EU Copyright Head Looking To Roll Back UsedSoft Decision, Makes Weak Noises About 'Infinite Contracts'

from the industries-still-writing-the-rules dept

Wed, Jul 2nd 2014 3:39am — Tim Cushing

The European Union has its own revolving door, one that allows lobbyists to enter government agencies in order to directly regulate the same industries they so recently stumped for. Maria Martin-Prat went from directing "global legal policy" for IFPI (the international RIAA) to being the EU Commission's point person for copyright issues.

In the past, Martin-Prat has gone on record as being against any sort of private copying exception to copyright law, stating that:

"private copying has no reason to exist and should be limited further than it is."

The private copying exception varies from country to country, but in Martin-Prat's mind, the best case scenario is likely "not at all… anywhere." So, why is Martin-Prat, an admitted hardliner on copyright issues, suddenly discussing the unfairness of certain copyright contracts?

Speaking at a Westminster Forum seminar, Maria Martin-Prat, EC Head of the Copyright Unit for the Internal Market Directorate General (DG MARKT), said the Commission should look at whether contracts were fair.

She told us that the infinite assignment of rights that authors must agree to in most EU countries to get their work published was what she had in mind.

In the digital era, freelance authors and photographers in many members states have been asked to assign their rights to an intermediary in “infinite” deals.

Forever contracts are, indeed, the sort of unfair deal that the EU Commission should take a longer look at. Here in the US, the reversion of copyright back to the creators (for pre-1976 recordings) has prompted record labels to argue that everything created was a "work for hire," and thus belongs to the label in perpetuity. (This argument also took the form of a midnight run to Congress to get copyright law amended in the recording industry's favor.) An infinite contract obviously closes that potential loophole for artists to reclaim their work after a reasonable amount of time.

Seems like a good start, but Martin-Prat continues, dispelling any notion that serious copyright reform will occur under her guidance.

The distribution of “the share of the value in the internet” was worth examining said Martin-Prat - particularly “who gets the profits?”

Ah, the old "the Internet owes everyone a living" argument, wherein (probably) Google is blamed for every low number on the copyright industries' balance sheets and asked to kick in to make up for the shortfall. Note that Martin-Prat asks "who gets the profits," rather than asking how to divide the profits, which indicates she already has an answer in mind. Why address problems in any logical fashion when you can just use the weight of the EU Commission to make internet services bend to the will of misguided court decisions and nearly two decades' of useless complaining from the recording industry?

Then Martin-Prat steps even further away from copyright moderation and takes a swing at the few remaining rights purchasers of creative works have, citing specifically the UsedSoft decision, which agreed that sold software was a "license" rather than a sale, but despite this distinction, could still be resold.

“In both cases the Court was pushing the boundaries of the copyright rules to help the function of the internal market,” she said. “UsedSoft was desperately trying to turn software licensed by a user into a good - so they could enjoy free movement of goods,” she observed. “The Court cut a few corners” in its interpretation, she thought. However, “if we don’t do something at some point the CJEU will keep pushing.”

So, it looks as though Martin-Prat will be pushing back on this decision in order to remove something that actually helps sell new software -- the possibility of resale. Whether the copyright industries like it or not, people consider this factor when purchasing new items and if the possibility exists to make something back, it actually encourages a few more sales. There's nothing inherently "unfair" about not being able to profit from every sale, but the industries still think it's just another way they're being screwed -- hence the push to call everything a "license," even if it's a physical good.

Martin-Prat offers to take on an inherently unfair contract (the infinite copyright contract) but only because she has a desire to protect other unfair contracts (you can't resell what your purchase). The first will likely end up riddled with loopholes (for all intents and purposes, most recording contracts may as well be "infinite," considering how hard it is for artists to reclaim their copyrights) and the latter will just help the industries further pare down the few copyright law exceptions that currently exist.

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, eu commission, infinite contracts, license, maria martin-prat, ownership, private copying, sale, used goods
Companies: usedsoft

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That One Guy (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 2:11am

'Now that the issue is open to change, let's 'fix' a few things shall we?'
Looks and sounds to me like a simple bait and switch, dangle the possibility of getting rid of 'eternal' copyrights to get more people on board, and then, assuming enough of them are stupid enough to fall for it and open the law up for 're-examination', start ratcheting things up as much as possible, spending maybe 5-10 minutes on 'fixing' the aforementioned 'eternal' copyright problem before moving on to the real goals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 4:25am

This is how serfdom is established, by removing peoples rights to own things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 4:28am

Well, she is a Prat, after all...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:03am

Corruption has no reason to exist and should be limited further than it is.

Conflict of interest exceptions vary from country to country, but, the best case scenario is "not at all… anywhere".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:11am

Re:
The same argument is made for eternal copyright. Not just "lifetime of author" + 50 to 100 years, but real eternal copyright. Moving things into public domain can be seen as removing artists rights to own their work.

Now, granted, copyrights are hereditary and thus makes vassallic societys serfdom an easy comparison, but the distinction is not on whether or not someone has "rights" in this context. It is about what rights people have and how you weigh them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:28am

Re: 'Now that the issue is open to change, let's 'fix' a few things shall we?'
Unfortunately that seems like a possibility. After ACTA fell, the arguments for more copyright has been changed to better protection and the better protection is being sold as a combination of "neutral changes" to the situation. Copyright is a hot topic and it has been almost impossible to force the industry demands of continuously more copyright measures through the european parliament the last 5 years, after the total insanity of IPRED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:54am

Re: Re:
"Moving things into public domain can be seen as removing artists rights to own their work."

That is the most bizarre concept of ownership rights I have ever heard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 2 Jul 2014 @ 7:25am

It's time to think of all the statements these asshats will be spouting and get a copyright on them now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pixelation, 2 Jul 2014 @ 7:28am

Must be early...posted under wrong story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Digger, 2 Jul 2014 @ 8:53am

Martin-Pratt - eat shit and die
You worthless git, get out of that office before you damage the entire EU economy - oh wait - it's too late, it's already been damaged heavily by special interest groups that haven't figured out that they are meaningless and no longer of any value to society.

Patents are given to *INVENTORS* (wasn't supposed to be corporations, only people) in exchange for a protected period of time before becoming public domain.

Copyrights are given to *CONTENT CREATORS* (again, wasn't supposed to be corporations, only the people) in exchange for a protected period of time where noone could claim to be the creator of said content.

Neither was about *MONEY* - EVER!!!

Neither were about suing everyone into oblivion.

If I made use of bits of copyrighted material, but said "using so and so's content" - so they knew who created it - it was fair use.

If I had a record, and dubbed it to tape, it was fair use.

If I bought a CD and made a tape for my car, it was fair use.

If I buy a DVD or Blu-ray and copy it for use on another device that I own - that is fair use.

If I make a new media for the kids to use so they don't destroy my original, that is fair use.

You f'ing dolt, get out of that office for which you are wholly unsuited. Your head is so far up the recording industry's ass that they pump oxygen to you by way of flatulence and the oxygen deprivation is showing in your decisions and ideas.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TestPilotDummy, 2 Jul 2014 @ 10:17am

Some decisions have Dire consequences
If wise heads prevail, the world with move forward with the flow of the universe while productivity and creativity will propagate all the black holes, however if fascist heads prevail, the entire corporate industry will unravel as anarchy and chaos will become universal copyright law.

The test will come, when people have to decide, if your product's value is worth something. That's the bottom line. At some point it's not worth messing with your products anymore and you dry up.

When two opposing forces meet, the stronger one prevails EVERY TIME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 2:09pm

WHAT is that word?
There is a word that is used for a person that has contention in a subject and shouldnt be allowed to work for the other side because of this Bias.

Im sorry, but HOW many BANKS hire bank robbers to Work with them??
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sheogorath (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:09pm

Maria Martin-Prat
Somebody is well-named, methinks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:49pm

Infinite copyright contracts are vital...
Ok all you nay-sayers, explain this:

How does it "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" to allow a copyright to revert to the original artist/creator?

Honestly, way too much weight is given to the importance of people who do nothing more than "make everything."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 2 Jul 2014 @ 5:57pm

OK..
WHO hired her??
FIRE THEM BOTH..
would you hire a bank robber At your BANK??
[ link to this | view in thread ]