Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-be - Re: [Cc-be] Copyright management information (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.)

cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Creative Commons - Belgium

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hannelore Dekeyser <hannelore.dekeyser AT law.kuleuven.ac.be>
  • To: Alexandre.Dulaunoy AT ael.be
  • Cc: cc-be AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-be] Copyright management information (was: Very quick comments on CCs-[BE] and playground for other discussions.)
  • Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 12:39:29 +0100



Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Hannelore Dekeyser wrote:

[BE/EU] Regarding the implementation of the 2001/29/CE, the "copyright
management information" of the article 7 is closely linked to the
article 6 of the 2001/29/CE. I'm really afraid that could be used to
clearly revoke the 4a stating the opposite. Why do you want to use
this terminology as the transposition is not done in Belgium ? Why not
keeping "copyright notice" ?


Copyright management information is not a technical measure. It's just a
copyright claim: "Copyright owner = mr. X".


I don't think so. There are so many examples of interaction and link
between article 6 and article 7 of the directive.

http://silvaneves.org/eucd/eucd-fs.en.html

"toute information relative des droits se représentant sous forme
électronique" can be clearly linked to a technical measure (article 6).


I've read the article you refer to very quickly. The author pinpoints several problems in the software market, but I don't agree with how he links all these with art. 7 of the Copyright Directive.
The Internet Observatory explains this directive: http://www.internet-observatory.be
See Juridisch kader/ Cadre juridique

I will just give you my understanding of the relevance of these articles for the CCPL.

Art. 6 concerns technical measures that control use or acces.

--> "technological measures" means any technology, device or component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or _restrict acts_, in respect of works or other subject-matter, which are _not authorised by the rightholder_ of any copyright or any right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC. Technological measures shall be deemed "effective" where the use of a protected work or other subject-matter is controlled by the rightholders through application of an access control or protection process, such as encryption, scrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the protection objective.

You may not knowingly circumvent such technological measures (art.6 par. 1).
You may not commercially distribute circumvention tools (art. 6 par. 2)

DeCSS is an example of a technological measure.

The software on DVD-players that verifies the zoning information is another example.

The zone flag itself is copyright management information. There is a link between article 6 and 7, but this doesn't always have to be the case (see further).

Art. 7:
"rights-management information" means any _information_ provided by rightholders which _identifies the work_ or other subject-matter referred to in this Directive or covered by the sui generis right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC, _the author_ or any other rightholder, or information about the _terms and conditions_ of use of the work or other subject-matter, and any numbers or codes that represent such information.

RMI is information, about the work, the author and the licence terms.
It isn't software that controls acces or use.



As I said in the previous post, "You" the licensee may not apply DRM to undo the rights granted in the CCPL.
You must leave any copyright management information intact, the licence says so, and so does art. 7 Copyright directive.
"Original author = X".
In this case you have copyright management information, without a corresponding technical measure.

So in the case of the CCPL, I don't see a big problem with using the term copyright management information.
Even if you don't call it that, the copyright notice _is_ copyright management information.




I don't understand why the translation is already using the
terminology of the 2001/29/CE but the transposition is not effective
in Belgium (only a law proposal at the moment). I was thinking that
the translation was using the current law (loi du 30 juin 1994). Is it
the case ?

This is standard practice and makes a lot of sense. Let me turn the question around. Why wouldn't you use terminology that you know will be used in the law in the near future?

Anyway, an author can use whatever language he wants in his licence. He could call the copyright notice a 'paternity declaration' if he wanted to.
The law on copyright defines certain limits to the interpretation of copyright licences, but leaves the author a lot of freedom.

'Copyright notice' or 'copyright management information' are more or less the same, in my opinion.


Séverine is the expert on technical measures, so maybe she can shed more light on this issue.


Hannelore

--
Hannelore Dekeyser
Interdisciplinary Centre for Law and Information Technology
Website: http://www.law.kuleuven.ac.be/icri




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page