IP Watchlist 2011 - Consumers International

IP Watchlist 2011
April 2011
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
Students in the library, by Joe Bombardier
Introduction
The Consumers International (CI) IP Watchlist, now in its
third year, assesses the fairness of the world's intellectual
property (IP) laws and enforcement practices from an
important yet under-represented perspective: that of the
ordinary consumer. Using a detailed checklist of over 50
criteria, applied to over 20 countries, the Watchlist provides a
snapshot of how a number of the world's major IP regimes
support, or fail to support, consumers' access to educational,
cultural and scientific knowledge.
The Watchlist aims to educate and inspire, not merely to
condemn. We are all used to reading negative headlines
about intellectual property such as “Nation of unrepentant
pirates costs $900m,”1 “Autistic Blogger Sued For Copying
Photo From Website”2 and “Most People are Basically
Thieves.”3 How often do we read: “Library saves books from
loss through copyright exceptions,” “Author releases out-ofprint works to the public domain” or “Award-winning
documentary made possible through exercise of fair use”?
It is only in countries whose IP laws and practices strike a
fair balance between the interests of creators and consumers
that such good-news stories will be possible. Our aim is to
encourage more countries that are reviewing their IP laws,
and more creators who are considering how to license and
enforce their IP rights, to look beyond the hyperbole of the
multinational industry lobby groups, and instead help build
an IP system that serves the public interest, including the
interest of their own neighbours and families.
This year's results
Overall, most countries' support for consumers' interests in
access to knowledge was still pretty weak in 2011. On our
school report-style grade card, which rates each country
from an A to an F, even the best country this year scored only
a B. Over two thirds of countries received a failing F score
against at least one of the categories of questions in the
Watchlist. Worse, as in previous years, the regions in which
consumers were least well served were the less developed
continents of Latin America and Africa.
Best-rated countries Worst-rated countries
1.
Moldova
1. Thailand
2.
United States
2. Chile
3.
India
3. UK
4.
Lebanon
4. Brazil
5.
New Zealand
5. Belarus
On the positive side, our new number 1 country, Moldova,
provides an inspiring example of how a country can do
things right, even when shackled with restrictive
international IP obligations – such as those of the European
Union's copyright acquis, which limits the copyright
flexibilities that EU states are permitted to adopt. Many of
the consumer-friendly features of Moldova's new copyright
law, which took effect in January 2011, can be attributed to
the success of an advocacy campaign led by the local library
community since 2008.4
The detailed IP Watchlist reports for each country are
available on Consumers International's A2K website at
http://A2Knetwork.org/watchlist. These country reports
are easy to read – a ‘yes’ answer to any question is marked in
green, and means that the country's law or policy supports
access to knowledge for consumers. A ‘no’ answer is marked
in red and means the opposite, whereas an orange ‘in part’
answer falls somewhere in between. Since a yes/no question
can't always capture all the nuances of a country's law or
practice, written explanations can also be given, and each
country's report ends with a written conclusion.
—2—
IP Watchlist 2011
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
Freedom to access and use
Scope and
duration
of copyright
By
home
users
For
education
Albania
F
B
A
Argentina
C
F
D
Armenia
D
B
C
Australia
D
B
B
Belarus
D
C
B
By
disabled
users
In
public
affairs
Freedom Admin
to share
and
and
enforcetransfer
ment
By content
creators
By the
press
By
libraries
C
D
A
A
F
A
F
D
C
D
C
B
F
C
A
C
D
C
B
C
D
C
C
A
C
F
C
A
B
B
C
C
F
D
C
C
C
F
C
A
A
A
D
F
C
Online
Overall
Brazil
F
F
F
D
A
B
F
A
A
B
D
C-
Canada
D
C
B
A
C
C
A
A
F
D
C
B-
Chile
D
F
D
A
C
C
C
A
F
D
D
C-
China
D
C
A
B
C
B
B
C
A
D
D
B-
Egypt
C
B
B
B
D
B
B
F
A
D
F
C
France
D
B
B
C
B
B
D
A
A
D
D
B-
India
B
B
B
A
A
A
C
C
C
D
C
B-
Japan
F
C
B
B
F
A
C
A
B
C
D
C
Lebanon
D
B
C
A
B
A
B
C
A
C
C
B-
Malaysia
C
C
A
D
C
A
B
C
F
B
C
B-
Moldova
D
A
B
A
C
A
A
A
A
B
C
B
New Zealand
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
A
B
C
C
B-
Pakistan
A
D
A
F
F
A
B
F
B
D
C
B-
Romania
D
B
C
A
C
A
D
A
B
D
D
C
Serbia
F
D
B
B
C
B
A
A
A
D
F
C
Slovenia
F
A
D
A
B
D
C
A
B
D
D
C
South Africa
C
C
C
C
D
A
C
F
B
B
D
B-
South Korea
D
D
A
C
C
B
A
C
C
C
D
C
Thailand
D
A
B
F
D
A
D
F
F
F
F
C-
UK
C
F
D
A
C
C
C
A
F
D
D
C-
USA
C
B
C
A
B
C
A
A
A
C
D
B
A to D rates how well the country in question observes consumers' interests in its national copyright law and enforcement practices.
F is assigned if the country abjectly fails to observe those interests. An overall rating for each country is also provided. Overall scores
have been scaled. Source material is available from CI.
In the table above, we present a summary of the detailed
results from our website, which groups the questions into a
more manageable set of 11 categories, plus an overall
averaged score. The score that a country receives in each
category is determined by how many green, orange or red
answers it gave to the questions in that category, after each
question has been weighted for its relative importance, based
on the opinions of our team of experts and contributors.
copyright laws, drafted when global IP norms were less strict,
continue to be fairer for consumers? Or do older laws
actually fare worse, because they are less likely to include
user rights adapted for the digital age? Although not very
newsworthy, the answer is ‘neither’. At least, amongst the
countries we covered this year, there is very little correlation
between the age of a country's copyright law and how fair
it is.5
It is always interesting to find the patterns in these results. In
last year's Watchlist, we considered whether a country's
placing in the Watchlist was related to its level of
development – and we were disturbed to find no significant
correlation, suggesting that IP laws and enforcement policies
are being developed using a ‘cookie cutter’ approach,
without reference to a country's development needs.
Having said that, reading an older copyright law alongside
a newer one does reveal an insidious shift in the underlying
attitudes of policy makers regarding the copyright balance
between creators and consumers. Take a look, for example,
at the 2009 Serbian copyright law. Here is the manner in
which it makes provision for personal, non-commercial
copying by consumers:
This year, we attempt to find a different pattern: a
relationship between a country's placing on the Watchlist
and the age of its copyright law. Do countries with older
The authors of works, which in view of their nature,
can be expected to be reproduced for personal
non-commercial purposes … shall have the right to
IP Watchlist 2011
—3—
remuneration. ...[T]he determination of its amount must
take into account the probable damage suffered
by the author when his work is copied without his
permission for personal non-commercial use...6
It goes on, but you get the idea very clearly: the reproduction
by consumers even of legally-acquired materials for noncommercial purposes is treated not as a right that they enjoy
as a quid pro quo for the grant of monopoly rights to
creators, but rather as inflicting ‘damage’ upon creators for
which they are entitled to be compensated.
The reproduction by consumers for
non-commercial purposes is treated as
inflicting “damage” upon creators.
Compare this to the 1957 Indian Copyright Act, which very
simply provides that fair dealing with works for the purposes
of “private use, including research” “shall not constitute an
infringement of copyright.” In the 50 years that separate the
two laws, the balance has shifted markedly, from a position
where consumers were treated as equal partners in the
copyright bargain with creators, to one in which they are
treated as the enemies of creators, and allowed access to
copyright works only under tightly-controlled conditions.
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
copyright owners the right to control temporary digital
copies of their works grants them de facto control over a
wide range of uses of those works that previously were not
controlled by copyright at all.
Older technologies, such as books, record players and
analogue video cassette recorders, allowed us to enjoy
copyright works without any copy being made. But
modern equivalents such as e-book readers, MP3 players
and computers generally make a copy of the work in
their internal memory before they play or present it to
the consumer.
If such temporary copies are protected by copyright law,
consumers can be required to ask the copyright owner's
permission every time they want to access a copyright work
that they lawfully possess. Imagine if viewing or listening to a
copyright work could also be characterised as creating a
temporary copy of that work inside the head of the
consumer. To so treat reproductions in the memory of a
digital device used to access it is just as ridiculous. Therefore
it is a little disturbing to see that over half of the countries
surveyed this year do grant rights over temporary copies.
“Does the law permit a work to be released to the
public domain before the copyright term expires,
without any formality other than an overt act
of relinquishment?”
Highlighted questions
The 11 broad categories in the table above may be a little
too abstract to convey a full appreciation of the questions
that country reporters were asked and their practical
significance for consumers. So, in this section, we will
highlight four of the individual questions from the 2011
Watchlist country report form as examples, and consider the
implications of this year's results.
In part
Yes
No
“Are temporary or transient copies, incidental to a
lawful use, excepted from copyright?”
Yes
In part
Whilst a bit of a mouthful, this essentially asks whether the
creator of a work has both the legal right and the means to
declare that they don't want it protected by copyright at all,
so that anyone can use it without condition.
Why is this important? Last year's Public Domain Manifesto,
which a number of Consumers International members and
partners have signed, explains it clearly:
No
This may seem like a very technical question only of interest
to computer experts, but that is not so. In fact, granting
The voluntary relinquishment of copyright and sharing of
protected works are legitimate exercises of copyright
exclusivity. Many authors entitled to copyright protection
for their works do not wish to exercise these rights to their
full extent or wish to relinquish these rights altogether.
Such actions, provided that they are voluntary, are a
legitimate exercise of copyright exclusivity and must not be
hindered by law, by statute or by other mechanisms
including moral rights.7
IP Watchlist 2011
—4—
Surprisingly, fewer than half of the countries included in this
year's Watchlist recognise this. As a result, consumers in
those countries still have to license any controlled use of a
creative work for at least 50 years from the author's death,
even though this may be completely contrary to the author's
intention of releasing the work free of restrictions. In such
a case, the law benefits nobody, creating a clear-cut case
for reform.
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
“Is there provision to penalise the obstruction of
consumers' exercise of user rights?”
In part
“Is there any protection for consumers who noncommercially remix or mash up copyright works?”
No
Yes
In part
No
The explosion of creativity from ordinary consumers
commenting and building upon works from pop culture, and
freely sharing their creations with the world, has been one of
the defining cultural phenomena of this century. The world's
third most popular website, YouTube, is testament to this.
The sheer volume of such works is quite staggering.
According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, as much
information is created “every two days” as was created in
the entire history of the world up to 2003 – and much of
this is user-generated content, including remixes and
mashups of copyright works.8 The quality of the best of this
content is also impressive. One of the trail-blazing noncommercial mashup recordings, DJ Danger Mouse's Grey
Album, was named in Rolling Stone magazine's 100 best
albums of last decade.
So, does copyright law support the participation of
consumers in this new democratic art form? The answer,
regrettably, is a resounding ‘no’, with only a handful of
countries offering any consumers any legal protection. There
are, however, early signs that this is beginning to be seen as
a legal anachronism. In particular, a new provision proposed
for Canadian law would legalise the creation of noncommercial derivative works that do not financially damage
the original copyright owner. This year's Canadian country
report contains more details of this pending proposal.9
This is amongst the most important new questions in this
year's Watchlist that would, if answered affirmatively,
demonstrate a country's even-handedness in its treatment of
creators and consumers who infringe on each others' rights.
After all, a consumer who obstructs a creator's attempts to
use technological protection mechanisms (or TPMs) to
control copying of their work is penalised. For example, an
Australian student may wish to include a short clip from a
video purchased from the Apple iTunes store in a school
project, relying on ‘fair dealing’ under Australian copyright
law. Since the video is projected by a TPM, they will first have
to decrypt it using freely-available software.10 But in doing
so, they could be sentenced to five years imprisonment and a
fine of up to AUD60,500.
So, what kind of penalty awaits the copyright owner who
similarly interferes with a consumer's rights under copyright
law, which may include the right to copy a work for backup
purposes, or for private study, or to make it accessible for a
disabled colleague? Well, the outrageous answer is that in all
but one of the countries covered by the 2011 Watchlist, the
copyright owner faces no penalty at all.
Ahead, planned reforms to Brazil's copyright law may be the
first provisions to provide a real remedy to consumers whose
user rights are obstructed by copyright owners. The
proposed provision would impose the same penalty to those
who hinder the exercise of user rights over a copyright work
as the Act imposes on consumers who infringe copyright in
that work.11
The copyright owner who interferes
with a consumer's rights under
copyright law faces no penalty at all.
IP Watchlist 2011
—5—
Changes in this year's survey
One of the new questions in this year's IP Watchlist has just
been mentioned. Four other new questions were added,
including for the first time, a question on patents. Until now,
the IP Watchlist has been focussed on copyright laws and
policies, but it was precisely because we anticipated
broadening its scope that its original working title, Consumer
Copyright Watchlist, was changed to IP Watchlist.
This new question on patents asks whether computer
software is patentable. This is important because of the
negative impacts that software patents have on the
development particularly of free and open-source software,
which is in turn an important means of providing equitable
and affordable access to ICT infrastructure, as a foundation
of an inclusive global information society.
In our ongoing refinement of the Watchlist criteria, questions
that were rated of low importance for consumers last year
have been removed (such as whether the moral rights of
creators are recognised), as have some questions to which, in
many jurisdictions, there was no easy answer (such as
whether a hyperlink to copyright material can be an
infringement). A number of questions were also reworded
this year to make them simpler or less confusing. In all, five
questions were added, 10 were removed, and 15 amended.
Fewer reports were prepared for the 2011 Watchlist than
for the 2010 edition, since funding restraints required us to
ask all contributors of country reports to volunteer their
time. For this reason, not too much should be read into the
disappearance of a country from the Watchlist in 2011; it
may simply be that a report for that country wasn't
prepared this year.12 However, we are also fortunate to be
able to include seven new reports in the 2011 Watchlist
from Albania, Armenia, Belarus, Moldova, Romania, Serbia
and Slovenia. These new entrants feature in the shortlists of
both the best- and worst-rated countries this year, as
shown above.
Best and worst practices
Although one of the main purposes of the IP Watchlist is to
hold countries to account for IP laws and policies that harm
consumers, it is also about celebrating some of the best
practices that we find from around the world. This year, our
focus will be on policies and practices that promote access to
affordable knowledge goods.
A major research report on media piracy released earlier this
year found that the main reason for the endemic piracy of
digital media such as movies, music and computer software
in emerging markets is simply that they are priced far too
high for local consumers to afford.13 The report, moreover,
found no evidence that strengthening enforcement measures
against consumers of pirated goods would have a significant
impact on these levels of piracy. Rather, the development of
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
more accessible legal cultural markets in developing
countries was seen as the only sustainable solution.
In this section, we will look at some practices from countries
featured in the IP Watchlist that promote the development of
such legal markets, and thereby improve access to
knowledge for the consumer. We will then turn to a few
practices of concern that actually discriminate against the
most affordable works, making them less accessible than
more expensive, usually imported, alternatives.
Promoting low-cost legal alternatives
A recent but little-known initiative from Brazil to promote
affordable digital-knowledge goods deserves more attention.
A local company there has introduced a competitor to the
CD called the SMD or Semi-Metalic Disc, which costs 30%
less to produce than a conventional disc, yet is compatible
with ordinary CD or DVD players. It can be used for storage
of music, games or video. With competitively-licensed local
music or video content, music discs are sold for as little as
BRL5 (about USD3) and video discs for BRL10 (about USD6).
The manufacturers ask rhetorically: “If the CD cost the same
price as the pirate copy, would you know which was the
original product?”14
South Africa is another source of best practice in this area.
As noted in this year's country report15 since 2007 that
country has had a policy on the use of free and open-source
software (FOSS) within government. It requires the
government to implement FOSS unless proprietary software
is demonstrated to be significantly superior, and to migrate
its current proprietary software to FOSS whenever
comparable software exists. Furthermore, new software
developed for or by the South African government should be
based on open standards and licensed using a FOSS licence
where applicable, thereby creating flow-on benefits for other
software users in South Africa and beyond.
Discriminating against free content
On the other hand, there are also some countries whose
policies and practices actively discriminate against freelyavailable content, including music, software and text.
The use of Creative Commons licensing by musicians has
been gaining momentum year after year, with over 45,000
albums so licensed on one website alone.16 These licences
empower musicians to distribute their work widely and to
gain international exposure, by allowing their fans to freely
copy and share their music. It was therefore disturbing to
many when the news broke last year that Canada's public
broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, had
made a blanket decision at management level not to
allow Creative Commons licensed music to be included
in its podcasts.17
In the software world, similar decisions had been made by
both Microsoft and Apple to ban applications licensed under
the most popular FOSS licences from their respective mobile
phone platforms.18 And the Australian government has also
—6—
effectively banned the use of open-source office software
within government, by requiring agencies to use software
that reads and writes documents to Microsoft's ECMA
Office Open XML specification.19 (Only one office suite does
so – Microsoft's.)
An even more bizarre Australian government policy, which
also unfairly discriminates against free content, is to require
its educational institutions to pay for the materials that they
copy for their students from freely-accessible public
websites.20 The money is paid to an Australian collecting
society, which, once enough has been collected, will
endeavour to release it to the author – who will doubtless be
quite bemused to be offered money for content that he or
she provided online for free.
These are just a few examples of policies from countries
covered by the IP Watchlist, that actively obstruct consumers'
access to the most affordable content, rather than
promoting and facilitating such access, as they should.
This year, Consumers International is offering its members the
opportunity to apply for funding to campaign against such
public policies that negatively impact access to knowledge for
consumers. Keep watching our website at A2Knetwork.org
for details of these upcoming campaigns.
Other Watchlists
As mentioned last year and in 2009, the Consumers
International IP Watchlist was conceived in part as an answer
to the annual Special 301 Report released by the United
States Trade Representative (USTR), which targets countries
that US big business claims don't protect and enforce its IP
rights strongly enough. In past editions, developing countries
like the Philippines have been strongly warned by the United
States that they must redirect more law-enforcement
resources towards copyright enforcement, even while local
officials struggle to control more pressing social problems like
child protection and violent crime.21
Doing away with trials would
expedite the process of securing
copyright convictions.
This Watchlist is being released just ahead of the 2011 Special
301 Report, so we don't yet know exactly what it will contain.
However, much the same criticisms are made each year, and
they generally very closely follow the submissions of a couple
of powerful industry lobby groups, notably including the
International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA).
Continuing the example of the Philippines, in its 2011
submission to the USTR, the IIPA complained that “the
largest criminal fine ever imposed in the Philippines for
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
copyright piracy was a modest PHP200,000” – which
exceeds the average Filipino family's annual income – and
that “many problems arise” during trial, including
“defendants’ counsel challenging search warrants.” The
answer, according to the IIPA, is to “establish special IP
courts,” which would “provide that judgment can be
rendered without trial ... unless absolutely necessary to
determine specific factual matters.”22 CI agrees that doing
away with trials would indeed expedite the process of
securing copyright convictions. Perhaps the same bright idea
could be considered for murder cases, too.
In contrast, a coalition of NGOs and public interest groups
(including members and partners of CI), have strongly
condemned the Special 301 process, stating in their joint
2011 submission to the USTR:
The Special 301 Report should not be used:
1. To pressure countries to adopt intellectual property
protection that exceeds the level required by the TRIPS
Agreement
2. To pressure countries to adopt intellectual property
protection that exceeds the level of protection found in
US law
3. To pressure countries to sign the WIPO Internet Treaties
or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement.23
Malaysia, Japan and the
United Kingdom are considering
adding broad US-style “fair use” rights.
Regrettably, the United States is not the only country that
regularly issues biased and self-serving judgments against
other countries' IP regimes. The EU does the same, in its own
IPR Enforcement Report. Ironically, the United States was
included amongst the countries criticised in the most recent
edition,24 which just goes to show that the appropriate level
of IP protection and enforcement for a country is all a matter
of perspective. The next edition of the EU report is due for
release in 2011.
Qiqi in public library, East Grand Rapids
IP Watchlist 2011
IP Watchlist 2011
—7—
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
Contributors
Looking forward
Between now and the release of the next IP Watchlist in
2012, we can expect to see both some good and some bad
developments for consumers and IP.
On the positive side, more countries than ever before are
now considering adopting or expanding user rights in
copyright. By this time next year, new, more consumerfriendly, copyright laws should be in place in both Brazil and
Canada. Malaysia, Japan and the United Kingdom are also
reviewing their respective copyright laws, and considering
the merits of adding broad US-style ‘fair use’ rights. This is
an overdue trend that Consumers International strongly
welcomes.
On the more negative side, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
Agreement (ACTA, mentioned in the 2009 IP Watchlist), will
be in force within the year, continuing the inexorable
escalation of global IP enforcement norms. And,
unfortunately, that's not the end for scary trade agreements.
The same process is being repeated in the form of a series of
secret negotiations over a Pacific Trade Treaty (PTT), which is
also due to be finalised within the year.
Development of the IP Watchlist, as always, is a collaborative effort.
Special thanks this year go to the Open Society Institute (OSI), which
renewed the funding of CI's A2K programme in 2010, and to Teresa
Hackett and the members of Electronic Information for Libraries
(eIFL.net), who were responsible for most of the new reports in this year's
Watchlist. We also acknowledge the following members and partners for
volunteering their time to prepare this year's country reports:
Albania – Aleksandra Xhamo
Argentina – Consumidores Argentinos (Beatriz Garcia Buitrago)
Armenia – Sonya Vardanyan (thanks also to Hasmik Galstyan)
Belarus – Oksana Voronetskaya (thanks also to Ludmila Gorbacheva)
Brazil – IDEC (Guilherme Varella)
Canada – Dr Michael Geist (thanks also to Yael Wexler)
Chile – ONG Derechos Digitales (Claudio Ruiz) (thanks also to
Luis Villarroel)
China – Dr Hong Xue
Egypt – Dr Bassem Awad and Dr Perihan Abou Zeid
France – Marc Rees (thanks also to Edouard Barrerio)
India – Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (Pranesh Prakash)
Japan – Michelle Tan and Masaya Koshiba
Lebanon – Consumers Lebanon (Mohamad Al Darwish)
Consumers around the world deserve
more balanced IP laws and policies.
Moldova – Mariana Harjevschi
New Zealand – Cherry Gordon
Pakistan – Bytes for All (Shahzad Ahmad)
Romania – Bogdan Manolea
Industry lobbyists have urged negotiators to base the IP
provisions of the PTT on the provisions of the US Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) with South Korea, which set a high
watermark for IP protection and enforcement. One of the
ugly features of that FTA that the US has included in draft for
the PTT is a prohibition on temporary reproductions – about
which concerns were raised earlier in this report. The US is
also pushing a new provision that could outlaw parallel
imports of copyright works.25
In any case, the outcome should be known within the year,
and consumer groups will be tracking the negotiations
closely. This IP Watchlist exists to raise awareness of harmful
IP laws and policies such as these, and to provide consumer
activists with objective, research-based analysis that they can
use in campaigning against them.
Whether you are a member of a consumer organisation, an
IP activist, a politician, or just an ordinary citizen, we want
you to take one key message away from reading this
Watchlist, and to make it part of your personal mission in
life: that consumers around the world deserve more
balanced IP laws and policies. Together, let's try to bring this
ideal closer to reality in 2012.
Serbia – Tatjana Brzulovic Stanisavljevic
Slovenia – Intellectual Property Institute (thanks also to Luka Virag)
South Africa – Tobias Schönwetter, Pria Chetty and Jenna Cuming
South Korea – Oh Byoungil and Heesob Nam
Thailand – Foundation for Consumers (Noah Metheny)
United Kingdom – Consumer Focus (Saskia Walzel)
Country reports not listed above were updated for 2011 by the editor
Jeremy Malcolm, who also wrote this overall report, and accepts
responsibility for any errors in either. Full biographies of contributors are
found on our website at http://A2Knetwork.org/watchlist. Design and
typesetting was performed by Andrea Carter.
Photo credits
Page 1 – Students in the library, by Joel Bombardier
licensed under CC-BY-NC, available from
www.flickr.com/photos/bombardier/85026137
Page 6 – Qiqi in public library, East Grand Rapids, by Steven Depolo
licensed under CC-BY-NC, available from
www.flickr.com/photos/stevendepolo/4274076059
IP Watchlist 2011
—8—
a2knetwork.org/watchlist
References
1
McMahon, Neil. “Nation of unrepentant pirates costs $900m,” Sydney Morning Herald, 6 March 2011, available at
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/nation-of-unrepentant-pirates-costs-900m-20110305-1bix5.html.
2
“Autistic Blogger Sued For Copying Photo From Website,” CBS 6 News, 23 February 2011, available at http://www.wtvr.com/wghp-storycopyright-suit-110222,0,1417565.story.
3
Castillo, Michelle, “Most People Are Basically Thieves. (At Least Online.),” Time Techland, 1 March 2011, available at
http://techland.time.com/2011/03/01/70-percent-of-people-think-profitless-piracy-is-fine.
4
For more information see http://www.abrm.md/menu4_2_1_a.html (in Moldovan) or http://www.eifl.net/news/new-copyright-lawmoldova (in English).
5
Technically, we found a Pearson's product-moment coefficient of 0.2.
6
Article 39 of the Law on Copyright and Related Rights 2009, available at http://www.zis.gov.rs/en/pdf_ap/copyright_law.pdf.
7
See http://www.publicdomainmanifesto.org.
8
Siegler, M G. “Eric Schmidt: Every 2 Days We Create As Much Information As We Did Up To 2003,” Techcrunch, 4 August 2010, available at
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/04/schmidt-data.
9
See http://a2knetwork.org/reports/canada.
10
See http://requiem.me.my:81.
11
See http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5180/125.
12
The countries that dropped out in 2011 were Bangladesh, Cameroon, Fiji, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, the Philippines,
Spain, Sweden, Uganda, the Ukraine, Vietnam and Zambia.
13
Karaganis, J (ed). Media Piracy in Emerging Economies, Social Science Research Council, 2011, available at http://piracy.ssrc.org.
14
See http://www.portalsmd.com.br.
15
See http://A2Knetwork.org/reports/south-africa.
16
See http://www.jamendo.com.
17
Geist, Michael. “CBC Bans Use of Creative Commons Music on Podcasts,” 8 October 2010, available at
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5357/125.
18
Foley, Mary Jo. “Microsoft mulls changing Windows Phone Marketplace terms to add more open-source licenses,” ZDNet, 18 February 2011,
available at http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-mulls-changing-windows-phone-marketplace-terms-to-add-more-opensource-licenses/8743?tag=mncol;txt.
19
Tung, Liam. “Australia mandates Microsoft's Open Office XML,” iTnews, 19 January 2011, available at
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/245276,australia-mandates-microsofts-open-office-xml.aspx.
20
Browne, D. “Educational Use and the Internet – Does Australian Copyright Law Work in the Web Environment?”, (2009) 6:2 SCRIPTed 449,
available at http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrc/script-ed/vol6-2/browne.asp. Germany, although not one of the countries yet studied in our
Watchlist, has a similar policy.
21
Office of the US Trade Representative. 2010 Special 301 Report, 2010, 36 available at http://www.ustr.gov/webfm_send/1906, and compare
Karaganis, J (ed). (above, note 13), 24.
22
International Intellectual Property Alliance. 2011 Special 301 Report, 2011, 77-78, available at http://www.iipa.com/2011_SPEC301_TOC.htm.
23
Electronic Frontier Foundation et al. Joint Policy Statement on Special 301, 2011, available at
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=USTR-2010-0037-0033.1.
24
Commission of the European Communities. IPR Enforcement Report 2009, 2009, available at
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/october/tradoc_145204.pdf.
25
Kelsey, Jane. “New leaks of TPPA text show US is playing hardball,” Scoop, 17 February 2011, available at
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1102/S00145/new-leaks-of-tppa-text-show-us-is-playing-hardball.htm.
About Consumers International
Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries
we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. Consumers International is a
not-for-profit company limited by guarantee in the UK (company number 4337865) and a registered charity (number 1122155).
For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org
This report is part of CI's Access to Knowledge programme, for more information, visit:
http://A2Knetwork.org
Consumers International IP Watchlist 2011
ISBN: 978-0-9567403-1-1
Published by Consumers International in April 2011
Consumers International
24 Highbury Crescent
London N5 1RX, UK
email: [email protected]
www.consumersinternational.org
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 Licence
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/3.0