Post by sumgai on Feb 9, 2013 1:57:27 GMT -5
Over in the Old World, cooler heads have prevailed, and the KeystoneCopyright Cops have finally been put on notice that the Letter of European Law had best be followed, correctly.
Well, in milder terms, the European Court of Human Rights has declared that "... the copyright monopoly stands at odds with human rights." You read that correctly, a conviction for an alleged copyright violation is no longer seemingly automatic - during the pursuit of such a conviction, other considerations must be taken into account before a final verdict can be rendered.
In context, the Court actually did NOT say that copying and distributing protected works is now OK, what they did say was that pursuing a conviction for allegedly doing such has been, in the past, in violation of basic Human Rights (as espoused by the Europeans). This practice is now effectively prohibited because, in the Court's words, "there must be a demonstrable threat to democracy". For those following along at home, the legal term for this is "they've raised the bar for obtaining a conviction".
I find that new, higher standard to be subject to a wide variety of interpretations, as I'm sure you will too. Indeed, the Internet is abuzz with speculation as to the intent of this phrase, both pro-Hollywood and pro-Pirate. I'm sure that when the dust settles, we'll wake up to find that that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, leaving both sides to declare a victory, and yet both sides to quietly grumble at the ruling.
For your indulgence, I give you this link, where I first read about it:
falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/court-of-human-rights-convictions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/
But if you are truly a cynical type, you'll investigate for yourselves - Google is your friend of course. Just be aware that on the first page of results, probably more than half the articles/Forum threads/etc. do nothing more than re-hash my link above. Looking further than that would probably be a good idea.
And why did I present this? How is it relevant to guitars?
Easy - sharing materials in one manner or another is how the musician learns. Be it lessons on how to do something like play a specific riff, a whole song, or obtain a specific tone, etc., or how to be original and innovative, it doesn't matter - we all start out by copying someone else, directly or indirectly. From that, it's only a small step to talking about file sharing, especially for the purpose of learning material that one might wish to cover for himself, or as part of a band. This is the aspect that I'm addressing, the freedom to 'disseminate and discuss cultural aspects' that the Court addressed in the reasoning for its verdict.
Of course, it's gonna take some time for that line of clear-headed thinking to arrive on American shores, but mark my words, it'll happen soon enough. After all, the USA has followed (kowtowed to) the International Copyright Conventions every time there's been a change, without fail.
Like the title said, it's a start. ;D
sumgai
Well, in milder terms, the European Court of Human Rights has declared that "... the copyright monopoly stands at odds with human rights." You read that correctly, a conviction for an alleged copyright violation is no longer seemingly automatic - during the pursuit of such a conviction, other considerations must be taken into account before a final verdict can be rendered.
In context, the Court actually did NOT say that copying and distributing protected works is now OK, what they did say was that pursuing a conviction for allegedly doing such has been, in the past, in violation of basic Human Rights (as espoused by the Europeans). This practice is now effectively prohibited because, in the Court's words, "there must be a demonstrable threat to democracy". For those following along at home, the legal term for this is "they've raised the bar for obtaining a conviction".
I find that new, higher standard to be subject to a wide variety of interpretations, as I'm sure you will too. Indeed, the Internet is abuzz with speculation as to the intent of this phrase, both pro-Hollywood and pro-Pirate. I'm sure that when the dust settles, we'll wake up to find that that the answer lies somewhere in the middle, leaving both sides to declare a victory, and yet both sides to quietly grumble at the ruling.
For your indulgence, I give you this link, where I first read about it:
falkvinge.net/2013/02/07/court-of-human-rights-convictions-for-file-sharing-violates-human-rights/
But if you are truly a cynical type, you'll investigate for yourselves - Google is your friend of course. Just be aware that on the first page of results, probably more than half the articles/Forum threads/etc. do nothing more than re-hash my link above. Looking further than that would probably be a good idea.
And why did I present this? How is it relevant to guitars?
Easy - sharing materials in one manner or another is how the musician learns. Be it lessons on how to do something like play a specific riff, a whole song, or obtain a specific tone, etc., or how to be original and innovative, it doesn't matter - we all start out by copying someone else, directly or indirectly. From that, it's only a small step to talking about file sharing, especially for the purpose of learning material that one might wish to cover for himself, or as part of a band. This is the aspect that I'm addressing, the freedom to 'disseminate and discuss cultural aspects' that the Court addressed in the reasoning for its verdict.
Of course, it's gonna take some time for that line of clear-headed thinking to arrive on American shores, but mark my words, it'll happen soon enough. After all, the USA has followed (kowtowed to) the International Copyright Conventions every time there's been a change, without fail.
Like the title said, it's a start. ;D
sumgai
