Some interesting proposals will soon be under discussion at the World Intellectual Property Organization that could free libraries, archives, educational and research institutions, and people with disabilities from copyright provisions that hamper their ability to make use of copyright works. Read my full post about the upcoming meeting on WIPOMonitor.org here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Canadian copyright reform for people with print-disabilities
Yesterday Industry Minister Candice Bergen introduced Bill C-65, the Support for Canadians with Print Disabilities Act for first reading in Canadian Parliament. The Act will allow Canada to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled.
Among other things, the bill would allow non-profit organizations acting for the benefit of persons with a print disability to create accessible-format works and provide those works (or access to those works) to people with print disabilities and to non-profit organizations acting for their benefit outside of Canada (s. 32.01 (1)) on payment of royalties set by regulation (s. 32.01 (4)). It would also allow the circumvention of TPMs for these purposes (s. 41.16). The Act sets out reporting requirements (32.01(6)) and requirements that contracts be put in place with outside organizations regarding the use of the works (32.01(7)(a)).
This is a welcome move. It would facilitate access to books and other copyright materials around the world, allowing Canadian organizations to work with their counterparts in other countries to make works accessible. It would also make Canada the first G7 country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty.
Among other things, the bill would allow non-profit organizations acting for the benefit of persons with a print disability to create accessible-format works and provide those works (or access to those works) to people with print disabilities and to non-profit organizations acting for their benefit outside of Canada (s. 32.01 (1)) on payment of royalties set by regulation (s. 32.01 (4)). It would also allow the circumvention of TPMs for these purposes (s. 41.16). The Act sets out reporting requirements (32.01(6)) and requirements that contracts be put in place with outside organizations regarding the use of the works (32.01(7)(a)).
This is a welcome move. It would facilitate access to books and other copyright materials around the world, allowing Canadian organizations to work with their counterparts in other countries to make works accessible. It would also make Canada the first G7 country to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty.
Monday, June 8, 2015
TRC could do more for Aboriginal People's media
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRC), commissioned to investigate a century of abuse of Aboriginal peoples at Canadian Indian Residential Schools, last week released its findings and calls to action. Among its 94 calls to action were several dealing with "media and reconciliation", as well as calls related to "educating journalists for reconciliation" (pp. 341-345). While its recommendations are helpful, it could have done more.
The Commission rightly points to the deficiencies of Canadian broadcasting policy, as set by the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which requires the Canadian broadcasting system to reflect "the special place of aboriginal peoples within [Canadian] society" (s. 3.1.d.iii). However, the Act requires only that programming reflect Aboriginal culture "as resources become available for the purpose" (s. 3.1.o). Furthermore, while the Canadian broadcasting system is required to broadcast in English and French in equivalent quality, the Act sets out no requirement to broadcast in Aboriginal languages.
The TRC discusses the role of just two media outlets in furthering reconciliation: the CBC and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN)[1]. It notes that budget cuts have reduced the CBC's "capacity to provide Aboriginal programming". It therefore calls for greater funding for the CBC. It also notes that the APTN "is well positioned to provide media leadership to support the reconciliation process." It therefore calls on APTN to continue developing media initiatives to "educate the Canadian public, and connect Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians."
Colby Nash has criticized the TRC for recommending increased funding to the CBC, whose Aboriginal programming has been minimal, rather than recommending increased funding of the APTN. The CBC, after all, as MacLennan has noted[2], has its own history of cultural imperialism. The APTN, with increased funding he notes, could make many contributions:
Perhaps most importantly, while the Commission notes that it received submissions calling for revision of the Broadcasting Act to correct the inadequacy with which the Act addresses Aboriginal media, the Commission fails to call for such revision. The Broadcasting Act has not been revised since 1991.
The TRC should go further to discuss the role of mainstream media in reconciliation, to recommend a review of the CRTC's Native Broadcasting Policy, and to recommend revision of the Broadcasting Act to better fund, expand, and prioritize APTN and other Aboriginal media endeavors.
---
[1] See Lorna Roth's excellent book on the history of the APTN.
[2] MacLennan, Anne F. "Cultural imperialism of the North? The expansion of the CBC Northern Service and community radio." Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media 9.1 (2011): 63-81.
The Commission rightly points to the deficiencies of Canadian broadcasting policy, as set by the Canadian Broadcasting Act, which requires the Canadian broadcasting system to reflect "the special place of aboriginal peoples within [Canadian] society" (s. 3.1.d.iii). However, the Act requires only that programming reflect Aboriginal culture "as resources become available for the purpose" (s. 3.1.o). Furthermore, while the Canadian broadcasting system is required to broadcast in English and French in equivalent quality, the Act sets out no requirement to broadcast in Aboriginal languages.
The TRC discusses the role of just two media outlets in furthering reconciliation: the CBC and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN)[1]. It notes that budget cuts have reduced the CBC's "capacity to provide Aboriginal programming". It therefore calls for greater funding for the CBC. It also notes that the APTN "is well positioned to provide media leadership to support the reconciliation process." It therefore calls on APTN to continue developing media initiatives to "educate the Canadian public, and connect Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians."
Colby Nash has criticized the TRC for recommending increased funding to the CBC, whose Aboriginal programming has been minimal, rather than recommending increased funding of the APTN. The CBC, after all, as MacLennan has noted[2], has its own history of cultural imperialism. The APTN, with increased funding he notes, could make many contributions:
APTN could expand into aboriginal-language Web offerings; it could develop totally separate content streams for major aboriginal language groups. It could get into community radio. It could fund scholarship, translations, poetry. You can think of a hundred new ideas without breaking a sweat.Other entities could also play a role. Private broadcasters, which receive only a passing mention in the summary of findings, obviously play a significant role in media representations of Aboriginal peoples. As Fleras writes, "mainstream media provide a key cross over point for intercultural understanding and exchanges" (169). At the same time, changing mainstream media is a difficult task:
the very changes that minorities want of newsmedia (responsible coverage of minority interests, less sensationalism, more context, toned-down language, and less stereotyping) are precisely the newsnorms that media rely on to sell copy or capture eyeballs. Challenging the conventional news paradigm will prove a difficult sell. (Fleras, 170)The CRTC could also play a role; while it recognized APTN as a national network in 1999, its Native Broadcasting Policy has not been reviewed since 1990.
Perhaps most importantly, while the Commission notes that it received submissions calling for revision of the Broadcasting Act to correct the inadequacy with which the Act addresses Aboriginal media, the Commission fails to call for such revision. The Broadcasting Act has not been revised since 1991.
The TRC should go further to discuss the role of mainstream media in reconciliation, to recommend a review of the CRTC's Native Broadcasting Policy, and to recommend revision of the Broadcasting Act to better fund, expand, and prioritize APTN and other Aboriginal media endeavors.
---
[1] See Lorna Roth's excellent book on the history of the APTN.
[2] MacLennan, Anne F. "Cultural imperialism of the North? The expansion of the CBC Northern Service and community radio." Radio Journal: International Studies in Broadcast & Audio Media 9.1 (2011): 63-81.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Who should own big data?
Big data has a lot to offer, from curing disease to fostering economic development to fostering transparency. At the same time, from government mass surveillance to data leaks, the misuses of big data seem as pervasive as its uses.
Who owns big data? What rights do--and should--its owners have over what is done with it? Two different answers to this question have been posed. The first would allow free use of big data for non-profit scientific research. The second would release IP control of big data for commercial research also.
As noted in a recent paper by Handke, Guibault and Vallbé, the answer to the question of what IP rights subsist in big data varies by country. Research using mined data may, in some countries, be constrained by copyright and other IP laws, while in others (including Canada and the United States), copyright ownership in data may not stand in the way of researchers seeking to data mine.
Two international initiatives: The Hague Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age and the World Intellectual Property Organization's proceedings toward the creation of a new international instrument on limitations and exceptions for educational, teaching and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities, seek to ensure internationally that copyright does not stand in the way of the ability to mine data for research.
At WIPO, the African Group of countries has proposed that non-profit scientific research be exempted from copyright. They propose that:
Who owns big data? What rights do--and should--its owners have over what is done with it? Two different answers to this question have been posed. The first would allow free use of big data for non-profit scientific research. The second would release IP control of big data for commercial research also.
As noted in a recent paper by Handke, Guibault and Vallbé, the answer to the question of what IP rights subsist in big data varies by country. Research using mined data may, in some countries, be constrained by copyright and other IP laws, while in others (including Canada and the United States), copyright ownership in data may not stand in the way of researchers seeking to data mine.
Two international initiatives: The Hague Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age and the World Intellectual Property Organization's proceedings toward the creation of a new international instrument on limitations and exceptions for educational, teaching and research institutions and for persons with other disabilities, seek to ensure internationally that copyright does not stand in the way of the ability to mine data for research.
At WIPO, the African Group of countries has proposed that non-profit scientific research be exempted from copyright. They propose that:
The reproduction and reuse [...] of any lawfully obtained copyrighted work for purposes of not-for-profit scientific research, including storage, archiving, linking, data mining procedures, data manipulation, and virtual scientific experiments subject to attribution of the sources used to the extent reasonably feasible
should not constitute copyright infringement (p. 33; emphasis added).
While the WIPO proposal focuses on non-profit scientific research, a second initiative--the Hague Declaration--would also permit commercial data mining. Further, it encourages research organizations, universities, and businesses; and those using Creative Commons licenses, to actively make data available publicly available for research.
Corporate owners of big data might be alarmed at the latter declaration. Should individuals be alarmed as well?
Should we be concerned about giving up IP ownership of personal data?
Scholar Neil Lawrence has argued that people should have ownership of their data:
There are opportunities and risks with the accumulation of data, just as there are for the accumulation of capital. However, one thing seems clear: we need to increase the power of the people. Banks pay interest; perhaps we should be paid directly for the use of our personal data. We need to be made aware of the value of our data and be given rights to control who accesses it. We need to form a data-democracy: data governance for the people, by the people and with the people’s consent.
Whether this ownership does or should take the form of intellectual property, or some other form, is a question worth considering.[1] Is a person not the author of their own personal data?
While the two international initiatives outlined above are likely intended to address corporate ownership of big data, personal ownership of the personal data that makes up big data should also be considered.
It seems clear that, in an age where privacy laws fall short in constraining mass surveillance and protecting privacy online, a stronger medicine may be required. As the ethics surrounding big data continues to evolve, throwing away ownership of our data in both commercial and non-commercial contexts may be a precipitous move. Some form of personal ownership of personal data--especially ownership that would prevent unauthorized commercial use of data--could be a useful tool in an increasingly pitted battle over data ownership and control.
----
[1]. Scholars have considered this question from various angles. Pamela Samuelson has argued that, while an intellectual property approach to personal data may not be appropriate, an approach based on moral rights may be worth exploring. The idea of ownership of personal data, and the problems associated with such ownership, continue to be explored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)