Copyright – the bridge between arts and commerce
The institute of copyright was appeared long time ago. Such longevity could not happen by chance. What is the reason for such vitality?
In fact the copyright is an agreement about the division of rights on a product. The original right for work belongs to the author and if he was in charge nobody knows about his work. But, as a rule, the author would like to combine the creative work with well-to-do being and the fame. With rare exception the artists have nothing with self-promotion. That’s why the market is virtually closed for them. That predetermines the appearance of business channels in culture – mediator, who knows the demand and has skills for distribution. The consumers can not manage without it as well. In fact, the readers/spectators/listeners require the unbiased body, capable to select the worthy product.
The market agent doesn’t get down to business without a confidence that the results will be under his/ her total control. And the decision on cooperation with the author is made, when the distribution fate is unknown – it could be unprofitable and the investor will simply lose the money. Thus, the businessman takes the risks and should have the guarantees that in case of success, the natural right holder will not enter the alliance with other businessmen on more favorable terms. That is quite real situation, because there is no more risk! Hence an author (a director, a writer, an artists…) and a businessman (a producer, a publisher, an agent…) need to come to agreement about the division of authorities and compensations. The institute for such agreements was launched three centuries ago (Anna Statute, 1710) under the name of copyright.
Due to that statute the author, entering the market negotiate the economic rights to the businessmen.
Thus, by the surprising contradiction the Copyright Law was primarily aimed at the defense of the creator, not the publisher.
At first, the law was relatively simple, capable and covered not very big part of creative activity. As time went by the situation dramatically changed. The endless number of successful agents bought the packages of authors’ right[1]. Monopolization touched not only the content production, but the distribution (including retail) and communicative channels. A hyper-market, for example, doesn’t display one or another CD or DVD, because there is no room for it on a shelf. It is impossible to enter the system without strong ties. In majority number of cases, the talking powers of big corporation and the author are unequal. (The exceptions are the stars like Madonna or Elton John). The monopolist settled its conditions, and if the author starts being capricious…. there is a long cue of those, dreaming of glory behind him.
Copyright and Digital Technologies Development.
In recent past the technological innovation has been shaken the copyright institute very intensively and the domain of the relationship, regulated by that law, is changing sharply. File-changing peering networks and copying hardware create the conditions for the massive infringement of copyright. At the same time the system of technical measures for access limitation (DRM) is able to defend the owners of some kind of content even without the copyright. The first innovation (peering) undermined the copyright, the second one (DRM) makes it useless in the number of cases.
«The copyright law within the musical domain, created during the times of playing the piano, printed music and scores, seems to be absolutely irrelevant in the age of digital music.<…> In order to defend the copyright effectively it is necessary that technological capabilities will surpass the abilities of infringers. In our times it is hardly attainable»[2].
The essence of the intrigue is that copyright is expanding and toughening in response to the increasing number of alternative routes of product capture. The simpler and more accessible is the copying the original thing (or the authorized copy), the wider is the range of cultural practices, where business needs to control that operation and the harder is the copyright law regulations. Due to the technological features of computers the work with digital information is inseparably linked with its copying. On account of that, purely technological reason the users get under the control of right-holder, regardless his intentions to use the digital content legally or illegally[3].. Thus the copyright is changing from the law, regulating the competition of market agents, into the tool of meddling in the private life of millions people[4].
The strength of that interference is defined by the scale of copyright (i.e. range of rights to be provided due to that law), as well as the wide and sometimes secret possibilities of technical means, which are used to provide the action of that institution. In 1790, when the Federal Copyright Act was adopted in the USA, it had relatively small field of application. Today it is fundamentally expanded. If before the copyright was distributed only to republish the integrated works, now the right holder can control any derivative object.
The issue of derivative creative products
Lawrence Lessig points out that, «if you wrote a book, nobody could shoot a film without your permission[5]. Nobody is able to translate it without permission. In other words, now copyright is not just an exclusive right on a work, but also a sole right on a majority of works, derived from the origin»[6].
Getting the rights on derived objects, copyright pursues the same target as the defense of brands did. It has to get rid of the spongers from the product promotion, already invested by the rights holder. Very rarely the borrowings are justified by the solely creative necessity (it is easy to disguise the source in order to avoid the copyright). The objects of encroachment are manly brands and publicity. But the defense automatically receive any works regardless their brands, because it is impossible to track such fine differences at the legislative level
As the result the distribution of the copyright on the derivative objects brings to the dangerous and hardly predictable consequences. How one can distinguish the significant part from the insignificant, borrowings from reminiscence and the imitation from the parody? Eliminating one extreme, the law reveals the way to another one – judicial contests on any reason. It is good for major corporations: it is easier to control the creative process, when everybody and everything are involved in the field of the copyright.
Today wherever the artist is looking for the source of inspiration, he faces with possessors of the texts and signs as well the necessity to legalize the lease. At the first glance the commercial store of culture is full by the tones of free raw material. But you should always expect the sudden appearance of intractable owner of the expression you chose. It could happen that image you created has already been pegged. Any word, image, letter combination, even the stroke could be someone’s property. There is no effort from the author’s side to be protected by the copyright[7]. In some countries, for instance in the USA and in Russia, the all creative rights are defended automatically. Today there is no need to register the work and to fix the intellectual property right. It exists regardless the sign of copyright, registration or storing a copy. After the copyright expiry date the copy of work can become the public benefit. It could be used by others, without an author.
The blurred outline of copyright
The author can hardly be aware about the potential candidates for “co-authorship”, moreover – he’s very rough idea about the points, where he/she should be more prudent.
For example, being an altruist William Bright created the web-site, which allowed anyone to download the map of the subway (IPodSubwayMaps.com) to his/her phone and use it[8]. It was revealed that present content is under the jurisdiction of copyright (although the subway map is not a very creative product). The Transport Service of New-York and San Francisco threatened Bright by the judicial contest [9].
Another example isGoogle, which launched the popular postal serviceGmail, but it didn’t get around finding out that two years before the British company Independent International Investment Research (I.I.I.R.) has already registered the trade mark under the same name. Today the owners insist on holding Google to ransom for the magic word, bringing such a success in business. The combination of 5 letters, becoming a brand exclusively because of Google, and it was assessed in £25-34 million. But although the investments were made by Google, the holders of letter combination brought to action. By norms of justice the priority is on their side, despite they didn’t use the heading, and the search engine will most probably have to pay smart-money[10]. Formally the specimen is not from the domain of copyright, but the legislation and the consequences are the same. Very soon it would be very hard to make a step in semiosphere without a risk to break the unpegged privacy.
One more example that could hardly be kept within the sense. The district court of Beijing has recognized the guilty of infringement to copyright by the largest Chinese search-engine Baidu.com, which provided, among others, the links to sites with pirate MP3 – files.
The search-engine has been fined on more then $8000 as an owner of bulletin board, allowed the pirates to inform about their sites. It is obvious from the court’s decision that mass media is responsible for the deeds of advertiser, regardless the awareness about the real content of the ad. It is impossible to understand how mass media got the information about supermarkets and fairs, crammed with infringing merchandise, originated from the country of the only non-lawful Internet search-engine. The case of Baidu.com was described by Kommersant journal… did the respected edition take the risks? One can assume that it understood its role in the chain of distributors of stolen goods. Before that article the readers didn’t know how to find the place, where the whole author’s property is displayed. Thanked to Kommersant the whole chain is getting clearly visible. Could the author of that article be also involved, retelling that story?
The evidence of guilt runs with according to the scheme, well-known since the school age. As soon as the violation of law is proved for the cases N and N+1, in all subsequent cases N+2, N+3, etc. the guilt will be set automatically. Following the same logic, we can assume that a court itself may become the part of criminal chain during the disclosure. Hence, the case decisions should be kept in secret. The discrepancy is obvious. The information on data location could be a subject of court hearing. Otherwise there will be an inevitable collapse of judicial system.
As one can see, the comprehension of legal or illegal issues is very complicated, particularly, due to the very flexible verge of innocence. The status and affiliation of the object’s rights are so moot, that any person with no affiliation to the creative work can be thrown in the jail. For instance, if any naive person buys sun glasses in Florence with the logo of Gucci for 10 Euro, he will be fined on 3,3 till 10 thousand euro[11]. Since the summer 2005 in Italy the punishment for piracy was toughened[12], and today the consuming fake goods with logos of the well-known brands is considered to be a crime. Italians (as well as French) assume that the bags, shoes, ties, etc. from famous fashion houses should not be sold at the street markets. The fact that Gucci could not be sold for 10 euro is considered to be a truism. To put it more precisely, no one can buy Gucci for that price[13]! The law spreads over the foreigners as well – the police in civilian clothes watch in the places of tourist accumulation. One day the 60 years old Dane got in a scrape while buying the fake Dior sun-glasses. She probably didn’t pay attention to the monogram, but she was fined on maximum penalty. The same blow caught the Philippine lady, who bought in Florence the glasses with the logo of Prada – her penalty was 3333 euro. Another tourist was fined, because the she bought the forged bag of Louis Vuitton[14].
The ignorance of law doesn’t relieve from the responsibility. The ignorance of price doesn’t relieve from it as well! If it is so, we can imagine the situation, when the price, the creative thing, in fact, will become the subject of copyright. It is strange that producers still didn’t use that hole. All these things add the ambivalence to the copyright law with the respect of culture. Building the barriers for the potential “ticketless passengers” the copyright provides economic stimulus for the creative work. But having built the useful borders, it generates the harmful ones there and then.
Adjustment of copyright scale
The best mode of copyright operation is when the expenses, connected to its functioning, match the benefits of authors’ work. But how it could be revealed in practice, if we are not able to measure neither expenses, nor the benefits and balance is always “floating” together with the information technologies? Thus the effective legal mode should permanently take account of the changes. Is it possible to make such fine readjustment? The supporters of copyright are very optimistic on that issue. By the pledge of its efficiency, they consider its plasticity and flexibility.
Firstly, it safeguards not an idea, but its objective expression[15]. Otherwise there should be no innovations. Thanks to that point, the authors have some extent of freedom, because it is very complicated to fix the fact of borrowing of artistic ides due to the impossibility to define its borders[16]. In practice the courts can regard the identity of artistic forms, expressing the same idea in different ways[17].
Secondly, there is a limit of legal safeguard, in the major cases – 70 years after the author’s death (non-property rights are guarded permanently). In reality the time of copyright action are constantly growing. (see below).
Thirdly, although the creation of derived products is forbidden, the courts could regard the borders of derived products in different ways, because they are blurred.
Fourthly, in particular cases the free (and gratis) usage without author’s permission could be allowed, such as: citation in research, informative and educational aims, as illustrations, etc.[18] Generally, the present right is given only when it is linked with the significant social benefits and doesn’t cause the economic damage to the author. Hence, the main problem of legislation is to find the balance between the access and payment of author’s emoluments (royalties)[19]. In practice one can wangle that parameter, because the courts could differently interpret the notion of “free usage” and assess the expenses and benefits after the authorization of the appropriate right.
Does every law have a loop-hole?
At first glance, the law allows the judges to solve any new appeared situation, guided by the common sense and justice. But aren’t the gaps within the law too large in order to define the scale of copyrights according to the circumstances (term of right, doctrine of free usage, variety of interpretation of derived products, etc.)? To whom does that freedom suit well? It’s a clear answer, while one’s watching how and by whose initiative the term of copyright was changed.
In the USA “Copyright Act” in 1790 set the period of copyright validity within 14 years with the possibility to prolong it for another 14 years. Two-stage allowed not to extend the right, if there was no sense for the right-holder, and hence, not to overload the system of copyright by the dead weight. During the last forty years the corporation put a constant pressure upon the Congress and with the support – the term of present rights increased in eleven times. The «Copyright Term Extension Act» of 1998 famous as «Sony Bono», increasing the term of copyright for the new works till the 70 years after the death became the last amendment. The companies’ rights extended as well and they are now 95 years from the moment of publication. Thus the transition of the works into public good was postponed till the far future.
The campaign on extending the copyright terms was headed by the Disney Corporation. Under the prolongation of rights they put not only the new, but also the previous works, that was vitally important for the Disney, it almost ran out of the right for the image of Mickey-Mouse. The image itself was taken from the old European fairy-tales and American folklore, and Disney has nobody to pay for it[20].
The reaction of the economists was ambiguous. In 2002 the group of 17 prominent scholars applied to the Supreme US Court, protesting against prolongation of copyright’s period of validity[21]. It’s worth noting that among the protesters there were great experts of institutional organisation of the world, the Nobel-prize winners like R. Coase, M. Friedman, K. Arrow, J. Buchanan and G. Akerlof. They gave the following arguments:
− the positive effect of copyright period of validity is extremely insignificant for creators [22];
− the usage of innovation from already created works is absent;
− the prolongation of the period will increase the social expenses, mainly the expenses of borrowings.
However those economists, specialized on the copyright issues, took another position. Liebowitz and Margolis proved that the positive effect in respect of new works is underestimated and in respect of old works it wasn’t taken into account, and social expenses are exaggerated[23]. W. Landes and R.Posner were for the unlimited prolongation of copyright validity period (as with trade-marks)[24].
Finally, economists by cast of mind and occupation, who used to talk from the “over combat” stand-point, didn’t come to the consent even on one clear question – about the validity period for copyright. There are many inevident and disputable aspects in copyright. Only one thing is clear: it is impossible to define practically, if the present level of copyright is optimal, understated or set too high[25]. Besides, the specifics of property rights[26] (what the owner can do and what he can not) are constantly getting complicated, and even if the mode of copyright would be ideal for some period of time, it needs in permanent tuning[27]. But it is impossible to make too often[28].
The copyright defends the creative work through the economic interests. That’s why when the economists could not get the solution, the issue was passed to policy-makers and lawyers. Thanked to copyright they got the ‘unploughed’ field, provided the permanent and high paid job.
The wide alternative in interpretation of copyright made it a tool of predatory behavior and blackmail. The large firms are the winners: the court and advocacy expenses are made the substantial line in budget and become the took in the competitive struggle. The more unsteady is bearing on proves, the more expensive is desired truth. The law can bend in different sides only with money. The winners are the monopolists, keeping the packages of copyright and jurisprudence.
Economic Philosophy of Copyright
There is more than one intrigue around copyright. The institute, called to adjust the productive relations in culture, became the tool in a game which has not much in common with the declared purposes. To bring the people something new, we need to use the common vocabulary. But it is privatized, and use of any sign already entered the life, demands someone's permission and should be gained. The rights of those in the avant-garde are protected and the rest are infringed. Thus, there are the conditions for imposing to a society of the rules behind which the narrow groups’ interests are.
Copyright and Native Culture
Besides, the issue of copyright is not obvious from the moral point of view. Everybody understands how dangerous to touch that subject and bring it to the superficial morality. Otherwise it would be obvious that copyright is regulated not by the conscience, but to please the cynical transfer of wealth between peoples. It is very well seen in folklore case. Why is it not protected by the copyright law? Why is the reference point for copyright law profitable for the corporations? Is it really hard to register the ownership of product? But the Mickey Mouse image brought high profit to the many share-holders of “Disney”. Is it because the folklore has no clear form? All these and less sharp questions are asked by the Michael F. Brown in his book Who Owns Native Culture[29]? His general interrogation message is following: “Does the modern model of property in culture indulge in Western interests by imposing their view on what culture is indeed?
But if we assume that folklore rights are clear, what court could watch them? For example, the courts in poor countries would decide, that corporation of Disney size took more than necessary from the local oral folklore and start fine them.[30] It became known when three tribes of Maori received the compensation from the Lego Company for the use of Maori words and Polynesian languages in the computer games. Cuba could declare its rights on national musical rhythms and charge the records-labels for the culture piracy. What state agrees to have the court hearings about the film, the action of which took place on its territory, etc?
Nevertheless, the main experts of the issue agree in views that if the copyright is an evil, it is the least of all evils. Till another way of the various interests joint is found, the copyright existence will be justified.
What is Copyleft?
However, the author can refuse a copyright from the strategic point of view and turn to its antipode - a copyleft.
The publication of terms of Copyleft means that author’s material can be copied, published and even altered at one’s discretion at performance of some license conditions. In particular, it is necessary to specify the primary author and a source. It seems to be the simplest way to make product free by its transfer in public property. However, there is a high risk that someone, making the changes, will distribute the product under the copyright license[31]. That’s why one of the key ideas of copyleft is the securing of principle “inheritance” of free usage. Nobody can avoid the will of the first author and make the limitations for second distribution or alteration, i.e. to withdraw the object from the free circulation. For secondary user there is no way to register the derived (altered) product as an object of copyright. Copyleft is based on the copyright law, but he is securing the freedom of distribution instead of keeping privatization[32].
The idea of copyleft is more then 20 years old. In 1980s Richard Stallman, worked at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), proposed an idea of the “open code”, because he thought that it was absurd impossibility to modernize the poor working computers due to their confidential source code. He proposed the tool to legalize these activities – GNU General Public License (GNU GPL)[33]. It was a license for free software, created in the framework of the project GNU in 1988, or abbreviated as GNU GPL or simply GPL[34].
«In order to apply the copyleft to software – wrote Stallman – we firstly protect it by the copyright, then we add the terms on distribution, which serve as a legal tool, giving the right to use, alter and second distribution of programme code, but if the terms of distribution haven’t been changed»[35].
Primarily GNU GPL was assumed to use only for the computer software, but lately it was expanded over other kinds of digital and non-digital products: researches, works of art, etc.[36]
The series of licenses for copyleft class was developed by the nonprofit organization Creative Commons, established in 2001 in the USA by Lawrence Lessig – professor of Stanford Law Academy. The license Creative Commons lets to keep the authorship and to protect some rights (Some Rights Reserved)[37]. Generally it let the free copying, distribution, demonstration and performing the objects of copyright – music, video, drawings, photography, and books (including the commercial use) as well as the production of derived objects of copyright. In order to use that license the third person should refer to the author of the original work and note that it is distributed on the terms by CC (Creative Commons).
The free distribution is not obligatory free of charge. The founder of movement R.Stallman was not only for the payment, but he even “encourage those who distributed free PO as expensive as they want and they”[38]. Although the people are not obliged to pay for the distribution of free product, the social norms and the economy of search and testing costs are the powerful stimulus. Everything depends on artists, composers, scholars, independent producers and users, capable contribute to the realization of free creative exchange[39].
Notes of the editors
The book «Economics of Symbolical Exchange” by Alexander Dolgin was published by copyleft license. It is an analysis of economic basis for the copyright law as well as the alternative means and resources.
According to the author’s idea there is an urgent need in the institute, which would be capable to take the function of guessing the consumers’ tastes and help the businessmen to compensate the risks of investments in the unsuccessful projects. Such institute could become the electronic recommendation systems, based on collaborative filtration. That method let us take into account the peoples’ impressions from the read/watched/listened works and to recommend new cultural products and services. The principle underlined in such Internet services is simple. They are alike the well-known mechanism of rumors – but automated. The recommendations are generated with the help of selection of like-minded persons taste (or taste neighbors). For example, two persons put the same rate for 10 works. One of them looked for the eleventh, and another one has not done it yet. It is a high probability that their perception will be coincided again, because the rate of one user will be given to another as a forecast.
The method of collaborative filtration appeared more then 10 years ago and at present time that field is developing very roughly and fast: the hundreds of recommendation systems are tested now in the world. But there almost no financially independent systems and they are drifting under the business support and the later re-profile them to its needs. Alexander Dolgin develops the recommendation service of a new type – financially independent and capable to provide recommendation for many kinds of content simultaneously. The service has been designed and now is in beta-testing stage.
Alexander Dolgin believes that if such an institute start working in parallel to copyright law, the life will show what is better. The very mechanism, which let us deliver the work to the end-user in the most effective way, will win. The faith of copyright will be decided in fair competitive struggle with innovation, and that way will be more effective then any legal severity.
Translated by Natalia Kopelyanskaya.
[1] For instance, music industry is under control of four large corporations.
[2] Cowen T. Copyright and the Symbolic Nature of Art (2002).
[3] There is quite remarkable discussion on the moment of copy creation: when the user opens a file and it is automatically copied in the cache of his/her computer, or when it transfers the information oh a hard disk or when he/she sends the downloaded material to the friends?
[4] The acknowledgment was the notorious affair with antipiracy technology XCP, applied by Sîny. When the computer runs the CD, coded with XCP, the software, opened full access to the computer, was secretly set up, as though that company was an owner or system administrator. The day after the disclosure of that fact, the production of CD with XCP was stopped. Giving the excuses, the company has informed that it’s only intention was to limit the number of copies, made by users.
[5] It is a well known story about the fight between Marx Brothers and Warner Brothers. «Marx Brothers» would like to create the parody to the film “Casablanca”, but the right owners Warner Brothers didn’t give the approval, threatening by court. In response Marx Brothers reminded Warner Brothers, that they were “brothers” long before them, and thus, they have the exclusive right to the word “brothers”. It was the comic gesture of desperation, but at the Russian court there was a case about the right to use the title “Encyclopedia for Children” (Entsyklopedia dlya detei). The plaintiff - a publisher of a book, tries to prohibit the publication under the title “ Encyclopedia for Children and Youth” (Entsyklopedia dlya detei i yunoshestva” (see: Gavrilov E.P. commentary to the Copyright Law and Allied Rights in Russian Federation (with judicial opinion).
[6] Lessig L. Free Culture // Computerra [on-line]. 6 June 2005. [cit. 13 äåê. 2005]. URL: <http://www.computerra.ru/think/39124/>.
[7] According to the article 9 of the Law of Russian Federation «On copyright and allied rights” the copyright on work of science, literature and art appears due to the fact of its creation. To make the copyright appear there is no need to register or to do anything else with the work..
[8] Information of «Wired».
[9] The site contains several dozens of subway’s maps of American cities and Tokyo, Paris, London, Seoul, Toronto, etc. Starting from 9 August 2005 – the launch of service – the maps were downloaded by more then 9000 people. However 14 September Bright got the official notification from NY Subway Department. According to its message, Bright violated the copyright of the organization, because he distributed the maps without any right.
[10] Information of «Guardian» (September 2005).
[11] For diligent citizens the authorities have provided an indulgence: if the infringer pays the penalty within 60 days the sum decrease to 3 333 euros. Otherwise a fine without a limitation period start to be charged
[12] France go even further in protection of its brands (7 of 10 falked world firms are French). Here the consumers of “grey” bags, parfumes, jewelry, clothes can be fined on 300 000 Euro and the imprisonment for 3 years. According to the French law, the simple fact of having any fake by a person is considered to be a serious crime and implies the confiscation of that thing, the custom penalty and ebem the court action.
[13] The sellers of infringing articles disappeared from justice. Probably, the legislative bodies decided that it would be easier to control the consumers then pirates and to solve the problem by means of “weak unit”.
[14] Za pokupku deshevyh poddelok v Italii pridyotsya platit shtraf// Travel.ru [on-line]. 27.06.2005 [cited Aug. 16, 2006]. Available from URL:
[15] The copyright law doesn’t not applied for ideas, methods, processes, systems, means, concepts, principles, discovery, facts. It also doesn’t protect those creative results, which could be made in parallel, i.e. by people, working independently. .
[16] See: Landes W.M., Posner R.A. An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law // Journal of Legal Studies 18, 1989. P. 325–363.
[17] If the key technical elements could be extracted from the draughts, it‘s more complicated with art forms. How to distinguish the essential element of the work from the inessential? How to assess the contribution of the separate element to the complete image, probably altered a little, or the value of another combination fo the elements? What set of features can tell about the work’s originality?
[18] The doctrine of legal use is preceded from the assumption that somehow all new works are based on already existed author’s materials.
[19] See: Landes W.M., Posner R.A. An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law.
[20] But in other cases, when the authors are known, why not to dig further in their interests? For example, some songs of Bob Dylan are reminded of the works by Woody Guthrie. Dylan will definitely lose the action in the court, if Guthrie would be able to defend the copyright (although Guthrie took a lot from his predecessors). However Dylan is coming out for prolongation of validity period.
[21] Brief of George A. Akerlof, et al., as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners in Eldred v. Ashcroft, U.S. Sup. Cat. ¹ 01–618, May 20, 2002.
[22]In particular, it was shown that with the rate of discounting 7% the prolongation of validity period for copyright for 20 years will increase the current author’s income on 0,33%.
[23] Liebowitz S.J., Margolis S. Seventeen Famous Economists Weigh in on Copyright. Working Paper, December 2003.
[24] Landes W.M., Posner R.A. Indefinitely Renewable Copyright. University of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper, ¹ 154.
[25] See, for example, Economic Perspectives on Copyright Law. Centre for Copyright Studies Ltd. Canberra, 2003.
[26] Generally economists use the classification of rights, proposed in the 50s-60s by A. Honore. It consists of 11 position. Among them the rights:
− possession which is understood as the legalized opportunity of the physical control over objects of the property
− direct use of the goodl properties of the given subjects
− on management – i.e. decision-making about who and on what conditions can get access to object of the property means
− on the income from the given object
− on its capital cost, that is on alienation, consumption or unpunished extermination of object;
− on protection of the property, in other words, immunity from expropriation, intrusions and
There are two points, characterized the temporary limits of authorities and the possibility to hand down the rights. And three points of eleven contain the right (or its absence) to use the object of property in order to cause the damage to other people, rights (and responsibilities), connected with the tax payment and reparation of damade and, finally, the “residual” rights, which regulate the use of property objects in the case of closure of any kind of authority (Yakobson L. Ekonomika obschetvennogo sektora (Economics of public sector)/ edit. E.Zhiltsov, J-D. Lafei, M.: Economic faculty MSU, TEIS, 1998).
[27] The law on intellectural property was formed during the conflict resolution. New and allied problems were solved due to the precedents. But when the technologies changed, the existed law and earlier precedents happened to become ineffective. To adjust the legal base to the new reality there was new European instruction “About Harmonization of Some aspects of Copyright and Allied Rights in the Information Society”. Its aim is to keep the adaptability of law to the frequent changes of market, connected with the development of communication and information technologies. (Cowan R., Harison E. Mobilizing Digital Sounds: Appropriation and Dispute of Music Recordings. Paper for the SERCIAC Conference, Madrid, June 2002).
[28] At the end of 1998 ã. the US Congress adopted «Digital Millennium Copyright Act». Although the document contains the details of illegal copying with the use of Internet, the majority of its position is out of time.
[29] Brown M. F. Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003.
[30] As N. Cohen noticed in his accentuated kind review of the book by M.F.Brown, UNESCO and WIPO called to the observance of copyright toward the native culture and oral folklore. In other words, if the Disney Company took some ideas from a tribe’s legend, it should pay royalties or it may face the legal sanctions. Although the copyright law in the USA usually protects the expression of one’s idea, not the idea itself, but the fairy-tales and native culture is a sort of expression in different form, which did not get used to take under protection in the Western countries. (Cowen T. Michael F. Brown: 2003, Who Owns Native Culture?, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA // Journal of Cultural Economics, Vol. 28, Issue 4, 2004. Ð. 317–323).
[31] If the programme is free, there is no copyleft, but some copies or modified versions could be excluded from the free circulation. For example the IT firm can compile the programme with or without the changes and distribute the final product as a closed one. .
[32] After the materials by Richard Stallman about the GNU project (from the website of Russian team of GNU translators. [on-line] [cit. 13 Dec. 2005]. Available at URL: <http://gnu.stu.cn.ua/gnuweb>).
[33] After the materials by Richard Stallman about the GNU project.
[34] Ethymonics Free Music License – free license for music works Ethymonics (www.ethymonics.co.uk); Free Art License – free license for works of art; EFF Open Audio License – free license for music products. Developed in 2001on the base of GNU GPL by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)). [on-line] [cit. 13 Dec 2005]. URL: <www.eff.org/IP/Open_licenses/eff_oal.html>. About all other kinds of free licenses see the Annex 3.
[35] Stallman R about the GNU project (from the Russian website of f GNU translation). [on-line] [cit. 13 Dec 2005]. URL: <http://gnu.stu.cn.ua/gnuweb>).
[36] Some creative products are “by default” distributed on the copyleft terms. For example, any musician has a right and even must “interpret the source code”, performing the music. The cook recipes are distributed free and could be modified any way one likes.
[37] Since December2002 the web-site of Creative Commons (creativecommons.org) exists, where one can find the samples of different free licenses. In case when the standard documents don’t fit, one can synthesize the own license, where will be only those statements, which adjusted to the author’s ideas about the future faith of his work (for example one can allow only the non-commercial use). That kind of “custom” license is called Creative Commons Custom License.
[38] R. Stallman: «GNU GPL does not tell how much you can take for the distribution of free software. You can ask nothing or a penny, a dollar or billion dollars. It’s your business and market, so, please, don’t complain to us, when no one will pay a billion of dollars for the copy”. (Stallman R. Selling of free software). [on-line] [cit. 13 Dec 2005]. URL: <http://gnu.stu.cn.ua/gnuweb>).
[39] By the information of the British newspaper «Independent», the BBC Corporation downloaded in free access at its web-site the 9 symphonies of Beethoven. More then million copies were downloaded, and it infuriated the heads of label, recording the classic music with the performance of big orchestras for big money. They blamed BBC for the detriment of classic music values and the dishonest competition. BBC suspended the experiment, although it was totally legal, because the Beethoven’s symphonies are the public good and the records were made by its own symphony orchestra.
