Copyright Hijacked? Who Should Make Copyright Policy

source by Daniel Gervais on Monday, May 14th at 9:36 AM

go site Could it be said that copyright policy has been hijacked?

https://musicboxcle.com/2025/04/qpdffhesxq

https://www.anonpr.net/kenie8nu4 What does copyright need as a system? Two elements are essential: authors and users. We need people to create works, and for the system to function, we need people to read/listen to or watch them or otherwise use them (educators, etc.). No one is essential.

https://kirkmanandjourdain.com/wx0xxwrw

https://colvetmiranda.org/ken92gqa77 My point is this: Typically one or more intermediaries will link authors and users: a library, book publisher, record company, and nowadays one of many of the online player: (Google, iTunes, etc.) and rights managers (agents, collective management organizations (CMOs), etc.  However, none of these intermediaries have a right to exist. They use policy debates to try to guarantee thier role. That is understandable but must be seen for what it is. Intermediaries must make a case for what they do and why we need them. One possible exception: Librarians have been around for so long that they may have a natural role in the system.

Tramadol Cheapest Online

https://www.villageofhudsonfalls.com/cq166iyk5 To put is simply, commercial intermediaries come and go.  Yet, for the past thirty years or so, they have often been the only voices heard in copyright debates.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and the two international treaties that preceded it (the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty) and their insistence on anti-circumvention rules for technological protection measures (TPMs) are the poster child for this, because TPMs are not used by authors, but rather by intermediaries.

https://musicboxcle.com/2025/04/w64k3v1n

https://faroutpodcast.com/aom7sw4 In recent debates, including on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and in the United States the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), it is again mainly intermediaries that directed the debate. Professional production intermediaries (film and record companies) instrumentalized authors to justify their rights while major technology companies (Google etc.) instrumentalized users.

source link

Buy Real Soma Online This is like debating highway construction with only toll booth operators and GPS device maker at the table, that is without drivers or road builders (or indeed transport planners). This makes little sense.

https://audiopronews.com/headlines/0wj2oju

http://jannaorganic.co.uk/blog/2025/04/03/wq4me1hmfo Not surprisingly, a number of authors and other creators feel that left out, as expressed succinctly and very clearly by the international Music Creators Alliance, for example.

see url

https://kanchisilksarees.com/ziwmumxb1aa We need authors and users (back) at the table. This means recognizing intermediaries are representing an essential function but not entities that have a natural right to exist.  Their voice must be heard but not as the loudest one.

Safe Tramadol Online

Tramadol Buy Online Usa Authors are less likely to insist on harsh enforcement against their fans.  They are more likely to ask for realistic business models that the recording industry, for example, has opposed since the Naspter forced shutdown (1999-2000).

source url

Tramadol Buying Uk While a number of authors have defended the harsh enforcement measures against individual end-users advocated by some intermediaries, many oppose them (see the music creators site above). I suggest that a properly constructed authorial position would more resemble Victor Hugo’s, the great French author, who presided the early work on the most important international copyright treaty, the Berne Convention. He wrote:

get link

follow link « Le livre, comme livre, appartient à l’auteur, mais comme pensée, il appartient – le mot n’est pas trop vaste – au genre humain. Toutes les intelligences y ont droit. Si l’un des deux droits, le droit de l’écrivain et le droit de l’esprit humain, devait être sacrifié, ce serait, certes, le droit de l’écrivain, car l’intérêt public est notre préoccupation unique, et tous, je le déclare, doivent passer avant nous…Constatons la propriété littéraire, mais, en même temps, fondons le domaine public. »  (Victor Hugo, Discours d’ouverture du Congrès littéraire international de 1878).

https://faroutpodcast.com/6sbqrt8u

click here The three main thoughts in this quote are as follows:

https://etxflooring.com/2025/04/eos94wy0

go •             A book belongs to its author but the ideas belong to humankind.

https://mhco.ca/a64yh57

see •             If either then right of the writer or the right of the human spirit must be forfeited (“sacrificed”), it is the right of the writer that must be because ‘public interest’ is the sole preoccupation and must come before everything else.

go site

click here •             One must recognize literary property but at the same time establish (“found”) the public domain.

https://www.anonpr.net/ubluj9ae8o

Clonazepam For Mental Health One must update this view, of course, to reflect the incredible power of the Internet to allow new forms of creation and global dissemination of works, but also the societal costs and undesirable outcomes observed when enforcing copyright online (do we WANT governments to mandate deep packet inspection of all that is sent online, for example). Authors, I suggest, want to be recognized as authors of their works and to be compensated fairly.   Is this revolutionary, or is it what copyright is all about? While authors may support shutting down the Megauploads of the world (so do I!), do they favor suing teens, or educators in Africa? The point is simple: there is much more room for agreement among people of goodwill…

Cheap Tramadol Fast Shipping

source url  

Cheap Tramadol Overnight Cod

follow  

Buy Carisoprodol Cod https://etxflooring.com/2025/04/qxs0895w5 Monday, May 14th at 9:36 AM