Archive for: October, 2007

Police lies or manipulates?

October 29th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

In a short press release published on 26 October 2007 in “Czas Świecia” (regional supplement to Gazeta Wyborcza newspaper) Marek Rydzewski, the spokesperson for Regional Police Headquater in Świecie, issued a statement while answering to a student’s question about legality and responsibility for photocopying books:

- Copying whole textbooks without a permission from persons who have rights to such work (usually those are authors or publishes) is prohibited.

False. I do not want to educate Polish Police but I think I owe my English readers short explanation about Polish copyright (I think the proper term should be Author’s right since Civil law system differs a lot from English and US approach).

Some voices appears that there are legal grounds to introduce restrictions of maximum amount of pages to be allowed to photocopy from one book (…). It seems that such statements are not justifiable. Rules established in art. 23 of the Act of Authors rights. (…) did not introduce any limits for the amount of photocopied text.

J. Barta, R. Markiewicz, Prawo autorskie i prawa pokrewne, Zakamycze 2004, p. 67.
Additionally, Mr Marek Rydzewski said that:

Also, the law does not allow for downloading books in electronic form from the Internet, except for those which are made available for such actions.

False. There is no rule in Polish law that “prohibits” downloading books from the Internet! For all of you who are interested in the original text of this short article here is a scanned file, JPG, 675 KB. I’ll see if they publish corrections. In passing I would like to write my short statement. Myabe it will sound strange for You but I think that photocopying a full book “kills” it somehow.

Internet domains, case XVII AmC 170/05

October 20th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Register of Prohibited Clauses operated by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection contains contractual clauses found unlawful by a legally binding judgements. According to the latest judgment of the Polish Court of Competition and Consumer Protection of 26 December 2006, case file XVII AmC 170/05, it won’t be so easy to get cybersquatters who are private persons before any ADR court. This case concerned two clauses of the Domain Names Regulations issued by NASK.

22.
In case a third party initiates a legal action in the Arbitration Court against the Subscriber claiming that the Subscriber has infringed the rights of that person by entering into or performing the Agreement, the Subscriber shall submit to that Arbitration Court a duly signed arbitration clause to the Arbitration Court in due time stated in the summon to sign this arbitration clause.

23.
The non-signing of the arbitration clause specified above shall result in the termination of the Agreement three months after the time stated to sign this arbitration clause, and this time limit shall be shortened to the date of the expiry of the calculating period based on the Price List if this date occurs before the end of the three month-period after the time stated to sign this arbitration clause

See also “Polish case law on domain names“.

The quotation

October 15th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

I’d like to recommend you reading a post available at boingboing.net website on what happened to Cory Doctorow when he cited an article written by Ursula K Le Guin. Official comments from Ms Le Guin are available at ursulakleguin.com website, but since she is not claiming copyright (sic!) to her letter, I decided to cite it in full.

SFWA, Piracy, and Serious Literature — An Open Letter

I’d like to correct some misapprehensions about Cory Doctorow’s unauthorized posting of my short comic piece “On Serious Literature” on his boingboing.net site.

I originally sent the piece to David Langford for Ansible, because that’s where I first saw the quote from Ruth Franklin that the piece riffs on. I also put it on my web site. (It’s still there.) Jon Carroll of the San Francisco Chronicle then reprinted it entire in the Chronicle, without asking permission. My agent Vaughne Hansen and I immediately demanded an apology from Carroll, and immediately got one. Harper’s asked to publish it, offering me $200.00, which I accepted (I love gravy.)

I then discovered that Doctorow had put it on his web site, without asking permission and without observing copyright, misrepresenting its purpose, and falsely claiming that it was under license by “Creative Commons” so that anyone could copy it.

My agent and I had just decided to ask the e-piracy committe of SFWA, which I had come to count on in similar situations, to intervene on my behalf — when we found that the committee had suddenly been dissolved, following complaints about unauthorized interference, issuing from Cory Doctorow.

The irony of this situation is fairly visible. While Doctorow was making a huge fuss over an honest mistake, which when discovered was immediately redressed, he was publishing another writer’s work without asking permission and in clear violation of copyright.

With my consent, Andrew Burt exposed Doctorow’s piracy in a letter printed on Jerry Pournelle’s web site. Doctorow scoffed, blustered, made no apology to me for misidentifying my work and using it without permission, and behaved as if his action was legitimate, although the Fair Use exception explicitly does not cover reprinting an entire article or poem no matter how short. But he took part of the piece off his site.

At the request of Michael Capobianco, President of SFWA, acting on my behalf, Doctorow has now finally removed the entire piece.

He has not apologised either to me for using my piece without permission, or to the people he misled with his pretense of a “Creative Commons License” into thinking they could reprint a copyrighted piece without violating the law. Nor has he offered to help them remove these many additional copies.

But, thanks to SFWA, he has taken the piece down. My agent is writing to request him to redress some of the other matters. I hope then to be done for good with Mr Doctorow. What I remain upset about is the confusion and destruction he seems to have effected within SFWA.

An overworked committee mistakenly identified a few works, among many, as infringing copyright; the mistakes were promptly admitted and redressed, with apologies; and President Capobianco invited any other parties who thought themselves wronged to contact him. Where is the cause in all this for dissolving a committee which has worked with extraordinary effectiveness to redress real wrongs?

In my view, the best thing that could come out of my brush with the Doctorow Doctrine would be this: the honorable reinstatement of the SFWA e-piracy committee, with an expression of appreciation from SFWA officers and members of the honest and effective work they have done for us for so long.

This letter is not copyrighted and may be excerpted or copied entire.

— Ursula K. Le Guin
October 12 2007

Internet domains and different groups of interests

October 13th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry has a website which is available under ifpi.org domain name and the International Federation of Pirate Interests will have a website available at ifpi.com soon. More details about this “strange” situation are provided in the article available at torrentfreak.com website. International Trademark Association has issued a statement about domain names in the aspect of cybersquatting lately. I wonder if, or rather, when this case will land before the World Intellectual Property Organization arbitration.

On 9 October 2007, The Polish Pirate Party has filled all documents needed to fully register its political activity. There is also an iterview with Błażej Kaczorowski, the founding father of the PPP, available at torrentfreak.com website.

Update on December 13, 2007.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, Administrative Panel Decision, IFPI Secretariat, IFPI International Federation of the Phonographic Industry v. Peter Kopimi Sunde aka Brokep, Case No. D2007-1328, November 19, 2007.

Trade mark law, case II GSK 127/07

October 5th, 2007, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 20 September 2007, case file II GSK 127/07, unpublished, ruled that other requirements must be satisfied while starting the invalidation proceedings, and the other in the request on the lapse of a right of protection for a trademark. The right of protection for a trademark right may be invalidated in whole or in part, if it has been granted contrary to the statutory conditions (as defined in article 164 of the Polish Act of 30 June 2000 on Industrial Property Law – IPL – (in Polish: ustawa Prawo własności przemysłowej) of 30 June 2000, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) of 2001 No. 49, item 508, consolidated text of 13 June 2003, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 119, item 1117, with later amendments), and the lapse of a right of protection is dependent on the occurrence of other, well-defined conditions (articles 168 and 169 of the IPL). Also the implication of each of these decisions differs – at the ex tunc in the invalidation proceedings, and after fixed period or the occurrence of a particular situation constituting a condition of the lapse.