Copyright Cutback Proposed As RIAA Solution

An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe proposes a novel solution to the ongoing spate of RIAA lawsuits over alleged music copying. He suggests legislation which cuts back corporate copyrights from 120 years to 5 years. 'We should do what we do to children who misbehave,' he writes. 'Take away their privileges.' Wolfe says this is regardless of the misunderstanding surrounding the latest case, which apparently isn't about ripping CDs to one's own computer. As to those who say copyrights are a right: "That's simply a misunderstanding of their purpose. Copyrights, like patents, weren't implemented to protect their owners in perpetuity. They are part of a dance which attempts to balance off societal benefits against incentives for writers and inventors. You want to incentivize people to push the state of the creative and technical arts, but you don't want give those folks such overbearing protections that future advances by other innovators are stifled." What do you think; is it time to cut off the record industry?"

Comments

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[Mr. Slippery]

Some company exec will just hold the copyright personally

That's the heart of the problem. Congress is authorized only to secure copyrights to creators ("Authors and Inventors") - not to employers, assignees, or heirs.

Recognizing that any copyright claim by someone who didn't create the work is bogus would go a long way to fixing the problem. (And would align copyright law with the Constitution as a bonus.)

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[coolGuyZak]

My idea is slightly more complex, but (IMHO) more reasonable logistically:

1. Everything is automatically copyrighted for X years (my choice for X would be between 10 and 20 years).
2. Copyright can be extended to Y years (say, 2X or 3X years) by registering the copyright with the copyright office. Registration requires the full text of any copyrighted work to be submitted with the application. Registration may incur a reasonable filing fee.
3. Registering a copyright grants government institutions the following mandatory licenses to the work:
   • All government institutions (e.g. libraries, schools, public parks) may stock the complete text, royalty free.
   • The government may make an indefinite number of copies for archival and preservation.
   • If the entity that holds a registered copyright ceases distribution of the work, the government may (at its option) distribute the work for the price of reproduction, plus a reasonable and compulsory license fee (paid to the copyright owner).
   • Any trademarks, patents, or other intellectual property rights required to distribute the work are licensed to the government. The terms of this license should be narrow--only those required to enable distribution under the terms previously enumerated.
4. Additional extension of copyright is not possible. Retroactive extension is explicitly denied.
5. After the copyright expires, the work passes into the public domain.
6. Refinements of an existing work may enable additional property rights. However, refinements are treated as derivative of but separate from the original work. Creating a derivative or refined work does not extend the rights or terms granted to previous work.

The Mickey Mouse Rule

[russbutton]

It's never going to happen because of the "Mickey Mouse" rule. Music copyright in this country goes back to 1925 because the Disney corporation has copyright to Mickey Mouse, who dates back to 1925. If you were to limit copyright to anything any of us considers reasonable, Disney would lose ownership of Mickey Mouse, which would be huge for them. They've been paying Congress for decades to keep moving the copyright window so they could continue to hold Mickey Mouse. We have the best government that money can buy and Disney has been keeping up on their payments.

Killing off copyright, or at least reducing it to anything less than 80 years isn't going to happen anytime soon.