UK opposes copyright exemptions for mash-ups There should be no new exemption from copyright law for users' adaptations of copyright-protected content, the UK Government has said. To create such an exemption for user-generated content would ignore the rights of content creators, it said. The Government has responded to a consultation paper published by the European …
This post has been deleted by its author
Before I start this rant, IANAL. I am a concerned citizen!
"Another significant concern is the extent to which such an exemption might allow others to use the works in a way that the existing rights holders do not approve of and the impact that exemptions in this area might have on remuneration,"
The general public couldnt give a toss about what the existing rights holders approve of, or the effects of exemption on the renumeration of record companies - which is WHY there is so much breach of copyright about. The government need to stop serving these corporate financial interests and start serving the interests of the general populace.
The music industry is a sick dinosaur, that should be put down instead of being encouraged to suffer and spread their disease to as many people as possible.
I'm a firm believer that copyright should be abolished - everything I've ever written (stories, songs, most of a novel) has been posted for free on the internet. My reward was the pleasure and effort of production - of something that is entirely my creative input. The value of these works is not what the record companies say they are, they're what the general population say they are. That is the ESSENCE of supply and demand, Mark to Market, whatever you want to call it. By artificially inflating Record Company profilts, you prolong the problem, just like with the housing market - sooner or later it will crash and burn.
I might have to report all of our politiicians, one by one, for breaking copyright law. In this country, its illegal to keep a recorded program beyond three weeks - after that its piracy - the exact same crime they accuse illegal downloaders of committing... Does Gordon Clown have a VCR or DVD recorder? How about Miss Harman? Or Darling? Start at the top! I'm sure Tony B. Liar had an ipod - technically it is illegal to download the music to your computer and copy it onto a new device for playback.... Why have none of these potential pirates been investigated or prosecuted? Could it be because the Govt. like to look and sound tough on copyright, but really dont care either way?
Mines the one with the photocopied crossword in the pocket.
But if you were somebody whose living depended upon others paying for your music or literature or clothing design, you may feel differently, whether selling/providing the matter personally or as an employee of EMI needing your salary.
As for who judges value: do you mean the profit after the costs of production or the whole price? If the people can not or will not pay the price and the supplier can not fulfil their expections, then he will stop supplying, go out of business, sack his workers .... It could be that the object is actually valuable and even necessary, that is no guarantee that you or I will pay enough - hence adulterated, even poisonous foodstuffs in some places for example.
Or do you, for instance, maintain your employer's computer systems or write his software for the love and satisfaction of doing it and live from the charity of his grateful clients? Who pays for the computers, pens, paper, light, heat? Or is it all made and given for pure self-satisfaction: could be the answer to consumerism and obesity.
The fact that many of us abuse our limited rights to make copies is no more an exculpation than the claimed poverty or envy of a shop lifter, petty thief or pickpocket, though most of them get away with it and may well view it as harmless.
Copyright and patent are not synonyms for "bad": they mean protection to make it worthwhile to publicise certain things and, until they were formalised, the lack of such was a great hindrance to development.
The parties concerned would be well advised to watch Larry Lessig.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html
No one doubts that this subject is one fraught with problems, both technical and commercial, but the blanket crimilisation of creative output benefits no-one.
It is of course correct that third parties do not profit directly from the labour of others, but likewise, this protection shouldn't stifle the imagination and progression of others.
Thinking back to various gigs I've been too of new bands, they all carry at least one cover of a song they love and respect. Indeed it is this taking of what they love, modifying it and expanding on it that is the catalyst for much future 'unique' work.
Can you imagine if Monet had copyrighted Impressionism in the 1860's. We would have had no Degas, Suerat, Manet etc...
I chose the flame because it is the logo used by Massive Attack and 'original' band who inspired many, who obviously 'stole' the logo from the ISO3864 standard on international safety symbols.
"Fair dealing for criticism or review" and "fair dealing for reporting current events" are defences allowed by copyright law against actions for infringement.
http://www.soas.ac.uk/infocomp/copyright/bledetailed/avoidinginfringement/fairdealing/ble-detailed-copyright-guide-putting-material-on-the-ble-copying-covered-by-fair-dealing-for-criticism-review-or-reporting-current-events.html
The first few comments (maybe more by now) repeat the old line that copyright protects big business against consumers. Now, this is true, but it's only part of the picture. Copyright also protects the small-time musician from exploitation by the big companies!
More than that, it's not all about music. Don't forget video, and plain old writing. If there were exemptions to copyright law for everything, it guts copyright law. There must be a balance between protecting the creator (which is NOT the same as the company that's licensed the content) and ensuring that public culture grows. And this is, after all, the whole point of copyright law - to protect the creator so that they will create more, benefitting everyone.
simple. greed.
there wouldn't be this whole hoo-ha if the recording industries etc (big business) wern't so greedy and blatantly profiteering.
i'm with Paul Donnellly on this.
i too have created and been a part of creating many things (songs, paintings, graphics, designs etc), and have also given it all away free, or made it publically available for free.
ok, so i don't rely on these creations to earn a living, but i could. understand that. so why would i choose to give away what i create in my own time with my own resources?
simple. i have a job and earn an honest living like most, (excluding gvt.). and i not only get great pleasure from giving and helping others, but i also understand that in this existence you get only what you give (in the end).
karma anyone?
is that they have ceased to balance between the needs of individual citizens and the needs of society in general. Neither the blanket condemnation of copyright law, nor the blanket accusation of 'Pirates!' is beneficial to society as a whole. For a limited time, individuals (and by extension corporations) ought to have the exclusive rights to genuinely new IP. But at some point, that IP must pass into the public domain. At it ought to be the responsibility of legislatures to take up the issues related to what those parameters ought to be and formulate laws around the balancing of those competing interests.
...it is hard to imagine how one might frame a law to allow mash-ups without driving a coach and horses through the whole show. After all, it isn't exactly *hard* to dress copyrighted material in new clothes. If you are against copyright in principle, fine, but don't pretend that this is some trivlal thing that rights holders *could* have permitted were they not such a bunch of evil bastards.
...the anti-copyright slogan is now "Artists: Get a real job!"? To paraphrase The Daily Show, at last someone is saying what the people, who aren't thinking, are thinking...
And, for the white-collar dabblers who create their art for love and cuddles, congratulations. Just so you know, artists feed their kids too. The vast majority take on all sorts of pissy little jobs and gigs and commissions and freelance work and even sell a few paintings and they patch it all together into a life so they can buy themselves enough time to express their own ideas, because that is what they need to do and it is what they are are good at. And when they create something, sure they want to see it received well and provoke something in others. If someone wants to buy it and help them keep on going, all the better. They dont want some sticky chav cutting it into his Beat Box Spaztacular, or some right wing neo-nazi group using it as their next fight song, or some multinational drug company using it to advertise their restless-leg syndrome cure.
This is more than just money (though money is in there too) and to characterise artists as pimped-up record execs or freeloading hippies is intellectually dishonest strawman'ery. You admit by your own preening that art makes people happy so imagine the chilling effect that loss of artistic rights will cause - not just to the artists and creators, but to us all.
can we have a level playing field then and some enforcement of copyright law against big business flouting the rights of website owners and creators ?
Text of email sent to UK IPO With copy to European Commission
Quote
There should be no new exemption from copyright law for users'
adaptations of copyright-protected content, the UK Government has said.
To create such an exemption for user-generated content would ignore the
rights of content creators, it said.
End quote
The above quote is taken from an article here
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/03/mashup_copyright/
The following are facts which are indisputable concerning the operation
of PHORM a deep packet inspection system which BT and other ISP's are
anxious to employ.
The ISP, using Phorm supplied equipment, create a 100% literal copy of
the web page in transmission.
That is a copyright violation (because the ISP is not licenced to hold
a copy for any purpose other than onward transmission, particularly a
copy with an independent economic value).
But Phorm go further. Phorm also create an adaptation, the digest
summarising the recurrent words.
Copyright also recognises the 'value' (rather than the literal) nature
of what is copied in an adaptation. If you take the best scene of a
play, and incorporate it in another play, that's still a Copyright violation.
Likewise, by copying recurrent words which summarise the page content,
Phorm are capturing the essence of the page in the adaptation they
create.
The adaptation has economic value, and it violates copyright too.
But the most obvious Copyright violation is the literal copy they make
first, compounded by the fact that at no time do PHORM obtain the
permission of the copyright holder, in this case the website creator in
order to undertake any of the above actions. This is illegal and a
breach of copyright.
The website creator grants 'limited' rights to
users to view and use the site for personal and non profit ends only,
and unless specific permission is asked for by Phorm and given the
actions listed above which are unarguably and undeniably part of the
operation of the system are illegal.
In view of these facts and the recent statement by the government
regarding user content I quote..
"The suggestion for an exemption for user-created content seems to create a distinction between those who use and those who create works, which in many cases is not justified," said the Government's response to the Commission's consultation.
"Another significant concern is the extent to which such an exemption
might allow others to use the works in a way that the existing rights
holders do not approve of and the impact that exemptions in this area
might have on remuneration," it said.
I would be grateful if your department would confirm my assumptions, or
where it disagrees and feels I am mistaken in my interpretation of the
UK copyright laws and the governments intentions please correct my
errors.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
