[A2k] Infojustice Roundup – May 1, 2018

Michael Palmedo mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu
Tue May 1 12:13:30 PDT 2018

Infojustice Roundup

Update on South African Copyright Reform: Fair Use Provision May Be Removed

[Sean Flynn] In the latest report from the South Africa copyright amendment bill process (see below), the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee suggested that it may be taking its fair use proposal off the table… notes from the most recent committee meeting conclude that the copyright exception provisions in the bill might be limited to “address the issues of hearing-impaired people, librarians and museum staff, and the Department of Trade and Industry would select a third issue, but one that was not contentious so that the legislation could be fast-tracked.” Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/39877>

Lies, Distortions, and False Promises: The U.S. Position on Compulsory Licenses in teh 2018 Special 301 Report

[Brook Baker] Once again the U.S. is unbelievably duplicitous in its 2018 Special 301 Report on permissible uses of compulsory and government use licenses by its trading partners, including most recently Colombia and Malaysia where it is announcing out-of-cycle reviews... the U.S. issued a broadside assault on the actual issuance of, or even discussion of compulsory licenses in a Report replete with lies, distortions, and false promises. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/39888>

Special 301: U.S. Government "Watch List" Threatens Access to Medicines

[Public Citizen] ... This year’s Special 301 is longer and more detailed than previous reports. It includes a two-page fact sheet for the skimmers, which includes bullet points on actions taken by the USTR and lists concerns raised in bilateral meetings... USTR’s tone is more aggressive and snippy. The USTR did not mind echoing PhRMA’s talking points such as: “In order to promote affordable healthcare for Americans and the innovation to preserve access to the cutting-edge cures and therapies, USTR has been engaging with trading partners to ensure that U.S. owners of IP have a full and fair opportunity to use and profit from their IP.” Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/39893>

Statement From EU Academics on Proposed Press Publishers' Right

[169 European Scholars]  We, the undersigned 169 scholars (of whom 100 are full professors) working in the fields of intellectual property, internet law, human rights law and journalism studies at universities all over Europe write to oppose the proposed press publishers’ right. Article 11 of the proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, as it currently stands following negotiations in the EU Council and Parliament, is a bad piece of legislation. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/39875>

Cautionary Tales About Collective Rights Organizations

[Jonathan Band and Brandon Butler] In 2013, we published “Cautionary Tales About Collective Rights Organizations.” We acknowledged that properly regulated collective rights organizations (“CROs”) in some circumstances enhanced efficiency and advanced the interests of rights holders and users. At the same time, we observed that CROs had a long history of corruption, mismanagement, lack of transparency, and hostility towards users and artists alike. The 2013 article compiled episodes detailing this history to provide balance to any policy discussion that addressed collective licensing and CROs. In the five years that have passed since we published that article, CROs around the world have continued to misbehave, often serving their own interests at the expense of artists and the public. We decided it was time to recount these latest episodes. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/39886>

Pharmaceutical Patent Grants in India: How Our Safeguards Against Evergreening Have Failed, and Why the System Must Be Reformed

[Feroz Ali, Sudarsan Rajagopal, Venkata S. Raman & Roshan John] This report identifies pharmaceutical drug patents granted in likely contravention of anti-evergreening provisions under section 3 of the Indian Patents Act, from a cohort of 2293 patents granted between 2009 and 2016. An estimate of the rate at which the Indian Patent Office (IPO) erroneously grants such patents, as well as the rationale for grants were arrived at by analysing the prosecution history of some grants and the claim language of all granted patents. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/39890>

More information about the A2k mailing list