tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2481925711123517626..comments2024-03-19T06:27:47.905+00:00Comments on The IPKat: $125m in the kitty, but who will get the cream?Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8322262429473226132009-09-11T11:17:23.456+01:002009-09-11T11:17:23.456+01:00Aren't we living in the most wonderful world?
...Aren't we living in the most wonderful world?<br /><br />On the one side, there is the US Government, with the BSA, RIAA, etc., frantically defending US copyrights and other intellectual property through its 301 reports, free trade agreements, the ACTA negotiations, etc.<br /><br />On the other, there is a US private company which turns copyright on its head and, save a decision by a federal court, is trying to hijack a vast chunk of the world's cultural heritage for private gain under the guise of providing a wonderful service to mankind and offering authors a way to "make money of their out-of-print books" (from the mouth of Google Book's Dan Clancy).<br /><br />The strategy of the second – undertake controversial (to say the least) projects and only backtrack if forced to – does not reflect well on the endeavours of the first.<br /><br />The issue goes beyond copyright, particularly into data privacy and, in the final analysis, global governance. Even though Google proclaims the best of intentions, the issue is a private sector Big Brother, or a mega-Citizen Kane.<br /><br />But this carries us away from copyright.<br /><br />One would have expected an announcement such as the one made in the Commission's hearing to be reflected in a press release from Google. I found none...<br /><br />I would also have expected an announcement about the non-US non-European books. I am still waiting...<br /><br />Some further reading:<br /><br />http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/google-pleads-book-case-ahead-eu-hearing/article-185029<br /><br />http://www.euractiv.com/en/innovation/google-faces-new-eu-battle-books/article-185200<br /><br />http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-10318843-265.htmlwackes seppinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-31176378168400350442009-09-09T21:17:56.835+01:002009-09-09T21:17:56.835+01:00No, I think you are exactly right: the considerati...No, I think you are exactly right: the considerations as to the commercial use of orphan works are different from those concerning non-commercial uses and its wise not to muddle them up even if some or all of the framework that is eventually adopted overlaps.<br /><br />The fact is that there are some valuable (both commercially and culturally) works that are currently only available by physically visiting libraries, and in some cases only to a small class of users. With digitisation we can and should find a way to make those widely available. Such a mechanism should not adversely affect anyone's commercial interests in copyright since it should only apply to works which are not available for any consideration.<br /><br />I suspect that any works for which it is worth having a system for collecting revenue (to pay to the rights holder) are going to be ones that could be put on the market in some other way (eg via POD or paid for digitised), but that the vast majority of orphan works are going to generate little individual interest, albeit that their collective availability will be large.<br /><br />It is certainly an interesting development.Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-69589106253441423462009-09-09T10:25:00.760+01:002009-09-09T10:25:00.760+01:00The commercial framework is not necessarily more a...The commercial framework is not necessarily more appropriate but there are factors in terms of commercial practicability that must also be considered. My argument is that a solution for orphan works cannot be premised solely on Europe's previous objective, i.e. free access for non-commercial uses. This would ignore commercial uses - where does the money go, who does the money go to, does money go to anyone at all, who gives permission, etc. Failure to address the commercial practicalities will and in fact has resulted in inaction in relation to the commercial use of orphan works – enter current discussion regarding Google. I am not sure how one could argue that a solution centered on proposals made in relation to free non-commercial use of orphan works could be shoe-horned for the potential commercial applicability of orphan work uses. But, as always, I am keen to hear the counter arguments.Annsley Merelle Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09184706067469338128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-11614033104822485692009-09-09T09:40:26.712+01:002009-09-09T09:40:26.712+01:00My guess is that "commercially available"...My guess is that "commercially available" would be defined for the EU much as it is in the US under the settlement agreement:<br /><br /><br />"1.28 “Commercially Available” means, with respect to a Book, that the <br />Rightsholder of such Book, or such Rightsholder’s designated agent, is, at the time in <br />question, offering the Book (other than as derived from a Library Scan) for sale new <br />through one or more then-customary channels of trade in the United States."Francis Daveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10228026893626221724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1216985070136396902009-09-09T09:34:18.802+01:002009-09-09T09:34:18.802+01:00I'm confused as well, why isn't the "...I'm confused as well, why isn't the "cultural and public good" a good way to frame how to deal with "orphan works" (whatever they turn out to be).<br /><br />Why is the commercial sector's framework more appropriate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com