Tuesday, 22 December 2009

What goes round comes around... EU, Canada and IP law

Michael Geist has what for me is a depressing post on ongoing negotiations between the EU and Canada on trade.... including big changes in IP law.  Depressing because it is the EU that are pressing Canada to implement more stringent measures on copyright including measures against circumvention of digital locks, and copyright term extension from 50 to 70 years.  The EU aligns with the US... and then the EU presses Canada to align with the EU.

How about a new process for 2010?  The EU aligns with Canada.. and tells the USA that they need to get their act in order and liberalise their IP laws? 

Some of the things that are in the proposals include things I didn't even know existed under EU law... like that prohibition on circumventing digital locks - and a resale provision providing royalties for artists on second hand sales of portraits and statues...  (When did that arrive???)

Christian, HAX.....  what's the low down??????

Piratpartiet and The Pirate Party - Working for copyright reform.


Tor said...

Why not read through the Swedish copyright law once?

§ 2.4 says that it's the exclusive right of the copyright holder to make a work available to the public. Such "making available" can consist of selling or in other ways spreading the work to the public.

§26 n says that when an artwork is sold the maker of it has the right to a share.

§ 52 talks about technical circumvention of copy-protection (I think the EU forced us to introduce this in the Infosoc directive)
Amusingly enough the limitations only apply to "effective" copy-protection schemes.

There was once a court case in Finland where a court ruled that since circumvention tools where available all over the internet and anyone could use them the copy-protection in that case was not efficient. That ruling might later have been overturned however (I don't remember the details).

Edward E said...

Just because that is what the law says it doesn't make it just or right. Re-sale of a physical artwork for instance has nothing whatsoever to do with a right to copy. Why should an artist expect to be paid twice for the same work?
Don't you find it even the slightest bit bizarre?

Tor said...

I find it extremely bizarre, but if you want to change the law it's helpful to know what it looks like ;)