More People Thinking About Smart Copyright Reform
from the about-time dept
With the entertainment industry constantly pushing for ever more draconian changes to copyright law, it seems we’re finally seeing some pushback from folks who are extremely knowledgeable about copyright law and its impact. From that, more and more suggestions are popping up, saying that copyright reform really needs to go in an opposite direction. In the last year alone, we’ve already highlighted proposals from Jessica Litman and Public Knowledge with suggestions on how to reform copyright law. On top of that, William Patry has indicated that his next book will be all about how to fix the copyright system. Now, apparently, we can add Pam Samuelson’s voice to the group. SF Gate has a short article by Samuelson highlighting the problems with copyright law today, and then suggesting some ways to fix the system. Apparently, she’s about to release a larger report, called “The Copyright Principles Project: Directions for Reform,” which will “explore 25 ideas for copyright reform.” Once that comes out, we’ll be sure to spend some time going through the proposals, but it’s great that some of the brightest minds in copyright are all starting to converge on the need to fix copyright law, rather than just keep ratcheting it up.
Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, pamela samuelson
Comments on “More People Thinking About Smart Copyright Reform”
RCP
I’ve been making collage since ten years before youtube came around, in fact, my local paper has a quote from me regarding what i thought of them then. It is the same as it ever was, ever since disney mashed up the grimmz, however i always knew that all the edits that made up the college, heretofore referred to as RCP (recontextualized content promotion) were/are in and of themselves a link potentially to the souce component. If content owners incentivized usage of otherwise dormant (more obscure, ie not current, ie six months old, stuff they are no longer actively promoting) we’d make a bundle off RCPs. Don’t reproduce this, no one will agree for at least another ten years, patheticaly.
Well, I'll pass on reading it then.
The only thing I want to see when it comes to patent and copyright laws is the word “repeal”.
Anything other than this makes it open to abuse, no matter how well it gets “reformed”.
Re: Well, I'll pass on reading it then.
Yes indeed.
Copyright is, and has always been, a turd.
So don’t polish it, abolish it!
Re: Well, I'll pass on reading it then.
I carry that motion. Any other business?
Hey Mike, quick typo fixfrom about sentence 3:
“about copyright law and it*s* impact.”
Delete this 🙂
It’s about time. But if the experts were waiting for the Entertainment industry to make total asses of themselves then they succeeded.
Re: Re:
It seems we shall now have the spectacle of copyright reformists making total asses of themselves.
I’d say it was the dimmest minds in copyright that were all starting to converge on the need to fix copyright law, not the ‘brightest’.
You don’t fix an instrument of injustice. You abolish it.
Good news
It’s good to see more copyright experts realize that the system is very broken. Too bad those experts don’t have the deep pockets of the MPAA or RIAA.
There is one simple reform that would solve about 90% of the copyright problems in our country today: get rid of statutory damages for non-commercial infringement.
The moment that rights holders actually have to prove their financial losses, they are sunk. Things like the Righthaven or Hurt Locker lawsuits would be eliminated overnight.
Re: Good news
Sticking your fingers into the obvious leaks in the dam of corruption will only reveal the leaks that aren’t yet obvious. You will run out of fingers.
Re: Good news
“There is one simple reform that would solve about 90% of the copyright problems in our country today: get rid of statutory damages for non-commercial infringement.”
Here are some more ideas …
Remove the instant copyright and allow 1 year from publishing to actually have to register a copyright or else it goes into the public domain.
Charge to copyright.
Limit copyright to 30 years (15 year with a 15 year renewal) after which it goes into the public domain.
Define fair use. Also allow the rights holder to expand the definition of fair use when copyrighting.
Missing the Original Intent of Copyright
While it is good to see some people questioning the current state of copyright, the article by Pamela Samuelson misses a very critical concept; that copyright was only meant for a limited time to further the progress of the arts and sciences. In reading Ms. Samuelson article, the casual reader may come to the realization that copyright is out-of-whack but they won’t realize that it was never meant to be a toll-booth to collect revenue.
By failing to get back to the basics of copyright in her article, Ms. Samuelson does not provide us with good entry point for arguing how copyright can be improved. For example she makes the statement that: “Moreover, virtually every firm today has some copyright asset it wants to protect, such as a logo, an advertising motif, software, databases or website content.” The preceding statement is not a valid use of copyright; so if a pundit allows it to pass as an acceptable use; how do we refute it???????