As a publisher of both books and articles, in particular reviews which quote from originals, I have an interest both in intellectual property protection as well as "fair use" exceptions.
Not being a lawyer, to say nothing of being a copyright lawyer, I am going to have to plead agnostic on the overall merits of the proposed new copyright bill. I have noticed nothing in the discussion to date that seems disqualifyingly egregious, but I am also sceptical of the bill's necessity and even relevance: Piracy, especially digital piracy, seems to be mostly a game of cat and mouse between those who claim intellectual property rights and those who are allegedly pirating them. Modi vivendi come and go; although law lurks in the background, these accommodations seem largely driven by technology.
But the government says that Hong Kong's regulations are not up to international standards, whatever that means. It may be true. Hong Kong needs to coexist in the real world and sometimes it must do things to satisfy the wider international community. As long as the changes are not hugely damaging, perhaps standardization is a price of globalization.
But when considering any changes to copyright legislation, it is worth remembering what copyright is. There is a common view that intellectual "property" is something that the creator has some inalienable and obvious right to. The concept was worded somewhat more clearly in the US Constitution, which empowers the Congress "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".
Any such right is, therefore, not God-given but is instead granted for solely practical purposes, i.e. to encourage creativity, not to maximize commercial return. And if copyright were, in its application, to suppress creativity overall then it would be counterproductive. This, then, is the metric by which copyright regulations were to have been judged: Do they lead to greater or less net creativity?
Once again, I am not a lawyer, and it may be that legal thinking has moved on since the 18th century, and that intellectual property really is like physical property. But common sense indicates that it is not: All intellectual property protections run out after some time. If you own a house, you own the house; if you own a car, you own the car. If "ownership" reverts to the government or someone else after some period, then it is a lease, which is something else. It is worth keeping this perspective in mind before bandying around terms like "theft", "rights", etc.
Media corporations surely have enough lobbyists and lawyers to ensure their interests are being represented. What should concern the rest of us?
As a practical matter, there should be a "fair use" exemption to blanket copyright. The bill lists a large number of exemptions, but conceptually, at any rate, "fair use" seems reasonable and straightforward. Book reviews, critical articles and commentators need to quote and display from otherwise copyrighted materials in order to do their jobs. If permission is needed for each instance, then not only does most such commentary become unfeasible but it also gives the copyright holder an entirely unacceptable veto over what is written.
Copyright, in other words, should not be used to restrict reasonable free speech. Related but not entirely identical is the need for a "public interest" exemption. If copyright violation is criminalized, then could not leaking documents or other materials - whether from the government or a private company - which would otherwise be a matter for civil litigation potentially become a criminal offense regardless of the non-commercial nature of the materials leaked or wrongdoing uncovered?
While one understands whence the desire for carve-outs for parody, satire, cosplay and other such derivations arises, rather more serious, it seems to me, is the current trend toward litigation that claims that mere similarity in plot or in a handful of chords constitutes an intellectual property violation. If such interpretations had held in the late 16th century, most, perhaps all, of Shakespeare's plays would have fallen afoul. Few operas could have been performed.
There are a number of things wrong with intellectual property practice in the US, from cases like those above to patent trolling. It is less than clear that the current state of affairs encourages rather than discourages innovation and creativity. It would be ironic if while founding an Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB), Hong Kong's attempt to conform to so-called international intellectual property standards resulted in stifling the very innovation the ITB is attempting to encourage.

Source: China Daily