Talk:Module 5: Managing Rights

CHRIS NOTES

• the licensor obligations section is particularly terrible from a substantive standpoint
• clickwrap: "While many legal systems have not fully addressed the effect of these types of licenses, courts in some countries have ruled that a valid consent, giving rise to a binding contracts, can be formed in these fashions.

[edit]" and others have not, correct?

• need cite for "Articles 11bis(2) and Article 13(1) of the Berne Convention"
• "Even where exclusive rights are involved, other non-voluntary forms of collective management may be permissible under the Berne Convention. For example, extended collective management allows a collective society to license the works of all copyright holders for a certain creative class once they represent a large number of that class. This generally includes foreign and non-member copyright owners."
  • probably should give an example here - perhaps a brief explanation of GBS?
• "This technique is also sometimes called (misleadingly) digital rights management (DRM)."
  • should probably explain WHY it is misleading
• "Japan, which operates a compulsory licensing system for orphan works codified in Section 8, Article 67 of its copyright laws"
  • cite?
• sidenote: why are none of the examples in any of these modules from the developing world? isn't this aimed at the DW? how helpful will it be?

KAI comments:

+ eIFL suggest moving the section "Licenses in the digital environment" before the section on the content of standard licensing agreements.

+ Add unconscionable to glossary.

+ eIFL wants to include more discussion of reproductive rights organazations in the collective management discussion.

+ eIFL wants more discussion of DRM, but I'm not sure what really can be added.

+ eIFL wants to include a discussion of orphan works in the library context. I'm not familiar with orphan works laws that are specific to libraries.