Want To Get A Sense Of Just How Complex And Confusing Copyright Law Really Is?
from the then-check-this-out... dept
Michael Scott points us to an article concerning the Library of Congress issuing a report on how copyright law applies to libraries who possess unpublished audio works recorded prior to 1972. The problem, you see, is that no one was exactly sure whether or not these recordings were actually covered by copyright law. The real problem, though, becomes pretty clear pretty quickly as you read through the article: copyright law is a house of cards. We just keep layering new rules on top of old rules, and figure the courts will sort out the places where they contradict, overlap or confuse. But that leaves a ton of uncertainty in a variety of situations -- including this particular one. It should be a simple question: if a library is in possession of an unpublished sound recording from before 1972, what's the copyright status? But the mess that is copyright law makes it such that it's hardly an easy question at all -- and actually requires an 85-page report from the Library of Congress to go through all of the nuances. And then your everday individual is expected to understand what is "right" and "wrong" in copyright law?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: confusion, copyright law, libraries, unpublished
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You've got it backwards
For example, the question of an "unpublished work" was jettisoned by the new Copyright Act, and no works created after 1977 ever have to answer the quesiton about whether they've been legally/officially "published" or not. So the new laws that you complain about have actually been simplifying copyright, not complicating it.
Except for one area: Fair Use. The Fair Use principle was finally codified by the new Copyright Act, and it's such a complex multi-part mess that nobody who's not a lawyer really understands it. (And even then.) Ironically, of course, that's the area of law that anti-copyright advocates don't have any objection to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In other words: Copyright law is a complete mess. Thank you for clearing this up.
"The Fair Use principle was finally codified by the new Copyright Act, and it's such a complex multi-part mess that nobody who's not a lawyer really understands it."
Which is why exactly 100% of all lawyers agree completely when they interpret copyright law.
Wait just a minute... Are you a lawyer? If not, you certainly could be one!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: You've got it backwards
If Congress had chosen to not make the Copyright Act's extensions retroactive, all these works would've already fallen into the public domain, as their contract with the public at the time of their creation dictated, and this 85-page report could be replaced by a single line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: You've got it backwards
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Youve got it backwards
Congress wasn't allowed to make the new terms retroactive; it would have been unconstitutional. As mentioned, the "Takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment doesn't allow the government to arbitrarily remove your existing property rights.
#2--
You've still got it exactly backwards. The writer wants us to believe that the new copyright laws are what have mucked things up; when in fact it's the other way around. (Except, of course, for Fair Use, which is an unholy mess.)
In fact, even the latest major revision to copyright law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, simplified things greatly, giving protection to service providers and web sites for the unmoderated copyright violations of its users--something else anti-copyright activists didn't have any objection to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Intelligent Discourse!!!???
(I realize this comment does not contribute to that...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Youve got it backwards
Second, the point is not that "the new rules messed things up" or "wish we could could back to the good old days". The point is, "the rules are really really messed up." And that would be hard to disagree with.
Third, I think your claim that the DMCA simplified things greatly is highly questionable at best. The safe harbor rules are a good thing, but they don't necessarily simplify anything. And the rest of it... I don't see how it could be viewed at all as a simplification.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is about whether the work was "published", which used to be a requirement under the old copyright law. The new copyright law has done away with that completely.
In addition, it used to be that if a law didn't have federal copyright protection (say, because it was "unpublished") then every state could individually have its own different copyright system ("common law copyright") to protect those works (meaning there were 51 different sets of copyright rules). The new copyright law did away with that unholy mess of a system as well.
So, yeah, the new copyright laws really did simplify things. And yes, he IS in fact saying that "the new rules messed things up"--that's why he says "We just keep layering new rules on top of old rules."
About the DMCA: You may feel that it didn't simplify things. But if you were a service provider, message board host, or website owner with user-generated content, it sure as hell made your life a whole lot simpler.
[ link to this | view in thread ]