R: [Diritto] Dubbi su licenze (e software libero)

[Giovanni d'Ammassa]

> A questo proposito vorrei chiederle una cosa: mi sono sempre domandato
> come è possibile che un organismo come la SIAE possa *obbligare*
> gli autori a versarle diritti, anche se quegli autori non sono iscritti
> a quell'organismo e propongono lavori propri. Certo, mi si può rispondere
> che questa è la legge. Ma a parte le risposte più o meno ovvie, io
> mi chiedo se ciò sia di fatto costituzionale, o quanto meno se non
> contrasti con le norme che tutelano il diritto d'autore.

> Dal mio punto di vista, la SIAE o altre organizzazioni simili dovrebbero
> essere legittimate a tutelare solo i propri iscritti, ovvero solo chi
> desidera di propria spontanea volontà essere tutelato. Come si fa in
> qualsiasi sindacato o organizzazione di categoria. Per tutti gli altri
> basta che paghino le tasse se fanno utili. O no ? Perchè dovrei bollinare
> un CD con mie canzoni se io non sono iscritto alla SIAE ? E perchè
> dovrei bollinare un CD contenente SW libero, fatto da autori che al 99%
> non sono italiani e non sanno neppure cos'è la SIAE ? Io vedo questo
> come un palese *esproprio* della volontà dell'autore, non una sua
> tutela.

Immagino si riferisca al contrassegno ("volgarmente" detto bollino). Gli
autori non versano diritti,
ma pagano un compenso per una prestazione di servizio, obbligatoria in certi
casi, che consiste
nell'apposizione sul supporto di un contrassegno.
In questo caso la SIAE esercita una funzione di controllo per così dire
"antipirateria", e verifica
che chi riproduce l'opera sia il titolare dei diritti.
In ogni caso il sistema del contrassegno è stato condannato dalla
International Intellectual Property Alliance, la quale
al proposito afferma:

TRIPS, the SIAE Sticker and the Software Industry
Unfortunately, these positive reforms do not tell the whole story. The AP
Law contains a
provision that could essentially nullify many of the law’s otherwise helpful
provisions with respect
to the software industry. Article 181bis of the law contains an extremely
burdensome requirement
that could require software producers either to physically place a sticker
on each work sold in Italy
or to file complex “product identification declarations” -- or else
potentially forfeit their right to
pursue criminal remedies against infringers of their works. Even worse,
legitimate producers who
fail to “sticker” products are themselves subject to severe criminal
penalties. Thus, absent an
exemption for business software products as contemplated under the law, the
owners of perfectly
legitimate copyrighted works will be subject to criminal sanctions, while
pirates who wish to copy
and sell such works without authorization are potentially not liable under
Article 171bis of the law.
The September 2001 regulation implementing the stickering scheme does not
resolve these
problems. Under the law, computer and multimedia programs containing less
than 50% of a
music, film or audiovisual work, as well as computer and multimedia programs
exclusively
containing music, film or audiovisual works expressly realized to be
inserted into such programs
are to be excused from the stickering requirement. The Italian government
had assured industry
that when this provision of the law was implemented in the regulation, it
would exempt business
software across the board. The exemption as set out in the regulation is not
unconditional,
however. Instead, the regulation provides that works meeting the “50% test”
can be exempted only
with SIAE’s consent. The regulation does not define the circumstances under
which SIAE may grant
or withhold its consent, the timelines under which SIAE must act, or how
often such consent must
be obtained. Nor is receiving consent adequate to trigger the exemption or
ensure criminal
protection of unstickered programs. A party that has obtained SIAE’s consent
must file with SIAE a
“product identification declaration” and a sample of the products that it
intends to distribute at least
10 days prior to the date upon which the products enter the market. The
declaration must also
include detailed information regarding the products, as well as a listing of
all works of art that the
products contain and information regarding the company’s distribution
channels. Absent such
declaration, the products do not receive criminal protection under the law;
indeed, distribution of
such products is arguably illegal and subject to seizure by Italian
authorities (indeed, Italian
authorities seized unstickered computer programs in August 2001).
The stickering regime established in the law and its implementing regulation
may violate
several provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, namely Articles 9, 41 and 61.
Article 9 of TRIPS
requires compliance with the provisions of the Berne Convention, including
Article 5(2), which
prohibits countries from subjecting the “enjoyment and the exercise” of
copyright rights to any
formality. Italy’s stickering requirement, as well as its associated fee and
declaration requirement,
represent a prohibited formality. Moreover, given the unavailability of
effective criminal remedies
to enforce a copyright on unstickered works, the stickering requirement also
violates articles 41 and
61 of the TRIPS Agreement. Finally, the burden imposed by the requirement
makes criminal
enforcement unnecessarily complicated and costly, and creates a barrier to
legitimate trade,
contrary to the requirements of TRIPS Article 41.
The stickering requirement has absolutely no logical relationship to the
business software
industry. There is no collective administration of business software
copyrights in the EU. The
industry is not represented by SIAE (the quasipublic royalty collections
agency charged with
implementing the stickering regime), nor do business software copyright
owners receive any
royalties from this agency.
A broad coalition of high-technology industries in Italy has held extensive
discussions with
representatives of the Italian government and with SIAE officials over the
past 18 months to develop
a consensus that would implement the exemption contemplated in the AP Law.
Industry has also
sought the support of the office of the USTR, the U.S. Embassy, and
representatives of the European
Union. As of the date of this submission, negotiations with the government
are ongoing, and
industry remains hopeful that a solution can be reached.
Stickering Costs Concerns
The Italian government continues to move forward on the issue of mandatory
SIAE
stickering. In addition to questions surrounding the exemption for computer
software, there
continue to be critical issues concerning the costs for such stickers. SIAE
wants a unified fee of 60
lire per sticker, which could produce annual revenue of some US$9 million.
SIAE defends the
amount by arguing that it has to cover not just the administration of the
sticker, but also the cost of
its planned anti-piracy activities. SIAE is planning a US$3 million
anti-piracy program, but all local
attempts to date to secure details of what it plans to do with such a budget
have been unsuccessful.
It is feared that SIAE may interpret its anti-piracy function under Law
248/00 as limited to the
inspection of stickers. The funds set aside for anti-piracy work should be
applied in the reduction
of piracy, and not be limited to merely checking stickers.

il documento è disponibile all'indirizzo:
www.dirittodautore.it/freedocs/2002SPEC301ITALY.pdf

> saluti,
> 	-cs-
> --
> For easier reading please set the Courier font.
> Messages larger than 30 KB may not receive immediate attention.
> Freedom for Business: http://swpat.ffii.org
> _______________________________________________
> Diritto mailing list
> Diritto@softwarelibero.it
> http://lists.softwarelibero.it/mailman/listinfo/diritto
> Totale iscritti:      97
>