UK eases copyright on scientific works, but how relaxed should copyright be?

Following the advice of a review panel chaired by Prof. Ian Hargreaves, the British government has announced a reform of copyright law in the United Kingdom. Among the recommendations of the panel was a view on intellectual property rights with regard to scientific works.

The dilemma of published research is a compelling one. On the one hand, scientific publications should be available for educational purposes and freely accessible to bring knowledge and innovation to a higher level. Especially publicly funded research should be of benefit to the general public. On the other hand, scientific authors are entitled to a fair compensation for their work and many privately funded research projects would be simply impossible if companies cannot monetize on their discoveries.

Now the British government has announced they will introduce an exemption to copyright protection that would allow researchers to mine published materials for data, for meta-analyses, without first receiving permission from the copyright holder. A similar debate in German politics has resulted in a relaxation of copyright protection as well. The Federal Parliament (Bundestag) has added an extensive education and science exception in the German copyright act. There will also be a proposal for a clause that allows a secondary exploitation right in Germany.

The limited distribution possibilities of scientific works is becoming more and more of an issue now most research is done through digital sources and international contacts maintained via the internet. Therefore, the UK government will also endorse the creation of a “digital copyright exchange,” which would simplify the way researchers buy the rights for various materials.

In a broader perspective, there are many interests at stake with regard to the reform of copyright. Prof. Hargreaves sought input from Silicon Valley and visited Harvard, where Google and other tech companies support the work of academics who criticise copyright.

However, as Robert Levine wrote in Wired this week, the conflicting interests, especially over online copyrights, have more to do with economics than ideology. “Countries should be wary of rewriting laws to suit companies like Google. Google's interest in copyright doesn't come from idealism.”

My point would be in line with Robert Levine’s article in Wired: it is a short term view to say that, as a rule, it is better for economic purposes to relax copyright protection in favour of distribution, online services and the “free flow of information”. This is because it limits the creator's source of income and, if no new content is created, there will be little left to share. The interest that copyright wants to protect is to ensure a reasonable compensation for authors and other creative minds in order to allow them to maintain a viable business. As Levine writes: “The problem is that the cost of distributing information has very little to do with the cost of creating it. ISPs and technology companies know their own products will have more value if they can offer [copyright protected] content at a lower price. […]. On the internet, the information that wants to be free always belongs to someone else.”

Sources: Wired, Robert Levine; Reuters; Times Higher Education; The Scientist

Read more on the Hargreaves report on Future of Copyright