- Copyright exceptions – fair use / fair dealing
Background: There are a number of exceptions to copyright that allow limited use of copyright works without the permission of the copyright holder.
(a) What are your views on the current exceptions in copyright law?
(b) Could more be done to clarify the various exceptions?
(c) Are there other areas where copyright exceptions should apply?
(d) Are the current exceptions adequate or in need of updating to reflect technological change? For example copyright law in the UK does not currently have a private “fair use” exception. Such an exception might allow individuals to copy music CDs onto their PC and MP3 player for their personal use. Should UK law include a statutory exception for “fair use”?
(e) How would you see content owners being compensated for such use?
(f) To what extent has technological change presented difficulties in use of copyrighted material in the field of education?
(g) Are there issues concerning the archiving of material covered by copyright?
Gowers Review of Intellectual PropertyAt the Enterprise Conference on 2 December 2005, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that, as part of the Pre-Budget Report 2005 package, he was asking Andrew Gowers to lead an Independent Review to examine the UK's intellectual property framework. The Open Rights Group has been formally invited to participate. We are currently drafting our submission and wish to include your thoughts and opinions. We have reproduced the Call for Evidence below and invite you to contribute - just hit 'respond' next to the paragraph you wish to comment on. Many of the questions asked by Andrew Gowers in this review are very focused, but you should feel free to comment on the issues and the wider implications rather than feel obliged to provide specific answers. If you want to talk about issues not raised by this call for evidence, please do - just leave your comments on the Introduction. |
this site was built by Open Rights Group based on a template by 
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|
March 14th, 2006 at 18:09
a) I think the current exceptions and fair use terms are adequate and should not be reduced or extended. However…
b) they do need to be clarified and provided in a non-legal form so that anyone can find out exactly what they are allowed to do, when and how.
d) The key point here I think is what should you be allowed to do with music or video that you pay for? Whilst you are technically only licensing the content from the creator, what rights do they have to restrict what you do with the content once you have bought it. I think that a specific exception should be made, for example with music CDs, that allows you to rip the CD onto your PC for playing on the PC or transfer to a music player such as an iPod, for personal individual use. It is also worth considering the restrictions on lending to friends. How much of the music you listen to today would you still be listening to if you had not been introduced to it by your friends? Whilst it does mean that if a copy is made by your friend, they won’t buy that piece of music, if they do like it, they’re probably going to go and buy more off that artist. The end result being another fan. However it is important to put a limit on this – sharing generally on the internet is not the same as sharing with a few friends or allowing them to listen to your music on your MP3 player, or lending a CD.
f) There should be a specific exception for use of material in education. Whether it is allowed now or not, the fact is that copyrighted material is used in classes and there is no doubt that it does help education progress – photocopying written work, watching video or listening to music – it all enriches the learning process. This should be explicitly allowed.
March 14th, 2006 at 20:09
We absolutely need a right to private copying of ALL formats (e.g. for space-shifting or making backups). If you were allowed do it with CDs, why not DVDs? Furthermore all fair dealing rights should be (a) without a blank media levy (these are RIGHTS, not priviledges and no-one is losing any money because of them) and (b) should be positive and enforceable by those wishing to exercise them. This means the right to circumvent DRM where necessary and the ready availability (i.e. no legal ban on) of tools to do so. The right to circumvent DRM would also restore the doctrine of rights ehaustion (aka first sale) to tethered downloads, which can’t be a bad thing IMO.
March 15th, 2006 at 21:59
“fair use / fair dealing” is a minefield for an organisation and service such as Wikipedia due to the available options varying by country. Usage may be specified by the country of origin of the material but affected by the location of the servers which now hold the information, by the location of the reader / user, or even by the routing of the internet cables connecting them all together.
IP rights and requirements may be defined by an individual government acting on behalf of their country, but the effectiveness and enforcement possibilities of those IP rights needs to seek some level of international understanding and cross-border acceptance if it is to be at all effective.
Some information, methods, images, and media should, understandably, have restrictions placed upon it as to dissemination and re-use by others, but much of it is already ‘out there’ in the zeitgeist; open to all. Registering IP should require an active proof by the claimant that it is new, unique, and non-obvious rather than the present situation of encouraging the registration of obvious business and software solutions which serve to restrict companies and individuals.
March 16th, 2006 at 09:20
I agree that fair use rights are essential, but simply adding fair use rights to copyright legislation will not help particularly, as content holders will use license agreements and DRM to evade consumers’ rights to fair use. It must be made illegal for a license agreement to exclude any fair use right, and illegal to use DRM technologies which have the effect, whether intentional or otherwise, of preventing the exercise of any fair use right.
March 17th, 2006 at 15:58
The Centre for Social Media recently published a Documentary Filmmakers’ Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use (available at http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse.htm). While the statement was drawn up in response to specific issues encountered by documentary filmmakers in relation to quoting copyrighted material, the principles behind the statement are relevant to documentarians in all media.
The statement argues that ‘Documentarians believe that their ability to communicate effectively is being restricted by an overly rigid approach to copyright compliance, and that the public suffers as as result. The knowledge and perspectives that documentarians can provide are compromised by their need to select only the material that copyright holders approve and make available at reasonable prices…Documentary filmmakers should have the same access to copyrighted material that is enjoyed by cultural and historical critics who work in print media and by news broadcasters’.
March 17th, 2006 at 21:53
(d) UK law should include a statutory exception for personal, private use. If I knew I was going to be prosecuted for putting an album on my computer, and by extension my iPod, I would stop buying albums. It is ridiculous to say that I can listen to a sound or video recording when read directly from its original media, but not otherwise. There is no difference to the rightsholder between one and the other.
(e) Content owners do not need to be compensated, and should not be. If content owners feel that they need compensation, they should be free to rise the price of their own products. To show my reasoning, take the example of buying a CD and listening to it, both on an iPod and on a hi-fi, at different times of the day. As far as the rightsholder is concerned, I have bought a CD, and I am listening to it. On what I am listening to it makes no difference to them, and as a result, they should not be given any kind of compensation.