No, you can't find me in that address now as I move out from the hall. Though I hang around there so...

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Panel Comment on Copyright Amendment Consultation on Parody Works by Attacking Alan

以下是「進擊之懼人」發言人進擊之艾倫先生11月4日在立法會工商委員會公聽會的語體文版整理後發言稿,立此存照:

 主席、各位委員、各位人士: 

早晨!我是進擊之懼人發言人進擊之艾倫。我首先解釋一下「進擊之懼人」代表一群甚麼的人。懼,不是指巨大的巨,而是指恐懼的懼。我們為何恐懼呢?因為我們就政府,以及其他人打壓我們而感到恐懼。 

譬如,這一次的版權條例修正呢,政府將這個分發(Distribution)的定義擴散到溝通(Communication)的定義。即是話如果在電子通訊或其他層面上去傳這個所謂侵權物品的話,也可能觸犯刑事。這樣,就會影響到很多人在正常生活時候的用途。例如在Facebook上分享圖片或其他(物品),若果那些是一些侵權物品的話呢,那樣會有機會會觸犯法例。 

那麼我們認為,如果你擴大了(分發)定義的話,我們需要擴大對版權使用者的保護。版權使用者的保護呢,就是如果他的使用是非商業用途的話,又或者不影響原創作品的話,就應該受到保護。

 政府今次這個戲仿(parody)諮詢裡面,提到三個方案。方案一其實是完全沒有釐清責任,所以根本上不適合推行。方案二只是解除了刑事責任,但民事責任仍然存在。這個是甚麼意思呢?這個意思就是說有人(指版權持有人)可以用民事訴訟形式,或者去恐嚇一些例如二次創作或者其他有版權的產品。 

我首先用一點時間介紹一下這個UGC,用戶衍生作品這個概念。用戶衍生內容呢,就是本身是原創或者基於有創作的產品而衍生的東西。譬如改圖、改歌、剪片之如此類的東西。其實呢,這類東西都是與牟利沒有關係的。所以呢,這些與牟利沒有關係的東西,是應該不會影響原創本身的法定權益(法定應是贅字)的。所以我們認為政府應該推行第四方案(對UGC作出豁免),但是政府也應該同時對戲仿(parody)、諷刺(satire)、拼貼和模仿(應為模仿(pastiche)和滑稽(caricature),此處說錯)作出豁免才是正確的,因為這樣才是公平的。 

Fair isn't fair if it is prejudiced against one side. (側向一方的公平並非公正。)所以在公平的層面上,第三方案是向使用者公平。

所以,本人最後結案陳詞(為何我化身成律師!)就認為呢,政府應該同時推方第三和第四方案,這樣才對版權使用者,甚至版權持有人是公平的。

This is the English "transcript" of Attacking Alan's speech on the special hearing on the LegCo Panel on Commerce and Industry for Copyright Amendment Bills. This comes from the simultaneous interpretation in LegCo with significant amendments to make it more readable.

"This is Attacking Alan from Advance on the Fear. Let me explain what does it mean by "Advance on the Fear". I mean Fear here, not Giants (A Cantonese pun). We have fear, because we are fearful of the government and others who want to suppress us.

"For example, the Copyright Amendment Bill will extend the definition of distribution to communication. This is to say if you send so-called infringing copies by electronic or other means, you would be in breach of the law as it may be a criminal offence. This extension would affect people's right on common use. For example, if you share something on Facebook, and those are (alleged) infringing copies, you would be in breach of the law.

"So we think if you extend the meaning of distribution as an offence, we would need to extend the rights and protections for copyright users. Such as if their use is non-commercial, or their use does not undermine the (interests of) original work, then it should be protected.

"Government has provided three options in this consultation on Parody use of Copyright. I do not think the government has clarify any of the various issues under Option 1 so it is inappropriate to be used. Only criminal liability is exempted in Option 2, but civil liability remains. What does this mean? This means someone (meaning Copyright owner) can sue a civil case or use civil litigation as a threat against derivative works or other copyrighted goods.

"Let me use a little bit of time to explain UGC, that is User Generated Content. UGC is either original or derived from other creative works, such as photoshopping pictures, rewriting songs, editing videos etc. These are unrelated to any profit (or monetary gains). So these non-profit making items should not affect the "statutory (this word is added erroneously)" rights of the original works. That is why we suggest the government should go for Option 4 (on UGC Exemption), but they should also exempt parody, satire, pastiche and pastiche (should be caricature here), because this is only fair.

"Fair isn't fair if it is prejudiced against one side (original line in English as omitted by interpreter). On the basis of fairness, Option 3 is fair to the user.

"Finally, my conclusion is the government should go for Option 3 and Option 4, because this is only fair to copyright users and even copyright owners."

About Me

My photo
As you see, I'm semi-abandoning here! ;) I'll tell about more of myself later.

Twitter / 28481k

Plurk / 28481k