CERN has released The Architecture of Access to Scientific Knowledge: Just How Badly We Have Messed This Up.
Here's an excerpt from the announcement:
In this talk, Professor Lessig will review the evolution of access to scientific scholarship, and evaluate the success of this system of access against a background norm of universal access.
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |
Douglas Lichtman has self-archived "Google Book Search in the Gridlock Economy" in SSRN.
Here's an excerpt:
Michael Heller's The Gridlock Economy popularizes a concept that Heller has developed over nearly two decades of influential academic writing: the notion that, when it comes to property rights, too many rights-endowed cooks really can spoil the broth. I was asked in this conference to apply Heller's insight to the Google Book Search project, and the request at first seemed natural. Heller himself suggested that Google Book Search might be an apt poster child for the gridlock phenomenon; Google likewise can often be heard to complain, in Heller-esque tones, that the only way to build a comprehensive search engine for books is to take the books without asking. This Essay, however, questions the example and offers a refinement on Heller's theory. Gridlock, I argue, is not simply a catch-all for situations where a large number of permissions are in play. It is more narrowly a reference to situations where a large number of permissions are in play, and those permissions intertwine.
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |
The Library Copyright Alliance has released A Guide For the Perplexed Part IV: The Rejection of the Google Books Settlement.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
This guide is the latest in a series prepared by LCA legal counsel Jonathan Band to help inform the library community about this landmark legal dispute.
In the Guide Part IV, Band explains why the Court rejected the proposed class action settlement, which would have allowed Google to engage in a wide variety of activities using scanned books.
As stated in the Guide, "The court concluded that the settlement was unfair because a substantial number of class members [i.e., authors and publishers] voiced significant concerns with the settlement.… However, the validity of the objections seemed less important to the court than the fact that many class members raised them."
As for the impact of the decision on libraries, Band writes that while it is too early to say what the parties will do next, "it appears that both the challenges and the opportunities presented to libraries by the settlement when it was announced in the fall of 2008 are growing narrower and more distant."
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Transforming Scholarly Publishing through Open Access: A Bibliography |
The Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. trial date has been set for 5/16/2011.
Here's an excerpt from ruling:
At trial, the parties will need to present evidence and argument that will allow the Court to rule on the question whether Plaintiffs may proceed under Ex Parte Younp or whether the case must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the pleadings alone, the Court cannot say that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Dismissal under Rules 12(b) (1) and 12(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, would be improper.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 2393) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties are DIRECTED to file a proposed consolidated pretrial order no later than April 29, 2011. The trial is set for May 16, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.
Read more about it at "Judge Sets Trial Date in Georgia State University E-Reserves Lawsuit ."
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |
Jessica Litman, John F. Nickoll Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, has self-archived "Readers' Copyright" in SSRN.
Here's an excerpt:
This essay is part of a project intended to help reclaim copyright for readers, listeners, and viewers. A system of copyright protection makes little sense unless it is designed to encourage the use and enjoyment of the works it induces authors to create and publishers to disseminate. I argue that a clear-eyed examination of copyright's history reveals that solicitude for readers and members of the audience is, in fact, deeply encoded in copyright's DNA. Recently, readers' interests have faded in apparent importance in the copyright scheme in ways that have unbalanced the copyright system, and undermined public support for copyright law. In response to growing criticism of copyright, some of copyright law's most ardent supporters have insisted that users have no rights, should have no rights, and have never had rights in the copyright scheme. That approach, I suggest, is making the problem worse, not better. Copyright seems out of whack because it has forgotten its most important constituents. In this essay, I take a series of very small baby steps in the direction of recognizing rights and liberties within the copyright system for readers, listeners, viewers and other members of the copyright audience.
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |
In the wake of the recent Google Books Amended Settlement Agreement ruling, the orphan works problem has once again come front and center. Below are four reports and one Congressional hearing on the issue that may be worth revisiting.
Korn, Naomi. In from the Cold: An Assessment of the Scope of "Orphan Works" and Its Impact on the Delivery of Services to the Public. London: JISC, 2009.
Ricolfi, Marco et al. Final Report on Digital Preservation, Orphan Works, and Out-of-Print Works. Luxembourg: European Commission, Information Society and Media DG, Access to Information Unit, 2008.
United States Copyright Office. Report on Orphan Works. Washington, DC: United States Copyright Office, 2006.
U.S. Congress, House. Promoting the Use of Orphan Works: Balancing the Interests of Copyright Owners and Users, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee on the Judiciary, 110 Congress, 2008.
Vuopala, Anna Assessment of the Orphan Works Issue and Costs for Rights Clearance. Luxembourg: European Commission, Information Society and Media DG, Access to Information Unit, 2010.
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |
Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York has denied the Amended Settlement Agreement for the Author's Guild et al. v. Google Inc. case.
Here's an excerpt from the ruling:
Before the Court is plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for final approval of the proposed settlement of this class action on the terms set forth in the Amended Settlement Agreement (the "ASA"). The question presented is whether the ASA is fair, adequate, and reasonable. I conclude that it is not.
While the digitization of books and the creation of a universal digital library would benefit many, the ASA would simply go too far. It would permit this class action—which was brought against defendant Google Inc. ("Google") to challenge its scanning of books and display of "snippets" for on-line searching—to implement a forward-looking business arrangement that would grant Google significant rights to exploit entire books, without permission of the copyright owners. Indeed, the ASA would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case.
Accordingly, and for the reasons more fully discussed below, the motion for final approval of the ASA is denied. The accompanying motion for attorneys' fees and costs is denied, without prejudice.
Read more about it at "After Rejection, a Rocky Road for Google Settlement"; "GBS March Madness: Paths Forward for the Google Books Settlement"; "Google Books Settlement: Copyright, Congress, and Information Monopolies"; "Google Settlement Is Rejected"; "Inside Judge Chin's Opinion"; "Please Refine Your Search Terms"; and "Publishers Remain Committed to Expanding Online Access to Books and Upholding Copyright Despite Court Decision."
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography 2010 |
EDUCAUSE has released ELI2011 Podcast: How to Fix Copyright in which William Patry, Senior Copyright Counsel for Google, discusses needed copyright changes. Both digital audio and video versions of the talk are available.
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview | Reviews of Digital Scholarship Publications |
Victoria A. Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, has released the 2010 U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Annual Report on Intellectual Property Enforcement.
Read more about it at "IP Czar Report Hits on All the Lobbyist Talking Points; Warns of More Draconian Copyright Laws to Come" and "White House Will Propose New Digital Copyright Laws."
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |
Zohar Efroni has self-archived three chapters from Access-Right: The Future of Digital Copyright Law in SSRN.
This chapter scrutinizes the notion of "access to information" and attempts to translate it into a vocabulary property law can process and analyze. It turns out that very little about "access to information" as a property concept is self-explanatory.
It shall be posited that and explained why the reproduction right belongs to past chapters in copyright law's evolution; it has grown evidently unsuitable to lead the copyright system into the digital future.
This chapter provides a broad overview and analysis on anticircumvention laws in the U.S. and Europe. . . . The statutory anticircumvention texts reviewed in this chapter do not provide straightforward answers to the nexus problem, that is, the relationship between anticircumvention bans and conventional copyright infringement.
| Digital Scholarship | Digital Scholarship Publications Overview |
The New York Law School Law Review has published a special issue containing papers from the NYU Law School's October 2009 D Is for Digitize conference on the Google Books lawsuit and settlement.
Here are the papers:
In "Thanks but No Thanks Emerald," Kristin Eschenfelder reproduces and discusses a letter that she received from the Emerald Group Publishing Limited. In short, this letter says that Emerald is expanding it's use of Attributor to detect copyright violations from "cyberlockers" to "the full breadth of the internet," and it requests the URLs for her personal, institutional, and corporate websites so that they can be excluded from Attributor searches and its "legally-binding takedown notices."
Will this expanded use of Attributor affect self-archiving of articles from Emerald journals?
Emerald's publication policies are detailed in its Authors' Charter and its Review Copyright Assignment Form. Emerald requires that authors assign their article copyrights to Emerald as a condition of publication.
The Authors' Charter states that (I have added italics in certain places in the below quotes):
Authors are not required to seek Emerald's permission to re-use their own work. As an author with Emerald you can use your paper in part or in full, including figures and tables if you want to do so in a book, in another article written for us or another publisher, on your website, or any other use, without asking us first.
It further states that:
It does NOT, in any way, restrict your right or academic freedom to contribute to the wider distribution and readership of your work. This includes the right to: . . . .
2. Reproduce your own version of your article, including peer review/editorial changes, in another journal, as content in a book of which you are the author, in a thesis, dissertation or in any other record of study, in print or electronic format as required by your university or for your own career development.
3. Deposit an electronic copy of your own final version of your article, pre- or post-print, on your own or institutional website. The electronic copy cannot be deposited at the stage of acceptance by the Editor.
Authors are requested to cite the original publication source of their work and link to the published version — but are NOT required to seek Emerald's permission with regard to the personal re-use of their work as described above. Emerald never charges its authors for re-use of any of their own published works. Emerald does not allow systematic archiving of works by third parties into an institutional or subject repository.
The Review Copyright Assignment Form says:
This assignment of copyright to Emerald Group Publishing Limited is done so on the understanding that permission from Emerald Group Publishing Limited is not required for me/us to reproduce, republish or distribute copies of the Work in whole or in part.
Given the above, it would appear that the author can: (1) self-archive an article on his or her personal website, (2) self-archive an article in his or her institutional repository, and (3) self-archive an article in a subject archive (the restriction is for “systematic archiving of works by third parties,” not self-archiving). Institutional repository staff or subject repository staff cannot archive articles for authors.
If this is not correct, it would be helpful to hear from Emerald what its interpretation of these documents is.
Unlike the RIAA and the MPAA, scholarly journal publishers have a limited primary customer base—academic libraries. Moreover, academic librarians are authors as well as customers, and, for some publishers, they are a significant subset of their authors. The endless serials crisis has already seriously strained relations between academic librarians and publishers. Hopefully, scholarly journal publishers will be sensible and sensitive to customer concerns in their attempts to cope with difficult digital copyright issues.
[See Emerald's reply in the comments.]
In Praise of Copying by Marcus Boon has been published by the Harvard University Press. The book is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license, and it is available as a hardcover as well as a freely available PDF file.
Here's an excerpt:
My goal in this book is to account for our fear of and fascination with copying. I argue that copying is a fundamental part of being human, that we could not be human without copying, and that we can and should celebrate this aspect of ourselves, in full awareness of our situation. Copying is not just something human—it is a part of how the universe functions and manifests. The issue of regulating copying, of setting up laws restricting or encouraging copying, is secondary to that of recognizing the omnipresence and nature of copies and copying in human societies—and beyond.
The Office of the United States Trade Representative has released the text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
After three years, and ten rounds of negotiations, the ACTA parties decided the time was right to conclude their discussions. The United States helped lay the foundation for the progress in Tokyo. It chaired an extra round of negotiations in Washington during August, supported the work of the Government of Japan to organize the final round at the Vice-Ministerial level, and worked hard to establish consensus on the outstanding issues.
Consistent with the Administration's strategy for intellectual property enforcement, the ACTA negotiations aim to establish a state-of-the-art international framework that provides a model for effectively combating global proliferation of commercial-scale counterfeiting and piracy in the 21st century. The agreement will include innovative provisions to deepen international cooperation and to promote strong enforcement practices. These will ultimately help sustain American jobs in innovative and creative industries.
The participants agreed in Tokyo to work expeditiously to resolve the small number of outstanding issues that require further examination in their own countries with a view to finalizing the text of the agreement as promptly as possible. The draft Agreement will undergo final legal review and relevant domestic processes before signature.
The ACTA participants include: Australia, Canada, the European Union (EU) represented by the European Commission and the EU Presidency (Belgium) and the EU Member States, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States of America.
Pamela Samuelson and members of the Copyright Principles Project have released The Copyright Principles Project: Directions for Reform.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
A group of leading experts on copyright law and policy released a report today that explores ideas for meaningful reforms to the U.S. copyright system. Crafted over three years by a group of legal academics, private practitioners, and corporate attorneys, the report examines several ways to improve and update the law in an era of rapid technological change.
The Copyright Principles Project: Directions for Reform (CPP) report attempts to ignite an informed debate about how to best balance the interests of copyright owners and users. The group reached consensus on a number of significant ideas, as well as guiding principles for copyright reform. The project was led by Berkeley Law distinguished professor Pamela Samuelson.
"The report intelligently informs the copyright debate, and the identification and discussion of issues is well done and important," said Marybeth Peters, the head of the U.S. Copyright Office. "The recommendations are thoughtful, and in many cases, I support them. This entire project significantly reinvigorates efforts to bring the copyright law up-to-date, either incrementally or as a major revision." . . .
One of the project's ideas would provide non-commercial uses of copyrighted works better shelter from liability, particularly as users lift parts of existing works to create new ones. The report also suggests a more efficient and technologically-driven approach to copyright registration, so that works can be freely reused if their authors agree.
Copyright law reform has been a challenging issue for stakeholders, many of whom have starkly different ideas about how to balance public and private interests. To its credit, the project team explored controversial subjects openly and with vigorous debate. In cases where the participants could not settle on a specific reform proposal, they were able to draft guiding principles for future reform efforts. . . .
One common problem the report addresses is peer-to-peer file-sharing of commercial movies and music. Although some file-sharing services have been shut down, the illegal practice has not abated. The report suggests the creation of a "safe harbor" to protect online service providers from excessive damage claims if they take reasonable, voluntary, measures to limit file-sharing—or other unlawful distributions of commercial works. Companies that comply would be shielded from liability for user infringements.
The report also suggests development of reasonable and consistent statutory guidelines for damage awards. Current law allows courts to award between $750 and $30,000 in damages per infringed work—and up to $150,000 per work if the infringement is willful. This has led to awards that seem arbitrary and capricious, inconsistent with awards in similar cases, and grossly excessive or disproportionate.
Other ideas include:
Modernize the Copyright Office: Instead of one registry for all copyrighted works, the office could certify third-party registries for different types of works, such as photos, films, and computer programs. The model is akin to the domain name registration system. Other suggestions include adopting a small claims procedure for small-scale disputes.
Reinvigorate copyright registration: Encourage copyright owners to register so that it's simple to find out who owns what. The idea is to make registration easy and worthwhile for copyright owners so that the public can have better information about protected works and their owners.
Refine exclusive rights for authors: Weigh commercial value and risk of harm to copyright markets when determining whether someone's exclusive right has been infringed; this shields non-harmful activity from the threat of highly punitive copyright claims.
Revise the common practice of automatic injunctions: Courts could consider whether a preliminary or permanent injunction is needed to prevent irreparable harm, as well as whether having access to the work is in the public’s best interest.
Limit Orphan Works liability: Enable libraries and others to preserve a part of our cultural heritage by using copyrighted materials whose owners cannot readily be found.
U.S. District Judge Orinda Evans has issued a ruling about the defendants' and plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al. case.
Here's an excerpt:
Overall, the evidence presented does not indicate that Defendants "profited directly from" or "had a direct financial interest in" the infringement alleged by Plaintiffs. There is absolutely no evidence in the record showing that Georgia State benefitted financially from the alleged infringements. At most, if the Court takes the inferential steps suggested by Plaintiffs, any benefit the infringement provides to students constitutes "just an added benefit" rather than a clear "draw" to Georgia State. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the third claim, vicarious copyright infringement and DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment as to the third claim. . . .
The record before the Court on the motions for summary judgment does not speak to the question of whether in practice the Current Policy is encouraging improper application of the fair use defense. The Court therefore DENIES both Defendants' and Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment as to the contributory infringement claim. . . .
Going forward, in order to show that Defendants are responsible for the copyright infringements alleged in this case, Plaintiffs must show that the 2009 Copyright Policy resulted in ongoing and continuous misuse of the fair use defense. To do so, Plaintiffs must put forth evidence of a sufficient number of instances of infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrights to show such ongoing and continuous misuse. Defendants will have the burden of showing that each specified instance of 2009 Copyright Policy infringement was a fair use. Both sides will be limited to the list of claimed infringements produced in response to the Court's August 11, 2010 and August 12, 2010 orders. The parties are DIRECTED to confer and determine whether further discovery is needed before resolving the remaining contributory infringement claim. Within twenty (20) days, the parties shall present a proposed scheduling order.
Read more about it at "Going Forward with Georgia State Lawsuit."
Pamela Samuelson has self-archived "The Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform" in SSRN.
Here's an excerpt:
This Article explains why certain features of U.S. law, particularly copyright law, may have contributed to Google’s willingness to undertake the GBS project in the first place and later to its motivation to settle the Authors Guild lawsuit. It then demonstrates that the proposed settlement would indeed achieve a measure of copyright reform that Congress would find difficult to accomplish. Some of this reform may be in the public interest. It also considers whether the quasi-legislative nature of the GBS settlement is merely an interesting side effect of the agreement or an additional reason in favor or against approval of this settlement.
Peter S. Menell has self-archived "In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age" in SSRN.
Here's an excerpt:
Drawing upon the historical development of copyright law and the legislative history of the Copyright Act of 1976, this article explains why Congress selected the term "distribute" in its last omnibus revision of copyright law, shows unequivocally that Congress intended to encompass broadly the 1909 Act rights to "publish" and "vend" within the right to distribute, and rejects the position that Congress required proof of "actual distribution" to prove violation of the distribution right. This critical legislative history has been notably absent from treatise accounts and briefing on the liability standard in the file sharing cases, leaving courts without a compass to navigate this statutory terrain. This article traces the origins of the key legislative terms to elucidate the scope of the distribution right in the Internet age.
The ALA Washington Office has released digital videos of the Panel Discussion on Life after the Google Book Search Settlement at ALA Annual.
Here's an excerpt from the panel announcement:
The ALA Washington Office is hosting the ALA ad hoc Google Task Forces' breakout session titled "Panel Discussion on Life after the Google Book Search Settlement (GBS)" which will explore the possible court rulings – approval, denial or permutation there in – and how libraries would be impacted.. . .
Jonathan Band, intellectual property attorney and counsel for the ALA, will lead the discussion and pose questions to an expert group of panelists. Invited panelists include a representative from Google (Johanna Shelton-confirmed), a professor from the New York University Law School (James Grimmelmann-confirmed), a representative from the U.S. Copyright Office and a librarian from a GBS participating library.
Public Knowledge has released a digital video of Cory Doctorow discussing copyright issues.
Here's an excerpt from the About Cory Doctorow:
Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction novelist, blogger and technology activist. He is the co-editor of the popular weblog Boing Boing (boingboing.net), and a contributor to The Guardian, the New York Times, Publishers Weekly, Wired, and many other newspapers, magazines and websites. He was formerly Director of European Affairs for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), a non-profit civil liberties group that defends freedom in technology law, policy, standards and treaties. He is a Visiting Senior Lecturer at Open University (UK); in 2007, he served as the Fulbright Chair at the Annenberg Center for Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California.
Judge Louis Stanton of the United States District Court Southern District of New York has granted Google and YouTube's motion for a summary judgment in Viacom v. YouTube based on "safe harbor" protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s 17 U.S.C. § 512(c).
Here's an excerpt from "YouTube Wins Summary Judgment in Viacom DMCA Lawsuit" by EFF's Kurt Opsahl:
The wealth of legislative history and precedent visible in this opinion shows just how uncontroversial the decision is. An online host is only liable if it doesn't take down specific instances of infringement it actually knows about. That's been well established, as have the principles that the host doesn't have a duty to actively monitor everything on the site, or that the online service can do more than merely store works. If the parties involved here had been a small video blogger and a local bulletin board, this case would have attracted almost no media attention, because it's not breaking any new legal ground. The amount of attention—the reason this is a big deal—is really due to the size of the companies and the numbers at stake. The only new ground that could have been broken would have been if the judge had deviated from the history of the statute and the ever-lengthening line of precedent that reaches just the same conclusion.
Read more about it at "Google Defeats Viacom's $1 Billion YouTube Suit," "How the YouTube-Viacom Ruling Will Set the Web Free," and "Judge Sides with Google in Viacom Video Suit."
Victoria A. Espinel, U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, has released the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement.
Here's an excerpt:
The U.S. Government supports the free flow of information and freedom of expression over the Internet. An open and accessible Internet is critical to our economy. At the same time, the Internet should not be used as a means to further criminal activity. The Administration encourages cooperative efforts within the business community to reduce Internet piracy. The Administration believes that it is essential for the private sector, including content owners, Internet service providers, advertising brokers, payment processors and search engines, to work collaboratively, consistent with the antitrust laws, to address activity that has a negative economic impact and undermines U.S. businesses, and to seek practical and efficient solutions to address infringement. This should be achieved through carefully crafted and balanced agreements. Specifically, the Administration encourages actions by the private sector to effectively address repeated acts of infringement, while preserving the norms of legitimate competition, free speech, fair process and the privacy of users. While the Administration encourages cooperative efforts within the business community to reduce Internet piracy, the Administration will pursue additional solutions to the problems associated with Internet piracy, including vigorously investigating and prosecuting criminal activity, where warranted.
Annemarie Bridy has self-archived "ACTA and the Specter of Graduated Response" in SSRN.
Here's an excerpt:
This short paper, prepared for a workshop on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) and the Public Interest at American University’s Washington College of Law, considers the draft Internet provisions of ACTA in the context of concerns raised in the media that the treaty will require signatories to mandate graduated response regimes (à la France’s controversial HADOPI system) for online copyright enforcement. Although the Consolidated Text of ACTA, released in late April, confirms that mandatory graduated response is off the table for the treaty’s negotiators, the treaty in its current form both accommodates and promotes the adoption of graduated response. Moreover, opponents of graduated response should be wary of the fact that public law mechanisms – be they domestic or international – are not the only means by which graduated response can effectively become the law for Internet users. The United States and Ireland provide examples of the trend toward private ordering in the project of online copyright enforcement.
The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-32, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act.
Here's an excerpt from the press release:
The Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, today announced the introduction of legislation to modernize the Copyright Act. This legislation is a key pillar in the government's commitment in the 2010 Speech from the Throne to position Canada as a leader in the global digital economy.
"Our government promised to introduce legislation that will modernize Canadian copyright law for the digital age while protecting and creating jobs, promoting innovation and attracting new investment to Canada," said Minister Clement. "This legislation will ensure that Canada's copyright laws are forward-looking and responsive in a fast-paced digital world.". . .
The popularity of Web 2.0, social media, and new technologies such as the MP3 player and digital books have changed the way Canadians create and make use of copyrighted material. This bill recognizes the many new ways in which teachers, students, artists, software companies, consumers, families, copyright owners and many others use technology. It gives creators and copyright owners the tools to protect their work and grow their business models. It provides clearer rules that will enable all Canadians to fully participate in the digital economy, now and into the future.
This legislation will bring Canada in line with international standards and promote home-grown innovation and creativity. It is a fair, balanced, and common-sense approach, respecting both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers in a modern marketplace. The Government of Canada is working to secure Canada's place in the digital economy and to promote a more prosperous and competitive Canada.
For more information, visit www.balancedcopyright.gc.ca.
Read more about it at "The Canadian Copyright Bill: Flawed But Fixable," "Canadian Library Association Gives Passing Grade to New Copyright Legislation, and "Moore's Strong Rejection of Three Strikes Model for Canada."
Daniel J. Gervais has self-archived "The Google Book Settlement and the TRIPS Agreement" in SSRN.
Here's an excerpt:
The proposed amended settlement in the Google Book case has been the focus of numerous comments and critiques. This "perspective" reviews the compatibility of the proposed settlement with the TRIPS Agreement and relevant provisions of the Berne Convention that were incorporated into TRIPS, in particular the no-formality rule, the most-favored nation (MFN) clause, national treatment obligations, and the so-called three-step test, which constrains the ability of WTO Members to provide new exceptions and limitations to copyright rights.
