The latest claims from the CIPR highlight its real lack of understanding of the subject of copyright and the eClips database.
This disappoints because the National Licensing Agency (NLA) has attempted to open a dialogue with the CIPR but has been thwarted by its head-in-the-sand approach.
Contrary to the CIPR's assertions, the eClips database will deliver real benefits to users of press cuttings.
The CIPR however, prefers to focus on unjustified criticisms that are unsupportable in fact.
The benefits to users include higher quality cuttings, archive, News International titles digitally for the first time and better search success.
The high level of adoption by the press cuttings industry is a strong endorsement that the benefits are real and valuable.
The publishers created the NLA as a cost effective one-stop shop for copyright licences for anyone who wants to copy newspapers without buying multiple copies.
But the CIPR appears to object to the whole idea that copyright owners are freely entitled to control copying and exploitation of their material by others.
They seem to want a complete re-think of the principle of copyright, the same law which underpins the ability of creative industries in the UK to contribute £54.8 million to the UK economy every year and employ over two million people.
UK newspaper publishers spend hundreds of millions of pounds a year creating their products.
They charge incredibly low cover prices to readers and, via the NLA and other intermediaries, also look after the needs of PRs and others who don't want to have to buy and read multiple newspapers every day.
The idea, which the CIPR seems to be claiming, that this is unreasonable or that newspapers are some kind of public property is not itself reasonable, nor is the notion that some sort of sinister big-brotherish post-publication control is operated by the most prolifically available publications in the country. Dealing with the specific claims of the CIPR:
* There is no question of the NLA phasing out paper copies. This is a substantial part of our licensing activities and it lacks credibility to suggest otherwise.
* Contrary to the CIPR's claim, cuttings delivered via eClips are distributed as email links.
* Cost - NLA charges for cuttings from eClips do not change. nCompleteness - NLA does not have the right to delete articles it dislikes.
* Confidentiality - NLA has confidentiality clauses with press cutting agencies to protect licensees and does not monitor what content users view.
* Competition - to claim that licensing press cuttings creates a monopoly on the dissemination of information appears to deliberately ignore the facts
And anyone who thinks, as CIPR does, that nothing the NLA says can be trusted, might like to find out a bit more about copyright and collecting societies on the government's own website - (www.intellectualproperty.gov.co.uk).
* Martin Stevenson is managing director of the NLA.