Talk:Module 2: The International Framework: Difference between revisions

From EdX Copyright Online Course
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
(Removing all content from page)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''CONFUSING/UNCLEAR/CONCEPTUALLY INCOMPLETE SECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE SUBSTANTIVELY REWRITTEN'''
* These are sections that need to be broken down (readability):
* Under the Rome Convention bit:
** "The Rome Convention requires member countries to grant protection to the performances of performers, the phonograms of producers of phonograms, and the broadcasts of broadcasting organizations. However, once a performer has consented to the incorporation of her performance in a visual or audiovisual fixation, the provisions on performers’ rights have no further application. Equally important, the Convention allows member countries to create certain exceptions to the rights of performers, producers of phonographs, and broadcasting organizations – for example, to permit nonpermissive uses of a work for the purpose of teaching or scientific research."
*Under the UCC bit: 
**" The UCC’s provisions are more flexible than those of the Berne Convention. This increased flexibility was intended to accommodate countries at different stages of development and countries with sharply different economic and social systems. It incorporates the principle of national treatment and prohibits any discrimination against foreign
authors."
*Case study:
** It is not clear which treaties/conventions/etc Mexio is a member of! This makes it confusing when it says "belgium" is the one place she can work because the user has no understanding of what Mexico itself is governed by.
**Question 6 is strange. 


--[[User:Cpeterson|Cpeterson]] 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments by KAI:
+ Need a glossary entry for "systematic instructional activities."
+ We should probably move the discussion of the Universal Copyright Conventon up after the Berne Convention.  (1) It predates the Rome Convention, and (2) the discussion of the Rome Convention references it, which currently is a bit out of the blue.
+ Adding a discussion of supranatioal legislation, i.e., EU legislation, was beyond what I could accomplish on this pass.
+ The intro to the section on the WCT is rather loaded, and probably not necessary for our purposes.  May want to consider deleting, or revising to something like: The way that copyright owners reproduce, distribute, and market their works has changed in the digital age. Sound recordings, articles, photographs, and books are commonly stored in electronic formats, circulated via the Internet, and compiled in databases. Unfortunately, the same technologies that enable more efficient storage and distribution have also facilitated widespread copying of copyrighted works. Concerned about the effects of these new technologies, the governments of developed countries advocated for and ultimately secured two treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty.
+ Not my area, but is it correct to say that education is a human rights "obligation"?
+ I'm concerned that the answer to discussion question 4 may be unclear.  While copyright protection would be extended to recordings, the fact that the question assumes use by a music teacher would complicate the question, since there's a possibility of fair use (which isn't addressed in this module).  Perhaps the question should be changed to have a more clear cut answer, such as assuming use of the recording in a television commercial.

Latest revision as of 17:37, 30 August 2009

Retrieved from "http://cyber.harvard.edu/cx/?title=Talk:Module_2:_The_International_Framework&oldid=2132"