Google's boffins branded 'unacceptably ineffective' at tackling web piracy

'Not beyond wit' to block rip-offs say MPs demanding copyright safeguards


Analysis Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee has harshly criticised the government and Google in a report into the UK's creative industries.

The MPs want the 2010 Digital Economy Act - which cracks down on downloaders of pirated material and other copyright infringers - activated without further delay. And the panel wants recommendations from Professor Ian Hargreaves' radical review of UK intellectual property – the so-called "Google Review" – scrapped.

This comes after the backbenchers concluded the government is largely barking up the wrong tree with its policy on protecting intellectual property in Blighty (or not as the case seems to be). As El Reg has explained in exhaustive length (see the lefthand related stories), rather than building markets based on property rights, it has instead set about dismantling the very rights that people in those markets need to earn a crust.

"We regret that the Hargreaves report adopts a significantly low standard in relation to the need for objective evidence in determining copyright policy," the MPs write in their report. "We do not consider Professor Hargreaves has adequately assessed the dangers of putting the established system of copyright at risk for no obvious benefit."

The influential cross-party committee took evidence for over a year and canvassed opinion over 10 separate hearing sessions and visited technology and creative companies in California.

The British government had broadly accepted the Hargreaves recommendations, but the committee is scathing about the intellectual quality of the media professor's exercise.

"We are deeply concerned that there is an underlying agenda driven at least partly by technology companies (Google foremost among them) which, if pursued uncritically, could cause irreversible damage to the creative sector on which the United Kingdom’s future prosperity will significantly depend," the MPs warn.

The "Google Review" earned its nickname, in part, because when it was announced by David Cameron, he quoted the Google founders in support of it. The "quote" – that Google's founders could "never have started their company in Britain" – turned out not to exist.

The review was slipped into the Conservative agenda by former director of strategy Steve Hilton, who has close ties with Google, and has cited the advertising network as a model for government operations.

The (latest) copyright minister Lord Younger appeared to affirm Google's privileged relationship with top Conservatives when he appeared before the select committee this year.

"I am also very aware … that 'Google' have access, for whatever reason, to higher levels than me in No 10, I understand," he told startled MPs. "They are a vociferous action group and a big company to put it bluntly, and are quite powerful."

Banks and other financing institutions also get a kicking, for being "blinkered and unimaginative" and risk-averse when considering investment in creative businesses. Which is harsh – would you lend money to an intellectual-property-creating business, knowing that Whitehall and the government would prefer to destroy the market – and could?

The UK government is approaching the problem of protecting copyrighted stuff as a regulatory problem, and is widening existing copyright exceptions (ultimately allowing people to freely do more with others' work) and "maxing out" its freedom to bring in new copyright exceptions - something that's narrowly proscribed by EU law.

Specifically, the MPs fear the development of commercially successful music-streaming services could be hindered by extending private copying exemption into the cloud. EU member states are permitted to introduce an exception for private copying, but only if the rights-holder is compensated in some way.

Most states have implemented this exception, and all but two include some compensation. The UK is arguing that this is not necessary, since it's "priced in" at the point of purchase of a copying or playback device. The MPs find this unconvincing:

We are not convinced by Hargreaves’ implication that a facility for private copying is factored into the purchase either of music or devices that store, play or copy it.

They advise: "We do not believe a case has been made for applying a private copying exception to audiovisual content and it should therefore be excluded."

MPs heard from Google reps, but the backbenchers weren't impressed that the giant ad-broker had done enough to promote legitimate offerings and demote scuzzy pirate sites.

"We strongly condemn the failure of Google, notable among technology companies, to provide an adequate response to creative industry requests to prevent its search engine directing consumers to copyright-infringing websites," the MPs stormed.

"We are unimpressed by their evident reluctance to block infringing websites on the flimsy grounds that some operate under the cover of hosting some legal content.

"The continuing promotion by search engines of illegal content on the internet is unacceptable. So far, their attempts to remedy this have been derisorily ineffective."

They continue:

We do not believe it to be beyond the wit of the engineers employed by Google and others to demote and, ideally, remove copyright-infringing material from search engine results. Google co-operates with law enforcement agencies to block child pornographic content from search results and it has provided no coherent, responsible answer as to why it cannot do the same for sites which blatantly, and illegally, offer pirated content.

The MPs also want jail terms for copyright infringement - not for casual freetards, it appears, but for commercial-scale operators such as Anton Vickerman. They note that the successful prosecution of Vickerman, who operated a site called SurfTheChannel, was convicted of conspiracy to defraud, rather than copyright infringement.

MPs also called for a copyright "czar" within government to counteract the institutional bias against copyright found at the old Patents Office, known since 2006 as the Intellectual Property Office (IPO). The panel also found it odd that the IPO is within the government's business department, rather than the Ministry of Fun. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Think your phone is snooping on you? Hold my beer, says basic physics

    Information wants to be free, and it's making its escape

    Opinion Forget the Singularity. That modern myth where AI learns to improve itself in an exponential feedback loop towards evil godhood ain't gonna happen. Spacetime itself sets hard limits on how fast information can be gathered and processed, no matter how clever you are.

    What we should expect in its place is the robot panopticon, a relatively dumb system with near-divine powers of perception. That's something the same laws of physics that prevent the Godbot practically guarantee. The latest foreshadowing of mankind's fate? The Ethernet cable.

    By itself, last week's story of a researcher picking up and decoding the unintended wireless emissions of an Ethernet cable is mildly interesting. It was the most labby of lab-based demos, with every possible tweak applied to maximise the chances of it working. It's not even as if it's a new discovery. The effect and its security implications have been known since the Second World War, when Bell Labs demonstrated to the US Army that a wired teleprinter encoder called SIGTOT was vulnerable. It could be monitored at a distance and the unencrypted messages extracted by the radio pulses it gave off in operation.

    Continue reading
  • What do you mean you gave the boss THAT version of the report? Oh, ****ing ****balls

    Say what you mean

    NSFW Who, Me? Ever written that angry email and accidentally hit send instead of delete? Take a trip back to the 1990s equivalent with a slightly NSFW Who, Me?

    Our story, from "Matt", flings us back the best part of 30 years to an era when mobile telephones were the preserve of the young, upwardly mobile professionals and fixed lines ruled the roost for more than just your senior relatives.

    Back then, Matt was working for a UK-based fixed-line telephone operator. He was dealing with a telephone exchange which served a relatively large town. "I ran a reasonably ordinary, read-only command to interrogate a specific setting," he told us.

    Continue reading
  • Chinese tech minister says he's 'dealt with' 73,000 websites that breached the law

    Ongoing crackdown saw apps 1.83 million apps tested, 4,200 told to clean up their act, pop-up ads popped

    China's Minister of Industry and Information Technology, Xiao Yaqing, has given a rare interview in which he signalled the nation's crackdown on the internet and predatory companies will continue.

    The interview, reported in state-controlled organ Xinhua, reveals that China's recent crackdowns on inappropriate content and companies with monopolistic tendencies have both bitten – hard.

    The nation investigated 1.83 million apps to ensure they don't infringe users' rights. Some 4,200 illegal apps found to require "rectification".

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021