In my last mail I mentioned my previous discussion with Crowley, but I just remembered that I didn't post a similar summary for that meeting, so here goes. It was March 4th.
He thinks the directive can be fixed in the second reading. This was his reason for being the only JURI rep to vote against a return to a first reading ("restart" vote of Feb 2nd). This was in contrast to FFII's belief that the Council's text was too flawed to be fixable.
He noted that a problem is that the EP has a very hard time with this technical sort of directive.
He said that the USA and Asia are "4 years ahead of us on laws like this", and that the EU is being slow implementing "the 1996 agreemnt" (presumably TRIPS).
He told me that patents give much stronger protection than copyrights, and "as a musician myself, I know musicians would much rather patent their music than copyright it".
This sparked a debate about copyright. It somehow started with him saying that I can't copyright the word "record", because copyright requires that the work be new and innovative. I asked if he was confusing copyright and patents, but he said no, copyright is only granted if the work is new and innovative.
He backed up his copyright beliefs by citing a George Harrison copyright case. Crowley said that Harrison lost the case despite never having heard the music it was claimed he copied. Thus, copyright required newness, and Harisson lost because his work was not new.
On later research, I read that Harrison never claimed not to have heard the song he was accused of copying. Crowley had clearly mixed up the facts, or had mixed up facts fed to him.
Back to the patent directive, he said that the Council text was a compromise since they kept half of the EP's amendments, and he said that the EP could bin the whole thing in the end anyway if the Council's second reading and reconciliation falls through.
IFSO had little contact with Crowley in the first reading, we assumed he understood the issue since he tabled FFII amendments, but it seems now that he has some misinformation to be corrected, and that maybe he doesn't share IFSOs level of concern over this issue.
He backed up his copyright beliefs by citing a George Harrison copyright case. Crowley said that Harrison lost the case despite never having heard the music it was claimed he copied. Thus, copyright required newness, and Harisson lost because his work was not new.
On later research, I read that Harrison never claimed not to have heard the song he was accused of copying. Crowley had clearly mixed up the facts, or had mixed up facts fed to him.
Unless I am very much mistaken, Independent invention is a legitimate defence against a copyright claim , unlike a patent claim, anyone care to correct me?
If I am correct then copyright does not require 'newness'
I know that we are both saying the same thing, I am just wondering if anyone else can confirm that?
Sean
Thus, copyright required newness ... On later research, I read that Harrison never claimed not to have heard the song ...
If I am correct then copyright does not require 'newness'
Here's what appears to be the Judge's summation of the 1976 case:
And here's three snippets that I think are of note:
"his subconscious knew it already had worked in a song his conscious mind did not remember"
"George Harrison, a former member of The Beatles, was aware of He's So Fine. In the United States, it was No. 1 on the billboard charts for five weeks ... For seven weeks in 1963, He's So Fine was one of the top hits in England."
"Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He's So Fine? I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He's So Fine with different words, and Harrison had access to He's So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished"
The Judge decided that Harrison's work was _not_ an independent invention, but rather an unintentional breach of copyright.
hth, -kor
Kevin O'Riordan wrote:
The Judge decided that Harrison's work was _not_ an independent invention, but rather an unintentional breach of copyright.
He used the term "original," didn't he? "Original expression" is the criterion for copyright -- and the meaning is that aspects of a work have originated with a particular author. You can have different authors come up with the same work independently, and they would not infringe on each other's work.
Seth
On Thursday 31 March 2005 14:47, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
In my last mail I mentioned my previous discussion with Crowley, but I just remembered that I didn't post a similar summary for that meeting, so here goes. It was March 4th.
I received a letter from him in response to the document we sent him. The closing paragraph states:
"I genuinely appreciate your document as it does clearly explain the issues involved and also highlights the continuing areas of difficulty with regard to the proposal and please be assured of my support to amend and correct this proposal."
I would like to think that that means what we want it to mean but it's a little too "politik speak" to be definitive. Or am I just being a pessimiste?
B.