After reading a brief history of copyright law after the advent of the printing press, it is easy to see that copyright has always been an evolving concept. With the internet we again find ourselves needing to redefine what copyright means and who its serving. The Stationers' Company era of copyright offered no protections to the author of the work, and now we offer a lot of protections to the author of the work - and the technologies we use to access works of knowledge and art are unable to do so with the current laws. I appreciate the videos in the current module that detailed the advances some countries are making in evolving copyright law to be more flexible and keep the user in mind.
AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATIONAn Overview of Intellectual Property What is a Patent, a Trademark, and a Copyright? An Overview of Intellectual Property Our legal system provides certain rights and protections for owners of property. The kind of property that results from the fruits of mental labor is called intellectual property.
Canada's new anti-spam legislation (CASL) helps protect Canadians while ensuring that businesses can continue to compete in the global marketplace.
On July 1, 2014 Canada's anti-spam law came into effect. I believe it's the strictest in the world. If you email anyone in Canada you need to make sure you comply with this new law. We had to take a number of measures at my company including ceasing all bulk emails until we get our new opt-in database populates; including a footer in all our emails that allows recipients to opt out of receiving emails from us, and company-wide training on CASL and what we need to do to comply. People can be personally liable for violating this law. I'm not sure if the government has any manpower to actually monitor and prosecute any violators but we will see.
As a Canadian, I don't think my SPAM had decreased - I actually received more emails to 'opt in' to mailing lists. I have also noticed that almost every message I receive has an unsubscribe option at the bottom, something I've been taking advantage of.
I am not sure how this will ultimately affect open knowledge or if it will but it has made me think twice about reaching out to people I don't know over email.
Part of NAVA's professional development session on social media for artists, Zoë Rodriguez from the Copyright Agency Limited discusses digital copyright, contracts and moral rights. (New Zealand)
We live in a global world - if you use someone's work from another country, take note of their copyright laws.
Great post. It's always nice to get insight into the "bigger picture" when talking about complicated laws like copyright instead of just isolated incidents.
Bruce Thomas states, "Google Scholar's caselaw collection is a victory for open access to legal information and the democratization of law".
The only downside is that it is only American case law and not other jurisdictions.
Text from 2011, still extremely timely, about privacy. The author, professor of Law, deconstructs the "nothing to hide" argument that says that we should not be scared to disclose private activities or information when we do nothing wrong.
Excellent, thanks for this. The "nothing to hide" argument also rests on the absurd premise that the authorities all have pure motives and will not abuse their power with this level of access to private information. To assume that all authorities, everywhere, all have noble intentions and pure motives is absurd as assuming that all human being are perfect....
Even though it is a few years old, the topic is still relevant--and maybe even more so in the wake of Snowden. Although most of us do truly believe we have 'nothing to hide', we are all naively unaware of just how easily something innocent can be twisted to nefarious means.
At the same time, if we are all being watched, are any of us really being watched? Something to ponder.
The big problem is the concept of privacy. In Brazilian law we have three kinds of personal information (data): public, private, and restricted. The difference between public and private information is matter of personal choice, in others words, each one may decide what is matter of the public or private information. The restricted informations are those that we are required by law to give the government, but the government cannot disclose without authorization. The privacy issue is respect for this choice between private and public data. When government or anybody disrespects this choice, we have a problem. I think in virtual ambience the users ignore those distinctions and make a big mess. If in one hand government and big players have been stealing our data, in other hand the users don't have necessary care about his own private information.
"Nothing to hide as at now" might be correct as a current status but not for the future. Human beings we always behave like we have control of our future. I may have nothing to hide as at now but in 10 years time when I ran for political office my past will surely halt me.
True, however our real name / our real identity, if used consistently across the variety of online audiences we engage with, permits Big Data to be aggregated, defining our activity as a distinct entity, giving it greater value in the analytics marketplace -- whether we have anything to hide or not ... What price do you wish to place on your digital self as an online product is the real question.
Makes a great point. I used to think that way, if I have nothing to hide I don't have to worry about what others find about me. But is true there is no need for everyone to have access to every single detail about you. And the point Kim and Philip made is really important, with more information available and more companies interested in making profit of it becomes more difficult to maintain control of who access your information and what it is used for.
The article raises two important points: (1) the right to know how information is being used and (2) the right to correct incorrect inferences being made from sometimes an incomplete information sets. I begin with the assumption that,despite how I take care to protect information, there are individuals and institutions that will find ways of dong so. So I want the right to appeal and set the record straight.
Thank you for sharing this. I can agree on that even though we have nothing to hide, it is matter of violating our right to keep it to our selves. However, I can say that it people's opinion for public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns may be different. The cameras may have good usage in order to solve or prevent crimes. It depends on how it is used I guess.
I like to differentiate 'privacy' which is a right every human should have, from 'privatisation' which is corporate mandates that suggest the right to hide or share information - mostly based in monetization. Technology has given us access to each other in ways never imagined, and until humanity reaches a higher order of compassion toward and consciousness with each other, this issue will eat at the very fabric of our society until our security obsessions destroy us.
Thanks for your sharing. The example of the government has installed millions of public-surveillance cameras in cities and towns, which are watched by officials via closed-circuit television in Britain makes me reflect on two aspects. Firstly, in my personal opinion, I think public-surveillance cameras provide citizens a better sense of security especially during nights. Secondly, the key point here is how the officials deal with the documentation of public-surveillance cameras, will citizens' privacy be exposed to public?
Privacy off course matters.It is right that if I have not done anything wrong then why should I hide it. On other hand we can not share our family relationship information with anyone.
2 Oct 2014 - Canada - Intellectual Property - The Internet Of Things And Canadian Copyright Law - Bennett Jones LLP - Many of you have read about the dispute over copyright ownership of the monkey-selfie, where a primate took a digital photo that went viral.
Relating to the digital copyrights issue, here's a recent article regarding Satellite radio…in this day and age where new and old music is being played, it's become more confusing as to what rights music services (or other arts) have. They might be playing music that they may or may not have the right too (and yet bands have no idea). Unfortunately copyright laws seem to have a long way to go before they become untangled.
In the battle between today's digital-music services and yesterday's oldies artists, score one for the geezers. The founders of the '60s rock band the Turtles won a summary judgment on Monday against Sirius XM Radio Inc., in a lawsuit alleging that the satellite-radio company violated California copyright law by playing the band's songs without permission.
With the ongoing patent wars between hi-tech companies, the emphasis on IP and patents has never been greater, and businesses are realizing the value of strong IP lawyers.
"...we need to recognize you can't kill the instinct the technology produces. We can only criminalize it. We can't stop our kids from using it. We can only drive it underground. We can't make our kids passive again. We can only make them, quote, "pirates." And is that good?"
- Larry Lessig
This is a great talk about the free use of materials to make something new.
The crux of Mr Lessig's argument is that every time a "kid" remixes a song with a video they are committing a criminal act. By doing this the law is making their free expression criminal. He shows three great examples of this starting at 8:29 in the video.
He suggests that by using Creative Commons materials, we can avoid being criminals, and by doing this we can break the cartel of the RIAA and others. He uses the example of BMI causing the downfall of ASCAP. You can see this at 4:55 in the video. Here is the quote:
"Finally. Before the Internet, the last great terror to rain down on the content industry was a terror created by this technology [Shows a picture of a broadcast radio antenna]. Broadcasting: a new way to spread content, and therefore a new battle over the control of the businesses that would spread content. Now, at that time, the entity, the legal cartel, that controlled the performance rights for most of the music that would be broadcast using these technologies was ASCAP. They had an exclusive license on the most popular content, and they exercised it in a way that tried to demonstrate to the broadcasters who really was in charge. So, between 1931 and 1939, they raised rates by some 448 percent, until the broadcasters finally got together and said, okay, enough of this. And in 1939, a lawyer, Sydney Kaye, started something called Broadcast Music Inc. We know it as BMI. And BMI was much more democratic in the art that it would include within its repertoire, including African American music for the first time in the repertoire. But most important was that BMI took public domain works a
Technische Universität (TU) Darmstadt digitized a book from German publisher Eugen Ulmer KG without receiving permission in order to post sections of it for course reading. Eugen Ulmer filed suit, and on Sept.
In this chapter you will learn about: How copyright law is an ever-evolving set of principles, balancing the rights of producers and consumers, that must be actively engaged by historians The history of copyright law, and where it has left us today How the application of copyright can differ on the web from the print world Your legal rights-and ethical obligations-as both a producer and consumer of intellectual property Which written materials, images, audio, and video you can use on your website, and when nce there was a real estate guide called "How to Buy and Sell a House."
La realidad que se vive en México es muy distinta a países como EUA, Cánada,Alemania, etc., existe una gran desigualdad y no hay unión.
Tal vez estas leyes no den resultados inmediatos, pero son importantes por que quienes las promovieron creyeron en ellas y las apoyaron, y en un país como México es de reconocerse que tuvieron iniciativa.
Una ley no va cambiar la realidad de un país, eso depende de las personas y otros factores como la educación y los valores.
------------
The reality of life in Mexico is very different to countries like USA, Canada, Germany, etc., there is great inequality and no union.
Perhaps these laws do not give immediate results, but are important because they promoted those who believed in them and supported them, and in a country like Mexico is recognized that took initiative.
A law will not change the reality of a country that depends on people and other factors such as education and values.
an exciting comic book created by the Center for the Study of Public Domain (Duke University), that explores fair use, copyright, and public domain. It is important to note that the way they distribute the book is also amazingly open--they provide download of many formats to enable easy access and easy reuse.
Description: "Fair dealing has played a prominent role in the hearings on Bill C-32, with education and creator groups debating the merits and impact of the proposed reforms. Unfortunately, much of the discussion has confused rather than clarified the issue with misleading claims about potential losses, inaccurate comments on copyright and Internet materials, and dubious arguments about the compliance of the reforms under international copyright law."
rebeccakah on 22 Sep 14After reading a brief history of copyright law after the advent of the printing press, it is easy to see that copyright has always been an evolving concept. With the internet we again find ourselves needing to redefine what copyright means and who its serving. The Stationers' Company era of copyright offered no protections to the author of the work, and now we offer a lot of protections to the author of the work - and the technologies we use to access works of knowledge and art are unable to do so with the current laws. I appreciate the videos in the current module that detailed the advances some countries are making in evolving copyright law to be more flexible and keep the user in mind.
