February 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Music for nitches

  • Giant robot: DOMESTICITY

« Consumer agency and ministry of culture to create informatio about copyright law | Main | The new law and Creative Commons »



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.


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.

The comments to this entry are closed.