13th April 2011, 10:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 13th April 2011, 10:21 AM by kevin wooldridge.)
mpoole Wrote:Excellent observations. Copyright is fairly straightforward. I'm not a laywer but I have worked on the issue regarding copyright in other situations where people have lost a great deal of money through the illegal copying and uploading of copyrighted material to sub-rosa file-sharing sites. It's a huge problem for people such as musicians whose CDs are 'shared' or DVDs which are copied and 'shared' illegally. It's a big problem, and it is important that a copyright holder be given the chance to determine what happens to items to which they hold copyright. That doesn't always mean there is money exchanged for access to the copyrighted information BUT it does mean that it is the choice of the copyright holder how the access is determined. If they don't want their information accessible other than by physical, printed materials accessible only through a library or other physical resource that's their right.
And therein lies the rub!! The question of copyright is as you say fairly straightforward, however the enforcement of the right to exercise that copyright is anoither matter.
At the moment the music industry (and to some extent book publishers) are expending a great deal of effort in going after so called internet pirates (particularly P2P files sharers) but conveniently ignoring other blatant abusers of the copyright system. Every charity shop in the UK which resells books, CDs, DvDs or videos is equally in breach of copyright (the part that prohibits the resale of copyright material) but to my knowledge there is no campaign by either industry to clamp down on this. Most secondbook sellers also breach the same laws on copyright....little wonder that many abusers would conclude that the laws regarding copyright are not worth the paper (or digital media) they are written on....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...