From dfewer at uottawa.ca Wed Jan 5 11:34:58 2005 From: dfewer at uottawa.ca (David Fewer [c]) Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:34:58 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Creative Commons and legal jurisdiction question. [signed] In-Reply-To: <200501042258.j04MwZot013318@boulez.cc.uottawa.ca> Message-ID: <200501051635.j05GYwAh003479@boulez.cc.uottawa.ca> Hi, Russell. It is not entirely clear to me what you mean by the "jurisdiction problem". There are a number of jurisdiction issues associated with ANY contract, not just with cc/ca licenses: - What law should a court use to interpret the contract? We assume a court, but it is really anyone trying to devine the intentions of the parties to the contract. - where should a court hear the case? What forum? The answer is that within the contract the parties can designate the forum (we can say that we agree that any dispute should be heard by a Superior Court of Ontario in Leeds-Grenville counties, and that we attorn (submit) to that court) or even restrict the forum (no litigation - irrevocably submit to arbitration under designated rules). If the parties are silent, a court will entertain a suit on its own rules. In Canada and most common law countries, the court will look for a "real and substantial connection" between the forum's jurisdiction and the subject matter of the suit. Does one of the parties reside in the jurisdiction? Was part of the contract performed in the jurisdiction? Etc. You can see why cyberspace creates problems for this sort of analysis - there's very little "there" there. So, when you say: > A work is not licensed under a "commons deed" or the AT-SA/etc labels, > it is licensed under specific legal code. you're not quite right. You see, a license - any contract - does NOT automatically specify the legal code; it specifies an internal code - internal to the contract itself. A contract is just an agreement, a bit of language, between two parties. To the extent that a license automatically invokes a code, the code is within the language (English, French, Swahili) the parties use - when I say (and you agree) that "you may not copy this program", we turn to English - not copyright, not the common law or any legal code - to figure out what we've just agreed. Interpretation of the contract is the task of devining (interpreting, understanding) the parties' intentions. Now, language is not precise. Ambiguities abound in English (how close is "near"? What does "non-commercial" mean - does it foreclose "cost recovery"? Etc.). Similarly, parties do not always turn their minds to every situation with precision. Accordingly, we need rules to interpret contracts when these sorts of issues come up. Rules offer stability and consistency in interpretation. Parties to a contract can agree which rules should apply, or not. Courts (or arbitrators) will generally apply the interpretational rules the parties agree to. If the parties have not specified a set of rules, Courts (or arbitrators) will provide a set of rules, and will do so according to their own rules for figuring out which rules to select. Actually, courts don't provide the rules, they apply the rules - but now we're getting into legal theory and we don't want to go there. The CC/CA license provides in s. 8(g) that "The construction, validity and performance of this [Agreement] shall be governed by the laws in force in Canada." So, parties to the cc/ca license automatically say that Canadian contract law governs interpretation of the contract. Note that contractual interpretation is a matter of provincial jurisdiction - the cc/ca license doesn't actually designate the rules of interpretation, it just narrows them down to 13. With a Canadian federal law backdrop. But still, better than nothing. Ah, but then you say: > If I chose the Canadian license > and you are an Australian, then only if I somehow manage to ensure that a > case involving this work will only be heard only in Canada will the > license be interpreted within the country compatible with the license. > > If you manage to get a case heard in Australia, then we have the same > problem of licenses being incompatible with the domestic legal code. But you confuse two things: forum (where the case is heard) and code (the rules of contractual interpretation applied to devine the parties' intention, as stated within the license). The CC/CA license is silent as to forum. Most contracts aren't, and it's a bugger. Why should I submit to the laws of Redmond, Washington, merely for having Windows on my computer? But that is essentially what I agree to when I click my click-wrap license, or when I (used to) peel off my shrink-wrap. CIPPIC is actually involved in a project examining these sorts of unfair terms. But here's the kicker - if we don't specify forum, then theoretically *any court in the world* can hear a lawsuit involving interpretation of our contract. Now, courts like to manage their own affairs, and Australian courts don't like settling Canadian disputes. So, generally courts will only hear cases that have some "real and substantial connection" to their jurisdiction. Usually this is easy: an Ontario Court will say "he's in Ontario, she's in Ontario, it's in Ontario, we're all in Ontario - why don't we go out on a limb and hear this case?" Sometimes it's not: "he's here, she's there, it's somewhere else, they all "agreed" in cyberspace." Is "he" being "here" a real and substantial connection? Usually, but not always. Some jurisdictions take a very aggressive stance on jurisdiction, with "long-arm statutes" granting jurisdiction to their courts to hear cases that have only tenuous connections to the jurisdiction. Texas comes to mind. Never piss off a Texan consumer. So, you are right - merely choosing cc/ca doesn't guarantee the case will be heard in Canada - but that's not what the cc/ca tries to do. Cc/ca just says that wherever you are, you'll use Canadian laws to interpret the license. So, your Australian court will apply Canadian laws of contractual "construction, validity and performance". Aside from the fact that very few Australian judges are likely to have experience in Canadian law, Australian judges feel very competent to perform this interpretational task. Judges don't feel that any interpretational task is "incompatible" with their function. Things get dicier when we're talking, say, Canadian court/German law, or Canadian court/Chinese law, or (god forbid) Chinese Court/Iranian law. But these aren't "compatibility" issues; rather, they are "competency" issues. Creative Commons does it's best to offer the world keys to understanding the substance of the license (i.e., the substance of the parties' agreement): the first key is the language: English; the second key is the legal code: Canadian contract law. Apply these two keys, regardless of where you are (and, again, the license doesn't care where you are), and you should be able to interpret the parties' intent. But then you go on to say: > The Linux kernel as one single project has contributions from citizens in > a large number of countries, and thus has parts that can be seen as under > the jurisdiction of all these countries. What does the composit license > look like, or are you suggesting that the work is licensed "in the legal > code compatable with the country of the court", a legal concept of license > jurisdiction auto-detection which I don't believe exists anywhere. This is a real problem with open source, and it is one of the reasons that it has not been adopted with open arms by commercial users. Linux does not offer certainty of title. Let's take a fictional work: Baby-Linux. It has two authors: one Canadian, one US. Every jurisdiction in the world has it's own rules for attributing ownership of IP in Baby-Linux. If both authors are contractors under work-for-hire agreements, even the rules of Canada and the US differ as to who is the first owner of copyright in the author's contribution (no such thing as a "work-for-hire" under Canadian law, so the author remains the first copyright owner of his contribution in Canada; in US, copyright in a "work-for-hire" belongs to the company, not the author). You could have joint ownership of IP in Baby-Linux with different owners in different countries. Now, throw in the fact that commercialization rules differ in each country (are all authors required to license Baby-Linux, or can each author separately license?), and you're right. It's a mess. But so what. That has nothing to do with cc/ca. That's just the mess that is copyright. But, recall, all this is just to determine ownership of copyright at first instance. There is the contractual layer that overlays this: if everyone has signed contracts licensing or assigning ownership, that may help clarify (or muddy) where ownership of the IP in Baby-Linux lies. Now let's consider the legacy IP in Linux. No, you're right, let's not - it's too damn scary. Hundreds, thousands of authors; some have contracts, some don't, some did but who the hell knows where the contracts are now. Who owns Linux, unencumbered? Nobody. Everybody. It is a work of joint authorship and no one could even tell me who all of the authors are, let alone who all the owners are. The only hope is that *every* contribution to the code occurred under a license (or assignment), and every such licensor (or assignor) was in fact the owner of copyright in the contribution. I'm not sure what you mean by the "legal code compatible with the country of the court" - if you just mean national law, then yes, court's "auto-detect" their own national law. I suspect you are really talking about the contractual overlay - the various agreements that cover who is going to own what, or license what. Court's will interpret those contracts according to the rules of contractual interpretation noted above. For something as big and as complicated as Linux, this is a monumental task. Finally, to complete your tour-de-force of modern day private international law jurisdictional nightmares, you continue: > Unless I am missing something, I don't quite see how CC solves the huge > legal jurisdictional problems that exist not only under PCT laws but also > many other laws. "PCT"? Patent Co-operation Treaty? >We have seen a number of quite weird tort cases where > the claim is that if someone in a given country can see some material that > it is covered under the tort laws of that country. I as a Canadian can be > found guilty of violating United States law even though the same activity > is not illegal in Canada, and that I don't intend to set foot in that > country until certain legal issues are fixed. Ah, tort law is not contract law. Tort claimants have no contractual relationship to the defendant, or in any event, any contract between the parties is irrelevant to the tort claim, *unless it is covered off in the contract*. The limitation of liability clause in the cc/ca license looks like this: "EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AND EXCEPT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM LIABILITY TO A THIRD PARTY RESULTING FROM BREACH OF THE WARRANTIES IN SECTION 5, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENCE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES." So, "on any legal theory" captures tort law theories, and covers claims "arising out of . . . the use of this work". Aside from the fact that court's don't really like limitations of liability (someone gets screwed: it doesn't seem fair that a click-wrap should waive your right to sue for damages for, say, personal injury), this covers most tort claims the parties to the contract might come up with. It doesn't cover third party claims against you (though it partially covers third party flow-through claims - i.e., 3P sues your customer, customer sues you). So, yes, tort lurks in the background. And as to jurisdiction, we are liable in tort in those jurisdictions to which we bring ourselves. If we are making hard core porn available to Iranians, we can't expect to insulate ourselves from tort claims in that country, except to the extent that we cover ourselves off by contract. Whether or not the Iranian court will give effect to that contract is another question, which really speaks to the wisdom of traveling to Iran if you are a hard-core pornographer. Or traveling to the US if you are an encryption researcher. David Fewer Legal Counsel Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law 57 Louis Pasteur St. Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5 Ph: (613)562-5800 (ext.2558) Fax: (613)562-5417 CONFIDENTIALITY CAUTION AND DISCLAIMER This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and contains information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately at (613)562-5800 (ext.2558) and delete the original message. If you are the intended recipient of this message, we remind you that electronic mail on the Internet may not be secure and that this message was not and future messages will not be encrypted or otherwise protected, unless specifically requested, in which case, special arrangements will be made. -- ---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]---------------------- From: dfewer at uottawa.ca signed email body (11040 characters) Date: on 05 January 2005 at 16:35:22 GMT To: cc-ca at lists.ibiblio.org ---------------------------------------------------------------- : Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft. : Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines : below are the sender's verifiable digital signature. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 00fAAAAAEAAABKF9xBICsAAEYCAAIAAgACACCNLzW0AmamSrYGcVVgdlvcPRhDr1 RuG1QjikfWgLlLXgEAH6DcvmP6hSscxPTSbfIdeJOMWLOk8BFJxg3nmWUWOcKZkt +VpDDQf5G9/v9chRNA/Fg3dyyU0JgP/NyAekpqCQ== ------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]---------------- From julien at jlam.flora.ca Tue Jan 18 09:26:44 2005 From: julien at jlam.flora.ca (Julien Lamarche) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:26:44 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Is a donation commercial? Message-ID: Bonjour ? tous, I'm new to this list, but I've talking about cc to my friends for a while now. For example, the NGO mentioned here, I asked if they could put their website under cc and they accepted it pretty quickly. I'm part of a cycling caravan that will cross Canada to teach kids about sustainable consumption and deliver the positive message that they can have an impact. The non-profit NGO that started this particular caravan is runed by two people out of their homes. There's a proposition circulating in our team to buddy up with a video producer to make a video out of the trip. I'm pushing that it be released under cc. I'm trying to understand the full implications of the NonCommercial option. I get a sinking feeling when I ask these question; I feel like I'm trying to circumvent the law. But I want to fully know (legal advice disclaimer included :-) ) the freedoms and responsibilities in the following scenario so I may explain it to the best of my abilities to the NGO, the cyclists and the producer. On the FAQ: 'When other people use or trade or copy your work, they cannot do so for "monetary compensation or financial gain," unless they get your permission.'. So my understanding is: 1. If we take music for the soundtrack that is NonCommercial, the producer can't be paid to edit our footage, even though the video is afterwards free as in free beer. 2. If we take music for the soundtrack that is NonCommercial, then the producer cannot promote it in his portofolio because it may lead to other contracts. 3. If we take music for the soundtrack that is NonCommercial-ShareAlike, then so is the video. The NGO can't use it for fundraising by charging an entry price into a room. But taking item #3, and instead of charging an entry price into a room, what happens with these diffrent "donation box" scenarios? 3.1 We don't talk about the donation box, it just sits there; 3.2 The donation box is not in the same room 3.3 We have another event before showing the movie, such as a potluck 3.4 We have the potluck first, with the donation box, but store it away once the movie is playing (and we advertised the movie along with the potluck) 3.5 We have the potluck first, with the donation box, but store it away once the movie is playing (but we only advertised the potluck). Would appreciate any advice, even if it comes with a legal disclaimer. I am also close to the University of Ottawa, so if the CIPPIC people (Russell including :-) ) want to chat about this over a beer, that would be fun. Spoken or written advice, whatever is better for you. Merci beaucoup & ? prochaine, Julien -- Education, privacy, freedom of speech, consumer rights, culture, innovation and security are all affected by proposed changes to copyright law http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/copyright-law-reform/truth.html From julien at jlam.flora.ca Thu Jan 20 13:57:56 2005 From: julien at jlam.flora.ca (Julien Lamarche) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:57:56 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Is a donation commercial? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bonjour, Here's one reply I got permission to forward. Perhaps some people may build upon this and affirm or infirm his interpretation of the NonCommercial option. ---------- Message de Ryan McGregor transf?r? ---------- Subject: Creative Commons Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:43:28 -0700 From: Ryan McGregor To: julien at jlam.flora.ca Hello. First of all remember that I am not a lawyer. This is just my interpretation of the license and my opinion. "If we take music for the soundtrack that is NonCommercial, the producer can't be paid to edit our footage, even though the video is afterwards free as in free beer." No, I do not believe this to be true for a couple of reasons. The producer is being paid to edit the footage, not to redistribute it. So therefore, he is making a profit from his work (ie physical work) and not from the video directly. A relevant comparison would be the Mozilla Foundation. They currently have 16 paid employees, but they are still considered a non-profit organization and have tax exempt status in the United States. "If we take music for the soundtrack that is NonCommercial, then the producer cannot promote it in his portfolio because it may lead to other contracts." No, this is not true. If you volunteer at a non-profit (where it is illegal for them to sell services in certain jurisdictions as far as I know) you can still use that experience legally on a resume. In this case, the producer would be benefiting from his hard work and gained experience, not from the original work itself. "If we take music for the soundtrack that is NonCommercial-ShareAlike, then so is the video. The NGO can't use it for fund raising by charging an entry price into a room." This, in my opinion, is also not a problem for you. Here is a direct quote from the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Sharealike 2.0 License. "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." You are not collecting this money for a commercial advantage, as it is for charity. Also, it is not for private monetary compensation, since you are in turn using this money to benefit society as a whole, not because you want to make a couple bucks. If you are still worried, I would recommend contacting any valid copyright holders. Anyways, again, good luck to you. Ryan ------------------------------------------------------- -- Education, privacy, freedom of speech, consumer rights, culture, innovation and security are all affected by proposed changes to copyright law http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/copyright-law-reform/truth.html From marcus at law-share.net Sun Jan 23 17:25:28 2005 From: marcus at law-share.net (Marcus Bornfreund) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 17:25:28 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] cc|ca honoured by CBC Radio 3 Message-ID: CBC Radio 3 chooses Creative Commons Canada as 5th of 100 contemporary issues facing Canadians: (see Table of Contents > #5) http://www.cbcradio3.com/issues/2005_01_21/main.cfm?IssueId=171 From plawson at uottawa.ca Sun Jan 23 18:56:30 2005 From: plawson at uottawa.ca (philippa lawson [c]) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:56:30 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Re: cc|ca honoured by CBC Radio 3 [signed] References: Message-ID: <00b201c501a7$2c9314d0$e5777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> SO cool! Nice going, Marcus! We'll link this to our site. (MG and DF - note #3 on music downloading - potential ally?) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Bornfreund" To: "Pippa Lawson" ; "David Fewer" ; "Creative Common Canada" Cc: "Michael Geist" ; "Bruce Feldthusen" Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: cc|ca honoured by CBC Radio 3 [u] > CBC Radio 3 chooses Creative Commons Canada as 5th of 100 contemporary > issues facing Canadians: (see Table of Contents > #5) > http://www.cbcradio3.com/issues/2005_01_21/main.cfm?IssueId=171 > -- ---------------------[ Ciphire Signature ]---------------------- From: plawson at uottawa.ca signed email body (602 characters) Date: on 23 January 2005 at 23:56:35 GMT To: marcus at law-share.net, dfewer at uottawa.ca, cc-ca at lists.ibiblio.org, mgeist at pobox.com, bruce.feldthusen at uottawa.ca ---------------------------------------------------------------- : Ciphire has secured this email against identity theft. : Free download at www.ciphire.com. The garbled lines : below are the sender's verifiable digital signature. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 00fAAAAAEAAACzOfRBWgIAAPoCAAIAAgACACAlJ1taadA86Mj+0ZWUnAI7k8j3Jy XWRf2m3NM8iYLL/QEAhjSLdSEU6kwww4jiqCLy4jv3qKSkpSz6csCcIinYVI9ecd CtBC5QPfhoI5yoJQQPPRz3QT0kfHBj9ioTOh/hdA== ------------------[ End Ciphire Signed Message ]---------------- From russell at flora.ca Sun Jan 23 21:40:46 2005 From: russell at flora.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:40:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Cc-ca] Re: cc|ca honoured by CBC Radio 3 [signed] In-Reply-To: <00b201c501a7$2c9314d0$e5777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> References: <00b201c501a7$2c9314d0$e5777a89@crllt.ad.uottawa.ca> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, philippa lawson [c] wrote: > SO cool! Nice going, Marcus! We'll link this to our site. This is great to hear! The more visability the better! Quick off-topic comment -- from my perspective Creative Commons wasn't explained well on that site. Free Software and Creating Commons are not about "nobody owning things" and "nobody making money". It is about changing the social and legal rules to accept and support a full spectrum of motivations for creativity, including a full spectrum of business models for making money. FLOSS is BIG MONEY these days, with it being seen by much of the IT sector as the only way to do a necessary market correction that the government is unwilling (or unable due to not understanding IT?) to properly deal with. Just my thoughts anyway... -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Happy Hacking, Eh! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/blog/2 (My BLOG) Sign the Petition Users' Rights! http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/ From julien at jlam.flora.ca Thu Jan 27 11:34:38 2005 From: julien at jlam.flora.ca (Julien Lamarche) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:34:38 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Stuff in french In-Reply-To: <41F8B051.3050503@lunique.de> References: <248fbe7f39b46840a18eed5dd0f0a2f4@ze-ro.net> <41F8B051.3050503@lunique.de> Message-ID: Le Thursday January 27, 2005 04:11, Philip Steffan a ?crit: > http://fr.creativecommons.org/ Merci Philip. I was wondering where we could get material in french. In Canada, the legal code was translated in english and french. From the deed you can get to the document in either languages. The fr site produces a notice in french. But the deed is still in english. Is there an obstacle in getting the deed in other languages? Legal, practical, technical? ? prochaine, Julien -- Education, privacy, freedom of speech, consumer rights, culture, innovation and security are all affected by proposed changes to copyright law http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/copyright-law-reform/truth.html From marcus at uottawa.ca Thu Jan 27 19:27:12 2005 From: marcus at uottawa.ca (Marcus Bornfreund) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:27:12 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Stuff in french In-Reply-To: References: <248fbe7f39b46840a18eed5dd0f0a2f4@ze-ro.net> <41F8B051.3050503@lunique.de> Message-ID: Hi Julien. Due to a server crash the directory containing the Canadian EN and FR translation for the commons deeds was lost (along with Croation and Galacian work in progress) and is unrecoverable, though bilingual Canadian Legal Codes are still available. We are presently in the process of redoing these translations and they should be back online fairly soon. I'm not sure whether or not this affects the FR-team. Apologies for any inconvenience! /Marcus Begin forwarded message: From: Julien Lamarche Date: January 27, 2005 11:34:38 AM EST To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org Cc: cc-ca at lists.ibiblio.org Subject: [Cc-ca] Stuff in french Reply-To: julien at jlam.flora.ca Le Thursday January 27, 2005 04:11, Philip Steffan a ?crit: > http://fr.creativecommons.org/ Merci Philip. I was wondering where we could get material in french. In Canada, the legal code was translated in english and french. From the deed you can get to the document in either languages. The fr site produces a notice in french. But the deed is still in english. Is there an obstacle in getting the deed in other languages? Legal, practical, technical? ? prochaine, Julien -- Education, privacy, freedom of speech, consumer rights, culture, innovation and security are all affected by proposed changes to copyright law http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/copyright-law-reform/truth.html _______________________________________________ Cc-ca mailing list Cc-ca at lists.ibiblio.org http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-ca -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 2021 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-ca/attachments/20050127/44edde6b/attachment.bin From millette at waglo.com Thu Jan 27 19:32:20 2005 From: millette at waglo.com (Robin Millette) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 19:32:20 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Stuff in french In-Reply-To: References: <248fbe7f39b46840a18eed5dd0f0a2f4@ze-ro.net> <41F8B051.3050503@lunique.de> Message-ID: <41F98814.1020003@waglo.com> Marcus Bornfreund wrote: > Hi Julien. Due to a server crash the directory containing the Canadian > EN and FR translation for the commons deeds was lost (along with > Croation and Galacian work in progress) and is unrecoverable, though > bilingual Canadian Legal Codes are still available. We are presently in > the process of redoing these translations and they should be back online > fairly soon. I'm not sure whether or not this affects the FR-team. > Apologies for any inconvenience! Do you mean these ? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/deed.fr http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/deed.en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.fr http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ca/legalcode.en PS: the previous links I provided where not specific to Canada. -- Robin Millette, aka oqp http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/ http://www.cogitateurs-agitateurs.org/ - Cogitateurs Agitateurs From julien at jlam.flora.ca Thu Jan 27 21:14:33 2005 From: julien at jlam.flora.ca (Julien Lamarche) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:14:33 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Fwd: info about Ottawa Crossing the Line event Message-ID: Council of Canadians is organizing a series of panels for their "Citizens' Inquiry on Canada-U.S. Relations". http://tinyurl.com/5z4ha Their last one, occuring in Ottawa, is about media & culture. http://tinyurl.com/59ttt Times are not on the web site but are included in the fowarded e-mail below. They despratley need a perspective from the CC community. I am enquiring them right now if it is too late for additional speakers to come between 9 and 4 pm. Anyone from the Ottawa cc-ca community interested in going, either to the panel or the discussion? On the web page for that panel (http://tinyurl.com/59ttt): "The large Canadian telecommunications, cable, and satellite companies are hungry for investment dollars. They?re pressuring the feds to relax the rules so that foreign corporations can own more than 50% of their stock. They also want to be able to sell their companies to the highest bidder, regardless of where they?re located. Thus far, the free traders at Industry Canada seem to think this is a good idea, #*#*#* while the cultural protectionists at Canadian Heritage #*#*# are adamantly opposed. " ? prochaine, Julien ---------- Message de Ariel Troster transf?r? ---------- Subject: info about Ottawa Crossing the Line event Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:26:16 -0500 From: "Ariel Troster" To: Cc: "Reception Desk" Hi Julien, So sorry about that! The information is going up on our website as I type this. The Ottawa Crossing the Line event will take place at the main branch of the public library -- 120 Metcalfe (at Laurier). From 9 am to 4 pm, experts and community groups will make presentation to our panel of commissioners (including Maude Barlow). There will be an evening panel discussion from 7 pm to 9:30 pm, also at the library. We are just in the process of updating our roster of speakers -- the information will be up on our website as soon as it's confirmed. Thanks for your interest. Please feel free to give me a call if you have any further questions, or would like more information. Ariel ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- Ariel Troster, Event Planner Council of Canadians / le Conseil des canadiens 170 Laurier Avenue West, Suite 700 Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5V5 phone: (613) 233-4487, ex. 296 toll-free: 1-800-387-7177 fax: (613) 233-6776 www.canadians.org www.blueplanetproject.net ------------------------------------------------------- -- Education, privacy, freedom of speech, consumer rights, culture, innovation and security are all affected by proposed changes to copyright law http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/copyright-law-reform/truth.html From julien at jlam.flora.ca Fri Jan 28 12:41:03 2005 From: julien at jlam.flora.ca (Julien Lamarche) Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:41:03 -0500 Subject: [Cc-ca] Fwd: RE: info about Ottawa Crossing the Line event Message-ID: There are still time slots available to present in front of Council of Canadians panelists. This event is in 11 days from today (Friday Janurary 28th). Is anyone interested in presenting? Written submissions can be sent to atroster at canadians.org . (The attachements of this fowarded e-mail have been removed, but are available http://jlam.flora.ca/jlam/tmp/cofc/ ) ---------- Message de Ariel Troster transf?r? ---------- Subject: RE: info about Ottawa Crossing the Line event Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:55:43 -0500 From: "Ariel Troster" To: Hi Julien, You can send any written submissions to me, and no, it's not too late to sign up to make a presentation -- timeslots will be between 1:00 and 4:00 pm. I've attached some supporting material. Please let meknow if you have any more questions, or require more information. Ariel -----Original Message----- From: Julien Lamarche [mailto:jlam at jlam.flora.ca]On Behalf Of Julien Lamarche Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 9:13 PM To: Ariel Troster Subject: Re: info about Ottawa Crossing the Line event Bonjour, Another question: what would be the best e-mail address for canadians to make their case in written via e-mail for this particular event of your inquiry? ? prochaine, Julien Le Thursday January 27, 2005 13:26, Ariel Troster a ?crit: > Hi Julien, > > So sorry about that! The information is going up on our website as I > type this. > > The Ottawa Crossing the Line event will take place at the main branch > of the public library -- 120 Metcalfe (at Laurier). From 9 am to 4 > pm, experts and community groups will make presentation to our panel > of commissioners (including Maude Barlow). There will be an evening > panel discussion from 7 pm to 9:30 pm, also at the library. We are > just in the process of updating our roster of speakers -- the > information will be up on our website as soon as it's confirmed. > > Thanks for your interest. Please feel free to give me a call if you > have any further questions, or would like more information. > > Ariel ------------------------------------------------------- -- Education, privacy, freedom of speech, consumer rights, culture, innovation and security are all affected by proposed changes to copyright law http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/copyright-law-reform/truth.html From russell at flora.ca Sun Jan 30 13:46:01 2005 From: russell at flora.ca (Russell McOrmond) Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:46:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Cc-ca] When is something a derivative, compilation, collective, etc... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Ryan McGregor as far as individuals being paid being separate from whether or not the *work* is commercially distributed/copied/etc. The whole donation box/individuals being paid/etc should not be of concern. There is an area of all of this that still bothers me, and it would be great if someone could clarify. On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Julien Lamarche wrote: > 3. If we take music for the soundtrack that is NonCommercial-ShareAlike, > then so is the video. Is a video that includes separately authored & performed music considered a (with quotes from section 2 of the Canadian copyright act): a) a "Collective work" "collective work" means (c) any work written in distinct parts by different authors, or in which works or parts of works of different authors are incorporated; b) a "compilation" "compilation" means (a) a work resulting from the selection or arrangement of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works or of parts thereof, or Is it a derivative work (not defined in the act) in which case the whole work would have to be licensed in a compatible license to all the individual components (IE: if the music or video clips were ShareAlike that the result would need to be ShareAlike)? In the case of a collective work it suggests to me that the resulting work must be in a license that is compatible with all the licenses of the individual components (Like when you link different pieces of software together to create one binary program). In the case of a "compilation" it seems to be separate from the individual parts (See below...) Is it a "performance" (defined in act) of the music, and if so it is a performance of the musical work each time the video is viewed, or is it only a performance once for the purpose of creating a video? Is each copy of the video considered also a copy of the music? The copyright act suggests otherwise given the soundtrack is not considered a "sound recording" "sound recording" means a recording, fixed in any material form, consisting of sounds, whether or not of a performance of a work, but excludes any soundtrack of a cinematographic work where it accompanies the cinematographic work; In the past I thought I understood all this, but the "dj nonsense presents an educational compilation ``here's another sample ...''" made me question this. This is a mechanical CD handed out at the CC-CA launch that has a CC license on it where it says: "This work is licensed under a Canadian Creative Commons (cc-ca) License (NonCommercial 2.4). You may use, modify and redistribute this work provided that this original work is expressly attributed to the creator and is used for non-commercial purposes. http://creativecommons.ca" One of the songs was a Peter Gabrial song "Shock the Monkey". I asked how Creative Commons Canada managed to get their label to offer that song under the AT-NC-ND license. The answer I was given was that it wasn't offered under this license. In the above license "This work" relates to the compilation (the arrangement of songs), and does not refer to a license for the songs themselves. Even though there is clearly a CC license on the CD, I would supposedly be infringing copyright if I ripped the CD and distributed the songs via a P2P network. Am I right in my interpretation that the arrangement (compilation) can have an entirely incompatible license to the components of the compilation? If so, why was this not expressly detailed on the CD given most people looking at this type of CD would quite legitimately assume that they were authorized to non-commercially share all the songs (individual or in a group) that were on the CD? > Would appreciate any advice, even if it comes with a legal disclaimer. I am not a lawyer or law student, just a peer production activist trying to make sense out of the mess we call copyright ;-) -- Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: Happy Hacking, Eh! http://www.digital-copyright.ca/blog/2 (My BLOG) Sign the Petition Users' Rights! http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/