<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Google-Alert on Philip Sheldrake</title><link>https://philipsheldrake.com/tags/google-alert/</link><description>Recent content in Google-Alert on Philip Sheldrake</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-gb</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://philipsheldrake.com/tags/google-alert/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>UK businesses will have to pay a UK media license – Copyright Tribunal implications</title><link>https://philipsheldrake.com/2012/02/uk-businesses-will-have-to-pay-a-uk-media-license-copyright-tribunal-implications/</link><pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://philipsheldrake.com/2012/02/uk-businesses-will-have-to-pay-a-uk-media-license-copyright-tribunal-implications/</guid><description>&lt;p>Yes, you read the title to this post right. Are you in business? In the UK? Online or use email? Then you apparently owe the Newspaper Licensing Agency some money.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>I first expressed my interest in an increasingly aggressive Newspaper Licensing Agency in a &lt;a href="../2007/10/nla-agency-or-anachronism/">2007 blog post&lt;/a>
suggesting a more appropriate title for the body – Newspaper Licensing Anachronism. Please note that I have nothing against the monetization of copyright content (hey I&amp;rsquo;m an author!), I just think the way the NLA conducts its business is all rather 20th Century. And this week, we’ve had a &lt;a href="http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ct11409-140212.pdf" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Copyright Tribunal Interim Decision&lt;/a>
. [The square brackets below reference this decision.]&lt;/p>
&lt;p>The NLA’s relevance in the 21st Century has been tested, as far as the law is open to interpretation, by the innovative media monitoring company, &lt;a href="http://www.meltwater.com/" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Meltwater&lt;/a>
. Actually, the description the Copyright Tribunal uses to describe Meltwater, or rather Meltwater’s witness, is “unnecessarily combative” [35]. Well, talking of combat, the latest battle in this war concluded yesterday.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>&lt;img alt="JP Glittenberg" loading="lazy" src="https://philipsheldrake.com/images/glittenberg.jpg" title="JP Glittenberg">The result is a mixed affair, with neither the NLA or Meltwater coming out on top. I’ve just recorded an interesting conversation with Meltwater’s JP Glittenberg about this week’s decision&amp;hellip; do take a listen, particularly if you work in media, PR or copyright.&lt;/p>
&lt;p>[audio:https://philipsheldrake.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Meltwater-interview-15Feb2012.mp3|titles=Meltwater interview 15th Feb 2012]&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Now the Tribunal is quite restricted: by law; by precedent; by previous adjudgements in this ongoing case; by its own terms of reference. Generally, on reading the entire 60-page decision, I find the Tribunal to be most diligent, but given my background, I get a bit uptight every time I read something that indicates a lack of technical understanding of the Internet and the World Wide Web (yes, they are different things!)&lt;/p>
&lt;p>Despite some stumbles however, they get somewhere interesting in the end. In fact, they end up showing up UK copyright law for the shambles it is.&lt;/p></description></item></channel></rss>