版权改革:灵活性的叙述及其在政策和立法举措中的陷阱(2011-2021)

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Eleonora Rosati
{"title":"版权改革:灵活性的叙述及其在政策和立法举措中的陷阱(2011-2021)","authors":"Eleonora Rosati","doi":"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reviews selected copyright policy and legislation at the international, regional and national levels during the period 2011–2021. It identifies a common and consistent narrative that supported reform initiatives in the surveyed jurisdictions: the modernization of copyright requires greater flexibility so that the undertaking of certain acts without authorization is not unduly restricted and a fairer balance of rights and interests may be, as a result, achieved. Through the analysis of reform initiatives in different areas of copyright and across several different jurisdictions, it is shown how the flexibility narrative has on occasion had the effect of unduly altering the preventive nature of copyright’s exclusive rights, inappropriately referring to exceptions and limitations as rights of users, overlooking relevant legal obligations and introducing undue rigidity within the system of private autonomy. It is ultimately submitted that flexibility should not be conflated with fairness. As such, policy- and law-makers should be wary of superficially framing ongoing and future reform discourse around such a narrative without considering the shortcomings that it has led and might unduly lead to.","PeriodicalId":42799,"journal":{"name":"Asia Pacific Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"33 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Copyright reformed: the narrative of flexibility and its pitfalls in policy and legislative initiatives (2011–2021)\",\"authors\":\"Eleonora Rosati\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This article reviews selected copyright policy and legislation at the international, regional and national levels during the period 2011–2021. It identifies a common and consistent narrative that supported reform initiatives in the surveyed jurisdictions: the modernization of copyright requires greater flexibility so that the undertaking of certain acts without authorization is not unduly restricted and a fairer balance of rights and interests may be, as a result, achieved. Through the analysis of reform initiatives in different areas of copyright and across several different jurisdictions, it is shown how the flexibility narrative has on occasion had the effect of unduly altering the preventive nature of copyright’s exclusive rights, inappropriately referring to exceptions and limitations as rights of users, overlooking relevant legal obligations and introducing undue rigidity within the system of private autonomy. It is ultimately submitted that flexibility should not be conflated with fairness. As such, policy- and law-makers should be wary of superficially framing ongoing and future reform discourse around such a narrative without considering the shortcomings that it has led and might unduly lead to.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia Pacific Law Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"33 - 54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia Pacific Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia Pacific Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10192557.2022.2117482","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要本文回顾了2011-2021年期间国际、地区和国家层面的版权政策和立法。它确定了一个共同和一致的叙述,支持被调查管辖区的改革举措:版权的现代化需要更大的灵活性,以便在未经授权的情况下进行某些行为不会受到不适当的限制,从而可以实现更公平的权利和利益平衡。通过对不同版权领域和几个不同司法管辖区的改革举措的分析,可以看出灵活性叙事有时会不适当地改变版权排他性权利的预防性质,不适当地将例外和限制称为用户的权利,忽视了相关的法律义务,并在私人自治制度中引入了过度僵化。最终认为,灵活性不应与公平混为一谈。因此,政策制定者和法律制定者应该警惕表面上围绕这样一种叙事来构建正在进行和未来的改革话语,而不考虑它已经导致和可能过度导致的缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Copyright reformed: the narrative of flexibility and its pitfalls in policy and legislative initiatives (2011–2021)
ABSTRACT This article reviews selected copyright policy and legislation at the international, regional and national levels during the period 2011–2021. It identifies a common and consistent narrative that supported reform initiatives in the surveyed jurisdictions: the modernization of copyright requires greater flexibility so that the undertaking of certain acts without authorization is not unduly restricted and a fairer balance of rights and interests may be, as a result, achieved. Through the analysis of reform initiatives in different areas of copyright and across several different jurisdictions, it is shown how the flexibility narrative has on occasion had the effect of unduly altering the preventive nature of copyright’s exclusive rights, inappropriately referring to exceptions and limitations as rights of users, overlooking relevant legal obligations and introducing undue rigidity within the system of private autonomy. It is ultimately submitted that flexibility should not be conflated with fairness. As such, policy- and law-makers should be wary of superficially framing ongoing and future reform discourse around such a narrative without considering the shortcomings that it has led and might unduly lead to.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信