Copyright

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, europe



Library Group And Others Issue Declaration For Consumer Friendly Copyright In Europe

from the wouldn't-that-be-something dept

Stuart Hamilton from the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) alerted us to the news that his organization, along with "a broad based coalition of European groups, representing consumers, creators, libraries, civil society and technology companies" have put together a declaration in the EU Parliament for Copyright for Creativity -- with the goal being to reform copyright law to bring it back to its original purpose, while updating it for the internet age so that it "fosters digital creativity, innovation, education, and access to cultural works."

Now, wouldn't that be nice?

The argument that they're making is that if the EU implemented such a massive change to copyright law, that actually did focus on such things, it would give Europe a huge competitive advantage. The key goal is to establish important "well-crafted exceptions" to copyright law (such as fair use) that have been shown, time and time again, to encourage greater creativity, innovation and education.

You can see the full declaration, if you'd like. It's been signed by a bunch of groups, including the EFF and the CCIA, who has really been leading the charge recently to get people to understand the importance of exceptions to copyright law in actually driving creativity and economic growth.

Apparently, some Parliament Members already support the declaration, leading to the hope that it will be used "as a basis for an urgent debate on copyright." Again, this would be wonderful if it happens, but given how thoroughly the entertainment industry has dominated pretty much all policy discussions when it comes to copyright, I'm a bit skeptical that this will get very far. Still, it would be great if it really did get a real discussion on copyright issues, that was evidence-based rather than faith-based, going in European policy circles.

As it stands right now, the declaration is a bit vague. It seems like it would help to have some more specifics included as well. And, on top of that, I'm still not convinced that harmonization of copyright systems across multiple countries really is ideal at this point -- even though that's a key element of the declaration. Part of the problem we have with copyright laws today is that there is so little evidence on the actual impact of stronger or weaker copyright laws. It's an area that needs more widespread experimentation with very different models (or no copyright at all) to see what really happens so that there is real evidence. Harmonizing a single system takes away some element of that ability to experiment and to compare different systems to see what really works.

That said, these are minor quibbles for a project whose overall goal does seem like a good thing -- and greatly needed in an era where any sort of changes to copyright law seem to only be driven by the entertainment industry, with a focus on driving the purpose further and further away from its original intentions, and making it more and more about propping up a legacy industry's business model.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), 8 May 2010 @ 8:04pm

    Re: Easier to address specific issues first

    Thinking through the archiving issue a bit, I'll toss this out to ponder.

    One reason to archive is to preserve knowledge so it won't be lost. On the other hand, does the creator or owner of that knowledge have the right to destroy content if he chooses not to have it be made public anymore? It's a matter of deciding whether once content has been released it can not longer be removed from the digital record, or not. Can you create something and then find the file and delete it, or does creating it mean it is now publicly available forever?

    And thinking a bit more about preservation and ownership, let's say that the archival entities not only want to preserve everything, they decide to match up content with the creator, even if the creator published it anonymously. But given technological advances, it is likely that you can determine who created it. So is it in the best interest of history to put a name to all content, even if that wasn't the original intention?

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.