Copyright protection or legal theft?
In the footsteps of topics Copyright protection or "legalized extortion"? and when licensed content is not needed .
As you know, I’m a principled opponent of copyright, for which I often get unflattering comments like "you don’t need to cover your theft with ideological convictions" and "yes, you just don’t want to pay for someone else’s work."
Well, let's look carefully.
There is, for example, such a wonderful audio recording: a concert for piano and orchestra by Robert Schumann performed by Dinu Lipatti and the Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Herbert von Karajan. (Excellent recording, who have not heard - I recommend.)
')
Since Robert Schumann died significantly more than 70 years ago, the copyright for this entry expired long ago. The recording date is April 1948. Because adjacent (performing) rights last 50 years from the moment of recording, then they have already expired for 13 years. Those. the phonogram has long been firmly in the public domain, and I can use it for my own purposes completely free of charge. In theory.
And practically - let's look more closely at the disk:
What do we have there in the corner? And there SUDDENLY is found 1988. ℗ is a sign of protection of related rights, by analogy with ©.
If you look at art. 1324 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, there you can find a curious paragraph 3:
Similar points are in any foreign laws.
The EMI company “reworked” the phonogram (transferred it to a CD) and thus received another 50 years of copyright - from 1988 to 2038. Who doesn’t like it - can look for records published before 1961 (reissue of the record - of course, also the ebic force “processing ") And digitize itself what is left of it.
Specifically, I clarify: EMI, of course, does not record records, but the original tape recording. Which exists in a single copy and is not for sale.
Many, however, 50 years seems a little. For example, the company Deutsche Grammophon, reissuing a set of Beethoven's symphonies under Karajan’s control on a Super Audio CD (it had been successfully sold on a CD for 20 years), of course, immediately copied its copyright (rewiring, to say the least) , and not ℗, but immediately © - what a trifle.
So until 2073 (or even until 2093, if the 90-year term of protection of “copyright” is struck), you can not look at these records - well, of course, if suddenly you didn’t have $ 38.75 for each of your 5 drives.
Tellingly, for their "works" of the company EMI, DGG (and all the others) want to somehow very sour - the Lipatti drive costs $ 17 on Amazon, despite the fact that these remarkable advocates of copyright did not pay a cent to anyone for royalty.
And that means it turns out that, having downloaded the Lipatti records from torrents, I “stole” them from EMI Records. Not paid, you know, their titanic creative work on rewriting from magnetic tape to CD.
But for some reason it seems to me that this company EMI stole the records of Dinu Lipatti from the public domain. Well, that is, we have with you.
As you know, I’m a principled opponent of copyright, for which I often get unflattering comments like "you don’t need to cover your theft with ideological convictions" and "yes, you just don’t want to pay for someone else’s work."
Well, let's look carefully.
There is, for example, such a wonderful audio recording: a concert for piano and orchestra by Robert Schumann performed by Dinu Lipatti and the Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Herbert von Karajan. (Excellent recording, who have not heard - I recommend.)
')
Since Robert Schumann died significantly more than 70 years ago, the copyright for this entry expired long ago. The recording date is April 1948. Because adjacent (performing) rights last 50 years from the moment of recording, then they have already expired for 13 years. Those. the phonogram has long been firmly in the public domain, and I can use it for my own purposes completely free of charge. In theory.
And practically - let's look more closely at the disk:
What do we have there in the corner? And there SUDDENLY is found 1988. ℗ is a sign of protection of related rights, by analogy with ©.
If you look at art. 1324 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, there you can find a curious paragraph 3:
3. A person who has lawfully carried out the processing of a phonogram shall acquire the adjacent right to a revised phonogram.
Similar points are in any foreign laws.
The EMI company “reworked” the phonogram (transferred it to a CD) and thus received another 50 years of copyright - from 1988 to 2038. Who doesn’t like it - can look for records published before 1961 (reissue of the record - of course, also the ebic force “processing ") And digitize itself what is left of it.
Specifically, I clarify: EMI, of course, does not record records, but the original tape recording. Which exists in a single copy and is not for sale.
Many, however, 50 years seems a little. For example, the company Deutsche Grammophon, reissuing a set of Beethoven's symphonies under Karajan’s control on a Super Audio CD (it had been successfully sold on a CD for 20 years), of course, immediately copied its copyright (rewiring, to say the least) , and not ℗, but immediately © - what a trifle.
So until 2073 (or even until 2093, if the 90-year term of protection of “copyright” is struck), you can not look at these records - well, of course, if suddenly you didn’t have $ 38.75 for each of your 5 drives.
Tellingly, for their "works" of the company EMI, DGG (and all the others) want to somehow very sour - the Lipatti drive costs $ 17 on Amazon, despite the fact that these remarkable advocates of copyright did not pay a cent to anyone for royalty.
And that means it turns out that, having downloaded the Lipatti records from torrents, I “stole” them from EMI Records. Not paid, you know, their titanic creative work on rewriting from magnetic tape to CD.
But for some reason it seems to me that this company EMI stole the records of Dinu Lipatti from the public domain. Well, that is, we have with you.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/121936/
All Articles