Changes Induced by Open-Ended Fair Use Clause: Korean Experiences
[Heesob Nam] South Korea has a civil law tradition based on the modern European civil law systems. The civil law tradition was one of the obstacles when civil societies and lawmakers tried to introduce flexible and open-ended fair use exceptions into the Korean Copyright Act (“KCA”) in 2005 and 2009. According to opposers, the fair use doctrine, developed under the rules of equity in common law countries such as the U.S., did not fit with the Korean civil law system. Click here for more.
The RCEP and Trans-Pacific Intellectual Property Norms
[Peter Yu] Abstract: … This article examines the RCEP, with a focus on the intellectual property norms that the partnership agreement seeks to develop. The first half of the article focuses on the RCEP as a mega-regional agreement. It begins by briefly discussing the partnership’s historical origins. It then explores three possible scenarios in which the Agreement will help shape trade and intellectual property norms in the Asia-Pacific region. Specifically, the article examines the scenarios in which the Agreement will function as a rival pact, a building block, or an alternative path. The second half of this article turns to a more specific focus on intellectual property norms that are being established through the RCEP negotiations. Click here for more.
Open Access Policy In Practice: A Perspective from the Wellcome Trust
[Timothy Vollmer] It’s Open Access Week 2016. Open Access Week is an annual week-long event that highlights the importance of sharing scientific and scholarly research and data. Its goal is to educate people on the benefits of open publishing, advocate for changes to policy and practice, and build a community to collaborate on these issues. This year’s theme is open in action. Today we are exploring open access policy within philanthropy by interviewing Robert Kiley from the Wellcome Trust. From brokering the Bermuda Principles for immediate sharing of DNA sequence data in 1996 to being the first funder to mandate open access to our funded publication in 2005, Wellcome has been at the forefront of open research for over two decades. Click here for more.
Fair Use As A Tool For Reining In Foreign Judges?
[Jonathan Band] … A common argument against fair use is that its flexibility produces too much uncertainty and encourages judges to run amok. Yet a panel I participated in on “Fair Use and Other Exceptions” at the Kernochan Center’s conference last week, “Trading in IP: Copyright Treaties and International Trade Agreements,” stood the uncertainty argument on its head. Click here for more.
USPTO Hosts Unbalanced Global Intellectual Property Academy Copyright Seminar
[Krista Cox] Several weeks ago, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosted a copyright seminar at its Global Intellectual Property Academy for two dozen intellectual property officials primarily from countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. While the first several days involved an “overview” of copyright and mostly time with United States government officials, September 22 was labeled “Industry Day.” The speaker list revealed a very heavy focus on rightholders, in several cases the panels did not have any voices advocating for the importance of consumers and the role of limitations and exceptions in copyright law. Click here for more.
Content Delivery Networks Aren’t Notorious Markets
[Ryan Hagemann] Yesterday, the Niskanen Center submitted comments to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in a request for information intended to identify “notorious markets” on the Internet. … a number of commentators argue that content delivery networks (CDN) should play a larger role in policing online content. The Niskanen Center disagrees. Under 17 U.S. Code § 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a “notice-and-takedown” order to “remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing,” requires that the copyrighted material in question resides on a system or network that is “controlled by or operated by or for” a website operator. CDNs do not possess these technical capabilities. As a result, we argue that intermediary liability protections afforded to other organizations operating on the “backbone” of the Internet, ought to apply equally to CDNs. We emphasize that CDNs are not web hosting services, and therefore cannot perform takedown operations. Click here for more on the Niskanen Center site.
