It's common to find that politicians don't understand copyright. Copyright, along with other "Intellectual Property", is a government-granted monopoly on some sort of intangible concept like a name, or idea, or representation of an idea. Trademarks protect names (and other distinguishing marks like sounds or the appearance of a mascot or logo) for businesses; patents protect ideas, and copyright protects the (artistic) expression of an idea.
But Robert Lutczyk, who sits on both the Oshawa and Durham Region councils, as proven that he doesn't understand the funamental difference between these things. He has "Copyrighted" the name of a local school and sued newspapers to prevent them from printing the name in their papers. If you think this is odd, consider that names can't be copyrighted. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong. So this coucillor needs to consult a lawyer before making an even bigger fool of himself.
The people at the school in question aren't sure what Mr. Lutczyk is trying to achieve with these hare-brained actions; maybe he wants the school to change its name or maybe he wants to extort money, who can tell? Mr. Lutczyk isn't talking. But I hope any newspaper that he sues takes the lawsuit to court and drags it out as much as possible. Copyright, trademarks and patent laws are already misused enough as it is, we don't need this jerk making things worse.
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property. Show all posts
Money for Nothing
Charlie McCreevy, the EU Commissioner for the Internal Market, has proposed extending copyright for recordings to 95 years. His reasoning:
I wish I could have income for ever based on the work I did in my teens or twenties. Oh wait: I can, in the form of saving for my retirement.
"If nothing is done, thousands of European performers who recorded in the late 1950s and 1960s will lose all of their airplay royalties over the next ten years. These royalties are often their sole pension." People are living longer and 50 years of copyright protection no longer give lifetime income to artists who recorded hits in their late teens or early twenties.
I wish I could have income for ever based on the work I did in my teens or twenties. Oh wait: I can, in the form of saving for my retirement.
A Strange Week in the Copyright World
Last week two interesting things happened in the realm of copyright. First the owner of the copyright of a particular piece of Free software advised the world that he was withdrawing that software from the GPL; he instructed people to delete any copies they have and remove the code from any systems that might have incorporated it.
I've wondered when we would see this particular event occur, since I recall the copyright laws being somewhat vague about this sort of thing. The problem is the owner of the copyright already gave people permission to use the source code under the terms of the GPL, which does not allow for revoking the license. The issue will need to be decided by a court which will determine whether a "gift" can be "ungiven". Some comments on Slashdot suggest that there may be something else at play here; such as a legal restriction which prevents the owner of the copyright from distributing the code under the GPL, and which would render the GPL invalid for this code. However the author did not indicate this and it remains to be seen what will happen.
The other odd thing that happened was that a US judge found that a cease-and-desist letter is copyrightable. That means that if a lawyer wants to bully you into doing something, and you want to tell the world that you are being bullied, you are not allowed to post a copy of the cease and desist letter on your website. In theory this would mean that you're not even allowed to make photocopies of the letter to pass around to your staff (assuming you have staff).
Frankly this is a frightening ruling. A cease and desist letter is clearly not a work of art, but rather a simple communication. The only effect that can be had from suppressing the publication of such a letter is that more lawyers will be able to bully people into getting in line with their clients' wishes. This is often what happens when someone's activities are embarrassing to a corporation. Suppressing this kind of speech can only have a chilling effect on freedom.
I've wondered when we would see this particular event occur, since I recall the copyright laws being somewhat vague about this sort of thing. The problem is the owner of the copyright already gave people permission to use the source code under the terms of the GPL, which does not allow for revoking the license. The issue will need to be decided by a court which will determine whether a "gift" can be "ungiven". Some comments on Slashdot suggest that there may be something else at play here; such as a legal restriction which prevents the owner of the copyright from distributing the code under the GPL, and which would render the GPL invalid for this code. However the author did not indicate this and it remains to be seen what will happen.
The other odd thing that happened was that a US judge found that a cease-and-desist letter is copyrightable. That means that if a lawyer wants to bully you into doing something, and you want to tell the world that you are being bullied, you are not allowed to post a copy of the cease and desist letter on your website. In theory this would mean that you're not even allowed to make photocopies of the letter to pass around to your staff (assuming you have staff).
Frankly this is a frightening ruling. A cease and desist letter is clearly not a work of art, but rather a simple communication. The only effect that can be had from suppressing the publication of such a letter is that more lawyers will be able to bully people into getting in line with their clients' wishes. This is often what happens when someone's activities are embarrassing to a corporation. Suppressing this kind of speech can only have a chilling effect on freedom.
Patents on Software Security
There is a company that is trying to patent software security patches which are developed by third parties. This is either the worst idea ever or the biggest joke on the patent system. In essence they want to patent the solution to a problem, then charge people to use that solution, even though the "invention" in question isn't really a new thing but fixing the absence of a thing. It's like if someone invented a new lock, but accidentally made the deadbolts out of marshmallow, and someone else came along and tried to patent making the deadbolt out of steel. The original invention called for steel, or something strong, but an implementation flaw lead to poor security. But now this new company comes along and says, "Aha! If we replace the marshmallow.... perfect!" as if it weren't completely obvious what's wrong with the locks. If this company gets any patents for this nonsense, and actually wins in court, it will be proof (as if more proof is needed) that the patent system is fundamentally and completely broken.
Copyright law and Guitar tab
It seems the music industry is trying to shut down their fans again. The National Music Publishers Association has sent a letter to the guitartabs.com site asking them to stop distributing guitar tablature. Guitar Tabs is a site where users can download tab files; I understand that generally these files are written by people who listen to a song, work out the notes on a guitar, then submit it to guitartabs.com for others to enjoy. Unfortunately for the music fans, this activity violates copyright law.
Copyright law, at least in Canada (I have read the Copyright Act, but IANAL) specifically defines things like making guitar tab as making a copy. Copyright doesn't depend on the means of reproduction; even if the new work is different but very similar to the original work, and is derived from the original work, it doesn't excuse the copyright obligations of the "copier". If you read a novel, and write it out by hand, you are not allowed to distribute that copy, even if you make spelling mistakes or re-word a few sentences. Heck, you are not even allowed to translate a work into another language. You are not allowed to make a movie out of a copyrighted book nor sing a song with a similar tune as another song, even if you change the lyrics. To my knowledge these basic rules are in all copyright laws passed in any countries that signed the Berne Convention.
Some people confuse the issue further when they consider the copyright of the author of the derived work. The derived work may be subject to the "copier's" copyright as well; consider a translation of one book into another language: The author of the original book owns the copyright for that book, but not the copyright for the translated book (assuming it was translated without authorization of the author). The copyright for the translation rests with the translator, however, since it is derived from a copyrighted work, the translator can not distribute it without permission from the original author. The author does not have permission to dictate when the translation will be distributed; the author can only dictate when it will NOT be distributed. When the copyright of the original work expires, the translator is free to distribute his work, and the this version of the work enjoys full copyright protection. Similarly, the authors of the guitar tablature can prevent others from copying their work, however the artists who wrote the songs in question (or, whoever owns the copyright) can prevent the distribution of tab.
Should the NMPA stop guitartabs.com from distributing tabs? Well, the NMPA makes their money selling sheet music and tab. Under copyright law they hold the keys to this particular source of revenue, and a site like guitartabs.com presumably prevents them from making money on certain tab sheets. If you believe in copyright, then it follows that guitartabs is blatantly denying the NMPA of its due revenue. Sorry tab fans.
Note: This post is meant to explain copyright law. It is not meant as an endorsement or condemnation of this law.
Copyright law, at least in Canada (I have read the Copyright Act, but IANAL) specifically defines things like making guitar tab as making a copy. Copyright doesn't depend on the means of reproduction; even if the new work is different but very similar to the original work, and is derived from the original work, it doesn't excuse the copyright obligations of the "copier". If you read a novel, and write it out by hand, you are not allowed to distribute that copy, even if you make spelling mistakes or re-word a few sentences. Heck, you are not even allowed to translate a work into another language. You are not allowed to make a movie out of a copyrighted book nor sing a song with a similar tune as another song, even if you change the lyrics. To my knowledge these basic rules are in all copyright laws passed in any countries that signed the Berne Convention.
Some people confuse the issue further when they consider the copyright of the author of the derived work. The derived work may be subject to the "copier's" copyright as well; consider a translation of one book into another language: The author of the original book owns the copyright for that book, but not the copyright for the translated book (assuming it was translated without authorization of the author). The copyright for the translation rests with the translator, however, since it is derived from a copyrighted work, the translator can not distribute it without permission from the original author. The author does not have permission to dictate when the translation will be distributed; the author can only dictate when it will NOT be distributed. When the copyright of the original work expires, the translator is free to distribute his work, and the this version of the work enjoys full copyright protection. Similarly, the authors of the guitar tablature can prevent others from copying their work, however the artists who wrote the songs in question (or, whoever owns the copyright) can prevent the distribution of tab.
Should the NMPA stop guitartabs.com from distributing tabs? Well, the NMPA makes their money selling sheet music and tab. Under copyright law they hold the keys to this particular source of revenue, and a site like guitartabs.com presumably prevents them from making money on certain tab sheets. If you believe in copyright, then it follows that guitartabs is blatantly denying the NMPA of its due revenue. Sorry tab fans.
Note: This post is meant to explain copyright law. It is not meant as an endorsement or condemnation of this law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)