Copyright Issues and the Teachers’ Dilemma in Asia Pacific
[Robert Jeyakumar] … The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Asia-Pacific Regional Seminar was held in Singapore on the 28th to 30th April 2019. I took part in the event as a member of the EI delegation to express our teacher concerns on copyright issues. Among the objectives of this seminar was to gather views from teacher unions on copyright exceptions for education. Click here for more.
New Copyright Law Will Benefit South Africans with Disabilities
[Denise Nicholson] South Africa’s current copyright law was enacted 41 years ago. The Copyright Act No. 98 of 1978 had no provisions for people with disabilities – and that hasn’t changed in more than four decades. This means that every time a person who is blind, deaf, partially-sighted, dyslexic, or paralysed needs to access any information, the content has to be converted into an accessible format before they can read and understand it… Copyright permission has to be obtained before the works can be made accessible via Braille or other accessible formats. Rights-holders do not always respond timeously or at all, which means the students have to wait for their study material in accessible format. Sometimes it doesn’t come at all. They also have to pay high copyright fees for the conversions, which they do not always have in view of their limited budgets or resources. Click here for more.
See also: Linda Daniels. Copyright bill will make cost of studying cheaper. Link.
Medicine for All: The Case for a Public Option in the Pharmaceutical Industry
[Dana Brown] Executive Summary: … Public ownership in pharmaceutical R&D would ensure that more intellectual property related to drug development would be held by public institutions and utilized in the public interest. Right now, a small number of newer medications are responsible for the majority of pharmaceutical spending by public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Ensuring that new drug development is done in the public interest assures that not only do we get the medications that we need for the most pressing public health concerns (rather than the most profitable health issues), but also that those medications come at an accessible price. Click here for more.
Access to Information of Disabled People on the Web: A Dispute Between Accessibility and Digital Rights Management
[Wariya Lamlert and Oranuch Sawetrattanasatian] Abstract: … the regulations which are beneficial to the accessibility of disabled people are overruled by DRM. More specifically, the challenges posed by DRM include: (1) Negligence of disabled people’s rights, (2) Conflict of accessibility, and (3) Ignorance of copyright-related exceptions. This study is a cross disciplinary study probing the issue of disabled people in both legal studies, through relevant legislation, and information studies, through the topic of information access on the Web. Click here for more.
Digitisation, Copyright and the GLAM Sector: Constructing a Fit-For-Purpose Safe Harbour Regime
[Samuel Coad] Abstract: Copyright law does not currently align with the legitimate activities of galleries, libraries, archives and museums (GLAMs). The GLAM sector plays a central role in collecting and promoting access to cultural works. Increasingly, GLAM institutions are employing innovative digital technologies to expand access to culture and foster greater levels of cultural participation. Despite the utility underlying digitisation, copyright limits the use of digital technologies within the GLAM sphere. Click here for more.
University Patenting: Is Private Law Serving Public Values?
[Lisa Larrimore Ouellette and Rebecca Weires] Abstract: … What return does the public receive for the tax dollars spent on R&D, primarily at universities? Does privatizing this research through patent law in fact serve public values? From this social welfare perspective, could the Bayh–Dole framework be improved? In this symposium contribution, we seek to tackle these questions, including by identifying the key empirical questions that must be resolved to answer them. In short, we conclude the benefits of university patenting may justify the costs where licensees need exclusivity to undertake the costs of commercialization. For the substantial portion of university patenting that is not necessary for commercialization, evidence of other plausible benefits is not yet sufficient to justify the costs. Much of the data needed to investigate these plausible benefits — and related costs — rests in the hands of universities and federal grant agencies. Click here for more.
