Petition Closed
Petitioning Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong Cheung Kam-fai and 29 others
2 responses
This petition will be delivered to:
Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong
Cheung Kam-fai
Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong
Wong Siu-ling
Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of Hong Kong
So Kam-leung
See response
Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of Hong Kong
So Kam-leung
Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of Hong Kong
So Kam-leung
Member of the Legislative Council
Chan Kam-lam
Member of the Legislative Council
Tong Ka-wah
Member of the Legislative Council
Cyd Ho Sau-lan
Member of the Legislative Council
Leong Kah-kit
Member of the Legislative Council
Chan Hak-kan
Chairman of Young DAB
Chow Ho-ding
Member of the Legislative Council
Lee Cheuk-yan
Member of the Legislative Council
To Kun-sun
Member of the Legislative Council
Lau Kin-yee
Member of the Legislative Council
Lau Wai-hing
Member of the Legislative Council
Wong Ting-kwong
Member of the Legislative Council
Tam Wai-ho
Member of the Legislative Council
Tsang Yok-sing
Member of the Legislative Council
Lee Wai-king
Member of the Legislative Council
Tam Yiu-chung
Member of the Legislative Council
Cheung Hok-ming
Member of the Legislative Council
Wong Kwok-hing
Member of the Legislative Council
Lau Kong-wah
Member of the Legislative Council
Wong Yung-kan
Member of the Legislative Council
Pan Pey-chyou
Member of the Legislative Council
Ip Kwok-him
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (Hong Kong Group) Limited
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (Hong Kong Group) Limited
IFPI CEO
Fung Tim-chee
Member of the Legislative Council
Ma Fung-kowk

Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong: Withdraw Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011

12,068
Supporters

The HKSAR government proposes to amend the existing copyright ordinance (Cap 528) by introducing the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 (the “Bill”). Should the Bill be passed, it shall have an immense impact on the freedom of publication and speech, suppressing the voice of the public. The Bill causes suspicion of carving out the Article 23 to be legislated. We must stand up and say no to this vicious law. The followings are the impacts of the Bill:

A. Refusal of including the derivative work in the ambit of fair dealings

The HKSAR government refused to include derivative works in the ambit of the fair dealings and claimed that the consultation in this regard with the public shall be conducted after passing the bill. However, once this vicious bill is passed, derivative works shall be forbidden. Even if derivative works were to be immune in future, the prevalence and popularity of recreating works of others now would not be able to turn the clock back to its prime time.

B. Passing the Bill is equal to forbidding all the activities in the cyber world

The scope of the criminal liability of the Bill is extended to “all forms of electronic transmission” and “distributing” is amended to “communicating to the public”. It means that “uploading to the Internet” or “transmitting via the mobile” shall attract criminal prosecution. This is no difference from forbidding all sharing activities on the Internet.

C. HKSAR government may by-pass the owner of the copyright to prosecute the person who distributes his derivative work or share the work of others on the internet

Though HKSAR government said they would not take the initiative to prosecute, the enforcing authority may still circumvent the owner and initiate prosecution on behalf of the owner against the re-creator of the derivative work and people who share work of others on the grounds of infringing the rights of the original owner. It shall be the start of the trend of literary persecution.

D. Netizens may face the difficulty of exposing the identity and privacy of others or be punished as a criminal associates

If a netizen is using the Internet social platforms with message-posting function, for example Facebook, Plurk, Twitter, Weibo, blogs or forums without leaving his own name and contacts (including telephone, address or email), he might bear the same criminal culpability as the person who makes the infringing copyrighted work available to the public on his Internet social platforms. This vicious law forces all netizens to expose their own identities or to face the same criminal liability of the distributor.

E. Refusal to supervise the copyrights licensing bodies makes derivative works become subject to the game of “Monopoly”

The Government has never done anything to supervise or regulate the behaviour of the copyrights licensing bodies. Users and owners of the copyrights are facing the same unfair and unreasonable treatment as to the fees to be paid to the licensing bodies, even the owners themselves are under restrictions of using their own works. However, this situation has not been dealt with in the Bill. Derivatives works, therefore, become the subject of the monopoly game of the licensing bodies.

F. Lack of protection to the open typed copyrighted work

The HKSAR government and the Bill provide no protection to the open typed copyright work, such as the Creative Commons and General Public Licence etc. If the copyright licensing bodies initiate prosecution against others for illegal distribution and do not accept the value of the creative commons, the rights of the copyright owners would not be fully protected. However, nothing is mentioned in the Bill in this regard.

G. Continually regulating objects to derogatory treatment of work kills the creativity and freedom of speech

Under the current copyright laws, the objects to derogatory treatment of work are regulated. It is an offence if there is any addition to, deletion from or alteration to or adaptation of the work and the treatment of the work is derogatory and amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director. The essence of the derivative work is to alter the original work to become a new creation of work. In such case, all the derivative work would be regarded as work infringing the copyright of the original author. This cannot be the intention of the Bill to kill the creativity and freedom of speech.

Therefore, we demand:

● Exempt all derivative works and enlist them as “Fair Dealings”;
● Limit the criminal prosecution to cases with serious economic loss and define clearly what is “incalculable potential business value” to avoid abuse of power by the enforcing authority.
● Delete all entitlement to non-physical loss, especially losses to derogatory treatment of work to prevent the laws to be exploited as a tool of suppression of ideas;
● Delete requirements of the service providers to disclose personal private data of users and the criminal liability of failing to do so under the Bill;
● Mend the existing loopholes by regulating and supervising the copyrights licensing bodies with clearer and stricter laws; and
● Correct the imbalance of the protection to various copyrights under the current laws and provide protection not only to closed typed authorisation and commercial licence but also to the open typed authorisation.

 

反對《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》

政府打算修訂版權法例,推出了《2011年版權(修訂)條例草案》。若有關修訂獲得通過,將嚴重打擊創作自由及言論自由,令民間的發聲渠道受到粗暴的打壓!它令人無法不質疑是「23條」的「分拆上市」,令人無法不站出來向惡法說不!《條例草案》的主要問題如下:

一、拒絕將「二次創作」列作公平處理的豁免範圍
政府拒將「二次創作」列作公平處理的豁免範圍,並聲稱會在修訂通過後再諮詢公眾。但此惡法一旦實行,所有二次創作將會被禁聲。即使 他朝二次創作再獲豁免,二次創作的風氣也不可能回復。

二、修訂後等同禁絕一切網上分享活動
修訂條例把刑事的有效範圍擴大至「任何電子傳播模式」,以及由「分發」擴展為「向公眾傳播」,即是把「放到互聯網」,甚至「在手機傳送」都會被刑事起訴。由於有案例指網上傳播即屬「廣泛傳播」,即使有網民原創作品,一旦其他人分享,也隨時會墮入法網。這無異是禁絕一切模式的分享活動。

三、政府可跳過版權人,主動檢控在網上發表的二次創作人或網上分享者
政府雖然聲稱不會主動執法,事實上卻可跳過版權 人,不論是否商業用途,均可以損害版權人利益為由,主動檢控在網上發表的二次創作人或網上分享者,成為現代版的「文字獄」。

四、網民面對公開私隱或承受連坐風險的兩難
如果網民有facebook、plurk、twitter、微博、blog、 forum等有留言功能的網上平台帳號,若不在界面留下自己的姓 名和聯絡資料(包括電話、地址及電郵),而其他人又在此網民的網上平台上發表侵權物品,此網民也會受牽連,與侵權者同罪!此惡法逼所有網民面對公開私隱或承受連坐風險的兩難!

五、拒監管版權收費組織,令二次創作淪為商家鉅額買賣遊戲
當局對此問題一直交白卷,欠缺相關的條例及規管,使民間使用者及創作者在現行制度下,被徵收極不公平、極不合理的版稅。甚至創作人自己,也受制於版權收費組 織,無法使用自己的作品。在這種情況下,二次創作已淪為商家鉅額買賣遊戲,而這次修訂對這情況仍毫無改善。

六、欠缺對開放式版權的保障
政府對「共享創意」(CreativeCommons)、GNU通用公共授權條款等開放式版權授權條款的使用者,近乎是零保障。若版權管理組織不承認共享創意的存在價值,反施以法律途徑,控告創作人「非法散佈作品」的話,版權條例對有關創作人仍是缺乏保障,這次修訂對這情況仍毫無改 善。

七、 繼續對「貶損處理」的規管,扼殺創作和言論自由
在 現行版權條例中有所謂「貶損處理」的規管,即如作品經增加、刪除、修改或改編後受歪曲或殘缺不全,或在其他方面損害作者或導演的榮譽或聲譽,已屬侵權行 為。而二次創作正正是把原作改編變成另一作品,若站在另一角度看,不正正是會被指為所謂的侵權物品嗎?! 如此扼殺創作和言論自由,是一條原本應為保護創作 人而設的法例該做的嗎?

我們要求︰

  • 立即把 「二次創作」列作公平處理的豁免範圍;
  • 應將刑事檢控限制於嚴重經 濟損失的事件,列明「不可計算潛在的商業價值」,避免執法機關權力過大;
  • 取消對其他無形損失,尤其所謂「貶損處理」的規管, 以免成爲意識形態的打壓工具;
  • 取消草案中,要服務提供者必需公開個人私隱方可避免受侵權者牽連的條文;
  • 補足現有漏洞,確立明確、嚴格的條文規管版權收費組織;
  • 確立對開放式授權的保障,停止現行版權法向封閉式授權及向商業版權擁有人傾斜的現狀。

Letter to
Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong Cheung Kam-fai
Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong Wong Siu-ling
Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of Hong Kong So Kam-leung
and 27 others
Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of Hong Kong So Kam-leung
Commerce and Economic Development Bureau of Hong Kong So Kam-leung
Member of the Legislative Council Chan Kam-lam
Member of the Legislative Council Tong Ka-wah
Member of the Legislative Council Cyd Ho Sau-lan
Member of the Legislative Council Leong Kah-kit
Member of the Legislative Council Chan Hak-kan
Chairman of Young DAB Chow Ho-ding
Member of the Legislative Council Lee Cheuk-yan
Member of the Legislative Council To Kun-sun
Member of the Legislative Council Lau Kin-yee
Member of the Legislative Council Lau Wai-hing
Member of the Legislative Council Wong Ting-kwong
Member of the Legislative Council Tam Wai-ho
Member of the Legislative Council Tsang Yok-sing
Member of the Legislative Council Lee Wai-king
Member of the Legislative Council Tam Yiu-chung
Member of the Legislative Council Cheung Hok-ming
Member of the Legislative Council Wong Kwok-hing
Member of the Legislative Council Lau Kong-wah
Member of the Legislative Council Wong Yung-kan
Member of the Legislative Council Pan Pey-chyou
Member of the Legislative Council Ip Kwok-him
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (Hong Kong Group) Limited
International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (Hong Kong Group) Limited
IFPI CEO Fung Tim-chee
Member of the Legislative Council Ma Fung-kowk
I just signed the following petition addressed to: Intellectual Property Department of Hong Kong.

----------------
Withdraw Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011

The HKSAR government proposes to amend the existing copyright ordinance (Cap 528) by introducing the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 (the “Bill”). Should the Bill be passed, it shall have an immense impact on the freedom of publication and speech, suppressing the voice of the public. The Bill causes suspicion of carving out the Article 23 to be legislated. We must stand up and say no to this vicious law. The followings are the impacts of the Bill:

A. Refusal of including the derivative work in the ambit of fair dealings

The HKSAR government refused to include derivative works in the ambit of the fair dealings and claimed that the consultation in this regard with the public shall be conducted after passing the bill. However, once this vicious bill is passed, derivative works shall be forbidden. Even if derivative works were to be immune in future, the prevalence and popularity of recreating works of others now would not be able to turn the clock back to its prime time.

B. Passing the Bill is equal to forbidding all the activities in the cyber world

The scope of the criminal liability of the Bill is extended to “all forms of electronic transmission” and “distributing” is amended to “communicating to the public”. It means that “uploading to the Internet” or “transmitting via the mobile” shall attract criminal prosecution. This is no difference from forbidding all sharing activities on the Internet.

C. HKSAR government may by-pass the owner of the copyright to prosecute the person who distributes his derivative work or share the work of others on the internet

Though HKSAR government said they would not take the initiative to prosecute, the enforcing authority may still circumvent the owner and initiate prosecution on behalf of the owner against the re-creator of the derivative work and people who share work of others on the grounds of infringing the rights of the original owner. It shall be the start of the trend of literary persecution.

D. Netizens may face the difficulty of exposing the identity and privacy of others or be punished as a criminal associates

If a netizen is using the Internet social platforms with message-posting function, for example Facebook, Plurk, Twitter, Weibo, blogs or forums without leaving his own name and contacts (including telephone, address or email), he might bear the same criminal culpability as the person who makes the infringing copyrighted work available to the public on his Internet social platforms. This vicious law forces all netizens to expose their own identities or to face the same criminal liability of the distributor.

E. Refusal to supervise the copyrights licensing bodies makes derivative works become subject to the game of “Monopoly”

The Government has never done anything to supervise or regulate the behaviour of the copyrights licensing bodies. Users and owners of the copyrights are facing the same unfair and unreasonable treatment as to the fees to be paid to the licensing bodies, even the owners themselves are under restrictions of using their own works. However, this situation has not been dealt with in the Bill. Derivatives works, therefore, become the subject of the monopoly game of the licensing bodies.

F. Lack of protection to the open typed copyrighted work

The HKSAR government and the Bill provide no protection to the open typed copyright work, such as the Creative Commons and General Public Licence etc. If the copyright licensing bodies initiate prosecution against others for illegal distribution and do not accept the value of the creative commons, the rights of the copyright owners would not be fully protected. However, nothing is mentioned in the Bill in this regard.

G. Continually regulating objects to derogatory treatment of work kills the creativity and freedom of speech

Under the current copyright laws, the objects to derogatory treatment of work are regulated. It is an offence if there is any addition to, deletion from or alteration to or adaptation of the work and the treatment of the work is derogatory and amounts to distortion or mutilation of the work or is otherwise prejudicial to the honour or reputation of the author or director. The essence of the derivative work is to alter the original work to become a new creation of work. In such case, all the derivative work would be regarded as work infringing the copyright of the original author. This cannot be the intention of the Bill to kill the creativity and freedom of speech.

Therefore, we demand:

● Exempt all derivative works and enlist them as “Fair Dealings”;
● Limit the criminal prosecution to cases with serious economic loss and define clearly what is “incalculable potential business value” to avoid abuse of power by the enforcing authority.
● Delete all entitlement to non-physical loss, especially losses to derogatory treatment of work to prevent the laws to be exploited as a tool of suppression of ideas;
● Delete requirements of the service providers to disclose personal private data of users and the criminal liability of failing to do so under the Bill;
● Mend the existing loopholes by regulating and supervising the copyrights licensing bodies with clearer and stricter laws; and
● Correct the imbalance of the protection to various copyrights under the current laws and provide protection not only to closed typed authorisation and commercial licence but also to the open typed authorisation.
----------------

Sincerely,