TPP & Copyright what it means
for Libraries
Changes to copyright have the potential to impact libraries and can restirct a
society's access to knowledge.LIANZA is aware of the ramifications the Trans Pacific
Partnership Agreement (TPPA) could have on access to information here in
Aotearoa New Zealand, and we have dedicated members who have been vocal
about their oppostition. Since 2012, LIANZA has been involved with the Fair Deal
Coalition advocating against allowing the TPPA to dictate Aotearoa New Zealand's
copyright legislation.
We have been fortunate to have an active and engaged Standing Committee on
copyright, and if you have any further questions about the TPPA and how it
works, please email our Chair. We have also had an incredible amount of support
from Tony Millett (Chair from 2009 to 2014) who has helped us develop
comprehensive resources on copyright. If you are interested in these check out the
'Copyright Resources' page or head on over to our Learning Resources page and
check them out.
Trans Pacific Partnership
Agreement (TPPA) Update
The latest version of the negotiating text for the TPP has been leaked. The
document includes copyright provisions that will impact librarians in Aotearoa, such
as the extension of copyright duration.
You can read the latest release or learn about out Fair Deal.
Further Reading:
http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/take-action/Take-action-online/Say-noto-the-TPPA/
http://campaign.labour.org.nz/our_position_on_the_tpp
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11423728
http://www.actionstation.org.nz/make_tppa_negotiations_public
http://www.nznotforsale.org/
THE POSSIBLE EFFECTS ON NEW ZEALAND LIBRARIES OF THE TPP IP NEGOTIATIONS Tony Millett
Chair, LIANZA Standing Committee on Copyright
http://www.lianza.org.nz/sites/default/files/effects_of_tpp_negotiations_0.pdf
TPPA
Both LIANZA and the public have been given a clear intimation that the government
has given official negotiators guidelines that allow lengthening of copyright terms in
order to achieve a long-desired ‘free trade’ agreement with the US, through a group
meeting with TPP negotiators, and via the media.
Japanese media report that Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiators, in finalising TPP
text, have agreed to add a further 20 years to existing copyright arrangements,
although this has not been confirmed by our government or officials because
of confidentiality agreements in place.
Since media are reporting that negotiators have made considerable progress
towards finalising TPP text, and officials are meeting in Honolulu from March 9-15
2015 to try and achieve this, it is important that the Government and as many others
as possible consider the implications of this reputed agreement of extension of
copyright from life of the author plus fifty years, to the life of the author plus seventy
years, (if not even longer for corporate or general works).
A few gallery, library, archive and museum representatives may have had an
opportunity to meet with negotiators to pose questions, but nothing like the
opportunities that more than 600 US industry advisors and representatives have had
to direct and shape TPP content.
It is time to make your concerns known. Here's our guide to making a
submission
In New Zealand, Cabinet can sign the agreement before it reaches parliament, who
can only accept, or refuse the whole.
And although one might expect that legislative changes for treaties would only take
place after signature and ratification, experience shows that is not necessarily the
case.
The following links are offered to assist in making a submission to government or
others you consider important to alert: supervisors, parent institutions, government,
local electoral representatives, opposition spokespeople, groups or clients likely to
be affected should be aware of what’s happening.
Selected readings relating to extension of copyright and its possible effects
Guide to making a Submission
Sample submission template
Media trainers suggest that politicians tend to discount set text campaign messages,
so we suggest using the outline below, incorporating points specific to you or your
organization.
Dear Minister/electoral representative/opposition spokesperson/parent
institution/whomever

Indicate whether you are writing on behalf of yourself or your organization.

If you are writing on behalf of your organization include an indication of it’s nature or size to
underline why it is of importance for the recipient to consider the impacts of a particular
unsatisfactory situation you plan to describe);

Then state:
o
The perceived problem
o
The potential implications of that problem
o
What you would like to see happen as a solution to the problem

A firm, polite request to urge action in this respect ****
Examples of points that may be made re copyright extension can be found here and
in the selection of readings.
If you do make a submission we would appreciate receiving a copy – this will allow
us to draw on the potential impacts on all of our members when advocating on behalf
of our profession.
Have you alerted your parent institution(s) to the impact TPP with its possible
extension of copyright may have on your institution?
Who to send it to?
1. You could send it to your MP, and to anyone in Parliament who may have an
interest. To find out contact details you can use the Parliamentary website.
2. You can also write to the TPP negotiators:tpp@mfat.govt.nz
Coordinator, Trans-Pacific Partnership
Free Trade Agreement Unit
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Private Bag 18901
Wellington
Points that could be made in
your submission
From a public point of view
In addition to points you may want to make from your library experience or
professional reading, politicians could be reminded that their privileged status
courtesy of options available for parliament and the Crown in sections’ 58, 63, 62
and 64 of the Copyright Act, plus taxpayer funded (Parliamentary library services),
largely shields them from encountering the problems that face libraries and
constituents.
MPs seeking or condoning extension of copyright in duration or other TPP proposals
negative to library service, may not appreciate what copyright extension means to
the public:

Public domain long deferred after reasonable rate of return to copyright owners;

Underwriting via rates or taxes twenty years of document access they would not otherwise
have to pay for;

For cost reasons, probably more limited scope of library digital access to more serious
copyright items since these are dependent on funds available to public service library
facilities. (The latter currently can’t afford to supply the depth of topic and research materials
available to tertiary institutions or multinationals, or to a lesser degree in in relatively limited
subject areas in CRIs or special libraries).

Therefore, otherwise unnecessary requests for interlibrary loan of material not available
locally. These incur library transaction cost charges;

When interlibrary loans are not available, 20 further years of hip-pocket costs for personal
copies of desired material, (costs of direct digital purchase of personally relevant journal not
available from local libraries currently run at about US $45 per item) and over time are quite
likely to involve alleged or real inflation costs or additional profit sought by suppliers;

And there will be specific impacts for business, educational, medical, engineering,
genealogy, researchers etc.; as well as;

Increased impediments in identifying copyright owners in order to gain access to material;

decreased ability to identify people in photographs, buildings and locations etc., hence;

Negative impacts on survival and/or digitization of cultural, social, economic and local
history resources – i.e. loss of patrimony, and;

Inability to become or stay informed when necessary.
For the parliament and country to work satisfactorily New Zealanders need to be
able to draw on the legacy of economic, social and cultural understanding fixed in
recorded material. The longer the delay in material coming into the public domain,
the higher the cost to individuals and society, both financial and transactional; the
greater the risks to economic development, policy and decision-making as well as to
citizens’ health and understanding.
As libraries
We do understand the desire to harmonize copyright law and terms of copyright
duration, however:

There are established international intergovernmental organisations such as WIPO and
WTO designed to achieve just that;

New Zealand input into WIPO discussion on topics like public domain and GLAM sector
matters are critical for such harmonization, because the wider and better balanced the
harmonization the better.
If we cannot seek what is desirable here, we risk not getting it. Books and data and other
materials do not have arbitrary cross-border patterns, and any imposition of new terms for
just selected bi- or multilateral groupings is unsatisfactory;

Without WIPO participation, given increasing pressures on governments negotiating bi- or
multilateral agreements, limitations and exceptions presently available to libraries and
archives that attempt to balance copyright author/owner interests are in jeopardy;

We have concerns about the ‘balance’ that presently exists in this respect. User vs. owner
rights have increasingly diverged from the original intent to provide monopoly rights of
reproduction for only ‘limited’ terms in order to prevent monopoly abuses of long or
perpetual duration of copyright.

We therefore encourage official engagement with LIANZA on these topics, as aggregation
in commercial publishing and electronic contracts are exacerbating this.
So in order to protect our heritage and facilitate innovation, we [you choose the verb,
e.g.: seek/request/demand] that copyright terms are not extended. Instead we ask
that the government offers:

New Zealanders the natural justice, respect, breadth of scope, interactive discussion and
time to undertake copyright reform as the British, Australians and Canadians have offered
their people;

Civil society users and their representative organisations the same degree of access to,
sight, and input to trade or integrated economic treaty negotiation of intellectual property
presently enjoyed by copyright owner representatives and business sectoral advisors;

Release of draft texts with ample time to examine and debate these before NZ
cabinet signature, as has been feasible with other multilateral and international texts;

Prompt development of legislation that would enable New Zealanders to enjoy rights
other negotiating partners have for robust parliamentary review, discussion and
public input, before signature of any further bilateral or multilateral treaties;

Officials given the authority to negotiate copyright duration down to a relatively justifiable
period of time (e.g. like those calculated by economists cited by Derek Khanna.) in future
when negotiating intellectual property arrangements in trade or integrated economic treaties
like the extended Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
For any questions, contact the LIANZA Standing Committee on Copyright
Alex Smith – Chair
International IP treaties and national legislation affecting copyright scope in
NZ
Sample submission template
Points that could be made