Month: March 2012

Print is Dead; Long Live the Word (Britannica Stops the Presses) by Deven Desai

EncycBrit1913

Print is Dead. Long Live the Word. Britannica Stops the Presses. Welcome to the Henry Blake cliche festival. CNN Money reports that after 244 years the print edition of Britannica will no longer be offered. As many may recall, one study indicated the Wikipedia was more accurate than Britannica

But let’s not obsess over print. … Today the print edition is $1395. … Digital divide and access to knowledge discussions can miss that the cost of the set would cover Internet access for 20 months. … Digital also is a dream for the look it up model. … Will folks pay for the online version at $70 per year? I would guess not.

So go with God, Britannica. Thank you for the years of service and enhancing my childhood. And congratulations on your new form. Like those in Good To Great, you have ditched the old method and seek to play in the new space. It is a bet, but it you are in the correct game and that is good.

#CRC12 Paper: Chapter 7 – Users

#CRC12logosmallChapter 7 of the Copyright Review Committee‘s Consultation Paper considers whether the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (also here) creates barriers to innovation by users (update: you can download a pdf of the Paper here (via DJEI) or here (from this site)). This is the longest chapter in the Paper, and it raises a great many issues.

Innovation is traditionally presented as a linear top-down process where innovation is the sole preserve of the producer, but it is increasingly an iterative and interactive one in which users play increasingly important roles. This is particularly so online, where technology is making it increasingly easier for users to innovate, and for that innovation to be based upon the transformation of existing content.

Chapter 4 had earlier considered the centrality of rights-holders in copyright law, but the law recognises other interests as well, and seeks to balance the interests of rights-holders in protecting their monopoly against other legitimate interests in diversity. In particular, by protecting only “original” works, by preventing only “substantial” infringements, and by providing a range of exceptions, copyright law accommodates interests other than those of rights-holders, such as those of users. One of the main questions for the Review is whether the copyright balance between rights-holders and users now requires further amendment, in particular to incentivise innovation.
(more…)

#CRC12 Paper: Chapter 6 – Intermediaries

#CRC12logosmallChapter 6 of the Copyright Review Committee‘s Consultation Paper considers whether the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (also here) creates barriers to innovation by online intermediaries. Intermediaries run up against the copyright interests of rights-holders in several ways: they may be primarily liable for breach of copyright where their own activities infringe copyright; and they may be secondarily liable for breach of copyright where the activities of their users infringe copyright (update: you can download a pdf of the Paper here (via DJEI) or here (from this site)).

First, the most likely way that intermediaries may be primarily liable for breach of copyright is where the technological processes of transmitting data result in transient and incidental copies of the data. Article 5(1) of the European Union Copyright Directive provides a defence in such circumstances which has been transposed into Irish law by section 87(1) and 244(1) of the 2000 Act; and the Paper considers this transposition.

Second, the most likely way in which intermediaries may be secondarily liable for breach of copyright is where the activities of their users infringe copyright; Irish law, implementing a European Directive, now provides for some immunities in certain circumstances from such secondary liability; and the Paper considers this transposition.

The Paper also considers the extent to which linking infringes copyright, and invites submissions as to whether CRRA ought to be amended to provide that a link to copyright material, of itself and without more, should not constitute either a primary or a secondary infringement of that copyright.

The internet is creating new industries and business-models which in turn are raising new issues in the intersection of copyright and innovation. One important example is provided by the business of websites which marshal news from other news sources. Marshalling (a word coined in the Paper as a generic description of indexing, syndicating, aggregating, curating, and so on) is an example of a new generation of digital and online business, but it faces criticism from traditional news rights-holders as infringing copyright in the content which they marshal. The Paper suggests that the issue is considerably more nuanced than this binary division allows, and that there is likely to be a blend of responses to the issue, and it therefore invites submissions in this regard.

As always, the chapter ends with a series of questions which seem to the Committee to arise from the discussion of the position of intermediaries, and it is hoped that the next round of submissions will engage some of these questions (there are 86 questions in total, set out in Appendix 3 to the Paper, and the Committee would be delighted to receive responses to any of them. In particular, it is not necessary for any submission to seek to answer all of them). Any submissions should be received by close of business on Friday 13 April 2012 Thursday 31 May 2012. To make a submission, you can

There will also be a public meeting from 10:00am until 12:00 noon, on Saturday 24 March 2012, in the Robert Emmet Lecture Theatre, Room 2037 Arts Block (map here), Trinity College Dublin. Attendance is free and open to anyone interested in the work of the Committee, but registration is necessary. To register, you can

#CRC12 Paper: Chapter 5 – Collecting Societies

#CRC12logosmallChapter 5 of the Copyright Review Committee‘s Consultation Paper briefly considers the position of collecting societies (update: you can download a pdf of the Paper here (via DJEI) or here (from this site)). Where rights-holders have established such societies to grant licences in copyrighted works and collect copyright royalties for distribution back to the rights-holders, they give effect to rights-holders’ rights in a very important practical way, and therefore constitute an important means by which rights-holders manage their copyrights and are rewarded for their investments and innovation.

The Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (also here) provides for licensing schemes and the registration of collecting societies, but this is an bewilderingly byzantine area in practice, and in chapter 3 of the Paper, the Committee raised the question of whether many of those issues could be resolved by means of a body like the Copyright Council sketched in that chapter.

If a Council is not established, this chapter asks if there are any other practical mechanisms which might resolve those issues. It also asks if there are any issues relating to copyright licensing and collecting societies which were not addressed in earlier chapters but which can be resolved by amendments to the Act of 2000.

As always, the chapter ends with a series of questions which seem to the Committee to arise from the discussion of the Council, and it is hoped that the next round of submissions will engage some of these questions (there are 86 questions in total, set out in Appendix 3, and the Committee would be delighted to receive any responses to any of them. In particular, it is not necessary for any submission to seek to answer all of them). Any submissions should be received by close of business on Friday 13 April 2012 Thursday 31 May 2012. To make a submission, you can

There will also be a public meeting from 10:00am until 12:00 noon, on Saturday 24 March 2012, in the Robert Emmet Lecture Theatre, Room 2037 Arts Block (map here), Trinity College Dublin. Attendance is free and open to anyone interested in the work of the Committee, but registration is necessary. To register, you can

Defending Blasphemy: Exploring Religious Expression Under Ireland’s Blasphemy Law by Katherine Jacob :: SSRN

This Note considers the blasphemy provisions of Ireland’s 2009 Defamation Act and examines its limitations on religious expression. By analyzing the effects of religious expression’s omission from the Act’s protection, this Note argues that enforcement under the Act may be impermissible under both Bunreacht na hÉireann and international law. To rectify the Act’s failure to defend religious expression, this Note proposes that the Act be amended to permit religious expression as a defense for blasphemy. It then applies the proposed defense to examples of speech that otherwise might run afoul under the Act.

#CRC12 – Online submissions – the more, the merrier

#CRC12logosmallI’m delighted that lots of people are engaging with the consultation process on the Copyright Review Committee‘s Consultation Paper (update: you can download a pdf of the Paper here (via DJEI) or here (from this site)). First, the Committee now has a dedicated website and it will be directly linked from the Department’s homepage until the Review process is complete. The Committee’s site provides various ways to participate in the consultation process. As well as by post and email, the Committee has prepared an online questionnaire to reply to the questions they pose in the Consultation Paper.

Second, taking up an invitation from the Minister of State with responsibility for Research and Innovation at the Department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation, Seán Sherlock TD, the Irish Internet Association is also providing an online mechanism to facilitate internet stakeholders who wish to respond to the Paper. This will collate the views of its members and of the members of the Internet Service Providers Association of Ireland, and will gather the views of other members of the online community who wish to provide feedback in this way.

Third, Bernie Goldbach and David Brophy have written blogposts listing all of the questions from the Paper, making them very easily accessible indeed (update: I’ve also got around to listing them on this blog as well). And Joe Drumgoole has gone further, providing various web-friendly versions of the Paper.

Fourth, along with the IIA/ISPAI, various other communities are also looking for feedback (eg, libraries, photographers); and poethead has written what seems to me to be the first blogpost actually engaging with an issue in the Paper.

Announcing the Committee’s online questionnaire, and welcoming the the IIA’s survey, the Minister said that he would “also welcome any similar initiatives undertaken by other online representative groups. The wider the consultation on the Committee’s work is, the better the outcome will be”. I agree. As I say in the title to this post, the more, the merrier. Which-ever mechanism you choose, please make your submission before close of business on Friday 13 April 2012 Thursday 31 May 2012.

Finally, there will be a public meeting from 10:00am until 12:00 noon, on Saturday 24 March 2012, in the Robert Emmet Lecture Theatre, Room 2037 Arts Block (map here), Trinity College Dublin. Attendance is free and open to anyone interested in the work of the Committee, but registration is necessary. To make a written submission, or to register for the public meeting, please email the Review, or write to Copyright Review, Room 517, Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Kildare Street, Dublin 2.