China Decides Photocopiers Are Evil; At Least If They're In Tibet

from the the-analog-hole-in-the-great-firewall dept

It's widely known that China tries to widely censor political dissent online, but modern technology makes it possible to communicate widely not just on the internet. And, so, it appears that China is also looking to plug the "analog hole" in its Great Firewall -- at least in Tibet. The gov't is so concerned about photocopier machines, that printing and copy shops in Tibet will be required to take down detailed identifying information from everyone who uses the shops.

The authorities in Tibet apparently see printing and photocopying shops as potential channels through which unrest can spread. One Chinese print shop operator in Lhasa, who is of the majority Han ethnicity rather than Tibetan, said that her husband had been summoned to a meeting last week on the new requirements.

"You know sometimes people print documents in the Tibetan language, which we don't understand," said the woman, who gave her last name as Wu. "These might be illegal pamphlets."

While some suggest that China's censorship efforts are working well, when you get down to the level of trying to prevent people from making photocopies, it makes you wonder just how desperate the government is getting in trying to prevent any kind of speech it doesn't want... and reinforces just how impossible a task it is to censor people in this manner.

Filed Under: china, photocopiers, tibet

Copyright Holders Shutting Down University Copy Shops; Libraries Need To Worry About Photocopier Infringement

from the librarians-beware dept

It looks like copyright holders, in their non-stop effort to make themselves look even more evil, are now aggressively going after university copy shops. Up in Canada, Access Copyright hasn't just won a legal dispute against a Toronto copy shop, but has gleefully seized the photocopiers from the shop. Then, not all that far away in Eastern Michigan, a court found a copy shop to be directly liable for copies made by students. As the post at the Exclusive Rights blog explains, you would expect the copy shop to be liable for secondary infringement, rather than directly liable... but not in this case. And that's problematic for a variety of reasons. Even the publishers in question didn't seem to think they had a chance on direct liability, and only mentioned it in one sentence, while most of the complaint focused on secondary liability. So why is this a problem?

The reason this matters is that to find someone to be liable under secondary infringement (contributory liability), a plaintiff must show that the defendant had knowledge or reason to have knowledge of the direct infringement. This is one of the two mechanisms, along with fair use, that shields libraries from liability if they keep a copy machine by their shelves. If an entity can be directly liable for providing and maintaining a copy machine, and taking payment for copies made on the machine, then libraries have lost a not insignificant shield.

So, watch out librarians. You may have just acquired a bunch of liability. Look out for copyright holders stopping by to seize your photocopiers. Update: The author of that original post, Shourin Sen, has added an update, to take into account questions some people raised concerning 17 USC 118(f) which provides a special exemption for libraries -- but notes that those safe harbors could be under attack as well.

Filed Under: canada, copy shops, copyright, liability, libraries, photocopiers
Companies: access copyright