Evaluating the Benefits of Fair Use: A Response to the PWC Report on the Costs and Benefits of 'Fair Use'

Peter A. Jaszi, Michael W. Carroll, S. Flynn, Michael Palmedo, Kimberlee Weatherall, Ariel Katz
{"title":"Evaluating the Benefits of Fair Use: A Response to the PWC Report on the Costs and Benefits of 'Fair Use'","authors":"Peter A. Jaszi, Michael W. Carroll, S. Flynn, Michael Palmedo, Kimberlee Weatherall, Ariel Katz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2773646","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This submission to the Australia Productivity Commission responds to a recently published PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Introducing a ‘Fair Use’ Exception, prepared for APRA, AMCOS, PPCA, Copyright Agency | Viscopy, Foxtel, News Corp Australia and Screenrights (“PWC Report”). The PWC Report does not provide a sound evidence base to evaluate the true total costs and benefits that the introduction of a fair use rights would have in Australia. Part I points out how the PWC Report fails to adequately define the nature of the real change being proposed in Australia – which is effectively to subject its existing fair dealing clause to an open list of potentially lawful purposes. Part II provides a survey of a range of benefits that the opening of Australia’s fair dealing clause to resemble the U.S. fair use doctrine may have, drawing from published research on the topic which is not canvassed by the PWC Report. Part III analyses the PWC Report’s evaluation of the costs of adopting fair use, criticizing the Report’s basis for concluding that adopting fair use will lead to massive shifts from licensed to unlicensed use of works, a litigation explosion and the destruction of all collective management organizations in Australia. The diffuse and forward-looking benefits of open exceptions like fair use may be hard to measure, but they are no less real. The PWC’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of fair use are not real. It is full of imagined horror stories that are unlikely to take place in fact and should be disregarded in their entirety.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2773646","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This submission to the Australia Productivity Commission responds to a recently published PricewaterhouseCoopers report on Understanding the Costs and Benefits of Introducing a ‘Fair Use’ Exception, prepared for APRA, AMCOS, PPCA, Copyright Agency | Viscopy, Foxtel, News Corp Australia and Screenrights (“PWC Report”). The PWC Report does not provide a sound evidence base to evaluate the true total costs and benefits that the introduction of a fair use rights would have in Australia. Part I points out how the PWC Report fails to adequately define the nature of the real change being proposed in Australia – which is effectively to subject its existing fair dealing clause to an open list of potentially lawful purposes. Part II provides a survey of a range of benefits that the opening of Australia’s fair dealing clause to resemble the U.S. fair use doctrine may have, drawing from published research on the topic which is not canvassed by the PWC Report. Part III analyses the PWC Report’s evaluation of the costs of adopting fair use, criticizing the Report’s basis for concluding that adopting fair use will lead to massive shifts from licensed to unlicensed use of works, a litigation explosion and the destruction of all collective management organizations in Australia. The diffuse and forward-looking benefits of open exceptions like fair use may be hard to measure, but they are no less real. The PWC’s evaluation of the costs and benefits of fair use are not real. It is full of imagined horror stories that are unlikely to take place in fact and should be disregarded in their entirety.
评估合理使用的好处:对普华永道关于“合理使用”的成本和收益报告的回应
提交给澳大利亚生产力委员会的这份报告是对普华永道最近发布的一份报告《了解引入“合理使用”例外的成本和收益》的回应,该报告是为APRA、AMCOS、PPCA、版权机构| Viscopy、Foxtel、澳大利亚新闻集团和Screenrights准备的(“普华永道报告”)。普华永道报告没有提供可靠的证据基础来评估在澳大利亚引入合理使用权的真实总成本和收益。第一部分指出,普华永道报告未能充分定义澳大利亚提出的实际变化的性质——这实际上是将其现有的公平交易条款置于潜在合法目的的公开清单之下。第二部分对澳大利亚公平交易条款的开放类似于美国合理使用原则可能带来的一系列好处进行了调查,这些好处来自于有关该主题的已发表的研究,但普华永道报告并未对此进行调查。第三部分分析了普华永道报告对采用合理使用的成本的评估,批评了该报告得出结论的基础,即采用合理使用将导致作品从许可使用到未经许可使用的大规模转变,诉讼爆炸以及澳大利亚所有集体管理组织的破坏。像合理使用这样的开放例外的广泛和前瞻性的好处可能很难衡量,但它们同样是真实的。普华永道对合理使用的成本和收益的评估是不真实的。它充满了想象中的恐怖故事,这些故事实际上不太可能发生,应该完全忽略它们。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信