Copyright |
© 2005 Jazzorg Ltd.   Copies of these notes may be used, subject to the Jazzorg Licence 2, described under the 'Copyright' menu tab.  You can also discuss or comment on this item in the forums.
1.     Introduction.   [TOP] For the less easily gratified, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is an agency of the UN with 182 member states, which administers 23 international treaties   Among those treaties is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which was convened in 1886 and revisited half a dozen times since.   WIPO claims to be ‘dedicated to promoting the use and protection of works of the human spirit.   These works -- intellectual property -- are expanding the bounds of science and technology and enriching the world of the arts’; they also cover the ‘Phonograms Convention’.   Jazzers, who are big in Hanoi, will be delighted to learn that the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam recently acceded to the Phonograms Convention   (A ‘phonogram’ means any exclusively aural fixation of sounds of a performance or of other sounds, which means anything from a wax cylinder, through,vinyl discs, magnetic tapes, hard-drives, CD’s and DVD’s, to any recording medium that’s dreamed up in the future.) 2.     What does ‘copyright’ do?  [TOP] O.K., so if we all had this one reference, we would, at least, all be singing from the same hymn book.   But, sprinkled through the whole of the Convention are the phrases requiring certain aspects to be ‘a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union’ or other treatments by ‘each country of the Union’.  So every signatory does it’s own thing, anyway, working from the Berne Convention merely as a base-line.   The US, for example, also had a system of fixed copyright terms, which were subject to renewal and ranged to a maximum of 95 years.   In the mid-nineties, the EU extended copyright protection by 20 years, to match Germany’s then current law and, in 1998, the US did the same with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act .   Dubbed the "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act", because the Mickey Mouse copyright was shortly to expire, this and the EU legislation extended copyright to 70 years after the death of the author.   There are good intentions to harmonise legislation but there are also some powerful self-interests influencing the direction of the law.   For example, appended to the U.S. ‘Family Movie Act 2005’ were some amendments making copyright infringement a criminal offence with penalties of up to 10 years’ imprisonment. The copyright duration for recordings and typographical representation of a work (the actual hard copy of the work) are different from the above.   Recordings have a copyright duration of 50 years but don't get the idea that you can dust off and reissue all those pre-1955 'Bird' recordings as a CD because the copyright of the composer will probably still prevail.   For typographical work, the duration is 25 years but, again, when that period is exhausted, the original author/composer copyright will still apply.   That's why there is a plethora of published 'classical' music, photocopied and cleaned up from pre-1980 printings, because Mozart and his mates are no longer interested in the copyright.   The 25 year copyright would apply to any published hard copy of the 'new issue' but, if you wanted, you could go back and start with the originals..... As far as we know, nobody has ever copyrighted a chord sequence and jazz should be grateful that all the new (copyright) melodies, written on 'standard' chord sequences (contrafacts) by Bird, Diz and the rest, have expanded the jazz canon. 3.     Is copyright a ‘good thing’?  [TOP] The public’s disaffection, coupled with a growing ease in processing data, manifests itself primarily by a disinclination to pay the price for the product.  Maybe this is an inherent tendency - after all, many people regard ‘copying a CD for a friend’ or photocopying an arrangement for their band, as ‘fair’ and, even if illegal, at least ‘overlookable’.   The more serious manifestations were evident with the popularity of Napster and similar sites and the subsequent actions to stop widespread media file sharing.   The actions against Napster were facilitated by having a central target at which to aim, but the most recent technology for file sharing, known as BitTorrent , is more amorphous and more difficult to control, although some BitTorrent distributing sites have already been closed by the actions of the movie industry.   (BitTorrent works by collecting parts of a file as it circulates the web between people ‘looking for’ the same file). Various solutions continue to be put forward to combat file-sharing and a book by T.Fisher argues persuasively that owners of copyright should be rewarded from government funds collected via an entertainment tax.   Creative Commons , an organisation partly funded by the Stanford Law School, suggests a system of licences of which the Jazzorg licence appears to be derivative.   The Creative Commons objective is ‘to build a layer of reasonable, flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules.’   The problem remains, however, with 35% of music 'consumers' legally downloading and 40% doing it illegally.   Of the reasons for not downloading illegally, 44% were frightened of prosecution, 39% cited that it was unfair to performers and 29% were concerned about viruses.   (Source: Digital Music Survey, 2005). In the meantime, reactions to media control by a few companies have contributed to the rise of small, independent record/media producers (particularly in jazz) and, in the ‘pop’ sector, many groups are making their output available as downloads in addition to selling their product.   This apparently contradictory ’business plan’ is nowhere more evident, and successful, than in the ‘open source’ movement in software, a technology which suffers the same centralised powerful companies and copyright considerations as the entertainment industry.   Those forming the open source movement provide software free to the user and permit its use, with or without modification, subject to the conditions of a licence, whilst retaining all the rights of copyright.   They derive an increased exposure, from the use of the product, together with increased income from selling packages and support and other products and, occasionally, via donations from grateful users.   Many of the community provide free software for a variety of motives, other than income, varying from altruism, through polishing their egos, to fighting the monopoly of the aforesaid moguls.   (The Jazzorg website operates using open source software, acknowledged in the footer of published pages). Because of the protection it confers, we can conclude that copyright is a useful tool, but it can be overused.   To avoid the theft of their 'ideas', it is possible for the artist to give so much thought to the protection of their copyright, that their ideas are never exploited.   Their music may rarely (never) be played and their artistic exposure, part of the route to fame and fortune, is diminished.   What everyone worries about, of course, is someone 'making a killing' using their ideas or that anyone, who uses their ideas for free, is a lost potential customer.   The first happens very rarely and, for the second, most people never get to sell their product or, at best, reach a limited market.   Licencing is an alternative, which can increase the exposure and can limit the perceived dangers. 4.     Copyright on Jazzorg.  [TOP] Jazzorg operates, where possible, rwo levels of licence. The first is the minimum permissions, which only permits use of the material for ‘personal use only’ and does not permit more than one copy.   This licence is normally applied to audio tracks and is similar to the usual copyright constraints when you buy recorded media, in that you are permitted to make one copy. The second, normally applied to written or notated material, permits multiple copies of up to 100 copies with certain reservations, which is intended for teaching or non-commercial activities (e.g. rehearsal bands).   The licences were not drafted by a 'copyright lawyer', but are an attempt to put, in plain English, the terms under which copyright material, published on the Jazzorg site, may be used. Where downloads of material are available, Jazzorg ask you to signify your agreement to comply with the terms of the appropriate licence. 5.     Jazzorg Licences.  [TOP]
|