【2006/11/15 22:33】 著作権延長問題
Response to the Gowers Review of Intellectual Propertyより関係部分のみ抜粋。6. Main recommendations In summary, the Academy’s main concerns are that:
* The Review should recognise that all creative activity builds on the creative activity that has gone before. ‘If I have seen further’, said Newton, ‘it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants’. A regime which is unduly protective of the interest of existing rights holders may therefore inhibit, or even stifle, the development of original material.
* The scope of the existing exemptions to copyright for private study and research and for criticism and review should be clarified, and interpreted in as expansive a manner as is consistent with the legitimate economic interests of rights holders
* These exemptions covering fair dealing for private study and non-commercial research and for criticism and review should apply to all copyright material, including recorded music and film.
* Any extensions to copyright or related intellectual property rights should incorporate these exemptions, and should include any necessary safeguards to ensure that the rights they confer on users of the material can be exercised in practice. The lawful use of copyright material should not be restricted solely because that material is protected by a digital rights management system or incorporated in a database. This means that users must be accorded a right of access to the material, if necessary on reasonable terms.
* Extension of the current term of protection on sound recordings should be contemplated only if it has been clearly demonstrated that such protection would enhance, rather than restrict, access to and exploitation of the UK’s cultural heritage. Extensions in the US have achieved the opposite of the intended effect. The Review should not permit similar developments to occur in the UK.
（中略）
Specific Issues
Current term of protection on sound recordings and performers’ rights
(a) What are your views on this issue?
8. The Academy believes it is essential that the copyright regime provides proper and enforceable exemptions for private study and research and for criticism and review and would strongly oppose any extension of copyright term which was not accompanied by an extension and/or clarification of the exemption for study and research and for criticism and review to sound recordings and a clear commitment by the music industry to respect the exemptions which already exist for the use of scores and lyrics for these purposes
9. Popular music involves major commercial interests which have no interest in or wider understanding of scholarship. Musicologists wishing to quote short extracts from song lyrics or sheet music which in our view fall clearly within the scope of the existing legal exemptions have faced outrageous financial demands, lack of response, or even refusal coupled with a threat of litigation. We are aware that major works of research have been delayed for a number of years because of this, and also that some books have never been published because of it. For example, a book which was badly held up in press because of copyright difficulties is Sheila Whiteley’s Too much too young; popular music, age and identity, Routledge, 2003, where copies had been printed and had to be pulped owing to a copyright dispute. The main result is that academic researchers do not use music examples, which reduces the value of their analyses, or do not work on popular music at all. These problems will be increased if the term of copyright for sound recordings is extended unless the exemptions for private study and research and for criticism and review are extended, clarified, and can be utilised with greater confidence.
10. We do not consider that harmonisation of UK and US law is an objective in itself. Moreover, the claimed public benefit of extended protection – the incentive for major record companies to ensure that their back list is available – has not materialised in practice. A study for the Library of Congress has shown that the majority of the US recorded heritage is unavailable. The economic benefits of such extension go to a handful of established artists and their publishers, and relate to works created many years ago. We believe that the incentive to create new works generated by an extended term is negligible and that the back list would be better protected if it were available to specialist publishers – by securing them a right of access.
（中略）
Copyright – orphan works
(a) Have you experienced any difficulties in identifying the owners of copyright content when seeking permission to use that content?
(b) Do you have any suggestions on how this problem could be overcome?
24. Scholars seeking permission to reproduce works by authors whose date of death is unknown, along with the current ownership of their literary estates, are frequently left in difficulty about the steps needed to comply with copyright requirements. In practice these problems are often addressed by demonstrating that ‘reasonable efforts’ have been made to trace the heirs of a deceased author. In UK law, however, there is no statutory protection for such efforts. In January 2006, the US Copyright Office published the results of its study of the problems related to orphan works (see http://www.copyright.gov.orphan). The report made a number of recommendations, including the ‘reasonably diligent search requirement’ for the copyright owner and the ‘limitation of the remedies that would be available if the user proves that he conducted a reasonably diligent search’. The Academy considers that it would be useful if the Gowers Review could support a similar policy and provide a definition of what should count as ‘reasonable efforts’. ところでこの文書、ネットで公開されたのはつい最近だそうだがタイムスタンプは4月19日付。ただ、最近のLessig blogのエントリによると、Andrew Gowersはこの意見書に完全無視を決め込んだと思われる。
|
