Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014

Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (also dubbed Internet Article 23 (網絡23條) ) broadly refers to a set of proposed ordinances regulating the internet in Hong Kong. Under debate is the legality of derivative works popular on the internet, including doujin drawings, kuso, parodies, and the modification and adaptation of the lyrics in Hong Kong. Because of the upsurge of derivative work, the Hong Kong Government has amended related legislations in order to regulate the Internet, as well as legislation extending coverage to the existing network of Internet users. The name "Internet Article 23" comes from the controversial Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 on national security that detractors say would curb personal freedoms.

Many people believe that related regulations will let the derivative work bear criminal responsibility easily, including the modified or adapted song or pictures. As a result, it strived to public opposition. Due to the opposition, the Government shelved the amendment in May 2012. By July 2013 the Government launched a consultation once again in order to let people discuss on how this type of "parody works" can be exempted from criminal responsibility.

Actually, the Internet Article 23 includes the following legislations:

The Copyright Ordinance - Focus on digital online copyright infringement issues
Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance - Focus on online human flesh search engine problems
The Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance - Focus on the problems of online sharing of pornographic movies and pictures
Prevention of Child Pornography Ordinance - Focus on problems of sharing informations to children under 16 years old such as pornographic animations

Discussion

On the controversial topic of whether allowing derivative work in Hong Kong, intense debate occurs in the city. People who are against re-creation deem it is necessary to introduce legislation to regulate derivative work, or even forbidden it for it is a must to protect the authentic author's’ work in ingenuity, reputation and interest. They criticize the people who involve in derivative work do not respect copyright and the interests of the original author.^[1] On the other side, people who are in favor of derivative work think derivative work ranges widely that legislation cannot regulate all the categories. They deem the legislation is the means of strong authority to pressurize and stifle mass creativity, denying the freedom of creation of people. The law may also cause people different degree of panic. They criticize people who against derivative work only focus on their interests and neglect the craving of public of derivative work, killing people’s opinions to the original work.^[2] From the aspect of authentic author, they ought to have the control of their original work, including prohibition of others distribution, adaptation, selling and derivation rights. As a result, it is doubted whether the practices of derivative work violates the legislation of copyright. And it further leads to more disagreements and disputes about the law in the city.

Re-consultation on Internet Article 23

On July 11, 2013, based on the issue users concern most about the amendment of the Copyright Ordinance, kuso work, the Government published the consultation document and offers three options, launched a three-month public consultation.

The first option has the same concessions proposed by the Government last year. Parody commonly disseminated on the Internet nowadays would likely fall outside the criminal net given that they would not normally displace the market of the copyright work and distribution of the same would unlikely cause “more than trivial economic prejudice” to the copyright owner. The second option specifies that the prejudicial distribution offense shall not apply to parodies, as long as the distribution in question meets the qualifying condition. The third option is recommended that, in accordance with Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom's experience and method, the distribution of parody would not infringe copyright and hence would not attract any criminal liability, as long as the act is considered as fair dealing.^[3]

On the same day, the Keyboard Frontline and the Concern Group of Rights of Derivative Works issued a joint declaration stated that they have received an email from the Intellectual Property Department in the afternoon on July 10, inviting related organizations concerned with the amendment of Copyright Ordinance to Central Government Offices at 11:30 am on July 11 to discuss parody issue of Copyright (Amendment) Bill. They believe that the Government invited them in less than 24 hours, questioned its sincerity, and suspected that the Government didn’t welcome the organization opposing Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 and created the illusion of "consulted with the opposition". They said "very dissatisfied" and boycotted the meeting, reaffirmed that they urge the Government to fully exempt the legal responsibility of derivative work.

Related issues

The intention of publishing Internet Article 23 to ban derivative work On 3 June 2011, the Hong Kong government published the draft of Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 version in the Gazette. In the draft, it included the netizens "spoof" and other creative works in the secondary infringement range. It then draw a lot of controversy, the netizens thought that it would deprive their freedom of speech and creative which should be protected by the Basic Law. There were lots of controversy among the society, the majority of the netizens tended to beg differ with the draft while some of the copyright holder tended to support. CHAN Kam-lam, one of the legislative councilors in Hong Kong said that he agreed with the draft, tons of kuso targeting Chan then being created and published online.

Netizens launched demonstrations to show their stands concerning the derivative work On 4 December 2011, some social movement organizations like Keyboard Frontline and Netizens Power launched a demonstration which aimed to show their discontent about the draft of Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 version which defined derivative work as Criminal charge without any consultation in the society. Not long, the Government said that the second round debate of the draft will be restarted in the Legislative Council. Once again, the netizens launched another demonstration to show disagree and for this time, they even demonstrated to Central Government Offices.

References

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, January 20, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.