The intellectual property (IP) laws in Britain are knackered. They simply aren’t fit for purpose and the danger is that if current legislation remains unchecked it will throttle the creative industries in Britain.

Professor Ian Hargreaves delivered his report this week on the UK’s IP framework. You can download the full report here (PDF).

Hargreaves, who holds the chair of Digital Economy at Cardiff University and who himself has an impressive track record in the creative industries, was asked by Prime Minister David Cameron to set up an independent review in November 2010.

“Damage is being done to the economy by laws that are too restrictive. Copyright law is incredibly confusing,” said Hargreaves.

The [current copyright] law is an ass
Speaking yesterday to the Media Show on Radio 4 Hargreaves said that confusion is leading to a lack of investment and innovation in Britain. He questioned whether an entrepreneur would have dared start Google in this country because of the current legislation.

That it’s still illegal in Britain to download CDs to you PC as you’d be making a copy tells you everything that you need to know about the state of our copyright laws.

I’ve also most certainly broken the law by including a photo of the cover of the report in this blog post.

Parody where an original piece is used as the basis of comedy is also illegal and is the reason Newport State of Mind, based upon Empire State of Mind, a song by the American rapper Jay-Z, had lawyers seeking recompense. Similar parodies of the same original song did not attract attention in the US.

The ongoing right-to-link case between the NLA and Meltwater / PRCA is another example. Here the NLA argues that the commercial distribution of links should attract recompense for the original publisher. The appeal is set to be heard in the High Court in June.

IP review
Hargreaves said that changes to Intellectual Property systems could add up to £7.9 billion to Britain’s economy, adding 0.6 per cent to annual GDP and cut the cost of doing business with IP-related business by £750m within a decade.

Impressive headline numbers that have got the creative industries salivating across the blogosphere and traditional media . But here, are arguably the more important, recommendations.

• create a digital market place where licences in copyright content can be readily bought and sold
• permit access to orphan works, where the owner cannot be traced
• update what it is lawful to copy
• IP policy should be more closely based on economic evidence and pay more attention to the impact on non-rights holders and consumers;
• changes to the Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) powers to enable it adapt to future change

“In recent years, the UK has failed to make the changes needed to modernise copyright law, for which we will pay an increasing economic price as we make our way into the third decade of the commercial internet. My recommendations set out how the IP framework can promote innovation and economic growth in the UK economy,” said Hargreaves.

“The recommendations of the review are designed to enhance the economic potential of the UK’s creative industries and to ensure that the emergence of high technology businesses, especially smaller businesses, in other sectors is not impeded by our IP laws.”

The Government’s response to the review is expected next month.  Comments so far, according the Hargreaves’ blog, are positive and encouraging.

Update: PRCA calls for broader action
On 24 May the PRCA called on the Government to go further than the proposals outlined in the Hargreaves report, and in particular, to extend the copyright exemptions to include rendering on screen. Without this exemption the act of browsing content made freely available on the Internet will infringe copyright if it is read without a rights-holder licence.

Richard Ellis, Communications Director,PRCA, said “We are operating a parchment system in a digital era. Technological innovation will continue to outpace legislation and the prescriptive nature of the courts will result in legislation having unintended consequences. We need an IP system that is flexible, fast and cost effective.”