Sport and Recreation New Zealand
[ Last Updated 4 November 2005 ]
Date Received: 2003-02-24
Original version: Digital Copyright: Position Paper Submissions: No. 41: Sport and Recreation New Zealand [2993KB PDF]
20 February 2003
Digital Technology and the Copyright Act 1994
Attention: Victoria Pearson
Regulatory and Competition Policy Branch
Ministry of Economic Development
PO Box 1473
Wellington
Contents
[Preamble]
Dear Victoria,
SPARC Submission on Digital Copyright Position Paper
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this paper. Our response is as follows:
General Principles
We endorse the Discussion Paper's statements that "New technologies do not affect the principles that govern copyright" (paragraph 10). We agree with the Paper's statement that copyright exists both as an incentive for authors to create works, and to ensure a balance between the rights of copyright owners and copyright users (paragraph 21). It is important that copyright works are protected by legislation, not by technological means.
Further, we agree with paragraph 52, that copyright legislation should be technologically neutral.
Digital technology can provide significant cost and time-savings for New Zealand businesses, academic institutions, and government agencies. It can allow information to be made available remotely, and at a time and in a format that is relevant to the user. It enables information to be made available almost immediately, rather than with a 2-3 day delay (minimum) as occurs when information must be physically transmitted in hard copy. It is important for New Zealand's competitiveness internationally that our businesses and organisations have the same rights to transmit information electronically as they do over the physical copies of the information. Further, by reducing the number of physical copies in circulation, electronic distribution of information is environmentally friendly.
Question 3 (Section 77)
We support the 3rd alternative: address any particular concerns relating to digital technology through measures designed to meet the needs of New Zealand copyright stakeholders, bearing in mind the provisions of the WIPO Internet Treaties. Doing nothing is not an option, as (at the minimum) the Act needs to be clarified to take into account new technologies, and, ideally, needs to be re-framed in as technology-neutral a way as possible.
Question 4 (Section 95)
We believe that the definition of "copying" in the Act should be expanded to specifically include works in other formats, and conversion of works into a digital format.
Question 5 (Section 95)
The definition of "copying" must be redefined to specifically exclude transient copying that occurs as an automatic process (e.g. caching by a computer). Treating this as "copying" in the sense of the Act would be a nonsense, and would greatly effect the ability of New Zealanders to access electronic information (taken literally, it would make any attempt to access a website illegal).
Question 6 (Section 111)
The rights of a copyright owner should be identical in the digital and non-digital environments. Therefore, we favour replacing the exclusive right to broadcast a work with a technology-neutral communication right.
Question 7 (Section 111)
Webcasts and internet transmissions should receive automatic copyright protection, just as print materials do. Again, we favour the creation of a technology-neutral category of works.
Question 8 (Section 125)
Again, copyright owners should have rights to make their work available online, as part of technology-neutral rights of communication.
Question 11 (Section 151)
ISPs should not be liable for copyright infringement by their subscribers. The subscribers should be held liable.
Question 12 (Section 171)
We believe that existing legislation is sufficient to protect copyright owners.
Question 13 (Section 183)
Databases are already sufficiently protected under current copyright law.
Question 15-17 (Section 211)
It is absolutely vital that the list of permitted acts still applies to digital works. Placing further restrictions on permitted acts would have a huge negative impact on both research and development, and business within New Zealand.
The rights of libraries to copy print material should be extended to electronic material. Information made available via the internet could be protected by password access or IP authentication, in order to ensure that only legitimate users of a given library had access to electronic material in its collection. Public and academic libraries already follow these processes.
Off-site access (appropriately restricted) is vital to the efficient functioning of our libraries, and the clients they serve. The library is not a place anymore, it's a service. Libraries must be able to make electronic copies of their hard-copy resources for archiving and preservation purposes, and this permission should be extended to all libraries, not merely the national library. Further, we believe that libraries should be able to take digital copies of hard-copy material in order to facilitate access, not just for archiving purposes. This can be done without infringing the rights of copyright owners. For example, a hard-copy item could be digitised, and the original archived. Access to the digital copy could be provided via desk-top access, or via the internet with appropriate access controls. As long as only one digital copy was available at a time, the rights of the owner would be protected. (This is easily possibly technologically).
Question 19
Format-shifting should be permitted, as long as it is carried out either by an individual for their private use, or by a library or educational institution. Format-shifting may well become vital to the preservation of copyright material, as, for example, older technologies become obsolete and are replaced. Users must have the right to shift material into the latest available format.
Thank you once again.
Yours sincerely
Mike Loftus
Knowledge Manager
SPARC
Back to Top