Not all government thinking on copyright takes place on David Geffen's yacht

With Mandelson determinedly pressing ahead with his bid to take the internet away from naughty boys and girls, it's refreshing to see some brighter thinking coming from HM Government on copyright.

Today, the Intellectual Property Office published © The Way Forward. David Lammy has been in charge of steering this document, and PaidContent UK have picked out some of the themes:

The copyright system cannot be expected to command public support unless consumers can use works in the ways they want, such as sharing photos with friends on the web. This means rights holders offering works with broader terms of use.”

—It acknowledges that individuals resent restrictions on personal, non-commercial uses of material, and advocates an EU-level distinction between commercial and non-commercial copying...

—That could include legalising more outright copying, the creation of sound/image mashups, format-shifting and sharing material with family and friends, the report says. But: “(This) could impact on revenues for rights holders; (so) an element of fair compensation for any loss would be required” (who will pay?). And commercialising such mashups wouldn’t be allowed under these exceptions.

The "fair compensation for any loss" is the disappointment - someone is going to have to break it to the content owners that they're going to have to start accepting their profit margin has shrunk, and no attempt to reinflate to pre-web levels is going to work, but I suppose there needs to be some sort of vague promise to keep them on board.

A distinction between commercial and non-commercial copying, though, would be a great starting point.

Pity the impetus will probably vanish as soon as the first returning officer declares a result next May.

David Lammy goes Hollywood

As if Mandelson not-saying-anything-on-that-yacht wasn't shaming enough, this week has also seen the pitiable sight of David Lammy telling the MPAA that the UK government sees its job as protecting multinational paid-for copyrights ahead of the needs of British people or culture. Billboard reports on his trip to Washington:

Lammy said that he favors "freedom" but stressed that it didn't mean free, and he called for more effective law enforcement as well as cooperation between the U.K. and U.S.

He said that the new option to suspend accounts was proof that the government is "not standing still" on the issue of P2P.

Lammy said that "new work against illicit P2P file-sharing, including possible suspension of Internet access for persistent infringers" showed that government is "sending a clear message: when it comes to piracy and infringement, 'digital is not different.'"

But digital is different, David. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need to be coming up with new rules, would you?

"Partnership and innovation by businesses can help consumers understand the problems illegal downloads cause creators and performers, giving them the knowledge and confidence they need to act within the law," said Lammy. "If we provide the right combination of enforcement, education and forward-looking policy we can build a culture that provides consumers with legitimate access to the content they want."

Consumers need confidence to act within the law? Did you read your speech back before you delivered it, David? And if you did, when you got to that point, did you have a picture of what these consumers - too anxious to operate within the law - firmly in your mind? Hovering around the entrance to the iTunes store afeared of what might happen?

You really believe there is a significant number of people who are using bittorrent because they're not confident about the licensed option?

Lammy also commented on the complexity surrounding licensing and rights clearance for digital services, insisting that it needs to change.

"The conclusion is obvious - clear and simple systems for rights clearance and permission will benefit everyone," he said.

Well, that's good - although that obvious conclusion seems to have dropped off the bit of paperwork where the Treasury shouts and proposes its throwing weight around.

Government buries three strikes

The music industry's dream of people being banished from the internet if they're caught downloading music without the correct licences is fading fast. David Lammy, Intellectual Property Minister, has told The Times it ain't gonna happen:

Mr Lammy, who has begun a big consultation entitled Developing a Copyright Agenda for the 21st Century, said that there was a big difference between organised counterfeiting gangs and “younger people not quite buying into the system”. He said: “We can't have a system where we're talking about arresting teenagers in their bedrooms. People can rent a room in an hotel and leave with a bar of soap - there's a big difference between leaving with a bar of soap and leaving with the television.”

He said he hoped the memorandum of understanding would mean that the Government did not have to apply “the heavy hand of legislation”.

Music industry figures said they were disappointed by Mr Lammy's comments. One senior figure said: “The relative cost of stealing a bar of soap from an hotel might be small, but if it came to seven million people nicking the soap each year, which is what we have in the music industry, I'm sure that hotel chain would do something about it.”

Actually, the soap metaphor doesn't work - the cost of that small basket of toiletries is factored in to the cost of the room. And once you've opened the bar of soap, it's not like you can leave it to be used by the next person along. I think Lammy and the unnamed senior figure are thinking of towels, aren't they?

Interesting that the "senior figure" isn't confident enough to put his name to his thoughts.