Czech Proposal On Copyright Law Would Require Artists To Get Collection Society Approval To Use Creative Commons?
from the the-attack-on-creative-commons-continues dept
The various attacks on more free and open licensing options for artists continues. We've already detailed ASCAP's misguided attack on Creative Commons as some sort of attempt to undermine copyright, rather than simply a way to give copyright holders more options. And now, Slashdot points us to a report from ZeroPaid on a draft of a new copyright law in the Czech Republic, which seems like a direct frontal attack on alternative licensing schemes:Under the draft text, anyone who wants to use a public license must report to a copyright collective administrator. The administrator would then review the work in question and the creator would have to prove that he or she has created that work in the first place. Then, and only then, can a creator legally use a public license of their choice.Once again, it looks like the gatekeepers, despite their claims, aren't looking out for the best interests of content creators, but for the best interests of the gatekeepers.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, czech republic, licensing creative commons
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed. Every work should require it to be registered for copyright to have any meaning. What is next? Automatic patents because you have published an article first? Retroactively extending patents for the life time of the inventor, plus 70 years? When does it end?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multiple Copyright Collectives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can't see a problem with that then I'm sorry, you are not capable of understanding the problem right now and should try harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
To funny! and its the creative commons not "comments".
The problem here is they are moving to charging people to put things in the public domain. If you dont pay it goes back under copyright. That is what the future holds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
B: Legitimate artists don't ask the government for monopolies, mostly just legitimate and unnecessary middlemen.
C: Those who want to release their works under creative commons are more legitimate than those who don't and they shouldn't have to go through some government entity to release their work. That's a huge disincentive to release work under a CC license which takes away from the convenience of legitimate artists to release their work under a permissive license.
D: No one is owed a monopoly, if illegitimate artists or middlemen want a monopoly the burden should be on them to prove that they own the works. If I release a work under a CC license I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around just to serve the convenience of those who are too lazy to register their work in exchange for an unowed monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blatant pro-corporatist discrimination
> to introduce a law that prevents people who don't
> rightly own their content (i.e. plagiarists) from using
> a public license?
Why just discriminate against the Libre crowd. If you are going to put this bar in place, then put it in place for EVERYONE. This is what "equality under the law" is supposed to mean. You don't have separate sets of rules for people depending on how effectively they have managed to bribe public officials.
A "prove it is yours" law should apply to ANYONE that tries to publish ANYTHING or it should apply to NO ONE.
There is already a legal framework in place for "piracy". A new one does not need to be invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blatant pro-corporatist discrimination
um, if copyright is automatic, and you have to register for CC, then people won't bother with CC and just leave everything under copyright.
this will stem the exponential growth of CC'd works:
http://www.swivel.com/charts/2370-Growth-of-Creative-Commons-Photos-on-Flickr-millions-of-ph otos-
if you put this "equality under the law" in place, then copyright and creative commons will be given equal weight, which is not good for copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No. The Czechs want to introduce a law that forces people who do rightly own their content, to register it with a collection society, even though that collection society has no rights to it.
The burden of proof rests with the content creators to prove that they registered. If not, they can't license their own content under CC.
If it was merely to prevent licensing "plagiarized" material under the CC, then it would be meaningless - because CC is a copyright, and if you claim copyright on material that you don't own the rights to, that's copyfraud, and you couldn't license it under CC in any case.
That's actually just the tip of the iceberg as far as this bill is concerned. For example, under this bill, Czech collection societies would own the rights to orphan works - which, right now, they do not. (How they would decide which society gets money is beyond me.) It also requires all musicians to submit their live playlists to the OSA (not other collection societies, for some reason). Costs to public libraries would double, and hotels would lose their reduced licensing rate.
In the meantime, the money that the collecting societies pay to the actual authors and artists would decrease 40%.
It is, on the whole, a terrible bill.
Read about it here (English):
http://www.ceskapiratskastrana.cz/wiki/:en:zo:docs:pn_autz_draft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It attacks their option to release their work under a CC license without going through some unnecessary governmental bureaucracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is that it singles out permissive licenses for specially oppressive bureaucratic hoop jumping. You can be just as fraudulent with "all rights reserved" (arguably a much nastier thing to do) and this law won't affect you at all.
It's like a law which says that stealing is fine - unless you give the proceeds to the poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is already illegal to use any license on a work you do not own. What they are doing is making it difficult to do anything other than use regular copyright.
Seriously though. You knew that. Right? I mean nobody can really be that stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: [prevents people who don't rightly own their content from using a public license]
No this is not the public domain music you are looking for. You can go about your business and pay us more money. Move along... move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This time I completely agree
You got this one right.
Euro collecting societies Just Don't Get It. They are in the self-preservation business. They are obstacles to progress. Just ask Spotify, or any of the others who have run into trouble with them but won't admit it publicly because they still need those licenses....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This time I completely agree
You got this one right.
Euro collecting societies Just Don't Get It. They are in the self-preservation business. They are obstacles to progress. Just ask Spotify, or any of the others who have run into trouble with them but won't admit it publicly because they still need those licenses....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google backs out of JavaOne conference
http://developers.slashdot.org/story/10/08/28/0119257/Google-Backs-Out-of-JavaOne
M ore examples of how patents only harm innovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I predicted this a long time ago
Behind this are the RIAA & MPAA, and other similar groups. They are terrified of the new reality, that having a deal with a recording company is no longer worth pursuing, artists can make better profits by dealing directly with their fans. And artists are doing this in droves, which means that the packagers are loosing market share.
So of course they are trying to fight back. That what they are trying to do to lock in the talent now, would have prevented them from becoming what they are if it had have been tried on them when they were young, is amusing, but sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fixed
They release under your required license.
Simples!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fixed
Your contract could even be something like FSF's copyright assignment, where they promise to license the work under a specific CC license and also give you a full non-exclusive license to do what you please to the work.
Of course, not only is having to do these kinds of byzantine workarounds ridiculous, but also they would try to pass laws making these sorts of workarounds illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CC Copyfraud
I've never heard of this happening. Not even once.
I have, on the other hand, heard of people trying to claim copyrights over public domain works. They were all businesses trying to charge money for that content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CC Copyfraud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CC Copyfraud
There's this notion, all over the ASCAP blogosphere, that CC is just a license to piracy. Obviously that's not true, because a CC license is invalid if you don't own the copyright (and CC makes that pretty clear). I'm just wondering if there's any sort of "example" that they could drag in front of the courts.
I suspect not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CC Copyfraud
It all boils down to Faith -vs- Facts and "our copyright". There is an irrationality in the creative industries based on the false assumption that you can own an idea or concept. The "notion" you mention in the song writers blogoshpere is fear based on a challenging of their faith in copyright. It all boils down to "what do you mean this other song writer is giving his stuff away for free, we have always charged for that". Its a form of heresy that people can not wrap their heads around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyfraud in the Public Domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outlawing OSS Proramming
Say you have some code released under GPL. You make a small change. Then you want to release the changed code under GPL, as required by GPL. What happens?
"Under the draft text, anyone who wants to use a public license must report to a copyright collective administrator."
Where would you find one who understands software? In any of the music collection societies? No. So who else?
"The administrator would then review the work in question and the creator would have to prove that he or she has created that work in the first place."
Which is impossible because the code was created by a bunch of people, many unknown.
"Then, and only then, can a creator legally use a public license of their choice."
So no GPL for you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Outlawing OSS Proramming
Thats a good thing if you think about it. The Czech Republic will have to use microsoft operating systems. Making them less secure. Easier to hack and will drain their government coffers in lisc fees. All in all a good day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How simple is this !!
(with me so far).
So now a copyrighted work is also in the CC, the owner of that copyrighted work find out about this, and makes a copyright claim on that work.
Its a popular work (in his little country) and it makes him a huge amount of money.
So the court rules in his favor, the CC is required to pay damages of 100 million dollars.
The CC cannot afford that money, so the copyright owner of the copyrighted work (that he just proved in court).
Now takes ownership of the CC's assets, that included all the works licensed under the CC.
He relicenses all those works under copyright (he now owns them after all), as is his legal right to do.
And all the works previously under the CC are not owned by one person and they are all copyrighted.
Or you could simply do the proper legal requirements of probaty, make sure you are not putting yourself or your organisation at risk of litigation.
And you stand a stronger chance when you get to court that you at least tried to be legal and to make sure your system was not being abused.
But if you do nothing, and turn the CC into the wild west, where there is no law, and few rules.
That you will end up in trouble.
So I dont see what your problem is here, if you are not intending to GAME the system, and if your work is original you dont have a problem.
Sure, if your work is not yours, (therefore someone elses) and that someone else has a copyright, you have NO RIGHT to enter that work in the CC.
And doing so would damage the CC, the CC would fail if even a small number of copyrighted works ended up in it.
Do you not understand that ?
You want to play the game, fine, then expect to play by the same rules.
Ofcourse you cant copyright an allready copyrighted work, so why on earth do you think you could CC a work that is allready under some other license system?
You dont the rules even need to be applied to you ?
When you willfully do not follow the rules, it becomes a "willfull" crime, which is much worse.
If its "we dont want those rules because we know we will break them" then you are on a path to epic failure.
Or if its "We welcome the rules because we intend to abide by the law, and work in society, we welcome the rules because we have no intention of breaking them".
And what "rule" are you complaining about ?
That rule is "DONT SUBMIT WORKS TO THE CC THAT YOU DO NOT OWN, OR DID NOT CREATE YOURSELF"
Gee, such a tough rule, I can see why you would be so upset about it :) (/sarc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How simple is this !!
That already is the rule.
But why let reality get in the way of your stupidity and an unnecessary new law with new bureaucracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How simple is this !!
Stop right there. If it's not their own original work, they do not have the right to license it. Whether through a CC license or a traditional copyright license, they are guilty of copyfraud. Creative Commons makes this very clear.
And I have never heard of a single case where anyone tried to license someone else's copyrighted work under a CC license.
But if that does eventually happen, Creative Commons would not be liable for any sort of damages, just as the U.S. Copyright Office is not liable for damages when companies try to claim copyright over public domain material.
In any case, that is NOT what this law is about. It says that people who legally own the copyright to their material must register with corporations who do not own the rights to that material. And if they can not prove that they did, they cannot license the material that they own. Even if they do own it, the amount that collection societies have to pay is reduced significantly.
It is an attempt to rob artists and the public, plain and simple. There is absolutely no reason for this law to exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How simple is this !!
It actually happened last week, when anti-CC lawyer Chris Castle did it to try to "prove" some weak point about CC. He tried to license "Hey Jude." What's funny is that he's now taken down that blog post.
Perhaps someone pointed out to him that he was committing fraud. Oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
http://www.musictechpolicy.com/2010/08/creative-commons-corporation-because-it.html
It's also available in Google Cache, and I have a printed copy of it on file (I will be writing an article about it).
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GfEcXRGLoCMJ:www.musictechpolicy.com/20 10/08/creative-commons-corporation-because-it.html+chris+castle+hey+jude&cd=2&hl=en&ct=c lnk
Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How simple is this !!
The CC cannot afford that money, so the copyright owner of the copyrighted work (that he just proved in court).
Now takes ownership of the CC's assets, that included all the works licensed under the CC.
You make the assumption that CC works "belong" to Creative Commons. They do not. Creative Commons only creates the legal talk that produces licenses. They do not license material, they do not make a single dime off of any CC-licensed material, they do not provide a list of CC-licensed material, and they don't make any claim that CC-licensed material is legitimate. They only write legal code.
They're not a licensing agency like BMI or ASCAP. They're not a label. They don't own any interest in CC-licensed material.
If someone licensed others' material under a CC license, then that someone would be guilty of copyfraud. CC would have no legal obligations to them whatsoever. In fact, if this did happen, CC would probably testify on behalf of the labels.
I say "probably" because this has never happened, in the ten-year history of Creative Commons. Not even once. It is a non-issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How simple is this !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How simple is this !!
Actually they do provide a search @ http://search.creativecommons.org/ but its states
"Please note that search.creativecommons.org is not a search engine, but rather offers convenient access to search services provided by other independent organizations. CC has no control over the results that are returned. Do not assume that the results displayed in this search portal are under a CC license. You should always verify that the work is actually under a CC license by following the link. Since there is no registration to use a CC license, CC has no way to determine what has and hasn't been placed under the terms of a CC license. If you are in doubt you should contact the copyright holder directly, or try to contact the site where you found the content."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How simple is this !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
Attacking CC is attacking artist's rights and free speech. That's really all there is to it. Yet people like Darryl are presenting it as a "license to steal."
Those lies are being propagated and sold by suits in the legacy music industries, which is really telling. And unfortunately, those lies are being believed by politicians and some artists.
I release my own music under CC, and I absolutely do not want that right to be taken away. That is starting to become a real possibility, and it makes me very, very, VERY angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
Take a pill or something..
And you 'absolutely do not want that right taken away'.
OFCOURSE YOU DONT !!.. So if you dont want the right taken away, why would you allow people to submit copyrighted works, that would render the CC ineffective.
It's because the authorities, what the SAME THING AS YOU, they want the CC as well,,, JUST LIKE YOU DO.
THEY ALSO WANT IT TO LAST, and be effective..
What do you want from it? the wild west ?
Geez,, again its not that hard, like when you get a drivers license, they make sure you can actually drive.
If you can prove you can drive, or if you can prove you created the works. You are giving that right.
If you cannot prove its your works, then its probably not your own works, and therefore you placing it in the CC would damage the CC.
They are trying to keep the integrity of the CC, and you are whinning about that.
You basically do what you like with WHAT YOU OWN, so if you own an original works, you can put it in the public domain, you can copyright it, or put it in the CC, or even patent it if it is new and innovative.
What you cant do, and what they are checking is that it is YOUR OWN WORKS, and if you can prove that (should be easy), you can do what you like.
IF IT IS NOT YOUR WORK, then you have NO RIGHT to place it in the CC.
Its that this office saying you have NO RIGHT, you just have no right. And to ensure the success of the CC its important that its kept clean and not used to game the system.
The same would apply if you applied for a copyright, or a business name, or a trademark, or anything else.
If you own and created the works, you can put it in anything from the public domainm, freely publish with nothing, the CC, or copyright or whatever.
Thats simple, im sure you can all work that out.
ALL you cant to is place other peoples works, works you do not own into the CC, or the PD or to copyright it. ITS NOT YOURS...
How come you cant understand that ? Is it that complex ?
There are rules for everything, and requirements to be met, even to get your code licensed under the GPL there are certain requirements set out for your to abide by.
WHY? so the system works.....
If there was not checking, rules, then the effectivness of CC or GPL or anything would be reduced to nothing.
If you just gave out drivers licenses to anyone who asked, and did not check that they could drive. Driving in that country would be a disaster.
If known copyrighted works started to enter the CC that would destroy the integrity of the system.
Why have a commens if it cannot be correctly, honestly, and legally administered?
So again, if you are honest, what is your problem ?
Do you want to be the one who caused the end of the CC because you wanted to launder copyrighted works?
Why would you complain about not being able to put works you do not own into the CC.
You say you put your works in the CC, would you be upset if you found that someone had copyrighted one of your works that you had allready put in the CC ?
I guess not.. that would be ok for you then, if no one checks that your works are not being used in a way you intended.
You place your works in the CC because you want too, and you won those works rights.
If you do no own the works, you cannot place them ANYWHERE, they are not yours.. And how would you feel if you found others taking your CC works, and licensing it under copyright ?
I would say the CC and the PD are both just the same as copyright and patents.
Whats the difference ? you claim ownership of a works and attempt to deny others from claiming ownership of that works.
You can do that with secrecy, copyright, trademarks, patents, creative commons, and the public domain.
So you hate copyright, but love the CC and basically they are the same things. A claim of rights over the works.
Sure, in the creative commons, you may have to acknoledge the original owner, or have less restrictions (more difficult to make money from your work).
BUT ITS THE SAME THING, mabey with a little lipstick stuck on, but really Copyright and CC and much of one and the same.
And trying to register something as yours that is not yours, is a crime, no matter what it is, no matter if its claiming it under the CC, or copyright or whatever.
If its not yours to start with, you are breaking the law, and rules and you are making the system (FAR) less effective.
again, start polluting the Creative Commons with copyright material and you will end up with problems that will render the CC totally ineffective..
And im sure that is not what you want, and if you were really open and free you would place your work in the public domain, and not the creative commons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
Nobody has ever allowed this, including Creative Commons.
Perhaps that's why I've never seen a single instance of this happening. It's a non-issue.
But that's not what the bill is about. I would have to "prove" the work I created was not "infringing" - and the ultimate arbiters are people whose very livelihood depends upon stronger copyright, and thus have a strong financial incentive to deny my claim (legitimately or not).
It's exactly like saying you can't license software under the GPL without checking with Microsoft first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
And if you read the post properly you will see that the Czechs are treating these two situations (that you have, correctly for once, identified as the same) differently. That is what we are complaining about. Copyfrauders that do it for commercial gain get away scot free whilst those who are more public spirited have to submit to ridiculous checking mechanisms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
if you were really open and free you would place your work in the public domain, and not the creative commons.
First of all, public domain is the absence of copyright, which includes CC. It's pretty much impossible to place my works into the public domain (though CC0 comes closest).
But to answer your accusation: I differentiate between commercial and non-commercial use, and believe non-commercial use should not even be covered by copyright (as was the original intent of copyright law). I also have problems with copyright term lengths. But I'm not a copyright abolitionist.
Others may use CC licenses to prevent exactly this from happening:
someone had copyrighted one of your works that you had allready put in the CC
Note that this fictitious someone would not have to register with the Czech PRO's. The proposed law only applies to CC licenses, not other forms of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How simple is this !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How simple is this !!
(with me so far).
So now a copyrighted work is also in the CC, the owner of that copyrighted work find out about this, and makes a copyright claim on that work.
Its a popular work (in his little country) and it makes him a huge amount of money.
So the court rules in his favor, the CC is required to pay damages of 100 million dollars.
OK . I take a someone else's copyrighted work and "assign" the copyright to you. The third party then sues and you are bankrupt.
Pretty stupid isn't it - but then it's exactly what you said.
Really Darryl you have surpassed yourself this time. The inaccuracy and foolishness of your comment is beyond belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How simple is this !!
Rather interesting bit of trolling. You seem totally unable to understand what the real situation is, and totally unable to make any sort of coherent argument.
Quite frankly it sounds like you've been using certain illicit substances for a very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks for the post!
Indeed, I see nothing in this law that says this law is for content creators. It just reeks of publishers trying to squeeze more money out of the creators and stamp out any form of competition wherever possible. Totally agree that this is further proof that publishers don't care for the rights and well-being of actual content creators.
It's probably the most evil attack on Creative Commons I have ever heard of to date. I'd rate this even more evil than the ASCAP attacks because, compared to this, ASCAP was just saber rattling. ASCAP was shouting angrily at Creative Commons, the Czech government actually fired a shot off the Creative Commons bow - or rather, about to since it's a leaked draft.
I hope that creators - especially in the Czech Republic, are taking note. It seems that publishers are directly attacking the creators of creative works now in some places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thanks for the post!
Yeah great concept, lets shoot the golden goose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something else this shows
No, not something about the draft law.
The interesting fact is that, more and more, these bad proposals are simply leaking. ACTA is another example.
This shows something. What it shows, I am not sure; either the traditional style of negotiation (behind a closed door, with only the final result being presented as a fait accompli) is getting weaker, or Anonymous is getting stronger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flood then with requests
Turn up in numbers and flood every counter at every location.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't suppose you kept a copy
Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intresting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]