Ahead of the Gowers Review we give Kay Withers a right-to-reply on the responses to the Institute for Public Policy Research's report, 'Public Innovation: intellectual property in a digital age'.

Intellectual property (IP) is a difficult policy area to grasp and is constantly challenged by the pace of technology and new forms of expression. Its legal roots go back many centuries and its history is coloured with complicated treaties, directives, Acts of Parliament and papers. Intellectual property affects impacts on us all, yet debates about copyright and patents are often left to the 'experts' - lawyers, industry representatives and policy officials - while the general public's exposure to the debate is usually limited to the occasional anti-piracy campaign ad at the beginning of films, or, increasingly, frustrations and confusion in their dealings with incompatible digital rights management technologies, CDs that refuse to play on computers and content that often cannot be transferred from one device to another.

As we move from an analogue to a digital age, issues surrounding intellectual property are becoming even more precient. Over the last year, the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) has looked closely at the ways in which the UK's intellectual property laws might have to respond to digitisation, and the information sharing ability of the internet. The results, along with policy suggestions, were published in our report, Public Innovation: intellectual property in a digital age, last month.

Unsurprisingly, the press focussed on the most consumer-friendly recommendation, namely to change the current UK law that makes it illegal to copy a CD onto your computer or to MP3 player for your own
use.

Why bother?

As the BPI recently stated in the press and at a meeting of MPs, it wouldn't prosecute people for using music in this way, the question we were asked most was: why bother to change the law if no one's going to get into trouble anyway?

Our response; such examples highlight the larger debate on the meaning of intellectual property law in a digital age, and how and by whom the limits of copying and sharing should be decided. In the past, this discussion has been drowned out by business interests: yet these issues affect our economy, our national heritage, as well as citizens and consumers.

Sir Cliff is wrong

To ensure healthly debate and to increase public understanding in the run up to the publication of the the Gowers Review - an independent review commissioned by the Treasury - we need to keep focussing on the value of open information or that which exists in the public domain. We know that extension of copyright for recordings is heavily supported by the music industry, as well as performers such as Sir Cliff Richard. Much of that debate has centred on what value will be created by extending copyright terms from 50 to 75 or 95 years. Yet, evidence suggests extension does not add significant economic value for the copyright holder. The government, we argue, has a duty to understand what value will be lost in extending copyright terms, as it would effectively stop new material entering the public domain.

Knowledge is a public good

The most radical recommendation we made was that knowledge should be valued as a public good first and a private one second. Such a statement rarely grabs headlines but it is crucial in guiding UK policy around copyright and patents.

To understand what value might be derived of this approach to knowledge - in both economic and social terms - we commissioned some work, so that when it was time to look at length of copyright and patent terms, it would be clearer to the government what the knock-on effects would be to society as a whole.

Current situation limits creativity

Take sound archives as an example: because of existing copyright laws, libraries can't digitise and widen out access to their holdings. An extension of copyright could also squeeze access to our national sound heritage as other smaller companies are prevented from re-releasing material which would otherwise have fallen out of copyright, and into the public domain. US research has shown that non-rights holders are almost twice as likely to re-release material as the original rightsholder. Yet this means many historical recordings languish in record company vaults, not considered commercial enough for release. This limits new forms of creativity, preventing artists from interpreting old works in new, innovative ways.

Even after the Gowers review, the debate will no doubt continue to rage. But, as our report aimed to highlight, it is important that the public understands the relevance of these decisions and their impact, if they are not made with wider interests in mind. Press attention paid to private copying is one way to bring these issues into focus, but that attention needs to move beyond consumer concerns if the voice of citizens and the public interest may at last be heard.

About the author:
Kay Withers is a research fellow for the ippr