If the Harper government's proposed copyright legislation, Bill C-32, were to pass, it would reduce by $34.9 million the revenues songwriters and music publishers earn from licensing the right to reproduce songs. The lost revenue would represent 45% of the annual royalties collected by CMRRA-SODRAC Inc. (CSI), which collects royalties for the reproduction of songs.
The changes proposed by the government would allow broadcasters to copy music for use in programming their increasingly automated stations and networks without permission from, or payment to, songwriters or music copyright owners.
In testimony today, CSI President David Basskin, told the Legislative Committee examining Bill C-32: "They'll tell you the copies broadcasters make are worthless. That's nonsense. Expert evidence, accepted by the Copyright Board of Canada, extensively documents the benefits commercial radio broadcasters receive. For instance, through 'voice tracking', broadcasters can produce a four-hour program in 20 or 30 minutes."
Last week, commercial radio broadcasters told the Committee that current music royalty rates are unreasonable and unsustainable. CSI provided evidence to the Committee today that such stations pay all copyright owners, including CSI, just 5.7% of their revenue, despite the fact that music makes up 80% of their programming. They also provided evidence that, in 2009, despite a severe recession, their pre-tax profit margin was 21.2%.
CSI told the Legislative Committee that other provisions in Bill C-32 would also undermine the rights of its members. Failure to modernize the existing private copying provisions would result in the rapid disappearance of private copying revenues. The Bill also authorizes the making of uncompensated "technological reproductions", multiple backup copies, and the distribution of user-generated content through profitable commercial intermediaries like YouTube.
"Modernizing the Copyright Act should aim to create a stable, innovation-friendly environment without eliminating existing or potential royalty sources for creators," said CSI's Vice-President, Alain Lauzon. "The current law is technologically neutral and this principle should not be called into question. What constitutes copying or reproduction today should remain so as technologies continue to evolve."
CSI is a joint venture of the Canadian Musical Reproduction Rights Agency Limited (CMRRA) and the Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC). CMRRA and SODRAC represent the reproduction rights of the authors and publishers of more than 90% of the musical works sold or broadcast in Canada.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Copyright - The Concept of Fixed Creations
by Richard Chapo -
Copyright law is loved by creators of material that can be copyrighted and disliked by most everyone else. Before the web rolled around, the scope of copyright law was fairly well established. Once the world started going digital, all heck broke loose. If you want to understand copyright, you need to grasp what can be copyrighted. This brings us to the concept of fixed creations.
Although I stink at them, I enjoy a good video game or two. To say they have evolved beyond the first games of Pong and Missile Command is a slight understatement. What might surprise you, however, is to learn that copyright law has evolved massively as well when it comes to video games. How so? The first games were not allowed to be copyrighted! We'll get back to that in a moment because it fleshes out the concept of fixed creations.
So, what is a fixed creation of the mind? It is an original work that is a result of the creativity of the author. It cannot be something that is simply observed or already exists. Let's consider some examples.
Stephen King is a rather prolific writer. Imagine his writing process. He sits and thinks up some truly wild things in his mind. This is then reduced to writing and published. The resulting book is clearly a product of his imagination and is fixed in the form of text. It is a classic copyrightable item.
Now let's return to our video game issue. The first video games were not allowed to be copyrighted because courts ruled the moving images were manifested by the players, and thus weren't creative. This obviously tells us how little judges understood in regard to video games. Eventually, an enterprising lawyer was able to get a judge to understand that the game was made up of a creative idea of a designer that was reduced to code and could be replicated. Given this, the game was a fixed creation of the mind and could be copyrighted. If this change hadn't been made, you would associate Halo with angels instead of Xbox.
Copyright is a fairly simple concept to understand in theory. Applying it to real world situations can be a bit more complex. Making sure you understand the concept of fixed creations will take you a long way to getting it right.
Richard A. Chapo is with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com - providing copyright transfer agreement preparation services.
Copyright law is loved by creators of material that can be copyrighted and disliked by most everyone else. Before the web rolled around, the scope of copyright law was fairly well established. Once the world started going digital, all heck broke loose. If you want to understand copyright, you need to grasp what can be copyrighted. This brings us to the concept of fixed creations.
Although I stink at them, I enjoy a good video game or two. To say they have evolved beyond the first games of Pong and Missile Command is a slight understatement. What might surprise you, however, is to learn that copyright law has evolved massively as well when it comes to video games. How so? The first games were not allowed to be copyrighted! We'll get back to that in a moment because it fleshes out the concept of fixed creations.
So, what is a fixed creation of the mind? It is an original work that is a result of the creativity of the author. It cannot be something that is simply observed or already exists. Let's consider some examples.
Stephen King is a rather prolific writer. Imagine his writing process. He sits and thinks up some truly wild things in his mind. This is then reduced to writing and published. The resulting book is clearly a product of his imagination and is fixed in the form of text. It is a classic copyrightable item.
Now let's return to our video game issue. The first video games were not allowed to be copyrighted because courts ruled the moving images were manifested by the players, and thus weren't creative. This obviously tells us how little judges understood in regard to video games. Eventually, an enterprising lawyer was able to get a judge to understand that the game was made up of a creative idea of a designer that was reduced to code and could be replicated. Given this, the game was a fixed creation of the mind and could be copyrighted. If this change hadn't been made, you would associate Halo with angels instead of Xbox.
Copyright is a fairly simple concept to understand in theory. Applying it to real world situations can be a bit more complex. Making sure you understand the concept of fixed creations will take you a long way to getting it right.
Richard A. Chapo is with SanDiegoBusinessLawFirm.com - providing copyright transfer agreement preparation services.
Public Domain and Copyright Protection
by Sarah Kolb -
It's illegal to use someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, but a copyright registration doesn't last forever. In fact, a copyright lasts only a certain number of years past the author's death; when the registration ceases to be valid, the work enters the public domain and is freely available for use by anyone who chooses to use it. So how do you determine whether a work's copyright registration has run out -- our whether that work was ever registered in the first place? These questions seem straightforward, but the answers are more complex than you might think.
Unfortunately, if you'd like to use a particular work but you're not sure where to start, it's your own responsibility to determine whether it's protected by a copyright or in the public domain. A work might be in the public domain for any number of reasons; in order to figure out if you're free to use a work, there are a few questions you should ask yourself.
Is it an original work, or an idea?
Not everything is able to be copyrighted. Only "original works" that have been "fixed in a tangible medium" are able to be copyrighted -- the underlying idea is not. In addition, blank forms and other documents that contain no original work cannot be protected: ledgers, weight charts, address books, score cards, and other similar works are ineligible for copyright protection. Standard calendars are also ineligible -- however, while the calendar aspect cannot be protected, any artwork or photography that accompanies the calendar could be protected as a work of visual art.
Here are a few examples of things that cannot be copyrighted and, therefore, can be freely used:
* Someone writes a fictional children's book about dinosaurs, and they copyright the text. You want to write your own book about dinosaurs. Understand that it's the text alone that is protected from infringement, not the idea of fictional dinosaur friends going on journeys and doing other activities similar to the first dinosaur book. (Here's a great example of this point -- a frequent request my company's copyright division receives is to submit a few-page synopsis of a novel for copyright protection. We're careful to explain that while we could certainly send in those few pages of text for protection, our customers must understand that it's the actual text of the synopsis that would be protected, and not the book idea itself -- likely not what they had in mind!)
* Here's another example, this one from a court case by the name of Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc. (heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 27th, 2004). In this case, a gentleman came up with an idea for a bank that caters to gay and lesbian clientele. G&L Bank was formed and Dunlap became an employee. However, shortly after G&L's inception, Dunlap was fired and subsequently sued for theft of his idea. However, the suit was dismissed -- an "idea" cannot be protected, so someone who "steals" that idea has not broken any copyright laws.
Has the work been registered with the US Copyright Office?
With more recent works, the best place to start is the USCO's Copyright Records Search. Simply search the online database for the work you're looking for.
Of course, it isn't that simple. If the work isn't found there, that doesn't mean you've eliminated the possibility that the work is registered. It just means you have to dig a little harder. You may need to enlist the USCO's help in locating the registration. This process has its costs ($115 for even an estimate of the cost!) -- but guess what's even costlier? Being sued for copyright infringement.
In what year was the work registered for copyright protection?
In some cases, you might know that the work was copyrighted at one point but be unsure whether that registration is still valid and effective. There are many factors involved (the year of registration, whether or not the copyright symbol needed to be affixed to works registered in that particular year, and so on), but there are a few general rules:
*If the work was published before 1923, the copyright has expired. It is now in the public domain and free to use.
*If a work was published between 1923 and 1963 and the copyright registration was not renewed, the work is free to use.
* The registration of a work created after January 1, 1978, will remain effective until 70 years after the author's death (or the death of the last author, if there were more than one authors). If the work was anonymous, registration remains effective for 120 years from the registration date.
* If the work was published before 1978, and the copyright symbol and notice were not included in the work, it's in the public domain (and always has been).
* If the work was published between 1978 and March 1, 1989, it's a little trickier -- if the copyright notice was not included in the work at the time of publication, the author had five years to do so. If they did not, the work is in the public domain.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has been helping thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, writers, and musicians start new business ventures, protect their intellectual property, and find new ways to market and promote their businesses and creative works. The management team of Click Industries brings a wealth of experience from the fields of government, law, IT development, and book publishing.
It's illegal to use someone else's copyrighted work without their permission, but a copyright registration doesn't last forever. In fact, a copyright lasts only a certain number of years past the author's death; when the registration ceases to be valid, the work enters the public domain and is freely available for use by anyone who chooses to use it. So how do you determine whether a work's copyright registration has run out -- our whether that work was ever registered in the first place? These questions seem straightforward, but the answers are more complex than you might think.
Unfortunately, if you'd like to use a particular work but you're not sure where to start, it's your own responsibility to determine whether it's protected by a copyright or in the public domain. A work might be in the public domain for any number of reasons; in order to figure out if you're free to use a work, there are a few questions you should ask yourself.
Is it an original work, or an idea?
Not everything is able to be copyrighted. Only "original works" that have been "fixed in a tangible medium" are able to be copyrighted -- the underlying idea is not. In addition, blank forms and other documents that contain no original work cannot be protected: ledgers, weight charts, address books, score cards, and other similar works are ineligible for copyright protection. Standard calendars are also ineligible -- however, while the calendar aspect cannot be protected, any artwork or photography that accompanies the calendar could be protected as a work of visual art.
Here are a few examples of things that cannot be copyrighted and, therefore, can be freely used:
* Someone writes a fictional children's book about dinosaurs, and they copyright the text. You want to write your own book about dinosaurs. Understand that it's the text alone that is protected from infringement, not the idea of fictional dinosaur friends going on journeys and doing other activities similar to the first dinosaur book. (Here's a great example of this point -- a frequent request my company's copyright division receives is to submit a few-page synopsis of a novel for copyright protection. We're careful to explain that while we could certainly send in those few pages of text for protection, our customers must understand that it's the actual text of the synopsis that would be protected, and not the book idea itself -- likely not what they had in mind!)
* Here's another example, this one from a court case by the name of Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc. (heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 27th, 2004). In this case, a gentleman came up with an idea for a bank that caters to gay and lesbian clientele. G&L Bank was formed and Dunlap became an employee. However, shortly after G&L's inception, Dunlap was fired and subsequently sued for theft of his idea. However, the suit was dismissed -- an "idea" cannot be protected, so someone who "steals" that idea has not broken any copyright laws.
Has the work been registered with the US Copyright Office?
With more recent works, the best place to start is the USCO's Copyright Records Search. Simply search the online database for the work you're looking for.
Of course, it isn't that simple. If the work isn't found there, that doesn't mean you've eliminated the possibility that the work is registered. It just means you have to dig a little harder. You may need to enlist the USCO's help in locating the registration. This process has its costs ($115 for even an estimate of the cost!) -- but guess what's even costlier? Being sued for copyright infringement.
In what year was the work registered for copyright protection?
In some cases, you might know that the work was copyrighted at one point but be unsure whether that registration is still valid and effective. There are many factors involved (the year of registration, whether or not the copyright symbol needed to be affixed to works registered in that particular year, and so on), but there are a few general rules:
*If the work was published before 1923, the copyright has expired. It is now in the public domain and free to use.
*If a work was published between 1923 and 1963 and the copyright registration was not renewed, the work is free to use.
* The registration of a work created after January 1, 1978, will remain effective until 70 years after the author's death (or the death of the last author, if there were more than one authors). If the work was anonymous, registration remains effective for 120 years from the registration date.
* If the work was published before 1978, and the copyright symbol and notice were not included in the work, it's in the public domain (and always has been).
* If the work was published between 1978 and March 1, 1989, it's a little trickier -- if the copyright notice was not included in the work at the time of publication, the author had five years to do so. If they did not, the work is in the public domain.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has been helping thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, writers, and musicians start new business ventures, protect their intellectual property, and find new ways to market and promote their businesses and creative works. The management team of Click Industries brings a wealth of experience from the fields of government, law, IT development, and book publishing.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Copyright: The Basics by Sarah Kolb
When you create a new work, you own the copyright to that work. It happens automatically; you don't have to do anything other than create an original work. Of course, this abstract idea looks great on paper, but the obvious problem is that who created a work is essentially one person's claim against another.
Why should I copyright my work?
The fact that you've created a work doesn't necessarily mean that you're able to prove you've created the work -- and if you're not able to prove in a court of law that you created something, you're not going to be able to sue someone for using it without your permission.
This is where registering a copyright comes in. It's the only way to legally prove your authorship. You may have heard of the "poor man's copyright" -- the act of mailing a copy of the work to yourself, keeping the package unopened and the postmark intact -- but as there is no language to support this, it simply is not a legal defense. Better to copyright your work, allowing no room for argument.
What types of works are eligible for copyright protection?
Any work of original authorship (meaning that it is not an exact copy of another work) that has been fixed in a tangible medium (either physically or digitally; in other words, it is a thing and not just an idea) can be copyrighted. Examples include:
Photographs
Paintings
Compositions
Poetry
Books
Sound Recordings
Audio/Visual Recordings
Software
Computer programs
Not all types of works can be protected by a copyright. Examples of works not eligible for this type of protection include:
Blank forms (graph paper, scorecards, address books, etc.)
Public knowledge (height and weight charts, tape measures, anything taken from common sources)
Ideas
Names
Titles
Short Phrases
Logos (unless there is enough original authorship to warrant protection as two-dimensional artwork; simply setting a name or title in a specific font or giving the letters some sort of artistic treatment does not contain enough original authorship to qualify)
However, you may be able to protect types of intellectual property not eligible for copyright protection in another way, such as with a trademark or a patent. It's best to discuss this with your legal advisor, if you're uncertain which type of protection is best for your work.
Can I Protect My Unpublished Work With A Copyright?
Absolutely. Publication was once a requirement, but the current Copyright Act no longer requires that a work be published to receive protection.
Incidentally, recent versions of the Copyright Act have removed one other previous requirement: that the copyright notice and symbol be present on the work. While a good idea to deter would-be copyright infringers, the copyright notice is no longer required to be placed on the work, even if that work is published. Ignorance of a work's copyright protection is not a legal excuse to violate that protection.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com.
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has helped thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and writers start new businesses, protect their intellectual property and find new ways to market and promote their business and creative works. Our copyrighting division, Click and Copyright, offers copyright filing services for creative professionals.
Why should I copyright my work?
The fact that you've created a work doesn't necessarily mean that you're able to prove you've created the work -- and if you're not able to prove in a court of law that you created something, you're not going to be able to sue someone for using it without your permission.
This is where registering a copyright comes in. It's the only way to legally prove your authorship. You may have heard of the "poor man's copyright" -- the act of mailing a copy of the work to yourself, keeping the package unopened and the postmark intact -- but as there is no language to support this, it simply is not a legal defense. Better to copyright your work, allowing no room for argument.
What types of works are eligible for copyright protection?
Any work of original authorship (meaning that it is not an exact copy of another work) that has been fixed in a tangible medium (either physically or digitally; in other words, it is a thing and not just an idea) can be copyrighted. Examples include:
Photographs
Paintings
Compositions
Poetry
Books
Sound Recordings
Audio/Visual Recordings
Software
Computer programs
Not all types of works can be protected by a copyright. Examples of works not eligible for this type of protection include:
Blank forms (graph paper, scorecards, address books, etc.)
Public knowledge (height and weight charts, tape measures, anything taken from common sources)
Ideas
Names
Titles
Short Phrases
Logos (unless there is enough original authorship to warrant protection as two-dimensional artwork; simply setting a name or title in a specific font or giving the letters some sort of artistic treatment does not contain enough original authorship to qualify)
However, you may be able to protect types of intellectual property not eligible for copyright protection in another way, such as with a trademark or a patent. It's best to discuss this with your legal advisor, if you're uncertain which type of protection is best for your work.
Can I Protect My Unpublished Work With A Copyright?
Absolutely. Publication was once a requirement, but the current Copyright Act no longer requires that a work be published to receive protection.
Incidentally, recent versions of the Copyright Act have removed one other previous requirement: that the copyright notice and symbol be present on the work. While a good idea to deter would-be copyright infringers, the copyright notice is no longer required to be placed on the work, even if that work is published. Ignorance of a work's copyright protection is not a legal excuse to violate that protection.
Sarah Kolb, http://www.clickandcopyright.com.
Since 2000, Click Industries, Ltd. has helped thousands of small business owners, independent entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and writers start new businesses, protect their intellectual property and find new ways to market and promote their business and creative works. Our copyrighting division, Click and Copyright, offers copyright filing services for creative professionals.
Licensing and Transference of Copyright
By Malika Bajpai
A Copyright acquired by an individual or a party may be transferred to another party. To accomplish this some conditions must be carried out among the parties. This is a common practice in the music industry. The creator of a music or song forms an agreement with the music company in which the company acquires all the rights to copy, distribute and publicize the items in the market. The original creator is provided with royalties in return. Due to the advent of the internet much of the copying and distribution is done through the internet but the company also pays heed to the marketing factor. The company looks after the marketing the creator (singer or musician) among the masses.
It depends on the copyright holder whether he/she wants to transfer all the vested rights to other. The owner of the right may transfer few of the rights to some party. When the transfer is done the original owner have to sign in legal documents. For exclusive license this is particularly useful where both the parties agree on the conditions and give their sign. The rights that are handed over to the party are mentioned exclusively leaving behind other rights. Legal documents involving such transfers of right should be with the concerned Copyright office. In US this is the rule.
Licensing of the Copyright is also performed in some countries. The benefit that adheres to the license considerably helps individual to acquire the copyrighted work without the consent of the owner. For this the concerned, issues a notice to the authority and pays some amount of money as fixed by the authority. If someone violates the law related to licensing it may lead to infringement. Various bodies have been formed to look that the policies and procedures are carried out properly. Thus doing this ensures that the creators are returned with adequate fees fixed for them.
To learn more about bankruptcy related issues please log on to the given website http://www.lawandlegalcare.com Law and Legal Care is a law portal having eminent team of attorneys across US, and offers quality service to its clients.
A Copyright acquired by an individual or a party may be transferred to another party. To accomplish this some conditions must be carried out among the parties. This is a common practice in the music industry. The creator of a music or song forms an agreement with the music company in which the company acquires all the rights to copy, distribute and publicize the items in the market. The original creator is provided with royalties in return. Due to the advent of the internet much of the copying and distribution is done through the internet but the company also pays heed to the marketing factor. The company looks after the marketing the creator (singer or musician) among the masses.
It depends on the copyright holder whether he/she wants to transfer all the vested rights to other. The owner of the right may transfer few of the rights to some party. When the transfer is done the original owner have to sign in legal documents. For exclusive license this is particularly useful where both the parties agree on the conditions and give their sign. The rights that are handed over to the party are mentioned exclusively leaving behind other rights. Legal documents involving such transfers of right should be with the concerned Copyright office. In US this is the rule.
Licensing of the Copyright is also performed in some countries. The benefit that adheres to the license considerably helps individual to acquire the copyrighted work without the consent of the owner. For this the concerned, issues a notice to the authority and pays some amount of money as fixed by the authority. If someone violates the law related to licensing it may lead to infringement. Various bodies have been formed to look that the policies and procedures are carried out properly. Thus doing this ensures that the creators are returned with adequate fees fixed for them.
To learn more about bankruptcy related issues please log on to the given website http://www.lawandlegalcare.com Law and Legal Care is a law portal having eminent team of attorneys across US, and offers quality service to its clients.
Monday, February 21, 2011
WikiLeaks and US Government, Serial Violators of Copyright
by Vel Nirtist -
Since WikiLeaks and the American government are locked in a bitter and acrimonious struggle, a claim that the two share a common underlying mentality may appear bizarre.
And yet, such is indeed the case: what unites US government and the WikiLeaks is their attitude to copyright -- or, more precisely, their respective answer to the question "do the tools of exercising the copyright belong with the copyright itself, or can they be used separately?"
WikiLeaks clearly thinks that the latter is the case -- and uses a tool of copyright, the internet, even though it has no copyright to the material itself. In WikiLeaks mind, the copyright and the exercise of its tools do not belong together; one party can have the copyright to the material, yet a different party can wield the tools to publish this material.
Which is precisely the position of the US government.
Consider this scenario. You wrote a book, and therefore have the copyright to it -- the right to publish. Unwilling to go to a publisher because he will pocket two thirds of the profit, or because you have no connections, you decide to exercise your copyright and to publish your book yourself. How do you make the book trade -- the libraries and bookstores -- aware of your newly forthcoming book? For that, you need the government's help -- you need to add it to the Library of Congress' catalog that provides subject keywords by which your book can be found by the interested parties. This is the key tool of exercising your copyright, since it makes your book visible in the marketplace.
Yet, if you publish your book yourself, the government denies you the use of this catalog, this essential tool of the copyright -- even though you actually own the copyright itself. Only the bigger third-party publishers -- the middlemen -- are permitted its use, not the actual owners of copyright -- the authors. Clearly, the government believes that the copyright and its tools do not belong together -- and thus, it fully shares the WikiLeaks position and philosophy.
Taking the tools of the copyright away from the owners of the copyright locks the latter out of the mainstream marketplace of ideas, to the detriment of us all. If all could speak, rather than merely those with the connections, perhaps many problems that surfaced in government cables leaked by the WikiLeaks would have been solved through the free and public debate. But the government doesn't want an open debate, and denies the key to the marketplace of ideas -- the tools of copyright -- to wider public. WikiLeaks, equally cavalier about the copyright, and sharing with the government the premise that tools of copyright do not belong with the copyright itself, now gave the government a taste of its own medicine -- and published what the government -- the copyright owner -- does not want published.
So, evisceration of copyright turned out to be a double-edged sword. The very same principle of separating tools of the copyright from the copyright itself produced two very different outcomes: in one case, the authors who want their work present in the mainstream marketplace of ideas cannot place their books into it; yet in the other, the authors who would rather escape the limelight, now find themselves engulfed in it.
Solution? Let the copyright be copyright, so the tools of publishing (or of exercise of the copyright, which is the same) belong together. Hopefully, the court case to which I am a party -- Overview Books v. US -- will restore the normal meaning of the copyright as the author's right to publish without a middleman -- and his or her ability to utilize all requisite tools, including the government-maintained catalog.
While the government should be able to keep its secrets, the public should also be able to do what it needs to do to function properly -- to freely discuss whatever the members of the public want to discuss. Both needs will be served by restoring to the copyright its normal function -- that of allowing authors the right to present their works to the mainstream marketplace of ideas -- or to withhold it from the public scrutiny if they wish to do so.
Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of “The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly.” His blog is at http://www.rootoutterrorism.com
Since WikiLeaks and the American government are locked in a bitter and acrimonious struggle, a claim that the two share a common underlying mentality may appear bizarre.
And yet, such is indeed the case: what unites US government and the WikiLeaks is their attitude to copyright -- or, more precisely, their respective answer to the question "do the tools of exercising the copyright belong with the copyright itself, or can they be used separately?"
WikiLeaks clearly thinks that the latter is the case -- and uses a tool of copyright, the internet, even though it has no copyright to the material itself. In WikiLeaks mind, the copyright and the exercise of its tools do not belong together; one party can have the copyright to the material, yet a different party can wield the tools to publish this material.
Which is precisely the position of the US government.
Consider this scenario. You wrote a book, and therefore have the copyright to it -- the right to publish. Unwilling to go to a publisher because he will pocket two thirds of the profit, or because you have no connections, you decide to exercise your copyright and to publish your book yourself. How do you make the book trade -- the libraries and bookstores -- aware of your newly forthcoming book? For that, you need the government's help -- you need to add it to the Library of Congress' catalog that provides subject keywords by which your book can be found by the interested parties. This is the key tool of exercising your copyright, since it makes your book visible in the marketplace.
Yet, if you publish your book yourself, the government denies you the use of this catalog, this essential tool of the copyright -- even though you actually own the copyright itself. Only the bigger third-party publishers -- the middlemen -- are permitted its use, not the actual owners of copyright -- the authors. Clearly, the government believes that the copyright and its tools do not belong together -- and thus, it fully shares the WikiLeaks position and philosophy.
Taking the tools of the copyright away from the owners of the copyright locks the latter out of the mainstream marketplace of ideas, to the detriment of us all. If all could speak, rather than merely those with the connections, perhaps many problems that surfaced in government cables leaked by the WikiLeaks would have been solved through the free and public debate. But the government doesn't want an open debate, and denies the key to the marketplace of ideas -- the tools of copyright -- to wider public. WikiLeaks, equally cavalier about the copyright, and sharing with the government the premise that tools of copyright do not belong with the copyright itself, now gave the government a taste of its own medicine -- and published what the government -- the copyright owner -- does not want published.
So, evisceration of copyright turned out to be a double-edged sword. The very same principle of separating tools of the copyright from the copyright itself produced two very different outcomes: in one case, the authors who want their work present in the mainstream marketplace of ideas cannot place their books into it; yet in the other, the authors who would rather escape the limelight, now find themselves engulfed in it.
Solution? Let the copyright be copyright, so the tools of publishing (or of exercise of the copyright, which is the same) belong together. Hopefully, the court case to which I am a party -- Overview Books v. US -- will restore the normal meaning of the copyright as the author's right to publish without a middleman -- and his or her ability to utilize all requisite tools, including the government-maintained catalog.
While the government should be able to keep its secrets, the public should also be able to do what it needs to do to function properly -- to freely discuss whatever the members of the public want to discuss. Both needs will be served by restoring to the copyright its normal function -- that of allowing authors the right to present their works to the mainstream marketplace of ideas -- or to withhold it from the public scrutiny if they wish to do so.
Vel Nirtist writes on the role of religion in fostering terrorism. He is author of “The Pitfall of Truth: Holy War, its Rationale and Folly.” His blog is at http://www.rootoutterrorism.com
From Music To Books: Piracy Threatens Professional Publishers
While piracy in the music industry is well documented and widespread, little attention has been given to its latest victim, professional books. The latest article in Simba Information's bi-monthly newsletter Professional Content Report, "Professional Book Piracy Thriving in Cyberspace," finds challenges in combating piracy and quantifying the potential revenue loss.
Currently moving onto an online platform, professional book publications, which generate $13.91 billion in revenue annually, are confronting mounting losses from digital piracy, the article finds. Several websites that publish textbooks and eBooks for free are profiting through subscriptions and advertising while maintaining immunity from copyright infringement, making these profiteers very difficult opponents.
"If piracy is next to impossible to fight, the question is how publishers should react to this situation," notes Dan Strempel, senior editor of Professional Content Report. "Do they treat piracy as part of the cost of doing business in the Internet age, or do they try and recoup piracy losses from paying customers by raising prices? It would be extremely challenging for publishers to do the latter, considering the economic pressures in the scholarly/professional system."
Quantifying the loss associated with this piracy remains a challenge. Findings suggest as much as $1.7 million in potential revenue is lost per title in the technical segment and about $1 million per title in the science segment. According to the article, progress is being made through trade associations and cooperation between publishers; however, there remains a greater need of public awareness, government resources and collective effort to effectively combat book piracy.
"Until someone puts the 'force' in international copyright enforcement, they might just have to learn to deal with it," notes Strempel.
Currently moving onto an online platform, professional book publications, which generate $13.91 billion in revenue annually, are confronting mounting losses from digital piracy, the article finds. Several websites that publish textbooks and eBooks for free are profiting through subscriptions and advertising while maintaining immunity from copyright infringement, making these profiteers very difficult opponents.
"If piracy is next to impossible to fight, the question is how publishers should react to this situation," notes Dan Strempel, senior editor of Professional Content Report. "Do they treat piracy as part of the cost of doing business in the Internet age, or do they try and recoup piracy losses from paying customers by raising prices? It would be extremely challenging for publishers to do the latter, considering the economic pressures in the scholarly/professional system."
Quantifying the loss associated with this piracy remains a challenge. Findings suggest as much as $1.7 million in potential revenue is lost per title in the technical segment and about $1 million per title in the science segment. According to the article, progress is being made through trade associations and cooperation between publishers; however, there remains a greater need of public awareness, government resources and collective effort to effectively combat book piracy.
"Until someone puts the 'force' in international copyright enforcement, they might just have to learn to deal with it," notes Strempel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)