The ability to browse the Internet without fear of infringing copyright is a fundamental Internet principle. It would be absurd if interpretation of the law should clash so fundamentally with how millions of people use the internet every day.” Strong words. But Jorn Lyseggen is a strong believer that the ruling handed down by the UK Court of Appeal in the case of the Newspaper Licensing Agency (NLA) v. Meltwater & the PRCA in July could bring about a situation where ordinary internet users routinely infringe copyright.

 

In January 2010, the Newspaper Licensing Agency introduced fees for online media monitoring services and news aggregator services, akin to the copyright fees news aggregators were previously paying for access to print news. Lyseggen is CEO of Meltwater, which provides business solutions based on media monitoring (as well as other technologies), and which objected to these new fees.

 

The resulting debate over online copyright led to a court case between the NLA and Meltwater, in conjunction with the PRCA, which recently emerged from the UK Court of Appeal. But Meltwater and the PRCA were unhappy with the verdict, which maintained that copyright exists in the process of looking at a web page on a computer.

 

It is this decision that led Lyseggen to suggest that “millions of people” could accidentally break the law under the new ruling. Intellectual property and media solicitor Steve Kuncewicz disagrees with this interpretation. “That’s the widest possible perspective on the decision. This particular ruling is propping up rightsholders – effectively, it’s an exercise in giving the newspaper industry one last grasp at a revenue stream.”

 

Copyright and IP laws in the UK have recently been reviewed by the Government, with the Hargreaves Review recommending several legislative steps to open up copyright laws and encourage developing businesses. Kuncewicz believes that this particular decision, although only explicitly concerning the media industry, will steer copyright principles in the future across other areas.

 

However, there is a general feeling that legislation is unable to keep up with the development of technology – hence copyright law’s belatedness in catching up with online media. And Stephen Waddington, MD of Speed Communications, agrees with Meltwater and the PRCA that the COA’s judgement isn’t helpful.

 

“This basically sets us back by 25 years, as now anyone involved in the supply chain of web content is going to have to pay a license fee,” says Waddington. “The NLA have said all along that if you’re in that chain, a charge should be involved. But the internet is way ahead of the law in this case, and Meltwater and the PRCA deserve huge recognition for taking the case this far and attempting to straighten out what agencies and monitoring organisations can do.”

 

The case is still active in the courts – Meltwater and the PRCA are headed to the UK Supreme Court to appeal further the decision over temporary copies, and a Copyright Tribunal will be heard this month over the terms of the licensing. Copyright expert Emily Goodhand thinks the Copyright Tribunal is more promising: “The tribunal may well find that the contract between Meltwater and the NLA – which currently requires both the agency and the end-user to pay a license fee – is unfair. But the COA’s ruling isn’t particularly surprising – I think they’ll be throwing their money away with another appeal.”