More term extension wrangles

The copyright term extension debate is getting even murkier. The BBC reports:

• The Featured Artists Coalition, a new pressure group with members including a number of prominent musicians has said that the current 95 year proposal will be bad for performers and fans. They back a term extension, but call for the copyright to revert to the artist after 50 years
• The UK voted against the European Commission's 95 year proposal on Friday in Brussels. The UK wants to see the extension limited to 70 years.
  

The IPKat is curious about this. He notes that many of the voices in the debate are prominent musicians who aren't the people who the extension is meant to protect. Sir Cliff isn't holding out the begging bowl, nor are the members of Radiohead. What is the view of the session musicians who are said by the Commission to be in need of the extension, the IPKat wonders?

Prospective costs order; term extension - Gowers speaks

How much will it cost? asks Mr Justice Arnold

The IPKat once again thanks Lisa Chiarelli, this time for bringing his attention to the FT’s coverage of the decision by Mr Justice Arnold to require Allen & Overy to declare what its projected costs are in the battle between RIM and Visto.

The decision covers the second case between RIM and Visto. In the first case, A & O racked up over £5m in costs for a five day trial.

Mr Justice Arnold called the current costs system “inadequate and unsatisfactory” and called for a more “proactive” approach to controlling costs.

The IPKat (who would dearly love to see a copy of the decision) says this sounds jolly sensible. It’s fair that the losing party should have to pay costs, but if costs are allowed to spiral out of control then more defendants will be forced to settle, not because they necessarily have a bad case, but rather because of a fear of handing over a blank cheque for costs.

STOP PRESS: the full text of the decision is now available from Bailii here.

Also in the FT

Andrew Gowers’ response to the UK’s volte-face on the copyright term for sound recordings.

Shaping policy; changing policy

Gowers update

The UK IPO is busy implementing another of Mr Gowers’ recommendations, in the shape of the Strategic Advisory Board on IP Policy (SABIP). SABIP will be a non-departmental public body, charged with strategic oversight of IP policy, challenging government policy-making and advising on how the UK’s interests should be pursued in international IP negotiations. Recruitment of its members has closed, but a chair is being sought. The lucky individual must be:

· a recognised and effective leader with a with strategic insight into the role of IP in the economy and society;

· experienced in chairing meetings at board level, analysing complex issues and reaching balanced, independent judgements;

· able to represent SABIP externally and to build consensus, communicate with, and influence a range of stakeholders.

The IPKat notes that applications must be in by 21 January 2008.

US DOJ rejects plans to strengthen its IP enforcement

Fun and games in the US of A. PC Magazine reports that the US Department of Justice has condemned the ProIP Bill, a bill which would establish an intellectual property enforcement divison within the Department of Justice. The DOJ already has an IP enforcement division, which is part of its criminal division, and the DOJ would like it to stay there. The deputy attorney general claimed that the change will disrupt important relationships within the criminal division and will make intradepartmental IP coordination more difficult. She also emphasised the close working relationship between the current IP division and the DOJ’s cybercrime laboratory, saying

“This close collaboration … could be jeopardized if the IP enforcement component were split off from computer crime and placed into a separate division…Moreover, it may lead to duplicative administration and training programs."

She also poured cold water on plans to create an IP office within the White House, noting

"We are always going to be concerned when you have somebody at the White House who may be in the position of directing our enforcement or what cases we do or don't do,"

she said.

"That would be contrary to the long-standing tradition of the department making independent decisions regarding law enforcement."

The IPKat can’t help but think that the new piece of legislation is looking a tad disproprtionate. For sure IP infringement is to be discouraged, but it seems to be being treated almost like a threat to national security, rather than a threat to private rights.