Special Libraries and Information Services (SLIS)
Comment on Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights)
Amendment Bill
To the Commerce Committee
SLIS is a special interest group of LIANZA – the Library and Information
Association of Aotearoa New Zealand. SLIS represents approximately 200
librarians, information and knowledge managers who work in corporate and
government libraries and information services in the Wellington region.
SLIS welcomes the opportunity to make the following submission on the
copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill.
This submission comments only on matters of direct relevance to specialist
libraries and information services.
Comment
SLIS welcomes the following new provisions in the bill:
1. Definition of copying to include digital copying
2. Limited exception to reproduction rights for transient copying
These provisions will clarify issues related to the use of copyright works.
We do have concerns about the following provisions
Clause 34 (3)(c )
This clause requires that the original of an item, that has been copied digitally
(because the original is at risk of loss or damage), is not accessible by
members of the public after replacement by the digital copy.
In many cases items that are valuable enough to copy digitally in order to
protect the original from loss or damage will also be items are valued for the
information inherent in the physical item itself, as well as the content. For this
reason some researchers will find value in having ongoing access to the
original copy (even if damaged or incomplete) to compare with the complete
digital copy.
Clause 36 56A
The rationale for differentiation between on-site and remote access in this
clause is difficult to understand.
In practical terms it is impossible to differentiate between off-site and remote
access to digital items within the copyright resources of many corporate and
government information services. Users access digital items held on
organisational servers by logging on to the network at office locations OR
through remote access. Therefore all of 56A(2)(a), 56A(2)(b), 56A(3)(a), and
56A(3)(b) apply.
We are unclear why :
ƒ 56A(2)(b), requiring that “work in a digital format may be copied or
communicated by a user only in accordance with the provisions of (the)
Act”, would apply only to on-site access
ƒ 56A(3)(a) requiring that “the work in a digital format must be in a form
that cannot be altered or erased” and 56A(3)(b) requiring “the
work…may be accessed only by a person who has a legitimate right to
use the library or archive” apply only to remote access.
We would see benefit in clarifying the term “obtains” in 56A(1) which states
that “the librarian of a prescribed library or the archivist of an archive that
lawfully obtains a work in a digital format may allow users access to that copy
by means of - ….”. Access to much digital library content is through license to
digital material available through the internet and housed on third party
servers.
For example an information service has an annual subscription to the
Masterfile database, which provides digital access for all network users to the
publication “Economic & Financial Review”, hosted on EBSCO Publishing’s
servers. If the information service chooses not to renew this subscription to
Masterfile access will cease. Does this subscription for access constitute
“obtaining” this material?
Clause 36. 56B and 56C
The requirement for a written request for an item imposes additional
administrative tasks on users and managers of information services. These
do not add value or improve productivity and, will often be at the expense of
service delivery.
The new proposals require information services to collect and retain written
requests. There are compliance costs in:
ƒ
ƒ
Ensuring requests come in writing and state a purpose.
Printing to file all emails supplying digital copies, as electronic storage
of the message (including the declaration that the copy was supplied in
accordance with the Act and for users private research and study) will
necessitate storing an incidental copy of the item itself.
In addition there is a lack of clarity in the requirement that the requester “state
the purpose for which the material will be used”. For example is the purpose
of “reading it” sufficient. If the intent is to ensure that no further copying will
take place, SLIS suggests that a declaration by the requester to that effect
would be simpler to administer.
Clause 37 57A
There are further compliance costs in requiring agencies to retain declarations
for three years.
There is also some concern that the provision for copyright holders or their
agents to inspect declarations will compromise the privacy of users of
information services.
Paddy Plunket
Committee Member, SLIS