[A2k] Infojustice Roundup - August 22, 2016

Michael Palmedo mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu
Mon Aug 22 08:24:33 PDT 2016


Infojustice Roundup



Deans of Virginia University Libraries to Chairman Goodlatte: First Do No Harm in Copyright Revision



[Brandon Butler] The Copyright Office is poised to issue a total rewrite of Section 108 of the Copyright Act, which protects library and archives’ copying for preservation and research. Libraries and archives have said they do not want this, but the Office seems to be determined to do it. So, a group of Deans and Directors of Virginia university libraries has sent a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA!) to ensure he realizes the controversy and context that surrounds the Office’s proposed changes. If you are a concerned library or librarian, consider writing your representative, especially if they sit on the Judiciary Committee. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/36399>



See also: Krista Cox, Association of Research Libraries. Why is the Copyright Office Trying to Reform Section 108? Link.<http://policynotes.arl.org/?p=1408>



Gilead using Data Exclusivity in Ukraine to Monopolize Hep-C drug Sofosbuvir



On June 2016 Gilead submitted court claim against Europharma International LLC (Pharco Pharmaceuticals distributor in Ukraine), Ukrainian Drug Regulation Authority and Ministry of Health. This claim is based on data exclusivity protection – parallel to patent protection legal mechanism that prohibits registration of generics within 5 years after registration of an originator medicine. Gilead claims cancellation of Europharma International LLC sofosbuvir registration and by that lawsuit tries to remove sofosbuvir generics from Ukrainian market. On the first court hearing on July 25, 2016 court decided to postpone consideration of the case until September 12, 2016 due to procedural issues. Ukrainian civil society raises concerns regarding possibility of cancellation of generic competitors’ registrations. For more information, see these two resources from the All-Ukrainian Network of PLWH: Civil society struggle for affordable sofosbuvir in Ukraine<https://donttradeourlivesaway.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/civil-society-struggle-for-affordable-sofosbuvir-in-ukraine.pdf> | Timeline.<https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/gilead-using-data-exclusivity-in-ukraine-to-monopolise-access-to-sofosbuvir/>



Excerpt from Google’s Comments on New Zealand’s Trans Pacific Partnership Amendments Bill



[Google] Google believes that in order to promote innovation and creativity, New Zealand should adopt copyright exceptions that allow the market, new technologies and new creativity to evolve. New Zealand needs not only technologically neutral copyright protections, but also dynamic, technology neutral exceptions that allow new, legitimate uses of copyright and services to evolve as technology evolves. It would, of course, be possible to enact new purpose-based exceptions to solve some of the problems of today, but this would do little to encourage the innovation of tomorrow that is so essential to a thriving digital economy. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/36405>



The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement and Pharmaceutical Regulation in Canada and Australia



[Joel Lexchin and Deborah Gleeson] Abstract: The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a large regional trade agreement involving 12 countries. It was signed in principle in February 2016 but has not yet been ratified in any of the participating countries. The TPP provisions place a range of constraints on how governments regulate the pharmaceutical sector and set prices for medicines. This article presents a prospective policy analysis of the possible effects of the TPP on these two points in Canada and Australia. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/36413>



#LeyLleras 5 y la inclusión de una cláusula de “uso justo” para el derecho de autor en Colombia



[Fundacion Karisma] “En Colombia las limitaciones a los derechos deben ser taxativas, adicionalmente regular los temas relativos a la propiedad intelectual es una competencia del legislador que no puede delegarse en los jueces de la república”. Con esta lacónica frase el gobierno del presidente Santos respondió hace unos días a los comentarios que en 2012 hicimos para que la reforma al derecho de autor que exige el Tratado de libre comercio (TLC) con EEUU incluya, entre otras cosas, una cláusula abierta estilo “fair use” como la que tiene nuestro socio comercial. El punto es que la opinión de la Dirección Nacional de Derecho de Autor (DNDA), reflejada en esa frase, es tan solo una interpretación y no una sentencia final y absoluta. De hecho, dos reconocidos académicos colombianos de la Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Mónica Hernández y Luis Angel Madrid Berroterán, desarrollaron los argumentos jurídicos para sostener que sí es posible pensar en una cláusula abierta para Colombia sin que esto vulnere nuestro régimen legal. Click here for more on karisma.org.co<https://karisma.org.co/leylleras-5-y-la-inclusion-de-una-clausula-de-uso-justo-para-el-derecho-de-autor-en-colombia/>



How New Polish Copyright Law Modernizes Library Services



[Electronic Information for Libraries] New EIFL resources document the recent changes in Polish copyright law that bring library services in Poland into the 21st century.  The centrepiece for libraries of the new copyright legislation are provisions that enable digitization for socially beneficial purposes, such as education and preservation of cultural heritage... A new analysis of the library-related provisions by Barbara Szczepańska describe in detail the key amendments that include permitted uses by libraries, permitted uses in education and science, permitted uses of orphan works, permitted uses of out-of-commerce works, introduction of a public lending right (PLR), and abolition of the paying public domain. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/36396>



Fair Use and the Future of Art



[Amy Adler] Abstract: Twenty-five years ago, in a seminal article in the Harvard Law Review, Judge Leval changed the course of copyright jurisprudence by introducing the concept of “transformativeness” into fair use law. Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court embraced Judge Leval’s new creation, calling the transformative inquiry the “heart of the fair use” doctrine. As Judge Leval conceived it, the purpose of the transformative inquiry was to protect the free speech and creativity interests that fair use should promote by offering greater leeway for creators to build on preexisting works. In short, the transformative standard would ensure that copyright law did not “stifle the very creativity which that law [was] designed to foster.” This Article shows that the transformative test has not only failed to accomplish this goal; the test itself has begun to “stifle the very creativity which that law was designed to foster.” Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/36421>




More information about the A2k mailing list