What If We Could Reimagine Copyright?
[Rebecca Giblin and Kimberlee Weatherall, eds.] What if we could start with a blank slate, and write ourselves a brand new copyright system? What if we could design a law, from scratch, unconstrained by existing treaty obligations, business models and questions of political feasibility? Would we opt for radical overhaul, or would we keep our current fundamentals? Which parts of the system would we jettison? Which would we keep? In short, what might a copyright system designed to further the public interest in the current legal and sociological environment actually look like? Taking this thought experiment as their starting point, the leading international thinkers represented in this collection reconsider copyright’s fundamental questions: the subject matter that should be protected, the ideal scope and duration of those rights, and how it should be enforced. Click here for more.
It’s Copyright Week: Join Us in the Fight For A Better Copyright Law
[Kerry Sheehan] We’re taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of the law, and addressing what’s at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation. Click here for more.
Don’t Go Back on the Deal – IFLA, EIFL and EBLIDA call on EU Member States to Deliver on Marrakesh Treaty Ratification
[Joint Statement] On Monday 16th and Tuesday 17th January, representatives of European governments will discuss draft legislation to implement the Marrakesh Treaty in the European Union (EU). As IFLA and partner organisations have underlined, this is an opportunity to make a real difference to the lives of people with print disabilities – who cannot pick up and read a book in the same way as everyone else – both in Europe and beyond. We are, however, aware of efforts to undermine the impact of Marrakesh. This will happen if national governments can oblige libraries and others to pay fees to publishers for making use of their Marrakesh rights, or if they are subject to additional, unnecessary, registration or record-keeping requirements. Both IFLA and EIFL have highlighted the risks of such moves. Click here for more.
Panels Present Importance Of Fair Use In South Africa’s Draft Copyright Amendment
[Linda Daniels] “Fair use” was at the heart of discussions between intellectual property stakeholders at a recent workshop called to discuss the revised draft copyright amendment bill of South Africa… According to one South African academic at the meeting, the current draft bill does not contain a US-style fair use right because – although it applies a similar flexible balancing test through a general clause – it is not open to any potential purpose. This may inhibit the clause from being applied to some purposes not included in the bill, for example to the millions of copies made each day by commercial internet search engines. Such copies are not for “research,” “education” or other specific purposes protected in the existing bill. Click here for more.
Super Cassettes v. Myspace (Redux)
[Anubha Sinha] The latest judgment in the matter of Super Cassettes v. Myspace is a landmark and progressive ruling, which strengthens the safe harbor immunity enjoyed by Internet intermediaries in India. It interprets the provisions of the IT Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 to restore safe harbor immunity to intermediaries even in the case of copyright claims. It also relieves Myspace from pre-screening user-uploaded content, endeavouring to strike a balance between free speech and censorship. CIS was one of the intervenors in the case, and has been duly acknowledged in the judgment. Click here for more.
USTR Requests Comments for the 2017 Special 301 Report
[Mike Palmedo] The U.S. Trade Representative has requested comments for the 2017 Special 301 Report, in which it lists countries that it alleges “deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.” The content is based on written comments (mostly those submitted IP owners and business associations), testimony at a hearing, and on consultations with other governmental departments. Click here for more.