Updates: March 25 – finally got submission published- see after March 24th entry – for IPO reason for delay and (excuse me) a sarcastic rant at their excuse.
updates: July 24th have discovered from FOI disclosure log http://www.ipo.gov.uk/foi-log160.pdf that Scibella submission was redacted,without informing me. (Hat tip to Tweeps @copyrightgirl and @filemot). I have now appended the full e-mails between Scibella & IPO about publication of my submission. Bad enough to have to struggle to get the submission published, to discover that appendix 1 (extract from BBSRC website terms and conditions) has gone missing – Grrr.. I Am going to contact IPO to confirm what they redacted and the reason. Suspect that they considered the 700 word extract was not fair dealing for purposes of review and criticism but infringed BBSRC copyright. I’ll hold my fire till I know more.
“Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing; ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name robs me of that which not enriches him, and makes me poor indeed” Othello Act 3, scene 3, 155–161
IP REVIEW response Peter Carroll (Scibella) (.pdf 203 Kb) (including Appendix 1 not published on IPO website)
Scibella wants to make transformative re-use of UK university & research council website and other material to set up a Current Research Information Service . In particular job ads for research posts past their application date which give details of People, Units, Projects. These appear to have copyright protection for 70 years!
Problem is that copyright on nearly all sites allows only fair dealing for private research any other other use requires “express written permission”. This locks information in. If you know where to look its there – a “pull” model but a “push” model for wider dissemination is not allowed. Over 100 organisations to try and get permission from.
Two solutions for Scibella:
Incorporate Scibella in USA where a fair use defence for a transformative re-use of job ads could be argued . Don’t want to do this, USA very litigatious and couldn’t afford to defend.
Could any aspects of fair use be introduced into UK? Yes, probably Gowers review recommendation 11 on transformative works. This seems to have fallen between two stools.
Not taken forward in UK as Gowers refers to changing EU directive. However, EU have IViR (Amsterdam) study that says Gowers seeking change at EU level is wrong as EU directive does not cover harmonisation of “adaptation”.
Therefore UK could introduce Gowers recommendation 11 without prior change in EU law. Gowers 11 including explicit mention of Berne 3 Step test criteria could establish UK version of fair-use, at least for transformative works, contained within a more defined framework than USA. This could avoid excessive litigation.
The problems of defining “transformative” could be outweighed by advantages to UK economy, particularly relocation of creative industries into UK to take advantage of the exception.
Extend Open Government License for re-use of public sector information coverage to include universities and research councils. EU has consulted on this twice in 2008 and 2010. 2010 consultation shows a majority of respondents in favour of extension. However, APPSI has moved from having no position in 2008 to disagreeing with extension in 2010. Reason given in 2010 is that they “have seen no evidence from a UK perspective that would suggest the Directive needs to apply to these bodies.” Not clear from this response what exactly that means – statement of fact-no evidence received – or evidence seen, evaluated and conclusion made.
BBSRC (research council) terms for use of new grants database very similiar to Open Government License so change is happening anyway.
Oh, and the reason for the delay::
“The team wanted to ensure that you are happy for this to be made public before placing it on our website. I will take it from your email that you are expecting this to be made public and will now send to our web team for publishing.”
How kind of them to think of my happiness whilst so busy themselves. After I had finished laughing I started to think a bit..
Now the default mode for submission is publication in toto unless
“If you do not want part or whole of your response or name to be made public please state this clearly in the response, explaining why you regard the information you have provided as confidential.”
(see page 9 of the call for evidence for the rest of the small print)
Re-read my submission, no nothing I could see that I had clearly stated should be regarded as confidential. Ah, but maybe the IPO is staffed with graduates skilled in deconstruction of the text. Readers of Baudrillard and Lacan. Had they spotted some unconscious tension within the text between my desire to reveal and my desire to hide. Maybe a méconnaissance of my true intentions? Re-read again, no to my eyes at least, a plain piece of anglo saxon “sweat of the brow” composition with no literary originality or merit.
Next, had I encoded Dan Brown style a message in the submission? Did the Ascii values of sentence word length spell .. I.. DO.. NOT.. WANT.. Still waiting for GCHQ to come back on this one..
So, more thinking. Maybe they wanted to save me from myself.
a) The submission is so risible that people would snigger behind my back at the gym.. no one would speak to me at the squash club.. Twitter would untweet me.. Facebook would efface me. Thank you team but I’ll take my chances. Being an internet hill-billy from the back of beyond there are no cyber-metropolitan charmed circles I am part of.
b) I had given away my business plan, sold my birthright for a mess of pottage. True, for many years I kept quiet about what I was doing until I realised no-one was going to steal my idea. Probably dozens of people have had the same idea and realised that under present copyright law it’s dead in the water. Just me then , plugging on because I’ve got 10 years of content which has turned into a tiger from which I cannot dismount. Now, I would be glad to seek collaboration because this project has become a long and lonely road.
“Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita mi ritrovai per una selva oscura ché la diritta via era smarrita” Dante Inferno Canto 1.
So copy on but just remember who’s got the data mine.
c) I might upset the powers that be- e.g. the universities & research councils from which, at the end of the day, I will have to get permission, one by one, committee by committee. Sorry team but my estimation of the probability that any of those powers will ever read my submission is close to zero.
OK let’s leave it there..sarcasm done.. at least I got it published. Still wonder what the real reason was?
Update: July 24th:
emails between scibella & IPO
email 1 – Scibella to IPO pretty please where’s my submission?
Da: pete carroll [email@example.com]
Inviato: martedì 22 marzo 2011 14.28
Oggetto: Missing submission, Carroll Peter, (Scibella.com)
I am rather concerned that my submission in response to the Call for Evidence has not appeared in the list of submissions received. It was emailed to you on 2nd march, before the 4th March deadline, and I received a response from yourselves that it had been received. See below. I can only assume, at this stage, that some mistake has been made, I quite understand that with a large number of submissions this can happen. I would be grateful if it could be added to the list as soon as possible so that it forms part of the body of evidence.
However, if there is any other reason as to why it has not been included I would appreciate as soon as possible some answer from yourselves as to why it is not appropriate for it to be included in the list of submissions on your website.
Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.
From callforevidence [firstname.lastname@example.org] sent 02/03/2011 18.04
“Thank you for your submission to the Call for Evidence for the Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. The information you have provided will be recorded and considered carefully.
As indicated in the Call for Evidence, submissions made to the Review will be published on the Review’s website http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview.htm in the near future unless you have indicated in your response you do not wish this to happen (as outlined on page 9 of the Call for Evidence.) We may refer to submissions received in the Review blog.
You can follow the progress of the Review on the blog here http://www.uk-ipo.net/blog/. We welcome your participation.
Professor Ian Hargreaves and the Review Team.
From: pete carroll [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 02 March 2011 15:58
Subject: Peter Carroll (Scibella) Response to call for evidence
Re: Hargreaves Review
Please find attached cover sheet and my response as word (.doc) files. If you have any problems in opening them please do not hesitate to contact me.
e-mail 2 Scibella to IPO, not at all pretty please – get this sorted or else.
Da: pete carroll [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Inviato: venerdì 25 marzo 2011 12.53
Cc: ‘HargreavesI@cardiff.ac.uk’; ‘email@example.com’
Oggetto: FAO: Robin Webb, Director of Innovation
Re: Hargreaves IP Review submission by Carroll, Peter (Scibella) missing from published list. No response from IPO
I know you must all be very busy but can you get someone in the IP review support team to sort this out asap. Background. Submitted 2nd march via firstname.lastname@example.org – received acceptance response 02/03/2011 18.04. When full list published 17 march not there. Waited over weekend. Monday 21st @scibella asked via twitter @ip_review_uk all published? Answer, yes. Follow up tweet same day from @scibella to @ip_review_uk, you sure etc? so where’s mine? No further response to @scibella from @ip_review_uk via twitter channels. Follow up email Tuesday Mar 22 from email@example.com to firstname.lastname@example.org. Subject Missing submission, Carroll Peter, (Scibella.com). Gist Sure it’s a mistake etc- but if not please give reason. E-mail opened at your end Tuesday, March 22, 2011 1:56:49 PM. Now Friday, no reply- zilch, not even 30 second- thanks we’re looking into it will get back first response. Bloody pissed off with this, smacks of indifference towards the small guy, the SME. If Google or BPI submission had gone missing would it have been the same silence? Don’t think so.
Ok, your IPO contact page says response within 1 working day. Let’s say 2 working days (you’re busy). So no satisfactory response by end of play on Tuesday 29th and the story becomes about IPO silence, conspiracy or cock-up, etc. Will do my best to get it out to all interested parties, press, IP blogosphere. Think about it.
Ps: submission now in pdf format on http://bit.ly/i5Biq3 you can copy from there if it helps IPO.
Strada Castagna Bassa, 3
Calosso, Piemonte, Italy
Tel: 0039 0141 853446
e-mail 3 IPO to Scibella – holding reply
Da: Information [Information@ipo.gov.uk]
Inviato: venerdì 25 marzo 2011 16.03
A: ‘pete carroll’
Cc: HargreavesI@cardiff.ac.uk; email@example.com
Oggetto: RE: Robin Webb, Director of Innovation
I have forwarded your email onto Robin Webb, who will look into your enquiry and respond in due course.
(name redacted by Pete Carroll)
Information Centre Manager
e-mail 4 IPO to Scibella – success at last, submission will be published
Da: ipreview [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Inviato: venerdì 25 marzo 2011 15.23
A: ‘pete carroll’
Oggetto: RE: Missing submission, Carroll Peter, (Scibella.com)
Thank you for your email and your input to the review. Your submission has been recorded and will be considered along with the other submissions received.
Please accept my apology for the time it has taken in replying to you and for the delay in publishing your submission. The team wanted to ensure that you are happy for this to be made public before placing it on our website.
I will take it from your email that you are expecting this to be made public and will now send to our web team for publishing. This will appear on our website by 4:30pm today.
(name redacted by Peter Carroll)
IP Review team
From: pete carroll [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: 22 March 2011 13:28
Subject: Missing submission, Carroll Peter, (Scibella.com)