Feeling like the slow kid in class...

Posted May 8, 2006 5:42 UTC (Mon) by hingo (guest, #14792)
In reply to: Feeling like the slow kid in class... by jzbiciak
Parent article: EFF: webcasting dropped from WIPO

I too have problems understanding this...

Webcasts are recordings. Recordings have 50 years of copyright protection (where I live). What's the real issue here?

Somewhere I read that this would somehow mean that also the music played in a webcast becomes owned by the creator of the webcast. But that's so idiotic that even I don't believe that interpretation, and let's face it, we've seen much that would warrant maximum cynisism.

to post comments

Feeling like the slow kid in class...

Posted May 9, 2006 10:58 UTC (Tue) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"Somewhere I read that this would somehow mean that also the music played in a webcast becomes owned by the creator of the webcast. But that's so idiotic that even I don't believe that interpretation, and let's face it, we've seen much that would warrant maximum cynisism."

To my understanding, that is pretty much what it would mean...

Co-owned at least, for the copies stemming from them. You could still get a copy from somewhere else that they had no ownership in if you could find such a copy.

A broadcaster or webcaster making a 'cast of a public domain work would get "copyright like" rights over that broadcast such that, if you got the public domain work from them, for you, you could not treat your copy as if it was in the public domain.

What is even wilder, if they were broadcasting something with a copyleft license, if you got a copy from their broadcast, for you it would not be copyleft. Well, not effectively at least.

If this is the case, this would be somehthing that the new GPL3 might want to head off at the pass.

Some links I found on a CC mailing list:

http://www.openbusiness.cc/2006/05/04/closeding-business-...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/wipo-carves-up-t...

all the best,

drew

Feeling like the slow kid in class...

Posted May 11, 2006 12:11 UTC (Thu) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

I think it depends on the wording. I think what they mean is that they get certain rights normally reserved for the owner, for example, the right to prosecute for copyright infringment.

Normally a broadcaster doesn't own much of the material it broadcasts so normally they can't go after people copying their broadcasts. I think legally it's called "standing".

The question really is: if I make something (whatever you call open source for music) that is later broadcast by someone else, can the broadcaster complain about copyright infringment if someone copies that stream with my creation in it, even if it's ok by me?