kopirajt i sloboda govora

[karl3]

danas sam naleteo na ovaj txt, do sad mi nije palo na pamet da problem posmatram iz ovog ugla. poenta price je da svako ima pravo da se izrazi na nacin koji zeli, cak i na nacin koji podrazumeva "kradju" tudje intelektualne svojine. kapiram da bi dj-ima ovo moglo dosta da koristi...

Copyright law is a glaring and unjustified exception to the general rule that the government may not prohibit speech without a showing that the speech causes harm. While the First Amendment sometimes protects even harmful speech, it virtually never allows the prohibition of harmless speech. Yet, while other speech-burdening laws, such as defamation and right of publicity laws, require demonstrable evidence that the defendant's speech causes actual harm, copyright law does not make harm a requirement of infringement. Although copyright law considers harm to the market for the copyrighted work as a factor in fair use analysis, harm is not always required and is so poorly defined that the concept has become circular. Moreover, the defendant ordinarily bears the burden of proof to show the absence of harm. As a result, courts often find liability for infringement (and therefore burden speech) where harm is purely speculative.

Potential explanations for copyright's anomalous treatment are unpersuasive. Copying involves speech as well as conduct, and the fact that copyrights are in some sense property does not come close to justifying its aberrant treatment. Moreover, copyright's role in encouraging creative expression does not obviate First Amendment concerns. Rather, it provides a way to reconcile copyright law and free speech. Drawing substantially from First Amendment cases holding that speech restrictions must be justified by a governmental interest, this article argues that the First Amendment requires real proof of harm to the copyright holder's incentives in order to impose liability for copyright infringement. It also explores the types of harm that might arise in copyright infringement cases and considers whether the First Amendment permits recognition of these types of harm. The article concludes that although demonstrable market harm is cognizable under First Amendment principles, recognition of harm to the reputation of copyrighted works, the author's right not to speak or associate, or the copyright holder's privacy interests is generally not compatible with the values of free speech.

Copyright Harm and the First Amendment, Christina Bohannan, Iowa Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-15, University of Iowa - College of Law, March 24, 2009
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... d=1367624#

[Baklava]

Ukratko, cela priča se vodi oko američkog Prvog Amandmana (slobode govora dok god ona nikome ne šteti), zakona o kopirajtu i tome kako se to stalno zloupotrebljava i kako su ljudi često optuženi te moraju da se brane i dokazuju da njihov govor nije štetan, umesto da tužitelji prvo moraju da dokažu da jeste. Sve u svemu ideja je da se pokaže da zakon o kopirajtu nije u skladu sa Prvim Amandmanom.

To je sve ok ali ovo nije Amerika, mislim da stvari ne funkcionišu baš tako ovde.

[miletich]

da, samo je fora što je većina servera u sad-u pa, dok smo na netu, uglavnom više moramo da mislimo na američki, nego na srpski copyright zakon.

anyway, evo jednog bizarnog primera kako se ovaj zakon može zloupotrebiti za suzbijanje slobode govora:

the Vatican has felt it necessary to declare that "it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and therefore, to protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church..."

"Consequently, the use of anything referring directly to the person or office of the Supreme Pontiff... and/or the use of the title 'Pontifical,' must receive previous and express authorization from the Holy See," concluded the message released to the press.

http://boingboing.net/2009/12/19/pope-p ... ecial.html