The UK is awaiting the release of a report by the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, a task force charged with suggesting changes to the country's intellectual property laws. The formation of the commission has inspired a flurry of private books and reports on IP designed to influence debate on the subject. While many of these are exactly as interesting as you'd expect, a new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research offers a fascinating look at the reasons behind intellectual property rights and suggests a new way forward for Britain: thinking about knowledge as a public resource first, and a private asset second. Is this idealistic, anti-business pinko blue-skying? The group says no.

The two functions of knowledge

The report, which was funded by the BBC, the British Library, and the UK Film Council, is an attempt to get beyond the rhetoric of IP maximalists who always want more protection and longer copyright terms and free culture radicals who want to "share information with impunity." Recognizing the legitimate private rights that must be granted to business in order to encourage investment and creative production, the authors of the report also make a strong case for "creating as strong a political voice for public domain as currently exists for other interests." Only when consumers (and the businesses that rely on public domain work) have a real seat at the table can the concerns of each group be properly balanced.

The report opens with an observation: knowledge can play two very different roles in society. It can be a commodity that is bought, sold, and protected by copyright, but it can also serve as "social glue" that gives a society a sense of cohesion. "It is through the sharing of information that we are able to develop our intellectual and creative talents, discover new artists, create new businesses, forge alliances between academic and commercial institutions, and learn from one another," says the report, and argues that both uses—not just the business case for copyrights—need to be considered by the government.

Four models

The study details four models which balance these competing interests in different ways. First, there's the American model, where knowledge is understood solely as an asset. Some fair use, parody, and public domain rights are recognized, but consumer rights are restricted, copyright terms are extended, and DRM trumps fair use. This is because knowledge is viewed as a form of property, not a social good. As the study notes, there is a danger in this approach: "Where IPRs [intellectual property rights] are understood as comparable to conventional property rights, public domain could potentially disappear altogether, just as the enclosure movement eradicated common land all over the UK in the late 18th century."

The second model currently describes the UK, where knowledge is an asset first and a public resource second. This means that producers are generally protected first, and while more consumer rights may be upheld, the relationship between DRM and fair use is not resolved, and copyright terms may be continuously extended.

The third model is that of a society where knowledge is first seen as a public resource and only secondarily as an asset. Comparing this to the "open access" movement in academic publishing, the authors note that such an approach is not anti-business. Under this model, public interest is the basis for IP policy, copyright terms are not extended, and fair use trumps DRM.

Finally, the fourth model is "cyber-socialism," where knowledge is seen only as a public resource and copyright is not allowed. The profits of creativity are returned to the public and a "new ethic of playfulness and voluntarism" is the norm. The authors see these ideals at work in open source projects like Linux and Wikipedia, but point out that "it is not clear how such a model could be used to fit in investment-heavy models of innovation and creativity, such as the development of drugs or films."

Recommendations

When it comes to issuing recommendations, the report is clear: the UK should move gradually from the second model to the third. The obvious objection that arises is that such a model is "anti-business" and does not reward producers for their investments of time and money. The authors of the report shrewdly point out, though, that "the goal of a policy framework that suits business in general is illusory." Business is not a monolith; while certain approaches to intellectual property might be better for certain types of businesses, companies can thrive even under the fourth model (think of open source firms like Red Hat). Furthermore, the authors believe that making knowledge a social good first will actually foster increased innovation and therefore more money for UK businesses.

In defense of their position that the public interest has no strong advocate at the bargaining table, the report points out that the Patent Office's official mission is to "stimulate innovation and enhance the international competitiveness of British industry and commerce," not to ensure that British citizens have appropriate access to knowledge. Were the government to transition to the third model, that would have to change.

The government itself is less keen on any sort of radical change to the current system, but has shown a willingness to consider ideas found in the report. But the government will give much more consideration to whatever recommendations are made by the Gowers Review.

Ripping a CD legally

While some of the larger structural changes desired by the IPPR might not end up as Gowers Review recommendations, one of their specific proposals stands a good chance of becoming law in the near future. Britain has a bizarre copyright law that prevents consumers from legally ripping music from CD to their portable music players, which criminalizes the activities of half the people in the country, according the the Guardian.

Ian Kearns, the deputy director of the IPPR, told the paper, "When it comes to protecting the interests of copyright holders, the emphasis the music industry has put on tackling illegal distribution and not prosecuting for personal copying is right. But it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government."

The IPPR report calls for the removal of the restriction on CD ripping. With most people doing it anyway, you can bet such an item would be a popular feature of the Gowers Review. We'll know within weeks whether it made the cut.