Comment on the ‘A Counterfactual Impact Analysis of Fair Use Policy on Copyright Related Industries in Singapore: A Critical Review’

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Eusebi
Keyword(s):  
Critical Review ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Fair Use

scholarly journals Reply to George S. Ford’s ‘A Counterfactual Impact Analysis of Fair Use Policy on Copyright Related Industries in Singapore: A Critical Review’

Laws ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Roya Ghafele
Keyword(s):  
Critical Review ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
International Federation ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Policy Studies ◽  
Fundamental Point ◽  
Technology Industries ◽  
Motion Picture Association

Ford’s ‘Comments (Laws 2018, 7(4), 34; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws7040034, https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/4/34)’ are biased by a partisan approach to the issues at stake and cannot be based on scientific evidence. The article “A Counterfactual Impact Analysis of Fair Use Policy on Copyright Related Industries in Singapore”, which Gibert and Gafelle wrote together nearly a decade ago, came under heavy criticism by George S. Ford from an organization named the Phoenix Centre for Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies in an article ‘A Counterfactual Impact Analysis of Fair Use Policy on Copyright Related Industries in Singapore: A Critical Review’. (subsequently ‘the fair use study’) The Fair use study was peer reviewed by LAWS and supports the hypothesis that a more flexible fair use policy is correlated with faster growth rates in private copying technology industries and fewer negative consequences than copyright holders may desire to see. The findings of the Fair use study upset Ford as well as a host of different institutions advocating for copyright owners, such as International Federation of Reproduction Rights Organizations; Motion Picture Association; Publishers Association of Australia; New Zealand Society of Authors or Recorded Music NZ-RMNZ. Ford’s article, however, neither contains novel research, nor is it an effort to update this fairly dated analysis, which reflects data nearly twenty years of age. Rather, it is an unnecessary duplication of an old analysis with only some minor modifications, which serve to show that fair use is actually not beneficial to the economy. At the end of this peculiar exercise, Ford himself admits that this analysis is meaningless. The rest of Ford’s article consists of discussing potential limitations of the Fair use study, in a manner which suggests the authors had never disclosed them (which however they had) and thus is misleading. Ford’s most fundamental point of criticism is hinged on a supposed lack of evidence regarding the parallelism assumption, which he himself admits is impossible to offer. Contrary to Ford’s analysis, the Fair use study has the merit of being fully reproducible, which is not the case for Ford’s article. Also, contrary to Ford’s article, the Fair use study has the advantage of carefully drafted limitations and of offering genuine research insights.

scholarly journals A Counterfactual Impact Analysis of Fair Use Policy on Copyright Related Industries in Singapore: A Critical Review

Laws ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Ford
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Analysis ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Economic Impacts ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Private Copying ◽  
Shed Light

In a 2014 article appearing in Laws, Ghafele and Gibert presented evidence on the economic impacts of Singapore’s change in its fair use policies showing a large effect on industries that manufacture goods useful for private copying of copyrighted works and no effect on the copyright industries. As detailed in this Comment, Ghafele and Gibert’s empirical analysis fails to shed light on the consequences of modifications to fair use policies.

scholarly journals A Counterfactual Impact Analysis of Fair Use Policy on Copyright Related Industries in Singapore

Laws ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 327-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roya Ghafele ◽  
Benjamin Gibert
Keyword(s):  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Fair Use

scholarly journals Datos, minería e innovación: qvo vadis, Europa? Análisis sobre las nuevas excepciones para la mineria de textos y datos = Data, mining and innovation: qvo vadis, Europe? Analysis on the new exceptions for text and data mining

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 247
Author(s):  
Vanessa Jiménez Serranía
Keyword(s):  
Data Mining ◽  
Big Data ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
A Priori ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Fair Use ◽  
Text And Data Mining

 Resumen: La Directiva 2019/790 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 17 de abril de 2019 sobre los derechos de autor y derechos afines en el mercado único digital ha implementado ciertas excepciones sobre la minería de textos y datos. Pese a que, a priori, podría parecer que se ofrece un impulso importante a este tipo de actividades sus efectos en la práctica quedan mitigados por el encorsetamiento de su formulación que, incluso, es susceptible de generar distorsiones competitivas. Este artículo pretende dar una visión sucinta y crítica sobre estas nuevas excepciones y plantear ciertas vías de mejora futura.Palabras clave: Big Data, minería de textos y datos, Internet de las cosas, Inteligencia Artificial, Mercado Único Digital, Directiva 2019/790, excepciones al derecho de autor, “uso justo”, regla de los tres pasos, doctrina de las facilidades esenciales, competencia, innovación.Abstract: Directive 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market has implemented certain exceptions on text and data mining. Although these exceptions might seem to provide a significant boost to this type of activities, their effects in practice are mitigated by the tightening of its wording, which is even likely to generate competitive distortions. This article aims to give a succinct and critical review of these new exceptions and to suggest some ways of improvement for the near future.Keywords: Big Data, Text and Data Mining (TDM), IoT, AI, Single Digital Market, Directive 2019/790, copyright limitations, “fair use”, “three-steps doctrine”, esencial facilities doctrine, competition, innovation.

Semi-synthesis as a tool for broadening the health applications of bioactive olive secoiridoids: a critical review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuela Oliverio ◽  
Monica Nardi ◽  
Maria Luisa Di Gioia ◽  
Paola Costanzo ◽  
Sonia Bonacci ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Review ◽  
Natural Compounds ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Synthetic Analogues ◽  
Health Applications ◽  
Natural And Synthetic

Semi-synthesis is an effective strategy to obtain both natural and synthetic analogues of the olive secoiridoids, starting from easy accessible natural compounds.

Global Mandatory Fair Use

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya Aplin ◽  
Lionel Bently
Keyword(s):  
Fair Use
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document