[cc-community] sound and video CC-ND
claude.almansi at bluewin.ch
Fri Apr 6 02:51:57 EDT 2012
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:17 AM, Ben Finney
<bignose+hates-spam at benfinney.id.au> wrote:
> drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> writes:
>> At one level though, I think we are wanting copyright law to "make
>> sense" when at a fundamental level, it doesn't.
> Yes. Many of us are hackers – logically-minded folk who like to tinker
> with systems, fearlessly changing what's perceived to be broken and
> tossing out what no longer works.
> The law simply doesn't operate like that, and much of it doesn't make
> sense when analysed logically; yet it has legal force regardless and
> must be respected in that capacity.
That's very true, and an illogical law is better than no law at all,
in most cases. In CH, Géraldine Savary, a theoretically socialist MP,
activates for a change of copyright law that would criminalize
downloads of copyrighted music, quoting IFPI's stats on the decreasing
sales of music on a physical support as "proof" that downloads are
harming musicians. She also seems a leetle confused about the
difference between download and upload (unfortunately,
"téléchargement" means both in French). So she goes about clamoring in
the media that CH is the only country where unauthorized downloads
copyrighted is not illegal and that the law must be changed to make it
so. She even made a formal postulate towards this. The government
replied explaining how the present copyright law - which does
criminalize unauthorized uploads - is enough protection for the
creators. She still doesn't get it, though she has been a member of
the judicial commission of parliament since 2007, i.e. since before
the revision of the CH © law with the parts about the internet came
into force, but at least she won't be able to do much harm.
> Using our perspective to second-guess how the courts will interpret law
> is a recipe for disastrous misunderstandings. We can agitate for changes
> in law to make it more sensible, but in the meantime we must deal with
> the law as it is used by lawyers and the courts, not as we would wish
> them to.
Agreed. One advantage, when a work is under a CC license, is that in
doubt, there is usually an easy way to ask the author. It's often not
so when a work is copyrighted by default with all rights reserved. On
YouTube, one way to find the rights holder of a strictly copyrighted
work is to go it anyway, and wait for the Content ID match: often,
rights holder don't go for deletion but rather for monetizing via
adding an ad on the video, and then you can barter with them: unless
the video is likely to become a blockbuster, they usually agree to
replace the ad with a link in the description to a page where the
music can be bought legally, in my experience. But that's not a very
satisfactory way to go about it.
More information about the cc-community