Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 From: Rhys Jones To: copyright@patent.gov.uk Subject: FAO Teresa Arnesen, re 2001/29/EC UK implementation Dear Ms Arnesen, I am writing to express two specific concerns at the proposed UK implementation of the European Union Copyright Directive (2001/29/EC). I refer to the proposed UK implementation as 'the Implementation' in this note. I believe the Implementation, in its current form, to have powers more wide-ranging than would be accepted by the majority of the UK public. My concerns are these: firstly, as you are no doubt aware, the laws relating to copyright in the UK are broken by a large proportion of the population on a daily basis. It is arguable that current copyright legislation is only tolerated by the population because it is seldom practically enforced. I believe that the Implementation in its current form would result in a significant change in the enforcement of copyright law within the UK. In particular, the Implementation contains a mechanism for when 'technological measures prevent permitted acts'. My reading of this mechanism leads me to believe that I would have to write to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry each time I would wish to, say, record one of my own CDs for my personal listening use. I cannot believe that it is the intention of the Implementation to over-burden the Minister and her Department in this way. Could I ask, therefore, what is the proposed aim of this section of the Implementation? In view of the large number of potential appeals to the Secretary of State, it seems at least prudent to investigate alternatives - practical alternatives - to this mechanism. My second concern relates to the Implementation's effect on the writing of interoperable computer software. To give one typical example, interoperable computer software would currently be necessary in order to produce alternative versions of electronic books. These might be required by blind, partially sighted or dyslexic schoolchildren. The Implementation as it stands would severely restrict a teacher's right to make such copies. Again, this would result in a large number of UK teachers having to apply to the Secretary of State for exemptions from the EUCD on a regular basis. Is this what is intended by the Implementation? In view of my comments, I believe that the Implementation requires the following amendments: 1. It is unnecessary and unworkable to involve the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where 'technological measures prevent permitted acts'. The copyright holders for the work should have the responsibility of providing consumers of their work with the means to make copies for their personal use, where the economic impact is clearly minimal or non-existent. 2. In order to allow the writing of interoperable computer software, the Implementation should state that provisions 296 and 296ZA-C do not prevent the reverse engineering and/or decompilation of computer programs. 3. Should the Implementation not allow the writing of interoperable computer software (see point 2), it should in any case be incumbent on copyright holders of works to make such provisions as necessary to ensure that those requiring educational access to their materials are not discriminated against. After all, in such cases it is difficult to argue that there is economic impact from allowing such access. I trust that my comments will be considered whilst summarising the responses to the Implementation. Yours, Rhys Jones (home address removed)