June 15, 2011 at 23:44Copyright protection or legal theft?
In the footsteps of topics Copyright protection or “legalized extortion”? and When licensed content is not needed .
As you know, I’m a principled opponent of copyright, for which I often get unflattering reviews like “don’t cover your theft with ideological convictions” and “you don’t want to pay for someone else’s work”.
Well, let's look carefully.
There is, for example, such a wonderful audio recording: a piano concert with Robert Schumann’s orchestra performed by Dinu Lipatti and the Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Herbert von Karayan. (Excellent record, who did not hear - I recommend.)
Since Robert Schumann died significantly more than 70 years ago, the copyright on this record has expired. The date of recording is April 1948. Because neighboring (performing) rights last 50 years from the moment of recording, then they have already expired 13 years. Those. The phonogram has long been firmly in the public domain, and I can use it for my own purposes completely free of charge. In theory.
But in practice - take a closer look at the disk:
What is it in our corner? And there SUDDENLY appears ℗ 1988. ℗ is a sign of protection of related rights, by analogy with ©.
If you look at Art. 1324 of the Civil Code, then there you can find a curious paragraph 3:
There are similar points in any foreign laws.
The EMI company “reworked” the phonogram (transferred it to CD) and thereby received another 50 years of copyright - from 1988 to 2038. Whoever doesn’t like it can look for records published before 1961 (reissue of the record is, of course, also of ebic force “processing ") And digitize what is left of it.
I specifically specify: EMI, of course, does not digitize the plates, but the original tape recording. Which exists in a single copy and is not for sale.
True, for many, 50 years seems not enough. For example, the Deutsche Grammophon company, reissuing a set of Beethoven's symphonies under the control of Karayan on a Super Audio CD (before that it had been successfully sold on CDs for 20 years), of course, it immediately slapped its copyright (an awesome creative operation - resampling, what can I say) , and not ℗, but immediately © - what a trifle.
So until 2073 (or even until 2093, if they break through the 90-year term of copyright protection) you don’t have to look at these records - well, of course, if you suddenly didn’t have $ 38.75 in your pocket for each of 5 drives.
Characteristically, EMI, DGG (and all the others) want to be pretty sour for their “labors” - the Lipatti CD costs $ 17 on Amazon, despite the fact that these remarkable copyright advocates did not pay anyone a dime.
And then it turns out that, after downloading the Lipatti notes from the torrents, I “stole” them from EMI Records. I didn’t pay, you know, their titanic creative work of dubbing from magnetic tape to CD.
But for some reason, it seems to me that this company EMI stole Dean Lipatti's records from the public domain. Well, that is with you and me.
As you know, I’m a principled opponent of copyright, for which I often get unflattering reviews like “don’t cover your theft with ideological convictions” and “you don’t want to pay for someone else’s work”.
Well, let's look carefully.
There is, for example, such a wonderful audio recording: a piano concert with Robert Schumann’s orchestra performed by Dinu Lipatti and the Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Herbert von Karayan. (Excellent record, who did not hear - I recommend.)
Since Robert Schumann died significantly more than 70 years ago, the copyright on this record has expired. The date of recording is April 1948. Because neighboring (performing) rights last 50 years from the moment of recording, then they have already expired 13 years. Those. The phonogram has long been firmly in the public domain, and I can use it for my own purposes completely free of charge. In theory.
But in practice - take a closer look at the disk:
What is it in our corner? And there SUDDENLY appears ℗ 1988. ℗ is a sign of protection of related rights, by analogy with ©.
If you look at Art. 1324 of the Civil Code, then there you can find a curious paragraph 3:
3. A person who has legitimately carried out the processing of a phonogram acquires an adjacent right to a processed phonogram.
There are similar points in any foreign laws.
The EMI company “reworked” the phonogram (transferred it to CD) and thereby received another 50 years of copyright - from 1988 to 2038. Whoever doesn’t like it can look for records published before 1961 (reissue of the record is, of course, also of ebic force “processing ") And digitize what is left of it.
I specifically specify: EMI, of course, does not digitize the plates, but the original tape recording. Which exists in a single copy and is not for sale.
True, for many, 50 years seems not enough. For example, the Deutsche Grammophon company, reissuing a set of Beethoven's symphonies under the control of Karayan on a Super Audio CD (before that it had been successfully sold on CDs for 20 years), of course, it immediately slapped its copyright (an awesome creative operation - resampling, what can I say) , and not ℗, but immediately © - what a trifle.
So until 2073 (or even until 2093, if they break through the 90-year term of copyright protection) you don’t have to look at these records - well, of course, if you suddenly didn’t have $ 38.75 in your pocket for each of 5 drives.
Characteristically, EMI, DGG (and all the others) want to be pretty sour for their “labors” - the Lipatti CD costs $ 17 on Amazon, despite the fact that these remarkable copyright advocates did not pay anyone a dime.
And then it turns out that, after downloading the Lipatti notes from the torrents, I “stole” them from EMI Records. I didn’t pay, you know, their titanic creative work of dubbing from magnetic tape to CD.
But for some reason, it seems to me that this company EMI stole Dean Lipatti's records from the public domain. Well, that is with you and me.