Suchergebnisse

Seit dem Einzug der digitalen Netzwerktechnologie ist das Urheberrecht zu einem heftig umkämpften Politikum geworden. Dies gilt auch im Hinblick auf "Wissenschaft" als urheberrechtlichen Schutzgegenstand. Ob das Verhältnis zwischen Urheberrecht und Wissenschaft allerdings überhaupt als problematisch erscheint und welche Lösungsansätze für einen ggf. wahrgenommenen Konflikt präferiert werden, hängt maßgeblich von der Perspektive ab. Der Beitrag unterscheidet insoweit eine urheberrechtliche von einer wissenschaftstheoretisch/-soziologischen Betrachtungsweise. Es zeigt sich, dass nur Letztere geeignet ist, den gegenwärtig stattfindenden, grundlegenden Wandel des wissenschaftlichen Kommunikationssystems zu erklären und adäquate Regulierungsvorschläge zu entwickeln. ; Since the advent of digital network technologies, copyright has become a highly contentious political matter. This is also true in the area of scientific works and the scholarly communication system in general. However, whether the relationship between copyright and scholarship is considered problematic and which, if any, alternative approaches to the current system are preferred, depends upon the perspective. In that regard, the article distinguishes a copyright perspective from a perspective that takes as its starting point the philosophy and sociology of science. The article shows that only the latter, scientific perspective is capable of explaining and adequately regulating the current, fundamental change taking place in the scholarly communication system.

Zusammenfassung: "Intellectual property law is based on a specific notion of reality. According to this understanding, there exist immaterial objects which are exclusively assigned to a rights holder.1 Unlike corporeal objects ('things'),2 these immaterial objects cannot be touched, nor can their physical existence be measured as with intangible, yet still physical data or software.3 They are also not identical with specific exemplars of a copyrightable work (e.g. a book or a digital file), with products, mechanical or other technical processes, with product signs on packaging or advertising material, etc. Instead the objects protected by IP law are merely accidentally embodied in these manifestations. The work, the invention, the design, the distinctive sign, etc. exist strictly separated from their instantiations as immaterial ('intellectual'), abstract objects (in the following: abstract IP objects).4 Thus, three types of objects can be distinguished under German private law: the movable or immovable tangible thing (Section 90 of the Civil Code); other intangible yet physically measurable, material objects such as electric energy, a digital file or a computer program embodied on a data carrier (Section 453(1) alt. 2 of the Civil Code); and the immaterial, abstract IP object.5"--(Provided by publisher.)

Abstract
Over the last quarter of a century, the sources of the global recorded music industry's revenues have changed fundamentally, from 100 per cent physical sources (mostly compact discs [CDs]) in 1999 to diversified sources between 2010 and 2015, to mostly intangible sources (mostly streaming) thereafter. However, such global statistics tell us little about developments on the ground in countries with very different socio-economic and cultural circumstances. This special issue examines, from a multidisciplinary and comparative perspective, how technology, particularly the internet, cultural practices and law have interacted in the field of popular music in three African countries (Nigeria, Cameroon, South Africa) and Brazil. The socio-economic and legal situations in these countries have been far less studied than those in the Global North. In addition, they are of great importance from an overall perspective because of their population and market size, as well as their 'cultural influences' on the regional and even global music scene – suffice it to mention Afrobeats, Bossa Nova and Amapiano. Remarkably, the studies featured in this special issue reveal more similarities than differences.

Germany transposed Art. 17 of Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market (CDSMD) through a new Act on the Copyright Liability of Online Content Sharing Service Providers (OCSSP Act), which entered into force on 1 August 2021. After a brief summary of the state of the debate on the EU level regarding Art. 17 CDSMD and of the German OCSSP Act, this paper examines whether the terms and conditions and other publicly accessible copyright policies of eight services, namely YouTube, Rumble, TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, SoundCloud and Pinterest, changed upon the entry into force of the German OCSSP Act. For this purpose, we reviewed and analysed the relevant German-language websites four times between July 2021 and November 2021. Our data collection reveals only few changes in the terms and conditions of platforms over time, but significant differences between the services in relation to their use of content recognition technology. The concluding section discusses the implications of these findings for the future of copyright policy in the EU.