Thursday, June 8. 2006
Hey Captain Copyright: Link This, Jerkwad!
Captain Copyright is a shameless copyright propaganda effort to teach children the so-called value of intellectual property. Their Terms and Conditions are especially laughable:
Man. This is very lame. The whole site is put together by Access Copyright, which is either an organization devoted to protecting the rights of authors and publishers. Seems to me that they are taking it a little far.
Via Boing Boing
Permission is expressly granted to any person who wishes to place a link in his or her own website to www.accesscopyright.ca or any of its pages with the following exception: permission to link is explicitly withheld from any website the contents of which may, in the opinion of the Access Copyright, be damaging or cause harm to the reputation of Access Copyright. Specifically, permission to link is explicitly withheld from sites featuring pornographic, racist or homophobic content.Whoah. Here is another gem:
You are not permitted to copy or cut from any page or its HTML source code to the Windows™ clipboard (or equivalent on other platforms) onto any other website.Two words: Fair. Use.
Man. This is very lame. The whole site is put together by Access Copyright, which is either an organization devoted to protecting the rights of authors and publishers. Seems to me that they are taking it a little far.
Via Boing Boing
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
That seems a little bit hypocritical for someone who uses a creative commons badge.
You are, in effect, prohibiting people or organizations from reproducing/distribuiting your works unless they agree to the specific terms of the licence.
A copyright by any other name is still a copyright.
A copyright by any other name is still a copyright.
Again, how does that make me a hypocrite? I am not anti-copyright. I am just anti-bad-copyright.
When Access Copyright is saying that I can't cut and paste a section of their website, I say bullshit, because, as coded in our current Copyright Law--which, while it does have its warts, is fairly decent--there is such a thing as fair use. Fair use allows me to quote, and even cut and paste sections of a website. In fact, you'll notice that the CC license also clearly states that the terms of license do not interfere with your fair use rights.
I object to Captain Copyright and his methods because they seem very one-sided. There is too much focus on the creators and publishers, rather then on the users. There needs to be a balance. An ideal copyright system would balance the needs of the creators, the needs of the users, and the overall needs of society and culture.
I also object to their methods because they are using the educational system to push an agenda to make profits.
When Access Copyright is saying that I can't cut and paste a section of their website, I say bullshit, because, as coded in our current Copyright Law--which, while it does have its warts, is fairly decent--there is such a thing as fair use. Fair use allows me to quote, and even cut and paste sections of a website. In fact, you'll notice that the CC license also clearly states that the terms of license do not interfere with your fair use rights.
I object to Captain Copyright and his methods because they seem very one-sided. There is too much focus on the creators and publishers, rather then on the users. There needs to be a balance. An ideal copyright system would balance the needs of the creators, the needs of the users, and the overall needs of society and culture.
I also object to their methods because they are using the educational system to push an agenda to make profits.
In the action of posting the entry, and in flaming the rights reserved you are in effect not only infringing on the copyright statement itself (by said flaming you may very well have created a percieved damaging statment as per the rights reserved) in doing so (wether purposefully or not) you have made a statement that it's okay to infringe on the rights reserved because your personal opinion is different.
And here you are... protecting the right to reserve how that may be re-used.
Forgive me if that seems a little bit hypocritical.
:-)
And here you are... protecting the right to reserve how that may be re-used.
Forgive me if that seems a little bit hypocritical.
:-)
Perhaps you should learn some more copyright law before bandying about the term "hypocritical"
Ultimately what this comes down to is Fair use. Or actually, as it is codified in Canadian copyright law: "Fair Dealing".
Access Copyright can say "you cannot quote this website at all" until they are blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that I am, according to Canadian Copyright law, still allowed to quote it.
Just as if someone were to write a negative review of one of my tracks, and post a snippet, I could not do anything about it. Again, this is due to "Fair Dealing". See the CIPO Guide to copyrights section 6 (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#6)
Linking to them is not in any way, shape, or form copyright infringement. In fact, it may not be a valid legal term and or condition of their website. According to Michael Geist, who knows way more about copyright then you or I, linking to them would not be infringing upon their moral rights either. (see http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1278/Itemid,85/nsub,/ )
So here is this organization which claims to know all about copyright, and they are trying to claim more rights then they already have, such as: "moral rights" about how links to their website, and exemptions from fair use.
In the meantime, I release my music and blog entries within the bounds and scope of copyright law, and have broken none-such laws in quoting small sections of their website, or linking to it.
Here is an easy to understand analogy: Access Copyright has a house, and they decide to put up a fence to make sure that people can't get into their yards. This is well within their rights. But then they furter decide to put the fence around the sidewalks so people can't even walk beside their property. They also claim that you can't even point at their house with your middle finger, or give it a thumbs down. I on the other hand decided to do away with the fences entirely, and any individual is allowed to come play in my yard, but everyone gets a chance to play.
See the difference?
Ultimately what this comes down to is Fair use. Or actually, as it is codified in Canadian copyright law: "Fair Dealing".
Access Copyright can say "you cannot quote this website at all" until they are blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that I am, according to Canadian Copyright law, still allowed to quote it.
Just as if someone were to write a negative review of one of my tracks, and post a snippet, I could not do anything about it. Again, this is due to "Fair Dealing". See the CIPO Guide to copyrights section 6 (http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_gd_protect-e.html#6)
Linking to them is not in any way, shape, or form copyright infringement. In fact, it may not be a valid legal term and or condition of their website. According to Michael Geist, who knows way more about copyright then you or I, linking to them would not be infringing upon their moral rights either. (see http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1278/Itemid,85/nsub,/ )
So here is this organization which claims to know all about copyright, and they are trying to claim more rights then they already have, such as: "moral rights" about how links to their website, and exemptions from fair use.
In the meantime, I release my music and blog entries within the bounds and scope of copyright law, and have broken none-such laws in quoting small sections of their website, or linking to it.
Here is an easy to understand analogy: Access Copyright has a house, and they decide to put up a fence to make sure that people can't get into their yards. This is well within their rights. But then they furter decide to put the fence around the sidewalks so people can't even walk beside their property. They also claim that you can't even point at their house with your middle finger, or give it a thumbs down. I on the other hand decided to do away with the fences entirely, and any individual is allowed to come play in my yard, but everyone gets a chance to play.
See the difference?
Just because things 'seem' one way, doesn't mean they are. Seem is an interesting word that way. Seems to me, seems to you.... blah blah blah.
We're all given a right to Free speech when it comes right down to it.
Companies are well within thier rights to restrict who may or may not reproduce thier works, even more so if the domain name is a trade mark.
What is fair dealing, and what is not fair dealing is not up to you or I to decide. According to the gc.ca URI provided, anyways, it's up to a Judge.
There is a very thin line between fair dealing and infringement.
Journalists or news organizations, or not for profit educational institutions. These are the exceptions clearly outlined in which fair dealing is not decided by a Judge.
We're all given a right to Free speech when it comes right down to it.
Companies are well within thier rights to restrict who may or may not reproduce thier works, even more so if the domain name is a trade mark.
What is fair dealing, and what is not fair dealing is not up to you or I to decide. According to the gc.ca URI provided, anyways, it's up to a Judge.
There is a very thin line between fair dealing and infringement.
Journalists or news organizations, or not for profit educational institutions. These are the exceptions clearly outlined in which fair dealing is not decided by a Judge.
Well, as for Fair Dealing, I give you Article 29.1 of the Canadian Copy Right Act:
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/C-42/230365.html#Article-29.1
"29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work"
Since I have mentioned the source, (The captain Copyright website) and the authors (Access Copyright) I have got fair use pretty well covered. Ultimately you are right however, it is up to a judge to decide if my 2 quoted paragraphs (106 words total) are infringing or not.
Companies are in fact well within their rights to restrict who may or may not reproduce their works--and this is the point that you seem to miss--within the bounds of established copyright law.
Trademarks are completely different from copyright however. Now, I don't know as much about trademark law as I do copyright, but as far as my understanding goes, trademarks are used so that if you buy the "Barbie" brand of dolls, you know that it is a genuine Barbie doll, and not some knockoff. Now just because Mattel owns the Barbie Trademark, it doesn't mean that they get 100% ownership of the name Barbie (see for example, the Barbie Shoppe case). Really, the trademark only applies when a company providing a similar service or product uses the same name. I rather suspect that it does not apply to the case of mentioning said product or service.
http://lois.justice.gc.ca/fr/C-42/230365.html#Article-29.1
"29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work"
Since I have mentioned the source, (The captain Copyright website) and the authors (Access Copyright) I have got fair use pretty well covered. Ultimately you are right however, it is up to a judge to decide if my 2 quoted paragraphs (106 words total) are infringing or not.
Companies are in fact well within their rights to restrict who may or may not reproduce their works--and this is the point that you seem to miss--within the bounds of established copyright law.
Trademarks are completely different from copyright however. Now, I don't know as much about trademark law as I do copyright, but as far as my understanding goes, trademarks are used so that if you buy the "Barbie" brand of dolls, you know that it is a genuine Barbie doll, and not some knockoff. Now just because Mattel owns the Barbie Trademark, it doesn't mean that they get 100% ownership of the name Barbie (see for example, the Barbie Shoppe case). Really, the trademark only applies when a company providing a similar service or product uses the same name. I rather suspect that it does not apply to the case of mentioning said product or service.
I wouldn't want my shared works (or yours or anyone elses) to be skewed in to hate or anti-semetic propaganda junk mail with credits trailing. We leave our yards open to this kind of possiblity whereas they will not tolerate it and to be honest I can't blame them one bit.
It's status quo for organizations to discourage infringement. If you know anyone working for a large organization they try to reserve the right to the content of every email in and out of the business.
They are free to say whatever they want... just as you and I are. It may 'seem' like a boatload of crap, but at the end of the day the street our houses are on goes both ways.
I really don't see how it seems that they're going to far for leaving out the whole copywrite act and not saying boo about fair dealing and it's legal exceptions....
I can certainly understand how it would be percieved as misleading, and for what reasons - buyer beware - I just don't see how it is going to far to try and keep your works out of the hands of those who would twist them into hate.
It's status quo for organizations to discourage infringement. If you know anyone working for a large organization they try to reserve the right to the content of every email in and out of the business.
They are free to say whatever they want... just as you and I are. It may 'seem' like a boatload of crap, but at the end of the day the street our houses are on goes both ways.
I really don't see how it seems that they're going to far for leaving out the whole copywrite act and not saying boo about fair dealing and it's legal exceptions....
I can certainly understand how it would be percieved as misleading, and for what reasons - buyer beware - I just don't see how it is going to far to try and keep your works out of the hands of those who would twist them into hate.
The cure to bad speech is not to curtail it, but more speech. Well, that is my belief anyway. This being said, in this country there are moral rights infringements; companies (and individuals) can choose to act on material they find infringing upon their moral rights, assuming that the work is copyrightable in the first place. The content of a website being an example of material that can be infringed upon. The URL pointing to that website is not, by virtue of the URL being raw information, and therefore not copyrightable.
It, in my opinion, is going far for a few reasons:
1) This is an organization concerned with copyright. If it was random company (brand?) X, then we could put it down to over zealous lawyer and forget about it. These are people who claim to know better.
2) This is an organization that have infringed upon the rights of Wikipedia. You may not have heard about it, but a portion of their website was a direct copy of at least 1, and maybe more Wikipages about copyright, and they didn't give proper attribution. This is very "Do as I say, not as I do". I mean, all they had to do is point to Wikipedia and say "we got this information here". Instead, they obviously snarfed and barfed.
3) Just because nothing is stopping them from trying to claim more rights then they already have, doesn't make it right.
It, in my opinion, is going far for a few reasons:
1) This is an organization concerned with copyright. If it was random company (brand?) X, then we could put it down to over zealous lawyer and forget about it. These are people who claim to know better.
2) This is an organization that have infringed upon the rights of Wikipedia. You may not have heard about it, but a portion of their website was a direct copy of at least 1, and maybe more Wikipages about copyright, and they didn't give proper attribution. This is very "Do as I say, not as I do". I mean, all they had to do is point to Wikipedia and say "we got this information here". Instead, they obviously snarfed and barfed.
3) Just because nothing is stopping them from trying to claim more rights then they already have, doesn't make it right.
Another interesting and relevant link to this discussion, again from Michael Geist:
"My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) examines the linking issues associated with Captain Copyright. While the linking policy has gone through several edits, the column argues that it is doubtful that any version is actually enforceable. First, it is by no means certain that the terms and conditions associated with the site constitute a binding contract.
Even if it could be enforced, the specific linking provisions are unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. Several courts in both Canada and the United States have addressed the legal issues associated with linking, with most concluding that links do not raise any copyright concerns. In the case of Captain Copyright, it is irrelevant whether the citation comes from a critical blogger or a supportive school board - permission is not needed to link on the Internet and it cannot be denied in legal terms and conditions.
When Access Copyright chose to freely display its content on the World Wide Web, it surrendered the right to restrict who might link to the site or comment on it. That would be true of any organization, but the principle should resonate particularly strongly with Access Copyright, given that it is a copyright collective whose members rely upon freedom of speech for their livelihoods. If Captain Copyright teaches us anything, it is that he should be powerful enough to withstand a little criticism."
From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1297
"My weekly Law Bytes column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) examines the linking issues associated with Captain Copyright. While the linking policy has gone through several edits, the column argues that it is doubtful that any version is actually enforceable. First, it is by no means certain that the terms and conditions associated with the site constitute a binding contract.
Even if it could be enforced, the specific linking provisions are unlikely to withstand legal scrutiny. Several courts in both Canada and the United States have addressed the legal issues associated with linking, with most concluding that links do not raise any copyright concerns. In the case of Captain Copyright, it is irrelevant whether the citation comes from a critical blogger or a supportive school board - permission is not needed to link on the Internet and it cannot be denied in legal terms and conditions.
When Access Copyright chose to freely display its content on the World Wide Web, it surrendered the right to restrict who might link to the site or comment on it. That would be true of any organization, but the principle should resonate particularly strongly with Access Copyright, given that it is a copyright collective whose members rely upon freedom of speech for their livelihoods. If Captain Copyright teaches us anything, it is that he should be powerful enough to withstand a little criticism."
From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1297
Add Comment