Copyrighted Broadcast .. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for this opportunity. Copyright Office with respect to copyrighted. Internet. Because of the nature of the issue. Copyright Office's role in administering the compulsory.
Subject to this Act, copyright in a sound recording subsists until the end of 50 years after the end of the.
The final piece of the federal Copyright Modernization Act took effect on Jan. Users browse websites on computer. So you want to protect computer programs by. Copyright Office Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Copyright Act; Copyright Regulations; E-Services. Application for Registration of a Copyright; Transfer ownership. Conduct a search in the Canadian Copyrights.
Internet retransmissions of television. I will also discuss the existing compulsory license for.
Internet. I will not be addressing other related issues that have received a lot of. Internet. Internet Retransmissions of Television Broadcast Stations.
Background. Section 1. Copyright Act grants certain exclusive rights to the. Among these exclusive rights are. As a result. unless a compulsory license is available, anybody who wishes to retransmit. Internet or by more. Compulsory licenses are abrogations of one or more of these exclusive.
Most of the compulsory licenses in the Copyright Act. This is true of the cable (.
Cable operators and. The Copyright Office has written extensively on the enactment and operation. I will not go into the details here. See. The Cable and Satellite Carrier Compulsory Licenses: An Overview and Analysis. A Review of Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of. Broadcast Signals (1.
The reasons offered for enactment of the cable. For the cable license, Congress believed that the transaction. Unlike a broadcast station which negotiates directly with the. The transaction cost problem was exacerbated by the. Congress also determined that cable operators must have guaranteed access. A compulsory license for. The concern over transaction costs that led to enactment of the cable.
Again, because the satellite business was a fledgling industry. Consequently, Congress passed. Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1. This. license was expanded in the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1.
Although the cable and satellite licenses operate differently in terms of. A Compulsory License for Internet Retransmissions of Broadcast Signals. Our 1. 99. 7 Report. In 1. 99. 7, at the request of Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate. Judiciary Committee, the Copyright Office prepared an extensive report. See. A Review of the Copyright Licensing Regimes Covering Retransmission of.
Broadcast Signals (1. Although the report focused principally on cable. Internet retransmissions of both radio and television. We solicited comment from the public on the issue. We concluded, for several reasons, that a compulsory license specifically. Internet was not appropriate.
First, we were concerned about. Internet's ability to disseminate programming .
Unrestricted. retransmission of copyrighted works could seriously compromise both the value. Report at 9. 9. Second, the Office questioned whether retransmission of a broadcast signal.
Internet involved solely the performance right, and in fact did not. Unlike real- time. Internet retransmissions require the making of. A compulsory license for Internet retransmissions would. Copyright Act: the performance right and the. Finally, because Internet retransmissions were still in their infancy, the.
Office determined that it was premature to consider a statutory licensing. The Office cited the President's. Information Infrastructure Task Force's Working Group on Intellectual Property. Rights, which concluded that licensing of copyrighted works on the Internet. The Office also cited a Federal Communications Commission paper. See FCC. Office of Plans and Policy, OPP Working Paper No.
Digital. Tornado: The Internet and Communications Policy (March 1. Developments Since the 1. Report. Following our 1. Report, and as Congress worked on legislation to. Internet retransmissions received little attention.
This changed dramatically. Senate and House conference on the Satellite Home Viewer. Improvement Act of 1.
Toward the end of the conference, an amendment was made to the satellite. Internet.(1). The amendment appeared to us to be of little consequence, since we believed. Internet retransmissions. Nonetheless, several Internet companies. Internet retransmission activities they might soon. When it became clear that these objections might halt passage of the.
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act, I wrote a letter to you, Mr. Chairman. and to Mr. Berman, expressing our view that the proposed amendment was indeed. I stated: It is my understanding that some services that wish to.
Internet have asserted that they. Title 1. 7. I find this assertion to be without merit. The section 1. 11. Copyright Act of 1.
Congress has properly. Internet should be largely free of regulation, but the lack.
Internet a poor candidate for a compulsory. I believe that the. Internet transmissions. Letter of Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, to the. Honorable Howard Coble, November 1. Because of the inability to resolve this issue in the remaining days of the. Congress, the amendment was removed before the legislation was.
Our view on this matter has not changed: if there is to be a. Is There a Need for a Compulsory License for Internet Retransmissions of. Broadcast Signals?
The Copyright Office has long been a critic of compulsory licensing for. A compulsory license is not only a derogation of a. In addition, we believe that a compulsory license for Internet. Opposition to the cable compulsory license, and calls for its repeal, began. In 1. 98. 1, the Office recommended to this.
Subcommittee that the cable license be abolished, stating: The general principle of the copyright law is that copyright. Cable systems. perform copyrighted works for profit when they make secondary transmissions of. Copyright owners will be more confidently assured of rightful. In the last five years, the cable industry has progressed. Cable no. longer needs the protective support of the compulsory license. A compulsory license mechanism is in derogation of the. It should be utilized only if.
Those reasons may have existed in. They no longer do. Copyright/Cable Television: Hearings on. H. R. 5. 94. 9 Before the Subcomm.
On Courts, Civil Liberties, and the. Administration of Justice, 9.
Cong., 9. 59- 9. 60 (1. David Ladd, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office). In 1. 98. 9, the Federal Communications Commission issued a report arguing that. Report and Order in Docket No. Nevertheless, shortly before issuance of that report. Congress added to the stable of compulsory licenses by passing the Satellite.
Home Viewer Act of 1. With each renewal of the satellite license, in 1. Office. has been asked by Congress to analyze the cable and satellite licenses, and. Office has questioned whether they should continue to exist. The. Cable and Satellite Carrier Compulsory Licenses: An Overview and Analysis.
A Review of Compulsory Licensing Regimes Covering. Retransmission of Broadcast Signals at 3. At the same time, we. Although the. economic reasons for enacting the cable compulsory license have largely.
Register recognized in 1. The permanence of. Congressional concern for competition in the video. Moreover, we recommended in our 1. Report that the satellite license remain in existence for as long as.
Report at 3. 3. Although we still firmly believe that the cable and satellite licenses. Internet retransmissions.
I believe makes. compulsory licensing for the Internet inadvisable. That difference is in the.
Both cable and. satellite provide a means of delivering broadcast signals that copyright. Copyright owners license broadcasters.
There are topographical limitations to over- the- air. There. are also distance limitations to over- the- air broadcast signals that restrict.
Cable eliminates these limitations by being a. The same is true with satellite, which. By building multi- billion dollar delivery systems, cable and satellite.
This is not true, however, for the. Internet. Parties that wish to make use of the Internet to retransmit. The technology is readily available and is not particularly expensive. In fact. certain television broadcasters have already begun to place portions of their.
Internet, demonstrating that there is no need for a third- party. See,Hearings Before the Subcomm.
Or. copyright owners can freely decide to license others to transmit their. Internet. But it should be their choice. Additionally, although Internet transmissions of television broadcast. The resulting harm to copyright owners in. Although this risk also exists when. Internet, in such cases. Compulsory licensing permitting third.
Because the Internet is available to copyright owners, unlike the delivery. Copyright owners. Internet without concern that a. In sum, retransmission of broadcast signals over the Internet is very. The. free marketplace must be allowed to develop and operate. Copyright owners must.
Internet. Should There Be a Compulsory License for Retransmission of Local Signals. Internet? Last year, during the House and Senate conference on the Satellite Home.
Viewer Improvement Act, the matter of delivery of local broadcast stations in. The issue. was raised when certain satellite carriers indicated that they would only. United States. This year. House and the Senate passed loan guarantee legislation to enable. Some have suggested that rather than encourage the construction of new.
Internet. We think that this. Our principal concern is the extent to which Internet retransmissions of. The Internet is a.
If a. compulsory license were created for retransmission of local broadcast signals. In response, copyright owners. Crave. TV. retransmissions in the U. S. Some. firms are working on software and hardware that would restrict the.
Internet customers or to customers located in a specific geographic. But no one has yet rolled out a fail- proof system, and if experience has. Because of the ease with which copyrighted materials can move around the. Internet, the defeat of a keylock system can spell instant. Broadcast programming intended for limited. U. S. Further, even if protection.
Again, technological solutions may be developed to address these. Some have asserted that signal theft is signal theft, and that such.
Internet would be no different than signal theft of cable or. Cable is a closed path retransmission service. While a consumer can obtain an illegal. The same is true for.
Copyright Guidelines for UBC Faculty, Staff and Students. Introduction. UBC and its faculty, staff and students are creators of various forms of intellectual property, as well as consumers of intellectual property. As creators, we rely on the protections offered by intellectual property laws to ensure that our work product is protected from improper use. As consumers of intellectual property, we are legally (and morally) obligated to respect the intellectual property rights of others, just as we expect others to respect our intellectual property rights. One intellectual property right that is very important to UBC faculty, staff and students is copyright. Infringing copyright is a serious matter and UBC requires each of its faculty, staff and students to comply with copyright law and the terms of the UBC Copyright Requirements. This document supplements the Copyright Requirements for UBC Faculty and Staff and provides a basic summary of copyright law, as well as guidance on best practices and information to help you understand what you can and cannot do with copyrighted works.
You can find more detailed practical information by consulting UBC’s copyright FAQs and Support Guides, as well as Fair Dealing in Practice. If, after reviewing these guidelines, you have any questions or concerns about your obligations under copyright law or these guidelines, or wish to receive additional guidance, please contact copyright.
Back To Top. Your Copyright Obligations. Copyright is the sole and exclusive right of a copyright owner to produce, reproduce, perform, publish, adapt, translate and telecommunicate a work, and to control the circumstances in which others may do any of these things. Copyright owners grant permission to others through what are legally referred to as licences.
Copyright law in Canada protects a wide range of works. If you wish to reproduce a substantial part of a copyrighted work, you may only copy the work if you have permission from the copyright holder or if your copying falls within one of the exceptions set out in the Copyright Act that allows for such copying. The Copyright Act allows such exceptions for certain users, such as universities and persons acting under the authority of a university. These exceptions provide a balance between providing copyright owners with legal rights to control use of their works, and allowing users to access those works. In November 2. 01. Bill C- 1. 1, The Copyright Modernization Act were brought into force.
These legislative changes significantly update the Copyright Act, expand various educational exceptions available to UBC, and provide greater flexibility for UBC faculty and staff to rely on these exceptions to reproduce works within the university environment. Back To Top. Steps to Determine Your Ability to Copy The flowchart sets out a step- by- step process that guides you through the questions you need to answer to determine your ability to copy specific works. Is the work protected by copyright?
All original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, computer programs, translations and compilations of works are protected by copyright, unless the author(s) of the work died more than 5. If in doubt, you should presume that the work is protected by copyright. Back To Top. 2. Is there a Digital Lock protecting the work? In the Copyright Act, there are two forms of technological protection measures (commonly referred to as TPMs or Digital Locks), which we describe as an access control, and a use restriction. Access Control: An Access Control is any technology, device or component that controls or restricts the access to a work, including passwords that prevent access to a work. It is an offense under the Copyright Act to “circumvent” an Access Control. In this context, “circumvent” means: “to descramble a scrambled work or decrypt an encrypted work or to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the .
This means that even if you may otherwise have been able to copy a work under one of the exceptions within the Copyright Act (including educational exceptions and fair dealing exceptions), you cannot circumvent the Access Control to obtain a copy of that work. For example, if you have been provided with an authorised password, or login using your CWL username and password to access works that are licensed by UBC, then you can legally access the work. However, if you have obtained a password or key via unauthorised means, e. For example, a Use Restriction can be a program that prevents you from copying text from a file, or prevents you from downloading a copy of the file.
Unlike an Access Control, it is not an offense under the Copyright Act to circumvent a Use Restriction (but see below). It is, however, an offense to offer services to the public or to actually provide services of circumventing any kind of Digital Locks, including Use Restrictions or to provide technologies, devices or components that circumvent Digital Locks. User Rights that are Unavailable if a Digital Lock is Circumvented: The following user rights are unavailable if you have circumvented a Use Restriction (or an Access Control): Section 2. Reproduction for Private Purposes (aka the .
Is copying of the work permitted under the Copyright Act? Exceptions under the Copyright Act permit certain things to be done by educational institutions, or persons acting under the authority of an educational institution, that would otherwise infringe copyright. The “fair dealing exception” is one such exception. Back To Top. A. The Fair Dealing Exception: The “Fair Dealing Exception” allows any person to use a copyrighted work for the allowable purposes of research, private study, education, satire, parody, criticism, review, or news reporting, without the copyright holder’s permission. To qualify for the Fair Dealing Exception, two tests must be passed.
The first test is: is the dealing for an allowable purpose stated in the Copyright Act? Allowable purposes are: research, private study, education, satire, parody, criticism, review, or news reporting. The second test is: is the dealing “fair”?
The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that deciding whether a particular instance of copying may be considered to be “fair” requires a consideration of all of the relevant factors, including the following: (a) the purpose of the proposed copying, including whether it is for research, private study, education, satire, parody, criticism, review or news reporting; (b) the character of the proposed copying, including whether it involves single or multiple copies, and whether the copy is destroyed after it is used for its specific intended purpose; (c) the amount of the dealing from the individual user’s perspective, including the proportion of the work that is proposed to be copied and the importance of that excerpt in relation to the whole work; (d) alternatives to copying the work, including whether there is a non- copyrighted equivalent available; (e) the nature of the work, including whether it is published or unpublished; and(f) the effect of the copying on the work, including whether the copy will compete with the commercial market of the original work. How does “fair dealing” apply to faculty and staff who want to make copies for distribution to students? Further guidance was provided in 2. Supreme Court of Canada in this particular context.
In its 2. 01. 2 decision, the Supreme Court of Canada considered copying of short excerpts by teachers for class handouts, under the “research or private study” fair dealing purposes. The Court explicitly recognized that teachers “are there to facilitate the students’ research and private study”, that teachers cannot “be characterized as having the completely separate purpose of .
These Requirements set out the specific requirements that UBC staff and faculty members must meet if they wish to avail themselves of the Fair Dealing Exception. UBC has also developed Fair Dealing in Practice, which is intended to clarify the application of the Fair Dealing Requirements to copying in a variety of contexts. Faculty members may be allowed under the Fair Dealing Requirements to post copyrighted materials onto secure UBC learning management systems. For further information regarding posting materials onto UBC’s learning management systems, please see Copying For Posting in a Learning Management System.
Important note: Some UBC digital licenses that provide access to publications in electronic format may restrict the making or dissemination of copies and limit fair dealing rights. If there is a conflict between the terms of a license and the Fair Dealing Requirements, the terms of the license apply.
Back To Top. B. Personal Use Exceptions: There are also the following “personal use” fair dealing exceptions: Non- commercial User- generated Content (aka . For example, this allows you to copy a song purchased from i.
Tunes from your computer onto a device, such as an i. Pod, or files from a legally purchased CD to your computer. This exception does not allow you to.
CD or mini- disc (or any other audio recording medium); give the reproduction away; orkeep the reproduction if the original version is given away, rented or sold. Fixing Signals and Recording Programs for Later Listening/Viewing (aka .
For example, this allows you to record a show on your PVR or other recording device to watch at a later time. Backup Copies: An individual can make a backup copy of a work to protect against the source copy being lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable, if the source work is legally obtained by the individual, the individual does not circumvent an access Digital Lock in order to back- up the work, and the backup copy is not given away.