Copyright Exceptions Gaining Ground Around The World -- But Not For The Blind
from the exception-to-exceptions dept
There finally seems to be a growing recognition in many countries that copyright is not fit for the digital age. In the US, the Copyright Registrar has spoken on this; in the UK, the Hargreaves Review delineated many problems; and more recently, Australia, too, is starting to address the question. As part of the process of implementing Hargreaves' recommendations, the UK government is carrying out a consultation on whether the UK should adopt the full list of copyright exceptions that are laid out in the EU Copyright Directive, which provides the overarching framework for copyright in Europe. It has now published some questionnaires seeking input in this area:
Each of the documents below relates to a separate exception, and contains a series of questions. We would welcome answers to the questions we have posed and any specific drafting suggestions.
The exception for private copying is straightforward:
The first drafts we are publishing for review are the exceptions for private copying, parody, quotation and public administration. Drafts for the other exceptions will be released as soon as they are ready.will allow an individual to copy content they own, and which they acquired lawfully, to another medium or device for their
own personal use.
Regrettably, it does not allow the circumvention of DRM:
the making of the further copy does not involve the circumvention of effective technological measures applied to the copy from which it is made.
That really guts the new exception, since publishers will simply add DRM to prevent copies being made. On the plus side, the proposed exception does explicitly state that contracts seeking to restrict the right to this exception will be unenforceable. That's also true of the proposed exceptions for caricature, parody or pastiche, and for quotation.
Although welcome, the UK's proposed copyright exceptions are hardly earth-shattering. Moreover, they don't change the fundamental approach to copyright in the UK. Australia's latest proposals for updating copyright, published recently as an extremely thorough and clearly-written 388-page discussion paper are considerably bolder, because they recommend shifting from the current fair dealing approach to fair use. Where the former consists of a limited set of defenses against alleged copyright infringement, fair use lists the general factors to be considered in determining whether the use is a fair or not.
Australia's proposed list of fairness factors are as follows:
(a) the purpose and character of the use;
These are closely modelled on those applied in the US:
(b) the nature of the copyright material used;
(c) in a case where part only of the copyright material is used -- the amount and substantiality of the part used, considered in relation to the whole of the copyright material; and
(d) the effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyright material.
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
However, it's worth emphasizing that this is only a recommendation in a discussion paper (with comments open until 31 July.) Indeed, an alternative option is also presented, whereby the current fair dealing exceptions in Australian law would be extended to include a wide range of new ones, including for 'non-consumptive' use (temporary copies on the Internet, for example); private and domestic purposes; quotation; education; and libraries and archives.
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Those are close to the more cautious approach being adopted in the UK (the Hargreaves Review noted the virtues of fair use, but claimed that there were "significant difficulties" in moving to it because of EU law.) But what's interesting is that both the UK and Australia, with its two alternative proposals, recognize that exceptions offer an effective way to update the copyright system. That contrasts with the obdurate position of the copyright maximalists, who claim that granting any copyright exception for the blind, no matter how limited, would somehow cause the whole system to collapse. That's simply absurd, as the current moves by both the UK and Australia to widen greatly the scope of copyright exceptions clearly demonstrate.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, blind, copyright, exceptions, fair use, uk, wipo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fair Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mind you, the UK are a gutless bunch that always do what the US tells them over (not)copying. add in the bit where they are falling over themselves to please the BPI as well and you've got a recipe for disaster, as usual!!
the UK's proposed copyright exceptions are hardly earth-shattering. Moreover, they don't change the fundamental approach to copyright in the UK.
that's because they haven't got the balls, just like the US, to stand up for the people, you know, the ones that actually make or break a business. the fundamental approach to copyright is you buy it, you use it, you want a different format, you re-buy it, you fuck it up, you re-buy it! but if you want to make your own copy and can do so without bypassing or breaking the inbuilt protection, you're very welcome! it takes the piss on top of your money then rubs your face in it!! and the labels and studios wonder why people act how they do and do what they do when they're treated like this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually the UK have not copied the US in that. They actually started the whole anti-circumvention thing some years before the DMCA and the EU directives.
However there is a cimbersome workaround as follows.
Permitted acts
Whilst it may be legitimate for right holders to use these tools to prevent copyright infringement, they can also prevent permitted activities that fall under copyright exceptions.
The exceptions for use of DRM protected works are narrow, but if you consider your use falls under one of the exceptions you may request a workaround to the protection measure from the right holder.
Under UK copyright law, if the right holder does not provide an effective workaround, you may issue a �notice of complaint� to the Secretary of State. If your complaint is upheld the Secretary of State may issue directions on how to ensure that you are able to make use of the work in the way permitted by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Iirc when the Hargreaves review looked into this they found out that there was no record of anyone ever using the complaints procedure. I'm not sure if this means that no one wants to circumvent DRM to do something legal, or that no one cares about circumvention of DRM being illegal.
I'm also not aware of any cases being brought against someone for circumventing DRM (merely for producing/selling stuff to help with it) - and the law itself is a bit ambiguous as to what it actually covers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I suspect the truth is that no one cares enough either way to bother to go through the hoops necessary to use this procedure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With that said nothing stops you from trying as long as you know that most probably it will fail to sway opinions on that side over there.
Better to count on stealth as always.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uploading to file hosts to "share" with the world NEVER fair use.
Regrettably, it does not allow the circumvention of DRM:"
Looks to me like Europe is aligning with US law.
"That contrasts with the obdurate position of the copyright maximalists, who claim that granting any copyright exception for the blind, no matter how limited, would somehow cause the whole system to collapse." -- One must be obdurate when in the right: anything less is actually a failing. From there minion trots out an egregious "for the blind" ploy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uploading to file hosts to "share" with the world NEVER fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
auction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]