Sunday, November 4, 2007

版權和使用權 (Copyright and use right)

占占字起 - 播音樂都收錢?
http://mrjimtong.mysinablog.com/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=343052

Chris 說到「在有些國家,您開店鋪,在裡面放音樂 CD (甚至只是開著收音機!)都要付版權費。」事實上,香港一樣有同樣既牌照要申請,只不過會落實去做既少之又少,完全當冇呢樣野存在。如果有人做/做過政府,個部門時不時又會攪下活動,應該會發現個部門一定會花數千,甚至上萬元買個年牌,確保可以合法公開播歌。

Chris mentioned that "in some countries, you open a shop in where music is played (even just open a radio) has to pay ropyright/license fee". In fact, there is such kind of licence in Hong Kong needed to apply in the same case. Just that only very few shops follow the rule. Others just pretend it nonexistent. If anyone who works / has worked / worked in a government department and the department holds functions sometimes, they should notice that the department spends thousand to over ten thousands for an annual licence to make sure that they can play music publicly and legally.

香港作曲家及作詞家協會 - 牌照事務
http://www.cash.org.hk/licensing.asp?session=general&lang=big5

國際唱片業協會(香港會)有限公司 - 公開播放
http://www.ifpihk.org/www/public/dcm/dis_dcmcontent.php?langsel=1&catid=3&rkey=license

Phonographic Performance (South East Asia) Limited - Tariffs Calculator
http://www.ppseal.com/en/licence_app/tariffs/calculator.html

係度我唔討論版權法係咪霸道,我只知香港人唔多認識版權法,當他們聽到做某某事原來係觸犯左版權法既時候,通常就會覺得好無理。但版權法唔係今日至有,以前商家 (尤其香港) 賺到錢,唔捉、隻眼開隻眼閉其實係優待;到近年資訊發達,侵權行為愈來愈倡狂,想執番正竟然就俾人話番轉頭,無賴既係侵權者至真。

I am not going to discuss whether copyright law is highhanded or not here. I just know Hong Kong people have no understanding of the law. While they hear it violates the law to do something, they often think it is unreasonable. However, the law is not set up today, just that the owner do not care about it in the old days when they can earn so much money, especially in HK. People should see it as a special preferential treatment. But recently, information technology develops rapidly, infringing behaviour is all over the place anytime. Now they just want to execute their rights, what is wrong with that? The rascal should be people who infringe the law.

要知道作品有咩權限,睇版權聲明就一清二楚。到而家仲有人問公開播放有冇問題,好明顯就係冇睇過,或者想當版權聲明冇到。

People who want to know the restriction of using the work should read the copyright statement. Even now there are people asking whether it is right or wrong to broadcast AV materials publicly. It is obvious that they do not read or respect it deliberately.

當大家都集中討論音樂和影片既版權問題時,有冇人會留意最傳統的媒體 - 書籍呢?其實,書都有版權,冇留意一樣隨時會犯法。

While people are focusing on discussing the copyright issue about music and video, does anyone pay attention to the most traditional media - book? In fact, book has copyright too. If people are careless, they may violate it.

中港台三地出版書籍既版權聲明一向都好簡陋,求求其其印個 ©,或加句「版權所有 翻印必究」就算。舊一點的甚至會乜都冇,驚死你唔印咁款。但係如果係西方出版既書,就會發現版權法唔只限翻印咁簡單。

Publication from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have very brief copyright statement. The publisher may simply add © on the book or with "all rights reserved". Some of the old publication may have no any sign as if they care nothing about it. But the copyright is more serious than just not allowing reproduction in western publication.

最普遍既 [The most common] (copied from McManus, I. C. (2004). Right hand, left hand : the origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms, and cultures. London: Phoenix Press.)︰

All right reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

容許書評引句既 [Allow quotation for reviews] (copied from Diamond, J. M. (2006). The third chimpanzee : the evolution and future of the human animal. New York, NY: HarperCollins.)︰
All right reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

最嚴既 [Most stricted] (copied from Diamond, J. M. (2006). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive. London: Penguin.)
All right reserved. Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hire out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

看官可以留意到 Penguin 既書係唔可以係未得到同意既情況下外借、轉讓、出租或其他形式的傳閱。即是說如果你唔要本書,唯一辨法就係丟棄,而係丟棄之前都要做一番工夫,就係撕開個封面 (唔記得左版權頁使唔使)。只有咁樣做先可以排除本書俾人執到既時候,你唔係蓄意經某種途徑 (如︰垃圾堆) 傳俾另一人。

As you can see, Penguin's publication shall not be lent, re-sold, hire out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent. That is to say if you do not need the book anymore, the only thing you can do is discard it. And before that, you should tear off the cover (and copyright page probably). Only by doing so can exempt you from the intention to pass the book to another (say: rubbish bin) when someone get the book from there.

聽過好多人引圖書館做擋箭牌,以為圖書館唔受版權法規管。其實圖書館並無特權,如果大家知道圖書館每年的開支有幾驚人,就會明白有大部分都用左黎購買使用權和付版權費 (尤其係電子資料庫,如 ProQuest、LexisNexis、EbscoHost等)。而家已經算好左少少,以前 (現在仍會用,但用少左) 既 online search (如︰DIALOG、STN),費用係根據顯示格式、文件數目、用時長短、搜索資料量來計算。所以系統只容許專業參考圖書館員用,係用之前仲要係紙上模擬輸入,搵出最快捷、有效率既方法,務求減少支出,讀者要搵資料就要透過那位專業人士。即使係咁,以我手上的一個 2004 年使用 STN 既例子為例,用唔夠 5 分半鐘,收費就已經要 800 蚊美金。所以圖書館一方面鼓勵讀者使用,另一方面亦要好好留意唔好有濫用既情況發生,唔係就多多錢都唔夠俾。

I have heard from a lot of people using Library as a shield to excuse themselves using copyright work illegally. They may think library gets exemption from the law. Actually, libraries have no privilege. If people know how astonishing library expenditure is, they would understand that a large portion of money has been used to purchase the use right and licence fee, especially electronic databases, such as ProQuest, LexisNexis, EbscoHost, etc. In fact, it is better than before. In the past (still used, not less often), online search relies on Dialog, STN, the fee is counted based the format displayed, quantity of document, time consumed and amount of information found. Therefore, the system is used by professional librarian only. And even though they are professional, they would simulate the input procedure on a piece of paper first. They would try to find out the most fast and efficient way to find the information for lowest cost. Patron has to rely to that professional to find information. Even so, according to an example I have in hand, which is a case of using STN in 2004 for less than 5 mins 30 seconds, the cost is already over US$800. Hence, on one hand, library encourages people to use their services; on the other hand, they have to be cautious about the abuse, otherwise, they will always be short of money.

梁董的吧台後 - 不教而殺謂之虐-談數位時代讀者不自覺觸犯圖書館使用規章
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/arshloh&article_id=10928478

---

Posted at

Alan Poon's Blog - 版權和使用權
2006-11-26 9:27:03 pm
http://alanpoon.wordpress.com/2006/11/26/版權和使用權/

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: