The law requires DRM permission from the author

I just figured that the final decision is always with the author ->not copyright owner. In order for the protections to get laws protection it has to have permission from all the authors.

50a) Tämän lain mukaan suojatun teoksen suojana olevaa tehokasta teknistä toimenpidettä, jonka teoksen tekijä tai joku muu tekijän luvalla teosta yleisön saataviin saattaessaan on teoksen suojaksi asettanut, ei saa kiertää.

Hypo: A record that has two songs. First song is composed by the pop star A that performs the song. The second song is classic cover by composer X. Rights to the song were bought from heavy drinker songwriter X by publisher Y. With out permission from X the record isn't considered to have technical protection measure. Hence you could circumvent it with out being criminal.

You would also need a permission from each and every author / creator to make the protection fall under the new copyright law. Hence it is impossible to get authorization from dead creators (like Beatles) who haven't all ready given their authorization.

What is the effect? Having just one record that has protection not protected by law authorises discussion forums and distribution of programms for circumvention purposes.

Could it be that the copyright lobby missed a detail?

Comments

[ramin]

I really don't think that you can interpert it like you do. As I read it it means that either the author/creator or the instance that is publishing the author's/creator's work can decide on the DRM.

The talk abou with the author's/creator's permission means that if the distributor doesn't have permission to distribute the content then bypassing the DRM placed by the distributor isn't punishable.

That's how I read it as a lay-man, not a lawyert or anything near it. I guess the final decision lies in the hands of the courts. But this does serve as another example of how the law has been poorly prepared.

[Antti]

I sadly have to agree with Ramin. I think the record companies are going to get the permission from the artist in the contract - they usually take all the rights to the creation, which basically derives the copyright from the artist herself.

Thus they are able to do whatever they like in the name of the artist. Of course there might be cases that the artists rebel and look for another company to sign with... but I'm sure this is something that the industry has standardised to keep the old stubborn business models running.