Slashdot Mirror

http://www.copyrightaid.co.uk/copyright_information/berne_convention_signatories

And if you click-through a link at TFA, you find that the Polish sect is still holding out because it does, in fact, sell its data sets.

You can copyright an expression of facts, and a collection of data you emailed to a wonk in Blighty counts as an expression of facts. They would have to somehow reformat it so it's not the same expression, but just changing the instruments doesn't make a tune any different, so changing formatting or number systems doesn't change a data set.

I bet Trinidad & Tobago is pissed and willing to sue.

So I was off by a few :)

(it's worth noting that more than a few of those are either failed states, dysfunctional states, or in weird political situations (taiwan))

The list of signatories is extensive, however.

What about the Berne Convention? Russia and China signed it. The US has been a member for 15 years.

You said because two wrongs were "harm," they must both grant jurisdiction to the same court. Law doesn't work that way. Among other things, copyright infringement is governed by the Berne Convention, which both the US and Australia have signed. I'm not sure if there's a treaty covering defamation, but even if there were it would have a completely different procedural posture.

If you think that copyright law is something unique to the US go look up the Berne Treaty. You can barely find a semi-industrialized country that is not a signatory of this treaty, which grants basic copyright protections. Copying the textbook is illegial in most every country on this planet. Let's just stop with all this "I don't know (country) law so I'll pretend it doesn't matter" BS.

The user decicides to change the copywrited work ...

Article 12 of the Berne Convention (signatories) states that:

Authors of literary or artistic [ie copyrighted] works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of their works.

By removing a part of the 'work' you are making an adaption, you need authorisation from the owner of the copyright for that.

Incidentally, I think protection of computer programs by current types of Intellectual Property Rights sucks.

What "actions" would that be? Downloading music I cannot buy in stores? Recording SNL from public TV broadcasts?

If you stop there, I don't have a big problem with it. As far as your post goes, I had the definite impression that you wouldn't. You mentioned "Matrix Reloaded" in passing. Who could produce movies so expensive without copyright?

many people in this country

* Ahem *, I'm danish ;-)

Clue: Russian copyrights mean nothing in the US - just as US copyrights are meaningless in Russia.

You overlook that both countries are signatories to the Berne convention (Note article 3(1))

how does a new artist, who doesn't have the benefit of a "mainstream" 20 year back catalog, get known? [...] they could whore themselves to a publisher who will take every penny they make

You give excellent examples of artists doing good outside the established publishing system. I'm all for that, especially since it may very well be better for both artists and listeners. It's just that I think the artists should by and large get a chance to decide for themselves. If they really want their CD shared all over the net it's great, Creative Commons is there to help write a license. If not, I think we should be wary of making business decisions on their behalf. (Collective management makes good sense in many situations, though)

A side note: You mention your "direcTV tivo" and "no pay tv". DirecTV.com says they broadcast pay tv. What am I missing?