tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617183138118819994.post568507257990589942..comments2024-03-05T17:50:31.778+02:00Comments on Afro-IP: Copyright: Media Monitoring Organisations face the prospect of paying copyright fees for newspaper contentUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2617183138118819994.post-10602592709758701592012-03-20T09:09:39.888+02:002012-03-20T09:09:39.888+02:00Controversial indeed! I think Prof. Bentley sums t...Controversial indeed! I think Prof. Bentley sums the controversy up nicely: "...there is something fundamentally wrong with a legal regime which renders the innocent acts of many millions of citizens illegal"(http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/07/bently-slams-very-disappointing-ruling.html).<br /><br />Regarding the double licensing decision in Meltwater, it does highlight a certain disconnect many accuse copyright of having with reality. The user of the clippings service can access the material directly on the newspaper's site without infringing and without a licence, but can't access the very same material if it's provided by a clippings service without a licence even though that clippings service has a licence to do so?<br /><br />That being said, it’s not easy to explain this incongruity in terms of sheer copyright law.<br /><br />What right does one have to access material made available on a website to begin with? It's clear that simply viewing a website does constitute a reproduction and that without some exception or defence, this would be an infringement. It seems that there's an implied licence then to users to use a site which is made available to the public. This is especially the case in SA where we don't have a temporary copy defence. Which begs the question, is that implied licence broad enough to permit users to view the material in any context (e.g. via a clippings service)?<br /> <br />If not, then another answer could be that merely viewing a site is not a reproduction of a substantial part because the reproduction that does take place is only ephemeral. That is, can it be argued that an ephemeral copy of something is not a substantial part/copy of something?<br /> <br />If one accepts that viewing a site is a reproduction of a substantial part, then one has to accept that a licence is required. If this is so, then the user of a clippings service will have to argue that the site owner implicitly gives them a licence to view the site in any context and the site owner will have to argue that they are only given a licence to view it directly on the site. This wasn’t touched on really in Meltwater.Jeremy Spereshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16888806556354664284noreply@blogger.com