Comment on National Draft IP Policy

edited in Association News
Hey all,

So it's that time of decade again when government rummages through it existing laws and looks at what could be improved or changed. This decade they are reviewing the Intellectual Property laws and will be seeking comment on the existing framework. The first step in this process is the establishment of a policy document. This document will govern how the legislature will approach or change the variety of IP laws in the country. Make Games SA will formally be submitting comment on the draft policy (which is attached to this post).

If you are interested give it a read and send me your feedback. Comments need to be in by the 17th October 2013, so I'd like any feedback by the 14th.
Thanked by 1raithza


  • *disclaimer* I have potentially no idea what I might be talking about.

    General ramble.
    The addressing of the trademark abuse that's gone on sounds promising if it amounts to anything time will tell.

    Think that giving the competitions board the right to overrule patients that are been used abusively is promising.

    The repeated skepticism about 1st world's objectives gets a thumbs up from me.

    I got lost trying to make sense of the whole aggregation policy part :s

    Things we might want to address
    Shows like rage and the hosting of the Makegames there are not offered any protection as they are not necessarily seen as sporting events. Assuming playing computer games can get the privilege assigned as a sporting event that would still not give game jams that protection. Any chance we can suggest extending the definition of sporting event. Does it apply or even matter?

  • Can you PM me your email address, when I get a chance I will drop you a mail with my comments and reasoning. Otherwise there's the potential that I may clog clogup the forum
  • @Mikdar, clog would be cool if we all could read it(if we choose to :P)
  • Okay :D you have asked and you shall receive
  • Have an exam this week so I will post my response by Saturday morning :D
  • @Mikdar, Saturday unfortunately is too late, the submission needs to be in by this Thursday ;) Don't stress, focus on your exams (you are more than welcome to still send me your comments after the fact, good training for junior lawyer types :D)
  • I can have it done by then :D, will just do it on Wednesday after my exam
  • Damn it! I will read this tonight and send you comments. Sorry, it just dropped to the bottom of my list.
  • Chapter1(a)(i)- The tariff imposed on the "restricted/prohibited" items, even though capped, could serve to hinder economic growth in those sectors, the cap I believe should be lowered to 2.5% so as to allow more incentive for prospectives in those fields. However I agree it should be regulated.
    Chapter1(a)(vi)- I believe a more stringent approach should be taken to guard against world patents, this would help safe-guard our economy of the ramifications should such a patent come to fruition.
    Chapter1(a)(xiv)- Recommendations are well founded.

    Chapter1(b)- Targeting franchising for B-BBEE with only serve to further alienate any companies that are not compliant, this could hinder their growth and subsequently the economic growth of South Africa. Instead there should be a goal to achieve maximum economic growth which would lead to job creation and have a positive impact on poverty stricken South Africans. (This may be subjective, but the reasoning is logical)
    Chapter1(c)- I believe the government is getting too involved in Private law and could lead to South African artists (going on the example given) not being offered any contracts as it would no longer be in the best interests of multi-national corporations (this is the way the world works sadly)
    Chapter1(f)- I don't understand the need for this, so could someone enlighten me :D (although I am against anything that tries to control my browsing or monitor my internet activities in any way....... It really bugs me :P)

    Chapter3- The last recommendation seeks to weaken the private sector in this industry, this should be discouraged as private sector employs the most South Africans. In fact there should be a move to rather promote a synergy between private and public sectors. this could not only encourage innovation, but could lead to growth in the sector and thus more employment.

    Chapter5(iii)- Well founded recommendations and will benefit South Africa.

    Chapter6-Is surprisingly brilliant and I honestly must say I do support it (as worded in the recommendations), however the DoE seems to be contradicting this by its move to Delphi.

    Chapter11- Should honestly be scraped, it is a sugar-coated attempt at trying to bring viewers to SABC and undermine the corporate efforts of companies such as multi-choice. It seeks to nationalise sporting events and gives the Minister far too much control which could result in corruption and ultimately the end user would be affected (has the potential to alienate popular South African Sports and Teams, might lead to disinvestment).

    Well that is all I could find, please excuse any grammar or spelling errors, also keep in mind I am only 1st year law and some of my comments might be naive or uniformed.

    Otherwise ENjoy :D

  • @Mikdar, thanks :) Will review and incorporate as needed I'll try get my final draft up here tonight
  • I apologise, my wife "went out with the girls" last night and I was literally stuck holding the baby; I didn't get to read the draft.
  • I would still be interested to hear what you have to say
  • This is my final draft. I've reduced it down and tried to simplify it as much as possible. The basic jist is that the Policy is basically shit. It fundamentally doesn't understand a lot of SA IP law. With this in mind I've kept the comments narrowed specifically to what as an industry we would like to see happen (on the understanding that the entire policy is going to have to be re-written). I realize I should have put my version up sooner to help people give comment, and I apologize for that. Please read and add any recommendations that you would like
    Comments on DIPP.pdf
  • Imminently sensible suggestions.

    Too late to point out spelling/grammar errors I assume?
  • Nope still got time, please point them out :-D
  • "This is undesirable and does give the law the ability to deal with the
    specific issues around game development. "
    Is this not supposed to be "...does not give the law..."?
  • 1.4 - usion makes no sense.

    1.5 - From a structural perspective,

    1.5 - policy would have far more concrete objective and goals

    2.1 - The first real mention of copyright is(?) in Chapter 1(c) and 1(f).

    2.2 - This is undesirable and does not(?) give the law the ability to deal (as noted above)

    4 - allow software to be patentable -to be rejected.

    5.3 - (for example things like “format shitfting” needs to be addressed).

    5.3 - assist copyright holders to enforce their rights in a digital environment.

    That's it. Just small stuff, didn't want to be pedantic before :)
  • Cool, I made the changes and submitted last night, thanks to everyone who contributed :)
  • Not exactly the same thing, but today's featured article on wikipedia:

    Thought it was quite interesting.
Sign In or Register to comment.