tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6851057097953179665..comments2024-03-28T08:10:18.991+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Event report: The private copying exception and the compensation of harm in a dematerialised environmentVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76686102323704506542017-11-20T17:25:56.078+00:002017-11-20T17:25:56.078+00:00@Anonymous:
I would disagree on two levels:
1. E...@Anonymous:<br /><br />I would disagree on two levels:<br /><br />1. Even if you do not produce a material copy at least in some member states. For example a jazz improvisation may be protected even if not recorded. The question how this is handled in practice is a different topic in my opinion. <br /><br />2. Apart from that: most works which are consumed have been materialised, haven’t they? So the real question is how the practical forms of use change. Or how would you see that?MGSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-14017612454249924122017-11-17T13:15:54.047+00:002017-11-17T13:15:54.047+00:00MSG,
I disagree. One needs a materialized copy t...MSG,<br /><br />I disagree. One needs a materialized copy to inure the right. Now, there may be other items (your performance rights angle), but that is not there if the initial right is not obtained. Else, it falls into some other category than copyright, eh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20712808466646541662017-11-17T10:17:02.523+00:002017-11-17T10:17:02.523+00:00@Anonymous: Copyright is not limited to the protec...@Anonymous: Copyright is not limited to the protection of materialized copies, but affects immaterial forms as well, e.g. the communication to the public. <br /><br />Even without materialized copy an infringement can occur. But because the use of a work went along with the permanent material copy -- digital or analogous -- for a long time, copyright systems still seem to be adjusted to this circumstances. Now that other forms of use become more common, the question arises how a legal system of compensation/renumeration may adapt to that. In my opinion the actual use is the relevant circumstance, for which the right holder should be compensated. Because it was -- and is -- difficult to measure this, the number of copies was an abstraction, which was somehow connected with the reception of the work. when the habits change, the legal concepts must adopt to that.<br /><br />That is how I would understand the focus of the talks. What do you think about this?MGSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-45795875896907662012017-11-16T15:48:51.189+00:002017-11-16T15:48:51.189+00:00That sounds very interesting!
Did the panelists c...That sounds very interesting!<br /><br />Did the panelists come to any conclusion on the meaning of harm in regard to the fair compensation? <br /><br />What kind of levy-types were discussed based on Reprobel an Padawan? And what were the opinions on the liability to claim compensation from whom? It seems to me that the opinions about the requirements of the ECJ seem to differ drastically.<br /><br />I would be very interested in learning a bit more on what was discussed at the conference. However if that is not possible because of language difficulties -- as implied in the article --, I can totally understand that. I did not go because I can speak neither Dutch nor French. But maybe someone could help out?<br /><br />MGSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59431853821130471072017-11-16T00:08:31.468+00:002017-11-16T00:08:31.468+00:00The same comment then applies to:
"Next on t...The same comment then applies to:<br /><br />"<i>Next on the list were Professor L. Neels (KU Leuven, UA Antwerpen) and Mr. K. Volckaert (riverrun) on “A methodology of the levy of the fair compensation for private copying” discussing how the actual model of calculation based on physical copies is outdated and analysing the possible alternatives for the future, to achieve a balance of compensation of harm with user’s rights, their explanation based on a value chain model.</i>"<br /><br />"Harm" is only legally recognizable where a right exists. If there is no "materializing," such that no actual copyright inures, then - by definition - there is no harm.<br /><br />Of course, this legal view surely does not match with what those in the market will consider "harm," and will seek to bend the legal view to cover their respective business models.<br /><br />One must be extremely cautious when drinking in whatever it is that interested parties in this area may be serving!<br /><br />For example, the last paragraph and the shown decline in revenue may be not only quite natural, as people migrate away from "the physical," but actually may be artificially higher then normal BECAUSE of influence from those with existing business model interests.<br /><br />Not being present, I am not in a position to challenge the conclusion reached, but would merely caution that any conclusion reached needs to consider what "dematerializing" really means from the legal perspective (that is, a LOSS of cognizable rights).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57157537846358125492017-11-16T00:01:18.683+00:002017-11-16T00:01:18.683+00:00As to the 6 D's (and what is copying and what ...As to the 6 D's (and what is copying and what is not), I am curious as to aspects of items "dematerialized" and whether or not "copying" matters. <br /><br />After all, copyright protection only inures when something is "materialized," so the copying (or not; or even how any such is labeled) of something that does not carry copyright protection should be a non-issue, right?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com