Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Rumblings
dcunning writes "The Economist has a short opinion piece entitled Copyrights: A radical rethink that suggests (horror of horrors!) going so far as reverting back to the original copyright term of 14 years, renewable once. The article suggests that, in exchange for this, the 'content industries' be given 'much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies.' A worthwhile and fair tradeoff?"
For the first 14 years of release, the content industry would actually be able to leaglly force me not to read a book aloud? (If you recall this is one of the looney rules they have been trying to make fly with eBooks.) I don't really see how this is fair at all, especially given that 90% of attempted use of such material happens within a few years of its release.
Ñ'
It's an old tactic:
First: present the consumer first with a horrible way of doing things.
Second: the consumer will take almost *anything* else, and even something else bad seems good.
This is a regular management tactic in some places. You should be able to sniff this one a mile away.
Much of the inefficiency of current copyright law comes from the lack of registration, deposit, and renewal, all of which strenghtened the public domain in earlier copyright law.
h ives/ EAFAQ.html
Larry Lessig has proposed a tiny tax 50 years after a work is first copyrighted. If the tax is unpaid, the work goes into the public domain. The tax represents some positive move to show the work has commercial value.
Maybe 50 years is too long. But if we are to lobby for such an act we need to make compromises with the strong copyright interests such as Hollywood.
It might seem immodest to have an act named after me, but I have grown accustomed to the loss of my name after the case Eldred v. Ashcroft. I think it nicely opposes the Sonny Bono Act.
For more on the Eric Eldred Act, see
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/arc
What do you think?
It would certainly change the business model. Those artists would either have to live off of what they've made already, or go on tour to do music and make money that way. Or *gasp shudder die* write new material. Not that all don't, but you'd see more of it for certain . . .
It'd be a boon for musicians starting out, because they'd no longer have to secure rights to play those classic songs, they could just perform them. And it would ALSO spell an end to those stupid bad substitutes for Happy Birthday you hear at resturants.
The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
Make copyrights like tyrademarks.
You get copyright protection for only as long as you use it. Mickey Mouse gets used today, then Steamboat Willie and the MM icon used by Disney gets protected.
Sony doesn't sell N'sync CDs anymore to retailers? Fine, their music is now public domain.
On the plus side, it allows vendors with known icons (the Mouse) to retain the legal proection they need, while allowing 'abandonware' to go where it rightfully belongs - the public.
Don't forget this would cover games too, solving that nasty question of older games that aren't being made anymore.
I've been suggesting this for a while:
Reduce the term of copyrights to somewhere between 20 and 40 years. (Basically, the working lifetime of an author.)
More importantly, I believe that copy protection clashes with the Constitutional purpose of copyright. I propose to not allow materials which are copy protected to be copyrighted. Make the author choose between the two. I think this is important since the purpose of copyright (at least under the US Constitution) is to produce art & science which eventual enter the public domain. Since copy protected materials are designed to impede reproduction, propogating those materials will often be difficult once copyright expires. Since they can't easily enter the public domain, they should not be copyrightable.
(You might also be able to convince me to make the penalties for violating copyright more severe if this is done, to help convince people to not copyprotect materials.)
I am for strong copyrights. I don't think Gone With the Wind, the Three Stooges, and maybe even Elvis should be under copyright any more, though, and I don't think any copyrighted materials should be copy protected.
John
Well said. Even 14 years (really 28 years if renewed) is too long if in exchange we must forfeit all reasonable uses of the material. And if consumers have the ability to make a copy for the office, they have the ability to make any number of copies for any reason, using the sound-out jack if nothing else. No: in general, circumvention for fair-use purposes is absolutely required.
My proposal (which I heard from someone else, but I've forgotten who, so forgive me for failing to provide a credit, and pray don't sue me for copyright infringement):
If you put your copyrighted material in the marketplace with no copy protection mechanisms, then you will receive one 20-year term of copyright protection, non-renewable. Consumers will receive a number of legitimate fair uses of the work, including quoting small sections, time-shifting, space-shifting, backups, playing for family and close friends, even sharing with close friends (like I make a compilation tape and give it to my wife). However, any non-fair-use of the material is a crime, and all copyright crimes will be aggressively punished by authorities. That means sharing a copyrighted work on Kazaa could mean a hefty fine, and enough violations could mean jail time. Kinda like getting a nasty speeding ticket. In other words: create reasonable copyright laws and then do everything within the state's power to enforce them. BTW, I am referring here to casual or non-commercial copyright infringement; for-pay infringement is a different kettle of fish and would probably involve jail time by default.
On the other hand, if the copyright holder uses any form of copy protection, including schemes to lock consumers into approved players or any other nastiness of that kind, that's fine; but the copyright work loses all protection of the laws. In other words, you can rely on copy protection if you wish, but then if the consumer circumvents your protection you are shit out of luck. Attempts to circumvent your protections would be 100 percent legal, and it would also be legal to pass around the cracked work all you liked.
In short: make copyright law reasonable; make fair-use mandatory (at least if you want legal protection for your copyrighted work); and then enforce the reasonable copyright laws aggressively.
To me the worst thing of the copyright question is, that companies acrue title to the rights to copy and THEN decide not to as it is economically not "prudent" to do so. As a consequence a lot of important material never sees a reprint even though there is a need for it.
When material is "available" the cost of getting things that are rare like classical music is such that it cannot only be described as in money terms but also in effort. I live in a 200.000 person town and my personal collection is bigger that what can be found in the record shops. The function of a recordshop is to allow me a listen befor a sale. Without an infrastructure for the sale of material how can the punters be held responsible for not buying or for copying copyrighted material?
When I need a book for study and I cannot have it because of it being out of print, is it not criminal that I cannot get it? That I cannot have a digital copy and print it myself because of this "copyright" joke ?
When the Economist argues for a short period where an artist is to be protected, where does the publishing company come into play when they DO NOT provide the service that they ARE named for; publishing?
In my opinion, any period I can live with as long as there is an equal weight on the other side of the balance. That weight must be service.
Thanks,
Gerard