The Copyright Amendment Bill was first published in 2015 for public comment, and was primarily met with great criticism. Although it was clear that the whole intention of the bill was to be commendable, it was one of those things which looked good in theory and looked good on paper at first glance, but it will not work in practice and open it It was difficult and understood when considered in further detail. After a year, a revised bill has now been introduced in Parliament, and whenever there have been many old issues addressed, the draft of the draft bill or even new issues that are still addressed needed.

What is correct with the revised bill?
• For starters, this is very easy to read! Although there are still distinctions in complex or bad words, and it can be further refined, the overall arrangement of the bill becomes more understandable.
• The new provisions in this bill are specifically related to general exceptions regarding copyright protection of computer programs and on its face, these exceptions are to be welcomed.
• Initially, A large portion of the bill contained provisions related to a new type of work, i.e. the “crafts work” (which was previously covered by the definition of “work of craftsmanship”), and the rights of those artists There are relevant provisions which were dealt with (or already had) protection law of artists and the Safety Amendment Bill of Artists (which has been published for public comment).
• Bill also have provisions specifically relating to certain obligations beings placed on the broadcasting industry, and and which were simply not appropriate for the Copyright Act. These have been removed.

Still bill will wrong with
 Well, draftspersons refer to “users” throughout the bill, although such “users” are themselves self-employed. In fact, this term is often used in other words with other words like “author” or “rights holder” And it appears that “user” (which has not been defined) can claim a royalties even though it is the work of copyright that causes illusions and possibly The consequence may result if it remains in the bill.
 Although the reinvestment of royalties is now limited to artistic works, the definition of artistic works is so broad that the royalty resale will also apply, where the logo created by the graphic designer is used as a trademark trade mark, which is later sufficient Forms are obtained by the amount of goodwill in reference to this provision, graphic designer, arguably, receives royalty To enjoy the “unfair power

 In some parts of the bill, the principle of national treatment seems to have been ignored. This principle is one of the main pillars of copyright law and therefore cannot be ignored

Fair dealing
The Bill now refers to “fair dealing” and “fair use” as one another, despite the fact that they have two different legal concepts Textbooks that are cannot be obtained at reasonable prices with generally charged value in the country for comparable works” can now be completely reproduced without permission. Is a fair value constituted, however, a secret remains.
This bill attempts to inefficiently restrict commercial contracts in many provisions. The appointment of the copyright is limited to 25 years, after which it appears that the copyrights will be contained in the final director.

If it was intended to draft, then after 25 years, the copyright would be returned to the author, so it would not be possible to have more than one assignment. Therefore, if we ignore the frightening effect of changing the ability of the copyright owner to specify a work with a special license of 25 years (which are effectively drafting), then what is the matter is that the authors Cannot even benefit
This list moves forward and although some highways have been made, much more needs should be met before it becomes appropriate to adopt the bills. By 30 June 2017, the members of the public and stakeholders have been invited to submit their comments and written submissions to the portfolio committee of trade and industry.