[Fsfe-ie] Comments on New Draft

[teresahackett at eircom.net]

Dear Malcolm,

Thanks for your draft. I attach my comments (in a rtf file, hope this is ok ;-)) - one sentance about not introducing compensation on exceptions (which is good) and a re-wording of the paragraph on section 374. Both are suggestions, feel free to accept or reject. The librarians also asked for copies under the disability exception to be made by individuals rather than the organisations, not sure if you want to take this up. I suggest that we stick to arguing sectin 374, that's our main point.
Hope this is useful. Must dash, being thrown out of here shortly.
Best
Teresa


Malcolm Tyrrell <malcohol at eircom.net> wrote:

> 
> Hi there.
> 
> I've looked at Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the draft and I don't see any
> significant problems for us. Please help confirm this!
> 
> Clauses 3 and 4 change to Section 87(1) and Section 244(1), respectively.
> Considering the change to Section 87(1):
> 
> The original is:
> > (1) The copyright in a work is not infringed by the making of a transient
> > and incidental copy of that work which is technically required for the
> > viewing of or listening to the work by a member of the public to whom a
> > copy of the work is lawfully made available.
> 
> This would be replaced by:
> > Temporary acts of reproduction:
> > (1) It is not an infringement of the rights conferred by this Part to
> > undertake or conduct temporary acts of reproduction which acts are
> > transient or incidental which are an integral and essential part of a
> > technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable -
> >   (a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary,
> >       or
> >   (b) a lawful use,
> > of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which acts have no
> > independent economic significance.
> 
> As I see it, if you are a lawful user, everything (that I have thought
> of so far) allowed by the original is still allowed by the new version. 
> One concern might be with the definition of "lawful user". 
> 
> The change to Section 244(1) is very similar.
> 
> Clause 6 is concerned entirely with sheet music and I don't think it's
> up to us to think through the consequences of this.
> 
> Does anyone agree or disgree with these observations? If people agree,
> it means we can focus entirely on the Clause 2 and Clause 5 as in the
> draft letter I have posted.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> Malcohol.
> _______________________________________________
> Fsfe-ie mailing list
> Fsfe-ie at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-ie
> 

----------
Teresa Hackett
NEW! 114 Cedar House
Mespil Estate
Sussex Road
Dublin 4, Ireland
NEW! Email: teresahackett at eircom.net
Mobile: +316 523 63486 (as before)
----------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: newdraft2.rtf
Type: text/richtext
Size: 12909 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/attachments/20031213/5fbc12f3/attachment.rtx