Back to Intellectual Property News
Infojustice Roundup - January 6, 2014
Monday, January 06, 2014
Infringement Risk in Copyright-Intensive Industries
[Jonathan Band and Jonathan Gerafi] Notwithstanding the challenges of quantifying the impact of copyright infringement on particular companies or industry sectors, there is a useful neutral source of qualitative information on the likely impact of infringement: the reports prepared by investment advisors concerning publicly traded companies. These equity research reports make investment recommendations (e.g., buy, hold, or sell) based on the companies’ performance and the risks they face. We have reviewed the equity research reports issued over the past 90 days for eight leading companies in copyright-intensive industries. Click here for more.
Argentina Passes Open Access Act For Publicly Funded Research
[Maximiliano Marzetti] The Congress of Argentina recently passed a landmark law making publicly funded science and technology research publications free and open access. On 13 November, the Argentinian Congress passed a law (No. 26.899, Creating Institutional Open Access Digital Repositories, Owned or Shared) establishing that all institutions belonging to the National Science and Technology System (SNCYT, according to its acronym in Spanish) that receive public funds (partly or entirely) shall create free and open access institutional digital repositories where all the scientific and technological publications (which includes journal articles, technical and scientific papers, theses, etc.) and research data must be available. Click here for more.
Copyright Debate in Uruguay
[Movimiento Derecho a la Cultura] 2013 has been a year of deep discussions about copyright in Uruguay, which has ended with a copyright law reform intended to add exceptions and remove criminal sanctions for nonprofit infringements. A review of the recent events allows us to contextualize this process. Click here for more.
USTR Requests Comments for 2014 Special 301 Report, Announces Hearing in February
[Mike Palmedo] On January 2, the United States Trade Representative issued its Federal Register Notice for the Special 301 Review. It is seeking “written submissions from the public concerning foreign countries that deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. persons who rely on intellectual property protection.” USTR will also host an open hearing for the 2014 Special 301 Review. Any interested party may testify, as long as notice of intent to testify is given by the deadline below. Click here for more.
USTR Says Chinese Intellectual Property Law “Largely Satisfies” WTO Requirements; Seeks Still-Stronger Laws and Enforcement
[Mike Palmedo] Last week, The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) submitted a report to Congress on the state of China’s compliance with WTO rules, including those on intellectual property (the TRIPS Agreement). The report states that “China has established a framework of laws, regulations and departmental rules that largely satisfies its WTO commitment.” [p.17] However, USTR wants China to strengthen laws that exceed the level required by TRIPS, and the report describes its efforts to strengthen the laws, and the enforcement of those laws, especially online. Click here for more.
Freedom of Expression Versus Freedom of Expression: Copyright Protection Invokes Internal Tension
[Universidad de Palermo Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información] This new document takes on a theoretic discussion that has yet to be sufficiently discussed. In general, it discusses tensions between copyright and Internet users’ freedom of expression. It argues that copyright is also a development yielding from the freedom of expression. On this premise, the article argues that the tension is actually between two types of expression: the expression of those who are protected by these rights, versus citizens who wish to gain access to the assets protected. Click here for more.
Trick or Treaty? The Australian Debate Over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
[Matthew Rimmer] ... This chapter provides a portrait of the Australian debate over ACTA. It is the account of an interested participant in the policy proceedings. This chapter will first consider the deliberations and recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on ACTA. Second, there was a concern that ACTA had failed to provide appropriate safeguards with respect to civil liberties, human rights, consumer protection and privacy laws. Third, there was a concern about the lack of balance in the treaty’s copyright measures; the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations and remedies. Fourth, there was a worry that the provisions on trademark law, intermediary liability and counterfeiting could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy and innovation in the digital economy. Click here for more.
Back to Intellectual Property News