Saturday, November 07, 2009
Thinking About Real Copyright Reform
Techdirt: "Michael Scott alerts us to a recent paper by professor and copyright expert Jessica Litman about 'Real Copyright Reform.' While there's been some chatter here and there about doing real copyright reform, there seems to be no real effort behind it. That's for a few reasons, including the fact that many people still remember what a pain the last attempt at real copyright reform was (it took decades) combined with the realization (especially on the part of copyright holders) that their ability to push through laws that solely favor themselves to greater and greater degrees may not be so easy this time around."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
This article, i think, makes some good points about how copyright law should change. I find the way its written a little confusing, probably because i do not know that much about copyright laws. also, the article mentions that there are problems with beginning to change copyright laws in the first place, and i don't feel like those were expanded upon. Those problems must be tackled before copyright law changes, so yay for all this idealistic thinking- but what needs to happen to let those changes happen.
I'm excited that this article has touched on the core issue of copyright law which is that it is far outdated for where we are today, and we need to rethink the purpose of its existence, rather than try to fix the methods of enforcement. It doesn't offer the exact methods on how to fix the problem, but it provides guidelines on how we should examine the problem.
Copyright reform is sort of oxymoronic. Copyright is a relatively recent reform to society as a whole. Every major invention in modern society is based completely on some other piece of technology. Every human idea is copied in some way from the experiences of the creator. While I support the rights of a creator, copyright as it stands now is stalling cultural and technological growth worldwide.
I've downloaded this paper (thanks CMU) to read, but haven't gotten to yet. It sounds to me like this is a move in the right direction. Many folks are becoming convinced that we need to change the copyright environment, but there have been surprisingly few good proposals. We need to be able to suggest something that would solve at least some of the issues, but which would not allow the sort of mass hysteria that's too common ("there will be no more music" etc.) While the stated goals mentioned are good, I think there are two *key* aspects that any revision must incorporate. The first is to flat out reduce the term of copyright. It started at 14 years, with a single option to renew, and I think that would be a good place to return to. 28 years is a lot of time to make a lot of profit. In a similar vein, it needs to be clear that while *perhaps* some copyright is necessary to encourage the creation of art, nearly all of the value today is in the creation - almost none is in the act of copying. As such, money ought to be going to the people who create, and *much* less should be going to distributors. On a related note, there is one section of interp that centers around a discussion of copyright - which I highly recommend (http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~dhaeseli/teaching2.html). AFAIK, this is the only class that the school offers which dresses the issue, which is a shame. I'd argue that a class about the concept (even a mini) should be required for CFA folks. It's just as important to be literate about the law as technology (see: C@CM.) Even if it didn't touch on current thinking about the issue, it amazes me how few folks who are studying forms of art understand what is and isn't fair use, and what rights creators do and don't have.
Copyright is a topic that has been relatively hot lately. With things like "intellectual property" now being discussed, the definition of what is "own-able" is coming into question.
I agree with Kevin that the core of the issue is that the laws, as written do not take into account the new problems that arise because of the growth of technology.
Copyright is meant to protect the "creator" of something... not just provide a peg on which lawsuits can be hung.
Post a Comment