T&T Copyright Culture Or Lack Thereof

Submitted by Taran Rampersad on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 08:59

If you walk into any store, rum shop or office that has a radio playing, it seems you'll find a sticker that says that the Copyright Organisation of Trinidad and Tobago (COTT) was there. They charge these businesses money for allowing their customers a break from the monotony of the other sounds of their businessplace. And they are penalized in something that could well be described as double jeapordy - broadcasters already pay for a licence that permits them to broadcast; then COTT goes around and charges these businesses for the same thing. Information on their website about whether you need a licence or not can be found here. And for the record, all those funny characters are just bad web development.

Past responses from COTT about this criticism have been, "It's the Law." You can, and should, know about the Infringement aspects of the Copyright Act of Trinidad and Tobago (1997) - the relevant section is here. Technically speaking, if you can hear the music from the car ahead or behind you, it could be considered public broadcasting - which means that COTT should be charging anyone with subwoofers in their car some money. See? I'm not against COTT. I just found them a new revenue stream.

Whether it is a dumb law or not is certainly up for debate despite COTT's response. But then there was a big scare earlier this year with all the video stores uncertain of how they would continue selling videos downloaded by bittorrent and burned to DVD. COTT fell asleep, videos continue to be sold in this manner and established video stores even pay the government every year for the privilege of breaking Copyright Law that COTT so mulishly enforces on legitimate businesses.

The selective enforcement makes one wonder. How is it that one thing warrants COTT employees wandering around and interfering with some businesses - but not all? I wonder if all the houses of ill-repute that all are so familiar with (but the police never visit... officially) have stickers from COTT? Amusing to consider.

Copyright is a revenue stream. That's why it's supposed to be an issue. How do you think proprietary software manufacturers, the recording industry and the movie industry make money? Copyrights and patents, described often as intellectual property.

In the end, this sends mixed signals about Copyright. And with Copyright being the oil of the generations to come, one would think that more cohesive planning regarding copyright would be apparent. But there isn't. And that creates a culture that doesn't respect copyright... when someone is prosecuted, if ever, it's a matter of selective enforcement.

Blog: 
Trinidad and Tobago
copyright
Law
COTT

Comments

Submitted by Social Media An... (not verified) on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:00.

[...] Trinidad and Tobago, as I wrote earlier, copyright culture is confused. Fortunately, most people who are creating content on the Internet from Trinidad and Tobago seem to [...]

Submitted by Ian Ramjohn on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 10:08.

I've never been able to figure out how this translates into compensating the owners of the rights.  Yeah, I know - it doesn't.  They don't seem to be asking whose music it is that is getting played. 

What's especially interesting is the last secton here, about online/streaming rights.  They're saying that you need a license to stream music, if it's available in TT.  And that right is distinct from the need to obtain permission from the copyright holders.  So...even if you're making your own recording available, anywhere on the internet, you have to pay COTT?  Right...

Submitted by Taran Rampersad on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 11:19.

A couple of years ago, COTT had a booth in Gulf City Mall - I forget what the event was - but they forbade me taking pictures of the booth. The conversation went something like this:

"Sir, you can't take pictures of this!"
"I can't? Who does the copyright belong to?"
"COTT"
"And COTT is an extension of the Trinidad and Tobago Government, right?"
"Yes"
"And the Government of Trinidad and Tobago produces things for the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago?"
"Yes"
"So you're saying that I can't take pictures of something that the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago paid for?"
"Well, I'm not a lawyer..."
"But you're here to talk about copyright."

I walked off there; I realized a reasoned discussion was impossible. Email with higher ups in COTT showed me a line of reasoning that made little sense and was trapped in a bureaucracy.
COTT can't possibly track everything on the Internet, if anything  - they're too busy having people walk around and charge businesses for playing music from radios when the broadcasters already pay that. COTT isn't relevant because COTT and the Laws it selectively enforce are largely not relevant. No one worries about them, it seems. And why should they? 

Submitted by From Foreign (not verified) on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 11:31.

Unless the event that you were photographing was closed or restricted to the public (you needed a ticket to get in and you had to purchase media rights separately) it is fair game. A booth in a public mall is accessible to the public; the expectation is that anything in a public space can be photographed.

Photography or recording of plays, sporting events and the like can be restricted, but they fall within the previous guidelines.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do i play one on TV. I am familiar with this section of the law due to my career and its interaction with public performances.

Submitted by Taran Rampersad on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 11:57.

The problem was that they didn't know they were wrong. And they weren't open to the possibility of being wrong, even with reasonable logic.

The public performance stuff - yup. But the point is that if something is produced by the Trinidad and Tobago government, it belongs to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago. Legally speaking, no lawyer has been able to give me a sensible answer - but in other countries, the government cannot copyright material. ;-)

Submitted by Ian Ramjohn on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 13:41.

[I]f something is produced by the Trinidad and Tobago government, it belongs to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobagoif something is produced by the Trinidad and Tobago government, it belongs to the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago

Yes but...

Unlike the US, in which things done by the government are automatically in the public domain, the the UK they have something called "crown copyright".  I'm guessing that TT probably follows that model.  That said, of course, refusing to let someone take a picture of a booth because of "copyright" seems absurd.  Taking the picture shouldn't be the issue.  Whether you would violate some copyright if you publish it - that's another story.  But whose copyright?  The designer of the booth?  If so - was the design "work for hire" (or something of the sort) in which case the copyright would belong to GOTT, or were those rights not explicitly surrendered, in which case they remain with the designer.  Was COTT (or the man in the booth, on COTT's behalf) claiming rights that didn't belong to them?  For that matter, was the design original enough that a new copyright work was generated?  I mean, a booth is a booth...unless it isn't.  Finally, does Trinidad recognise anything akin to "Panoramafreiheit"?  (Honestly, I don't know.  And that's a key question.)

Submitted by Taran Rampersad on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 14:02.

Good pointer, I'll look into that. The odd thing is that I found out from you - not them... and that's something else to take them to task with. They really aren't educating the public as much as they are browbeating them into submission.

The booth wasn't actually quite that interesting. In fact, it was a bore. But I thought, "Why not write about it?". I did, actually, but because of the person's inability to speak comprehensively on copyright.

Submitted by From Foreign (not verified) on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 11:22.

The way that ti is supposed to work is that if the business benefits from the music be it background music or playing a DJ to help draw business, the artist's work is being used to help draw / maintain customers. Thus the requirement for a license to broadcsat in a public place. An office worker playing a radio for his personal pleasure wouldn't need such a license, since the only one(s) listening (in theory) are private listeners and not customers.

COTT's enforcement of the law is spotty as usual. Police say that "it's COTT's responsibility" and COTT say that they can't do it without police support. Technically, all those video / DVD rental places have been breaking the law for years - why stop now? if they were to all go truly legal, it would prove to be financially infeasible to stay in business.

Since it is much cheaper to go to the pirate on the corner and buy the Hollywood (or Bollywood) flick for $5-$10 versus going to the theater (well over $100) which do you think is preferable? Who the public go support?