General discussion

Locked

Copyright..what is it and how do you get it...

By Jaqui ·
since I saw in the discussion about the supreme court ruling over grokster et-al:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11189-0.html?forumID=3&threadID=176952&messageID=1798888

that most people seem to have a serious lack of knowledge on the subject.

they are assuming that copyright is only when you have gone through some process to be given it.

it's not.

copyriht exists at the moment that any work is completed.

when you write a letter / email to your mom, as soon as you finish it. ( sign it ) it is copyrighted.
at that time you would have the onus of proving that you created the item.
if you go to the government agency, and register the copyrighted material with them, before sending it, then they have a copy of it, and a record that you created the document, and thier records are usable in court.
some myths with facts about them secific for copyright and p2p sharing:
Myth: File Sharing is legal. FACT: File sharing is only legal when sharing items that you are the copyright holder of or that is in the public domain.

Myth: I can burn CDs of items I?ve purchased for sharing. FACT: IT IS NOT legal to make them available to others (Like burning to CDs for others, share them on peer-to-peer services like Kazaa, put on the Web?even for free). It is legal to save purchased items to your hard drive or burn to personal CDs.

Myth: There is no harm in being a member of a file sharing site. FACT: Joining any file-sharing site, means you are most likely sharing the items you have on your computer?including items you do not own the rights to make available to other. Any time you download a file from there you are automatically making it available to the world when you are online and your computer is at risk for getting viruses. You can be liable for up to $150,000 per item.

Myth: A friend used my computer, so I can not be held liable. FACT: You can be held liable for damages if someone else uses your computer or Internet access to share files illegally.

Myth: Permission isn?t need on public domain items. FACT: You could be violating other laws, such as Trademark, Patent, Privacy or Publicity laws, even if an items copyright has expired. Some items (like items marked anonymous) are presumed public domain when they are not.

Myth: If I change enough of an original work or make a different format or version, it?s considered fair use. FACT: You can be held liable for copyright infringement for derivated works.

Myth: Only US citizens can register or use the benefits of U.S. copyright laws. FACT: Copyright protection is available for all unpublished works, regardless of the nationality or domicile of the author.

Myth: Copyright protection cost too much for individuals FACT: A copyright registration is $30 and a collection of works can be registered as one item. Legal action for violations can get expensive, but certificates of ownership along with cease and desist letters can resolve problems without large expenses.

Myth: If there is no copyright mark, it?s public domain FACT: A copyright notice is not required in order to have copyright protection.

Myth: Fair Use allows me to use small amounts of works that have a copyright without infringing. FACT: The ?amount? is just one factor in Fair Use. The other factors would all also lean towards fair use, and although it?s a small amount as far as quantity goes, I could be violating the rights based on the amount in reference to quality.

some links to different places for the legal reading on copyright, and a few for registering copyright.

http://www.biblit.it/BIBLIT%202%20LEGGI/Conv-Berna.pdf

http://www.prs.co.uk/

http://www.cla.co.uk/

http://www.copyright.org.au/

http://www.wipo.int/

http://www.uspto.gov/

http://www.copyright.gov/

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Jaqui, Have you moved south or something?

by Oz_Media In reply to Copyright..what is it and ...

"Sharing files is not an infringement of copyright under Canadian law.

Justice Konrad von Finckenstein today (fall 2004) said the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) - the equivalent of the litigious Recording Industry ***. of America (RIAA) - could not prove that 29 unnamed file sharers sued by the organisation had violated copyright material owned by its members.

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorised the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein noted in his ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

In other words, just putting files in a computer directory that other people can access is insufficient an action to constitute illegal distribution - at least under Canadian law.

"I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory linked to a P2P service," he said.

Judge von Finckenstein's ruling brings to an end the CRIA's latest attempt to force four Canadian ISPs to divulge the identities of 29 alleged file sharers who it claims were active during the last two months of 2003. The CRIA needs that information in order to sue the 29 individuals for alleged copyright violation.

The CRIA has no right to demand that information, since it can't show that an illegal act had taken place."

You see, in Canada, our personal liberties FAR outweigh those of the corporations. Our government places the people ahead of the corporations.

In the USA, such rights are laughed at when someone faces a corporation, the coproration has more protection than the people.


You can imagine how many times I have faced this argument, I also see and benefit from both sides of the coin too though so it's pretty complicated when it comes to figuring out whether sharing is a Pro for the industry (which in MANT cases it is) or a Con, (which in many cases it is also.)

As someone distributing and benfitting from artist sales, I see a great benefit to sharing SOME music, but not ALL musc. The problem is, NOBODY, including CRIA, RIAA or even WIPA (the US dominated 'global' body), can place a dollar amount or even a reasonable estimate as to what they have lost. Sure they can show last years and this years sales stats, but that means absolutely nothing at all.

Until they can PROVE people have illegally PROVIDED music to others, they cannot legally obtain IP information without a court order, which is not gonna happen soon because according to Canadian law, they have o LEGAL basis to obtain that info if th eperson has not comitted a crime. Having P2P software on your PC is not a crime. Having that music STORED in a shared folder is also NOT a crime, so therefore they are not willingly sharing copyrighted materials.

Canadian law, Jaqui, and it's a whole new ballgame. Canadian law is focused on the people of Canada, not the coporations they work for.

So this one:
"Myth: There is no harm in being a member of a file sharing site. FACT: Joining any file-sharing site, means you are most likely sharing the items you have on your computer?including items you do not own the rights to make available to other. Any time you download a file from there you are automatically making it available to the world when you are online and your computer is at risk for getting viruses. You can be liable for up to $150,000 per item."

Is false, it is NOT illegal to have P2P software on your machine at all. It is NOT illegal to have materials IN that shared folder.

They CANNOT impose a fine, as they have to more than 3500 US residents over the last three years. In Canada, you hav eto have broken the law in order for the court to grant release of personal information. We have more prtection of our personal information than the CRIA (and others) have against copying their product. Until THEY can prove a law was broken, they can't obtain this personal information, and judge after judge after judge has ruled against SHAW/Rogers/Bell etc. who have been asked to divulge such personal information.

If THEY grant access to personal customer information, IP addresses and contact information, it would mean THEY are also breaking the law and would be facing liability and prosecution under Canadian law themselves.

They simply have no copyrights that supercede personal privacy actions. I've seen so many similar 'breaches' contested over the last 20 years that ALL face the exact same hurdle, Canadian Constitutional Rights, and they have lost in almost, in fact all, cases. Reel-to-reel, 8-track recorders,Cassette tapes, VHS tapes, CDRW's and now electronic storage.

As MC Hammer said, "can't touch this". Sorry for the MacHummer reference, but that's about the size of it, you have to have undisputedly broken Canadian Law in order to gain personal information in Canada.

Copyright law doesn't come into play unless it's enforceable and it will never supercede Constitutional Rights as it MUST act within those rights.

Collapse -

nope Oz,

by Jaqui In reply to Jaqui, Have you moved sou ...

but the myth / fact sheet was written by an american
I was just using this, as a foundation for understanding copyright itself, not the sharing of, through any means.

Collapse -

It's completely legal to copy for personal use here too.

by Oz_Media In reply to nope Oz,

Reviewing the CRIA's outlines, they track and enforce material protected under Canadian copyright laws.

Copyright Board of Canada:
"On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use. The Copyright Board's decision issued today sets a levy for this purpose."

NOTE: There is an estimated half billion US dollars collected that is sitting in limbo now. They have no way of farily distributing back catalogue royalties for artists long dead and that have full licence to their works. They have no way of determining who gets what.

But CRIA is always trying to appeal the court decisions and each year they get the same result, judges won't allow ISP's tp handover information as they don't want to see cases such as that in courts, where people are forced to fight for privacy rights.

But the KEY item here, it is NOT illegal to create personal copies of copyright protected material in Canada. You can tape it, burn it to CD, copy it to your personal MP3 player, store it on your hard drive and play it in WinAmp etc. Completely legal as of 1999. That's why there is so much fuss in Canadian courts over CD manufacturers that apply copyright protection to enw CD's, it is completely withing our rights as a consumer to create a copy of material we have purchased, by adding copy protection licences to CD's, they are in fact infringing on our rights as a consumer.


Sorry I can't pass on my login ID for the World Copyright Law Report, it has in depth information on each act and on every aspect of global copyright protection, enforcement, liability, coverage etc. For all written materials, music, software etc. You'd find it really interesting actually.

Collapse -

probably.

by Jaqui In reply to It's completely legal to ...

I've been reading international agreements, and laws for individual counties simply because of watching flame wars start over a possible infingement by hobby artists.

I've found internationally recognised images ( Peanuts, disney ) on people's sites, where they are giving away or selling them, and report those to the correct owners.
let the copyright owner decide if they wish to pursue something like that.
( some could be under fan art fair use, not my call )

I never claimed that it was a legal issue for people to copy stuff they bought here in canada.
( intention of the law )
I'm just disputing that because it's illegal in the usa, that if I have copies of songs burned to cd I can be charged in the us.
( the supreme court ruling thread )

my favorite, charge me for my copies of mannheim steamroller's fresh aire series.
go for it.
I bought the albums,
the cassetttes,
and the cds
so what if I have copied the cd's, I paid to have working copies of the music.
~lol~

Collapse -

by TonytheTiger In reply to Copyright..what is it and ...

"Some items (like items marked anonymous) are presumed public domain when they are not."

Kinda blows "intent" out of the water though.

Collapse -

Before moving on...

by tagmarkman In reply to Copyright..what is it and ...

I agree and disagree on a variety of subjects that you listed both in myth and otherwise.

Before you dig too deeply into this issue you really need to familarize yourself a little more with the subject other than just "legal text". (If we took every letter of the law literally and enforced it, we would all be in prison). ex: according to the "law" you can't even play a CD in public earshot if it has a copyright.

I suggest reading anything from Lawrence Lessig:
http://www.lessig.org/
in particular "Free Culture".

Also check out the Creative Commons:
http://creativecommons.org/

Other Links:
http://www.gnu.org/
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html
http://www.gutenberg.org/howto/copyright-howto

in particular Fair Use and Exemptions:
http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/copypol2.htm

There is also a huge debate of not just P2P (which is legal - just not copyrighted material), but also Me2Me (which is being debated).

I was at a conference many years ago that had a roundtable on this subject. The poeple on the stage were mainly from the record companies. I was completely floored on the narrowmindedness of the speakers. Every question... and I mean EVERY question that was asked of them (over 50) was responded with by "it's copyrighted material, it's against the law". They didn't hear ANYTHING that was coming out of peoples mouth. No body was talking about that type of material. At that point, I lost all respect for them.

Collapse -

I am familiar

by Jaqui In reply to Before moving on...

with most of these sites. my reason for posting this thread was that people were posting comments in the discussion about the supreme court ruling over p2p that shows a lack of understanding exactly when something is copywritten.

this isn't a dispute over p2p, or me2me, or any license that allows freely sharing copywritten materials, it's more about when does copyright come into being.

they are commenting that copyright does not exist until registered. ( company documents not being copywritten as no fees paid, when it's company documents not having a registered copyright as no fees paid. a minor distinction, but a significant one. )

even our posts on here are copyrighted, by the poster.

since this is a "public" forum, it is implied that the posts can be used anywhere, but the copyright exists.

Collapse -

Correct

by tagmarkman In reply to I am familiar

Correct... A copyright exists the moment it is recorded (implicitly). And yes, the nature of that copyright changes depending on the action the poster has taken. ex: the post here... the copyright exists but it is in the public domain (depending on TOU) (different rules).

The same goes with intention, fair use, and ownership. For example, I write in this forum but do I hold the copyright, public domain, or does TechRepublic? (that all depends the use terms of use) similarly to me writing on the behalf of a company.

The waters have become increasingly murky with the Internet. From search engines to proxy cacheing to standard society digital collaboration has really made the law makers heads spin.

Enforcement and true protection of copyright is also something that is an issue. You are "more" protected when your copyright is registerd than when it is implicit. The "intent" is more concrete.

I like that you pulled this particular issue out into its own conversation.

Collapse -

Not really

by Oz_Media In reply to I am familiar

THere is no IP rights to posts here. Bu posting here you afford TR the right to use, rewrite, edit or delete your comments in anyway they deem suitable. One of the thnigs with many forums is that you agree to release your comments to the site administrators with no hope of copyright on your comments. Many sites are similar.

But I understand what you are trying to imply, just about any creation is automatically protected as a personal works.

UNLESS of course, on a site where you agree to a disclaimer that all comments become the property of the website administrator.

Collapse -

Get Copyright

by chrisjackson1 In reply to Copyright..what is it and ...

For the satisfaction of you, DMCANow provided the proof facility and you can get detail after your content removed from other website.

Instructions:

DMCANow doing the process of dmca copyright infringement service according to Internet Copyright Law.
Due to this, when DMCANow issued the notice according DMCANow Copyright Takedown, than you also received the soft copy of the notice and get copyright infringement.
When your Remove content form to other website, than DMCANow will inform you about this and via email sending you a evidence url.



AanAnother Info:

Notice of Copyright Infringement:The conditions of the DMCA only Place to copyrights. Company. Infringement takedown guidelines do not use tools breach. Images are thoughts, thoughts and images that recognize a resource, such an enterprise or product or assistance name. Areas are not trademarks also do not reduce within the conditions. Posting an inappropriate takedown Copyright notice could present one to obligation.

http/:dmcanow.com

Back to Desktop Forum
10 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums