[d@DCC] How to get music Sam-pulled
russell at flora.ca
Thu Jan 5 14:13:19 EST 2006
P.S. I think we should focus on things which will encourage people to
engage their electoral candidates. While this conversation is great, I
believe we should leave it until after the election and spend as much
time as we can during the election on politics.
Hopefully this thread will help get people excited about getting
engaged in the election, and not be a distraction...
Darryl Moore wrote:
> How is the file sharer suppose to know the copyright status of the files
> he is downloading? (This is an issue when things like bittorrent begin
> uploaded with the first fragment downloaded). Hell, half the time you
> can't figure out the copyright status when you know exactly what you
I agree that this is a problem, but I don't believe that the
"non-commercial" separation is the right way to solve it. We need to
solve the same problems for commercial uses as well.
Digital information has absolutely no reason to not have metadata
associated with it(1), and thus a way to solve the problem of knowing
such information. The copyright issues with books, what most policy
makers base their overly-simplistic ideas about copyright on, has the
metadata about the book at the front.
(1) I'm avoiding the phrase "rights management information" as some
lawyers claim this goes beyond the metadata about the content and
includes metadata about users, with the collection/storage/communication
of metadata about users being unnecessary for legitimate copyright
reasons and a circumvention of the privacy rights of citizens.
We should require registration and filing with the copyright office
the *complete* work for works which are not otherwise publicly
distributed. For digital works this would include the creation of an
index (ISBN type of thing) which is required to be embedded in the
metadata of the digital file to allow all users to quickly look up the
current status (possible changed copyright holder, etc). The copyright
office should also take on retaining metadata information, such as a
list of public licenses which the work is offered under.
All of this metadata collection/storage/indexing could be payed for
through renewal fees collected each decade starting from 1 year after
publication which could be the grace period for registration.
We should moved to fixed terms from well defined times. For literary
works and graphic music (sheet music) it should be the date of
publication. For performances or any recording it should be the date of
the performance/recording (no matter when it may or may not be published).
The current situation is simply wrong where it is impossible to
determine when a work is in the public domain because it is impossible
to determine who the "author" of all the components of a complex work
(think software or a motion picture). We should know that X years (50
now, hopefully reducing after time) after a movie is made that it is in
the public domain, regardless of who the authors of the soundtrack were,
or the photographers of included still images, or whatever else.
> There is greater ability to create works and derived works then ever in
> the past.
This is true for both commercial and non-commercial uses.
> will only increase as technology improves. Unfortunately the line
> between original and derived works can be very wide and grey.
Or a derived work of many contributors compared to a compilation.
> How can you hold people to account when the law draws such a wide grey
Agreed, so lets clarify and simplify the act as an overriding
priority for any revision. Bill C-60 would have been tossed out on that
criteria alone, given it was overly-complex itself and made copyright
law even harder to understand than it is today.
> I think you can only hold them to account when they make a
> commercial venture out of it.
I disagree. We are largely talking about the same people with
commercial and non-commercial uses for works. Commercial copyright
should not be something only able to be navigated by those with a team
> from commercial. If you are using/distributing a product in such a way
> so as to increase your income then you are using it in a commercial
> fashion. Note I say nothing about saving on expenses. For businesses
> these could be the same thing, but for individuals there is a huge
> distinction. I think that must be 90% of the definition.
I believe you are talking about spreadsheet magic here and legal
loopholes, not something that is at all clear. Saving money and making
money are just numbers in different columns which can often have the
identical outcome, and I don't see that being an individual or a
business makes much of a difference.
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
2386+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60. This bill protects antiquated
Motion Picture and "software manufacturing" industries from modernization.
http://KillBillC60.ca Sign--> http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
More information about the Discuss