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:Preaching to the choir

[fifedrum]

i'm afraid to ask the voting public what they think on the issue, most of them (think boomers) would vote to extend it because that's what Sony Bono would have wanted us to do.

This guy obviously doesn't write his own music

[Goldenhawk]

... but I do write music. Sorry, I have a real problem with Congress taking away my own rights to my own music after just five years. That's a flash in the pan, in terms of my life; for crying out loud, I don't even get some of my own music finished in that short a time. I don't sell my music (or at least, nobody's bothered to buy it yet), but I have a problem with someone saying they can appropriate my own creative works that quickly.

There are other solutions than this that have NOT been tried yet, because the lobby is too big for Congress to act. And this would suffer the same fate.

Re:This guy obviously doesn't write his own music

[maroberts]

I agree with your statement about 5 years being too short, but your argument is wrong.

If Congress cut back copyright, it wouldn't be removing your rights, it would be reducing rights that it had granted to you in the first place. It's entirely up to you whether you agree to distribute your music or video based on those rights.

Even for corporate copyright, I agree 5 years is much too short, but equally the current US period (70 years + life?) is much too long. Some figure around 15-20 years, as for example in patents, would be a much more reasonable balance between making it worth your while to produce and not overly restricting the rights of the general public to enjoy and reuse your concepts after a reasonable time.

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

[ByOhTek]

For corporate copyrights, 5 years is fine. Maybe a fee to continue the copyright for 5 year increments beyond that (to encourage continue publication of the media as long as it is copyrighted, and public-domaining as soon as it isn't profitable). Corporations are too abusive to give long copyrights too.

Individual copyrights for 10-20 years are fine, IMO. It forces the corporations to answer to the artists if they want to save on copyright fees, and the artists will probably be more considerate to the consumers.

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

[Cheerio Boy]

For corporate copyrights, 5 years is fine. Maybe a fee to continue the copyright for 5 year increments beyond that (to encourage continue publication of the media as long as it is copyrighted, and public-domaining as soon as it isn't profitable). Corporations are too abusive to give long copyrights too.

Individual copyrights for 10-20 years are fine, IMO. It forces the corporations to answer to the artists if they want to save on copyright fees, and the artists will probably be more considerate to the consumers.

I'm all for an extension fee but make it non-trivial in cost for corporations AND make it geometrically progressive so that they can't just keep paying the fee forever.

Because you know as long as they can pay a small amount to retain their stranglehold they will do so.

Re:I do agree with a time limitation...

[secPM_MS]

Traditionally, copyright was for the life of the author + some reasonably large number. The optimal lifetime has been studied under economic maximization theory. The result was ~ 14 years, which is rather closer to the 20 year patent life time than the proposed 5 years. The link is: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070712-research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.html

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

[jcaldwel]

For corporate copyrights, 5 years is fine. Maybe a fee to continue the copyright for 5 year increments beyond that (to encourage continue publication of the media as long as it is copyrighted, and public-domaining as soon as it isn't profitable). Corporations are too abusive to give long copyrights too. Individual copyrights for 10-20 years are fine, IMO. It forces the corporations to answer to the artists if they want to save on copyright fees, and the artists will probably be more considerate to the consumers.

The distinction between corporate and individuals wouldn't be effective. Some company exec will just hold the copyright personally, and license it exclusively to the corporation for the full 20 years.

Flaming to get hits.

[LWATCDR]

This is just a dumb idea.
1. It really couldn't happen because it would violate more than a few international agreements.
2. corporate vs personal copyrights? A lot of artists when they start make money incorperate. Where do there works fit in?

It is a non solution to a real problem. But lots of people will click on the blog and read the ads and they will make money off it.
Thank you for playing and paying.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[mrchaotica]

It really couldn't happen because it would violate more than a few international agreements.

So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?

corporate vs personal copyrights? A lot of artists when they start make money incorperate. Where do there works fit in?

Obviously, once you eliminate fuzzy measures like "life of the author," corporate and personal copyrights can be exactly the same 5 years.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[Raisey-raison]

This idea is great. Here are some more:

1. I think a general copyright of 14 years is the optimum from the time of publication. This study previously appeared on slashdot.
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf

2. Solve the problem of people using copyright to prevent reproduction especially in small independent films.
If companies use copyright to deny reproduction at any price or at a price that is so high its absurd, enable people to pay some fixed fee and ignore the wishes of the copyright holder. Copyright shouldn't be a tool to prevent reproduction just a tool to make some money from artistic creativity.

3. If companies abuse the position by engaging in fraud or anti trust behavior to manipulate prices they lose their copyright.
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/PrRel/prfeb192004.htm
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-cd-settlement.htm

4. Expand fair use. If I want to use a small portion of a book eg 1000 words from a 50,000 word book its ok even if its for profit. I just can't reproduce lots of 1000 word bit to reproduce the book. If its educational I get to use it unless it literally causes major loss to the company. Eg in a classroom I can make 200 copies of a newspaper article for all the students. I just can't do that for a whole textbook. But I can use it for a figure from a textbook.

5. No automatic copyright for photos. There has to be some artistic quality to them.

6. In the U.S., buildings built on or after December 1, 1990 are also eligible for copyright. This is pathetic. Given that creativity was not stifled beforehand this is totally unnecessary. No copyright on buildings.

7. No frivolous copyright either like on restaurants. Yes someone was sued and lost because one restaurant was too similar to another.

8. No copyright on 'happy birthday'. If you sing happy birthday in a restaurant you gotta pay a fee to the so called rights holder. The movie 'The Corporation' claims that Warner/Chappell charge up to US$10,000 for the song to appear in a film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[Total_Wimp]

So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?

I keep hearing this "sovereignty" thing bandied about by (usually conservative) people. They usually say it in the context of "we'll be giving up our sovereignty" with this treaty or that or "we should do [insert treaty-breaking thing we just feel like doing] because we have sovereignty!"

Here's the thing; Abiding by your agreements IS NOT some sort of weakness where you're somehow giving up your right of self-determination. It's simply keeping your end of a bargain. It's, you know, that honesty thing, where you make a contract, and then do the thing you said you were going to do in the contract.

But it gets better. We usually get something we want when we make these deals. You got that? It's not just give, give, give, give, give. We actually get something in return. I don't know about you, but it doesn't seem very nice to me when someone takes something from me, then doesn't give me the thing they promised in return. I try to avoid doing business with that guy in the future.

Sure, I understand that treaties sometimes need to be dissolved. It happens. But it gives me the willys when you sovereignty folks act like it should be done at the drop of a hat. It's serious damn business and should be treated as such. doing it simply "because we can" is not good enough. If it comes to exercising our sovereignty whenever we feel like it or being a good honest neighbor and only breaking treaties unilaterally when there's a very serious reason, well, I value good and honest a hell of a lot more. It just seems like the American way to do things. At least I hope so.

Re:Preaching to the choir

[conlaw]

As one of the early boomers, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. If Sonny Bono--or Elvis or all of the Bobby's--didn't provide for their heirs while they were making the money, too bad, so sad. And, IMHO, calling it the "Sonny Bono Law" was just a way to keep everyone from realizing that the point was really to extend the Disney Corporation's copyrights. In other words, the Congress-critters didn't really care about Chastity, they wanted to protect Mickey Mouse (f/k/a Steamboat Willie).

Re:Rainbows and Unicorns for everyone!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just thought I'd attack the first cynical apologist for no good reason other than I don't like people like you.

Those who whine and mumble "It will never happen" think they are being 'realists', but they are just dragging everyone
down with their own depressive lack of vision. Neil, you are as much a part of the problem as the RIAA and other criminals.
What do you possibly feel you have added to the discussion, other than what we all already know?

Want to add something other than vague accusations?
Want to print the names of those you accuse of corruption?
Want to cite some examples of their criminal behaviour?

Your hand waving dismissal just insults us all.

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.

Re:International Agreements

[Pharmboy]

I don't think so. Most people are mad at the US, not because we break treaties (which has traditionally been done in compliance with the actual treaty) but they are instead mad because we won't SIGN treaties that we know we can't live up to, like Kyoto.

Then again, the US was the first to ban aerosols, has significantly cleaned up our lakes since 1970s, just recently upped the CAFE standards for gas mileage in cars, and subsidizes alternative fuels. Far from perfect, granted, but we have still done more without a treaty than most with one.