Expanding Fair Use To Reform Copyright Law

Hugh Pickens writes "Gigi Sohn, President of Public Knowledge, presented a six-step program for reforming outdated US copyright laws in a speech at the New Media conference at Boston University. Sohn expressed no patience with the 'disconnect between the law and the technology' of media production and distribution. He puts Fair Use at the top of the list for changes that will help return balance to copyright laws that have limited innovation, scholarship, creativity, and free speech. In addition to the four-part legal test for fair use currently on the books, Sohn recommends that Congress add incidental, transformative, and non-commercial personal uses to the list of fair uses enumerated in copyright law, and in addition expressly provide that making a digital copy for the purpose of indexing searches is not an infringement. Beyond Fair Use reform, Sohn advocates punishing copyright holders who 'knowingly or recklessly' send out false takedown notices, protecting the manufacturer of a technology from liability for the infringing activity of others if the technology has substantial non-infringing uses, promoting fair and accessible licensing of copyrighted works, limiting damages for the use of orphan works, and requiring copyright holders to provide notice of any limitations on users' ability to make fair or lawful uses of their products."

Comments

right

[stoolpigeon]

and how much did Public Knowledge give in campaign contributions this year? How much do they plan on 'donating' in 2008?

'Cause I'm thinking the industries that give millions might not be in favor of any legislation that would do any of this stuff.

And I'm thinking that the millions of dollars are gonna talk louder.

Re:right

[Apple Acolyte]

And if special interest funding is the only thing that moves legislation in Congress, our country has truly lost its way.

Re:right

[monomania]

This is where we come in. It behooves us to support these organizations, with our voices and our purchasing power if they are commercial, and with our time (if possible) and our donations if they are non-profit. We have to foster the voices that speak for us whenever and wherever we can.

Re:right

[stoolpigeon]

it's not the only thing - but not enough people care about this to bring other factors into play. you have an indifferent and predominately ignorant (on this issue among others) populace and a highly motivated, high profit industries that are willing to fork over truck loads of cash. that's quite an imbalance.

Re:right

[kaiser423]

Or you could just vote for someone with morals....

ok, stop laughing now. There are actually a couple who will vote what they think, not what they get paid to think (Ron Paul, Mike Gravel)

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had the power, what would you change about copyright law?

Re:right

[Billosaur]

Similar to the DRM problem. The average user/consumer has no deep knowledge of the esoterica behind copyrights, etc. They simply want what they want. They don't realize that the content they get is not nearly as expansive as it would be if copyright and "fair use" were less of an issue. Marketing keeps people from caring -- "pay no attention to that fellow behind the curtain."

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

It's money or people. If all the people who are part of the /. effect wrote to the representatives (a dead-tree letter, not an e-mail astroturf campaign) they would listen.

Re:right

[Billosaur]

The problem is your average consumer is a sheep -- Pink Floyd knew what they were talking about. You can't get enough people interested in the idea (voting is important, DRM is bad, copyright is broken, etc.), because they don't really see how it impacts them... until it does. And even then, only a few people go out and bang the war drum to try and stir up resistance. When we're talking hundreds of millions of consumers being affected but only thousands stepping up to do anything about it, you're looking at an uphill fight.

Re:right

[uncoveror]

You are right about that. Our parliament of whores will only turn tricks for the richest johns that lobbyists pimp them out to, and somehow it is us who get screwed.

Re:right

[vtscott]

The average user/consumer has no deep knowledge of the esoterica behind copyrights, etc.

And this is great for corporations who can afford to have a legal department. Having too many laws and laws that are overly complicated really stacks the deck against the average person. Corporations and government love it though, because they can force us to play in a game where they know and interpret the rules while we don't. We definitely need organizations like this to level the playing field.

Re:right

[sm62704]

We live not in a democratic republic, but a plutocracy. Money talks and your bullshit vote walks.

Here's how our government works: the great American corporation Sony gives ten million $ to the Democrat candidate, and another ten mil to the Republican. No matter who loses, Sony wins. When Sony's interests go against yours, you lose.

We're not going to get copyright reform. Here's another two reforms we need before copyright reform is possible but won't get either:

• You should not be eligible to contribute to a candidate you're not eligible to vote for. I should not be able to contribute to John McCain unless he runs for President, or moves to Illinois and aomeone from Arizona shouldn't be able to contribute to Obama unless Obama m,oves to Arizona or runs for President.
  
• You should not be allowed to "contribute" to more than one candidate in any given race. "Contributing" to more than one candidate in a race is simply a badly hidden bribe.

-mcgrew

Re:right

[king-manic]

and how much did Public Knowledge give in campaign contributions this year? How much do they plan on 'donating' in 2008?

'Cause I'm thinking the industries that give millions might not be in favor of any legislation that would do any of this stuff.

And I'm thinking that the millions of dollars are gonna talk louder. While the ultra-cynical side of me believes everything you just said, political currency is not simply measured in dollars. some small non-profit groups bat a lot higher then their pay scale due to representing or are thought a large number of people. An organization like NAACP can have influence on politicians and policy beyond their actual yearly income. Sometimes it works in other ways other then campaign donations. Union X pledges support for you campaign in return you must vote against policy Y. Organization Z supplies volenteers for your campaign but you must support legislation A. Group B threatens to protest and pull string in constituency C which is a important swing constituency. etc.

So while they may not be able to donate much (in fact the RIAA won't donate much either) they may still have influence if we make enough noise about it. The RIAA doesn't get influence from direct bribing but more subtle things. Mostly establishing relationships with policy makers and convince them of the RIAA position. RIAA pays the contact not the congressman. The congressman hopes after his political career has run it's course that he can be the paid contact. A Active politician won't endanger his career by taking an open bribe but more subtle things go on to diffuse this. For instance does anyone actually think Cheney isn't going to get a large number of highly paid speaking engagements from haliburton after his presidency is over? But it's not contravening any laws that he enacted policy helping Haliburton because he's done all the things necessary to make any case against him impossible.

Re:right

[cei]

I'd start with:

• 28 year term -- non-extendable; non transferable. It's good to make money off your success. It's not good to rest on your laurels and hope to retire off your one-hit wonder -- that doesn't give any incentive for new creation. And your heirs shouldn't expect any right to be useless members of society, making their way solely on your notoriety. Just because J.R.R. Tolkien and Frank Herbert created whole universes doesn't give Christopher Tolkien and Brian Herbert exclusive rights to play in those worlds, just because their daddies made them.
• Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.
• Non-commercial violations would be allowed under fair use so long as their scope was limited. (ie, OK to share a copy with your friend for no money; not OK to share copies with hundreds of strangers for no money.)

Probably a few more, but those are off the top of my head...

Re:right

[Kadin2048]

And if special interest funding is the only thing that moves legislation in Congress, our country has truly lost its way. Nice to see that you've been paying such close attention.

Re:right

[mr_mischief]

The problem is that those people don't get the support they deserve because the public doesn't vote what they think, and largely don't think before they vote at all. For thoughtful, honest people to be put in power we need to have honest, thoughtful people voting them into power.

Re:right

[dfetter]

It would also be good to limit the time an entity could hold an exclusive license. For example, you do something for Disney, and no matter what they say or do, they can't have exclusive rights to it for more than 5 years.

Re:right

[dfetter]

You can squarely blame Buckley v. Valeo for the current catastrophe. As long as money has free speech rights, the little people--that's you and me--will suffer without recourse.

Re:right

[Red Flayer]

We're not going to get copyright reform. Here's another two reforms we need before copyright reform is possible but won't get either:
You should not be eligible to contribute to a candidate you're not eligible to vote for. I should not be able to contribute to John McCain unless he runs for President, or moves to Illinois and aomeone from Arizona shouldn't be able to contribute to Obama unless Obama m,oves to Arizona or runs for President.
You should not be allowed to "contribute" to more than one candidate in any given race. "Contributing" to more than one candidate in a race is simply a badly hidden bribe.

So in essence, you're saying that we should replace votes with cash donations. And to keep things fair, you can only bribe one candidate, not multiple candidates.

You should be able to donate to as many candidates as you like. What if you want Candidate A to get elected, but you really like the message of candidate C? Why can't you support both if you like?

Re:right

[cpt kangarooski]

28 year term -- non-extendable

Why so long? Why not, say, a 7 year term, with up to three renewals. That way, if a copyright holder stops caring about his work enough to renew, the work falls into the public domain that much earlier. Historically, it's common, with most authors failing to ever renew. Further, given the economic horizons of works (e.g. making 90% of their lifetime value within at most a year, and often less time), perhaps the terms ought to be even shorter than that.

Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work.

I absolutely disagree. If an author wants to sell his copyright, who are you to tell him he can't? Is he not allowed to sell his house or his car as well? Don't be so paternalistic. If people want to do this, let them. It is not appropriate to second-guess other people's personal and business decisions in that manner except in extreme cases, and these are not extreme cases.

Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.

Meh. The work made for hire doctrine is a bit shaky, I admit, but I think it would probably be better to enlarge it than to abolish it. E.g. if you hire a wedding photographer, why shouldn't you wind up with the copyright to the photos without having to specially negotiate it? (Better still, why should they even be copyrighted? I think the public will live, and it's just one more mark in favor of requiring registration)

Non-commercial violations would be allowed under fair use so long as their scope was limited. (ie, OK to share a copy with your friend for no money; not OK to share copies with hundreds of strangers for no money.)

I'd just as soon open the flood gates on this, so long as it is natural persons and non-commercial. I wouldn't extend that protection for actively participating commercial or non-natural entities, however. (e.g. a torrent tracker couldn't carry advertising or be run by a business in order to be protected) After all, it's basically happening anyway, and it seems to not be a big deal.

Re:right

[SpiritGod21]

Right, because Ron Paul, 100% supporter of a free market and the libertarian-turned-republican who advocates small federal government with little or no interventionism is certainly going to be in favour of passing laws that restrict the privileges of business and copyright holders.

Ron Paul is not the cure-all miracle tonic for our country. If you want to vote for him, fine, but at least be honest about what he stands for. His response to companies abusing IP and copyright would probably be that people should boycott those companies. Don't buy or use the goods long enough and the companies will change. The "free market" will work itself out on its own. It's not the government's job to fix people's problems.

There's nothing moral about it. Nothing immoral, either. If anything, his stance is amoral in my opinion.

Re:right

[east coast]

Serious campaign finance reform is certainly in order and well overdue but I have serious concerns about not having some form of the fairness doctrine in place. Already the two big parties have too much weight both in dollars and media coverage to allow them to edge out serious competition. While contribution reform may help the situation there is more than one way to skin a cat and the media certainly is a part of this same corrupt system.

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a problem with this one: "Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work."

People should be able to transfer copyright--for ready cash, say--to an organization more interested in and better able to deal with licensing issues.

And what if I want to assign my copyright to the FSF?

Re:right

[Sinanju]

"You should not be eligible to contribute to a candidate you're not eligible to vote for." You couldn't be more wrong. SENATOR John McCain can make laws that _I_ have to live under, no matter what state I reside in. I have--and should have--every right to work for or against his election by donating my time or money, even if I can't vote for or against him directly. If his election can have national consequences, it is a national issue.

Re:right

[Teufelsmuhle]

It may not be the only thing, but it is the #1 thing.

Also, I don't believe that most consumers are indifferent or ignorant. What they are (or at least what they feel they are) is powerless. Very few consumers have the millions of dollars to combat the millions of dollars on the other side.

Re:right

[Teufelsmuhle]

You should not be allowed to contribute directly to any candidate. You should only be allowed to contribute to a general fund which is distributed evenly and fairly to all candidates who meet a predefined set of standards each step along the way based upon public support, not how much money they or their Daddy has in the bank.

Re:right

[sm62704]

No, that's not what I said at all. What I said was that cash donations are the norm NOW; bribery. You should only be able to donate to a candidate whose causes you believe in, not to entice him to change his views.

Your cash donation from another state should NOT trump my vote in my own state.

Re:right

[sm62704]

There's plenty of room for the fairness doctrine, but that's pretty well dead, too. In the last election (or was it the one before?), the Green Party with Nader as its candidate could not possibly have won the Presidential election as it wasn't on th eballot in enough states, while the Libertarian candidate was on the ballot in 49 states.

Nader got the press, the Libertarian got nada. But that's to be expected, as the media are all corporate owned and have nothing to gain and everything to lose by us getting more than 2 "viable" parties.

We have the best government money can buy.

Re:right

[sm62704]

SENATOR John McCain can make laws that _I_ have to live under, no matter what state I reside in. Why am I not allowed to vote for him?

Because he is supposed to represent ARIZONA, not Illinois.

Re:right

[sm62704]

I wouldn't argue against that, but it's even less likely than my impossible reforms to ever happen.

Re:right

[Sinanju]

And yet his votes in the Senate affect my life. If his legislative reach were limited to the lives of people who lived in Arizona, you'd have a point. As it stands, if an Arizona Senator can affect my life, I have every right to work for against his campaign. Not being an Arizona resident, I can't _vote_ for (or against) him, and that's as it should be. But spent my time or money to support or oppose him? Hell yes.

Re:right

[Red Flayer]

You should only be able to donate to a candidate whose causes you believe in, not to entice him to change his views.

And how exactly are we to police the intent of the donor?

Your cash donation from another state should NOT trump my vote in my own state.

It doesn't. What trumps your vote in your state is the votes of others in your state who listen to marketing efforts more than you do.

I'm in agreement with you that money has too much impact in politics. I don't, however, agree that limitations on the flow of money into a campaign are the be-all and end-all of solutions. I think it'd be far more fruitful to limit the amount of money spent by candidates on media -- but of course, then we run into even more free speech issues.

The real solution, in my mind, is to break the stranglehold of the oligarchic media companies. Distributed control of popular media is the key, and this is why the free internet is under attack.

Re:right

[jm113]

Actually, there are major corporations (e.g., Google) who would love to see some of her reforms enacted into law. Making the copying of material for indexing purposes a fair use in copyright law would at a stroke eliminate any legal problems Google might face for projects like Google Books. Other search engine companies would feel the same way. The corporate dollars are not all on the side of oppressive copyright regimes, even if it does seem that way on occasion.

Re:right

[bocaJWho]

You're probably right, but if it's any sign of hope, John Edwards recently said at the Candidates Forum on health care that he would move to change the patent system to reduce the monopoly power of drug manufacturers. Of course right off the bat, two things should stand out: 1. Patent reform isn't copyright reform 2. John Edwards isn't the front runner. Nevertheless, ifit is any glimmer of hope for people here, at least there is one example of a mainstream candidate who is willing to reform intellectual property rights.

Re:right

[SEAL]

So in essence, you're saying that we should replace votes with cash donations.

Or vote people into office who are so rich that they don't care about corporate bribes.

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

You police the intent of the donor by removing the ability to donate.

Have candidates get their petitions signed. Get on the ballot. Have debates and individual presentations on PBS/network TV (the latter are under charters that require "public service" and I can think of no better service than to televise at least presidential debates and presentations). No ads, except ads for the debates/presentations. (Something would have to be worked out as to who can do "presentations", but something along the lines of getting your required petitions within a state seems reasonable for that state to air a specific presentation).

It's radical. It would work.

Re:right

[burndive]

So, which one person is responsible for Finding Nemo? The voice actors? The animators? Concept artists? Storyboard artists? Writers?

Which member of the band is responsible for a musical group's album?

For a symphony recording?

You can't eliminate works for hire. If you did, what you would get in place of copyright transfer would be "contracts" stating who will collect money, and who has permission to say who can copy.

Re:right

[sm62704]

And how exactly are we to police the intent of the donor?

You can't, but at least you can keep him/her/it from the bribery of "contributing" to more than one of them. And you can keep corporations and unions and the AARP from donating to ANYBODY if you have to be eligible to vote to contribute.

I don't, however, agree that limitations on the flow of money into a campaign are the be-all and end-all of solutions.

Neither do I, it's a start though.

Re:right

[Half-pint HAL]

Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.

I think you're missing the reality of the situation. No "work-for-hire" means no "work-for-hire" -- ie working for royalties only. What job do you do? Would you be happy doing it without knowing how much money you'd get at the end of the month?

Work-for-hire transfers risk to the employer as well as ownership, and considering that the risks are normally outwith your control (project cancellation, poor contribution by colleagues, accidental injury or death) it'd be much better to be a plumber or a bricklayer than a programmer, writer or recording artist -- the "information society"was built on work-for-hire.

The only sensible reform for work-for-hire is to take the author's lifespan out of the equation. If it's not his copyright, why should it be tied to his life?

HAL.

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

If an author wants to sell his copyright, who are you to tell him he can't? Is he not allowed to sell his house or his car as well? Don't be so paternalistic. If people want to do this, let them. It is not appropriate to second-guess other people's personal and business decisions in that manner except in extreme cases, and these are not extreme cases.

Why should someone be allowed to sell an idea? Copyright itself is not natural. It's artificial, so what is wrong with any restrictions placed upon it.

Re:right

[HTH NE1]

I have a problem with this one: "Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work."

People should be able to transfer copyright--for ready cash, say--to an organization more interested in and better able to deal with licensing issues. You could license a corporation in such a way that they can license it to others on your behalf. Like the author of a book would license the book to a publisher, allowing that publisher to publish the book for you, but the copyright still belongs to the author.

And what if I want to assign my copyright to the FSF? Give them a license to it instead, granting all the rights of copyright you're comfortable with granting but with the possibility that you can take it back. And you'll be able to do whatever you want with the content you created no matter what format you encounter it in, rather than being barred from using it as you want because you gave up your rights.

Re:right

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree that work for hire shouldn't transfer copyright. It's absolutely ridiculous that hiring a photographer to take pictures should leave you with only photographs and not the copyright to the images themselves.

Re:right

[cpt kangarooski]

Why should someone be allowed to sell an idea?

Copyright doesn't deal with ideas other than to say that they are uncopyrightable.

Copyright itself is not natural. It's artificial, so what is wrong with any restrictions placed upon it.

What does that have to do with anything? Remember, all property rights are artificial; that you own your car or house is merely a matter of social compact and your personal ability to defend them from intruders. If everyone in the world decided that you didn't own it anymore (e.g. someone sued you and won them as damages) then you wouldn't, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Whether you own something has more to do with everyone else allowing you to than whether you want to.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that if you are going to give a copyright to an author, then isn't that author better-suited to manage his own financial affairs than you are? He knows more about his own condition than you; he knows how much he values his copyrights than you; he is more interested in his own welfare than you will ever be. So let him use and dispose of it as he wishes, and don't interfere. If he makes a good choice, or a bad choice, it is better for him to have made his own choices than for you to make them for him because you are paternalistic and lack faith in him. Authors are not children, and should not be treated as such.

Re:right

[Red Flayer]

Because he is supposed to represent ARIZONA, not Illinois.

This kind of reasoning abounds, but it's not really correct. In your example, McCain was not elected to represent the people of Arizona. He was elected by the people of Arizona to uphold and defend the Constitution (read the Senate oath of office) -- and by extension, represents the people of the US, not just the people of AZ.

Petty bickering over pork projects is one of the causes of the bloated situation we have now. Regional disputes also are not good for the country.

Every Senator should have the best interests of the entire country at heart -- and while their state of origin will influence their thinking, they do not represent just the state that voted them into the Senate.

Re:right

[kent_eh]

How about this for a plan:

Donations to candidates may only be made by people who are eligable to vote.

Then make sure anyone funelling corperate money thru private bank accounts gets arrested for fraud (or election tampering).

Re:right

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

We live not in a democratic republic, but a plutocracy. Money talks and your bullshit vote walks.

I dunno. I could've sworn my vote was still here. Perhaps if you wanted to make better use of your vote, it might've stuck around. Instead, you took the two parties on the platter, while sitting lazily in your armchair, looked at your vote, and said "what good are you?" No wonder it walked.

Re:right

[Solandri]

Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.

Work for hire exists to allow risk transferral and to simplify collaborative works. e.g. A company makes a PC game which does poorly for the first three months, losing money. The development and art teams are disbanded and released, but have been paid because the company assumed the risk of failure in exchange for ownership of copyright. Now say the game suddenly takes off and becomes a huge success. The company wants to release a version for Mac, Linux, and various consoles. But they can't because they need to get copyright releases from the 50-100 coders and artists who worked on the original, and they can't track them all down.

The real problem with work for hire is that the record industry has managed to subvert and twist it such that they get the copyright, but the bands assume the risk. The band pays for production costs out of their royalties, so if an album does poorly, they end up in debt to the studio even though the studio holds the copyright. Outlaw that practice (so the person/group who pays gets the copyright) and I don't see much problem with work for hire.

Re:right

[sm62704]

Actually, instead of wasting my vote on a Republicrat candidate who had the corporation's interests in mind, rather than my diameterically opposed interests, I split my vote between the Greens and teh Libertarians.

No point wasting your vote on someone who wants your favorite pastime to be illegal.

But I had no illusions that any of these candidates had a snowball in hell's chance; it is a protest vote plain and simple.

-mcgrew

Re:right

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.

No, that sucks. Why can't corporations (or anyone else, for that matter) hold copyrights created by someone else? It's not like there's anything wrong with a corporation having a copyright. It's another money-making asset, not much different from any other. Why block it?

Oh right, it's all about vengeance. You, like many, believe the big labels shouldn't exist, but are having trouble finding good solid reasons why. They lobby politicians and thus get the laws changed to suit their own needs, but that isn't illegal. They sue poor people for large amounts of money, but it's all done by the books. They have different opinions on what should constitute fair use to you, but having a dissenting opinion is far from illegal. Having this law in the books would clearly put the RIAA/MPAA members on the wrong side of the law. Fortunately, the law isn't defined by vengeance. Our legal system would be very, very poor indeed if laws were passed every time someone really, really, wants to find someone they don't like doing something wrong.

And what's worse is that through your proposed legal hack to bring down publishers/labels, you would be destroying an industry which contributes fairly substantially to the rest of society. They provide jobs, and help economic prosperity. They provide entertainment and art, and are the only feasible way for many potential artists to break into the business. Instead of advocating laws that specifically target people you don't like, perhaps you should advocate laws that specifically address the problems with the labels/publishers' behaviour? Perhaps advocating lobbying reform, or courts reform, or even free speech reform (if you're pissed about their differing opinions on copyright) would be a more accurate legal target for fixing your problems.

Or maybe, you really do hate the fact that a corporation can hold a copyright, and it's not mainly to do with their lobbying, or their suing. If so, my apologies.

Re:right

[bzipitidoo]

Some people are thoroughly brainwashed. Some are very far from seeing themselves as victims of copyright run amok. On the contrary, they're hoping maybe to cash in on the system themselves one day. Or they know someone with such hopes, or someone who has actually succeeded if only modestly. Several members of a group of people I know are enchanted about the idea of becoming writers. I cannot talk about copyright with these people without getting into a fist fight. They don't want to discuss it at all, and particularly not with me. They feel that weakening copyright could destroy a big part of becoming the next J. K. Rowling, and such horrors are not to even be thought about.

I've read some of their stuff. Almost all of it is of course rubbish, but maybe with a lot more work and polish, some of them could come up with something that doesn't totally stink. That they won't even permit certain subjects to be discussed (copyright is only one of the taboo subjects) suggests they lack the flexibility of thinking and ability to accept and understand criticism to really succeed. Wannabe writers are everywhere. One has only to peruse a typical magazine rack to see there's an entire section devoted to magazines about writing. To support an entire section, there must be an awful lot of people who aspire to write. That hasn't stopped them from dreaming, and seeing current copyright law as a part of the dream. Very difficult to disentangle the problems with copyright from their hopes and dreams. I daresay many wannabe musicians feel the same way. Belief in rags to riches stories generates huge sympathy and support for the system. Far be it for me to rain on them with reality checks.

Re:right

[Mspangler]

I can see life + 25 for "Original" works of fiction and scholarly research. For those few cases where the author hits it big, then commits stupidity, there is an interest in seeing that any offspring gets an education. But not a lifetime of ease and leisure. Non-fiction should be 20 years max. Works for hire should also be for 20 years. In fact, no corporation should be able to retain a copyright for over 20 years. Newspapers and periodicals (news in general) should be seven years. Computer software should be 7 years after the last update. And to copyright computer programs, the source code would have to be submitted along with with adequate documentation to build the binary.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

You police the intent of the donor by removing the ability to donate.

Have candidates get their petitions signed. Get on the ballot. Have debates and individual presentations on PBS/network TV (the latter are under charters that require "public service" and I can think of no better service than to televise at least presidential debates and presentations). No ads, except ads for the debates/presentations. (Something would have to be worked out as to who can do "presentations", but something along the lines of getting your required petitions within a state seems reasonable for that state to air a specific presentation).

It's radical. It would work. So, what you are saying is that you want to regulate political speech? Are newspapers going to be allowed to endorse candidates in your system? If they are, why can't I pay them to print my endorsement of a candidate? If they aren't, what about the First Amendment? What about television stations?
You want to know how to cut down on the amount of money in political campaigns? Cut down the amount of money the government spends and cut down the amount of government regulations.

Re:right

[dcam]

Corporations can't hold copyright, only the individuals that actually created the work. Work-for-hire would not transfer ownership to the hiring entity.

This one screws the entire software business: the person who was hired to write the code owns the code. What happens when multiple people work on the one codebase (I own this, you own that etc)? How can a company sell software that they don't have the copyright for?

I think the top of your head is not a good basis for copyright reform.

Re:right

[greenbird]

I absolutely disagree. If an author wants to sell his copyright, who are you to tell him he can't? Is he not allowed to sell his house or his car as well? Don't be so paternalistic. If people want to do this, let them. It is not appropriate to second-guess other people's personal and business decisions in that manner except in extreme cases, and these are not extreme cases.

Except copyright isn't a house or car. It's an extraordinary right granted to someone by law. It has nothing to do with ownership.

Re:right

[greenbird]

Right, because Ron Paul, 100% supporter of a free market and the libertarian-turned-republican who advocates small federal government with little or no interventionism is certainly going to be in favour of passing laws that restrict the privileges of business and copyright holders.

Copyright is an extraordinary anti-free market legal right granted by law. You don't have enact laws to restrict copywright. You simple have to eliminate or limit some of the current laws granting the extraordinary rights encoded in current copywright law. This means eliminating or reducing the scope of current anti-free market laws which is as I understand it very libertarian. Where do you people get the idea that copywright is somehow part of the free market. It's laws passed that restrict the free market, ostensibly (per the constitution) to encourage the creation of creative content but in reality, given modern technology, to artificially protect an obsolete market.

Re:right

[cpt kangarooski]

How does that matter for this purpose? Especially given that if a copyright -- as distinct from the creative work to which it pertains, or specific copies embodying that work -- isn't a sort of property, it is awfully close. I'd like for it to not be property for takings clause purposes since I think that reform efforts might have trouble otherwise. But it's not an easy argument to make.

As for copyright not being like a house, well, a property right is not like a house either. But copyrights are very analogous to, say, a negative easement pertaining to a house, which lasts for a life interest plus a term of years. You could certainly assign that with no trouble at all. So why not a copyright?

I note that no one has argued against the charge of paternalism yet.

Re:right

[cei]

Well, it so happens that I am a professional photographer (among other hats that I wear). Not that you'll see this since you posted as an AC, but why do you believe it is ridiculous for a hired photographer to maintain his rights as a creator?

Re:right

[Emetophobe]

The U.S should take a page from Canada and just ban corporate contributions altogether. Unfortunately, I don't see this idea going over too well with U.S politicians who make a large sum of money from contributions/donations.

Here are some new rules from the Canadian Federal Accountability Act (emphasis mine):

• You can make a political donation to registered political entities only if you are a citizen or permanent resident of Canada.
• You can give no more than $1,100* in each calendar year to each registered political party.
• Corporations, trade unions, associations and groups can no longer make political contributions. However, your employer can give you a paid leave of absence during an election period to allow you to be a nomination contestant or a candidate without that leave being considered a contribution.
• If you are running as a nomination contestant or a candidate, you can make an additional contribution up to $1,000 in total per election from your own funds to your own campaign. You can divide this amount between your nomination and candidate campaigns as you wish.
• All contributions over $20 must be receipted and reported.
• Candidates cannot accept any gift that might influence them as eventual members of Parliament.

There's a bunch of other rules, but those ones seem to stand out the most. Aside from banning corporate and union donations, I particularly like the rule limiting the amount a candidate can donate to their own campaign using their own money. This should prevent wealthy candidates from having a financial advantage over less wealthy candidates and hopefully that will level the playing field.

There's a lot more information here.

Re:right

[danaris]

So, what you are saying is that you want to regulate political speech?

Only political speech that has to be paid for.

I know that the Supreme Court currently disagrees with me, but I will firmly maintain despite any opposition that equating speech to money goes against the First Amendment because while we all have the same ability to speak, we do not all have the same amount of money. It disenfranchises those with less money, and thus violates the spirit of "free political speech."

As long as the super-rich and mega-corporations are allowed to spend billions of dollars advertising for the candidate or ballot measure they want to win, they will be able to get richer and richer at our expense.

The only way to break the cycle is to take the money out of politics.

Dan Aris

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

So, because I am rich enough to own a newspaper, radio station, or television station, I get to talk politics, but you can't get together with a couple hundred of your buddies and pool your resources and buy exposure for your political ideas from me?

Re:right

[danaris]

So, because I am rich enough to own a newspaper, radio station, or television station, I get to talk politics, but you can't get together with a couple hundred of your buddies and pool your resources and buy exposure for your political ideas from me?

No; obviously, it's a little more complicated than I originally said—you would have to also restrict media that most people would have to pay for from running ads etc under their own power.

In general, if it takes money to get it, it's not protected speech.

When "free speech" costs money, it isn't free or Free.

Dan Aris

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

So, you are going to forbid newspapers (at least those that are paid for)from publishing political opinion?

Re:right

[sm62704]

Yes, but Canada's not a third world plutocracy like we are!

Re:right

[danaris]

So, you are going to forbid newspapers (at least those that are paid for)from publishing political opinion?

There's definitely still a fine line. Political opinion on the editorial page is obviously just that: opinion, fully protected under the First Amendment. A big full-page spread of Candidate A's face with block letters saying, "VOTE FOR CANDIDATE A!" is pretty clearly an ad that wouldn't be protected. Where exactly the line should be drawn in between those, I'm not sure. However, I believe that such a line can be drawn in such a way as to preserve the fundamental rights of the people and the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

I don't care one whit about preserving profits for the super-rich, though.

Dan Aris

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

So, the guy who is rich enough to own a newspaper can say "Vote for Candidate A", but I can't get together with people who agree with me and buy space to say "Vote for Candidate B"? And if we can't do that, can we pay a printer to print it for us and then pay someone to deliver it to every address in an area? If we can't do the latter, why not? And if we can, why not just pay the guy who prints the newspaper to include it with the paper?

Re:right

[danaris]

Like I said, it's a fine line....maybe I need to rethink where it should be drawn.

Perhaps all that needs to be done is that if a newspaper prints an editorial supporting or criticizing one of the candidates, they simply have to also print any and all letters to the editor commenting on the election, as well.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that the situation we have now is dangerously unbalanced.

Dan Aris

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

I've read the rest of the comment thread.

In short, yes, I want to regulate paid political speech. Newspaper editors can print their opinions on the editorial page as individuals, not as "the newspaper". After all, can CBS start every commercial break during prime time with a "Vote for candidate A" spot? Why are the papers any different?

Does this prevent a candidate from printing his own schlop? Nope. Can he post it everywhere he wants? Not without breaking laws where I live.

I agree with your last statement though - cut down the amount of government regulations. You only need 2: 1) you can't buy ad time, and 2) paid air time/print space must be balanced between all candidates that want the time/space. I think those two will in and of themselves cut down on the amount of money in political campaigns, because money no longer is the driver. It also doesn't trample any freedoms.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

I agree with your last statement though - cut down the amount of government regulations. You only need 2: 1) you can't buy ad time, and 2) paid air time/print space must be balanced between all candidates that want the time/space. I think those two will in and of themselves cut down on the amount of money in political campaigns, because money no longer is the driver. It also doesn't trample any freedoms. So, no government regulations on working conditions? or drugs? or food? etc?
The regulations I was talking about are the ones that cost businesses and individuals money or that make individuals or businesses money. If we reduce the amount of impact the government has on the economy, we will reduce the incentive to spend money to get people elected. People spend so much on campaigns because the economic consequences of government actions are so great.

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

So, no government regulations on working conditions? or drugs? or food? etc?

The regulations I was talking about are the ones that cost businesses and individuals money or that make individuals or businesses money. If we reduce the amount of impact the government has on the economy, we will reduce the incentive to spend money to get people elected. People spend so much on campaigns because the economic consequences of government actions are so great. I was only discussing the issue as regards to political campaigns. You're extending far beyond campaigns to general government.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

But that was the point I was making in the first place, the reason there is so much money in political campaigns is because the government is such a major economic player. It either is a major source of revenue or a major source of expense for any and all businesses. As a result anyone who is in business must do whatever they can to manage the government's impact on their business. No business can survive if those who compete with it have influence in government and it doesn't.

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

I think this is a situation of perspective. From my perspective, if you take the money out of the campaign, the problems solved because businesses can't buy their politicians as easily.

From your perspective, if you take the government out of the economy, the problems solved, because there's no point to buying politicians.

I think mine is doable as it has no negative impact to anyone other than parasitic politicians who live off the corruption of corporate money. I believe your solution, although valid and would work for the given problem, is not doable as the negative impact to the economy and people employed in it would be huge, not to mention a whole slew of other issues it would bring up. Minimalistic government to that extent is an idealistic utopia considering the world today.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

I think that your solution will have massive negative impact on anyone who wants to change the way that the government does things. Under your system, those who control the media companies will have inordinate influence on what people know about the candidates. I, also, believe that your system will infringe on free speech. You say that my idea of minimalistic government is utopian, no more so than your idea of elections that can make or break a company not being influenced by corporate money.
Any system that tries to force money out of the elections will impact the ability of the "little guy" to get heard long before it impacts the ability of the wealthy to influence the outcome of an election. As long as the government is spending trillions of dollars and regulations/laws that cost businesses trillions more, those with wealth will find a way to influence who is in government.
In my opinion, every attempt to "get the money out of politics", has made the problem worse. I don't have a reference, but I am pretty sure that every "campaign finance reform" law that has been passed has increased the rate at which incumbents get re-elected. I know that that is the case since the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act was passed.
I have said this before, the surest way to change the government, and increase its responsiveness,is: "When in doubt, vote the Ins. out". Any proposal which makes it harder to replace the incumbent is a bad idea.

Re:right

[drsmithy]

What does that have to do with anything? Remember, all property rights are artificial; [...]

Whoa there, no they're not. Physical property rights are based on the very non-artificial principle of "might makes right". As you proceed to note:

[...] that you own your car or house is merely a matter of social compact and your personal ability to defend them from intruders.

"Property rights" are just the government exercising might on your behalf so you don't need to yourself.

Re:right

[drsmithy]

If you had the power, what would you change about copyright law?

* Make it an opt-in system like patents.
* Link the copyright term to the "popularity" of a work so that popular works go out of copyright sooner.
* Legalise non-profit copyright violations.

Re:right

[cpt kangarooski]

Whoa there, no they're not. Physical property rights are based on the very non-artificial principle of "might makes right". As you proceed to note:

As I said, that's limited to your personal ability to defend it. So long as you can keep an eye on your car, and remain in rifle range of would-be thieves, it's yours. Otherwise you're relying on other people to agree that the car should be yours, which is the social compact part of it. If they disagree (e.g. the repo man comes along) then you've got problems. This is especially so, since the same social compact discourages people using force in some situations (e.g. against the repo man).

"Property rights" are just the government exercising might on your behalf so you don't need to yourself.

And since the government draws its power and legitimacy from the consent of the governed, that's the social compact. It's not set in stone. For example, until the early 18th century, no one thought there was copyrights. Then a small group of people decided that there was, and voila: there was.

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

I think you misread or are willfully misunderstanding my position.

Removing paid ads effectively removes media companies' influence, especially couple with existing laws already on the books that limits how and what can be said by a candidate. (If a candidate is given airtime/space, all candidates must be given equal airtime/space). My system in no way infringes on free speech. Everyone is free to say whatever they want. The distribution of political speech is regulated though. That is a major difference.

Your concept of minimalistic government on corporations has been tried several times. It's given us the wonders of Standard Oil, the Hearst/Dupont laws, IBM, and now Microsoft. On the other hand, heavy government regulation has given us AT&T, the cable monopolies, and most ironically the current disaster that is broadcast radio/TV (Ironic in that earlier heavy regulation in favor of small business resulted in the exact opposite of where we're headed now.)

As for incumbents getting re-elected... Hmmm, seems that a lot of them are losing lately. But be that as it may, current campaign finance laws have not dealt with the core issue, which is removing campaign finance from the equation. As long as money and the ability to raise it remains in the equation, incumbents really have to trip themselves up to lose. After all, they've got the connections and pre-existing avenues for funding, plus the name recognition with voters. There's a whole lot more to your local incumbent almost automatically getting re-elected than merely where the funds come from. What I propose removes at least 2 of those avenues, and the third, name recognition, is also affected, since you can't buy ad time.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

Do you have any idea how many ways an incumbent has to get his name in front of his constituents, thus generating name recognition? How does reducing ads reduce the influence of media companies? You said yourself that they can still do endorsements, under your system, media endorsements would carry even more weight.
You say that if one candidate is given airtime/space all candidates must be given the same. Do you mean all candidates, or only the ones that would be in the debates that are held? My guess would be that under your system no candidate would get any airtime/space beyond that required by law. So the end result would be that for the most part all we would know about any of the candidates would be what the media companies wanted us to know. That of course leaves out the Internet, for now. The other problem is that the Supreme Court has ruled that regulating the amount a candidate spends is an infringement on free speech. BTW, freedom of speech is meaningless if I can't disseminate my views to a wider audience.

Re:right

[alexo]

you have an indifferent and predominately ignorant populace and a highly motivated, high profit industries that are willing to fork over truck loads of cash to keep them in that state .

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

Well, this has been fun. I had to go back 10 posts or so for verification - good job:

Do you have any idea how many ways an incumbent has to get his name in front of his constituents, thus generating name recognition? How does reducing ads reduce the influence of media companies? You said yourself that they can still do endorsements, under your system, media endorsements would carry even more weight. Let's deal with the incorrect statement first. I did not state that the companies can do endorsements. What I did state was:

In short, yes, I want to regulate paid political speech. Newspaper editors can print their opinions on the editorial page as individuals, not as "the newspaper". After all, can CBS start every commercial break during prime time with a "Vote for candidate A" spot? Why are the papers any different?

I don't see anything there that states companies can do anything, or individuals "as companies". I do state that individuals can go the same route as all other individuals and that the media in question has to give equal airtime/space to all candidates.

As for an incumbent getting their name in front of their constituents, how many ways do they really have to do that? Other than official mailings, which I think are a waste of taxpayer money and should be done away with, their options are few based on the guidelines given. Remember, he can't buy airtime/space.

You say that if one candidate is given airtime/space all candidates must be given the same. Do you mean all candidates, or only the ones that would be in the debates that are held? My guess would be that under your system no candidate would get any airtime/space beyond that required by law. So the end result would be that for the most part all we would know about any of the candidates would be what the media companies wanted us to know. That of course leaves out the Internet, for now. The other problem is that the Supreme Court has ruled that regulating the amount a candidate spends is an infringement on free speech. BTW, freedom of speech is meaningless if I can't disseminate my views to a wider audience. All those that are viable candidates that have some set amount of support as shown by obtaining a minimum required amount of signatures. Yes, that favors organized parties with lots of volunteers over lone individuals. If a lone individual cannot drum up enough support among their friends to start a wider campaign, what realistic chance does such a "candidate" have? Heck, even those that have tons of support sometimes fall flat because of some failing. Kinky Friedman who ran for Texas governor as an independent did so badly in the one debate he was in that his polls dropped from near 20% to less than 1%. Sometimes being popular and having a popular platform just can't overcome lack of polish. You could argue that in this case we saw too much of Kinky.

As for the Supreme Court, they're restricted to ruling on laws and even then are not always "right" or there wouldn't be so much controversy about them. You'll note that I stated that all candidates would be given some air time to disseminate their position to the wider audience. Each candidate would be given the same amount of time. I can't think of anything that supports freedom of speech more than that. How they use the alloted time is up to them. It might even create a focus on what their policies are instead of merely attacking their opponent. The possibilities boggle the mind.

The internet is an unusual beast, because you can pretty much publish almost for free. I have no issue saying whatever you want on your own website. Ads and company statements would be held to the same rules as for other media. After all, why should it be any different just because it flows through a bunch of tubes?

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

Newspaper editors can print their opinions on the editorial page as individuals, not as "the newspaper" So, I own the newspaper. I tell you, "write an editorial favoring candidate A, or your fired". Except I don't say it quite that openly, but you get the message. Or, I own the paper, so I write an editorial endorsing candidate A and put it in my paper. And since it is my paper, you the editor are not allowed to write an editorial endorsing any of candidate A's opponents (or even opposing candidate A). Oh yeah, I don't own just one paper, but one in most major cities. And perhaps I, also, own a radio station and a tv station in those cities. I don't offer any airtime to any candidates beyond that I am mandated to by law. Except that I support candidate A, so when candidate A has a rally, I cover it with cameras, when candidate B has a rally, I cover it with a short blurb on the news, but no footage. There are all kinds of ways that media companies can slant the coverage to favor the candidate they want to win. If there is no paid advertising allowed, it becomes very hard for another candidate to even get enough exposure for people to know they are running.

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

Great, so you do that. You also have to print any other candidate's letter to the editor.

You also seem to not understand the "equal airtime" clause. Such one-sided coverage has resulted in lawsuits, and you wouldn't own your papers/stations very long. (Don't forget, all broadcast stations are under revocable and expiring charters)

Here's some links to help you understand how binding the equal time laws are. Then note that I'm not advocating changing any of this, except making the purchase of time illegal, because we're removing campaign funding - the entire premise of this thread.

So your strawman argument falls flat on almost every count except for this: yes, media can slant coverage they are required to provide. But, the core issue is whatever coverage they provide must be provided for all, and thus more coverage can only help the "smaller" individuals by making them known.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

Except, "We're not covering a candidate, we're covering this new law that was passed (it just happens that the law's sponsor is also running for reelection)."
"Gee, Mr FEC (FCC) you're investigating the coverage this station that covered the passage of the law I sponsored, anyway about that money you say you need for xxx. I don't see how we can put that in the next appropriations bill."

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

That situation was already covered. I think we've gone around this to the point that I still don't see any defects in the approach that aren't dwarfed by similar defects in any other proposal, and therefore this approach is still my preferred solution to the problem.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

My solution may not be politically possible, but your solution just plain won't work. As long as there is the kind of money and economic impact involved in the actions of government, people will find a way to get money to the candidates to influence their actions when in office.

Re:right

[Gr8Apes]

My solution was never to address the corruption in such a system post election, but to remove the corruption in the election process to put corporate puppets into office. At least with my proposal, there will a mostly level playing field for the opportunity to be elected to office. What happens after that is a different problem. You have yet to provide a single reason why the stated goals would not be met.

Re:right

[Attila Dimedici]

The problem is that incumbents have lots of ways to get their names in front of people without doing any "campaigning". The incumbents will send out letters telling people what a great job they are doing as whatever office they hold, using taxpayer dollars (which they already do). They will have articles written about actions they take in their official duties, etc. None of this will be part of the campaign, so it won't be regulated by the rules you propose. There will be no campaign coverage that falls under your rules that is not mandated by your rules, so those challenging an incumbent will find it very difficult to make people aware that they are even running. The incumbent will have no such problem. The only exception to what I said above is when the media dislike the incumbent and carry editorials and news articles playing up how bad he is and how saintly his opponent is. There will be almost no voices contrary to the media template because your rules will limit their avenues of expression. I am sorry, but your are a misguided idealist.

my momma used to say...

[theheadlessrabbit]

if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. This is exactly what people want, and what they will never get.

Re:my momma used to say...

[JD-1027]

This is great isn't it! Maybe we could secretly attach these laws to the "Micky Mouse Copyright Extension Act of 2034" (or whenever they need to extend copyright again).

Re:my momma used to say...

[uncoveror]

The last one was in 1998, so the next one will be in 2018, then 2038, then 2058...

Falling on deaf ears

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

The problem with organizations like this, that are trying to tame copyright laws, is that they don't have any money, which is the only language politicians speak. I don't know if we should blame the politicians, or blame the media for forcing politicians to raise enormous sums. I would still blame the politicians, because I think given the choice between federally-mandated/funded campaigns, and raising millions of dollars, they would still rather raise millions of dollars (plenty of wiggle room for personal profit) and so aren't passing the necessary campaign finance reform laws that could easily level the playing field for the average Mr. Smith.

Re:Falling on deaf ears

[squarooticus]

Blame the system---democracy---which by its very nature attracts people with no scruples who proceed to plunder the commonwealth for personal gain, leaving it strictly in worse shape when they leave office.

The important question in my mind is: why are people at all surprised that this happens? The system is structured to work in precisely that way.

Re:Falling on deaf ears

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the RIAA's BS isn't falling on death ears. The pocket hearing aid$ likely helping there.

Re:Falling on deaf ears

[Zordak]

The problem with campaign finance reform is it does not level the playing field for challengers. All else equal, the incumbent has a natural advantage of close to 10:1. So the challenger is already at a tremendous disadvantage. The only thing that has been shown to get closer to a level playing field is a whole lot of money. Imagine a Presidential race where the challengers had no money. Would it ever even be close? Probably not.

Your congressmen, of course, understand this. That's why they passed McCain-Feingold. The law is crassly, glaringly unconstitutional and is aimed squarely at silencing challengers who would call attention to the incumbents' voting records. And it's targeted to the most important time (the last thirty days before an election). And the Supreme Court has already blessed it. So don't look for campaign finance reform to make it easier to unseat corrupt congressmen. Term limits may do the trick, but the party in power is never in favor of those either.

Fortunately, you tend to get periodic backlashes against the establishment (1994, 2006, quite possibly 2008). Unfortunately, the new crooks tend to be just as bad as the old crooks. I wouldn't expect the situation to change unless there is a major upheaval and there is a Constitutional convention held to amend the Constitution to require term limits. Congress will certainly never do it.

Re:Falling on deaf ears

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

I don't think the "campaign finance reform" you talk about is what I had in mind. I would rather the candidates not do any fundraising, or be able to use any of their own funds. Provided that they have enough initial support, the government should provide them equal outlets.

Thank International Law . . .

[Dausha]

You have to think the various treaties we entered into that apply to copyright law. Some nations have different legal philosophies about the property rights that exist in intellectual property. Our own nation has changed its standard on property rights (making them economic rights). The result is longer copyrights that cover more things than before. (I'm commenting on some things he said in his speech).

There was an earlier /. article where a fellow showed that economically the nation is better served by shorter copyrights. The fact that Yoko Ono can be a near-billionaire for John's shaking his head and playing music should reveal how far gone copyright has become. Under the old-old standard (14 years plus 14 years), the Beatles' music would have all been public domain already.

Or, perhaps we should limit corporate ownership of copyright? For example, limit a corporation to only being able to license an author's work (rather than receive a transfer of ownership). This is excepted where the owner is an employee or work-for-hire. Limit the license to a one-time 10 year license. Works-for-hire are good for only 20 years.

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[Stooshie]

The fact that Michael Jackson can be a near-billionaire for John's shaking his head and playing music

There, fixed that for you! In case you didn't know, Michael Jackson owns all the copyright on the Beatles songs.

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[shark72]

"There was an earlier /. article where a fellow showed that economically the nation is better served by shorter copyrights."

Interesting... my understanding is that the US is in favor of long copyrights because our IP is one of the only things we have left in this information age -- as Neal Stephenson put it: music, movies, software and high speed pizza delivery. I would like to see a dissenting viewpoint; does somebody have a link to that earlier article?

"The fact that Yoko Ono can be a near-billionaire for John's shaking his head and playing music should reveal how far gone copyright has become. Under the old-old standard (14 years plus 14 years), the Beatles' music would have all been public domain already."

This actually serves as an excellent example of how many people believe that strong copyright equals economic power. Yoko's sitting on all that cash and she's a U.S. resident. More to the point, she spends that money in the US and pays taxes on it. You're right that if we rolled back copyright to the 18th century standards, we'd all get to have all the free Beatles music that we want. The invisible hand being what it is, the economic benefactors would be whomever could provide it to us the most cheaply. The Beatles catalog would be available on CDs imported by Chinese corporations, and downloadable from countries where bandwidth is cheap. That whimpering sound you heard might not be Yoko softly crying in anguish, but the slow death of the USA's information-driven economy.

Having a strong economy isn't the end-all, be-all, and perhaps the unwashed masses don't really care about big-picture things like this -- so perhaps cheaper Beatles music is better for society as a whole in the short term. But, here's the thing: cheap Beatles music would not affect my life one bit. I can already buy the Beatles catalog in its entirety for a small fraction of my paycheck. It's not like it's air or water. But clean air and clean water are important to me, and I rely on the government's help for those. If a rollback to a 28-year copyright system resulted in a 1% reduction in the GNP next year because our entertainment money started going toward Russian download sites and Chinese CD pressing plants, we might not notice the effects right away, but those points add up. We might all be boiling the frog slowly while we enjoy our cheap Beatles music.

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[sm62704]

In the US, copyright is NOT a property right. I own my car; it is my property. I can pass it to my descendants for a thousand years. My two registered ISBNs will expire. They are NOT my property, and the work will enter the public domain after an extremely retardedly long length of time. From Atricle I section 8 of the US Constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The concept of "intellectual property" is unamerican.
-mcgrew

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[king-manic]

Having a strong economy isn't the end-all, be-all, and perhaps the unwashed masses don't really care about big-picture things like this -- so perhaps cheaper Beatles music is better for society as a whole in the short term. But, here's the thing: cheap Beatles music would not affect my life one bit. I can already buy the Beatles catalog in its entirety for a small fraction of my paycheck. It's not like it's air or water. But clean air and clean water are important to me, and I rely on the government's help for those. If a rollback to a 28-year copyright system resulted in a 1% reduction in the GNP next year because our entertainment money started going toward Russian download sites and Chinese CD pressing plants, we might not notice the effects right away, but those points add up. We might all be boiling the frog slowly while we enjoy our cheap Beatles music. California has one of the largest economies in the world. Eclipsing most nations. It's industries are primarily IP related thus it's economy is tied to IP laws. However Cheap Beatles music may not benefit anyone, but the free Dissemination of ideas do benefit society as almost all IP is built on other IP. If IP laws are too lax the motivation for people to release material and to release designs will be diminished. Too harsh and innovation is hurt for fear of violation. a 28 year monopoly on IP seems more reasonable then a 99 year monopoly. The Us was built on stolen European IP and China/Russia/India are building with stolen IP as well.

You may enact restrictive laws but it hurts you more in the long run then it hurts china/Russia/India.

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[sm62704]

Or, perhaps we should limit corporate ownership of copyright?

I would rather we not allow corporations to hold copyright.

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Jackson owns 50% of the publishing rights on the songs (Sony owns the other 50%).

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[spikedvodka]

In the US, copyright is NOT a property right. I own my car; it is my property. I can pass it to my descendants for a thousand years. My two registered ISBNs will expire. They are NOT my property, and the work will enter the public domain after an extremely retardedly long length of time. From Atricle I section 8 of the US Constitution:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The concept of "intellectual property" is unamerican.
-mcgrew The problem that you'll run in to is the following: 90 years is techinically still a "Limited Time" as would be, hypothetically, 472 years, 19 days, 12 hours, 14 minutes, and 53 seconds, or 1000 years.

What I see happening is, effectively, and end-run around the "Limited Time" set forth in the constitution. As long as there is a set time frame, the test of "Limited time" is met, however, currently there is the unspoken assumption that said limited time will be expanded as the end of it gets closer, effectively making it unlimited.

this has a few major bonuses:

1. it isn't technically unlimited, there's no reason for it to get overturned by the courts.
2. The politicians can keep expecting bribes^H^H^H^H^H"donations" from media companies as they try to get it extended, Yet again.
3. The media companies can "honestly" say "We're not trying to get eternal copyright" becuase they're only pushing for the next 20 years.

ergo, media wins, politicians win, we lose

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[Dausha]

"What I see happening is, effectively, and end-run around the 'Limited Time' set forth in the constitution."

While I believe copyrights should be short (more like 28 years than 90), I have to disagree with this one phrase. The Constitution says limited time. We might ask the courts to interpret that to mean "reasonably limited time," which is what we all seem to think it should mean. However, under the Constitution, Congress has the prerogative to legislate in this arena. Being an Originalist, I believe this means Congress gets to make the decision here---it is a Political, not Judicial, Question.

The problem is the remedy for a run amok Congress is the ballot box, not the courtroom. If Congress is doing silly things like making Copyright extend to "the life of the Sun plus 1 million years," then we are supposed to be good citizens and vote the bozos out (and vote new bozos in). This is a problem because we Americans don't pay enough attention to Congress and are otherwise disinclined to ousting them for doing things. Even if we are, there are plenty of others who aren't.

As for others saying that it is our IP that makes us (or, rather, California) prosper, think about it. The reason we want IP terms to be short is to encourage growth and innovation. O'Reilly will make Learning Perl 1ed public domain in a reasonable time (14 or 28 years, I can't remember the original statement) because that book will be overcome by events. If I told you that you have to come up with a better idea every 14 years or your are out on your bum, would you do it? What if I told you it would be nice if you did, but you're safe for your lifetime---and so are your heirs for 70 years after.

At the very least, copyrights should not pass to heirs for that long. They did nothing to innovate, why should they profit?

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting... my understanding is that the US is in favor of long copyrights because our IP is one of the only things we have left in this information age -- as Neal Stephenson put it: music, movies, software and high speed pizza delivery. I would like to see a dissenting viewpoint

This may not be dissenting, but how much of what we rely upon is older than 28 years. Can we not rely on newly created IP only? Sure, the Beatles still generate a lot of money, but the vast majority of work that's older than 28 years generates little to no revenue and becomes unavailable to be used as the basis for creating new IP.

Yoko's sitting on all that cash and she's a U.S. resident. More to the point, she spends that money in the US and pays taxes on it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I think there's a logical fallacy in there. Yoko pays taxes on that money and spends some of that money. But that money, were Beatles music freely distributable, wouldn't just vanish. The bulk (total - marginal cost to distributor) of that money would be spent on other things. Right now, there's a large amount of capital that is essentially being wasted on Yoko, since it's not encouraging her to produce anything useful for this country. Were that money spent on new music instead, it would do more to incent musicians to create more music than it currently does.

The end result to think about is what benefit does society get from extending copyright beyond the 14 year automatic and additional 14 year possibility? Will there be people that will decide not to create valuable material because the extra protections aren't being given? And will those rare instances prove more important than instances where older material can be used to create better new material or where the money that would have gone to holders of older IP can go towards more recent creations?

I'm not saying that there is an obvious answer to these questions, though most people on Slashdot would clearly see one. But everyone should ask themselves these questions because the answers should dictate what our policies are towards IP.

Re:Thank International Law . . .

[BlueParrot]

The Beatles catalog would be available on CDs imported by Chinese corporations, and downloadable from countries where bandwidth is cheap. That whimpering sound you heard might not be Yoko softly crying in anguish, but the slow death of the USA's information-driven economy.

It IS downloadable from countries where bandwidth is cheap. The "IP driven economy" is as large a bubble as the dot.com one. Sure, it will take longer before it burts, but when it does the rats that are American companies will flee the sinking ship, seeking harbour in China and India. Restricting innovation because you are afraid of Chinese and Indian competition is like peeing in your pants. Soon the warmth is gone and you're left with a really bad mess.

Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[dada21]

...with the vast amount of bandwidth, private networks, and users who are happy to share anything they spend time ripping and encoding.

The Internet has been very exciting for me -- I've never put a copyright on my works, and always openly let people copy and distribute what I've created. I'm even OK with no attribution, and letting others put their name on my productions. In the long run, it increases the interest in the markets I'm in.

The little guy has rarely been helped by copyright. There are a few examples, but in general, copyright has been about protecting distribution monopolies and NOT protecting the artists or content creators. It changed when copyright lost its 7+7 year cap.

Since then, distributors have had a de facto strangehold on most markets. That's fine -- the more people have access to the web, the faster the amateur, pro-am, and casual artists will be able to distribute without the old media monopolists.

You can try to "fix" copyright, but why beat a dead horse? I get more excited from seeing the massive influx of new artists in ALL markets (music, video, cartoons, comics, blogs, etc) where the artists openly place their content for the world to use. I can't recall the guy's name (mphillips, maybe?), but there's an artist who produced pencil art of Serenity/Firefly characters (yes, they're protected for some strange reason), and he distributes the high res images freely only. He makes his money by selling his own prints -- but anyone is free to print their own. Why let the artist print? Because some people feel a MORAL obligation to compensating the artist (I do), so they "donate" to keep him going. That's how most art was commissioned until the copyright monster reared its ugly head.

The future is bright for those who don't resist the open atmosphere of the new public domain, which is what I would consider MOST of the Internet. Yes, most blogs have a copyright statement at the bottom, but the long term solution to battling people who "steal" your "work" is to just notify your fans about them, and let simple reputation take care of the rest. What happens if a big company takes your work? Good luck fighting them in court. A single artist with a Cease and Desist has almost NO chance of even going to court -- the laws are written against artists.

10 years from now, I bet we'll see even MORE people sharing the photos freely on flickr, writing freely on blogs, producing videos and music freely. Sure, all those sites have some creative commons license, but again -- who will have the money to fight infringement?

Embrace the new market -- supply is near infinite, demand is finite, so price drops to zero. But the reputation you can build from producing years of quality new content is more than enough to compensate you in the long run; financially and otherwise.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Billosaur]

Grain of truth to this idea. Given the Internet's rate of replication, the fact that anyone can put their information ideas on it, and the fact that the information can be modified and transformed almost at will means that copyright can no longer function as originally intended. Is it possible for a copyright holder to sue the tens of millions of people who may take a piece of work and replicate/reproduce it? Even a large corporation doesn't have infinite resources. This is what the RIAA is trying to do with music, but it's finding the road pretty tough to slog over.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Abcd1234]

I've never put a copyright on my works

Just to be clear, according to the Berne convention, the minute you create a work, it's copyrighted. Period. End of story. Registering that copyright simply makes it easier to enforce, if it ever came to that.

What you *should* be doing is placing your works under the Artistic License or something similar. That will ensure that those who might wish to use your works will be able to do so without fear that you'll come along later and hand them a cease and desist ('course, if you made public statements that you won't do such a thing, that changes things, but it's still advisable to just use an open license and be done with it).

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Jtheletter]

Embrace the new market -- supply is near infinite, demand is finite, so price drops to zero.

But the price curve on the demand side *always* drops to zero, however it is the intersection of the supply and demand curves that determines price. Although distribution costs trend to zero, production costs do not. There is a finite lower limit to the supply curve below which the product will not be sold no matter how low the cost of distribution is.
This is what most people don't understand, the price will drop, but it will never reach zero cost for new goods due to the fact that there IS a cost associated with production that must be recouped.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[dada21]

This is what most people don't understand, the price will drop, but it will never reach zero cost for new goods due to the fact that there IS a cost associated with production that must be recouped.

In terms of economic theory, this has not been proven or even insightfully debated.

Per my own economic theory, which has roots in the Austrian school but we differ in many areas, I truly believe that even new goods have no intrinsic cost unless such cost is applied or assumed by the creator of the goods (or services). Not all creators of goods or services place an inherent cost to creation. I don't. I spend close to 20 hours a week inventing, writing, recording or whatnot, and I place absolutely NO cost on that time. My view on time preference is that my content is pure entertainment value, so the actual cost to me to write, or create, is actually negative -- I gain a profit (entertainment value) from the act of creating.

If we take this perspective (for myself), the cost of goods is negative, let us say I can assign it a value of $-10. The entertainment I've gained has an equity of $-10 because I would have to spend $10 to get the same entertainment elsewhere ($10 cost - $10 in entertainment received gives a time preference net value of $0), so for me I have ($0 cost - $10 in entertainment or a time preference net value of $0). Since I already set aside a certain amount of hours each week (consciously and subconsciously), I don't attribute those hours to my normal time preference value which has a net value of +$100 per hour. Some Austrians might factor in the entertainment "Zero Hours" into an average of the positive net time preference hours, but I don't.

Now, with a negative cost of goods, and and a near infinite supply of those goods once created, the price actually falls to a negative based on the flawed supply and demand curves. This is why I am a fan of supply and demand theory, but have written extensively on the failures when one does not consider a zero sum net time preference value or even a negative cost association. Sure, you can say that web hosting has a cost, but I use NearlyFreeSpeech, so I pay around $0.01 per megabyte transfered, and if a typical blog post or RSS feed is 3K, I can have 333 readers for $0.01, so there is SOME intrinsic cost, but it is part of my entertainment value. In fact, I receive LESS entertainment value just writing an article in Notepad than I do in Wordpress, so even the hosting charge is not considered a positive cost to me.

Do most people think this deep about creating free content? Surely not, but most people aren't aware of time preference or supply and demand curves. "Mmm, writing on MySpace blog good." Why do they do it? Because there is an inherent profit to entertaining yourself because of the zero cost, other than time preference losses.

Why do I do it? Because not only do I lose nothing (other than time I set aside to lose), AND gain entertainment, I also gain something MOST bloggers, musicians, producers and artists don't perceive as a gain: I get a HUGE response to what I create. Beyond the minimal income that advertising gives me, I get hundreds of e-mails a week with amazing insights, criticisms, comments, and debate points that I can work into my real life (work). This gives me an edge and an enhanced time preference profit because now I have MORE information to sell to my clientele.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[operagost]

Your NET cost may be zero, but there is a cost in your time. If you choose to value the return from that cost as equal, that's fine. But there is STILL A COST.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[mdielmann]

What you *should* be doing is placing your works under the Artistic License or something similar. Or he could release to the public domain, and copyright becomes a moot point and all his statements stand. If you check out the gp's web site, he does put in a very general release statement, but doesn't explicitly mention public domain. I don't know if this is required.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[dada21]

Your NET cost may be zero, but there is a cost in your time. If you choose to value the return from that cost as equal, that's fine. But there is STILL A COST.

Only if the good producer assigns a cost to that time. The Austrian Economists call it "Time Preference" which sort of covers the cost of your time, and while I agree with most of their theory, I do also truly believe that many of us (provably) set no cost to certain periods of time in our lives. I actually DO assign a time cost to sleep, and I also assign a time cost to vacations, but I don't assign a time cost to entertainment up to a certain amount per week (generally). For example: if I have a BIG project I am working on, on a tight deadline, I may pass up on sleep (entirely or just some sleep) because the profit of the project (financial or long term reputation gain) more than exceeds the time preference cost of sleeping for that time. But even if I am working my tail off, I still set aside entertainment time, because for me it is a needed variable, and I assign no loss of gain to that time. It might be a movie, or couch surfing, or writing on a blog or a newsletter I publish, but it is entertainment, and it is a zero-cost need in my life. Even if a HUGE profit project came up, I won't shovel off that entertainment time. Some people have countered that I have set my entertainment to an infinite cost, since it overrides any other possible profit or loss, but I look at it differently. Since I am not "gaining or losing" during my entertainment time, I look at it as a zero cost situation.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Abcd1234]

Actually, at least according to Wikipedia, that bastion of truth and knowledge, there doesn't actually exist a legal mechanism in the United States for relinquishing to the public domain one's copyright on a work. That's not to say it can't be done, only that there is nothing codified in law regarding the topic, and as such, it should be seen as a bit of a legal gray area.

Consequently, I stand by my original statement. It's simply far clearer to just attach an extremely liberal license to one's works, and takes very little time or effort.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Jtheletter]

Hi dada, thanks for your reply, I've had you as a friend on slashdot for some time and respect your opinions. That said, I must respectfully disagree with the following:

This is what most people don't understand, the price will drop, but it will never reach zero cost for new goods due to the fact that there IS a cost associated with production that must be recouped.

In terms of economic theory, this has not been proven or even insightfully debated.

It is completely false that in economic theory my above point has never been proven or debated. In fact most economic theories go to great length to include ALL costs in the production of an item, including a term called "opportunity cost" which represents the cost of spending resources on one thing vs another that has a potential return. I am sure you are aware of this. Your argument about getting enjoyment out of creation, and thus having a negative cost, touches on this concept as well. You even point out some of your opportunity costs that are associated with creating, e.g. creating vs consuming entertainment vs sleep. The fact is that your time is a cost associated with the act of creating, whether you get enjoyment from it or not you are spending time (and anything else that could have been done with that time) and in return receiving enjoyment and producing some creative work. The fact that you get more than one "product" out of the act does not negate the costs involved.
Additionally my comment spoke to general macro economic trends for supply and demand in the music industry. Note that I was careful to say that the *cost* will never reach zero, not that the *price* would never reach zero. It is entirely possible that someone would be willing to sell at a loss (e.g. free music) for any number of reasons including gaining market share, exposure, etc. However there are still costs associated with the production of the product that are either intrinsic, like time, or extrinsic, like bills for studio time - that must be paid with money from some other source. In general, however, I find it extremely unlikely that the industry as a whole would ever go to a zero price model for music simply because the costs will never reach zero. If a balance can be struck between things like merchandise sales and concerts that offset losses due to releasing music for free then it is a possibility. But we are a long ways off from such a balance being possible given the current state of affairs with the industry and copyrights.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[JesseMcDonald]

In the future, it might be helpful if you would give some sort of warning before redefining well-known economic terms like "cost" and "time preference".

In standard economic parlance, "cost" is always positive, because it refers to the most-valued thing you must give up in exchange for what you choose; all choices have positive costs because every choice excludes some other option of positive value. You are simply stating that your creative endeavors are, to you, leisure activities (a first-order good) and not labor (a "means to an end" or higher-order good).

"Time preference" refers to the concept that all goods are preferred sooner rather than later; i.e. that a good available now has a greater present demand than a good available at some point in the future. (E.g. $100 now is worth more than that same $100 a year from now, but perhaps about the same as $110. The extra $10 is the interest.) What you referred to in your post was not "time preference" but rather the opportunity cost of your leisure time, the amount you give up by choosing an hour of leisure over the same time spent on labor.

You made several interesting and useful points (and several false ones, probably due to misinterpretation of the above concepts), but correct terminology is important if you want to do more than simply confuse your readers.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Dragonslicer]

You still require supplies (a computer, typewriter, or even pencil and paper) to write. At the very least, you require enough food to keep your body functioning for those 20 hours per week. The cost for those items might be very low, or you may earn enough money the rest of the week that the cost is negligible compared to your income, but the cost can never be zero.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Alsee]

Even if there exists no valid legal mechanism in US law to actually place your work in the public domain, there is a legal doctrine that I believe would make a legally-non-functional public domain declaration mostly work anyway.

The legal doctrine is called estoppel - more specifically promissory estoppel. Basically what this doctrine says is that if I tell you I will not sue you for something, and you reasonably rely on that promise, that I am barred from then turning around and suing you. It would be manifestly unjust for the courts to allow me to sue you for something after I essentially entrapped you into.

It would create a messy legal situation if the law did not grant the attempted public domain dedication itself, but if you reasonably relied on someone else's such declaration I think you'd be able to use estoppel to shut down any attempt by them to sue you for infringement anyway. And it would take a very very special sort of person make a public domain dedication (even if void) and then turn around and attempt to sue you.

I'm not a lawyer, but I watch one on TV :)

I also know how to use Wikipedia (estoppel), and I happen to be brain-damaged enough to occasionally enjoy reading court rulings and various bits of the US legal code (my mother must have dropped my on my head as a baby or something).

-

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Alsee]

Quibbling over "cost" definitions notwithstanding, the price-supply curve absolutely goes quite negative.

Imagine we made it illegal to profit in any way off of music, and moreover the government offered $1000 cash per year to each and every person *not* to supply any new music. I submit that at least a couple of thousand people would gladly accept that -$1000 price tag to create and provide their music. I find it difficult to imagine what level of negative price it would take to actually zero-out the production curve. In fact the job distribution too goes negative on the curve. There is a vast global network of people willing to pay for the privilege of engaging in distribution.

I am not asserting that fixing a zero price point is the most *desirable* point on the supply curve, but it irks me a bit when anyone says (or implies) that music would be anything less than abundant at $0. If copyright were to vanish tomorrow, the supply of different categories of creations would be impacted to different degrees, but I doubt the supply in any category would be eliminated completely. Some categories, especially music, would remain quite abundant.

-

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Abcd1234]

The legal doctrine is called estoppel - more specifically promissory estoppel.

Why do you think I mentioned the part about public declarations changing things? :)

And it would take a very very special sort of person make a public domain dedication (even if void) and then turn around and attempt to sue you.

That's not the issue. It's a question of risk for those using the work. Without a clear, unambiguous license, there are those who may shy away from using your work (I know the company I work for is, frankly, irrationally paranoid about developers incorporating publicly available code into our product... even with a liberal license!).

Basically, my position is that, while yes, a simple public declaration may be sufficient to relinquish your rights to a work, a clear license accompanying the work, particularly a license that's widely used and has been vetted by lawyers, is even better, as it stands on more solid legal ground.

Re:Thankfully, copyright fixed itself...

[Jtheletter]

but it irks me a bit when anyone says (or implies) that music would be anything less than abundant at $0

It was not my intention to state or imply that music wouldn't be abundant at $0, I'm saying that the industry as a whole will likely never, and certainly not soon, move to that price point. There is already an abundance of music available for free in many formats, I don't deny that. But what I was responding about was the general theme of posts I see in these discussions where someone exuberantly crows about the death of the big labels and how because distribution is so cheap and music is so prevalent the price will surely go to zero! It's just not going to happen, the economic realities of production cost (including feeding the artist) mean that until there is some other major advance in the state of things, music will not go to $0. Doesn't matter if the labels all close up shop and all the artists have sweet free distribution deals with bittorrent sites or itunes or whatever tomorrow. Commercial music will not drop to $0.
Thus far everyone that has replied to my post has used hypothetical negative cost arguments. When someone shows how on a large scale music can be produced and given away by a majority of artists as a sustainable and desirable business model for them then I'll change my mind. And the idea of using the music files as free advertising and living off merch and concerts is a good start but doesn't cover all the bases, there's more to it than that and the economics of it pretty much require a new artist to be destitute or working another fulltime job for it to work. In the end it's still easier to make a living by doing both - charge for merch and shows, AND charge for the tracks.

OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[davidwr]

It's a bit off-topic, but "mere" transforms devoid of creativity should never get a fresh copyright.

This is already the case with photographs of 2-dimensional works in the USA: Due to a court ruling, if I photograph a painting that is in the public domain, my photo does not have any copyright protection.

In a perfect world, the same would hold for literal translations of text, musical recordings that are faithful representations of a public-domain score, and other mechanical transforms.

On the other hand, if I took a passage from the King James Bible and wrote it by hand in my own calligraphy, I should be able to protect it as a work of art for the usual length of time. I have added a non-trivial creative element. Likewise, musical recordings that contain a significant amount of improvisation or other deviations from the public-domain score should also enjoy a fresh copyright.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[badfish99]

On the other hand, setting the bible in type is a substantial job of work, as is performing a piece of classical music, or translating a book from a foreign language. It could easily be argued that this work is just as deserving of copyright protection as the original creation. Just taking a photograph does not require so much effort.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[Anonymous Coward]

Due to a court ruling, if I photograph a painting that is in the public domain, my photo does not have any copyright protection.

Wow. That ruling was 10 years ago. How did I miss that? I guess it's too bad for the makers of copyrighted posters of old masters. I'm glad that lame business models is dead. That's why back in the 90's a museum would ban cameras near public domain paintings, just to keep control of poster sales. I'd noticed this practice had stopped, but didn't know it was due to a court ruling. One step at a time. Of course recent and thus copyrighted art still doesn't like to be photographed.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[cpt kangarooski]

It's a bit off-topic, but "mere" transforms devoid of creativity should never get a fresh copyright.

In the US, they do not, regardless of medium. This is agreed upon by the Constitution, the Copyright Act, and the courts. See e.g. 17 USC 102(a) and 103(b) as well as L. Batlin v. Snyder.

On the other hand, if I took a passage from the King James Bible and wrote it by hand in my own calligraphy, I should be able to protect it as a work of art for the usual length of time. I have added a non-trivial creative element.

That depends on the nature of the calligraphy, and it still wouldn't protect the actual text, only the visual appearance. But it's also entirely possible that unless you have sufficiently creative calligraphy that nothing would be protected. Remember that mere letterforms are not protected due to the utility doctrine.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[russotto]

On the other hand, setting the bible in type is a substantial job of work, as is performing a piece of classical music, or translating a book from a foreign language. It could easily be argued that this work is just as deserving of copyright protection as the original creation. Just taking a photograph does not require so much effort.

Could be argued and has been argued. Fortunately, one of the few areas the US hasn't screwed up on copyright is that the courts have rejected the "sweat of the brow" theory.

Translations of existing works are protected because they are by necessity creative works; there is no mechanical process which can produce a decent translation. Setting an existing Bible in type produces no additional copyright (though laying it out may -- but even then, the copyright extends only to the layout). Taking a photograph of a work in such a manner as to reproduce it accurately may require substantial effort, but it still produces no new copyright.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[cpt kangarooski]

On the other hand, setting the bible in type is a substantial job of work, as is performing a piece of classical music, or translating a book from a foreign language. It could easily be argued that this work is just as deserving of copyright protection as the original creation. Just taking a photograph does not require so much effort.

Dead wrong.

Mere 'sweat of the brow' is never a valid argument for copyright, and the notion is dead and buried in the US. See Feist v. Rural for the Supreme Court throwing the idea in the garbage where it belongs.

If your work is not original, or is not creative, then it is not copyrightable, no matter how hard it was to do. It's deliberately so.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[badfish99]

Fair enough.

But then, most copyrightable work is just produced by "sweat of the brow", just like any other work. For example, I'll readily grant that some programmers are really creative, but most computer programs are just churned out for money. It would be far too difficult to apply any test of true creativity, so instead we have a situation where all work of certain types is covered by copyright, whether it is creative or not.

If we want to use copyright to reward work, than wouldn't it be logical to extend it so that it covers every different sort of work? Alternatively, if we don't think that mere hard work should be given special legal protection, why should the stuff that I churn out day after day without thinking about it be copyrightable?

Actually, I'd go for the second option.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[jberryman]

In a perfect world, the same would hold for literal translations of text, musical recordings that are faithful representations of a public-domain score, and other mechanical transforms. Neither of those examples you give are "mechanical transformations". Especially in the case of music, a written score bears absolutely no resemblance to a musical performance. Likewise the translation of literature and poetry requires considerable skill and creativity.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[cpt kangarooski]

It would be far too difficult to apply any test of true creativity, so instead we have a situation where all work of certain types is covered by copyright, whether it is creative or not.

As it happens, the threshold is amazingly low. So long as the work is original (i.e. not copied from elsewhere, regardless of whether it happens to be identical to something else or not) and has a modicum of creativity, it is enough.

If we want to use copyright to reward work, than wouldn't it be logical to extend it so that it covers every different sort of work?

But we don't. We want copyright to act as an incentive to get authors to create works which they otherwise would not have created. At the same time, we don't want to award copyrights to authors for works which they would have created regardless (why pay for something you'll get for free, after all?). Finally, we want to get the most bang for our buck, and thus receive the greatest public benefit (i.e. the most works created) for the least public detriment (i.e. the least possible copyright, in length and breadth), which further precludes us from granting it willy-nilly.

The amount of work is really not a factor either way. If you create an original, creative work by dint of great effort, then it is exactly as copyrightable as one that you just dash off in but a moment.

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[Alsee]

I would like to expand cpt's explanation on why mere "sweat of the brow" does not get a copyright.

The case he cited was about a phonebook, the archetypal example "sweat of the brow" collection of facts. It would be quite unfair and economically harmful to allow someone else to sue you merely because you were (unknowingly) the second person to run around doing massive work collecting the names and phone numbers of everyone in town, or collecting any other particular set of facts.

For creative work - even minimally creative work - the chance of independent identical creation is for all practical purposes zero.

And even if you did know someone else did the work before, it would be unfair and extremely harmful to allow them to *prohibit* you from doing the same work yourself. If some particular facts is vitally important activity or business, that other party could refuse to sell his copy of those facts at any price, and could prohibit you from collecting them yourself, and they could shut down an entire industry.

Allowing a copyright on "sweat of the brow" to prohibit independent replication of the work could turn disastrous in a variety of situations. This does not happen with creative works - if you need a creative work for something you always get by with a different comparable creative work.

From this point, the US and brand-new EU law diverge. Last I heard the EU passed a brand new variant of copyright for "sweat of the brow" databases. This variant on copyright is to prohibit direct copying but to *permit* independent replication of the protected work. The EU rational is to encourage the creation and commercialization of new databases. The counter argument, and the US rational, is that it is economically counterproductive to encourage people to engage in *pointless* *duplicate* "sweat of the brow" labor just to circumvent someone else's protections. Encouraging unproductive busywork is a Bad Idea, and the protection itself is flimsy as anyone can do that busywork and completely erase the protection.

My view, and that of many other people, is that the screwed up in creating a copyright-like protection for mere collection-of-facts databases. I'm not sure if member countries have started implementing it yet, last I heard I think it was an EU level directive.

-

Re:OT: Mere transforms shouldn't get a fresh (c)

[cpt kangarooski]

It would be quite unfair and economically harmful to allow someone else to sue you merely because you were (unknowingly) the second person to run around doing massive work collecting the names and phone numbers of everyone in town, or collecting any other particular set of facts.

Well, that wasn't what Feist was about.

The sweat of the brow theory said that if A compiles unprotectable facts that his labor is worthy of protection, and B ought not be permitted to copy the compilation directly. Proponents of the theory instead wanted B to have to waste effort compiling the facts again and recreating the compilation itself, which it could then use freely. No one was suggesting that B would not be allowed to even do that. Of course, it's moot, as the Supreme Court found the theory unconstitutional: regardless of the effort involved, uncopyrightable material never becomes copyrightable.

IIRC, the database industry in the US is a lot healthier than in the EU.

Um

[trifish]

I'm not sure why I've got the feeling that copyright is considered to be the evil around here. Let's not forget that without copyright and its enforceability the GPL and other FOSS licenses would not work. Copyright is good for FOSS.

Re:Um

[The Cisco Kid]

Its not copyright itself that is evil, it is certain uses that it is put to by big megacorps.

Re:Um

[i.r.id10t]

Right. But at the same time, the rights of the customer have to be considered.

Should I be allowed to make a backup copy of the latest Disney Princess movie so my daughter can put it in the DVD player herself, and I don't have to worry about replacing the original copy after it gets scratched/broken beyond the point of being able to be viewed? Should I be allowed to watch that same movie on my Linux laptop while traveling with her in a plane?

I don't mind not being able to make a copy of the movie - as long as Disney (or distributor/vendor/whoever) was legally obligated to give me replacement media for a minimal cost ($5 or so should cover making a DVD and mailing it...)...

Re:Um

[someone1234]

Lets see:
    incidental infringement - oh well, it was an incident, you can remedy it by either revoking your stuff containing GPL, or just adhere to GPL. You won't pay 750$ per copies.
    personal use - you are already allowed to do it
    indexing - you can already do this

How this proposal will weaken GPL?

Re:Um

[sm62704]

I'm not sure why you've got the feeling that copyright is considered to be the evil around here either, as none of the comments so far have said anything of the sort, or even remotely like it. The closest was the fellow who said he doesn't mind anyone plagairizing his work. Even he didn't say copyright was evil.

What's been said is that copyright is in bad need of reform. Not that it's evil, but that the laws as written are bad.

Many copyright HOLDERS are indeed evil; Sony comes to mind.

-mcgrew

(linked text is titled "SONY MUST DIE!!! Die, you worthless scumbag bastards die!")

Re:Um

[trifish]

How about you actually read and understand what I wrote... You are replying to something you imagined.

Re:Um

[ZachPruckowski]

If copyright did not exist, then the GPL would be unnecessary - people could share code, and those who didn't would have their binaries decompiled and stuff.

Re:Um

[trifish]

> and those who didn't would have their binaries decompiled and stuff.

That made me laugh. There aren't many people who would be able to edit uncommented machine code... Maybe 1 in 1000 developers.

Re:Um

[Alsee]

I'm not sure why I've got the feeling that copyright is considered to be the evil around here.

I don't know, maybe you're misreading people.

Most people here are pro-copyright. Most simply want to undo some of the damage that has been done to copyright law in the last several years. I think there are a lot of people here who would literally jump up and DANCE if we had back the good old copyright law we had when Nixon was in office.

The copyright act passed in 1976 fundamentally changed the nature of copyright. And yeah, pretty much every fucking law changing copyright since then has been evil. The current abomination that's been made out of copyright law is evil, but that is an entirely different thing than considering copyright itself to be evil. Good copyright law can be a good and useful thing. Bad copyright law is bad law.

If you look for that distinction, maybe you'll find that very few people around here actually consider copyright to be evil.

-

Re:Um

[someone1234]

So i just imagined that you don't like the proposal because it 'weakens' copyright?
And therefore it will somehow weaken the GPL?

Re:Um

[trifish]

> So i just imagined that you don't like the proposal because it 'weakens' copyright?

Yes, sir. I wasn't talking about the proposal at all.

Reform is needed...

[Bert64]

Copyright law certainly does need reform...

Copyright terms are too long, especially for things like software. While for example a piece of music may be listened to (and have commercial value) for many years, software very rapidly loses value. Do you think anyone would have much use for windows 3.1 short of a curious enthusiast or a collector/museum? Copyright terms in all cases should be shortened severely, most of the profit is made in the first couple of years after release anyway, and it's wrong to let someone carry on milking something they produced years ago. Would you continue to subscribe to slashdot if there were no new stories being posted?

Fair use needs to be extended to ensure people aren't forced to buy multiple copies of the same media to play in a car etc, and DRM needs to be clamped down on for the same reason. People also need to be able to make copies for use (this used to be considered reasonable and standard behaviour, copy the original and play the copy, if the copy gets damaged make another), especially important when kids are involved, and made worse by things like games that require you to keep the original media in the drive (even if theyre not actually reading from it).

Similarly, when copyright expires a work falls into the public domain, DRM prevents that. There needs to be a facility in place to ensure that work will be available freely once it's copyright has expired. Software for which it's copyright expires should be required to be released with source code too.

Abandonware, companies should be required to keep their old products available on a non discriminatory basis, it is unacceptable for something to be "no longer produced" in this digital age. If there is no longer mass market appeal for something, it can be made available in a much cheaper form (ie free or low cost download) and without support. The restriction should be that older media is still available for not more than it's previous cost plus standard inflation, but it's free to become cheaper, and availability should not be artificially limited (ie you should always be able to call and order it, or order online, they cant make the process overly convoluted to put you off).
As an example of why this is important, i have an Amiga here that i would like to play with for nostalgic reasons. I had one years ago, so i still have a pile of floppies containing media in various formats some of which proprietary, but i cannot obtain the program that opens them (and potentially can convert to other formats), the company that made it wont sell or provide me a copy at all. I also can't buy a TCP stack for the amiga or much of the networking apps because the places selling them no longer exist, and the downloadable versions are time-limited demos (disconnect after 30 minutes, useless).

Re:Reform is needed...

[Bert64]

Forgot to mention wrt keeping available...
Releasing a copyrighted work into the public domain early (ie before copyright expires) should satisfy the requirement to keep something available, and remove the burden of doing so from the original publisher.

Re:Reform is needed...

[DarkGreenNight]

The software is such a different beast that cannot be compared to anything else. There are products that are made, sold, perhaps improved a little, and then discontinued. And there are products, sold, improved, improved, maintained, improved, and that after 10 years being used still retain most of its original code and continue being sold, and will probably be sold and used for more than 10 years to come.

Should a 20 years old game of a company that closed 10 years ago public domain? Probably.
Should a (software) product discontinued 10 years ago be public domain, with the company making new versions of it (eg. Visual Studio 5.0)? Hard to tell.
Should a (software) product that started to sell 20 years ago but still has strong development be put into the public domain? Don't think so.
When should the software created for a maintenance plan be liberated? N years after its cancellation? M years after its inception?

Really, software is a hard beast to tame when people try to keep the keys. It'd be easier if it would be all free from the start.

Re:Reform is needed...

[Rary]

"Should a 20 years old game of a company that closed 10 years ago public domain? Probably.
Should a (software) product discontinued 10 years ago be public domain, with the company making new versions of it (eg. Visual Studio 5.0)? Hard to tell.
Should a (software) product that started to sell 20 years ago but still has strong development be put into the public domain? Don't think so."

Each new version is a derivative of the previous version and gets its own copyright. So, let the older versions slip into the public domain while the newer versions remain protected.

Re:Reform is needed...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is where pirates are useful. I'm not sure which kinds of files you are trying to open, but I'm sure that if you look in "emulation" circles you can find some disk images or dms's of the useful applications. I've seen numerous people offering dvd sets of all the amiga warez before prepackaged in emulator formats :)

Re:Reform is needed...

[coldmist]

Similarly, when copyright expires a work falls into the public domain, DRM prevents that. There needs to be a facility in place to ensure that work will be available freely once it's copyright has expired. Software for which it's copyright expires should be required to be released with source code too.

Here is my idea for software and copyrights: If you want a copyright, then you must provide a disk to the Copyright Office of the source code and all software needed to make the program. Then, when the term expires, they can make copies of that disk available on demand for the cost of duplication. Since any software on the disk would similarly be out of copyright by that time (has to be older to use it to make the new software), all software on the disk would be in the public domain before the application in question.

Now, if a person/company didn't want to do this, then they could forfeit their copyright claims, and they would have to rely on licensing to do what they wanted.

I think EULAs are illegal because they are relying on copyright on the one hand, but add extra restrictions on the other. You should only get one or the other. Not both.

Re:Reform is needed...

[Bert64]

I tried that... Getting hold of Amiga games through warez circles is easy, but for non gaming apps it's considerably harder.

TLDR

[SCHecklerX]

(too long, didn't read).

How about:

1. No more business method patents
2. No more software patents
3. Require working model / prototype within a reasonable amount of time, or you lose your patent

IOW, you can only patent physical systems, and you must have the intent to actually develop the technology (not squat on it until somebody else spends the time and money to bring something to market, and then sue them!).

Writing software and coming up with processes to do things does not require capital to prototype. So why do those things need patents?

Re:TLDR

[SCHecklerX]

how on earth I interpreted patents from that I don't know. Please mod down appropriately :)

Re:TLDR

[sm62704]

Your post is offtopic. The discussion is about copyright, not patents.

this brings to light an interesting phenomenon

[circletimessquare]

the law has always trailed technological progress. this makes sense, as it takes time for the changes technology wreaks upon society to percolate up into society's laws and customs and mores

however, we live in an era where technological change is accelerating

such that, perhaps for the first time ever in human society, the contrast between law and technological change is taking place so fast, the law is getting challenged within a single human generation. the change is bumping up, to the effect that society's laws are actually impeding technological progress

before, it might have taken a few generations of technological change to seriously conflict with the law. so i would assert we are the first human generation to suffer from technological legal whiplash

i hope someone else has coined a better term for this phenomenon than me

Re:this brings to light an interesting phenomenon

[sm62704]

Actually, if you repealed all copyright law written in or after the 20th century it would make a lot more sense. The problem isn't the law trailing technology, but being hijacked by financial interests.

If the copyright law was as it was in 1901, all of Jimi Hendrix' works would be in the public domain. Windows 3.1 would be in the public domain. Steamboat Willie would be in the public domain. In fact, all the movies Disnay made prior to 1987 would be in the public domain! There would be no DMCA (now THERE'S a bad law).

The only way the law hasn't matched technology is where it can't go at all; the international internet (I'm being purposly redundantly redundant here).

You have an example of where the law doesn't match technology? I personally see no difference between sampling on a computer and recording on a tape, or swapping P2P vs trading tapes. The only difference is the scale.

-mcgrew

(PS- take your meds ;)

give the man a cookie

[Anonymous Coward]

give the man a cookie, he has struck the nail on the head, though no doubt he will be removed and replaced with a manatee.

Re:give the man a cookie

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, the huge manatee!

enforce what we have

[Trailer Trash]

Beyond Fair Use reform, Sohn advocates punishing copyright holders who 'knowingly or recklessly' send out false takedown notices

Last I looked, those were already sworn to be true under penalty of perjury. We just need to enforce it. One time. Some slimy RIAA lawyer sitting in jail for a couple of days would completely change the way it's done now.

While these changes sound good, the copyright industries have congress in their pockets, and congressmen/women openly go to them for "advice" on copyright issues. Until that changes, you can talk all you want, they won't hear you (unless you come up with cash).

As I've said before, they are cheap given the influence that you can buy. It costs just a few hundred thousand dollars to turn a congressman into your own remote-controlled robot that'll say and do what you want. The CEA needs to figure that out.

Re:enforce what we have

[nomadic]

Some slimy RIAA lawyer sitting in jail for a couple of days would completely change the way it's done now.

You think any smart lawyer swears to things him or herself? One of the first things you learn as a lawyer is, "don't believe everything your client tells you."

Re:enforce what we have

[Alsee]

Last I looked, those were already sworn to be true under penalty of perjury.

That clause is misleading. Basically the only thing that is under penalty of perjury is the statement that you are (or represent) the copyright holder on some particular work.

For example it would be penalty of perjury for me to assert that I am the copyright holder of the Star Wars movie.... but if I *were* the copyright holder of the Star Wars movie it would not be penalty of perjury for me to issue a takedown notice against your very post for (allegedly) infringing Star Wars. The fact that I am retarded and abusive for issuing a such a notice against your post - which has zero connection to Star Wars - is irrelevant.

The key to reading and understanding the DMCA is to remember that it was *literally* written by lawyers employed by the publishing industry. There are quite a few misleading elements and surprise legalleese tricks buried in copyright laws for the last few decades, and they all twist copyright law in the publishing industry's favor. If you think you see a clause in recent copyright law that benefits you and me, odds are it either "gives" you something you already had or is otherwise misleading or sabotaged. For example the DMCA "Fair Use" clause is real pretty but has no effect at all - it says that Fair Use defenses are not affected, but Fair Use is only a defense against infringement, Fair Use is not a defense against the *non-infringement* crimes created by the DMCA. There's another cute trick slipped into another law - I forget which one, maybe the NET act - where it grants you and me protection in some unarguable case where congress would never have let the bill through without granting that protection. Some blatant case that obviously should not be infringement. The cutesy trick that the bill pulls is in the language - it basically says that *no lawsuit may be brought against you* for it. Technically that situation *legally remains infringement*, you just can't get sued for it. Which of course is going to have legal side effects with other laws that address infringement. As far as the rest of copyright law is concerned that "protected" activity is still classified as infringement and is still illegal activity. I don't recall the exact interaction, the result is that the protection isn't as broad as it's supposed to be, the protection is not as broad as congress *intended* and *believed* they were granting.

When you have industry lawyers literally writing the bills congress passes, you get massively twisted in that industry's favor and even loaded with tricks to deceive congress itself.

Paying industry lawyers to hide loopholes and gotchyas and pretty-looking-clauses-that-don't-actually-do-anything into bills and deceiving congress is even cheaper than bribing congressmen.

-

Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

1. Fair Use Reform.
The author offered no concrete suggestions, just "expand fair use". I offer a suggestion: any non-commercial use should be considered fair use. And if you sue me for copyright infringement and the courts deem my use to be fair use, I should be able to collect a kingly sum from you.

2.Limits on Secondary Liability
BZZZT! No, these tech ddin't become popular because they "challenged the status quo." They became popular because (surprise) they were USEFUL. And again, IMO TFA is wrong. There shouldn't be "limits" to secondary liability, there should be no such thing as "secondary liability.

3. Protections Against Copyright Abuse.
Am I the only one that gets annoyed when someone presents some obscure reference that I'm supposed to know about to the point that they need no link? Look, you want me to know about the "The Let's Go Crazy Baby" case then dammit, link to a Wikipedia article about it. Hmmm... "No page with that title exists". That said, I agree with the author about his point even though it was extremely retarded to expect me to know about "lets go crazy baby". If it isn't in Wikipedia it must be pretty damned obscure.

4. Fair and Accessible Licensing
As an end-user, I should have no license, nor any need for one. Licenses are for those who wish to use a copyrighted work for financial gain. End-user licenses should be illegal, PERIOD, not merely the unenforceable clickthrough licenses.

As to music, a small sample should be considered "fair use", not unlike a quote from a book. File sharing, being noncommercial, should be fair use.

5. Orphan Works Reform
Agreed, to get copyright you should have to register your copyright. And you should havce to clearly state the year your copyrighted work was registered so one can know when it gets to the public domain.

6. Notice of Technological and Contractual Restrictions on Digital Media.
Agreed.

But the guy completely missed the most needed reform of all: Sanity to copyright lengths. IINM at the beginning of the 20th century it was twenty years. That sounds about right; you're not going to pursuade Jimi Hendrix to do any more recording!

The recording artist should hold copyright to the recording rather than the record label, as it is now.

-mcgrew (I hold two ISBN numbers)

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[superpulpsicle]

i am trying to see how the law helps wikipedia. They sent a bunch of admins out to stripe photos out of all the movie pages. They are now so naked is unacceptable.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[ivan256]

But the guy completely missed the most needed reform of all: Sanity to copyright lengths. IINM at the beginning of the 20th century it was twenty years. That sounds about right; you're not going to pursuade Jimi Hendrix to do any more recording!

I think copyright terms should be unlimited... sortof.

They should expire every 7 years, but with infinite renewals. For each renewal, the fee should increase exponentially.

This would accomplish several things. It would give a clear legal path to the use of orphaned works, it would force holders to assess the value of the work against the fee, thus causing more works to enter the public domain sooner, and for the companies that choose to maintain their copyrights for extreme periods, it would likely create a need for additional creative input to generate sufficient revenue to justify the high renewal fee.

As for Technological Restrictions, notice is not enough. Technological restrictions should be required to expire with the copyright, and allow fair use in order to qualify for protection under the DMCA at the very least. They should probably be completely illegal if they don't make those provisions.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[Pofy]

>Agreed, to get copyright you should have to register your
>copyright. And you should havce to clearly state the year
>your copyrighted work was registered so one can know when
>it gets to the public domain.

How do you propose to make such a system work internationally?

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have calendars or computers or databases in other countries?

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[east coast]

The recording artist should hold copyright to the recording rather than the record label, as it is now.

They would have that option if they didn't sell out. Basically what you're asking for is for the copyright owner not to have the ability to sell their copyright. What's so wrong with being able to sell the copyright to a work? It would be like not allowing inventors to sell a patent. It makes no real sense.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[BadMrMojo]

Congratulations on reading TFA, but I think you might have missed a few rather crucial points.

1. Fair Use Reform.
The author offered no concrete suggestions, just "expand fair use". I offer a suggestion: any non-commercial use should be considered fair use. And if you sue me for copyright infringement and the courts deem my use to be fair use, I should be able to collect a kingly sum from you.

Currently, Fair Use is something that you never, ever want to have to invoke in a court of law. It's the last chance defense to be used only once you've been determined as having definitely infringed upon the copyright holder. By definition, it means admitting guilt to infringing. The author is proposing radically strengthening the current system by adding several specifically-named considerations - one of which is specifically stated as non-commercial personal use. Using the strengthened definitions, you give people more of a safety net in which to say, "Yes, I infringed upon the copyright holder in order to make a copy of the musical recording for use on another device for my own convenience, which is specifically allowed as a non-commercial, personal use in section blah of blah blah blah etc..."

Currently, you're essentially saying, "Yeah, I totally did it. But... well... I think that's ok, since... well... it seemed ok."

On a side note, I actually significantly prefer the author's definition of personal non-commercial use over the sweepingly broad any non-commercial use, which is far too open to abuse. Who here wants to see a large entity with deep pockets legally infringing upon a smaller independent entity's work by blatantly stealing it and giving it away for free in order to drive them out of business?

2.Limits on Secondary Liability
BZZZT! No, these tech ddin't become popular because they "challenged the status quo." They became popular because (surprise) they were USEFUL. And again, IMO TFA is wrong. There shouldn't be "limits" to secondary liability, there should be no such thing as "secondary liability.

Just to check, you do realize that he was suggesting that any technology or medium with substantial non-infringing use would be protected if the Sony Betamax standard was codified... right? He's also suggesting weakening the penalties for secondary liability that it actually represents the closest approximation of real financial results.

While "no such thing" sounds nice and simple, I think it's pretty reasonable that if I create and market the Book-Gank 4000 expressly for the purpose of encouraging the duplication of the NY Times bestsellers at a fraction of their list price, I'd be liable for a reasonable estimation of the amount of money which was not earned by the authors I'd indirectly infringed upon because of my actions. Information may want to be free, but authors still want to eat and pay rent. As a compromise, I find it relatively palatable, personally.

3. Protections Against Copyright Abuse.
Am I the only one that gets annoyed when someone presents some obscure reference that I'm supposed to know about to the point that they need no link? Look, you want me to know about the "The Let's Go Crazy Baby" case then dammit, link to a Wikipedia article about it. Hmmm... "No page with that title exists". That said, I agree with the author about his point even though it was extremely retarded to expect me to know about "lets go crazy baby". If it isn't in Wikipedia it must be pretty damned obscure.

Psssst. Paragraph 11. He describes the whole thing. You sure you read the article?

4. Fair and Accessible Licensing
As an end-user, I should have no license, nor any need for one. Licenses are for those who wish to use a copyrighted work for financial gain. End-user licenses should be illegal, PERIOD, not merely the unenforceable clickthrough licenses.

As to music, a small sample should be considered "fair use", not unlike a quote f

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[operagost]

Look, you want me to know about the "The Let's Go Crazy Baby" case then dammit, link to a Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] about it. Hmmm... "No page with that title exists".

"Let's Go Crazy baby" was explained earlier in the article; you must have skimmed over it. A mother posted (on Youtube) a video of her baby pushing a toy around with Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" playing and Universal sent her a DMCA takedown notice.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[cpt kangarooski]

If you don't have a computer or a fax or a phone, you can always use the mail. The international postal system is pretty good.

If you want a US copyright, you deal with the US paperwork. If you want a Canadian copyright, you deal with the Canadian paperwork. If you want a UK copyright, you deal with the UK paperwork.

The paperwork should be very simple, however: name, address, name of the work, date. That's mainly it. In some cases there may be a bit more (e.g. if there are multiple authors, what it is based on if it's a derivative work) but still not much. Far easier than taxes, and about on par with a change of address form.

If you decide that the paperwork isn't worth doing, then the work isn't copyrighted there. The choice is up to you.

If you think it's too difficult to do all of this personally, then I'm sure there will be many businesses willing to assist you for a competitive fee.

Most likely, only some authors, for some works, will care about copyright. Those are probably the authors who were incentivized to create as a result of the offer of a copyright. They'll take the time to do the paperwork as necessary. Many other authors won't care about copyright, were not incentivized by copyright, and won't take even the token effort to seek one. This is ideal: while we want to use copyright to incentivize authors who would not have otherwise created works, we never want to use copyright to unfairly benefit authors who didn't need that additional incentive. Further, we do want works to not be copyrighted, or to at least be minimally copyrighted. Only copyrighting works on an as-needed basis (where we only grant them where specifically sought) helps in that regard.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[russotto]

Currently, Fair Use is something that you never, ever want to have to invoke in a court of law. It's the last chance defense to be used only once you've been determined as having definitely infringed upon the copyright holder. By definition, it means admitting guilt to infringing. The author is proposing radically strengthening the current system by adding several specifically-named considerations - one of which is specifically stated as non-commercial personal use. Using the strengthened definitions, you give people more of a safety net in which to say, "Yes, I infringed upon the copyright holder in order to make a copy of the musical recording for use on another device for my own convenience, which is specifically allowed as a non-commercial, personal use in section blah of blah blah blah etc..."

Fair use does not mean "admitting guilt" to infringing. First of all, most copyright cases are civil, so there's no "guilt" involved. Second, fair use only becomes an issue if the plaintiff has already shown (or the defense admitted) that the defendant has in fact committed one of the acts specified as reserved to the copyright holder. But if it is fair use, it is NOT infringement; to say that "I infringed but it's fair use" is nonsense.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[BadMrMojo]

My bad. Common English versus Legal English. Thank you for the correction.

Nonetheless - however inaccurately I may have used very specific terms - the end result is that:

a) Fair Use is a defense only after the establishment of the acts in question having occurred.
b) Resorting to a Fair Use argument is therefore an admission of said acts being factual - which cannot accurately be described as either "guilt" or "infringement" in Legal English.

Is that correct and accurate? Because that was my intention, clumsily phrased as it may have been.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

If copyright terms were a reasonable 20 years then most US movies there are would be public domain, as the US founding fathers envisioned.

If the movie studios weren't retarded that would help Wikipedia, too. No stills of a movie covered in Wikipedia? Hmmm, the people who made that flick must be ashamed of their work. No reason fro me to spend money to rent it if it's so bad its makers are ashamed of it!.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[russotto]

Disclaimer time: I'm not a lawyer.

But I think it is possible (legally) to make an argument to the effect of "I didn't do it, but if I did it was fair use". For instance, I believe in one case the argument was made that a copy of a program in computer RAM was not a reproduction for the purposes of copyright law, but if it was, it was fair use.

If "fair use" is your only argument, you probably have conceded (at least implicitly) that you committed the act of reproduction, distribution, public performance, etc, that took place. But you are not admitting to infringement, any more than you are admitting to murder if you claim to have fatally shot a person in self-defense.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

I don't, and don't think it necessary. You let your country make its laws, let my country make its own. Disney should have no say over Mickey Mouse in Paraguay.

Actually, IMO Disney shouldn't even be allowed to hold copyright. I don't think corporations should be afforded any rights whatsoever.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

I think if a work is protected by technical means, it should not be eligible for copyright at all.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

In the US, that's codified by statute. A recording is, by law, a "work for hire".

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

Who here wants to see a large entity with deep pockets legally infringing upon a smaller independent entity's work by blatantly stealing it and giving it away for free in order to drive them out of business?

BZZT! In my country (the US) there is no such thing as "intellectual property"; see Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution. You are granted a limited time monopoly to distribution, NOT ownership. Copyright infringement is not stealing. I have to own something before you can steal it from me.

And another reform I'd add would be that a work has to be "affixed in tangible form" as it used to be, and "tangible form" should NOT include a hard drive.

And a business competetitor giving your works away in order to run you out of business is hardly "noncommercial".

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[BadMrMojo]

You just love saying, "BZZT!", don't you? Endearing habit you've got there.

You are correct, however. As with the reply above, I misspoke/mistyped yet again. "Stealing" was a very poor choice of words and was intended in a non-specific, generalized way which is entirely inaccurate when taken in a very specific legal context. My apologies on my error.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

Thanks for pointing that out, didn't realise I was doing it.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[cwilly]

you're not going to pursuade Jimi Hendrix to do any more recording!

I agree, it's hard to convince those dead guys to do anything!

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[mark-t]

My understanding was that a fair use defense in court would only be an admission that one copied the work, but because fair use is an *exemption* to infringement, it's no more an admission of copyright infringement than a legitimate claim of killing in self-defense is an admission to murder.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[Pofy]

>They don't have calendars or computers or databases in other countries?

Yes, but how would that help? I was commenting on the system of registering the copyright. Who should do that? Would it be part of some internationally body making it world wide (requiring all countries in the world to adopt this same system)? Or should each country has their own system requiring registration? Would each and every person or company in other countries in the world have to go register in every other country ion the world were they want protection? How would you know about the case for each country? Would you have to go to each other country and register were you want protection?

This would basically mean that to get good protection, you need to register in every country (paying the money in every country if any) to get good protection or you will have places with no protection for your work. In what way does it help to have a calendar or computer or even a database in other countries? My question was about how the copyright would work internatinally, not if it would be possible for other countries to implement the same thing.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[Pofy]

>If you don't have a computer or a fax or a phone,
>you can always use the mail. The international postal
>system is pretty good.

See my reply above, it has nothing to do with how others get to know about your register. It was about hor copyright would work internationally when each country starts to require their own system for registring and honouring copyright. You would basically lose any protection in every other country were you do not find out what is needed by you, register and so on. The international system of honouring each other's copyright would not work so well, hence my question.

>If you want a US copyright, you deal with the US paperwork.
>If you want a Canadian copyright, you deal with the Canadian
>paperwork. If you want a UK copyright, you deal with the UK paperwork.

So the answer it, it does not work internationally at all. One is back to the old day, pre bern convention and such were copyright is a local issue and you have no protection in other places were you want protection. With communication, trade, travell and general internationalilzation, one basically end sup unprotected if you don't go arround and do the paperworks in every other country. It is more a choice of do it everywere or nowere.

Even if one DO adopt the system and one DO make the paper works, what is acceptable contact addresses? I assume you allow world wide addresses or do you require someone to actually set up some US (or country specific address in each country if we talk generally) to hande it? What type of contact service is needed? Does it have to be personal or can one set up a company that handle all such contacts internationally? I do agree on the fact that such a system breaking up compyright to be a completely regional thing will make the protection MUCH weaker, even in the country were you want protection since people can just go abroad to get arround it. Sure, one can put up an iron curtain between each country dissallowing any transfer of goods or even persons over the boarder to avoid it but I doubt that is a price that is worth paying.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[Pofy]

>I don't, and don't think it necessary. You let your
>country make its laws, let my country make its own.

That is fine. I doubt your country would like it though, to lose much of the copyrights in the rest of the world. Personally I think it would be great.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[sm62704]

I rarely agree with my government.

Re:Wordy (yawn) article but I RTFA (IMBKH)

[cpt kangarooski]

See my reply above, it has nothing to do with how others get to know about your register. It was about hor copyright would work internationally when each country starts to require their own system for registring and honouring copyright. You would basically lose any protection in every other country were you do not find out what is needed by you, register and so on. The international system of honouring each other's copyright would not work so well, hence my question.

Yes, that's the idea. If an author cannot be bothered to take some modest effort to find out how to obtain protection in the US (or other countries that might adopt similar approaches), then why should the people of that country have to bother giving that author a copyright?

Copyrights should be reserved for those people who need them, as they impose a cost to the public which should not be made greater than necessary. The best mechanism we have for determining who they are is for them to identify themselves as wanting a copyright. People who need them will surely seek them out, and people who don't need them will probably not bother. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got at present.

While each country should engage in outreach (since there's no reason to treat nationals and foreigners differently), I expect that the best system would have the Copyright Office of one's own country provide information as to what other countries require for registration there.

Thus, if Boris, a citizen of Pottsylvania, writes a book and wants to copyright it in the US, he could: 1) go to the US Copyright Office website for information; 2) call or write them, or; 3) contact the Pottsylvanian Copyright Office for assistance (so that they can give him a copy of the US instructions, forms, etc.).

I'm all for cooperation amongst the copyright systems of the world. I'm just against the idea that there should only be one copyright system at all. The copyright-related needs of one country will likely differ from any other country, and it is foolish to try to make them all the same. In practice, we've seen that it results in a race to the bottom, with everyone pressured to adopt the worst standards of the lot, which are then made worse still, causing the cycle to repeat itself.

Even if one DO adopt the system and one DO make the paper works, what is acceptable contact addresses? I assume you allow world wide addresses

International correspondence is fine with me; remember, I'm for unilateral national treatment, and it would be pretty mean to insist upon addresses for correspondence that were preferential to Americans. Of course, if some correspondence back and forth is necessary, it will be important for the address to actually work.

What type of contact service is needed? Does it have to be personal or can one set up a company that handle all such contacts internationally?

Using a third party to help in the registration process would not be mandatory, but anyone would be free to use it as an option. If so, they'd be treated no differently from any other applicant, except that they'd have to indicate on the form that the third party is assisting the applicant, acting as a go-between, and not making a claim for itself, etc. No one has to show up in Washington personally.

I do agree on the fact that such a system breaking up compyright to be a completely regional thing will make the protection MUCH weaker, even in the country were you want protection since people can just go abroad to get arround it. Sure, one can put up an iron curtain between each country dissallowing any transfer of goods or even persons over the boarder to avoid it but I doubt that is a price that is worth paying.

No, part of copyright includes importation controls. This has long been true, and such controls exist today. Remember, that even where a work is copyrighted in two different countries, different parties could own the different copyrights. So while it might be legal for Alice in America, and Bob i

Copyright Expiration

[Doc Ruby]

Copyrights are a compromise between the government protecting our free speech and protecting the commerce in "speech" (communication) products that would have failed without some artificial exclusivity back in the 1790s.

The free speech right is unchanged, of course, as well as the minimal infringement people are willing to accept for a working compromise. What has changed is the commerce, and its requirements. But the basic term of the original compromise is still largely acceptable. Which was 14 years of exclusivity for printed matter.

That time is also how long it takes a teenager to grow up to consider their parents' pop songs to be folk songs like the rest of their cultural legacy. Old pop songs that survive that long are make folk songs by the folks, not by the author. The author's exclusive right is not justifiable after that balance evolves in favor of the audience's contribution. Books work the same way.

The same is true of other media, but with different speeds. Movies are "old" before 14 years pass, though the culture could survive a 14 year exclusivity for them. TV (other than movies) is old in under 10 years; talk shows in under a year; TV ads in a few months. Videogames are "classic" after the time that it takes an older brother to hand it over to a younger sister, which is usually 5 years or so.

Copyright has gone so far out of whack that it threatens both the commerce, as the music and book businesses amply demonstrate, and the culture (ditto). Copyright law should specify maximum terms before expiration of 14 years, with shorter exceptions for faster aging media. Those faster media also happen to be more profitable faster, and cheaper to produce, and more completely adopted more quickly. That balance is mandated by the Constitution. We should get back to what's right.

Then "fair use" won't have nearly as many hard boundary cases to consider.

Re:Copyright Expiration

[east coast]

Copyright has gone so far out of whack that it threatens both the commerce

How do you feel that copyright threatens commerce?

Re:Copyright Expiration

[Doc Ruby]

Lots of commercial content is produced by reusing content that came before it. Copyright stops that.

There's a period within which copyright works in favor of commerce, but gradually the balance inhibits commerce.

The negative effects of relying on copyright rather than creation can also be easily seen in the music industry, as well as other entertainment media. Especially when the copyright prevents the distribution of content whose free distribution is still monetized, like advertising, branding and promotion.

There are other ways, but those are enough to make the difference.

Re:Copyright Expiration

[east coast]

Lots of commercial content is produced by reusing content that came before it.

Such as? And is that really a good enough of an argument? I really don't see it that way. I can understand it in the frame of fair use but the outright use of a work to produce another work in it's entirety is a very shady interpretation of new content.

The negative effects of relying on copyright rather than creation can also be easily seen in the music industry, as well as other entertainment media. Especially when the copyright prevents the distribution of content whose free distribution is still monetized, like advertising, branding and promotion.

I'll be honest. I'm trying to get my head around this argument and it looks like the same argument in a different wording. If copying other artists is the big idea behind creating new art I don't know if I can really buy into it. I just don't see how this is causing harm to the music industry outside of the question of fair use.

I don't see how something can still have a marketable value and is under the protection of copyright can inhibit the creation of new art. Maybe I'm just dense. I would like to hear what else you have to say because I'd really like to understand where you guys are coming from but I really don't see examples of how not being able to copy another artists works inhibits creativity. It just sounds backwards to me.

Re:Copyright Expiration

[Doc Ruby]

Give me an example of commercial content that doesn't reuse content that came before it (that isn't licensed or copywritten by the new author).

Re:Copyright Expiration

[east coast]

Give me an example of commercial content that doesn't reuse content that came before it (that isn't licensed or copywritten by the new author).

Well, as much as I really don't understand what the purpose of bringing up it's being licensed (these are the exact kind of things I wish you guys would get to the point over instead of acting like it's simple commonsense to everyone)...

Let's take Fugazi's Repeater album. How does copyright effect this album's ability to be a viable commercial product and a new creation since it used no other copyright protected material.

Re:Copyright Expiration

[Doc Ruby]

Albums are the perfect example. There is no work of pop music that doesn't use some previous content in its production. The copyright protecting some material, but not other, is arbitrary to the art, even if it's convenient to the business. And since the art is the product, that hurts the business.

More to the point, if that album could be shared without copyright limits after some reasonable time, its free distribution by fans would promote the other products. Like later albums still under copyright, like concert tickets, like T-shirts.

Just look at the music business overall. It's copyright obsessed, squeezing as much profits out of as limited access as possible, instead of just managing the wellspring of actual new creation. The more the business has been the business of restricting copying, including sharing among peers, the worse the product, and the less profitable.

FWIW, I just pointed out that licensing is an exception to copyright that proves the rule. That shouldn't be too confusing. BTW, who are "you guys"?

Re:Copyright Expiration

[east coast]

Albums are the perfect example. There is no work of pop music that doesn't use some previous content in its production. The copyright protecting some material, but not other, is arbitrary to the art, even if it's convenient to the business. And since the art is the product, that hurts the business.

I pointed out a specific product and you couldn't find a reason that it hurts the business. That's the bottomline to me. Saying that it's convenient for a business to live off of the old (which means they're still profiting) but it's not as convenient for the artists so that makes it harmful to the business is plainly doublespeak.

More to the point, if that album could be shared without copyright limits after some reasonable time, its free distribution by fans would promote the other products. Like later albums still under copyright, like concert tickets, like T-shirts.

Actually, you're pretty much wrong in this case. Fugazi no longer tours. Nor do they make materials for commercial ventures outside of their albums. Maybe the album would get more interest in the band but that's also moot as Fugazi allows for plenty of free content outside of their handful of albums.

Just look at the music business overall. It's copyright obsessed, squeezing as much profits out of as limited access as possible, instead of just managing the wellspring of actual new creation. The more the business has been the business of restricting copying, including sharing among peers, the worse the product, and the less profitable.

The argument can be made, and has been made, just as easily that the ability to share among peers has made the product less profitable. Frankly, it's a much clearer and coherent statement than what I've read here.

FWIW, I just pointed out that licensing is an exception to copyright that proves the rule. That shouldn't be too confusing. BTW, who are "you guys"?

"You guys" are the guys who keep howling that copyright destroys artistic progress. You included business progress on that and it piqued my interests to a point. I still don't see what you're getting at and since you made another "[our point] shouldn't be too confusing" without offering a real explanation instead of just saying (again) that copyright hurts art/business I'm starting to doubt that there is a point to be made.

Re:Copyright Expiration

[Doc Ruby]

No, you're just ignoring the evidence I took the time to spell out for you. Fugazi's business was limited when the album was released, when it could have done all that extra business with less expense, and still is. It would still be under copyright as it's less that 14 years later (AFAIK). The continued popularity is more due to the audience's effort keeping it around. When that stops, the album goes out of print, so we can see it happen in real life.

The bigger point I made is that the copyright is a compromise of free speech, from its beginnings, that cannot be justified on the extreme terms of today. Only on terms that favor the freedom much more than they do.

Your insistence on ignoring that, and looking for some kind of "gotcha" means you're either trolling, or not really capable of understanding a point in such (medium) subtlety. That doesn't make my argument doubletalk. It makes your ability to think about it limited.

Best of luck.

No Electronic Theft Act of 1997

[thtrgremlin]

Of all the changes going on, rather than creating new laws or changing things that have been the way they were for a very long time, how about just repealing some very recent laws that were, in hind sight, horrible mistakes. Until 1997, copyright violations, for the most part, only occurred where there was measurable loss on the part of the copyright holder greatly reinforced by the proportional gain by said thief. The No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 basically changed the second part such that it was much easier to go after 'thieves' that were not profiting monetarily from their actions. This is what has screwed up the whole system, and what I think most people are arguing about.

So why don't we admit our mistake, repeal the stupid very recent law that has failed society and rethink how that act should have been written to fairly protect artists, as well as the people.

Re:No Electronic Theft Act of 1997

[cdrguru]

So you agree that everything should be free, right?

Sure, put the streetcorner pirates out of business but allow the gamers to have their games for the price of a download. Eliminate all software sales because it should all be free, right? Music and everything else that CAN be shared should be, right?

Because that is the world the NET act was trying to stop. That is pretty much how people viewed things in 1995.

Re:No Electronic Theft Act of 1997

[iggy_mon]

so... you are advocating creating a lawUNmaker position within the US govt? brilliant!

About time

[Matt867]

I'm glad someone is finally doing something to stop the Music Industries abuse of the legal system. They pull fake money losses straight out of the sky without giving anyone any link to what they used to get those insane numbers. The various groups around them do things that are in my eyes completely illegal all of the time (Raiding websites, sending take-down notices with no legal grounds, etc,.

the big question...

[Some_Llama]

Is Mr. Sohn looking for anyone to birth his children?

He??????

[jddj]

Well, yeah, I guess that's a short haircut, but really, isn't the name "Gigi" kind of a giveaway?

The sad part is

[MaxLoad]

That copyright is being used to line the pockets of those unable to either let go of antiquated business models, or devise new and innovative ways to deliver their products.

Witness that the *AA's (the main litigants in most copyright cases) seek to kill technologies they didn't think of, a la Napster, Grokster, Bittorrent, etc., simply so they can increase their revenue streams. They now salivate, *years* after the introduction of P2P and streaming, at the thought of charging "consumers" not for a show/song/episode/album, but on a per-device price for the *same content*.

Copyright is a barely sustainable concept, and then only when the original author/s of the content hold them.

When corporations get into the mix, we all get screwed.

I wasn't impressed

[cpt kangarooski]

While I'm all for meaningful copyright reform as soon as possible, I was not impressed by Sohn's proposal. Responding to her points:

1. Fair use reform is dangerous; it is essential that a flexible approach be maintained, even though this may result in less certainty. Remember, fair use arose in the mid-19th century; could the jurists of the day have anticipated novel fair uses such as time shifting? Sohn acknowledged that position, but I don't think she paid it enough heed. The only fair use reform I would suggest, though I am ambivalent as to whether it would actually be a good idea, would be to allow facilitators of fair use to stand in the shoes of actual fair users, reversing the decision of Princeton v. Michigan Document Services.

I do agree with the proposal that copyright should be reduced so as to not interfere so much with certain uses, but these should be structured as statutory exceptions separate from fair use, rather than as a part of fair use itself. In particular, I have long advocated for a broad exception for any non-commercial conduct by natural persons. Exceptions for incidental use, and particularly the incidental copies that are inescapable when computers are involved, are also good ideas. Just not all shoehorned into fair use.

Sohn also proposes an exception to the anticircumvention statutes. That's just inadequate, however. Sections 1201 et seq all need to be repealed; it is impossible to fix them. Indeed, what we really need is the opposite provision: that if a work is published (using a broad definition of publication that encompasses public performance and display) by or under the authority of the copyright holder, the work enters the public domain immediately. Further, that one of the duties of the Copyright Office and Library of Congress will be to assist in the efforts of cracking the DRM on those works and of disseminating those works once unprotected. There would need to be a brief period of time for publishers to reissue or forfeit their already-published DRM'ed works, though that wouldn't apply to works that hadn't been published in some manner prior to the reform taking effect.

While we cannot ban DRM outright, as it is a free speech issue, nor would we want to in certain applications, e.g. private communications and information, unpublished manuscripts, etc., we can at least avoid providing the incentives and benefits of copyright to anyone who would use it for published works. Authors would be free to opt to use DRM, but would forgo legal protection. This strikes me as a fair balance.

2. I generally agree with Sohn on this point, though I don't see much point in abolishing statutory damages for secondary infringers if you're already reversing Grokster with a strict reading of Sony.

3. I generally agree with Sohn on this point as well, though really the 512 exception should be made broader, with more general language, lest a court read it too narrowly, as happened in Napster. Also, the remedies for abuse should be broad, ranging from mere money damages, to injunctive relief, and in extreme cases, copyright revocation.

4. I agree that music licensing needs to be reworked from the ground up, as it is hopelessly convoluted. However, I do not think that there should be a public performance right for sound recordings, as it seems not to have produced any incentivizing effect, and clearly harms the public interest otherwise.

Further, I absolutely abhor the idea of non-assignable copyrights of any type. If an author wants to assign some or all rights, then it should be up to him to do so, provided that no one is forcing him. The typical practice in the music industry to present contracts that are heavily weighted in the favor of the publisher does not rise to the level of compulsion. Authors are free to reject those deals, to try to negotiate for something better, and to self-publish if all else fails. Authors are not children, and do not need special paternalistic protection against making foolish deals. I'm willing to speak out against

Re:I wasn't impressed

[jdjbuffalo]

While I applaud Sohn's effort, I agree that she doesn't go nearly far enough. I agree with most all of what you've said regarding copyright.

Also, before I get to deep into what I think we should do with Copyright in the US, I wanted to thank you for your legal opinions on Slashdot. I thoroughly enjoy almost all your posts. It's nice to have a legal opinion on many of the issues we discuss here and I wish there more people like you willing to give your opinion to legal novices.

Most of the reasonable things you and others have proposed would greatly help balance the pendulum in the US. Here are some of the things I think are reasonable (all copyright lengths are reasonable guesses as to what would be fair without empirical evidence available):

1. Short copyrights based type (and possibly medium, but I won't go into this part). This would primarily be determined by the time 90% of the profits are made (at least for initially figuring a fair time limit). So software, would get a very short copyright of say 5 years (future revisions would each get their own copyright of 5 years) whereas books get 15 years. Also, I can see a possible provision for renewal but generally shorter would be better for us.
1.a. Undefined (read New) types would, by default, get the longest copyright currently allowed for any type (e.g. [new thing to be copyrighted] would get 15 years in the example above where books have the longest copyright). If we find that this period is too long/short then we would add to the laws to include this new thing.

2. Restrictions on DRM. I've heard two ideas I like for this.
2.a. DRM or Copyright protection, choose one.
2.b. Part 1:Users can circumvent copy protections when they are doing so under fair use guidelines.
2.b. Part 2:Companies can sell software that circumvents DRM as long as it's advertised as allowing people to exercise their fair use rights.

3. Create a clearinghouse "agency" for copyright storage and registration (either as part of the Library of Congress or as a separate entity).
3.a. Companies must provide a copy of the work, unrestricted and in it's entirety at the time of publication to the Library of Congress inorder to receive any copyright protections.
3.b. This agency would have a publicly available and free online database where anyone can look for copyrighted works. If the work is not found after an exhaustive search then it can be assumed that it is freely available in the public domain (at least in the US). Ideally, they would be linked to other similar agencies around the world that adopted a similar copyright control method as the US. Also, where possible, they would have notices on anything that was already part of the public domain and furthermore would keep track of ALL registered copyrights and when or if they have entered into the public domain.
3.c. They would be able to provide public domain works for cost (bandwidth, printing etc.).
3.d. Ideally they would be funded by a small fee that is associated with registering a copyright with the agency. We would need to make sure this stays small so that anyone can register.

4. Allow for easy release into the public domain through the clearing house described in #3.

5. Give a reasonable period of time for everyone to adjust to the new system (like say 3-5 years before they are implemented).

6. Ideally I'd like to see it back to where non-commercial uses (all of them) are specifically legal. (This area needs some work)

I think I've covered most of the areas but there may be some that I've missed as this is the first time I've written down what I've been mulling over in my head.

Harmonize US copyright term with TRIPS agreemen

[Animats]

US copyright terms should simply be "harmonized" with the TRIPS agreement. The TRIPS treaty (a WTO thing pushed by the US) calls for a minimum copyright term of 50 years, and most countries have signed on. So let's take that as the US term - 50 years, maximum.

Call it the "Copyright Term Harmonization Act", and trim back US law to the minimums required by the TRIPS agreement. That's a good first step.

As part of this, provide that willfully publishing content with a false copyright date voids the copyright in the material. This punishes criminal copyright fraud (it's a crime now, but there have been no prosecutions), and will discourage re-stamping old content with new copyright dates. This provision should be retroactive.

Those are provisions one could probably get through Congress.

Re:Harmonize US copyright term with TRIPS agreemen

[cpt kangarooski]

Call it the "Copyright Term Harmonization Act", and trim back US law to the minimums required by the TRIPS agreement. That's a good first step.

No, a good first step is setting TRIPS (and Berne, and the UCC, and the rest) on fire, then dancing on the ashes. We will never have even the slightest meaningful reform of copyright, much less good copyright law, until the US withdraws from these terrible, terrible abominations of treaties. While I have no qualms with international cooperation normally, copyright is just not a good place for it. We should go it alone here, and I wouldn't have a problem with everyone else adopting the same attitude.

Re:Harmonize US copyright term with TRIPS agreemen

[Alsee]

I don't see why your post was modded funny.... well except maybe for the last line.

-

Pointless

[cdrguru]

If you cannot discern the difference between "fair use" and "unpermitted redistribution", there will be difficulties in exercising your fair use rights. The problem is that people have taken "fair use" to mean "give it to the rest of the non-paying planet". Nobody in their right mind respects the copyright holder to make a buck on the sale of digital material. It is all free, all the time.

Sure there are some people that do not share - they downloaded it or (if they don't have a high speed Internet connection) they bought it. They are offended when people ask them why they aren't sharing their materials. And they get really upset when they feel their rights are being infringed because they cannot easily do things with the material they think they should.

These folks are in a dying minority. I do not know anyone that pays for any digital material, except maybe NetFlix. Download, download, download. We are seeing the last desperate actions of people that believe digital media has value when it has already been proven it has none. Fair use? I don't see anything like that - I see a lot of "unfair use" involving redistribution. Fair use isn't going to help with this - it just extends the life of the dying minority that still think they should pay for something that is free.

Let the creator/owner decide, within lmits

[pcause]

What bothers me is the argument about technology. This isn't about technology, but instead is about people who want to take and use someone else's work for free. The person who puts in the sweat and creativity should own the fruits of their labor. If they choose to make their work available for free, so be it. But just interesting and don't like he terms that the owner sets doesn't give you the right to take it and we shouldn't change the laws to legalize theft just becuase technology makes it easier to steal. YouTube has some legitimate user generaed content but it also has a whole lot of stolen content that is owned b others. YouTube and Google avoided monetizing so they'd avoid liability under the Safe Harbor provision. They knew full well that a LOT of the content was stolen, but as long as they could build value they didn't care about someone else's ownership rights.

Yes, he content owners have gone too far in fighting fair use, but they are (over)reacting to rampant and widespread theft and the fact that supposedly serious people are making excuses for theft. Look at the BitTorrent nets and you'll see pirated movies, TV shows, software, etc. Lots of it. None of this is fair use.

We need to get rid of stupid DRM schemes that limit the number of devices in my house that I can play something on. We need to allow indexing but NOT full content storage / retrieval from "caches" without the copyright owners permission. We should allow some level of sharing but not on a scale like YouTube where things are so generally available we wind up taking away the ability of the owner to have any say in the use of their works or effectively make money from those works. We need to define "fair use" in an understandable and possibly quantifiable way.

The author has a lot of reforms but the suggestions aren't balanced. We need to restore balance and not have the government confiscate one set of property, just becuase it is somewhat "intangible". People work hard to create great music, movies, software, books and the like and deserve recognition of their efforts and rights.

Re:Let the creator/owner decide, within lmits

[geekoid]

"y, but instead is about people who want to take and use someone else's work for free"
No, it's not.

If copyright doesn't become more friendly for the people, copyright will go away, either by law or by defacto.

Copyright is not an inalienable right. The people give it, and the people can take it away. The argument for copyright is tenuous at best. I am pro copyright, but I would rather have NO copyright then what is going on right now.

"People work hard to create great music, movies, software, books and the like and deserve recognition of their efforts and rights."
All of which would still exist under his proposals. All of which would exist if copyright was a 14 years lenth, with a 100,000$ 10 year extension.

You don't hold the printer responsible if someone plagiarizes a book, and you should hold ISPs, and content holders liable because of someone else's criminal act.

In a related story...

[grahamd0]

Mr. Sohn released a detailed plan requiring a drastic reduction in the temperature of hell, and the opening of a large school for pig aviators.

PEOPLE, not corps, should donate.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish they could set it up so that ONLY individuals using their own money could donate to candidates. And that a corporation couldn't just pay you to donate.

Then let people donates as they please. Corporations can't vote, and they shouldn't be able to do so with money, either.

Re:PEOPLE, not corps, should donate.

[sm62704]

Simple enough, let the IRS sort it out. If I contributed a million dollars to a candidate you can bet your farm the IRS would be after my ass!

Speaking louder.

[HTH NE1]

As long as money has free speech rights, the little people--that's you and me--will suffer without recourse. If money has free speech rights, so should arrows.

Actions speak louder than words.
Money speaks louder than actions.
Arrows speak louder than money.

not the distributor

[enjahova]

I may be a thief, but I'm not the biggest one. It's the distributors that are the problem. For the last 100 years its not the artists that have been doing the hard work, its the distributors.

Now they are going crazy because distribution isn't hard work anymore. That is why its a question of technology. They want an artificial restriction on distribution, but technology has enabled the "thieves" to distribute more effectively than the owners.

This is certainly a debate about technology. Technology makes it possible to instantly distribute anything that can be represented in digital form. The cost of distributing is approaching zero, the cost of copying is practically zero. Unfortunately, right now that means a lot of "thievery" is going on, but look to the future a little bit. This technology is not going away, its going to get more efficient. We will have more space, faster connections and smarter programs. Making laws that suggest people ignore this incredibly valuable technology simply won't work when every household has access to it.

So if we want to protect artists and creators, we need to do it with full knowledge and respect for the technology that exists and is soon to exist. We cannot pretend anymore that its profitable to make money by selling copies of something that any monkey can make millions of copies of in minutes. We need to promote the art, not protect the distribution.

He said "decompiled"

[Peaker]

That basically means it becomes commented C-like code, not machine code.

Without copyright, there would be a huge incentive to develop better decompilers (and there's huge potential there), so releasing things in binary form would be futile, in terms of limiting competitors' compatibility.

With copyright, closed-source barely competes with open-source, on the grounds of quality (if at all) and open-source is getting better than closed-source all the time. Without copyright, most closed-source software makers will also lose their financial edge, and with it its marketing and other means of "competing" with open-source.

Without copyright, the incentive to release something as closed-source will virtually disappear.

Re:He said "decompiled"

[trifish]

> That basically means it becomes commented C-like code, not machine code.

Oh, and what will the comments say? Something meaningful, like, um, "increase i by 1"?

Re:He said "decompiled"

[trifish]

> That basically means it becomes commented C-like code, not machine code.

Oh, and I forgot: That would surely include beautiful and meaningful names of functions, such as a11_b20244 (int a231242). I tell you it would be a nightmare. It would be worse than deliberately obfuscated source code.

Re:He said "decompiled"

[Peaker]

worse than deliberately obfuscated source code.

That's silly, as you can always make an obfuscator that compiles/decompiles.

debate problem

[WingedEarth]

The problem with getting public support for amending copyright law is that the programmers who are shouting the loudest about reform don't have the slightest bit of understanding of how the law works and instead just blame all lawyers instead of blaming the big money conspirators who make the decisions, and the lawyers who do know something about copyright law often end up working for the establishment because the fair use advocates push them away with their lawyer hating bias. At least the EFF gives jobs to good lawyers who want to help artists reach the public without financial roadblocks. I'm always so happy when members of the public actually realize they can sue the RIAA or MPAA and fight back, rather than simply trying to hide.

As for amending copyright law, those who are interested in making things more fair should go to law school and replace the people currently making the decisions (in addition to whining on slashdot).

The biggest problem with copyright law now is the term. The Founding Father said a copyright term of 14 years with an option to renew for 14. Right now the term is life of the author plus 70 years, meaning that no one can use art made during their lifetime. Ridiculous.

The other big problem with copyright law is that fair use is undefined. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act should have actually defined fair use for the digital millennium, but instead it left everyone confused, so the big money tries to convince everyone fair use doesn't exist, and people who use art don't know what their rights are.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The person who puts in the sweat and creativity should own the fruits of their labor.

Why is that? What are the "fruits of their labor" exactly? Are you saying you think all this Intellectual Property bullshit is a good idea? Humans got by for thousands of years without being able to own ideas and punish others for using those ideas without paying them first. IP is a relatively recent "innovation", and I would argue that it causes more problems than it solves.

Re: Innovative Economics

[TaoPhoenix]

Fascinating theory. I'll try this as the key section.

"I truly believe that even new goods have no intrinsic cost unless such cost is applied or assumed by the creator of the goods (or services). Not all creators of goods or services place an inherent cost to creation."

Since the whole economic discussion must encompass goods of any kind, I will presume that any materials necessary become an "instant cost assumed by the creator". Your theory focuses on the valuation of labor.

Using nice round numbers, there are 168 hours per week. Of these, only about 75 per week are sustainable to most people.

There IS a cost - the cyclical costs of living. Unless someone has a prepaid expense trust of some kind, the pure basics of Home, Car, & Food must be paid out. Using $1500/Month as an example expense, each of those work hours has to achieve $5. Any hour that "doesn't pull its weight" forces the others to a higher billable rate.

You are subsidizing your content creation based on your other source of income/wealth. You may then rate the enjoyment received high enough to bring the subjective cost to zero or below. However, professional content creators cannot do this. We can discuss how efficient the overhead costs are, but eventually someone has to cut a rent/mortgage check and buy dinner.

--------

I am quite glad you are choosing to grant your work for free. The classical concern has been whether any other entity then usurps your "inherent copyleft rights" and bullies you out of them. Would you then stand up and assert your ownership? If so, you are edging towards an implicit license of some kind.

If even that does not bother you, then you have made peace with yourself and any possible results. Each creator can make this kind of decision to waive protection, but at a policy creation level, this cannot be the standard premise.

Re: Innovative Economics

[Alsee]

but at a policy creation level, this cannot be the standard premise.

I dispute your use of the word "cannot". We absolutely can, and it is an absolutely legitimate option. The purpose of copyright is to increase supply. Without copyright the supply of music would remain abundant, and the supply of other forms of creation would be impacted to varying degrees. As you agree in your post, some people can and do place a personal subjective "negative cost" on creating. It is not a matter of "cannot", it is a question of preference. A preference of whether and how much we want to artificially shift the supply curve. Note that I am not arguing for any particular option as preferable over any other. I am merely noting that you have mistakenly taken a preference for artificially increasing supply and mislabeled it as "cannot" do otherwise.

In fact I'd say the US Constitution makes your "cannot" situation the default, against which any alternative must be weighed.

-

Is fair use that good?

[Aleksej]

IMHO, expanding fair use allows for anyone to say that prohibiting everything (including that which is "fair") is fine, because "the law will allow it anyway, because of fair use".

Re:Is fair use that good?

[Aleksej]

Also, can't this be bad for copyleft?

If the solicitors didn't help them

[Anonymous Coward]

they would not be able to abuse the system. If the "good" solicitors do not persecute the damaging actions of the "bad" solicitors, they are no better than them.

If the corporate solicitor said "no way, I'm not helping you sue this mother" and no other solicitor did, the mother would not get sued. Or if she was, then it would be by an individual with much fewer resources than a corporation.

Author mis-states 2 key issues

[pcause]

I think the article author has mis-stated 2 key cases. The suit against Google by authors is because Google had initially wanted to make the scanned materials available online with much more than th simple 2 line snippet. It is one thing to have a brief teaser and another to show lots of the content. Google argument was that it was "too hard" to ask each owner for permission to use their content, as the LAW requires, and so the owners needed to opt out. I don't think Google should get to arbitrarily get to redefine laws just because they find them inconvenient or becuase they can't make money following the laws.

The YouTube example pre-supposes that UGC is *really* UGC but there is a *lot* of UGC that is simply a ripped off video or other clearly infringing material. YouTube argues that it isn't practical to police this stuff. Again the argument is tha "I have a great idea but I can't make money if I follow the law, so I'll ignore it". YouTube carefully uses the "safe harbor" provision but there is real argument about that and once they start to monetize they start stepping outside of the safe harbor.

Just because technology makes it possible to do something doesn't make it right. If we had a technology that allowed you to steal any object from anyone's home and not be detected would using it be right? Of course not. But things like BitTorrent, Limewire and YouTube allow us to take that which belongs to others and steal it anonymously. Yes, the media companies are charging us outrageous prices, and yes they have stupid business models that are anti-consumer and that their customers hate. We can go on and on about how despicable they are, but none of that gives us the right to take that which they own. The answer isn't stealing their property, the answer is not buying or using their product at all.

Once you take a copy and use it you are admitting the product has value and you lose any moral legitimacy in making arguments about the behavior of the media companies. Imagine letting rapists and pedophiles be the ones defining the sex crimes laws. You righfully shudder at the thought. But because intellectual property theft seems anonymous and victimless we rationalize that we're not doing anything wrong. Taking that which isn't ours, no matter how despicable is wrong, no matter how unreasonable or repugnant the owner is. We're not talking about things like taking food for starving children, we're talking about taking things just because we want to be amused.

Re: Innovative Economics Premise

[TaoPhoenix]

I touched on the pitfalls of valuing the subjective impressions of the creation process. I am certainly in favor of less restrictive copyrights!

Were a legislative body to consider the issue, my recommendation was not to consider the full cost of the creation negative across all types of copyrighted works. Instead, acknowledge the cost of creation, but then find the point that the social value of public domain proves to be of greater overall value.

Movies are the toughest test case. They take far longer to properly develop, thus testing the limits of those who advocate very short copyright terms. Even a "small" movie budget of 25 Million US Dollars is difficult to cover from the very diffuse "social benefits" cycle.

The social utility theory is that we need access to materials to build our next works upon. My understanding is that Transformers achieved groundbreaking levels of animation effects. Yet - both the labor and materials costs of that movie were astronomical.

I would be content with an even 60 years of protection. By 2010 the works from 1950 become unlocked, and creative groups setting their sights on a particular work to study can begin pre-prep now.

Examples of the timeline:

The definitive recent movie editions of the Lord of the Rings trilogy have been made, and the studio can continue to enjoy protected sales until 2014. By then I would expect those to feel like "old movies", and the underlying book work from 1954 would become available for interpretations of all kinds. The movie itself is protected for "two generations to come".

The pantheon of 1960's materials would become accessible in the 2020's. That's the golden decade everyone wants access to, and 2025 is yet far enough away that we won't benefit from it. But our children will.

Exempt Disney's Mouse & Friends. Then that conmpany won't bludgeon Congress into extending the law. It's not fertile study material anyway.