Can you explain a bit more what these "circumstances to be recorded as
Facts are"?

 

MG: The assumption is that if a copyright exception is invoked legitimately i.e. a teacher in a classroom, then the "Fact" "is_teacher" would be relevant and reasonable to record in the ontology with respect to a particular User.

Many Copyright Exceptions imply that Users can execute Actions on
Content in private (e.g. private copy).

 

 

In my opinion recording that a copyright exception has been invoked a
priori to executing an Action contradicts privacy.

 

I would like to discuss these things with your experts in copyright
exceptions. Are they subscribed to this list?

Please tell me more about this extension and the underlying experts
model.

MG: The ontology has provided hooks for copyrightexception experts to build any number of extensions that are deemed reasonable i.e. defendable from a legal stand point, I do not think that there are any experts on the list. Without being an expert I do think that the hooks provided are sufficient and given that the question of privacy lies at the application level I am not too concerned about such.  Remember that in the analogue world when an exception is constested the mitigating circumstances are resorted to in order to prove legitimate copyrightexception so too the ontology can be used and thus does not preclude the storing of information that may be protected as private to defend the claim of a legitimate exception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Marc,

"Marc Gauvin" <mgauvin@sdae.net> writes:

> Our proposal only records that a user has invoked a copyright
> exception and the copyright exception has been invoked.
> Therefore, there is no precondition that a user must fulfill to
> inoke copyright exception other than informing on the copyright
> exception as is commonly the case in many media publications that
> inform a priori to rendering that for example "fair use" is being
> invoked.

Thank you for your explanation. You did not state what the MVCO will
do if mvco:CopyrightExceptionPermission does not exist, but I assume
that in this case it would prohibit the execution.

As I wrote before, according to Copyright law Copyright Exceptions
need no Permissions. If your proposal requires a modification of
Copyright law you should make it obvious.

> Furthermore, the proposal awaits an extension to be created by
> experts in copyright exceptions to handle exactly how to link the
> different copyright exceptions with circumstances to be recorded
> as Facts.

Can you explain a bit more what these "circumstances to be recorded as
Facts are"?

Many Copyright Exceptions imply that Users can execute Actions on
Content in private (e.g. private copy).

In my opinion recording that a copyright exception has been invoked a
priori to executing an Action contradicts privacy. The crucial point
here is if and when the MVCO records that a user invokes a copyright
exception. I can imagine different possibilities, e.g.:

a priori | a posteriori
-----------------------------
always | on request

You should make obvious how the MVCO records Actions and how your
proposal deals with privacy issues.

I would like to discuss these things with your experts in copyright
exceptions. Are they subscribed to this list?

> In such an extension and whenever it is implemented in the
> future, the term permission is meant to refer to the fact that
> the invoked exception is consitent with the declared fact as per
> the experts model, not that a user "oermits" another user to
> invoke a copyright exception as you seem to believe is the case.

Please tell me more about this extension and the underlying experts
model.

> Are you going to the DMP Daejeon meeting? We could discuss this
> more there.

I am sorry that I will not be able to attend the DMP Daejeon
meeting. One possibility to discuss and meet some other "experts in
copyright exceptions" would be the 3rd COMMUNIA Workshop in Amsterdam
[1].

yours,
Martin

[1] http://communia-project.eu/node/109

> __________________________________________________________
>
> De: mvcoediting@yahoogroups.com [mailto:mvcoediting@yahoogroups.com]
> En nombre de Martin Springer
> Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2008 14:47
> Para: mvcoediting@yahoogroups.com
> Asunto: Re: [mvcoediting] MVCO WD editing
>
> Dear Victor,
> I am one of the people who contributed to the DMP project which has
> the mission to "promote continuing successful development, deployment
> and use of Digital Media that respect the rights of creators and
> rights holders to exploit their works, the wish of end users to fully
> enjoy the benefits of Digital Media and the interests of various
> value-chain players to provide products and services".
> I believe that your proposed changes in connection with Copyright
> Exceptions do not reflect Copyright law and could possibly restrain
> the traditional rights and usages of digital media users.
> You propose [p.14]:
> Some rights can be invoked if certain conditions are met. For
> example, complete quotes are allowed for scientific purposes. The
> MVCO Ontology provides mechanisms for specifying such copyright
> exceptions, although the exceptions themselves are not specified.
> [p.52]
> Copyright Exceptions can be invoked by Users: Thus, apart from the
> ExecuteAction in the API Level 1 methods, a new
> InvokeCopyrightException method is offered. Upon execution, the
> existence of mvco:CopyrightExceptionPermission is searched, and
> examined against the corresponding mvco:CopyrightExceptionFacts.
> This appears to me like a contractiction in itself. Your MVCO proposal
> implies that Copyright Exceptions can be invoked by Users only if a
> CopyrightExceptionPermission exists and that Rights Holders must
> permit the Copyright Exception before End-Users can invoke it.
> According to Copyright law Copyright Exceptions can be invoked by
> Users without any conditions. Copyright Exceptions need no
> Permissions. Quotes would be allowed for scientific purposes even if a
> "QuoteException" is not permitted by a Rights Holder.
> My suggestion would be that you read Philip Merrill's TRU#1
> (http://www.chiariglione.org/contrib/2004/040120merrill01.htm) and
> reconsider your proposal.
> yours sincerely,
> Martin Springer
> Víctor Rodríguez Doncel <victorr@....edu> writes:
> > Dear All,
> > I write on behalf of UPC and sDAE to contribute a new edition of the
> > MVCO WD.
> > Please find attached the Word version of the document with the
> changes
> > we propose.
> > Best regards,
> > Víctor Rodríguez Doncel
> >
> >
> --
> Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
> Husemannstrasse 7 PHONE +49.30.41717658
> D-10435 Berlin MOBILE +49.172.3036702
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1704 - Release Date:
> 2/10/2008 21:35
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1704 - Release Date:
> 2/10/2008 21:35
>

--
Martin Springer GPG-ID 1024D/23058565
Husemannstrasse 7 PHONE +49.30.41717658
D-10435 Berlin MOBILE +49.172.3036702