It has been suggested that government plans to change the law so that future reforms to the copyright framework can be made through regulations rather than primary legislation could cause problems for businesses, as the proposed changes would make it easier for the government to change the law in relation to copyright.
Earlier this week, in the House of Commons, MPs debated the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill which includes proposals to change the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), so that the government can added or remove exceptions to copyright; or add or remove exceptions to rights in performances through “statutory instruments” containing new regulations.
During the discussions, Business Secretary Vince Cable offered his “assurances” that future changes to the law in these areas would be subject to “proper parliamentary scrutiny” and that, in practice, the “order-making” powers would be used to “maintain the level of criminal penalties” for infringement.
However, it has been reported that Vince Cable was unable to offer John Whittingdale MP, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee in the Commons, assurances that the proposed reforms to copyright exceptions currently under consideration would be introduced through primary legislation.
John Whittingdale asked Vince Cable for assurances that changes would not be introduced through “statutory instrument, but in proper, primary legislation” instead; after saying that representatives from the creative industries had expressed “real concern” about plans to further liberalise the use of copyrighted material.
The Business Secretary said that he could give no such assurances currently because he did not know the “exact legal position” as things stand; although he did confirm that three aspects of copyright reform that have been proposed would require “primary legislation” in order to be introduced.
The three reforms include the introduction of a scheme to allow extended collective licensing, a new law to allow the use of orphan works, and a “back-stop power” that would force collecting societies to observe a statutory code of conduct if they failed to introduce or adhere to a suitable voluntary code.