Access to knowledge difficulties in developing countries: A balanced access to copyrighted works in the digital environment

Abstract

Copyright law, at its core, is a balancing act between the interests of creators and those of the public. It gives effective rights protection to the creators and provides reasonable access to the public in order to encourage creativity and innovation. In the digital realm of the more recent past, too much access to copyrighted works has caused problems for the copyright owners. Thus, most copyright owners, who are mainly from the developed countries, sought more protection in the form of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Internet Treaties and bilateral agreements. These agreements have since tilted the balance towards overprotection of copyrighted materials and consequently have restricted the public from access to knowledge, which has, for the most part, prevented developing countries from being able to use digital copyrighted material. This paper studies the aspect of access to knowledge (A2K) movement, the perspectives of developed vs developing countries, and proposed a new more balanced framework to foster greater access to knowledge in the digital environment for developing countries.

Keywords:

• A2K
• access to knowledge
• copyright

Notes

Urs Gasser and Silke Ernst, ‘From Shakespeare to DJ Danger Mouse: A Quick Look at Copyright and User Creativity in the Digital Age’, Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2006-05. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=909223 (last accessed 5 May 2009).

Mark A. Lemley, ‘Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding’. Texas Law Review 83 (2005): 1031, 1034. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=582602 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.582602 (last accessed 5 May 2009).

Pedro De Paranaguá Moniz, ‘The Development Agenda for WIPO: Another Stillbirth? A Battle Between Access to Knowledge and Enclosure’, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=844366 (last accessed 5 May 2009).

Laurence R. Helfer, ‘Toward a Human Right Framework for Intellectual Property’, University of California Davis Law Review 40 (2007): 971, 1012 (stating that ‘the A2K group in this article refers to NGOs, whose members include medical researchers, educators, archivists, disabled people, and librarians from industrialized and developing nations’).

Lea Bishop Shaver, ‘Defining and Measuring A2K: A Blueprint for an Index of Access to Knowledge’. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=102106 (last accessed 7 May 2009).

L. Jean Camp, ‘DRM: Doesn't Really Mean Digital Right Management’, August 2002, RWP02-034. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=348941 (last accessed 7 May 2009).

Seiiti Arata and Stephanie Psaila, ‘The Protection of the Public Interest with Regards to the Internet’. Available at http://www.diplomacy.edu/poolbin.asp?IDPool=128 (last accessed 19 July 2009).

Association of Research Libraries, ‘Court Rules Against FCC in Broadcast Flag Rule’. Available at http://arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/drm/flagfcc (last accessed 20 April 2009).

Sam Ricketson, ‘WIPO Study on Limitations and Exceptions of Copyright and Related Rights in the Digital Environment’, SCCR/9/7, 5 April 2003, p. 82.

Electronic Frontier Foundation, ‘Unintended Consequences: Ten Years Under DMCA’. Available at http://www.eff.org/wp/unintended-consequences-ten-years-under-dmca (last accessed 20 July 2009).

Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir. 2001).

See note 10 above.

Peter K. Yu, ‘Anticircumvention and Anti-Anticircumvention’, Denver Law Review 84, no. 13, (2006): 64–65.

Amy Kapczynski, ‘The Access to Knowledge Mobilization and the New Politics of Intellectual Property’, Yale Law Journal 117 (2008): 804, 851.

Molly Beutz, ‘Protecting Rights Online’, Yale Journal of International Law 34, no. 1 (Winter 2009): 39.