Source · Select Committees · Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Recommendation 23
23
Paragraph: 178
As we have acknowledged, the Government has repeatedly told us that it will not implement...
Recommendation
As we have acknowledged, the Government has repeatedly told us that it will not implement the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. However, to ensure that music creators and companies prosper in the globally important UK music market, the Government must provide protections for rightsholders that are at least as robust as those provided in other jurisdictions. As a priority, the Government should introduce robust and legally enforceable obligations to normalise licensing arrangements for UGC-hosting services, to address the market distortions and the music streaming ‘value gap’. It must ensure that these obligations are proportionate so as to apply to the dominant players like YouTube but does not discourage new entrants to the market. It must also ensure that existing obligations 108 Economics of music streaming are being enforced as appropriate, and detail in its Response how it plans to address the recording industry’s concerns regarding the enforcement of existing ‘know your business customer’ obligations.
Paragraph Reference:
178
Government Response
Accepted
HM Government
Accepted
The Government agrees that rightsholders should be properly remunerated when their works are used and shared online, for example on user-generated content platforms like YouTube. It also recognises that many testimonies to the Committee’s inquiry outlined some of the difficulties rightsholders face when their works are shared on these platforms and the complexity of licensing negotiations. These negotiations are a private commercial matter between the parties, so the Government has no direct role in them. However, it agrees that rightsholders should be able to enter into licensing negotiations with platforms with the aim of securing mutually agreeable terms. The Committee’s recommendation draws some direct parallels with the provisions under Article 17 of the EU Digital Single Market Copyright Directive (‘the Copyright Directive’). As the Committee notes in its report, the UK Government has been clear that it has no intention of implementing the Copyright Directive. But, as government representatives explained in the oral evidence session on 22 March 2021, we have a unique opportunity to learn lessons from EU Member States that have implemented the Directive, as well as from approaches taken by other countries. The fact that many Member States have not yet implemented the Directive despite the deadline to do so, reflects the complexity of its provisions – in particular Article 17, which was hotly contested in negotiations and has been criticised by some rightsholders, free speech advocates and the technology sector. To understand the issues better, the Government will analyse how EU Member States have implemented Article 17. It wishes to understand what actual impacts the provision is having on different parts of the music industry, on other creative sectors, on user-generated Government and Competition and Markets Authority Responses 9 content platforms, and on consumers. In particular, it will be speaking to stakeholders to see whether any of these approaches have improved the position of rightsholders entering into licensing negotiations with user-generated content platforms. The Government will also consider approaches taken by countries outside the EU. It will update on its progress to the music industry contact group in spring 2022. The Government recognises that intellectual property rights only have value if they are enforceable. In the case of the interaction between limitations to liability, notice and takedown processes and licensing, the normal course for enforcement would be for rightsholders to take legal action where they believe obligations are not being met. Although the Government has no direct role in civil actions of this type, it does believe that the justice system needs to work for everyone in society. To this end the IPO has recently concluded a call for views looking at access to justice issues for intellectual property cases, and identified a number of improvements to guidance and administration that may make it easier for rightsholders of any size to seek redress where required. The importance of ‘know your business customer’ (KYBC) obligations for intellectual property enforcement is also something that the Government believes warrants further attention. The upcoming IP Crime and Infringement Reduction Strategy includes some consideration of this issue, and the IPO plans to work with other departments across government to identify where and how improvements might be made.