DOCSLIB.ORG

1963 Annual Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1963 Annual Report SIXTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,1963 COPYRIGHT OFFICE The Library of Congress WASHINGTON :1964 -L.C. Card No. 10-35017 This report is reprinted from the -4nnual .Report of llrs Librarian of Congreea for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1963 Contents Frontispiece ...................................................... (facing p . I) General Revision of the Copyright Law .................................... I The Year's Copyright Business ............................................ 2 Percentage of Total Registration in Each Class, Years I gr 3, I 928. I $3 ........ 3 Historical Evolution of the Deposit .Requirements. United States Copyright Laws. 179-199 ........................................................... 4 Official Publications ..................................................... 5 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congress ........................... .5 Administrative Developments ............................................. 6 Legislative Developments ................................................. 7 Judicial Developments................................................... 9 The Rickover Cast .................................................... 9 Subject Matter of Copyright Protection: Designs and Works of Art .......... 9 Subject Matter of Copyright Protection : Educational Materials ............. 10 Subject .Matter of Copyright Protection: The Field of Entertainment ......... -io Notice of Copyright ................................................... 11 Publication ............................................................ 11 Registration .......................................................... 12 Renewals ............................................................ 12 Infringement and the Scope of Copyright Protection ....................... 13 Unfair Competition and Copyright ...................................... 14 Antitrust and the Nature of Copyright ................................... I4 International Developments ....... : ...................................... 14 CopyrightO&eSt& ................................................... 15 Registration by Subject Matter Classes ..................................... 16 Statement of Gross Cash Receipts, Yearly Fees, Number of Registrations. etc .... 16 Num bcr of Articles Deposited ............................................ '7 Summary of Copyright Business, Fiscal Year I 963 ........................... 18 List of Contracting Berne Union Countries and Accessions and Ratifications to the Universal Copyright Convention .................................. 18 Publications of the Copyright Office ....................................... 21 The C'kht Ofice Report to the Librarian of Congress by the Register of Copyrights General Revision of the Copyright a first term of 28 years, renewable for a Law second term of 48 yean. These recommendations were, as the As the fiscal year began, the program for Report itself made clear, tentative and sub- general revision was approaching a turn- ject to further consideration. At the same ing point. Copyright Law Revision, Re- time, they had not been reached lightly; port of the Regkter of Copyrights on the indeed, they represented "our best thinking General Revision of the U.S. Copyright at the time." To undertake the necessary Law had been ~ublishedfor more than a reevaluation and revision of these recom- year, a considerable body of comments on mendations required a thorough analysis its proposals had been collected, and sev- and review of all the arguments, criticisms, eral meetings had been held to discuss the and comments that had been advanced in recommendations in detail. Some of the connection with them. This process has Report's proposals, as expected, had proved taken a good deal of time. to be extremely controversial, and nearly Any long-range program for legislative all of these were criticized for one reason reform encounters decisive periods that or another. shape its eventual direction. In the fall of Concentrated discussions of the issues 1962 the copyright revision program met raised by the Report were held during a just such a period when its future was 3-day period preceding the Annual Meet- somewhat in doubt. ing of the American Bar Association in San It emerged stronger and better founded Francisco in August 1962. These discus- than before. The Copyright Office, for its sions, which were attended by the Register part, was pressed to reach decisions and to and the Deputy Register of Copyrights and speed up the drafting of a revision statute. the General Counsel of the Copyright Of- On the other side, there was increased red- fice, were most illuminating. In particu- ization of the time and dort needed to lar, they showed the strength of the oppo- produce a bill that has some chance of sition to, and lack of support for, certain enactment. Most important, the growth of the Report's recommendations. It had in respect and understanding on both sides become apparent, for example, that the improved the atmosphere of accommoda- prevailing sentiment favored a single Fed- tion and cooperative effort which, as last eral copyright system, with protection com- year's report pointed out, is essential to mencing upon the creation of a work and general revision. ending 50 yean after the author's death. In November 1962, at the outset of the This view was in direct conflict with the drafting phase of the revision program, the Register's proposal for copyright to begin Copyright Office announced that it was with "public dissemination" and to last for prepared to change its position on some 1 2 REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, 196 3 debatable questions, and to draft alterna- language as possible. In some cases al- tive language on others. The Register in- ternative sections have been presented for dicated, for example, that the Office was discussion. prepared to revise its recommendations As soon as all of the sections of the first concerning "public dissemination" and the draft have been commented upon by the retention of common law protection, and Panel, a complete review and revision of that "at least one alternative version of our every section in the light of the comments draft bill will adopt the life-plus basis for received will follow. On questions of sub- computing the term-in conjunction with stance a choice will be made between al- a system of notice, deposit, and registration ternatives or, on a few points, an entirely that we consider essential." He also made new approach adopted. The sections must clear that, in order to resolve differences also be substantially redrafted and the lan- with respect to language and substance, a guage boiled down to make the bill simple series of meetings with an enlarged Panel and clear without leaving gaps or making it of Consultants on General Revision would over-generalized. It is hoped that, by the be held at which the draft language would time a final version is ready for introduc- be considered in detail. tion in the Congress, this long and difficult The drafting procedure has been an process of adjustment on matters of sub- arduous one. After dividing the subject stance and of critical scrutiny on matters matter of the copyright statute into seg- of language will have produced a bill that ments roughly corresponding to the chap- will be worthy of widespread and genuine ters of the Register's Report, the Office support. undertook an intensive analysis and evalu- Year's Bun'ness ation of all comments received on a par- The Copyright ticular segment and of any equivalent After passing the quarter-million mark Language in foreign laws and previous revi- in fiscal 1962, copyright registrations rose sion bills. Preliminary draft sections were to an all-time high of 264,845 in 1963. then prepared and were painstakingly re- Completed registrations increased by slight- viewed for both language and content be- ly more than 10,000, or approximately fore being circulated for discussion by the 4 percent. Detailed figures are given in Panel of Consultants. During the fiscal the tab)= at the end of this report. year there were four all-day meetings of The most significant gains last year were the Panel--on January 16, February 24 in all classes of music; total registrations April 11 and June 11, 1963-to discus for musical compositions rose by more than draft sections on copyrightable works, ex- 7 percent, with increases of 9 percent in clusive rights, and ownership. Written published music, 7 percent in unpublished comments on these drafts were also col- music, and 8 percent in foreign music. lected. In addition, officials of the Copy- The accompanying chart, which graphi- right Office participated actively in the dis- cally illustrates how this category has grown cussions of various subcommittees formed to become the largest single class of copy- under the American Bar Association Com- righted material, reflects fluctuations in the mittee on the Program for General Revi- commercial value of various classes of sion of the Copyright Law and of several works over the past 50 years. ad hoe committees formed to discuss par- Substantial gains of 3 percent were also ticular points in issue. shown in registrations of both books and Like the recommendations of the Regis- periodicals. The upward trend in renewal tds Report, the draft sections now being registrations, which began last year, con- circulated and discussed are preliminary tinued with another increase of 5 percent. and experimental. There has been a de- Registrations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and Its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G
    The Music Modernization Act of 2018 and its Burgeoning Impact Jeffrey G. Knowles, Partner, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP Lisa M. Schreihart, Attorney Abstract The Music Modernization Act of 2018 (“MMA”), enacted October 11, 2018, is the most significant reform of music copyright law in decades. As the first major legislation since the Copyright Act of 1976 to affect music royalties, the MMA has made major strides in improving compensation and to level the playing field for all music creators, including songwriters, legacy artists, and music producers. The MMA modernizes the musical works licensing scheme for today’s digital music environment, provides federal copyright protection for pre-1972 sound recordings, and ensures that music producers can get a piece of the royalty pie. The MMA may also have some shortcomings that allow room for legislative growth in the modern music era. This paper describes the key parts of the MMA and eXamines the benefits and criticisms of the Act that have surfaced in the Act’s first year as law. An Overview of the Music Modernization Act The Music Modernization Act (MMA), proposed as H.R. 1551 by Representatives Orrin G. Hatch and Bob Goodlatte, combined the Music Modernization Act of 2018 (S. 2334), the Classics Protection and Access Act (S. 2393), and the Allocation for Music Producers Act (S. 2625). The MMA, an amended version of S. 2823, passed unanimously both in the House as H.R. 5447 on April 25, 2018 and in the Senate on September 18, 2018. The MMA was enacted October 11, 2018. The MMA is intended to: 1) increase compensation to songwriters and streamline licensing of their music; 2) enable artists who recorded music before 1972 to be paid royalties when their music is played on digital services; and 3) enable music producers (e.g., record producers, sound engineers, and other studio professionals) to receive royalties for their creative contributions to recorded music.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 1201 Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine
    united states copyright office section 1201 rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention recommendation of the acting register of copyrights october 2018 Section 1201 Rulemaking: Seventh Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention Recommendation of the Acting Register of Copyrights TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 II. LEGAL BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 9 A. Section 1201(a)(1) ............................................................................................................. 9 B. Relationship to Other Provisions of Section 1201 and Other Laws ........................ 11 C. Rulemaking Standards ................................................................................................. 12 D. Streamlined Renewal Process ...................................................................................... 17 III. HISTORY OF SEVENTH TRIENNIAL PROCEEDING ................................................ 20 IV. RENEWAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 22 V. DISCUSSION OF NEW PROPOSED CLASSES ............................................................. 31 A. Proposed Class 1: Audiovisual Works—Criticism and Comment ......................... 31 B. Proposed Class 2: Audiovisual
    [Show full text]
  • ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT by Michaeljones
    COPYRIGHT ELDRED V. ASHCROFT: THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE COPYRIGHT TERM EXTENSION ACT By MichaelJones On January 15, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Copyright Term Extension Act ("CTEA"), which extended the term of copyright protection by twenty years.2 The decision has been ap- plauded by copyright protectionists who regard the extension as an effec- tive incentive to creators. In their view, it is a perfectly rational piece of legislation that reflects Congress's judgment as to the proper copyright term, balances the interests of copyright holders and users, and brings the3 United States into line with the European Union's copyright regime. However, the CTEA has been deplored by champions of a robust public domain, who see the extension as a giveaway to powerful conglomerates, which runs contrary to the public interest.4 Such activists see the CTEA as, in the words of Justice Stevens, a "gratuitous transfer of wealth" that will impoverish the public domain. 5 Consequently, Eldred, for those in agree- ment with Justice Stevens, is nothing less than the "Dred Scott case for 6 culture." The Court in Eldred rejected the petitioners' claims that (1) the CTEA did not pass constitutional muster under the Copyright Clause's "limited © 2004 Berkeley Technology Law Journal & Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. 1. Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 108, 203, 301-304 (2002). The Act's four provisions consider term extensions, transfer rights, a new in- fringement exception, and the division of fees, respectively; this Note deals only with the first provision, that of term extensions.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright 2018 4Th Edition a Practical Cross-Border Insight Into Copyright Law
    ICLG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Copyright 2018 4th Edition A practical cross-border insight into copyright law Published by Global Legal Group, in association with Bird & Bird LLP With contributions from: Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune KISCH IP Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP LexOrbis Bereskin & Parr LLP LPS L@w Bird & Bird LLP MinterEllison BROSS & PARTNERS PEREZ CORREA & ASOCIADOS, SC Daniel Legal & IP Strategy S. P. A. Ajibade & Co Deep & Far Attorneys-at-Law Seow & Associates FRORIEP Legal SA SyCip Salazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan Gorodissky & Partners (Ukraine) Vash Patent LLC Güzeldere & Balkan Law Firm Weisselberg Avocat HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER ZY Partners JIPYONG The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Copyright 2018 General Chapter: 1 Communication to the Public: the Only Right Worth Talking About? – Will Smith & Phil Sherrell, Bird & Bird LLP 1 Contributing Editor Country Question and Answer Chapters: Phil Sherrell, Bird & Bird LLP 2 Australia MinterEllison: John Fairbairn & Emily Hawcroft 7 Sales Director Florjan Osmani 3 Brazil Daniel Legal & IP Strategy: Giovanna M. Sgaria de Morais Moulin & Account Director Hannah Vitória M. Fernandes 14 Oliver Smith Sales Support Manager 4 Canada Bereskin & Parr LLP: Jill Jarvis-Tonus 20 Toni Hayward 5 China ZY Partners: Zhou Qiang & Deng Huiqiong 26 Senior Editors Suzie Levy, Rachel Williams 6 France Weisselberg Avocat: Elise Weisselberg 32 Chief Operating Officer Dror Levy 7 Germany HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER: Thomas H. Schmitz & Mathis Breuer 37 Group Consulting Editor Alan Falach 8 India LexOrbis: Dheeraj Kapoor & Aprajita Nigam 42 Publisher Rory Smith 9 Japan Anderson Mōri & Tomotsune: Masayuki Yamanouchi & Yuri Fukui 49 Published by 10 Korea JIPYONG: Seung Soo Choi & Seungmin Jasmine Jung 55 Global Legal Group Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Monetizing Infringement
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2020 Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Citation Information Kristelia García, Monetizing Infringement, 54 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 265 (2020), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1308. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García* The deterrence of copyright infringement and the evils of piracy have long been an axiomatic focus of both legislators and scholars. The conventional view is that infringement must be curbed and/or punished in order for copyright to fulfill its purported goals of incentivizing creation and ensuring access to works. This Essay proves this view false by demonstrating that some rightsholders don’t merely tolerate, but actually encourage infringement, both explicitly and implicitly, in a variety of different situations and for one common reason: they benefit from it.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1: Synthesis
    7 | SYNTHESIS CHAPTER 1. SYNTHESIS This chapter provides the rationale and context for Enquiries into Intellectual Property’s Economic Impact and highlights its most significant findings. In doing so, the chapter presents the major themes of the overall report, which are 1) the importance of various types of intellectual property as sources of growth and innovation in today’s economies; and 2) the effects on IP systems and stakeholders of major developments such as content digitisation, the growth of the Internet, and globalisation. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities or third party. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. It should be noted that statistical data on Israeli patents and trademarks are supplied by the patent and trademark offices of the relevant countries. ENQUIRIES INTO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY'S ECONOMIC IMPACT © OECD 2015 8 | SYNTHESIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key challenges • Copyright appears to be the type of IP that has been attracting business investment at the highest growth rate and it is undergoing statutory review in many countries, yet there are fewer empirical studies about copyright than about patents. Encouraging and enabling the collection and availability of more data on copyright would facilitate data-driven copyright policy. In fact, robust evidence on the use of IP rights generally and on their economic and social impacts is essential for sound IP systems. Presently, however, relatively little concrete evidence is available to support the common assumption that IP rights encourage greater innovation and creativity.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Edition 1
    WAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW VOLUME 14 NUMBER 1 FALL 2013 AN EXAMINATION OF BASEL III AND THE NEW U.S. BANKING REGULATIONS Andrew L. McElroy .................................................................. 5 HOW TO KILL COPYRIGHT: A BRUTE-FORCE APPROACH TO CONTENT CREATION Kirk Sigmon ........................................................................... 26 THE MIXED USE OF A PERSONAL RESIDENCE: INTEGRATION OF CONFLICTING HOLDING PURPOSES UNDER I.R.C. SECTIONS 121, 280A, AND 1031 Christine Manolakas ............................................................... 62 OPEN SOURCE MODELS IN BIOMEDICINE: WORKABLE COMPLEMENTARY FLEXIBILITIES WITHIN THE PATENT SYSTEM? Aura Bertoni ......................................................................... 126 PRIVATE FAIR USE: STRENGTHENING POLISH COPYRIGHT PROTECTION OF ONLINE WORKS BY LOOKING TO U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW Michał Pękała ....................................................................... 166 THE DMCA’S SAFE HARBOR PROVISION: IS IT REALLY KEEPING THE PIRATES AT BAY? Charles K. Lane .................................................................... 192 PERMISSIBLE ERROR?: WHY THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S INCORRECT APPLICATION OF THE DMCA IN MDY INDUSTRIES, LLC V. BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. REACHES THE CORRECT RESULT James Harrell ........................................................................ 211 ABOUT THE JOURNAL The WAKE FOREST JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW is a student organization sponsored by Wake Forest University
    [Show full text]
  • INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE: Copyright, Common Law, and The
    INTELLECTUAL PRIVILEGE Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good TOM W. BELL Arlington, Virginia Founders’ Copyright 2014 by Tom Bell. (See opposite for more information.) Second printing, April 2018 Printed in the United States of America Mercatus Center at George Mason University 3434 Washington Blvd., 4th Floor Arlington, VA 22201 www.mercatus.org 703-993-4930 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bell, Tom W. Intellectual privilege : copyright, common law, and the common good / Tom W. Bell. pages cm ISBN 978-0-9892193-8-9 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-0-9892193-9-6 (e-book (kindle)) 1. Copyright--United States. I. Title. KF2994.B45 2014 346.7304’82--dc23 2014005816 COPYRIGHT NOTE Not long ago, in “Five Reforms for Copyright” (chapter 7 of Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess, published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in 2012), I suggested that the United States should return to the kind of copyright the Founders supported: the one they created in their 1790 Copyright Act. The Founders’ copyright had a term of only fourteen years with the option to renew for another fourteen. It conditioned copyright on the satisfaction of strict statutory formali- ties and covered only maps, charts, and books. The Founders’ copyright protected only against unauthorized reproductions and offered only com- paratively limited remedies. This book follows through on that policy advice. The Mercatus Center and I agreed to publish it under terms chosen to recreate the legal effect of the Founders’ 1790 Copyright Act. For example, the book’s copy- right will expire in 2042 (if not before), and you should feel free to make a movie or other derivative work at any time.
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding Against Abuse: the Costs of Excessively Long Copyright Terms
    GUARDING AGAINST ABUSE: THE COSTS OF EXCESSIVELY LONG COPYRIGHT TERMS By Derek Khanna* I. INTRODUCTION Copyrights are intended to encourage creative works through the mechanism of a statutorily created1 limited property right, which some prominent think tanks and congressional organizations have referred to as a form of govern- ment regulation.2 Under both economic3 and legal analysis,4 they are recog- * Derek Khanna is a fellow with X-Lab and a technology policy consultant. As a policy consultant he has never worked for any organizations that lobby or with personal stakes in copyright terms, and neither has Derek ever lobbied Congress. He was previously a Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow. He was featured in Forbes’ 2014 list of top 30 under 30 for law in policy and selected as a top 200 global leader of tomorrow for spear- heading the successful national campaign on cell phone unlocking which led to the enact- ment of copyright reform legislation to legalize phone unlocking. He has spoken at the Con- servative Political Action Conference, South by Southwest, the International Consumer Electronics Show and at several colleges across the country as a paid speaker with the Fed- eralist Society. He also serves as a columnist or contributor to National Review, The Atlan- tic and Forbes. He was previously a professional staff member for the House Republican Study Committee, where he authored the widely read House Republican Study Committee report “Three Myths about Copyright Law.” 1 See Edward C. Walterscheld, Defining the Patent and Copyright Term: Term Limits and the Intellectual Property Clause, 7 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Register of Copyr1ght.S
    SIXTY-NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYR1GHT.S FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1966 COPYRIGHT OFFICE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IL.C. Card No. 10-36017 This report is reprinted from the Annual Report of the Libdnof Congreee for the fiscal year ending June 30,1966 Contents THECOPYRIGHT OFFICE ............................ 1 The Year's Copyright Business ......................... 2 Official publications .............................. 4 Copyright Contributions to the Library of Congress ................ 4 Administrative Developments ........................... 4 Problems of Registrability ........................... 5 Organizational Problems ............................ 5 Notices of Intention To Use ...................... : ... 5 Legislative Developments ............................ 6 Judicial Developments ..............................8 Performing Rights and Community Antenna Systems ............... 8 Rights of Exhibition and Copying ....................... 10 Author's "Moral Right" ........................... 11 Subject Matter of Copyright ......................... 13 Publication ................................. 16 Notice of Copyright ............................. 17 Copyright Registration ............................ 19 Ownership. Assignment. and Renewal of Copyright ............... 21 Infringement and Remedies .........................23 Other Judicial Developments .........................26 International Developments .......................... 28 Tables: International Copyright Relations of the United States as of December
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Knowledge for Consumers Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008–2010
    Access to Knowledge for Consumers Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008–2010 Access to knowledge for consumers Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008–2010 CONSUMERS INTERNATIONAL KUALA LUMPUR 2010 About Consumers International Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org. Published and produced by Consumers International Regional Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: (603) 7726 1599 Fax: (603) 7726 8599 Access to Knowledge for Consumers: Reports of Campaigns and Research 2008–2010 Compiled and edited by Jeremy Malcolm Cover design by Andrea Carter Production by Jeremy Malcolm Printed by Makmur Millenium Enterprise © 2010 Consumers International. Some rights reserved. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Licence <creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/3.0/> ISBN: 978-0-9566117-1-0 Contents List of Tables ix List of Figures xi Introduction 1 I Global consumer survey on A2K access barriers 9 1 First phase: planning and interviews 11 Dr Jeremy Malcolm 1.1 Previous research ........................ 12 1.2 Classification of access barriers ................ 13 1.3 Scope ............................... 14 1.4 Methodology ........................... 15 1.5 Preparation of the first phase interviews ........... 17 1.6 Analysing the interview data .................. 19 1.7 Highlights of the interview results ............... 32 1.8 Categorising the access barriers ................ 33 1.9 Conclusion ............................ 34 2 Second phase: global questionnaire 37 Dr Karuthan Chinna and Dr Jeremy Malcolm 2.1 Survey development .....................
    [Show full text]