Time To Confront The Copyright Lobby. Creative Industries / EU court exempts dentists from paying music royalties. BRUSSELS - Dentists who play music in their surgeries can breathe a sigh of relief after they were officially exempted from paying music royalties according to a ruling announced last week (15 March) by the European Court of Justice. However, in a separate judgement, the Luxembourg-based court, whose decisions on the application of EU law are binding across the 27 member states, said that hotels which play music in their rooms will be required to pay the fees. Italian collecting society Societa Consortie Fonografici (SCF) brought the action against Turin-based dentist Marco Del Corso, contending that by playing background music at his surgery he was liable to pay. In its ruling, the ECJ stated that since "the patients of a dentist visit a dental practice with the sole objective of receiving treatment, as the broadcasting of phonograms is not a part of dental treatment.
" However, it defines that royalties do not need to be paid in the case of private use. MIT Economist: Here's How Copyright Laws Impoverish Wikipedia - Robinson Meyer. Using a little-known copyright rule and a trove of baseball-related trivia, an MIT economist figured out how current copyright laws specifically affect one online community. Public Domain/Baseball Digest Everyone knows that the flow of information is complex and tangled in society today -- so thank goodness for copyright law! Truly, no part of our national policy is as coherent, in the interest of the public or as updated for the Internet age as that gleaming tome in the US Code. Not. Unless you're reppin' the MPAA, you probably know that the modern copyright regime doesn't work. You don't have to believe in radical copyleftism -- or even progressivism -- to understand this. But one MIT economist, Abhishek Nagaraj*, who recently presented his work at Wikimania, has found a way to test how the copyright law affects one online community -- Wikipedia -- and how digitized, public domain works dramatically affect the quality of knowledge.
How? But his research was able to go further. Beyond Users' Rights: Supreme Court Entrenches Technological Neutrality as a New Copyright Principle. Last week, I posted on the significance of the Supreme Court of Canada's five copyright decisions with an emphasis on the shift from fair dealing to fair use. This week, I have several additional posts planned including one on the implications for Access Copyright as well as a broader examination of how the court has elevated users' rights within Canadian copyright law. This post focuses on the second major development in the cases: the articulation of technological neutrality as a foundational principle of Canadian copyright.
The technological neutrality principle could have an enormous long-term impact on Canadian copyright, posing a threat to some copyright collective tariff proposals and to the newly enacted digital lock rules. The technological neutrality principle is discussed in several cases, but gets its most important airing in the Entertainment Software Association of Canada v. SOCAN decision. ESA's argument is also consistent with this Court's caution in Théberge v. Value and benefits of text mining. Improved understanding of how text mining in UKFHE can generate wider economic benefit is an important part of the evidence base underpinning discussions about text mining and whether the Hargreaves-recommended legislative change is necessary.
The Hargreaves report highlighted two core areas of potential economic and social benefit and value: Where text mining could potentially generate cost savings and productivity gainsWhere text mining in UKFHE could lead to wider innovation in products or services with broader economic and social benefit We examined both of these areas and also went further to examine the implications of current barriers to text mining. The current copyright law-driven restrictions on text mining, particularly the text mining of scholarly journals, appear to be inhibiting its wider use or take-up in UKFHE. This situation applies irrespective of the magnitude of any wider economic or social gains that text mining could generate. 5.1 Cost savings and productivity gains.
Creativecommons. Licensing. Script Software - Secure and Protect Your Digital Photos with iWatermark. iWatermark is the worlds No. 1 digital watermarking application for Mac, Windows, iPhone, iPad and Android. Stylishly Copyright all your images in just minutes. iWatermark Pro for Mac and Windows can now exchange exported watermarks. iWatermark Pro works within iPhoto and Aperture using plugins. As a standalone application it works with Lightroom, Photoshop, Picasa, ACDSee, Cumulus, Portfolio, PhotoStation, Xee, iView, PhotoMechanic and other photo organizers. iWatermark is the best watermarking software for all platforms and in combination with other software. iWatermark is an essential tool for anyone with a digital camera, professionals and beginners. Click the links on the left for more info about iWatermark. “The beauty of iWatermark is its combination of ease of use and functionality.
I've yet to see a better solution than Plum Amazing's iWatermark.” Dan Frakes, Macworld, Read entire article 4.5 of 5 mice. Official Sponsor of: Secure and protect your photos. iWatermark Pro for Mac. Acórdão do Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra. Acordam, em audiência, na Secção Criminal do Tribunal da Relação de Coimbra. No Processo comum singular n.11/02 do 2º Juízo Criminal de Coimbra, após audiência de discussão e julgamento, foi proferida sentença que condenou: -o arguido A..., como autor material de um crime de reprodução ilegítima de programa protegido, p. e p. pelo art.º 9º n.º 1 da Lei n.º 109/91, de 17.08, na pena de 160 dias de multa, à taxa diária de € 9,00 (nove euros), perfazendo € 1.440,00 (mil, quatrocentos e quarenta euros) ou, subsidiariamente, 106 (cento e seis) dias de prisão. - arguida “B....”, na pena mesma pena de 160 (cento e sessenta) dias de multa, à taxa diária de € 50,00 (cinquenta euros), perfazendo € 8.000,00 (oito mil euros), nos termos do disposto nos art.ºs 3º n.º 1 e 10º n.ºs 1 e 4 da citada Lei, na redacção conferida pelo D.L. n.º 323/2001, de 17.12. - Na procedência parcial dos pedidos de indemnização civil condenou os arguidos, solidariamente, no pagamento: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
Open Access and the NIH. In 1978, in enacting Section 105 of title 17, Congress faced a choice about what to do with copyrighted works that result from government funding, including basic research funding of scientific, technical, and medical (“STM”) journal articles. One approach was simply to preclude any assertion of copyright, treating such works the same way as works created by government employees within the scope of their employment. That approach would have been simple to apply, but might have inhibited the publication of some STM journals, at a time when hard copy ruled as the method of distribution. Congress chose a middle approach, discussed here in the 1976 House Judiciary Committee report:, which begins by referring to the definition of “work of the United States government”: A more difficult and far-reaching problem is whether the definition should be broadened to prohibit copyright in works prepared under U.S.
Government contract or grant. As a commentator pointed out on that blog: