As MediaGuardian reported, the music industry has reacted with outrage to the government's rejection of pleas to extend the period musicians get royalties from their tracks beyond the current 50 years.
The copyright extension has been one of the most controversial issues in copyright. So far, the copyright protection for performers in the United States is 95 years from release and in Australia it is 70 years. So the British music industry has felt wronged by the protection period of no more than 50 years, claiming that musicians are "second-class citizens" in Britain.
I, however, have less sympathy for them. Many people actually have failed to precisely interpret the copyright law, whose purpose is "not to reward the labor of musicians, but to promote the progress of science and culture". The appropriate reward to the musicians will help promote the progress of science and culture, but over-rewarding, like the overlong protection period, would only hamper its progress.
It is not hard to imagine what would happen if the music copyright is protected for a very long time, say, the whole life of musicians. This "eternal protection" would only disincentivise musicians from creating music and living on the lifetime reward. More importanly, the failure for music works to enter the pulic realm could also restrict the recreation of music works and limit the development of music industry. So the copyright has to be under check and balance.
Another worrying trend is that the copyright for musicians has turned into the copyright for media corporates, who sign up the musicians to secure the right to their works. The protection of artists' works is actually protecting the commercial interests of the conglomeratese like Sony and Disney, among others. As former editor of the Financial Times Andrew Gowers said, "For quite a number of years, probably for decades, intellectual property protection has been regarded as, in a way, a one-way ratchet. The people demanding more intellectual property protection have tended to be larger, better financed, more articulate than the fragmented number of consumers who pay the price for it,"
People who are criticising the British government's stand on the musical right claimed that the British creative industry will be hurt by their rejection of the copyright extension, and Britain's status as the center of world creative industry will be under threat. However, I think, thanks to the check and balance given to the copyright protection, Britain could retain its status as the cretive industry center.
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label copyright. Show all posts
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Facebook lawsuit smacks of sour grape
The darling of global youngsters, Facebook, is facing a copyright-infringment law suit from the former three classmates of its founder Zuckerberg.
The case will be heard soon, so I will not make comments on the rights or wrongs of the interested parties. However, the case does nothing but remind me of another already finished case where author of best-seller Davinci Code, Brown, was sued for "stealing ideas" from another book titled Holy Blood Holy Grail.
In my point of view, both cases reminds me of the term "sour grape".
lets look at the first case first. The plaintiff was the Zuckerber's former classmates and founders of the ConnectU site.
ConnectU now has 70,000 users, while Facebook has become a worldwide success with 52 million users, 6 million of whom are based in the UK. Already the subject of a $1bn approach from Yahoo!, the company said this week it would only consider selling out for more than $10bn
There is great similarity in the case of Davinci Code. Both books, the Davinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives, but it was Brown’s book which has won millions of fans across the world.
If the Facebook or Davinci Code were not becoming a smashing success in the market, I don't think people would bother to sue them. But when Davinci Code becomes a global blockbuster, and when Facebook is billed as the next big thing after the Youtube, there is a lot of jealousy arising from the plaintiffs in question.
I am not talking from a legal perspective, but I want to say that if you really think others steal your ideas, why could the so-called "thief", instead of the allegedly "true owners", win the day? The "thief" must have done something different or special on the basis of the original idea, and make the difference between a ordinary product and a highly popular one. That difference could do enough to justify the "thief".
The case will be heard soon, so I will not make comments on the rights or wrongs of the interested parties. However, the case does nothing but remind me of another already finished case where author of best-seller Davinci Code, Brown, was sued for "stealing ideas" from another book titled Holy Blood Holy Grail.
In my point of view, both cases reminds me of the term "sour grape".
lets look at the first case first. The plaintiff was the Zuckerber's former classmates and founders of the ConnectU site.
ConnectU now has 70,000 users, while Facebook has become a worldwide success with 52 million users, 6 million of whom are based in the UK. Already the subject of a $1bn approach from Yahoo!, the company said this week it would only consider selling out for more than $10bn
There is great similarity in the case of Davinci Code. Both books, the Davinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail, explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives, but it was Brown’s book which has won millions of fans across the world.
If the Facebook or Davinci Code were not becoming a smashing success in the market, I don't think people would bother to sue them. But when Davinci Code becomes a global blockbuster, and when Facebook is billed as the next big thing after the Youtube, there is a lot of jealousy arising from the plaintiffs in question.
I am not talking from a legal perspective, but I want to say that if you really think others steal your ideas, why could the so-called "thief", instead of the allegedly "true owners", win the day? The "thief" must have done something different or special on the basis of the original idea, and make the difference between a ordinary product and a highly popular one. That difference could do enough to justify the "thief".
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Copycat and copyright
According to the MediaGuardian report today, BBC and ITV were immersed in a war of words again. They accused each other of "copycating" in terms of programmings. (see link http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2117447,00.html)
such things are not particular to the UK television. the American broadcaster Fox had been also accused of stealing the intellectual property of other networks such as NBC and ABC. (see link at http://www.mediavillage.com/jmr/2004/07/21/jmr-7-21-04/)
Not only broadcasters in a country could "copy" each other,foreign braodcasters could do it as well. for example, Chinese broadcasters have modeled some of their programs on the UK or American programming, but, of course, they need to localise them or put a "spin" on it to tailor to local taste.
One interesting issue surrounding the programming copycatting is whether it breaches the copyright law and related rights. As we know, copyright only protects the expression, not the ideas, however original the ideas could be.
In one article "Format Fortunes – Is There Now a Copyright for the Television Format?", Ben Challis(2004) cited the case between US broadcasters CBS and ABC ((2003) www.musicjournal.org/lawupdates.html) in the US District Court NY. In this case Judge Loretta Preska reaffirmed the principle that there was no copyright in an idea and that on the facts of that case that there were no format rights in a television programme. CBS had claimed that the programme I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here was a copy of their programme Survivor and sought injunctive relief against ABC to prevent the programme going to air. ABC successfully argued that their show was an original format and that injunctive relief was not an appropriate remedy.
According to Ben, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) state that Broadcast content … can also be protected by copyright and related rights, depending on the national legislation. Television formats, however, have not been discussed at WIPO as subject of a separate international protection.
The television format rights or programming copyright is really a hard nut to crack. However, having goen through some previous cases, I think that most judges will decide by evaluating how substantial the copycatting is. In a Dutch case(Ben, 2004), the judge explained that
"A format consists of a combination of unprotected elements... An infringement can only be involved if a similar selection of several of these elements have been copied in an identifiable way. If all the elements have been copied, there is no doubt. In that case copyright infringement is involved. If only one (unprotected) element has been copied, the situation is also clear: in that case no infringement is involved. A general answer to the question of how many elements must have been copied for infringement to be involved cannot be given; this depends on the circumstances of the case."
In a Brazilian case, the judge also ruled that there is "whopping similarity" between the two programs, so that there is a breach of the copyright.
So broadcasters could grasp the subtle side of television format rights. You coudl borrow a little, but not go too far, otherwise, you are pressing the button of self-destruction.
such things are not particular to the UK television. the American broadcaster Fox had been also accused of stealing the intellectual property of other networks such as NBC and ABC. (see link at http://www.mediavillage.com/jmr/2004/07/21/jmr-7-21-04/)
Not only broadcasters in a country could "copy" each other,foreign braodcasters could do it as well. for example, Chinese broadcasters have modeled some of their programs on the UK or American programming, but, of course, they need to localise them or put a "spin" on it to tailor to local taste.
One interesting issue surrounding the programming copycatting is whether it breaches the copyright law and related rights. As we know, copyright only protects the expression, not the ideas, however original the ideas could be.
In one article "Format Fortunes – Is There Now a Copyright for the Television Format?", Ben Challis(2004) cited the case between US broadcasters CBS and ABC ((2003) www.musicjournal.org/lawupdates.html) in the US District Court NY. In this case Judge Loretta Preska reaffirmed the principle that there was no copyright in an idea and that on the facts of that case that there were no format rights in a television programme. CBS had claimed that the programme I'm A Celebrity Get Me Out of Here was a copy of their programme Survivor and sought injunctive relief against ABC to prevent the programme going to air. ABC successfully argued that their show was an original format and that injunctive relief was not an appropriate remedy.
According to Ben, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) state that Broadcast content … can also be protected by copyright and related rights, depending on the national legislation. Television formats, however, have not been discussed at WIPO as subject of a separate international protection.
The television format rights or programming copyright is really a hard nut to crack. However, having goen through some previous cases, I think that most judges will decide by evaluating how substantial the copycatting is. In a Dutch case(Ben, 2004), the judge explained that
"A format consists of a combination of unprotected elements... An infringement can only be involved if a similar selection of several of these elements have been copied in an identifiable way. If all the elements have been copied, there is no doubt. In that case copyright infringement is involved. If only one (unprotected) element has been copied, the situation is also clear: in that case no infringement is involved. A general answer to the question of how many elements must have been copied for infringement to be involved cannot be given; this depends on the circumstances of the case."
In a Brazilian case, the judge also ruled that there is "whopping similarity" between the two programs, so that there is a breach of the copyright.
So broadcasters could grasp the subtle side of television format rights. You coudl borrow a little, but not go too far, otherwise, you are pressing the button of self-destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
