The Hong Kong Government has announced the consultation paper on “Copyright protection in the Digital Environment” in early January this year. Many has pointed out that the consultation is based on the interest of corporate copyright holders rather than individuals and consumers. Worse still, some suggestions within the consultation papers are threatening to freedom of speech and expression, and eventually the development of creative industry in Hong Kong.
I have put up a post at interlocals.net about the background of this consultation and an announcement of a upcoming symposium in April 1, Copyright = Creativity in response to the government's paper. The official annoucncement of the symposium is at the to be launched open knowledge project website (zh).
There are not so many discussions in the local blogsphere yet as the public is still ignorant of the details of the consultation and the government’s advertisement has been trying to equalize copyright protection to protection of creative industry in Hong Kong.
Charles from Civic-express pointed out in early Jan that
Pigazine also felt that the consultation has neglected public interest:
On commenting the copyright infringement of local newspapers against a blogger, hkxforce asked whether the government are willing to protect ordinary citizen.
Ironically, this consultation is carried out by the Commerce, Industry and Technology Bureau, it is rather obviously that the government's starting point is from the interest of commerce and industry sector and does not take into account the right of ordinary citizens.
A local teacher, Fongyun summarized a discussion of a seminar organized by the education bureau on the government consultation in Feb . He quoted from comments from the floor that:
法理上，版權包括翻譯和改寫的權利，這些 adaptations 要得到版權持有人的同意。
A local artist Karden whose work has recently been infringed by a commercial magazine, comments that
作為一個會創作的人，到出事之後才去看什麼是creative commons, 實在羞恥到極點。
Then I find out that the existing copyright system cannot protect the author or the creator, or, so to speak, the wealthy people can enjoy more protection. Poor as I am, it is very difficult. The wealthy can use civil law to protect their rights, poor as I am, the lawyer would ask me not to pursue.