Copyright

History


1710 Statute of Anne - Author has right to control copy of work for 14 years. Work is any physical recording.

1787 USA Constitution, Copyright clause authorized copyright legislation

1886 Berne Convention gave recognition of copyright among sovereign nations. Not ratified until 1988 in UK and 1989 in USA. 1995 incorporated in WTO.

1910 Buenos Aires Convention required "all rights reserved" on the work.

1911 UK Copyright Act

1952 Universal Copyright Convention, less demanding than Berne, ratified by Russia. & developing nations

1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act

1992 UK Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations extension to cover Computer Programs

2002 WTO/WIPO Copyright Treaty, restricted version of Berne

2007 Negotiating ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), broad scope including "internet distribution" - 2008 proposed agreement leaked by wikileaks



Scope of copyright

Wide range of works, including computer files. Does not cover ideas, but form of expression.

Duration in UK is Literature Life + 70 yrs, Sound Creation date + 50 Yrs, Film Life + 70 yrs, Broadcasts Date + 50 yrs.

Obtain & Enforce

Any work must be original (skill, labour & judgement). Copyright automatic but expires after a time. Copyright obtained by proof of creation, e.g. mail to self, deposit in bank... Copyright owned by employers, if "work for hire". Enforced in civil courts by holders. Collectives such as RIAA/MPAA are seeking "criminal" (i.e. not civil) damages for mass copying.

Rights

Copyright gives, amongst others, these rights: Produce copies, Import/export, Create derivative works, Perform/display, Sell or assign rights, Transmit by radio/video/internet.

Fair use/dealing

UK: Research, Education, News, Copies/lending libraries, Legal, Time shifting recording, Computer program backup, music for non-profit orgs. Purchaser may resell (e.g. book, CD) copyright work, but not copies i.e. computer file copies

So what?

There are two issues:

1 Copying a work is illegal, lending it, reselling it or giving it away is not. This includes copying a computer file - or downloading (so called file sharing) it from the internet without payment to the owner of the work.

A lot of people refuse to acknowledge that copying is illegal, many photocopy books or music files from CDs or from the internet by downloading. The problem comes in prosecuting them as it is difficult to get identify the culprit and get the proof. It is also not clear whether the person downloading the music file or the person putting it on an internet server for downloading is also the guilty one.

There is another issue that is muddying the waters. Is it OK to copy a CD to your own computer? After all when you have done this you have made a copy, and you could then give the CD away to someone else, but retain the copy, which would then become illegal. In some jurisdictions this "fair use" is legal, providing you retain the original, in others any copying is illegal - but widely tolerated by the rights owners.

2 DRM (Digital Rights Management) where an owner of a work uses technology (for example encryption) to enable only the original purchaser to play/view the work. An copy will not be usable by any other person who does not have the key for decrypting it.

DRM has been used to lock music files, but has mostly fallen by the wayside and is not used anymore by any major distributor. It is however being used to block higher quality reproduction of music and video. The standard CD quality (16bit/44.1kHz digital PCM files) have no DRM. But every other higher quality audio recording standard (DVD-Audio, SACD, Bluray) uses very strong DRM to prevent copying the higher quality files - much to the frustration of audiophiles who want to keep their material on home network servers.

But this DRM is used for no obvious reason! Or is it?

Yes it is used to create a closed environment, where collusion between creators and equipment makers ensures that only specific, licensed players can play the music. This closed environment is also being promoted for HD TV broadcasts by the public BBC, as they are being forced to adopt it by the major studios as a condition of broadcasting the work - the irony here is that the BBC is not legally allowed to encrypt the actual broadcasts but the receiving equipment will create a closed environment in the home before allowing you to record or watch. Such a closed environment carefully controls what you can do with a work e.g. record one copy, feed it in encrypted form between your own equipment or on your own network, but not make it available on the internet.

This is creating a strong "closed shop" for studios and equipment makers. Much to the detriment of users freedom of use of legally purchased work. Sure it prevents anyone obtaining a non-encrypted copy that can be sharing on the internet, but then this is at the cost of the individuals rights - for example the right to resell a work.