U.K. Inquiry Reveals Split Over Need for DRM Legislative Fix
DRM legislation is needed to reset the balance between consumers and content owners, some witnesses told U.K. lawmakers last week. Others, however, said existing laws are adequate, and copyright protection solutions should be left to market forces. The All Party Internet Group (APIG) is looking at whether and how DRM can protect artists, royalty distribution companies and consumers. It received a record 92 written submissions and held a 3-hour hearing last Thurs. APIG’s DRM report is due in the spring.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Consumer rights can no longer be recognized informally because that allowed adoption of DRM tools that upset the traditional balance between intellectual property (IP) law and consumer protection and privacy laws, the National Consumer Council (NCC) said. Policy-makers must “carefully consider putting consumers’ legitimate interests on a more robust legislative and positive footing.”
The use of DRM is harming not only consumers’ “fair use” rights but their ability to use computer hardware in ways unrelated to behavior DRM is intended to check, NCC said: DRM systems can force consumers to upgrade software packages or channel them into software packages with unfavorable contract or licensing terms. When DRM uses the Internet to report back to sellers, it implicates consumer privacy and network security, the group said.
There are several serious problems with current DRM deployment in consumer digital products, but EU and U.K. copyright law protects the technologies by barring their circumvention, NCC said. Industry self-regulation hasn’t worked, the group said, urging Parliament to craft a more balanced legislative framework that expressly recognizes consumer rights and protects from circumvention only DRM systems that meet required standards.
Foundation for Information Policy Research Chmn. Ross Anderson said Parliament has decided creativity needs defending as much as land or gold, and it must work out the limits. “The framework should be erected by elected legislators, and specific cases should be decided by judges - - not by the programmers who create the DRM mechanisms.”
The Society for Computers & Law urged the govt. generally to take a “non-interventionist approach” to DRM, but said Parliament should enact a prominent labelling system to alert consumers about DRM-protected products. The Open Rights Group said the law should permit circumvention when a DRM technology becomes outdated, and provide “an immediate rights of action” for disabled people to breach protection measures to get to media for their own use.
Others, however, want govt.’s role limited to fostering development of standards and educating the public. DRM is appropriately dealt with by established law, the British Photographic Industry said.
British Music Rights (BMR) -- which represents composers, songwriters, music publishers and their collecting societies -- said premature legislation could kill the nascent DRM market. BMR members use DRM to manage collective rights and to launch legitimate online music services, and govt. shouldn’t be too quick to intrude, the group. But it recommended that the govt. and the Office of Communications monitor discussions on interoperability.