Link à resolução da Assembleia da República n.º 81/2009 que aprova o Tratado da Organização Mundial da Propriedade Intelectual sobre Prestações e Fonogramas de 1996, adoptado em Genebra em 20 de Dezembro de 1996.
Link ao decreto do Presidente da República n.º 77/2009 de 27 de Agosto, que o ratifica.
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
UK to tackle internet piracy
According to the BBC, the government is proposing that internet service providers (ISPs) be obliged to take action against repeat online infringers and that the cost of tracking down persistent infringers be shared 50:50 between ISPs and rightholders.
Originally the Digital Britain report, published in June, gave Ofcom until 2012 to consider whether technical measures to catch pirates were necessary. However, according to a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills released on Tuesday, that timeframe is now considered "too long to wait". The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills denied that it had changed its position since the publication of Digital Britain and said that the recommendations were open to consultation. "We are simply adding new ideas to the table that could potentially make the whole system more flexible and provide a quicker way to bring in technical measures," it said in a statement.
ISPs have repeatedly argued that it is not their job to police the web. The Internet Service Providers' Association (ISPA) said it was "disappointed by the proposal to force ISPs to suspend users' accounts". "The solution to the piracy problem must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. ISPA and consumer groups consider disconnection of users to be a disproportionate response, a view that was recently supported by the European Parliament" .
Sunday, 23 August 2009
Public Knowledge paper on copyright filtering
Public Knowledge recently published Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for U.S. ISPs.
According to the executive summary: "Copyright filtering, the latest proposed “magic bullet” solution from the major music and movie studios and industry trade groups, poses a number of dangers to Internet users, legitimate businesses and U.S. federal government initiatives to increase the speed, affordability and utilization of broadband Internet services. The following whitepaper presents a number of reasons why the use of copyright filters should not be allowed, encouraged or mandated on U.S. Internet Service Provider (ISP) networks. Among them:
Copyright filters are both underinclusive and overinclusive. A copyright filter will fail to identify all unlawful or unwanted content while harming lawful uses of content.
Copyright filter processing will add latency. Copyright filters will slow ISP networks, discouraging use, innovation and investment and harming users, businesses and technology policy initiatives.
The implementation of copyright filters will result in a technological arms race. Users will act to circumvent the filters and the architects of the filters will find themselves caught in a costly, unwinnable arms race.
Copyright filters do not make economic sense. The monetary costs associated with copyright filtering far outweigh any perceived benefits.
Copyright filters will discourage investment in the Internet economy. Copyright filters will disrupt the Internet ecosystem, severely undermining our most promising engine for economic growth.
Copyright filters will harm free speech. Due to technological limitations, copyright filters will harm lawful, protected forms of speech such as parody and satire.
Copyright filters could undermine the safe harbor provisions that shield ISPs from liability. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), ISPs are shielded from liability for their users’ actions. Copyright filters could undermine these safe harbors, which have allowed the Internet to become the most important communications medium of the modern era.
Copyright filtering could violate the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act. Copyright filtering could constitute unlawful interception under the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (ECPA)."
Copyright filters are both underinclusive and overinclusive. A copyright filter will fail to identify all unlawful or unwanted content while harming lawful uses of content.
Copyright filter processing will add latency. Copyright filters will slow ISP networks, discouraging use, innovation and investment and harming users, businesses and technology policy initiatives.
The implementation of copyright filters will result in a technological arms race. Users will act to circumvent the filters and the architects of the filters will find themselves caught in a costly, unwinnable arms race.
Copyright filters do not make economic sense. The monetary costs associated with copyright filtering far outweigh any perceived benefits.
Copyright filters will discourage investment in the Internet economy. Copyright filters will disrupt the Internet ecosystem, severely undermining our most promising engine for economic growth.
Copyright filters will harm free speech. Due to technological limitations, copyright filters will harm lawful, protected forms of speech such as parody and satire.
Copyright filters could undermine the safe harbor provisions that shield ISPs from liability. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), ISPs are shielded from liability for their users’ actions. Copyright filters could undermine these safe harbors, which have allowed the Internet to become the most important communications medium of the modern era.
Copyright filtering could violate the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act. Copyright filtering could constitute unlawful interception under the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act (ECPA)."
You cand find a review of the paper at http://copyrightandtechnology.com/
Google annexes Bibliothèque Nationale de France
A four-year fight to keep the contents of the country’s national library in French hands ended in defeat as it was announced that Google would take control of the archive. The Bibliothèque Nationale de France (BNF) was reported to be on the verge of a deal with Google under which Google’s digital library would get even larger.
The decision was purely financial, said Denis Bruckmann, director of collections at the library — which will be joining 29 other leading libraries in opening its shelves to Google’s project, including Oxford’s Bodleian. France provided only €5 million a year for digitising books for Gallica, the national digital library, yet the national library needed up to €80 million (£68 million) just for its works from 1870 to 1940, he said.
Google scans items for free and has so far added about ten million works to its Books Search database, the great majority of them out-of-copyright works. Non-copyright books can be read for free, while only extracts are available from the rest. In a development that could upset the dominance of Amazon, Google now plans to start charging for e-books online.
The library had led the fight against what France saw as American imperialism ever since President Chirac issued a battle cry over the affair in early 2005. Paris mustered support for a European Union virtual library called Europeana, which has had a shaky existence since it went online last year.
Source: Times Online
Friday, 14 August 2009
Intervencao IGAC
A PT e SAPO que, em regime de associação e ou alojamento de conteúdos mantinham comunicação/disponibilização ao público de fonogramas e videogramas, contendo obras e prestações artísticas protegidas pelo Código do Direito de Autor e Direitos Conexos (CDADC), sem que para tal tivessem sido, alegadamente, concedidas as necessárias autorizações por parte dos titulares dos direitos, ou dos seus representantes, configurando-se assim uma violação do disposto nos artigos 178.º e 184.º do CDADC, foram notificadas para procederem à remoção ou barramento do acesso, de acordo com o nº 2 do artigo 18º do Decreto-lei n.º 7/2004, de 7 de Janeiro. Da Notificação cabe ainda recurso junto da entidade de supervisão relativamente ao Direito de Autor, a Inspecção-Geral das Actividades Culturais (IGAC). Do mesmo facto, terá sido também dado conhecimento à ANACOM (a entidade de supervisão para a Internet) e ao Ministério Público.
Source: IGAC
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Friday, 7 August 2009
Finnish CSS case application lodged in the European Court of Human Rights
Finnish Activist Mikko Rauhala has lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights versus the Finnish state, regarding his right to freedom of expression.
The appeal is a follow up to the lengthy court process against Mr. Rauhala in Finland. The process started when Mr. Rauhala started a discussion board on the Internet, on which people could talk about the DVD copy protection method Content Scrambling System (CSS). Mr. Rauhala's motivation for this act was to criticize the implementation of the EU Copyright Directive in Finland which came into force in 2006. According to the implementation of the directive, "organized discussion" regarding circumventing technological protection measures, like the CSS, was prohibited.
The Police started its investigation and soon thereafter, the case was referred to the Helsinki District Court which decided, in Rauhala's favour, that CSS was not a type of protection measure covered by the Directive and therefore the ban did not apply. The district attorney appealed to the Helsinki Appellate Court, which stated that Mr. Rauhala was guilty of illegally circumventing a technological protection measure and of providing an illegal service for the circumvention of protection measures. The Supreme Court of Finland denied Mr. Rauhala's application.
Mr. Rauhala then made an application to the European Court of Human Rights, because in all the court instances his argument that the discussion he was administering was within the confines of the Right to Freedom of Speech, as enshrined in the Finnish Constitution, was not considered.
Source: EDRI
The appeal is a follow up to the lengthy court process against Mr. Rauhala in Finland. The process started when Mr. Rauhala started a discussion board on the Internet, on which people could talk about the DVD copy protection method Content Scrambling System (CSS). Mr. Rauhala's motivation for this act was to criticize the implementation of the EU Copyright Directive in Finland which came into force in 2006. According to the implementation of the directive, "organized discussion" regarding circumventing technological protection measures, like the CSS, was prohibited.
The Police started its investigation and soon thereafter, the case was referred to the Helsinki District Court which decided, in Rauhala's favour, that CSS was not a type of protection measure covered by the Directive and therefore the ban did not apply. The district attorney appealed to the Helsinki Appellate Court, which stated that Mr. Rauhala was guilty of illegally circumventing a technological protection measure and of providing an illegal service for the circumvention of protection measures. The Supreme Court of Finland denied Mr. Rauhala's application.
Mr. Rauhala then made an application to the European Court of Human Rights, because in all the court instances his argument that the discussion he was administering was within the confines of the Right to Freedom of Speech, as enshrined in the Finnish Constitution, was not considered.
Source: EDRI
Monday, 3 August 2009
Pirataria condenada em Alcobaça e Matosinhos
Em Outubro de 2006, numa inspecção efectuada pela IGAC e PSP a um bar em São Martinho do Porto (Alcobaça), foram apreendidos 58 cópias pirata de CD, que aí eram utilizados para reprodução. O arguido não fez prova de qualquer autorização dos autores e restantes detentores de direitos conexos (ou de seus representantes legais) para execução pública de obras musicais. O Tribunal de Alcobaça condenou o arguido, pela prática de um crime de usurpação, na pena de 180 dias de multa, à razão diária de € 5,00, prefazendo o montante global de € 900,00, para além do pagamento das custas do processo.
Também o Tribunal Judicial de Matosinhos condenou um cidadão de nacionalidade portuguesa, pela prática do crime de usurpação, na pena única de € 2.500,00 (e custas do Processo). Os factos que deram origem a esta condenação remontam a Março de 2005, quando o cidadão em causa tinha exposto 1.660 cópias de DVD na feira semanal da Srª da Hora, em Matosinhos e os quais foram apreendidos numa operação conjunta da IGAC e PSP. O arguido, no desenvolvimento da sua actividade ilícita, não só naquele local, como também noutros mercados dos distritos do Porto e Braga, escudava-se habitualmente com elementos da sua própria família ou com indivíduos fora do seu agregado familiar, para proceder à venda ou mesmo ao transporte da mercadoria ilegal.
Court orders University student Joel Tenenbaum to pay $675G for illegally downloading music
A 25-year-old doctoral student in physics was recently ordered to pay 4 record labels $675,000 for illegally downloading and sharing songs on the Internet.
A Boston federal court jury took just three hours to agree that Tenenbaum "willfully" infringed on the copyrights of 30 songs.
The jury awarded the labels $22,500 for each infringement. But the songs at issue were only the tip of the iceberg. On the witness stand Tenenbaum unapologetically admitted downloading more than 800 songs from 1999 to 2007.
The jury could have ordered him to pay as much as $150,000 for each of the downloaded songs - or $4.5 million total.
If the verdict stands after a planned appeal, Tenenbaum said he wll file for bankruptcy to cut his losses.
Source: http://www.nydailynews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
