Some principled linearity please
Democracies’ very right to exist depends on the support the government is getting from its population. Hong Kong’s democracy might be in its infancy, but the government of the Special Administrative Region should know that passing the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 without an explicit parody exception and only after that fact consult the public, is almost a parody on democracy, and in contempt of the Hong Kong public. The same has happened in the U.K., but that is no reason to adopt it.
The Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2011 is making it an offence to share copyrighted works without permission to make political or socially critical points; satire, parody or social comment. It does not matter whether the copyright holder has complained or not.
RTHK The Pulse covered the item on April 20, 2012: “The Bills Committee has supported the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 9th May, ” see here (starting from 6 minutes 20 seconds)
Chairman of the Committee Copyright (Amendment) 2011 Chan Kam-lam: “If we secretly share materials even with friends, it will directly or indirectly affect the interest of the copyright owners. Therefore we have to handle it carefully. ”
Mr Chan seems less concerned about chilling effects to creativity and free expression.
Anny Cheng and Jacki Lee of the Concern Group of Rights of Derivative Works say that not all copyright permissions can be obtained.
Ms Cheng: “There was a cartoon animation fan. He found a hundred title sequences to create his own little sequence. So does he have to get copyright permission for a hundred cartoons?”
Mr Lee: original works and derivative works complement each other.
According to Geoffrey Lau, head media & licensing & strategic planning of the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong, parody requires consent by both the copyright holder and the parodist. Mr Lau is comparing it like a marriage.
Network Freedom Concern Group’s submission to LegCo CB(1)2776/10-11(05), you can find in Chinese here: their concern can be summarized as follows: the proposed Section 39 does not include explicitly parody or satire, and this in combination with the proposed offence of prejudicial communication to the public Section 118(8B)b.
UPDATE 26 April 2012:
RTHK: “The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Greg So, says amendments to the copyright ordinance, which are being scrutinised by the Legislative Council, will not target satire or limit freedom of expression on the internet. There’s been an internet uproar over fears that the proposed changes will make it easier to prosecute online comedians and satirists. Mr So reiterated that there was no need for netizens to be over-concerned.”
Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Greg So said that no legislation in the world that can define what parody is. “And some recognise that there might be a difference between satire and parody, and that is precisely why we need to do a consultation to hear from the stakeholders to have a broader perspective, before we decide whether to exam, what to exam, and have a definition. Right now, no one seems to be able to do just that.”
Listen to RTHK’s Wendy Wong here.
Thanks Ron Yu.