It's one (or two) of those cases I've never read or taken much interest in. But, looking at the Wikipedia article for a quick overview it could be that the distinction here is that Newzbin was always taking money from subscribers in order to provide the links to the protected works.
....Yes, I agree - I realised that negative effect after I had posted.typonaut wrote:Well, that's certainly one philosophical position to take. Unfortunately for you the philosophers have been debating that issue for a few hundred years and they have a different answer.RedRobin wrote:In an ideal world, music would always be free and not subject to complex laws of copyrights etc etc etc!
I'd personally question whether that really would be an ideal world - it would seem to preclude anyone ever making a living from the creation of music, and consequently have a negative effect on both the quality and quantity of music available to the public.
But I certainly would not wish to prevent anyone giving away music that they have composed and performed, if that's their choice.
I think you have the general understanding. If someone else is creating and distributing the infringing work, then you are not liable merely for giving them permission to use your track. If you distribute it (or make it available to the public) in any way, then you will be liable.RedRobin wrote:I think I have to wait and see what the remixer has to say as she is the one who has created the work using both my song (with my permission) and Another's song, which she selected.
....So am I correct in thinking that even if I was to send a private email to a close and trusted friend who is a respected musician and producer, with a copy of the said Remix attached, with the express purpose of asking his opinion about the Remix's music, then I would still be liable to committing an infringement!?typonaut wrote:If you distribute it (or make it available to the public) in any way, then you will be liable.
Making it available to the public would include emailing a copy to your friend, or simply playing it in a public place (includes a hired room in a pub, for a few friends, etc).
Typo,typonaut wrote:
The problem with that theory is that it fails to take into account that copyright may not be granted/enforceable on the full scope of a work. Only the novel parts of any work are protected, those that are derived from expired works, or unprotectable elements (characters, plots, titles, television show formats...) never become subject to an enforceable right.
....Hi Andy. Yes, I had noticed a difference in your general tone from TyponautAndyJ wrote:RedRobin,
As you have probably gathered by now, I don't take such a draconian view as Typonaut on this issue.
. I think that our learned friend is making me aware of a worst case scenario and although it is somewhat daunting for me to hear, it is nevertheless important for me to understand the worst potential consequences. Your goodself on the other hand seems to be more sympathetic to what I would ideally wish to achieve - Namely the sharing of the Remix music for enjoyment in its own right and not for financial gain. ^^^^ This is very concisely put and is a good summary of our discussions so far, and in a language which is easily understood by someone not in the legal profession (myself!).AndyJ wrote:
I agree with him that you are not liable for any primary infringement of Another's song by merely consenting to the use of your song in the adaptation. Nor are you liable through your approval of the resulting remix, since that would not amount to authorising another to make an infringing copy (contrary to section 16 (2)).
There is little or no chance that owning a copy of the remix itself would land you in trouble as possessing a copy of an infringing work alone (provided you did not make it) is not an infringement of the author's rights. For there to be the offence of secondary infringement (section 23), possession needs to be in the course of a business.
AndyJ wrote:
As Typonaut says, passing a copy to a friend is dangerous on two grounds: it might be seen as issuing a copy to the public (s 18), and secondly it would involve you making a copy which would contravene s 17. However if your friend came round to your home and listened to the remix, that would not constitute a public performance, nor copying, nor issuing a copy to the public.
Clearly if the remixer, who is already liable for a s 17 infringement also compounds her sin by posting the remix on YouTube, and you then publish a link to it, on the current jurisprudence that would not be an infringing act on your part either.
....I find this both fascinating and horrifying! I say horrifying in that my initial reaction is to feel that such legislation would go way beyond what I would consider as fair and just applications of the law to protect the copyrights of originals from unjust use. I hope I am making sense!AndyJ wrote: While you may despair at the extent to which the law seeks to extend its tentacles, in many ways we ain't seen the half of it. For the last two says I have been at the Supreme Court where the appeal before their lordships has major ramifications for anyone surfing the internet. In essence, in an earlier case known as Meltwater both the High Court and the Court of Appeal held that when a representation of a website page, or image or other item obtained from a web request appears on the screen of your monitor, tablet or smart phone that is new and separate copy of the work, and unless you know that you have the copyright owner's permission to view the page etc, you will be infringing copyright just by browsing. There is a provision (s 28A) within the Act which appears to exempt browsing and the technical process which leads up to the creation of an image on your screen, but the UK courts have so far held this does not include the final stage of the process, namely the copy in the cache of the computer and the copy on screen. We will have to see how the Supreme Court decide. It is possible that they may make a referral to the European Court of Justice on some issues raised in the case, because at the heart of the matter is the correct interpretation of an EU Directive on the subject. You may think that website owners are implicitly giving their permission for you to view their content, so there's no problem. But as we know there are probably millions of websites which host content which has been lifted without permission, including some otherwise respectable sites like, ahem, YouTube. So if the Supreme Court reject this appeal, effectively most people in the UK browsing the internet will unwittingly become liable for making infringing copies on a regular basis.
Yes, you are correct on both counts. By designing the logo you will be entitled to the copyright in your artistsic work. Her use of the logo, with your permission, would not create any liability for you in connection with her acts, as it is hard to see how you could be seen to be joint tortfeasors (sorry about the legal jargon). It would much the same as saying that the Ford Motor Co was liable because one of their cars was used in a robbery of a bank!RedRobin wrote:
The graphic work is entirely my creation and I assume that as such, I hold the copyright and her use of it (my permission being given) alongside the internet-posted remix does not make me jointly liable for any infringements deemed to have been committed by her.
Am I correct in this assumption, please?
Perhaps it's time for breakfast! So, "wrongdoer" would be a less legal term. But of course such analogies are more widely understood.This is not a change to the law, merely that 2 courts have interpreted the existing law in the manner I have described. Since both those decisons would bind courts in the UK in future, unless the Supreme Court reverse the decision on appeal, then the outcome would be that ordinary browsers could be exposed to this additional liability.RedRobin wrote:
....I find this both fascinating and horrifying! I say horrifying in that my initial reaction is to feel that such legislation would go way beyond what I would consider as fair and just applications of the law to protect the copyrights of originals from unjust use. I hope I am making sense!
To be in effect breaking copyright laws merely by looking at images on your own computer/tablet etc screen is truly draconian in my opinion. It's rather like making it illegal to merely privately think that someone is a so-and-so as opposed to hurling abuse by calling them a so-and-so out loud in public and thereby possibly offending others at the same time.
I'm not advocating total anarchy but internet users throughout the world are likely to unify and rebel in ways which may go beyond cyberspace.
The internet fundamentally is occupied by a world community (the world wide web) which greatly values its freedom from national authorities. Law and order is necessary but there needs to be an acceptable balance with freedom.
The whole issue came about because a copyright collection society, the Newspaper Licensing Agency, wanted to collect fees from businesses (the 'end-users') who viewed content from the websites of their members (the major UK national newspapers) after the end-users have been alerted to relevant content by a news aggregation service known as Meltwater. This is effectively the modern day version of a press cuttings agency. Since the terms of use for the newspapers' web sites (for instance see Term 6 and sub section (6) here on the Telegraph website) only permit browsing by private individuals for non-commercial purposes, businesses have to obtain a licence to do this. Hence it was important for the NLA to get the courts to agree that the material appearing on the screen of a browser's computer would amount to a separtate copy which was not exempt under Article 5. In other words the narrow financial interests of a specific group may have the effect of changing the law for all UK users on the internet. No other EU member state has sought to apply their law in a similar way to this, even though they too have to abide by Article 5.Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental and an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:
(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or
(b) a lawful use
of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2.
....Surely this is a case of the tail wagging the dog and clauses could be added such that what I have copied from your quote in bold has less of a draconian and blanket effect?AndyJ wrote:Since the terms of use for the newspapers' web sites (for instance see Term 6 and sub section (6) here on the Telegraph website) only permit browsing by private individuals for non-commercial purposes, businesses have to obtain a licence to do this. Hence it was important for the NLA to get the courts to agree that the material appearing on the screen of a browser's computer would amount to a separtate copy which was not exempt under Article 5. In other words the narrow financial interests of a specific group may have the effect of changing the law for all UK users on the internet. No other EU member state has sought to apply their law in a similar way to this, even though they too have to abide by Article 5.
