UE statement on the ongoing discussion

Archived threads.

Moderators: kcleung, Wiki Admins

Vivaldi
active poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:54 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Malaysia

Postby Vivaldi » Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:46 am

That's right. Can car manufacturers be penalized because they produce cars that can exceed speed limits set by a certain country, if the maximum speed is within the speed limit of the country of the manufacturer's origin? Of course not.

brbrofsvl
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:02 am

Postby brbrofsvl » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:38 am

That's right. Can car manufacturers be penalized because they produce cars that can exceed speed limits set by a certain country, if the maximum speed is within the speed limit of the country of the manufacturer's origin? Of course not.



I'm not sure this is a proper analogy: forgetting for the moment the excellent arguments regarding the prosecution of copyright law in foreign jurisdictions, at issue in this analogy is not whether an item which is purveyed might be used illegally (this could apply to almost anything given appropriate circumstances), but whether that item is either illegal to own in the first place, or was not legally obtained.

I don't know anything about law, being a composition student, but imagine the following scenario:

In some states (Mississippi is one, I think), it is illegal to import liquor from other states or countries, and therefore illegal to order it online. If an online wine and spirits store in New York sold and automatically shipped liquor to a customer in one of the more restrictive states, should it be held responsible even if the customer were made to check a box certifying he or she was not a citizen of that state? A similar analogy could be drawn with sale of firearms or fireworks, etc. etc. Of course this situation is a bit different legally than IMSLP's, given that a) the liquor store would actively be shipping to a restricted zip-code, b) zip-code filters are quite a bit simpler than IP filters, and c) there is no international disagreement, i.e. state and federal laws exist and apply. I still feel this is a better analogy than the car manufacturer one.


One question though -- have international copyright procedures never been negotiated, even as a treaty of sorts between or among individual nations?

-- Matt

brbrofsvl
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:02 am

Postby brbrofsvl » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:51 am

Another, simpler, bloodier analogy might be:

A gun dealer sells a weapon to someone who uses it to kill another person, supposedly in self defense. Whether or not to hold the gun dealer responsible for anything depends not upon whether the killing eventually turns out to be legal after trial of the defendant, but whether the gun was legally sold.


-- Matt

brbrofsvl
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:02 am

Postby brbrofsvl » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:58 am

Of course this situation is a bit different legally than IMSLP's, given that a) the liquor store would actively be shipping to a restricted zip-code, b) zip-code filters are quite a bit simpler than IP filters, and c) there is no international disagreement, i.e. state and federal laws exist and apply.


And of course, d) -- no money changes hands on an IMSLP download...

M

Vivaldi
active poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:54 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Malaysia

Postby Vivaldi » Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:43 am

Hmm, I apologize if the car manufacturer analogy that I gave previously did not explain fully the current situation confronting IMSLP. Perhaps the gun law offers a better representation. I apologize.

Yagan Kiely
Site Admin
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:16 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Postby Yagan Kiely » Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:43 am

A gun dealer sells a weapon to someone who uses it to kill another person, supposedly in self defense. Whether or not to hold the gun dealer responsible for anything depends not upon whether the killing eventually turns out to be legal after trial of the defendant, but whether the gun was legally sold.
Runaway jury by any chance?

Blouis79
regular poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:07 pm

Postby Blouis79 » Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:01 pm

brbrofsvl wrote:[...]
One question though -- have international copyright procedures never been negotiated, even as a treaty of sorts between or among individual nations?

-- Matt


The usual problem - countries never agree on international conventions, or drag their feet for years even after agreeing. The Berne Convention is the latest international copyright convention - most countries are signatories, but substantial incompatibilites exist between countries still.

(See legal information thread for more on intellectual property and copyright law.)
http://imslpforums.org/viewtopic.php?p=3712#3712

Vivaldi
active poster
Posts: 407
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:54 pm
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Malaysia

Postby Vivaldi » Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:58 am

I would like to ask, is the Berne Convention legally binding? Meaning that even if a country signed the convention, are they legally compelled to follow it?

Blouis79
regular poster
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:07 pm

Postby Blouis79 » Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:40 pm

I think you'd have to ask a lawyer that question.

WIPO (administering the Berne Convention) does provide mediation and arbitration services. So I guess the answer is theoretically yes.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/why-is-arb.html

And theoretically, IMSLP could take UE to WIPO for that.

Yagan Kiely
Site Admin
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 8:16 am
notabot: YES
notabot2: Bot
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Postby Yagan Kiely » Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:44 pm

I would like to ask, is the Berne Convention legally binding? Meaning that even if a country signed the convention, are they legally compelled to follow it?
The US ignored the verdict of guilty found against them in Nicaragua by the world court (and actually increased troops there). So obviously the world court has no power.

Eric
active poster
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:04 pm
notabot: 42
notabot2: Human
Location: Ithaca, NY
Contact:

The legal notion of Good Faith, an opinion

Postby Eric » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:01 pm

The English-language Wikipedia - where I am an administrator (though not a bureaucrat, or a member of the Foundation, or... just an admin, which is not especially much of anything) - has had to worry about being held liable as an entity for copy-violations by individual contributors. As I understand it- and I am not hedging just to hedge, because I don't know the whole story here at all or anywhere near it (the why of it, the history of this, for instance...) - what exists on the site (and others also, if memory serves) are a few of the following:

1) several pages explaining to contributors, in very considerable, broken-down detail, the copyright rules of the various countries.

2) pages like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COPYVIO , which give direct instructions for what to do if one finds a violation, and links to other pages and rules. If someone finds something that looks like one, they ask the contributor, hopefully get a response, but in any case remove it until the issue is resolved. (See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights .)

(3)"Is the Berne Convention legally binding"?

To paraphrase the US Constitution: So far as the US is concerned - Treaties that we sign are the law of the land. We acted against our own law, unconstitutionally, in ignoring the World Court, but could do so without being "called on it" by practically anyone really it seems because, well... please don't get me started. I do not know if Canadian law works similarly wrt treaties, though suspect that countries that allow their citizens to violate treaties they've signed do not get called back to sign many more of them (unless capable of sufficient arm-twisting, etc. ... never mind, I promised myself I wouldn't start.)

So when IMSLP comes back up after an agreement with UE, and this problem then occurs with Schirmer, and then with Belwyn Mills, and then with Schott, and with Sikorski, and then with Edition Nordstern, and then with Merton, and then.. do we consider each one to have some personal issue with us (or... oh no! it's a cabal! :) ) - or eventually institute some tighter self-regulation, maybe on the Wikipedia model, maybe not?; I don't claim the greatest coherence in this comment; and I don't claim that I'm getting my point across all so very well. But maybe looking in at least as much as out can have its benefits, time to time, in balance...

Eric

DSzy
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:06 pm

Postby DSzy » Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:21 pm

It's important to note that under American law, while treaty provisions essentially become part of federal law, those provisions can be repealed by legislative action or declared unconstitutional without any regard to international law, the same way other federal laws can. The opposite is also true - an international treaty can't give the US more power than the US Constitution allows, as seen in Reid v. Covert.


Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests