LACK OF UNDERSTANDING HARMS RESPECT FOR COPYRIGHT

The last few decades and especially in recent years, there is often something to do about copyright. It is according to some outdated and unnecessary to others. The old institutions jaunty try to treat  the digital world as if nothing has changed and therefore repeatedly unleash storms of criticism. Recently, Dutch collecting society Buma/Stemra was in the news again when this organization - for the second time  - announced to treat the embedding of videos as a new publication. History repeats itself. In the 80's it became clear that the transmission by cable of television programs that were originally transmitted over the air had to be considered as a new publication. Since then every technique, every innovation, every change turned out to be a new publication. At the same time the full rate was charged for this publications corresponding to the rate for the original publication. This was based on the impure reasoning that any publication would create a new market of users. In short, if a market consists of a certain number of buyers, then the same market later turns out to be  5 times the number of buyers. Meanwhile the situation is beginning to change, not everything is considered as a new publication, because according to recent case law of the European Court of Justice, the notion 'public'  was neglected a bit too much. That is one side of the story.

Like the reality the law is constantly moving and rules are changing under the influence of altered ethical or political ideas. Therefore, the law and regulations have to be interpreted. Also this interpretation is an ongoing process. Who relies on "rules are rules" has not understood much. Equal cases should be treated equally, the so-called principle of equality, does not mean that unequal cases should be treated equally, especially when this leads to unequal or unreasonable consequences. Very important too is the interest to be protected. We return to copyright. What was that again?

That is the right of the creator of music, a book or a movie to determine what happens to the product he has made. He might say: I keep it all for myself. He might also say: I think it's good this product is made public via radio, television, the Internet or in a theatre and I think it is good that it is reproduced on a CD, DVD or in a book. In short: the right of the maker to be rewarded for his creative achievements. Leaving aside the question whether it is smart to transfer the management of your rights to an organization like Buma/Stemra, such an organization has to take into account the interests of the maker. One of those interests is that the right of the maker is not put under pressure by social resistance. This resistance is caused by a lack of understanding reality and the functioning of law, and that is harmful to the respect for copyright.