Long walk to copyright reform #8: South Africa's Parliament passes the revised Copyright Amendment Bill
The (second) passing of the CAB and PPAB was to address the reservations expressed by the South African President in 2020. Readers who have been following the Long walk series will remember that the President’s reservations related to issues around constitutionality of the two bills. Such readers would also recall that in 2021, the National Assembly rescinded its previous decision to pass the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Bill referred back to the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry for further consideration. In this regard, the National Assembly restricted the further consideration of the CAB to the issues around the reservations raised by the President.
To address the reservations expressed by the President, the National Assembly re-tagged the CAB (and the PPAB) as section 76 Bills (i.e., bills that affect cultural matters and trade). Public hearings were held and the amendments in the Bills were advertised for public comments and deliberations held on the comments received from the public.
With all that done, the CAB (and the PPAB) are now before the President for his action. Whether the President will assent to the Bills or refer the Bills to the Constitutional Court for a decision, before the general elections in South Africa in May 2024 is anybody’s guess. By virtue of section 79 of the South African Constitution, the President must decide whether the Bills fully accommodates his reservations and if they do, he must assent to and sign them. Otherwise, he must refer the Bills to the Constitutional Court for a decision on their constitutionality.
Stay tuned…
Follow the long walk:
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #1
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #2
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #3
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #4
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #5A
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #5B
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #6
Long Walk to Copyright Reform #7
Reviewed by Chijioke Okorie
on
Wednesday, March 06, 2024
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
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