[A2k] Infojustice Roundup - February 13, 2017

Michael Palmedo mpalmedo at wcl.american.edu
Mon Feb 13 13:31:43 PST 2017

Infojustice Roundup

February Copyright Events in Australia and New Zealand

The Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, the Australian Digital Alliance and Internet NZ are hosting a series of meetings and workshops on user rights in copyright reform in Australia and New Zealand February 13-24. Participants in the events include  Michael Geist, Bill Patry, Sang Jo Jong, Kimberlee Weatherall, Rebecca Giblin, Suzy Frankel, Jessica Coates, Heesob Nam, Peter Jaszi, Patricia Aufderheide, Sean Flynn and Meredith Jacob. Public events on the tour will include¡­ Click here for more.<http://www.pijip.org/aus-nz-feb2017/>

Multilateral Investment Court impedes Intellectual Property Rights Reform

[Ante Wessels  The following is an excerpt from the full working paper Multilateral Investment Court Assessment Obscures Social and Environmental Impacts, available here. Copyright does not work well in the digital world; the patent system is inefficient. Our societies could benefit from reform. 33 The WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and other international agreements limit possibilities for reform. Expansive interpretation of international treaties would further limit our policy space. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/37753>

Limiting the Snippet Levy to Commercial Use Is Tangling Up an Already Muddy Issue

[Natalia Mileszyk] The Rapporteur Marc Joulaud of the Committee on Culture and Education (CULT) recognises the problem with proposed article 11 regarding protection of press publications concerning digital uses ¨C it can threaten hyperlinking and various ways users use content online. In Communia¡¯s opinion the Commission¡¯s proposal to introduce a right for press publishers is poorly aligned to the objective of modernising the EU copyright framework and adapting it to the challenges of a fast-evolving digital environment. In the light of the above we believe that the only solution is to remove the whole idea from the directive. This is not the approach shared by CULT ¨C instead 3 problematic changes were proposed. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/37763>

Global Day of Action Against Roche¡¯s Inhumanity #RocheGreedKills ¨C Activists Around the World March #ForTobeka

Swiss multinational company Roche faced global condemnation today from women living with cancer, families of people with cancer, activists, scientists, researchers and health professionals from across the world. They highlighted the immoral and unconscionable tactics employed by Roche across the developed and developing world. Roche¡¯s greed is preventing women from accessing affordable versions of trastuzumab, an essential medicine used in the treatment of breast cancer. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/37748>

Comments by Colombian NGOs to U.S. Trade Representative re: 2017 Special 301 Report

[Karisma Foundation, IFMARA and Misi¨®n Salud] As a group of Colombian non-©\governmental organizations seeking to defend and protect  important  public interests and fundamental human rights within the discourse of Intellectual Property, we want to participate again this year commenting on the many gaps present in the Special 301 Process and Report... As we did last year, we must insist that "the  current  use  and  operation  of  the  program as a set of increasingly serious ¡®watch lists¡¯ ending in a priority foreign country listing with a specific trade sanction process violates the World Trade Organization¡¯s ban  on  unilateral  adjudication  of  trade  disputes." Click here for more. <https://karisma.org.co/descargar/comentarios-301-del-ano-2017/>

See also: all comments to USTR posted to regulations.gov for the 2017 Special 301 Report. Link<https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=50&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&dct=PS&D=USTR-2016-0026>.

Reforming Intermediary Liability in the Platform Economy: A European Digital Single Market Strategy

[Giancarlo F. Frosio] Abstract: Since the enactment of the first safe harbours and liability exemptions for online intermediaries, market conditions have radically changed. Originally, intermediary liability exemptions were introduced to promote an emerging Internet market. Do safe harbours for online intermediaries still serve innovation? Should they be limited or expanded? These critical questions ¡ª often tainted by protectionist concerns ¡ª define the present intermediary liability conundrum. Click here for more.<http://infojustice.org/archives/37765>

More information about the A2k mailing list