Portuguese Politicians Want To Make Creative Commons Illegal
from the um,-wow dept
This is just insane. While we've talked in the past about how difficult it is to put your own work into the public domain by choice, apparently the Portuguese Socialist Party (which is currently in power) is trying to reform its copyright laws so that you can't waive or renounce your copyright on anything. As the report notes, this would effectively make Creative Commons illegal. Even worse, it would effectively make it against the law for you to try to put your own work into the public domain! The proposed law states that:The equitable compensation of authors, artists, interpreters or executives is inalienable and non-renunciable, being null any other contractual clause in contrary.The Ministry of Culture apparently claims that it's making this change to establish "greater and more effective protection for creators and cultural creation." Except, of course, that's not what this would do at all. Taking away the rights of content creators to free up their own works, and to either put them in the public domain or license them out in more permissive means, doesn't help content creators at all. Those who want to keep the strictest nature of copyright laws still have that ability, but those who realize the importance of sharing their works to both establish a greater reputation and to contribute more widely to culture, would no longer be able to do so. What a ridiculous suggestion.
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, creative commons, portugal
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A possibility
Various amateur photographers stick their photos up under a Commons license and websites can and do pick these up for commercial use (depending on the specific license). Some professional photographers have been screaming about this so it could be that situations like this are prompting the Portugese government to seek to protect their professional groups.
I think its ridiculous though. People should be able to make things free and copyright free is they want to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And...
nice catch.
I hope people in Spain are aware of this - I can't wait to see the cabal come out that shows the USCG or RIAA/MPAA behind this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: And...
:)
BTW, no, Portugal is NOT a Spanish province.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What about software?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A few things seem to be related to this:
-SPA (Portuguese Authors Society) a collecting agency, is rooting for this.
-There's a new levy being imposed on all devices capable to store or reproduce copies, like External HDD's, Printers, etc.
-Apparently, still waiting for confirmation on this one, a Portuguese author decided to put ALL his work on the public domain after his death. The above mentioned SPA, and the author's family have been trying to nullify his will.
The SPA, on its site, on their own FAQ's says something like this (my own translation, subject to involuntary errors):
"There is an evident incompatibility between the emission of CC licenses and the collective management of musical and literary-musical works of the management catalog of the SPA. In effect, if the author (national or international) doesn't inform, previously, the collective management entity that he pretends to license a specific usage of the work, the simple CC license will not be enough to avoid the duty/right of collecting the authors rights."
So, I do make a intuitive reading of all this, and I do see a picture forming. The government intents to start collecting a tax over the private copying, and is setting up SPA to collect it, with such powers as to not even works published under CC0, are exempt of the tax.
An example, you have a business, and you play music from Jamendo Radio. All that music is licensed under CC. The SPA, will tax you for distribution, even if you prove you don't ever play any other station or music.
In effect, this law will make the use of CC in Portugal, illegal, useless and unenforceable.
Some, here, are saying that this only a draft, that the party proposing it is not even in power (elections next month) and that all of this is just smoke. Maybe. Maybe not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not Illegal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
Stan Lee would have retained ownership the X-Men under a law like this.
If I wrote code for a company, I would retain copyright of that code. Any applications created by me would be owned by me and I could do with them as I wish.
Universities could not claim ownership of student's works. Same with periodicals and researchers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Socialist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wonder how much the U.S. has been 'helping' them write these proposals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why not ban all donations of any kind?
The proposal is ridiculous. The idea that the *creator/owner* should be prohibited to give away their own work is just silly, and not something they propose for anything else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously, I like my country and all, but our political landscape has become a cesspool of incompetence and corruption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Socialist
Just like the U.S. claims democracy and practices plutocracy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: And...
The plan is for the U.S. to make other countries pass laws that make them look worse than the U.S. This serves some purposes.
It allows U.S. bureaucrats and politicians to grandstand about how we have better laws (ie: free speech, fair use) than those of other countries and about how our politicians pass better laws.
(what they don't tell you is that the U.S. is partly responsible for the sorry state of their laws. and it would almost work if it weren't for the leaks.)
It allows lobbyists to claim that other countries have 'better' laws than we do and that they're ahead of us in this regard and so we need to 'catch up' by passing more draconian laws.
(and yes, the first two are somewhat contradictory but politicians and lobbyists are often contradictory in nature and don't always make sense).
It also reduces the competition coming from other countries (encouraging them to litigate instead of innovate and create art and whatnot) which is good for U.S. sales.
and, of course, they hope to get other countries to direct money to the U.S. and/or into the hands of corporations through these laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oh. Ok then, never mind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Don't feel left out
Join the club.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
Renouncing it means giving it away for nothing in my understanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: And...
The CABAL is the group of companies, purchased politicians and international organizations behind all these laws and back room deals, and they don't like to be recognized or named. So now that you've named them (inadvertently of course, but making a mistake like a typo is no excuse for mere individuals, mistakes are only excuses when companies mess things up, like Sony 'forgetting' to secure their networks), so expect to be seeing their representatives very soon (as if you'd be able to see the black helicopters and men in black suits before they haul you away)....
Where's the Sanctuary when you need them... I'm sure they would be willing to stand up to the Cabal... /sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Contractual Clause
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Which University
I'm about to finish my senior capstone, in CS, and the university will be publishing it (to be bound in the library because I'm in the Honors program), and I have to give a copy of the code I wrote (to verify that I wrote it). But, I retain the copyright on work itself. It just has to be public, for peer review, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A possibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Which University
>Not all do, by any means.
A very large - and growing - number do. It's too bad government doesn't actually serve the interests of the public, because we should outlaw that specific case, and get education back to its noble roots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
its all in the wording
pretend to charge $100 for the work and then next to the option to buy put the option for a "sample" that includes the whole thing as a torrent. include in the EULA that the user is free to duplicate and give out "samples" and call it advertising (if you like it buy the "full album").
make the "full album" contain an extra track to make it all legit but make this extra track just someone banging rubbish bin lids for 3 minutes.
if its a game make it so that the paid versions contain an extra skin per character or something really insignificant (but really visible to negate any unintended advantage) but can still play with the trial versions and release without any DRM.
for movies contain a scene of the characters banging rubbish bin lids for about 1 minute after the credits as one of those sequel hook things then retcon it out in the next movie.
if its an art movie the rubbish bin lid thing would fit right in.
for images...... add some text in notepad that says "paid version" and make one pixel in each of the corners black.
state in the Eula that there are no restrictions on how said user may modify or remix or include said work in other works(call it free advertising) only that in remixes you need to give credit to the copyright holder.
just like the creative commons. only under the copyright logo. all in the wording. (and the rubbish bin thing could be a form of mocking these rules too)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Contractual Clause
When you create a work and it gets automatic copyright protection, various exclusive "rights" are reserved to you, such as the exclusive right to "commercially exploit" the work and the right to "prepare derivative works". When you release your work under, say, CC-BY-ND, you have given up the exclusive right to commercially exploit the work (but retained the exclusive right to prepare derivative works), in order to extend that right to others.
Maybe "non-renunciable" only applies to putting a work in the public domain, but "inalienable" certainly seems broader. It seems to say you can't deny yourself the right to profit from use of your work....which is exactly what CC-BY/ND/SA (with no NC clause) does. Others can use your work without paying you.
Now, I don't know the specifics of Portuguese copyright law, but I do think some of the interpretations here are getting too excited and need interpretation by an actual lawyer. For example, when you create a "work for hire", does the copyright ever belong to you in the first place? You can't give it up if it's never assigned to you to begin with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2/2
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: And...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wonder if the idea is...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: A possibility
The commercial content creators (eg, photographers) are probably good at their craft. The problem is they are not any better than, and possibly worse than people who put their art out there for free.
Possibly a better complaint than the way you said it might be:
If you and your work are not good enough to command a premium price over something given away for free, then you don't deserve to get paid. Alternately, if you cannot market the *perception* (even if false) that your product is somehow better or worth paying for (eg, bottled water vs free water) then you don't deserve to get paid. The world doesn't owe you a living.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A possibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Creative Commons should not be affected
This levy is meant to compensate authors and artists for unauthorized copies made for private use. If something is published with a CC license, at the very least, non-commercial copying is already explicitly authorized. No compensation is needed, so this Article 5 doesn’t apply.
This proposal is just a replacement to the current law regulating the private copy levy. It only makes one change to our copyright code (called Author’s Rights here) and it’s unrelated to this. I think significant changes would have to be made there to stop open licenses.
It seems to me the intention of Article 5 is to make void any contracts that transfer an author’s private copy compensation to his label/publisher/whatever. Nothing else. Otherwise it could also make many record contracts void, and the labels would be up in arms for sure! Spain has a similar provision in it's law, and CC licenses are fine.
One good thing about this proposal: if you publish a work with DRM (which blocks private copies), you get no compensation. It would be VERY interesting to see if any publishers drop DRM in order to keep getting their piece of the levy.
One stupid thing about this law is a 60€ levy on 1TB "multimedia external drives", while a standard 1TB external drive pays 20€ and a multimedia player without storage pays nothing. So guess what people are gonna buy if this passes...
I wrote my own analyses on this law (in Portuguese) here:
http://www.pcmanias.com/ainda-a-proposta-de-lei-da-copia-privada/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: IFPI/RIAA Contract Impact
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Portugal is probably the worst violators of copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Portugal is probably the worst violators of copyright laws.
The authorities have actually been cracking down on photocopying entire books, although there are some doubts about whether it is illegal under current law (which allows copying for educational uses, without limiting the size of the copy). If this new law is approved every copied page will pay a levy of 2 eurocents, and 75% of that will go to authors and publishers of technical and educational books. Doesn't clear up whether its legal to copy entire books, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Creative Commons Portugal has made a statement
I still have doubts whether authors of CC licensed works have the right to any compensation for private copies, but the lawyer from CC PT thinks they do. This could lead to a ridiculous situation where CC authors get no money from public or radio performance, but get money for private copies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Portuguese Politicians Want To Make Creative Commons Illegal
All they seem capable of is passing restrictive legislation and playing politics , not running the country to the best of their ability for the citizens , which is what governments are there for .
Definitely a third rate government and politicians in the country
[ link to this | view in thread ]