16th December, 2015
Dear All Legislative Council Members,
As we are all well aware, the proposed amendments to the Copyright Ordinance have become an object of considerable public debate and discussion. Frequently, questions are raised about three of the proposed Committee Stage Amendments, and representatives of the copyright sectors are asked why they cannot accept the proposed amendments. I write today to give you the views of our Association on these specific questions.
In much of the noise, the public have lost sight of the key purpose of the Bill. The Bill is not just about individuals’ online activities; it is about combating organized, multinational crime syndicates which promote online infringement activities through streaming that the current Copyright Ordinance CANNOT discipline. As a concrete example in my own television industry, I would like to point out that in recent months, Chinese content producers (CCTV and TVB) have obtained injunctions from US courts prohibiting the activities of the so-called “TVPad” streaming box syndicate, which had done massive damage to Asian content producers by stealing the US markets for their products. This action was possible under US copyright law; no such action is possible in Hong Kong until the Copyright Amendments are passed. This is why further delay in passage of the Bill is unacceptable – the industry needs relief from organized, cynical, commercial-scale piracy.
Since 2011, the bill has been amended to afford very substantial additional protections for Hong Kong people’s rights of free speech and expression. The Bar Association, the legal sector and scholars are unanimous that the revised bill will give Hong Kong one of the broadest free speech exceptions in copyright law anywhere in the world. Yet the scare tactics of some so-called “netizen” groups, backed by internet companies which profit from any web traffic, legal or illegal, continue to deceive citizens that the bill is a threat to their liberties.
Now, on the specific questions of the three CSAs:
User-Generated Content:
Our Association opposes granting blanket exception for user-generated content because the hard work of our members and our employees is very easily stolen and spread online under the fictitious guise of being “user-generated”. A blanket exception would allow anyone to say “oh, I have copied this video of “Game of Thrones” and provided my own 10-sec commentary at the end, so it is covered by the exception.” It will be obvious to everyone that not all content uploaded by users to online video sites is legitimate, and not all should be covered by a blanket exception. Whether the motivation of the uploader is commercial or not, the content owner can be badly damaged by “free sharing.”
Among other countries, ONLY Canada has adopted such an exception, and many academics have said that it doesn’t meet international treaty standards for copyright exceptions1. A WTO trade case against UGC exceptions is still very possible.
Fair Use:
A “fair use” exception system is used in only a tiny number of countries, the most prominent of which is the USA. The fair use doctrine provides for open-ended exceptions, the scope of which is not defined or limited in the law. The US fair use system is grounded in litigation developed over 150 years of case law. Hong Kong’s legal system is based on UK frameworks and precedents, and not those in the USA. Introducing fair use in Hong Kong therefore would require a wholesale re-orientation of the exception system along US lines. This has been studied at various times by the government, which has concluded that adopting the fair use system would introduce huge uncertainty for users as well as copyright owners, and levy large adjustment burdens on Hong Kong. There would be no clear rules; especially at the beginning, every case would have to be adjudicated by a court to see if the use is fair. Even in the US, commentators observe that “it is exceedingly difficult to predict whether a given use in a given case will qualify for the privilege”. Without the backing of US case law, adopting this CSA would be a huge leap into the dark, for Hong Kong. The US legal framework is rooted in decisions made a century or more ago; US gun laws are not appropriate for Hong Kong; neither is US fair use law.
That said, we do not oppose another systematic and careful look at what type of transitional measures might be a possibility for Hong Kong; but such a move cannot be taken hurriedly. The law should not be treated lightly. (Advocates of this approach did NOT raise it in the government’s consultations on this bill; they introduce it now as a very late and very hasty Committee Stage Amendment.) We support the Government’s willingness to examine this question next year, after the current amendments are passed.
Contract override:
This is a very new issue; a contract override provision was adopted in the UK last year amid much controversy and the UK is the ONLY jurisdiction that has introduced such a provision. The UK provision is only on trial for 5 years and will need to be reviewed. Our Association does not yet have a position in favor or opposed to contract override; but there are numerous scenarios that worry us deeply2. For the most part, this measure would affect relationships among producers of content, and would not affect consumers; we do not understand why Hong Kong advocates for this provision see it as significant for Hong Kong users nor why they wish to hurriedly embrace a provision only under test in the UK. Time should be taken to examine this concept more closely.
I hope these discussions have helped explain why we do not believe the Legislative Council should accept these three Committee Stage Amendments. We will be happy to try to answer any additional questions you may have. Concerns of many “netizens” may be sincere; others behind these amendments have their own commercial motivations to push them. For our part, we urge you to pay attention to the facts and the law, and listen to the views of the legal profession, as the proposals could have profound effects on Hong Kong’s legal system.
Sincerely yours,
John Medeiros
Chief Policy Officer
1 See for example this article in the Law Society’s journal:
http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=2284&c=140
2 Example of possible negative impact of contract override provision: Company A has sold the copyright of the “Joan of Arc” story to Company B for producing a video, and requires Company B to treat the Joan of Arc story with respect, and not turn Joan of Arc into a promiscuous woman in the movie. If this contract can be overridden by copyright exceptions (e.g. the work is claimed to be a parody), then Company B can make Joan of Arc a promiscuous woman at will, because given the contract override provision, Company B doesn’t need to respect the contract term.
Chinese version:
眾所周知，《版權條例》的修訂已引起社會的廣泛關注及討論。經常有人提出有關委員會審議階段三項建議修正案的疑問，而版權界亦被問及為何不能接受該等建議修正案。本人將就此闡述本會的立場。
市民在激烈的討論中已忘記法案的主要目的。法案並非只關乎個人的網上活動，其主要目的是為打擊現時版權條例未有監管，並透過串流進行網上侵權活動的有組織跨國犯罪集團。電視業就是一個活生生的例子。近月，中文電視製作商（央視及無綫）已從美國法院取得對串流集團「TVPad」的禁制令，勒令其停止營運。該非法串流服務侵佔了亞洲地區電視製作商的美國市場，令其蒙受重大損失。電視製作商能成功採取法律行動乃是因為美國版權法提供了保障；而在香港，倘若版權修正案仍未通過，版權持有人則將依然束手無策。因此，延遲通過法案是不能接受的，業界需要方法去打擊有組織並具商業規模的侵權行為。
自2011年起，法案已被修訂，為港人的言論及表達自由提供了大量的額外保障。大律師公會、法律界及學者一致認為經修訂的法案所賦予香港的言論自由豁免乃全球版權法中最寬鬆之一。然而，部份網民組織及從任何網站流量（不論合法與否）獲利的互聯網公司則不斷誤導市民，指法案將威脅他們的自由。
有關三項委員會審議階段修正案的問題：
個人用戶衍生內容：
本會反對就個人用戶衍生內容授予完全豁免，乃因本會成員及員工的作品很容易被盜取，並以虛構的「個人用戶衍生」名義在網上散播。完全豁免將容許任何人複製影視作品，並於尾段加入十秒的個人評論，從而獲得豁免。大家應該明白到，並非所有由用戶上載至網上影片網站的內容均屬合法，而且不應得到完全豁免。不論上載人是否具有商業動機，「免費分享」可對內容擁有者造成重大損失。
於其他國家當中，僅加拿大採納了完全豁免。多名學者指出，此並不符合版權豁免的國際條款標準1。世貿組織仍很大機會就個人用戶衍生內容提出訴訟。
公平使用原則：
「公平使用」豁免機制僅被少數國家採用，當中以美國最廣為人知。公平使用條例具有開放式豁免，然而法律中並無訂明或限制其豁免範圍。美國的公平使用機制乃建立於過去150年的法律先例；香港的法律機制乃建基於英國的法律架構及先例，而非美國。於香港推行公平使用原則將需要根據美國法例重新規劃豁免機制。政府已就此進行多次研究，得出的結論為採納公平使用機制將為用戶及版權持有人帶來重大的不確性，而香港亦須作出多方面的調整。由於該機制並無明確條文，每件案件均須由法庭裁定是否屬公平使用，尤其是議案實施初期。即使在美國，評論亦指要預測某一案件的使用方法會否獲得豁免是非常困難。在缺乏美國先例案的情況下，採納此委員會審議階段修正案對香港而言實在是非常冒險。美國的法律架構乃建基於美國早在一個世紀前已所作出的決定； 美國的槍械法不適用於香港，其公平使用法亦然。
儘管如此，我們並不反對就香港可能適用的過渡性措施再進行有系統及仔細的研究，但必須審慎而行。法律事宜需要認真處理（提出此做法的人士並無於此法案的諮詢階段提出，僅於後期草率地提出審議階段修正案）。我們支持政府通過現有修正案後，並於明年探討此問題。
豁免凌駕合約條款：
這是一項新議題。英國於去年採納豁免凌駕合約條款，引起了極大爭議。英國是目前採納此條款的唯一司法權區。此英國條款仍在試行階段，並將在五年後再作檢討。本會目前並不贊成或反對豁免凌駕合約條款，但多個情況確實令我們非常擔心 2。一般而言，此措施只會影響內容製作者之間的關係，並不會影響消費者。我們不明白為何於香港倡議此條文的人士認為此條文對香港用戶非常重要，以及為何他們希望匆匆採納英國的試行條例。我們必須花更多的時間探討此議題。
本人希望以上闡述能夠解釋本會不認同立法會接納該三項委員會審議階段修正案的立場。我們非常樂意回答其他問題。許多網民的顧慮均確實存在，但亦有一些具有商業動機的人士希望修正案能夠通過。本會希望閣下能認清事實及法律，並聽取專業法律人士的意見，因為建議修正案可能會對香港的司法制度造成深遠的影響。
協會首席政策總裁馬德朗 謹啟
1 請參見香港律師會會刊中的例子：
http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=2284&c=140
2 豁免凌駕合約條款負面影響的例子：A公司將「聖女貞德」的故事版權售予B公司以製作影片，並要求B公司莊嚴地敘述故事，不把聖女貞德描述為「性女」。倘若版權豁免可凌駕於此合約（即此作品為戲仿），B公司可隨意把聖女貞德描述為淫亂的女性，因豁免凌駕合約條款意味着B公司毋須遵守合約條款。
