Techdirt. Stories filed under "registration"

Center For Copyright Information Loses Company Status, Not Supposed To Conduct Business In The US

Mike Masnick — Wed, 15 May 2013 20:04:00 PDT

TorrentFreak has discovered that the Center for Copyright Information (CCI), better known as the company running the whole "six strikes" scheme in the US, somehow had its company status revoked last year for reasons unknown. However, this could have serious consequences:

“If entity’s status is revoked then articles of incorporation / organization shall be void and all powers conferred upon such entity are declared inoperative, and, in the case of a foreign entity, the certificate of foreign registration shall be revoked and all powers conferred hereunder shall be inoperative,” the DCRA explains.

It also may face penalties and fines. It appears that this may have just been a paperwork screwup, which does happen, but given the organization's overall mission, you would think that they would have been a lot more careful dotting their i's and crossing their t's.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bangladesh Seeks To Throttle Independent News Sites And Their Awkward Stories

Glyn Moody — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 05:21:26 PDT

One of the great things about online news sites is that they are so easy to set up: you don't need a printing press or huge numbers of journalists -- you just start posting interesting stories to the Web and you are away. That is, you do unless you happen to live in Bangladesh, where new regulations will make it much harder to set up news sites, as this story from Access Now explains:

the regulation "stipulates that a onetime payment of Bangladeshi Taka 500,000 (USD $6,100) should be deposited with the Ministry of Information to get a license for an online news portal. Each year this license should be renewed by paying 50,000 Taka (USD $610). The license fee can be revised by the government at anytime."

To put those numbers in context, the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in Bangladesh, when adjusted for purchasing power parity, is roughly USD $1,700 per year. That ranks 196th in the world, right near the bottom.

Bangladesh is not only one of the poorest nations on earth, it also does pretty badly when it comes to press freedom, ranking 129 out of 179 countries listed on Reporters Without Borders' Press Freedom Index for 2011-12. The new regulations seem likely to push it further down that list, not least thanks to rules like these: The following program/news should not be published/broadcast: … (b) Any news/program that is violating the main principles of the state and the governance; … (e) Any indecent or provocative satire/music/advertisement/news or any program with subtitles that may pollute, corrupt or hurt peoples' feeling and morality. … (k) Any news/program that may hurt the feeling of any friendly country.
Other requirements are that the servers running the news site must be located inside Bangladesh, and that their IP addresses must be provided to the Ministry of Information. More bizarrely: No local online portal should link to other local and international news portals.
As the Access Now piece points out, this suggests the Bangladeshi government doesn’t understand how the Internet works, since a news site without links to other online news stories is doomed to parochialism.

Or maybe that's the point. After all, it seems pretty clear that the measures are designed to stifle dissent and criticism of the government by making it very hard for independent news sites to be created except by well-funded outfits more interested in profits than protest, and hobbling them in various ways even if they do. It's particularly sad to see Bangladesh trying to restrict the use of a wonderful technology that could do so much to help lift its people from the difficult circumstances in which they live.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

SoundExchange, Once Again, Warns Artists That If They Don't Register, It Might Keep Their Royalties

Mike Masnick — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:39:00 PDT

You may recall that nearly a decade ago, people began to question why SoundExchange, the RIAA spinoff created to collect satellite and internet broadcasting royalties, was allowed to keep any of the money for artists it couldn't find. That resulted in some controversy, when people realized that it was sitting on over $100 million and suggesting it might keep the money for a big list of artists it couldn't find. After much uproar, SoundExchange backed down, and said that it wasn't, in fact, keeping the money. And, to its credit, in the past few years, SoundExchange has been very good about working a variety of angles to get artists signed up to get the money they're owed from such webcasting royalties (such as those Pandora was just talking about).

However, some artists still aren't signing up -- and SoundExchange is apparently giving people something of an ultimatum, in which they hint at the fact that, you know, if they wanted to they absolutely could just keep the money.

Register by Oct. 15 as you may risk losing any royalties collected three (3) or more years ago by SoundExchange.

SoundExchange is authorized by law to release older unclaimed royalties to offset our costs and distribute proportionally to those we already pay. We have repeatedly held off on doing this, but we need your help to spread the word and get recording artists and record labels to register.

As some have noticed there are some pretty big names on the "unclaimed" list. Swedish House Mafia, N.W.A., Billy Bob Thornton, Sublime, Fleetwood Mac, Rebecca Black, Louis CK, Grandmaster Flash, The Byrds, Charlie Sheen, Brother Ali... and a bunch of others. I'm pretty surprised that Rebecca Black and Louis CK haven't figured this out yet... but there's one name on the list that is stunning: Gene Simmons. Simmons is famous for being focused almost entirely on getting money, even to the point of saying that artists should sue their fans. You'd think that somewhere along the line he'd notice that he should register with SoundExchange to get what's owed to him.

For what it's worth -- while there were some legitimate concerns that SoundExchange was doing little to "find" these artists, I no longer believe that's the case. Having watched their efforts over the past few years, they really have done quite a lot to try to get artists to register. Of course, this really just highlights one of the problems of setting up a system like SoundExchange in the first place. Creating unnecessary middlemen may seem like a useful solution, but it often seems to just prevent more direct support of artists. Still, if you are a recording artist of any kind, it's worth getting registered to avoid having SoundExchange keep the money it has for you for itself.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Anti-Medical Marijuana Committee Fails To Register Published URL, Hilarity Ensues

Tim Cushing — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:57:00 PDT

Time for a pop quiz: get out your no. 2 iPads and see if you can figure out which steps in this process are out of order.

It's election season, a time when man's (and more recently, woman's) thoughts turn towards shutting off the TV, radio and phone until mid-November. But! Things must be voted on, including such controversial issues as legalizing medical marijuana and authorizing dispensaries. As an opponent of weed-based medicines, you vow to fight this with every ounce/gram of your being. You set your plan in action.

1. Pick a name for your committee. ("No on Question 3")
2. Pick out a suitable URL ("votenoonquestion3.org")
3. Get your committee and its pertinent information added to the official voters' guide (both print and online.)
4. Register URL.
5. Become aghast.

Can anyone point out where Vote No on Question 3 went wrong? Here are some visual aids, taken from votenoonquestion3.org:

You see, the internet is like magic. And like most magic, it can be used for entertainment purposes. All the do-gooding in the world doesn't amount to much if you forget to register your URL. While you're busy enjoying that "new ink" smell of freshly printed Voter's Guides, someone quicker on the draw is undermining your "marijuana is bad" ~~propaganda~~ ~~proselytizing~~ information with hilariously over-the-top headlines.

The good news is that the online voters' guide sports the corrected URL: mavotenoonquestion3.com

The bad news is that the paper version will carry the old URL permanently. Of course, very few people are willing to type in a URL by hand, but as news of this blunder spreads, the fake site with the real URL will be receiving much more attention, voters' guide correction or no.

Here's the official reaction from No on Question 3 spokesman, Kevin Sabet:

"It's funny and upsetting, I guess, at the same time."

Yeah. Largely the first part. And to think, the committee can't even blame a late afternoon smokeout for the mental slip.

This statement, however, seems both more on point and more disingenuous:

The group sent out a press release saying proponents of medical marijuana were tampering with the democratic process through “underhanded efforts.”

Sabet admits the committee made a mistake and yet, the press release attempts to paint No on Question 3 as the victim of villainous pot smokers rather than treating it like the self-inflicted wound it is.

Oh, and here's more bad news for the "No" side:

The Globe notes that the No on Question 3 campaign has managed to collect all of $600 so far, compared to the $1 million or so that supporters of the initiative have received from Peter Lewis, a longtime patron of drug policy reform.

Maybe it's time to admit your fears of a weed-loaded America are overblown, especially when you've just been outmaneuvered (and outspent) by a bunch of stoners.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Do We Need A 'Circle Section' Registry To Prove Digital Ownership?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:33:00 PDT

If you look at the history of copyright law, it's really a never-ending story of the law adjusting (often quite awkwardly) to deal with changes in technology that the law never predicted and wasn't prepared to handle. We see this manifest itself in many different ways today, including the whole question of "ownership" in a digital age. When you "buy" a digital video or song, did you really buy it? Or did you just license it? Because copyright law doesn't handle this well, we have a sort of Schrodinger's cat situation, in which companies claim it's either a license or a sale depending on who's suing whom. In other words, it's a complete mess.

Entering the fray with a unique idea as an attempt to solve that, some folks (and a company who likely seeks to commercially benefit from this idea) are trying to convince the Copyright Office to create a new consumer ownership registration system, dubbed "circle section" after the character they'd like to use for it:
Unfortunately, they're marketing it like lawyers, rather than marketers, so there's a lot of verbiage surrounding the description everywhere they talk about it, but the basic idea is pretty straightforward (if I understand it correctly):

If you buy something digital, you can "register" your ownership right in that particular copy, which then would grant you basic ownership rights, including rights to format shift the content and to resell it under first sale rights.

The folks behind this project have set up a Change.org petition in support of this, where they're seeking 200,000 signatures, though, currently they have very, very few (again, perhaps an issue of being lawyers, not marketers). Separately, they've chosen an odd strategy for pushing this effort: filing a petition with the Copyright Office as a part of the process by which the Copyright Office comes down from the mountain every three years and declares which products can ignore the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Except... this project has nothing to do with that. So, the backers have filed a separate motion, in which they basically admit that this is outside the rules... but they're doing it this way because if the Copyright Office accepts the proposal, than the whole question of ignoring anti-circumvention issues becomes moot, because a registry of consumer ownership would make it pointless. Or something like that. You can read the full motion below.

This seems like an incredibly long shot no matter how you look at it, and I'm not sure that trying to jump into the magical anti-circumvention clearance debate is such a smart move here. That said, I can see how a proposal along these lines could be interesting as a possible way to deal with the question of whether or not you "own" the digital products you thought you bought. At the very least, I'd be interested in hearing what other people think about it. Personally, I wonder if it's really necessary, or if it would just become seen as another burden for users, needing to register and track their registrations.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lawsuit Against US Copyright Group For Fraud & Extortion Moves Forward

Mike Masnick — Fri, 2 Mar 2012 15:10:00 PST

US Copyright Group was the first of the US-based copyright trolls, suing thousands of individuals in a single lawsuit, trying to get them to pay up (rather than going through an actual trial). US Copyright Group is really a front for a DC law firm, Dunlapp, Grubb & Weaver. One of its very first "big" lawsuits was against about 5,000 people for supposedly partaking in the sharing of Uwe Boll's Far Cry. Of course, as we had noted, there was a pretty big problem in the Far Cry lawsuit, in that the US copyright registration was filed too late for many of the accusations of infringement.

Partly on the basis of the registration problems, Dmitriy Shirokov (with the law firm Booth Sweet) sued US Copyright Group, DGW and its key lawyers for fraud, extortion and conspiracy back in 2010. DGW shot back angrily, claiming that it's perfectly fine for for lawyers to lie to the court, if it's part of the course of litigation:

"Although an attorney may be accused of defrauding opposing parties, knowingly committing discovery abuses, lying to the court, or purposely and maliciously defaming another individual, if it takes place during the course of litigation, the conduct simply is not actionable,"

Of course, the threats and extortion weren't actually "during the course of litigation." DGW also claimed that there was no "harm" for Shirokov, because he didn't settle, and thus hadn't paid up. DGW then went even further, asking for sanctions against Shirokov and Booth Sweet, claiming that it was actually them who were filing lawsuits for "improper purpose."

The court has now ruled in response to DGW's motion to dismiss, and it seems pretty clear that the judge is not impressed by DGW at all. The motion to dismiss was rejected and the class action lawsuit against the company moves forward.

Judge Boal recommended that the motion for dismissal be denied in significant part. The defendants had argued that Mr. Shirokov was not entitled to sue them at all, since he wised up before paying their demands, and his claimed injuries were out-of-pocket costs of investigating the threats. They claimed that the Noerr-Pennington privilege, an antitrust doctrine, prevented any liability. And they argued that lawyers and their clients have absolute immunity for even intentional torts, or in DGW’s words: “although an attorney may be accused of defrauding opposing parties, knowingly committing discovery abuses, lying to the court, or purposely and maliciously defaming another individual, if it takes place during the course of litigation, the conduct simply is not actionable.” Just think about that one for a minute.

Judge Boal thoroughly debunked each of those claims. The fees Mr. Shirokov incurred in investigating the trumped-up copyright claims constitute an injury-in-fact that gives him standing to sue. The Massachusetts litigation privilege does not apply to threats of litigation that are not seriously contemplated in good faith. And the Noerr-Pennington antitrust doctrine did not apply outside of antitrust law, and even the First Amendment right to petition isn’t an absolute protection for litigation threats.

It's important to note that, in this case, it's the specific issue of the non-registered copyrights that is key. That is, the lawsuit isn't about the general practice of copyright trolling -- but the fact that it was done using claims and demands that were not true (e.g., the statutory damages if found guilty of sharing, even though such statutory damages were not available for a work that hadn't been registered).

Along those lines, the court didn't completely side with Shirokov, saying that some of the racketeering and fraud charges should be dismissed. But, large parts of the lawsuit survive and will move forward -- which doesn't seem like a good thing for DGW or US Copyright Group. Perhaps, next time, they'll check the copyright registration before filing suit.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

If Artists Don't Value Copyright On Their Works, Why Do We Force It On Them?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:30:23 PST

In William Patry's book, Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars, there's an excellent chart that highlights the fact that many content creators who have copyright available to them clearly don't value that copyright very much. The chart looks at the rates of copyright renewals in 1958 and 1959. As you hopefully know, back then, you had to register your work to have it covered by copyright, and you had to renew it to keep that copyright. Yet a huge percentage of content creators simply chose not to renew their copyrights, because they knew there was little or no value in the copyright itself. Depending on the type of product, the lack of renewals paints a pretty stark picture: only 7% of books had the copyright renewed. Only 11% of periodicals. Only 4% of "works of art." Music was only 35%. In fact, the only type of work that had a renewal rate higher than 50% was movies, which came in at 74%. If looked at with a common sense filter, it seems obvious that this suggests that the content creator clearly is no longer getting any benefit out of the copyright at that stage, and thus reverting the work to the public domain makes the most sense. So it was quite disappointing when we changed our laws in 1976 to the point that people didn't even have to register their copyrights in the first place, and never had to review, but that they automatically get a copyright for a ridiculously long amount of time (much longer than was available in 1959). Now, you can still register, and there are significant benefits to copyright holders for doing so, so many people still do.

So it's interesting to see Tunecore ask the musicians who use its service whether or not they register their copyrights, with only 56% saying they absolutely do (found via Hypebot, who incorrectly suggests that the others don't get a copyright at all): What's fascinating here, of course, is this means that there are 44% of the musicians on Tunecore who don't really see the need to have a registered copyright, and yet they still end up with a copyright which they're unlikely to ever use or enforce. That suggests a system way out of whack with the stated purpose of copyright law. This is content that can and should be available to make the public domain more fruitful and to enable new creative works -- and yet it gets locked up anyway, even though the very people copyright law is supposed to protect clearly don't value what copyright gives them. So why do we still automatically give them copyrights, thereby harming the public domain, while adding little to no benefit to the content creators themselves?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Oscars vs. GoDaddy

Mike Masnick — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:02:20 PDT

The Motion Picture Academy is somewhat infamous for its over-aggressive IP claims around the "Oscar" awards. It's even sued a blog that was helping to promote the event. Apparently, just suing one website wasn't enough, so back in May it sued domain registrar GoDaddy for allowing a bunch of domains to be registered.

Now, in a reasonable world, where liability is properly applied, GoDaddy would never be liable for actions of its users. But, unfortunately, one of the very few areas that DMCA and Section 230 safeharbors do not cover is trademark law. So, the Academy may actually be able to get away with blaming GoDaddy for not magically blocking anyone from registering any domain that might, possibly, maybe be about the Oscar Awards:

Suing under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the Academy disputes more than a 100 domain names, including 2011oscars.com, academyawardz.com, jaylenososcars.com, betacademyawards.com, oscarsunplugged.com, oscarshotels.com, oscarstravel.com, oscarsliveblogging.com ... etc. Damages could total as much as $10 million.

On top of the basics of blaming GoDaddy for allowing such domains to be registered, the Academy seems to directly be taking issue with the fact that GoDaddy has a system for letting domain holders "park" those domains and make money from ads. The Academy tries to spin this as GoDaddy purposely "profiting" off of its intellectual property, but that's ridiculous. GoDaddy is just offering a general domain parking ad system. It's making money off of any parked domains. It has nothing to do with their intellectual property. And, frankly, if these domains were really so valuable to the Academy, why didn't they register them in the first place?

To make the whole thing even more ridiculous, the Academy claims that a GoDaddy patent application shows that it knows that it needs to filter out ads on certain types of domains. But just because you develop a system to do so, it doesn't mean you are legally required to abide by it.

The whole thing is, frankly, absurd. If the Academy has a problem with certain domains, it should go after those who actually registered them. Not the registrar. If this lawsuit actually gets anywhere, it could create a real chill for registrars, who will then feel the need to review and block certain registrations, even if they would be perfectly legal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Supreme Court Says Courts Still Have Jurisdiction Over Unregistered Copyrights

Mike Masnick — Tue, 2 Mar 2010 23:23:00 PST

There have been a series of lawsuits over the past decade or so concerning newspapers and magazines republishing old content that was created by freelancers in digital format. Basically, the publications had freelancers create content for publication. Years later, this wonderful world we know as the internet became a big deal (and, before that, CD-ROMs) and the publishers wanted to republish their archives in digital format (first CD-ROMs, then the internet or other electronic database). Some of the freelancers got upset, saying that the publications were reusing their content without permission, and that the license to use the content had been for the one use only. Lawsuits were filed and eventually, in the Supreme Court ruled that this violated the rights of freelancers. That set off a flurry of other similar/related lawsuits. In one of those other cases, the publisher and freelancers eventually reached a settlement -- but not all of the freelancers were satisfied with it.

In appealing the settlement, it was noted that many of the freelancers had not registered their copyrights. Now, as you hopefully know, you automatically get copyright on any new content as soon as it's set in tangible form, but if you decide to register it, it gives you additional privileges and remedies against infringement. In most cases, not having a registration greatly limits what you can do in terms of a lawsuit against infringement. So the issue in this lawsuit -- Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick -- became whether or not those unregistered stories (and their authors) could be covered by the settlement.

Copycense points us to the Supreme Court's ruling (pdf) which says that, contrary to what the Appeals Court had ruled, it is perfectly fine to include unregistered copyrights in the court's jurisdiction. While some are reporting that this means you no longer need to register to sue, I don't think that's what the ruling is actually saying. It simply says that just because you haven't registered, it doesn't mean that it's outside of the court's jurisdiction. So it sounds like this means that unregistered copyrights can get included in a settlement/class-action lawsuit like this one, but the holders of those unregistered copyrights might still have difficulty (or great limits) should they try to bring the lawsuit directly themselves. It would be great to get some of the copyright lawyers in the community here to weigh in as well.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

China Requiring You To Submit Photo ID To The Gov't If You Want To Create A Website

Mike Masnick — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:50:00 PST

This isn't really a surprise given China's massive internet censorship ("Great Firewall") efforts, but apparently the Chinese government is now requiring anyone who wants to set up a website in the country to submit their identity cards and photos of themselves before they can build a site. Oh yeah, plus they have to meet with gov't regulators to get approval to register and set up a website. In other words, the crackdown is spreading... though plenty of folks in China appear to be getting around these new rules by setting up websites outside of China. In the meantime, what a way to kill the sort of entrepreneurial web spirit you need: imagine how many internet sites would never get created if they first required approval by a government bureaucrat?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Bluebeat Claims It Owns Beatles Copyright By Re-recording Songs; Judge Disagrees

Mike Masnick — Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:45:00 PST

In the US, if you really want to "protect" your copyrighted works, you have to register the works. Unlike for a patent or a trademark, it's pretty much a rubberstamp process. Every so often the Copyright Office will reject a registration, but it's rare. It does still go through them all, though. Or at least it's supposed to. However, we recently wrote about the weird case of the site Bluebeat.com selling Beatles MP3s for $0.25. We noted that nowhere on the site did the company explain how it had the rights to do so, but in its response to the lawsuit filed by EMI, it explained its bizarre logic.

Basically, the company claims it somehow re-recorded the songs via a "psycho-acoustic simulation" (don't ask) and then added an image to the file, making it a totally new work (um... yeah). And then it registered the copyrights on those new recordings, claiming that the re-recording is a new work where Bluebeat.com actually owns the copyright. Its "proof" is that the Copyright Office okayed the registration -- suggesting that the rubber stamp at the Copyright Office is a bit too quick at times. A judge isn't buying it and has barred the sale of the MP3s for the time being (i.e., almost certainly forever). While it's amusing to see Bluebeat's tortured explanation, perhaps some of the blame needs to go to the Copyright Office for allowing these registrations in the first place. Of course, you have to wonder if this now also opens up Bluebeat to additional charges of false representation in registering the copyright...

In the meantime, some readers have noted that this is not the first time that the folks behind Bluebeat.com have had ridiculous interpretations of copyright law. Two and a half years ago, it sued Apple, Microsoft, RealNetworks and Adobe for not using the DRM created by Bluebeat's parent company, Media Rights Technologies. Basically, the company claimed that by not preventing the ability to rip files, these companies were violating the DMCA. Of course, that makes no sense.

Given that it's now twice that we're seeing totally foreign interpretations of basic copyright law, it almost makes you wonder if the company is doing this to make a point about the ridiculousness of copyright law, rather than for any legitimate reasons. Either that, or the company actually thinks that filing lawsuits as publicity stunts is smart. I would imagine that a judicial slapdown might correct the folks behind Bluebeat and MRT of that notion.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Tosses Out Foreign YouTube Lawsuits; Points Out Basic Copyright Law [Updated]

Mike Masnick — Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:38:38 PDT

Admittedly, parts of copyright law are quite complicated, but there are some basics that are rather simple and straightforward: such as that you cannot sue for statutory or punitive damages if you haven't registered your copyrights with the US copyright office. So, when the Premiere Football League sued Google/YouTube for hosting some videos of matches two years ago, I assumed at the very least that it had registered its copyrights in the US. Apparently not. A judge has ~~tossed out~~ pushed back on the Premier League's attempt to get higher damages awards, along with some other foreign claimants' for not being covered by US copyright law. You would have thought this was something the Premier League's lawyers would have noticed before filing the lawsuit. Update: Eric Goldman has a lot more details on the specifics of the case, which the original News.com article was a bit misleading. Definitely make sure you read Goldman's post to understand the mixed nature of the ruling. Also, based on this we're updating some of the points in the post to clarify. Thanks to everyone who pointed out some of the specifics. Update 2: After discussing this with a few different lawyers (as per usual -- none of them agree with each other!) it seemed best to just point people to Eric's analysis of this decision. Once again, this is what's great about using this blog as a conversation, helping us all to learn. Thanks to everyone who chimed in and contributed (whether via comments or email).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Has Italy Outlawed Unregistered Blogs?

Mike Masnick — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:11:25 PDT

Over the past year or so, we've noticed a string of stories coming out of Italy that suggests a rather odd legal viewpoint when it comes to the internet. There was the government's decision to release everyone's tax returns publicly online. Then there was an effort to put some Google executives in jail over videos that were uploaded to Google (not by those executives), and then, of course, Italy's attempt to ban access to The Pirate Bay (since rescinded).

However, the latest report is that Italy was able to force a blog offline permanently by using a law that requires news publishers to register with the government. A judge ruled that since a blog has a headline and some text, it counts as a news publication, and thus anyone who hasn't registered has violated this law. Of course, a politician (who used to be in favor of the law) is now warning that this could make an awfully large number of websites in Italy illegal, if the law is interpreted strictly. Basically, the Italian government now has the ability to force pretty much any blog site offline if they don't like the content, just by making this type of claim.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How About Five Year Renewable Copyrights With A Use-It-Or-Lose-It Clause?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:48:00 PDT

Over the years, we've seen numerous ideas and recommendations for ways to fix copyright, and a popular one is getting rid of the automatic creation of copyright on new works, requiring individuals to actually register that work -- often combined with a shorter time limit on copyrights that would have a renewal option. Larry Lessig has long supported such a system. The thinking is that this still lets those big companies who want to hoard their copyrights forever do so, but opens up plenty of other orphaned content that is locked down just because Disney doesn't want to lose the copyright on Mickey Mouse. Benjamin Krueger points us to Andrew Dubber's recent proposal of switching to a five-year renewable copyright plan, that also includes a use-it-or-lose it clause. Basically, copyright holders who want to retain their copyright can do so, but they have to renew the registration once every five years. And, during those five years, the content has to be available commercially one way or another. This way, if content is being neglected, ignored, abandoned or orphaned, it makes its way into the public domain in short order, where perhaps others can make it more useful. This would seem to fit much more closely with the original purpose of copyright law, though (as per usual), I'm sure there will be many complaints from copyright holders about how such a system would destroy their rights. When reading through those, though, note that they never seem very concerned with the rights of the public either.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story