Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the embedding, by means of the technique of framing, in a third party website page, of works that are protected by copyright and that are freely accessible to the public with the authorisation of the copyright holder on another website, where that embedding circumvents measures adopted or imposed by that copyright holder to provide protection from framing, constitutes a communication to the public within the meaning of that provision.
This ruling closes a lot of doors between people.
It seems to me – increasingly – that what WAS about people wrongly monetising other people’s copyright, IS becoming SOLY about HOW to protect and exploit rights. I do realize that the legal systems and its defenders of the wronged replace open bloodshed of hence, but it is also a system eating away at the very necessary core of humanity: the ability to share information in order to deal with circumstance. And even if original thought does exist in more cases than simple ideal, the legal ownership of all patents and inventions and techniques and content and logos and brands and so on are building up to a Globe being darkened by long and short black border lines criss-crossing in every which direction to encompass and stifle the whole by preventing trespass without toll.
Who has a vision of a world without the need of corporate lawyers – one that allows open trade and access to pay creators rather than levels of middlemen?
My vision has always been of the Aldiss (Non-Stop) generation ship carrying the remnants of the species to a new lease on life, along with the digitised artefacts of human culture – all movies, filmed plays, books, music, 3D-renditions of architecture, sculptures, recipes, production methods in detail, everything. Which would take a pooling of all artefacts and knowledge that no one organisation would be able to handle. It could only be a communal effort from personal, individual curation of culture. Which could only then take place if culture was protected by free sharing.
I grew up in a family of House Movers. I have seen the (amounts) things left over, when people die. How much was simply tossed = needed to be let go for descendants not to be burdened by the stepping stones to the present – to be able to actually live in “the present”. Even if the “content quality” embedded in good furniture, good objects, was obvious. The future had no room for that.
Digitisation changed that. RAM, storage drives, mainframes and data centres taking the place of objects and distribution. THIS is a fork in human evolution, as I see it: Either we go the way of Dark Ownership, or we go the way of Light Communality. Restriction or Share. The Few or All. We are standing with one foot on each road. We cannot go both ways: Either the venture on the Dark Road resolves into a way for everyone to seamlessly award content producers for their time, will and effort, the Light Road, or the embarkment onto the Light Road scares all middle men, venture capitalists and the legal system so much that the use of everything will be fraught with peril from embedded, ready-made punishment.
Feed which one? It’s up there with climate change, forest death, petro energy and nuclear armament. There IS NO species advancement logic to prison.