Colext/Macondo
Cantina virtual de los COLombianos en el EXTerior
--------------------------------------------------
Buena informacion, gracias Carlos. Entiendo que este debate esta
ligado a todo lo de regulacion sobre informacion electronica, cosa que
aun esta en paniales en muchas partes del mundo. Hace dos anios en
Colombia en la conferencia de e-commerce (creo que fue la primera
seria en el Pais) se celebro la importancia de tener una regulacion al
respecto pues Colombia era uno de los paises pioneros. Sin embargo uno
de los conferencistas (abogado) remataba su discurso reconociendo que
ante la revolucion electronica el derecho era muy lento e intentar
regular el el tema era aun una tarea muy dificil de emprender.
Entiendo que uno de los ejemplos de lo inutil de estas aproximaciones
son los conocidos casinos pues no es claro en la web por quE parte del
planeta estan regulados.
Asi las cosas siento que coleccionar y distribuir chistes esta aun
fuertemente ligado al sentido de etica, como deberia ser entre otras,
y reconozco que es muy tentador contarselos (asi sea reenviandolos o
publicandolos) a alguien. A proposito en que categoria cabe el acto de
reenviar chistes que llegan por correo? (una amiga me decia que
pertenecia a la "mafia" del chiste, con todo esto podria ser hasta
cierto)
saludos desde un Sydney frio y lluvioso que me recuerda Bogota,
///Gustavo
--- Carlos Davila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribi�: > Colext/Macondo
> Cantina virtual de los COLombianos en el EXTerior
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> El derecho de autor que reclama N�stor se llama "Collector's
> Copyright".
> Personas que coleccionan informaci�n en el dominio publico (chistes,
> canciones folcl�ricas, nombres de restaurantes, etc.) y lo publican
> en la
> Web a veces piden "Collector's Copyright" o sea, "derecho de autor
> coleccionista". Es decir, piden derecho de autor por el hecho de
> haber
> tomado el labor de coleccionar informaci�n que esta en el dominio
> publico
> (en el caso de los chistes de N�stor, a trav�s de las listas
> Colombianas).
> Mientras aprecio el malestar que siente N�stor cuando alguien copia
> su
> colleccion de chistes o su lista de restaurantes, cuando el asunto
> de
> "collector's copyright" ha sido estudiado por las cortes, la cosa no
> es tan
> clara (ni el chocolate tan espeso), como indica el mensaje siguiente
> (tomado
> de un foro que discute asuntos de "copyright":
> http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1998-02/0299.html).
> Saludos,
> Carlos
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Apr 1998 16:33:54 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Phillips)
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In-Reply-To: <l03110704b16a4a1e684f@[208.153.20.35]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: copyright of "collected" folk songs
>
> Michael:
>
> The "collector's copyright" controversy was never resolved. It lies
> latent in the folk music landscape like an unexploded land mine.
>
> The closest the courts have ever come to upholding a collector's
> copyright is in the case of Wihtol v. Wells, 231 F.2d 550 (7th
> Cir. 1956). In this case the plaintiff had taken an old Latvian
> folk song, modified it, and published it as a choral anthem. In
> some of the editions of the anthem he stated that "the melodic
> element of this etude is from a Russian folk song." In that
> single word "from", I suppose, lies the difference between
> an adaptation and a straght reprint. However, while Judge Duffy
> in some of his opinion recognized the anthem as a derivative work,
> elsewhere he seemed to uphold the notion of collector's copyright:
>
>
> "To make a song available, someone must bring the
> notes and words together...The only evidence of
> any antecedent of any part of the copyrighted work
> is plaintiff's own statement, that during his
> boyhood days in Riga he heard a tune similar to
> the melody score of the copyrighted work, played
> on a hurdy-gurdy. But it was original work on
> plaintiff's part when, some thirty years later,
> he devised a calculated melody score thus putting
> it in shape for all to read. It was quite natural
> that plaintiff employed similar successions of sound
> in his writing of the melodic element of his "My God
> and I." In his application for copyright plaintiff
> correctly filed "Only for new music now first
> published"...We hold plaintiff's writing of the
> exact and complete melodic element of "My God
> and I" was an original work subject to copyright.
>
>
> So the judge seems to extend the plaintiff's copyright to the
> entire ("exact and complete") melody even though the plaintiff
> himself had only registered copyright in "new music now
> first published." I think the judge really botched it. The
> problem was that no alternative version of the original
> folksong was known; at least, none appears in the report of the
> case.
>
>
> In 1957, the International Folk Music Council issued a statement
> holding that folk song collection was inherently a creative
> act, and that therefore collectors should be awarded copyright
> in the melodies they collected. This statement was issued
> after Wihtol v. Wells, so even if it reflected the ideas that
> Judge Duffy was trying to express, it was not available for him
> to cite. So Wihtol v. Wells remains on the borderline between
> adapter's copyright and collector's copyright.
>
>
> Most other cases involving musical copyright require a musical
> derivative work (such as the adaptation of a folksong) to differ
> more than trivially from the preexisting work. In Tempo Music
> v. Famous Music, 1994 Copyright Law Decisions #27,200 (S.D.N.Y.,
> 1993) Judge Sand noted that "there is a one note variation between
> the original and revised melody...the Court finds that the
> originality of the revised melody is too insubstantial
> to warrant copyright protection...Therefore, we focus on
> harmony in this section," and went on to rule that harmony
> could be protected by copyright (though it might not).
>
>
> Where does this leave collections of folk songs? The safest
> thing to do is to take folk songs from out-of-copyright
> sources, such as old back issues of the Journal of American
> Folklore or the Journal of the Folk-Song Society. But
> I wish someone with money would take the matter to court.
> To my mind a field-collected folk song is not an "original
> work" of the collector's "authorhsip", and if the collector
> represents the song as collected without any mention of
> adaptations, then he should be held to that representation.
> If he does claim to have "adapted and arranged" the work,
> then the copyright should extend only to the adaptations.
> But taking the matter to court could be chancy. I am not
> a lawyer (and nothing in this note constitutes legal advice,
> and even if I were, and it were, free legal advice is
> worth no more than what you pay for it, etc. etc.) but as
> I understand how infringement cases work, the plaintiff
> gets most of the breaks, just as in Wihtol v. Wells. Unless
> the defendant can prove a preexisting version, the
> plaintiff's copyright certificate is prima facie evidence
> of the validity of copyright. Couuld the defendant appeal
> to plaintiff's own representations of the work as a folk
> song? It didn't work in Wihtol v. Wells.
>
>
>
> Tim Phillips
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pijume Diwesi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 1:17 AM
> > To: Jesus M Martinez
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: (Fwd) Re: Colext: RE: Irresponsabilidad en Copia
> > de paginas
> > en
> >
> >
> > Colext/Macondo
> > Cantina virtual de los COLombianos en el EXTerior
> > --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > From: Jesus M Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Una tempestad en un baso de agua. Mientras Colombia se
> > desangra nosotros con
> > > estas.
> >
> > > > Buen final. Sabio (y efectivo) modo de sacudirse de la
> exagerada
> > > > garrotera.
> >
> > Bueno vale la pena hacer una aclaracion para finalizar con el
> > asunto. Aqui en
> > ningun momento se armo "una tormenta en un vaso de agua". La
> > cosa es muy
> > clara: si se presentan este tipo de fusilamiento de
> > informacion en cosas tan
> > simples como es una pagina general en Internet, imaginense lo
> > que ocurrira
> > cuando estas cosas se hagan extensivas a algo mas
> > trascendental como es la
> > informacion de caracter academico o cientifico. Tengan la
> > seguridad que
> > ayudaran a desangrar el trabajo realizado por otros.
> > Ademas, cabe anotar que el malestar lo produjo el accionar de
> > la persona
> > que "disenno" la pagina web, no la respuesta tardia del
> > Concejal Valencia.
> >
> > Por ultimo, anexo un extracto del mensaje que envie a la
> > lista Guayabo, donde
> > discutimos al respecto con un poco mas de profundidad y donde
> > se aclara cual
> > es el malestar que producen este tipo de acciones.
> > Nestor Raul
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with UNSUBSCRIBE COLEXT as the BODY of the message.
>
> Un archivo de colext puede encontrarse en:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
> cortesia de Anibal Monsalve Salazar
>
_______________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger: Comunicaci�n instant�nea gratis con tu gente -
http://messenger.yahoo.es
--------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with UNSUBSCRIBE COLEXT as the BODY of the message.
Un archivo de colext puede encontrarse en:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
cortesia de Anibal Monsalve Salazar
