as the US, before considering whether sanctions are worth exploring further,” she says.


Rendle notes that although the government has supported the initiative [it has contributed £3.5 million ($5.9 million) in initial funding], the scheme is in fact predominantly industry-led.


“T e government has continued to refer to the importance of copyright enforcement. But whether that approach leads to further legislation, such as on the role advertisers, payment providers and search engines play in piracy, remains to be seen.”


Given that no notices have been sent out yet, it is hard to predict the likely success of the plan but its basic idea appears to have been welcomed by lawyers at this early stage.


“Only time will tell how successful the scheme will be,” Dickson says, adding that it is important to not rush to a conclusion.


Users of sites promoting piracy “may take some time” to change their habits and could even return to old ways aſt er the shock of the fi rst notice has worn off , Dickson adds.


Rendle says that the scheme contains good ideas about how to deal with a “certain kind” of copyright infringement.


“T e scheme is aimed at people infringing through ignorance or carelessly rather than commercial piracy. It may encourage ‘unknowing’ infringers to seek out a licensed source and it may dissuade some family members using the home ISP connection to download content following parental pressure,” he adds.


Greenwood agrees, adding that, even with no threat, it may help to change the behaviour of some users, in particular, she says, those who have unwittingly downloaded infringing content or more casual downloaders who feel uncomfortable about being identifi ed as a possible infringer.


“T is reduces the feeling of anonymity, which is arguably one of the reasons why people continue to use infringing online services,” she says.


T e UK government is clearly beginning to make the right noises when it comes to copyright and IP protection: the passing of


the Intellectual


Property Act 2014 and the formation of PIPCU are examples of its dedication to the cause.


But although the UK is committed to teaching the public about copyright, are they willing to learn? 


Trademarks & Brands Online Volume 3, Issue 3 33


Everett Collection / Shutterstock.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