Technically has changed, we will just use our mobile media by activation via the facilities provided telko that provides songs that we need in a way, technical and payment systems that have been determined. Song or music which can not be ordered also wholly owned. Because the song or the music stays on the server telko concerned and not be moved or copied to a mobile phone subscribers. To avoid copying or downloading action, telko also has equipped itself with the 'streaming'. Music / song that is uploaded, not the buyer who is enjoying themselves, but they are contacted by phone or cell phone. They also can only use the repertoire had ordered in a certain time (usually by one month) and can be extended in certain ways and count as well.
Differences with the Ring Tone Ring Back Tone
* On the Ring Tone, music / song that we use both mobile phones provided by the companies concerned as well as those in the download (not upload) via computer or any media, music or songs that are in the phone and serves as a ring tone that we hear their own when others contact us. And also the music / song can be di'putar 'itself over and over again, on transfer to another phone or removed from his cell phone.
* While on the Ring Back Tone, music / songs are not stored in the phone but remain on the 'server' telko concerned and will automatically be exposed only to those who contact customers who have made the activation to the tune of his choice.
In the midst of rampant piracy, the music business RBT has provided fresh air for the music industry in this country because of marketing that no longer use conventional network but was using a virtual access.
But now new problems arise that no less terrible to the issue of piracy. Demand demanding in the use of RBT that much happened lately is an indication not selarasnya applying copyright in this virtual business. Various interpretations of the copyright status has been developed through the justification that di'paksakan'kan to meet targets on their own interests. To put this issue in a comprehensive RBT, have studied some legal restrictions and legislation as a formal reference:
Article 1 Paragraph (1) of the Act R.I. No.19 of 2002 on Copyright, provides the following provisions:
'Copyright is the exclusive rights for the creator or the recipient the right to announce or reproduce the creations or give permission for it by not reducing the regulatory restrictions under legislation in force'.
Article 2 Paragraph (1) states:
'Copyright is a privilege for the author or copyright holder to reproduce creations announce or arising out automatically after a creature born without prejudice to restrictions under laws in force'
Explanation of Article 2, Paragraph (1):
The definition of exclusive rights is a right reserved solely for the holder so that no other party may exploit such rights without the permission of the holder. The definition of "declared or reproduce", including activities of translating, adapting, arranging, mengalihwujudkan, sell, lease, lend, import, display, publicly perform, broadcast, record, and communicate a work to the public through any means.
In the event that the above explanation, the term 'by any means' has been confirmed that there was no exception in this case or packaging format used. Which means if the use of copyright protected works are in compliance with the agreed format and packaging, of course, no problem.
Similarly, other rights of the creator to be aware of them even respected moral rights and decency in dividing the economic rights.
As the provisions set forth in Article 55 of Law No.19 of 2002 on Intellectual Property Rights:
Submission of Copyright in the whole of Creation to the other party does not prejudice the right of the Creator or their heirs to sue that without his consent:
a. Negate the Creator name listed on the Creation;
b. Include the name of the Creator in his creation;
c. Replace or change the title of a work; or
d. Changing the contents of Creation.
In Article 45 of the License states:
(1) The Copyright Holder reserves the right to grant a license to another party under a license agreement to implement the actions referred to in Article 2.
(1) Unless otherwise agreed, the scope of license as referred to in paragraph (1) includes all acts as referred to in Article 2 took place during the licensing period is given and is valid for the entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia.
(1) Unless otherwise agreed, the implementation of actions referred to in paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) accompanied by the obligation to provide royalties to copyright holders by the licensee.
(1) The amount of royalties that must be paid to copyright holders by the licensee is based on the agreement of both parties by referring to the agreement of professional organizations.
In general, lawyer-exploitation of copyrighted works on the RBT, - as I already gave at the top - made by the producer (the label) without any clear agreement in the agreement referred particularly to the songs that have been released prior to this era of RBT. This is what often causes problems.
The ownership of the fixation (master) and a multi treaty interpretation, making the producers (label) 'bold' conduct transactions with telko RBT-telko and they do not feel has violated the rules and even this di'amini 'by telko-telko those who did not a lot of understanding about copyright. And that 'more daring' again, are not met, the moral rights of creators of the song in question. Some users argued that the RBT is a new business that the user accessed via a virtual media so it is not possible to include the names of its creator. Thus the inclusion of it has been superseded by specific codes for easy access by consumers. This is a baseless argument. Reason of a technical change in terms of marketing or lawyer-exploitation of or whatever, would still not be justified when it is done by breaking the rules. And again in this RBT no events 'mutilation' of the work used. Treatment beheading / mutilation of the work of this copyright, permission must also be its creator. All it would not be a problem if renaming the creator into the specific codes and deed beheaded integrity (mutilation) is the copyrighted work has received written consent from its creator or actually already contained in the contract (license) it.
No comments:
Post a Comment