Re: An alternative to levies on copyright

João Miguel Neves wrote:
> A Sex, 2004-02-27 às 11:13, Edward Welbourne escreveu:
> 
>>>With software, the person who writes the software isn't necessarily
>>>the copyright holder - that privelege goes to the employer.
>>
>>and it's worth noting that massively-collaborative works present an
>>issue for any "no transferability of rights" rule (without which a "no
>>exclusive deals" rule is largely pointless, since the publisher then
>>only offers even half-way decent deals on condition of transfer, just as
>>they presently do for exclusivity).
>>
> 
> If they offer only half-way decent deals, the artist can simply accept
> it and search for other 3 and 4 half-way decent deals. See the
> difference?
>

Doesn't work if the half-way decent deals are transfers of the 
copyright, that is, the deal requires that the artist hands over 
ownership of the copyright, since after such a deal, the artist would no 
longer own the copyright, the publisher would.  Such a transfer is a 
different beast to an exclusive licence, where the artist retains the 
copyright, but agrees to let only the one publisher use the work.
(nb: Copyrights are legally considered property, with an owner [the 
copyright holder], and can be bought and sold.  The owner of a copyright 
can grant licences that allow others to copy the work [or any of the 
other acts controlled by copyright], including exclusive licences, while 
keeping ownership of the copyright for themselves; they can also, if 
they wish, sell the copyright to someone else.  While an exclusive 
licence and a transfer of ownership have similar end results - the 
exclusive licencee/new owner is the only person allowed to copy etc. the 
work - they are not the same thing.)

> As for the non transferability, I don't see the issue. I don't
> understand why a "no exclusive deals" implies "no tranferability of
> rights".
> 

It doesn't, but for "no exclusive licences" to be useful, it would have 
to be accompanied by "no transfer of rights", otherwise a publisher 
could simply insist upon a transfer of rights rather than an exclusive 
licence, which would defeat the whole point of banning them.

Andrew