Jump to content


Photo

copyright -url links (by commercial aggregators) to web sites


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Kautilya

Kautilya

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1345 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 November 2010 - 07:41 AM

http://www.pressgaze...ycode=46354&c=1

in future one may have to say: have you seen the latest in music gazette about paying for bellowsing controls........? :ph34r:

Edited by Kautilya, 26 November 2010 - 07:41 AM.


#2 JimLucas

JimLucas

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Denmark

Posted 26 November 2010 - 02:42 PM

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=46354&c=1in future one may have to say: have you seen the latest in music gazette about paying for bellowsing controls........? :ph34r:

As far as I can tell from the article, the decision applies to businesses (or web sites generally?) whose income (or customer base?) derives largely (principally?) from "aggregated" (i.e, in quantity?) links to other web sites. It does not appear to apply to (or address the question of) occasional links which are minor elements in web content that consists in large part of material which is neither links nor taken directly from linkable web sources by individuals or non-business entities. And of course, the decision is being appealed.

So it doesn't appear that Concertina.net is likely to be liable for such "licensing" fees, though in the future Leo might have to negotiate some sort of agreement with YouTube if the concept is extended both internationally and to small-time linkers. ;) :unsure:

However, there's no predicting what judges and lawmakers will decide and enact from one day to the next. And interpretations of such decisions could be extended in a multitude of ways, depending on the desires and intentions of those doing the extending. As a potential example, let me suggest:

This decision could be interpreted as giving any source of news content the right to charge a fee to those who profit by further distributing said news. It might then be argued that paparazzi could be required to negotiate and pay some form of licensing fee to those they follow and photograph. Imagine the repercussions! :ph34r: :D

If I become aware of a future developments in this story, I'll be glad to post them here... if I don't have to pay a fee to do so. B)

#3 Leo

Leo

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1766 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Western Pennsylvania United States

Posted 26 November 2010 - 07:00 PM

I wouldn't worry about it. I highly doubt a contractual ruling in the UK would even have any standing in the US civil courts. It's certainly not criminal, since there are no broken laws (yet). I'd be more curious about the repercussion of a resident of the UK linking to a newspaper article from a UK newspaper without a license.

We've more pressing issues in the process of becoming law.
http://torrentfreak....ebsites-101118/

But, you're right Jim. Who knows what the future will bring. :(

Thanks
Leo

#4 Kautilya

Kautilya

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1345 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 November 2010 - 08:58 PM

I wouldn't worry about it. I highly doubt a contractual ruling in the UK would even have any standing in the US civil courts. It's certainly not criminal, since there are no broken laws (yet). I'd be more curious about the repercussion of a resident of the UK linking to a newspaper article from a UK newspaper without a license.

We've more pressing issues in the process of becoming law.
http://torrentfreak....ebsites-101118/

But, you're right Jim. Who knows what the future will bring. :(

Thanks
Leo

That Senate move is only part of a wider picture which impacts on the individual directly as it is individuals who listen to music or ask for the dots etc.)

I would just highlight something from the original url report:
"The Copyright Tribunal is expected to meet and review the commercial terms for both end end-user and aggregator licences in February 2011". [my bolding]

It does no harm for some of us to keep an eye on this. (The Googlebooks 'settlement' which has been kicked into touch by Judge Denny Chin in the US, also has implications for forum members who write and compose and do instruction and tutor books and videos and CDs and DVDs. If Google gets away with what it has been doing illegally (which it has admitted and has offered $60million compensation to "settle" with authors,{tho that is NOT enough!} Microsoft et al and the Justice Department are objecting to Google's proposed "settlement" of the copyright theft, as it could leave Google controlling large parts of English language book sales and Google deciding how much materials resell for. It is 'only' books so far.. you can be sure other media will follow.

This latest UK judgement may have ramifications beyond aggregators.
e.g. a forum hosting lists of urls, contributed by members, taking you to extracts of performing bands from commercial (such as folk)festivals whose organisers could argue they are copyrighted events.....


The court decision in the UK is about linked-copyright materials, such as those owned by Murdoch, and writers, composers. Some rightsholders are already set out to sue (see the &pps below)in the last few years.

There are also large enterprises moving to corral the Web:

http://www.computerw...Berners-Lee.htm

At the moment it may all seem a little OTT but the issue was discussed at a (big) meeting I was at on Nov 25 on licensing rights and collection of payments for copyright use across all media worldwide. The meeting was also told that there are legislative developments in Germany which would make all 'out of print' books reproducible without permission from the copyright holder - I cant believe that will get through but it is worrying that the suggestion is even on the table. That would be bad news for small print run authors and composers who gave their copyright away to publishers.

&pps - one should be aware that the targets for copyright contravention are usually the little people.
http://www.guardian....music-downloads

Edited by Kautilya, 27 November 2010 - 09:03 PM.


#5 Kautilya

Kautilya

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1345 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 August 2011 - 04:24 PM

Govt Vince Cable turns illegal to legal for copying CDs to other audio gizmos

http://www.guardian....ing-sites-block

#6 Kautilya

Kautilya

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1345 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 September 2011 - 05:15 AM

Musicians'/composers' copyright extended by EU from present 50 to 70 years.

http://www.consilium...intm/124570.pdf

Edited by Kautilya, 13 September 2011 - 05:15 AM.


#7 Kautilya

Kautilya

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1345 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 October 2011 - 09:24 AM

Anonymous avatars :ph34r:

Complaint against Facebook by Ireland's Data Protection Commissioner.

"It alleges that users are encouraged to hand over the personal data of other people including names, phone numbers, email addresses and more, which Facebook uses to create "extensive profiles" of non-users." [our itals]
http://in.finance.ya...345394.html?x=0

#8 wes williams

wes williams

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Location:Somerset,UK

Posted 27 October 2011 - 05:42 PM

Musicians'/composers' copyright extended by EU from present 50 to 70 years.

http://www.consilium...intm/124570.pdf


Applies to 'recordings' only. Any recording (audio/video) released before 1961 is out of copyright. A re-release of any of this material can't be re-copyrighted unless substantially changed. This is only an EU directive - it does not take effect until the law is changed in your particular country. Life plus xx years (varies) copyright on public performance is unchanged.

78rpms (extinct mid to late 1950s) aren't affected :P

#9 Ransom

Ransom

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah [GMT -7:00]

Posted 28 October 2011 - 09:04 AM

Applies to 'recordings' only. Any recording (audio/video) released before 1961 is out of copyright. A re-release of any of this material can't be re-copyrighted unless substantially changed. This is only an EU directive - it does not take effect until the law is changed in your particular country. Life plus xx years (varies) copyright on public performance is unchanged.

78rpms (extinct mid to late 1950s) aren't affected :P


1961?? Lucky you folks! Here in the United States, you only get stuff published before 1923, and even then you can't be sure.

#10 Kautilya

Kautilya

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1345 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2011 - 11:43 AM

Musicians'/composers' copyright extended by EU from present 50 to 70 years.

http://www.consilium...intm/124570.pdf


Applies to 'recordings' only. Any recording (audio/video) released before 1961 is out of copyright. A re-release of any of this material can't be re-copyrighted unless substantially changed. This is only an EU directive - it does not take effect until the law is changed in your particular country. Life plus xx years (varies) copyright on public performance is unchanged.

78rpms (extinct mid to late 1950s) aren't affected :P

V good Wes. Let's lern 'em some EUjargon which does 'em no harm. Watch out for backlash tho...that's why I have given up offering people too much detail and then getting into trouble for doing the same!! B) :blink:

#11 wes williams

wes williams

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 787 posts
  • Location:Somerset,UK

Posted 01 November 2011 - 06:37 PM

Far too many sites quote US law as if it applied to the whole world, or only talk about the 'Public Performance' copyright aspect. Because of this, I didn't find out about the status of UK copyright on recordings until last year, while reading an article about Andrew Rose, who works restoring old, rare and fragile audio stuff as Pristine Audio. Its been kept very quiet - I wonder why? But its all explained very simply at The Intellectual Poperty Office (IPO). A Bill to change the Recordings Copyright was rejected in the UK last year, but they've managed to sneak it in via the EU. Member countries have up to two years to apply this directive, known as Cliff Richard's Law by many. The IPO have stated that laws are normally not retrospective (ie pre 1961 won't suddenly change to pre 1941) so carry on as before. But what suprised me most was that old recordings can't be re-copyrighted. What does that mean to all the companies issuing 78rpm transcriptions on CD?

In the US they've already passed a similar law, known there as Sonny Bono's Law (the bloke with Cher, remember him?). Even worse, so someone from the US has told me, is that 'lifetime' over there now refers to the 'lifetime' of a corporation. So you've now got to wait for Sony,etc to 'die' before you have any chance of remastering any of their stuff in the US.

Anyway, I can happily go on remastering my 78rpms of concertina players perfectly legally, rather than worrying about if an Ernest Rutterford recording remaster from 1926 was legal or not. And in only two months time, pre 1961 becomes pre 1962 :D

Edited by wes williams, 01 November 2011 - 06:48 PM.


#12 Ransom

Ransom

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Utah [GMT -7:00]

Posted 01 November 2011 - 11:02 PM

Far too many sites quote US law as if it applied to the whole world, or only talk about the 'Public Performance' copyright aspect.

The distribution monopolies have cemented their power here, and are using their influence in the US government to export draconian copyright law to other places. The worst part is that then they use increasing copyright laws overseas to justify increasing copyright law domestically, in the name of "harmonization".

Because of this, I didn't find out about the status of UK copyright on recordings until last year, while reading an article about Andrew Rose, who works restoring old, rare and fragile audio stuff as Pristine Audio. Its been kept very quiet - I wonder why? But its all explained very simply at The Intellectual Poperty Office (IPO). A Bill to change the Recordings Copyright was rejected in the UK last year, but they've managed to sneak it in via the EU. Member countries have up to two years to apply this directive, known as Cliff Richard's Law by many. The IPO have stated that laws are normally not retrospective (ie pre 1961 won't suddenly change to pre 1941) so carry on as before. But what suprised me

Ha. normally not retrospective. The whole mess with the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act was that works that were scheduled to go into the public domain got their copyright extended retroactively. Pre-1961 might not have changed to pre-1941, but if Mickey Mouse gets his way, the line will never budge from 1961.

Don't even get me started on Golan v. Holder. They're trying to put the sheet music to "Peter and the Wolf" back under copyright even though it's already previously been in the public domain. Don't think they won't slide it back to 1941 if you let them get away with it!

most was that old recordings can't be re-copyrighted. What does that mean to all the companies issuing 78rpm transcriptions on CD?

Apparently it means you can make good money selling recordings without making a criminal of anyone who wants to copy it. Who knew, eh?

In the US they've already passed a similar law, known there as Sonny Bono's Law (the bloke with Cher, remember him?). Even worse, so someone from the US has told me, is that 'lifetime' over there now refers to the 'lifetime' of a corporation. So you've now got to wait for Sony,etc to 'die' before you have any chance of remastering any of their stuff in the US.

Ermm. That's not what the law says, really. When the copyright belongs to a person, then the copyright term is the author's life plus seventy years, but works of corporate authorship are subject to a flat term of 120 years.

The really disturbing part is that with this law, they just tacked on twenty years of copyright protection to existing works. Do you really think that in twenty years they won't be ready to do it again? In a way, it's worse than you say. We don't just have to wait for the death of some corporation holding copyrights. We have to wait for the death of ALL corporations holding copyrights and lobbying legislation to protect them.

Anyway, I can happily go on remastering my 78rpms of concertina players perfectly legally, rather than worrying about if an Ernest Rutterford recording remaster from 1926 was legal or not. And in only two months time, pre 1961 becomes pre 1962 :D

Wes, you're a parasite. I don't know how you can sleep at nights, knowing that you're stealing bread from the mouths of Ernest Rutterford's corporate heirs.

Do you really think Ernest would have wanted his precious recordings remastered by some cheeky fellow with a record player and a fancy computer? Surely it would be a much more fitting tribute to his memory to let those recordings moulder in a vault somewhere until one of the corporate custodians of our cultural heritage decided in their boundless wisdom that they might be able to make an extra buck off of a new edition.

=) =) =)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users