Forbes on Lessig and Eldred

scubacuda writes "In the Forbes editorial, Fact and Comment , Steve Forbes voices his support for Lessig and the Eldred case: 'Maybe Congress should just be done with it and declare that a copyright is forever....Stanford Law School professor Lawrence Lessig has proposed a sensible compromise..."[I]f Congress is listening to the frustration that the court's decision has created, [paying to maintain copyright extensions] would be a simple and effective way for the First Branch to respond." He's absolutely right.'"

Comments

The proposed payment for extension is good, but...

[nsayer]

Just some tweaks I'd make:

1. Reduce the basic copyright term to 20 years.
2. Set the fee to $ k * (2^n - 1) for each desired extension term (n = 0 is the first term, which would be $0). The longer you want to lock up a work, the more it costs you (at an exponential rate). The value of k should be adjusted for inflation.
3. If a copyright expires and the current rightholder does not wish to extend, then allow the copyright to be auctioned with the minimum bid starting at the renewal price. If no one meets the minimum bid, the work irrevocably enters the public domain.
4. The money raised should be paid into a fund for public libraries.

Re:The proposed payment for extension is good, but

[mrfrostee]

Sounds great, except why allow people other than the current rightholder to extend? For that matter, why allow anyone but the original author to extend?

The first U.S. copyright laws restricted renewals to the original author. Going back to that idea would remove some of the "property" connotations that have appeared since then.

Problems With Fee For Copyright

[Artagel]

First, one of the nice things about copyright, for the little guy, is that you do not have to register to be entitled to some copyright protection. You author something, and there is some protection you are entitled to without registration. Copyright registrations are inexpensive, and can usually be done without the assistance of an attorney. Requring a registration after 5, 10, or even 20 years to have a continuing copyright could make good sense -- the author would have a fair chance to assess what needed protecting versus what was not going to be worth paying a fee.

Second, because of the Berne Convention, we cannot burden copyrights resulting from publications in foreign countries in certain ways. For example, you have to register a domestic work before you file a lawsuit in the U.S., but the foreign work does not have to file a U.S. registration prior to a lawsuit. If done in a way such that the effect were to be to force Disney and Hollywood to move to Canada or Mexico, I can't say it would be a victory.

Third, is used in a way like present fee systems, the fees would not distinguish between big money works that pay for themselves in a year, and the rest is gravy, versus the smaller circulation works that need 10 or 20 years to gather a good income. In some ways a tax would work better -- it could be proportional to the financial value.

I think that copyright should be easy and cheap for short periods, cost money to maintain for long periods (although shorter than the current limits), be consistent internationally, and have an easy way for the public to figure out what is or is not copyrighted (E.g. not having to figure out when Joe Obscure Author kicked the bucket).