data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7523d/7523df5fc738fea5fa8415174b5a9b6ca84cfea8" alt=""
As noted, Wang’s analysis considers the
practical and legal impact of digital technologies and the internet on research
and education on developing countries (Chapter 4). The discussion on this issue
notably looks at the legality of ‘shrink-wrap’ and ‘click-wrap’ contracts (pp
100-108). From the copyright exception perspective, how much legal room does a contract
enjoy to override permitted acts, fair use or fair dealing? The answer is far
from clear according to Wang, and it is certainly not harmonized across
countries, despite the fact that international agreements purport to provide a
common minimum standard of copyright exceptions. Wang argues that for copyright
practice, greater clarity on this point is still needed – at both the national
and international levels. Against that backdrop, she urges policy-makers to
provide that contracts that have the effect of narrowing the scope of copyright
exceptions should be set aside (p 107-108).
![]() |
cat-wrap |
Some of the other practical
difficulties covered by the book concern the status and liability of public
libraries, copyright assignment in academic publishing and the deceptively
simple concept of ‘the right of communication to the public’ in the context of institutions
such as universities or libraries. Should it make a difference in the
implementation of copyright exceptions that these institutions are in principle
not profit-driven but knowledge-driven?
Chapters 5 to 7 explore these
issues in light of Chinese and South African copyright laws. One of the main
take-away points for both countries relate to anti-circumvention rules, which
Wang identifies as the least coherent and consistent area of copyright and
which is most detrimental for research and education institutions in both
countries (pp 185-186, 222-226, 249-250), as they protect DRMS, which will
often block permitted uses of protected content.
![]() |
The cat who infringes DRMs to give back to the public domain. Outlaw? |
Wang, like many other
commentators, advocates stepping away from a one-size-fits-all approach to
copyright exceptions, stressing that the legal traditions and cultures of China
and South Africa are too diverse to be brought under the same rigid regulatory
framework (pp. 247-249). The emergence of new commercial models that seek to
generate profits not from users’ subscriptions but through advertising is also
framed by Wang as an opportunity to implement the very aim of copyright
exceptions: enabling the widest possible access to works to the largest number
of individuals.
This book will be useful to any
copyright lawyer or academic interested in the comparative study of copyright
exceptions and how they apply to the public sectors of education and research.
Book reviewed: Jia Wang, Conceptualizing
Copyright Exceptions in China and South Africa (2018) Springer. 257 p. ISBN
978-3-319-71831-6. Printed book: Hardcover 139,99 € | £123.00 | $159.00
[1]149,79 € (D) | 153,99 € (A) | CHF 154,00 ; eBook: 118,99 € | £98.00 |
$119.00 [2]118,99 € (D) | 118,99 € (A) | CHF 123,00 Available from your library
or springer.com/shop ; MyCopy [3] Printed eBook € | $ 24.99 springer.com/mycopy.
For more information, click
here.
Book review: Conceptualizing Copyright Exceptions in China and South Africa
Reviewed by Mathilde Pavis
on
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Rating:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e4ae5/e4ae5069935a5aa4d039dcce6f813c847414e76d" alt="Book review: Conceptualizing Copyright Exceptions in China and South Africa"
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html