[d at DCC] tangible object
russell at flora.ca
Sat Oct 1 13:59:45 EDT 2011
On 11-10-01 10:26 AM, Keith Rose wrote:
> An example of the "tangible object" would be CD.
Wish people still had analog technology on the mind. Problem with
digital media is that it requires some sort of digital technology to
access, and there are other aspects of copyright that make digital
technology more complex (even before we add technical measures).
There was no claim that there was a copyright regulated copy of a
work in the wires of a record or tape player, but there is a presumption
of regulated copying happening within the memory/etc of a digital device.
This provision in the bill is the WPPT part of the WCT "making
available" policy. Or, one of the provisions that were given that label
(the on-demand stuff also sometimes given that label).
It is there to enable the types of publicity stunts that J. K.
Rowling likes where her book is only able to be sold for the first time
across the planet at a time of her choosing. That sale timing would
otherwise not regulated by copyright, only the creation of the tangible
book in the first place.
> It is probably worth pointing out that fixation doesn't require
> permanence; re-writable media are captured here. So if you copy a
> sound recording onto, say, an iPod (with or without authorization),
> you would presumably need the rights holder's authorization to sell
> that iPod with the recording on it.
This gets us into the question of whether a digital copy is "bought"
at all, or whether it is only licensed. My reading has always been that
without the tangible object there is only licensing, and that the
re-writeable storage in a multimedia device (ick on the iPod example ;-)
wouldn't qualify under any "first sale" doctrine anyway.
So, even without this provision, the sale of a copy made to
re-writeable media was already regulated. It was only if it was a
"private copy" (IE: not being sold or otherwise transferred to someone
else) that it was covered under the relevant exception.
> This provision is talking about the performer's rights in the
> performance. For music, there are parallel rights for the composer
> (or publisher) in the work itself and the producer in the sound
Always a good reminder that there are 3 copyright holders in music,
not just one. Wish Orwellian double-speak named orgs like "Music
Canada" (Not the music industry but record labels, not even Canadian but
major foreign owned labels) wouldn't be trying to confuse people on that
Thanks for diving into this discussion.
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
More information about the Discuss