Reproduction and division of cultural products without agreement of having rights

Since the rise of the media and the trade of the culture, the reproduction and the division of cultural products apart from the traditional circuits (without agreement of having rights and direct remuneration) developed and were fought by the industrialists of the music and the cinema.

In the majority of the cases, it is not the reproduction which is prohibited because it is a means of protecting and of preserving its acquisition, but well diffusion of the copy in question to other people while not having made the purchase.

This diffusion today is mainly materialized by the Téléchargement S on and starting from Internet (upload and download) of files protected by the Royalty (also called " copyright strict").

Legality

On the video tape recorders and tape recorders

Various supports had already posed problems as for the legality of the reproductions.
Au beginning of the marketing of the video tape recorders (1984), Sony had been seen bringing a lawsuit by the principal production companies (also called majors ) which considered the recordings video illegal.
La Supreme court of the United States had déboutés them and had thus made the recording licit. The same problem had arisen concerning the tape recorder and had led to the same result.

The private copy had thus been drawn up sells by auction, only the reproduction with business ends as well as the diffusion in commercial places were to give places to a direct remuneration of having rights.

Copies of CD-R and DVD-R/DVD+R

The copy of CDs and DVDs is authorized only for the private use of the copier. Jurisprudence included the family circle in such a usage.

Photocopies of books

August 1st See Copillage and CFC (French center of the copy)

On Internet

Platforms of remote loading (of type Napster )

The platforms of remote loading are numerous, and most known are:

Napster which was closed,
EDonkey/EMule,
KaZaa
BitTorent

The Peer-to-peer

The software of remote loading P2P causes a sharp polemic at present. Indeed, according to the companies of royalties, networks P2P are used almost exclusively with the reproduction and the division as cultural products protected by royalties (copyright) without agreement of having rights. According to the countries, this can or not involve the prohibition of software of P2P (prohibition basing itself on the fact that the principal use which is made software is contrary with the law). However, the various given judgments enormously vary one business with the other and from one country to another.

On the other hand, in the majority of the Western countries, the users of software P2P are more and more often the target of lawsuit on behalf of the majors of the disc and of the cinéma.
En France, the law on the royalty strictly prohibits any exploitation of a work without the authorization of its beneficiaries, with some exceptions, among which figure right to the private copy (article L 122-5 of the Code of the intellectual property). Are authorized by this article (in particular):

private and free representations carried out exclusively in a family circle;
copies or reproductions strictly reserved for the private use of the copyist and not intended for a collective use.

In practice, that results overall in the judgment of the people having divided files under copyright whereas (generally) the people “” having only downloaded these same files for a personal use are not condemned.

In the first case (division), one leaves the restricted circle and private whereas in the second (simple detention), one remained in this circle, in spite of the acquisition of the product apart from this circle. Because acquisition itself is not continued, the law authorizes completely whoever to make a private copy starting from borrowed contents, of contents which do not belong to the copyist (like simple example, it is also the case when one records a television program). In other words, according to this article, the remote loading for a strictly personal use is regarded as private copy, the division is not it.

The judgments are not perfectly homogeneous and vary from one court to another, jurisprudence was not formed yet in this field. Recently the court of Montpellier refused the reason (advanced by a major ) according to which the copy was to be of bad quality to be regarded as such. The court, by doing this, simply applied the principle of right according to which the Law must be included/understood in its direction strict: " can thus not; ajouter" additional criteria with the private copy if the legislator did not give precise details. It was the same for the technical argument of exception.

Reaction of the majors

The production companies musical started between 8000 and 10 000 lawsuits against anybody having shared music in 18 countries.

Finally…

Of course, one cannot analyze this problem purely juridically; to download files under copyright deprives of remuneration having them rights, the industry of the disc, the employees of this industry, the artists, etc It is on this point that the industrialists of the entertainment and the spectacle decided to accentuate their media campaigns against the P2P.

The communication campaigns are supplemented by other actions. The networks P2P directly undergo the pressures of the industry of the music, such RIAA and the SNEP, which fights against these systems by limiting the exchanges to minimize the remote loadings.

Some, as the Odebi league or the ADA (association of the audionautes), consider that these lawsuits are the fact of an industry which did not know to adapt on arrival of the networks P2P, and claim a moratorium on the remote loading of copyrighted contents. The massive character of the current fraud makes say to some that legalization remote loading with private use is the only solution in the future - only or accompanied by a tax on the subscriptions high-flow which would make it possible to finance cultural creation. The free downloading is an exception to the rule of the extension of the field commercial, even if it does nothing but computerize the exchange and the loan of cultural products which always existed apart from the Net. One can see also there a revenge of the company of barter, not involved service. It is this reduction of the field of the commercial exchange which poses problem, since it would lead to reduce a market, without that being measured formally. The Net fills its objective there of a more released communication of the interests commerciaux Le Monde of the 6/28/2005): miss precise details on the business-->

See too

DADVSI (French law)
Royalty
Copillage
Private copy
Right of free quotation
Music

External bonds

Legifrance (official reference and supplements for France): Code Intellectual property (legislature, lawful), and L 122-5
Code of the Intellectual property and its article L 122-5
In connection with the judgment of the Court of Montpellier of March 10th, 2005
the Association of Audionautes (ADA)
final Pre-report/ratio on the P2P of the CSPLA
the league Odebi
Adopter Niet attitude
the National union of the phonographic edition

Sources

Random links: