There are also issues of international law. For example, most sites we're speaking here would probably be illegal in Finland.
2008-03-10 07014, 2008
ruaok
how so, srotta ?
2008-03-10 07023, 2008
srotta
Which means they'd technically be illegal in other Nordic countries too, as well as good part of Europe.
2008-03-10 07027, 2008
ruaok
using the sites is illegal or the sites themselves.
2008-03-10 07028, 2008
pbryan
Basically, archive.org seems to be on shaky ground when retransmitting information it found on the net. Robots.txt or not.
2008-03-10 07042, 2008
nikki
where in finland are you, srotta?
2008-03-10 07046, 2008
warp
pbryan: but musicbrainz isn't creating a derivate of the coverart by show it inline, a musicbrainz page is not a new work under copyright law (no creative processes involved), and we're not hosting the image so no copying is involved either.
2008-03-10 07048, 2008
srotta
ruaok: We have no concept of "fair use", which is pretty much what, for example, Wikipedia (or archive.org) leans on.
2008-03-10 07055, 2008
warp
s/show/showing/
2008-03-10 07002, 2008
ruaok
pbryan: you're getting *really* close to the heart of the matter!
2008-03-10 07013, 2008
srotta
ruaok: Copyright-wise, that is, they're infringing.
2008-03-10 07018, 2008
pbryan
warp: How many times have sites been subject to legal liability for deep linking or image linking?
2008-03-10 07021, 2008
ruaok
srotta: really? bummer. :-(
2008-03-10 07026, 2008
petros
I can. The displaying/copying of scanned covers falls under distribution
2008-03-10 07058, 2008
pbryan
I think a "fair use" justification a'la WIkipedia is much stronger than using archive.org and assuming it is fair use.
2008-03-10 07059, 2008
srotta
ruaok: It's sort of the same as with Google and the Belgian newspapers - it worked as long as nobody took notice of it.
2008-03-10 07002, 2008
warp
pbryan: but in those cases, the page probably was a new work.
2008-03-10 07011, 2008
srotta
nikki: Tampere.
2008-03-10 07017, 2008
pbryan
warp: Is a MB release page *not* a new work?
2008-03-10 07018, 2008
Freso
srotta: In Denmark, we have "citationsret" (the right to quote), which is more or less the same as US "fair use". (There are a few others, but the quoting right is the major one.)
2008-03-10 07022, 2008
nikki
ah
2008-03-10 07024, 2008
warp
pbryan: no.
2008-03-10 07030, 2008
pbryan
warp: How so?
2008-03-10 07048, 2008
srotta
Freso: Yeah, same here, but fair use is usually thought to be more lenient.
2008-03-10 07050, 2008
warp
pbryan: to create a copyrighted work, there needs to be some creativity involved.
2008-03-10 07004, 2008
srotta
Freso: That's, of course, depending on who's doing the interpretation.
2008-03-10 07006, 2008
petros
Freso: citationsret is quite limited, and would likely not aplly to covers.
2008-03-10 07024, 2008
pbryan
So, MB position is that its release/track/AR data is not protected by copyright?
2008-03-10 07055, 2008
ruaok
pbryan: as long as they are facts, that is correct for US jurisdictions.
2008-03-10 07002, 2008
ruaok
facts are not copyrightable in the US.
2008-03-10 07003, 2008
pbryan
Okay, so like sports scores.
2008-03-10 07009, 2008
ruaok
yep.
2008-03-10 07022, 2008
srotta
Freso: But, for example, in Finland the most obvious use of "right to quote" is related to critic - if you're criticizing a work of art, you also have the right to reproduce that piece as part of your critic.
2008-03-10 07024, 2008
petros
pbryan: If anything the data-structure is copyrighted by MB :)
2008-03-10 07025, 2008
ruaok
fuck the mlb, by the way.
2008-03-10 07034, 2008
pbryan
lol
2008-03-10 07048, 2008
nikki
mlb?
2008-03-10 07001, 2008
ruaok
martin luther bupkus
2008-03-10 07020, 2008
Freso sighs
2008-03-10 07020, 2008
srotta
ruaok: And not having fair use is not as bad as it sounds, we do have several amendments to copyright, they are just maybe more well defined than the generic concept of fair use.
2008-03-10 07021, 2008
pbryan
So, if a release page is not a new work (ignoring the annotations, which may contain copyright-protected content), how does including an image without permission put MB at risk?
2008-03-10 07043, 2008
Freso
This channel (and IRC in general) is taking too much of my attention, and I *really* need to be done with the packing.
2008-03-10 07043, 2008
ruaok
and well defined may very well be good.
2008-03-10 07049, 2008
petros
You can't copyright data. but you can copyright a work consisting of data, though.
2008-03-10 07050, 2008
ruaok
here fair use can be argued many ways.
2008-03-10 07052, 2008
Freso
So, I must bid ye all fareweel now.
2008-03-10 07057, 2008
ruaok
and the RIAA would like to argue it away altogether.
2008-03-10 07058, 2008
warp
bye freso
2008-03-10 07000, 2008
pbryan
See ya Freso.
2008-03-10 07007, 2008
ruaok
natta Freso
2008-03-10 07009, 2008
Freso
I'll see you on the 20th/21st!
2008-03-10 07014, 2008
ruaok
canlight diiner then?
2008-03-10 07017, 2008
Freso waves
2008-03-10 07019, 2008
ruaok
candlight dinner?
2008-03-10 07024, 2008
ruaok sighs
2008-03-10 07024, 2008
Freso
ruaok: We'll see. :)
2008-03-10 07042, 2008
ruaok deposits 1NOK into the "mo can't spell fund"
2008-03-10 07000, 2008
aCiD2
Have fun Freso :)
2008-03-10 07035, 2008
warp
lol
2008-03-10 07042, 2008
warp
i should go too, bye :)
2008-03-10 07045, 2008
Tykling has left the channel
2008-03-10 07051, 2008
pbryan
I'd like to assert that an MB page, as organized, is protected by copyright. The data it contains is not.
2008-03-10 07057, 2008
srotta
ruaok: It's the same in Finland, the local equivalents of RIAA and the lot are lobbing away to make the copyright law more strict.
2008-03-10 07000, 2008
pbryan
s/data/factual data/
2008-03-10 07011, 2008
Knio has quit
2008-03-10 07020, 2008
Knio joined the channel
2008-03-10 07026, 2008
ruaok
pbryan: yes, that is probably accurate.
2008-03-10 07028, 2008
petros
pbryan: correct.
2008-03-10 07038, 2008
ruaok
but I've not really nailed a laywer down to agree with that.
2008-03-10 07053, 2008
yllona has quit
2008-03-10 07051, 2008
pbryan
So, really, there would be three ways I can see MB "legally" publishing cover art: 1. permission of artist; 2. permission of licensee (and they are authorized to "sublet") and 3. fair use.
2008-03-10 07055, 2008
BrianFreud
I would argue, while we're talking about it, that while data cannot be copywrited, collections of *structured* data can - and so long as we're linking, and not actually incorporating the actual bytes - whether we choose to represent that link in graphical or text form, it is being used under fair use to create an overall *structured* collection of data, much more so even than Google Images, which was creating structured content
2008-03-10 07001, 2008
petros
pbryan: you can't "clone" a MB-page with HTML and all, but you vcan take the data and make your own pink myspace-oage with ther data
2008-03-10 07015, 2008
pbryan
petros: I agree completely.
2008-03-10 07035, 2008
srotta
Again, in Finland, both would be protected, but in different ways. Databases are protected (so I couldn't just suck everything from MB and present it as my own without permission), but individual pieces of data would not. The MB page might be a copyrighted piece in its own right (the "template" of the page), since it's clearly distinctive and work of creative process.
2008-03-10 07059, 2008
ruaok
pbryan: that would not be "publishing" it would be "using". just nitpicking words here.
2008-03-10 07005, 2008
petros
srotta: Same goes for Denmark
2008-03-10 07005, 2008
pbryan
Hmm using.
2008-03-10 07024, 2008
ruaok
publishing implies licensing
2008-03-10 07025, 2008
pbryan
Copyright definitely does not cover use, does it?
2008-03-10 07047, 2008
pbryan
EULAS (generally unenforceable) try to make that leap.
2008-03-10 07048, 2008
ruaok
I thought copyright was all about use...
2008-03-10 07059, 2008
BrianFreud
no - copyright does cover control over use, except as permitted under fair use
2008-03-10 07000, 2008
pbryan
I thought copyright was all about distribution.
2008-03-10 07003, 2008
BrianFreud
no
2008-03-10 07013, 2008
Freso has quit
2008-03-10 07023, 2008
petros
pbryan: both distribution and use/publishing
2008-03-10 07029, 2008
pbryan
Use...
2008-03-10 07033, 2008
pbryan
That's a troublesome word.
2008-03-10 07035, 2008
BrianFreud
copyright is distribution + use - the one implies the other, and both are specifically made part of US copyright
2008-03-10 07007, 2008
srotta
Copyright covers everything except that which id explicitly doesn't cover. 8)
Okay, yes, I've seen decisions regarding how a work of art is displayed, under copyright.
2008-03-10 07034, 2008
pbryan
This is not technically distribution, but "use".
2008-03-10 07048, 2008
BrianFreud
we do make a use of the actual artwork in full, which weighs against the use, but our use of that art is both in a very small size, and as part of a much larger whole, which implies fair use
Whoops, didn't mean to include the anchor in that link. :-P
2008-03-10 07009, 2008
pbryan
In Canada it deals strictly in copying, not use.
2008-03-10 07018, 2008
BrianFreud
doesn't read that way in the wiki description - it's talking about dealing, which could imply use, not just copying...
2008-03-10 07046, 2008
pbryan
The fair dealing clauses of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to make single copies of portions of works for "research and private study."
2008-03-10 07027, 2008
BrianFreud
how do you define the act of "copying"?
2008-03-10 07051, 2008
pbryan
Inclusion in another work, is an often cited example.
2008-03-10 07010, 2008
rpedro has quit
2008-03-10 07008, 2008
rpedro joined the channel
2008-03-10 07009, 2008
BrianFreud
wouldn't that essentially be the same thing as "use", as defined by US "fair use", which covers "the authorized reproduction of copyrighted content"...
2008-03-10 07010, 2008
pbryan
*I* define the act of copying to mean making physical copies onto a separate medium and/or transmitting to another party.
2008-03-10 07034, 2008
pbryan
I think fair dealing and fair use are close.
2008-03-10 07036, 2008
srotta
I've made copies of quite a lot of works from my local library - I regularly get music from there (just to get the PUIDs and metadata into MB, of course). All perfectly legal.
2008-03-10 07009, 2008
pbryan
It seems fair use is infringing activity, which is justified by its use, where fair dealing is not considered infringment at all.
2008-03-10 07029, 2008
BrianFreud
over here, technically, the ripping of the library CD, even if to only generate puids, would be infringing.
to be honest, though, I think wikipedia's problems at the moment aren't funding, but much much more in the scandal arena and even more so in the massive beurocracy they're building
2008-03-10 07023, 2008
ruaok
agreed.
2008-03-10 07033, 2008
BrianFreud
the sheer number and size of their equivs of our guidelines is totally insane
2008-03-10 07041, 2008
ruaok
but the other issues are moot if you can't keep things running,.
2008-03-10 07006, 2008
pbryan
Agreed. You can be in the red all you want; running out of cash is what stops companies.
2008-03-10 07007, 2008
srotta
BrianFreud: The number of users is insane as well 8)
2008-03-10 07008, 2008
ruaok
well, they topic breadth is a lot more ambitious than us.
2008-03-10 07038, 2008
ruaok
incidentally, I got a lot more traction at ETech talking to people since I mentioned that we're self sufficient.
2008-03-10 07039, 2008
srotta
And the guides are made by users, as with MB?
2008-03-10 07041, 2008
pbryan
So, is anyone investigating whether MB can cite fair use in all of its cover art?
2008-03-10 07046, 2008
ruaok
some people stopped and really took notice.
2008-03-10 07018, 2008
BrianFreud
true, but they have guidelines that make sense, then they have many more that just don't. I was reading some of them a week ago - you get 10 page essays resulting from single conflicts, where 20 different 10+ page guidelines could easily be abstracted into a single 1 page guideline
2008-03-10 07024, 2008
ruaok
pbryan: I'm taking a break from investigating cover art right now.
2008-03-10 07033, 2008
ruaok
I've spend far too much time on it already. :-(
2008-03-10 07036, 2008
pbryan
:(
2008-03-10 07048, 2008
pbryan
What needs to be done?
2008-03-10 07002, 2008
ruaok
did I mention that I've talked to no less than 6 lawyers on this?
2008-03-10 07008, 2008
ruaok
2 board meetings were focused on it.
2008-03-10 07009, 2008
BrianFreud
cover art really needs its own separate group handling it, apart from MB, to protect MB and to be able to solely focus on the art legals
2008-03-10 07010, 2008
pbryan
Not to me. :)
2008-03-10 07030, 2008
ruaok
BrianFreud is right.
2008-03-10 07034, 2008
pbryan
Woah.
2008-03-10 07038, 2008
ruaok
its a big, ugly, hairy and messy topic.
2008-03-10 07045, 2008
ruaok
far uglier than I ever thought.
2008-03-10 07051, 2008
ruaok
every time I look at it it gets WORSE.
2008-03-10 07057, 2008
BrianFreud
the main part I still cannot solve in that, though, is how it could ever be sufficiently funded to make it work
2008-03-10 07007, 2008
ruaok
MBChatLogger: off
2008-03-10 07007, 2008
MBChatLogger
is not logging
2008-03-10 07044, 2008
MBChatLogger
is logging
2008-03-10 07052, 2008
pbryan
Well, sure. It's presumably sanctioned by those that MB is receiving permission from. No?
