Welcome
Fortunately within the EU, the 50 year period of copyright on material issued in and upto the 1st half of the 20th century is expiring, moving this material into the public domain.
In combination with electronic distribution, it is possible to share this culturally valuable material where it would not be commercially viable.
- it is therefore primarily intended to promote the appreciation, the preservation and aid research.
The modest intention of this blog is to allow me to highlight some of this material, to perhaps encourage others to discover and enjoy.
If it creates a valid awareness of our rights to access this material, which has often long out of print or available only in very limited numbers, then all the better.
Background
There is a strong difference in the interpretation and enforcement in different countries, particularly with recent legal cases on each side of the Atlantic highlighting these differences.Given the aggressive push by organisations and corporations within the United States, to enforce copyright laws (globally, often to their advantage and effectively erode our rights), it is particularly interesting given the attitude of the United States to others copyright during the 18th and early 19th Centuries.I recommend the article over at wikipedia, to get an overview of the situation, perhaps quite different than you might have thought from impressions given by the Music Industry and their lobbying organs - History of Copyright Law
"In Great Britain's North American colonies, reprinting British copyright works without permission had long happened episodically, but only became a major feature of colonial life after 1760. It became more commonplace to reprint British works in the colonies (mostly in the 13 American colonies). The impetus for this shift came from Irish and Scottish master printers and booksellers who had moved to the North American colonies in the mid 18th century.
They were already familiar with the practice of reprinting and selling British copyright works, and continued the practice in North America, and it became a major part of the North American printing and publishing trade.
Robert Bell was an example. He was originally Scottish, and had spent almost a decade in Dublin before he moved to British North America in 1768. His operations, and those of many other colonial printers and booksellers, ensured that the practice of reprinting was well-established by the time of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776. Weakened American ties to Britain coincided with the increase of reprinting outside British copyright controls.
The Irish also made a flourishing business of shipping reprints to North America in the 18th century. Ireland's ability to reprint freely ended in 1801 when Ireland's Parliament merged with Great Britain, and the Irish became subject to British copyright laws.
The printing of uncopyrighted English works for the English-language market also occurred in other European countries. The British government responded to this problem in two ways: 1) it amended its own copyright statutes in 1842, explicitly forbidding import of any foreign reprint of British copyrighted work into the UK or its colonies, and 2) it began the process of reciprocal agreements with other countries. The first reciprocal agreement was with Prussia in 1846. The US remained outside this arrangement for some decades. This was objected to by such authors as Dickens and Mark Twain."
I don't want to get into a fiery discussion regarding opinion on copyright, I'd like to discuss the actual legalities of copyright law and how they effect material now entering the public domain in some geographical areas and how this effects us, given our present communications inter-connected-ness.
Terms of Use
This space for intended to create a place for encouraging the enjoyment and awareness of older music, often long out of print or available in very limited numbers - it is therefore primarily intended to promote preservation and aid research.Obviously depending upon your present country of residence, downloading and keeping material, in areas other than the EU may breach your country's laws regarding copyright infringement. As a specific illustration, the United States enforces copyright, some 90 years from the date of publishing, whereas copyright in the EU expires after 50 years of either performance or first publication.I therefore ask you to exercise discretion, I must presume you are adults and part of that is exercising a little self-rule, where applicable
- do not download material if you know it is illegal to do so in your country.
This blog is based within the EU and is therefore entitled to discuss and publish material in order to further that discussion.
Regardless of whether Judge Tomas Nördstrom should have excluded himself.
The judgement has set the stage and in combination with the IPRED law also now in place - the Film and Record companies are going to capitalise on the situation, until any appeal says otherwise.
Should Judge Tomas Nördstrom disclosed his interest, absolutely. Should the defence team researched and raised the issue - absolutely.
But do not get diverted from the issue that IPRED has been passed into law - the piratebay case is only of interest to parties supplying search engine services. Whether it is illegal to provide links to copyrighted material.
This has clearly been a 2 stage strategy, from a Governmental level. They have been lobbied by industry, undoubtedly aided by US Government and diplomatic agencies (you have to give them credit, the US are very aggressive in aiding and promoting their country's interests).
The Swedish Government and therefore the judiciary were/are under intense international scrutiny regarding our copyright laws. At a state level, it was obviously felt that a message needed to sent, it has been.
Until the judgement is formally appealed and considered, then processed and finally heard - until then you have a clear set of rulings.
Criminal intent if you supply information which aids the discovery of copyrighted material, Criminal intent if you share copyrighted material.
Over the last 15 years, it has been clear that law makers internationally have demonstrated an inability to understand the technology and specifically how legislation can be used to regulate it. In combination with lobbing and factual manipulation for commercial gain, the film/music industries have also muddied the issues.
Just look at the IPRED and DMCA.
This has not helped a solution to evolve.
But no law will ever be sufficient, if the citizens cannot understand what is morally right or wrong.
To clarify, in the past when we bought an LP or CD - we bought a personal license to play that music, for personal use (e.g. not public performance, like in a mall or pub.)
Pubs, libraries, etc were covered by different licenses.
Regardless of the fact that consumers want a portable digital archive of the film/music they have bought. It does not excuse the fact that downloading copyrighted material, which you have no intention of paying for - is a crime - pure and simple.
We as individuals have shown that we cannot regulate ourselves, we are unwilling to exercise a sensible self-judgement - we know what is right and wrong.
Sweden had a similar problem with alcohol - people could not regulate their consumption - therefore the government provided us with regulation and controlled our consumption.
In the tradition of Sweden - it is logical that the Government would provide a moral framework, however draconian - where we have shown ourselves incapable of exercising personal ethics.
We got an intervention. How we got it is a mute point, collectively as citizens, we brought this upon ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment