Public Knowledge Pushes Five Point Plan For Copyright Reform
from the will-it-matter? dept
The folks over at Public Knowledge have officially unveiled their plan for copyright reform, focusing on five key areas:- strengthen fair use, including reforming outrageously high statutory damages, which deter innovation and creativity;
- reform the DMCA to permit circumvention of digital locks for lawful purposes;
- update the limitations and exceptions to copyright protection to better conform with how digital technologies work;
- provide recourse for people and companies who are recklessly accused of copyright infringement and who are recklessly sent improper DMCA take-down notices; and
- streamline arcane music licensing laws to encourage new and better business models for selling music.
I think it's great that Public Knowledge is pushing this (with the assistance, apparently, of the Stanford Cyberlaw Clinic and the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law), though of course the chances of this actually getting anywhere seem slim. But, as a conversation starter on an important topic, it's a good first step.
So even if the chances of it going anywhere are slim, I'd love to hear from defenders of current copyright law the reasons why any of these particular reforms don't make sense.
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: copyright, copyright reform
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How about dump the DMCA but keep the safe harbor provisions. And broaden them to include trademarks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remove anti-circumvention clause from DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(1) Absolute prohibition on any copying for the first two years. Individuals may copy or share for personal use any time thereafter. Absolute prohibition on resale or selling any derivative work.
(2) Commercial (anything associated with selling, even if the work helps sell another work or service) copyright terms are as follows:
(a) Movies - 3 years
(b) Recorded Music - 5 years
(c) Software - 5 years
(d) Written works, except software - 10 years; with payment of a fee you get 10 more years. The copyright office is to establish a database with copyright extension fees (make them high). If your written work is not in the copyright database after ten years, it is public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or what if I sell tickets for a concert where I perform the mashup?
Or what if I sell my time to someone (or some company) to create the mashup in the first place?
What if I am giving my derivative away, completely for free, at a church picnic that costs $5 to get into?
What if I am giving my derivative away, completely for free, at a mall opening?
The term "selling any derivative work" is simply too ambiguous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EMI Puts Abbey Road Studios Up for Sale
Troubled music company EMI Group PLC is talking to potential buyers for Abbey Road Studios, the hallowed London facility where the Beatles did most of their recording, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The talks are the latest sign of distress at the world's No. 4 music business, which has floundered since being acquired in a 2007 leveraged buyout by private-equity firm Terra Firma Capital Partners Ltd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shift the burden of proof
The burden of proof in copyright cases should be shifted. The person claiming copyright should have to show clear and explicit copying. Right now the deck is stacked in favor of the person claiming copyright.
Most of the gray areas (such as songs that sort of sound like they might possibly have been inspired by a musical theme in older song) do not hurt the copyright holder. In fact in most cases they represent the type of creativity and innovation that copyright is supposed to encourage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shift the burden of proof
Here is my version
Finally, you (the EMI) should be SEVERELY PUNISHED for your attempts to hinder the progress in violation of the constitution. Punished enough to prevent you from EVER doing so again and hopefully enough to cause you to almost go out of business.
There should be a three strikes law. First strike, a million dollars to everyone you tried to extort. Second attempt to hinder the progress, 25 percent of your assets should be auctioned away. Third strike, you go out of business by force and your C_O's and managing directors get jailed for 5 years.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100215/1235058169.shtml
So what do you think of my proposed three strikes law against bogus DMCA takedowns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
creat your own lobbyiest today
thats 300 million to bribe you mister politician are you going to do now what we want if we give you a yacht, your own island and a golden golf cart with diamond golf clubs?
and we also demand copyrigh terms down to 14 years so people are not SOOO FRAKING LAZY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: creat your own lobbyiest today
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
6) Address the treatment of works for which there is a demand but for which the copyright holder can not be located or contacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
2) Copyright must be registered, not automatic.
3) Independent invention defense.
4) Repeal DMCA (safe harbor should not be needed)
5) Any use that does not directly replace original is fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
6) Rights cannot be transferred from the creator to another party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
As a separate point, they shouldn't be allowed to reclaim them back - unless there was an explicit clause in the original sale agreement stating that. After all, if I sell you a house you'd be a bit annoyed if I turned up a few years later and demanded it back again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
The real problem is extension. To extend the copyright, you should have to make substantial changes. Fixing a typo doesn't mean a new copyright. To balance things out, set a standard for extending the copyright. If you change it by X amount, you get a new copyright. But that means that changing by X is a totally new work, so anything that's X+1 is transformative fair use, and is legal for anyone to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
Copyright should not be transferable, but rights holders should be able to license it to others, while still keeping the power and having the ability to pull out of the contract if they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
If copyright is meant to promote creation, then there has to be some sort of guarantee that it doesn't just up and disappear. The same benefits aren't extended to salesmen because no one ever thought there needed to be a legal incentive for people to sell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
If the holder wants to:
- sell completely (ie sell the freeholding on a building)
- licence for a long period (ie sell a leaseholding)
- licence for a short period with termination clauses (ie monthly/yearly rental)
there shouldn't be anything to stop them, as any barriers will only be circumvented and we'll spend our time with increasingly arcane laws aroud what is and isn't allowed in agreements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
Having said that - I don't believe people should have to apply for a copyright. "Poor man's copyrights" have been used for decades to prevent music labels from ripping off artists. (Sometimes successfully.)
It would however be a good idea for copyrights to be non-transferable, but only licensed.
And, of course, to make them last for a much lesser time. Copyrights were never meant to be an income generator for your grandkids. If you made money from your work, they'll inherit that, no need to rob the public of what's rightfully theirs just to have an additional income for your descendants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
All but number three are about copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My 5 oint plan or copyright and patents.
The best comeback to those who will attack your points on copyright is correcting them when *they* confuse the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quick point
I'd agree that the orphan works issue also needs to be addressed, as well as the lack of a certain means for dedicating a work to the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How About Simple Rules ?
Copyright = 25 years: renewed for 10, 10, and 5
That's it ! Nothing else.
Copyright limited to money-making use only.
Copyright limited in broadcast situations (fair use) -
If it's broadcast, private use is assumed allowed first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what does non-consumptive mean?
"...or a use that is incidental, non-consumptive, or both
noncommercial and personal;”
What does non-consumptive mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what does non-consumptive mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the highest bidder goes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use and Statutory damages.
So yea I think they should be put together. Lowering damages encourages fair use. Of course the AA's won't want that, but that is a different story ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright renewal
$1 - $10 - $100 - $1,000 - $10,000 - $100,000 - $1,000,000 after 35 years. Yeah, the Beatles might still be worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright renewal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright renewal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
With that said, I certainly would not argue that derivative works is not a major problem. And if I understand correctly, one not even created by Congress, but by the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More reform
2. Limit the damages from infringement to either:
a) The profit made from the infringers, and/or
b) Profit losses from the content creators - but only those profits proven by the copyright holders to have been lost by that specific infringement. If copyright holders cannot prove unequivocally that the infringement cost them sales, without leading to others, then they get nothing.
The first would rule out non-commercial infringement, and the second would rule out the outrageous damages in e.g. the Tannenbaum case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More reform
As of 2006, there actually are quite a few exemptions from the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, including "orphaned" technology and educational use. One of them was even added specifically because of the Sony rootkit debacle:
Anti-circumvention exemptions (Wikipedia)
This should theoretically do away with one of the major negatives of DRM: that if your supplier goes out of business, or changes its protection scheme, your copy is useless. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More reform
Resale rights.
In all copyright-applicable industries, you have a right to resell the product you paid for - whether it's a CD, book, or DVD. If we are to view digital copies as "products" in any sense, there has to be a mechanism that makes resale possible. Since you can already do this with software, it makes sense that you should be able to do it with MP3's that you legally purchased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publics domain
Anyone who creates a derivative work from a public domain work should only be allowed to claim copyright if they make their public domain source material freely (in the Stallman sense) available.
e.g. Someone who translates a public domain work into another language must simultaneously make the original available, unencumbered by technical measures and at a fee that covers their costs plus 7% and no more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public domain
For things that are copyright-free and in the public domain (e.g. the movie Carnival of Souls), this is taken care of already. Anyone can sell a DVD of Carnival of Souls, but they cannot claim copyright on the movie itself - you cannot be sued for sharing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again anyone who always takes a contrarian view intentionally, as he always does(and got his hat handed to him on the Grateful Dead thread),really isn't to be taken seriously. Other than snarkyness and calling people trolls, well that's about all he does. So to the Anti-Mike if you're readin this: The above outline by Mike is called a "thought process" it involves actual thought, not just reactionary BS. Just thought you would like to know the difference, as you clearly can't distinguish it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orphaned Works Needs to Be Included.
I haven't read the underlying proposal, so I don't know how they've fleshed out these rather vague ideas, especially number 3.
And I would certainly echo the need someone posted above for adding one more point to deal with "orphaned works." I know that this issue has already been discussed in Congress, though I don't recall any proposed legislation, and a reform to copyright law in this area is actually more likely to be passed. This would go quite a long way to addressing one of the most frequent complaints about copyright: works that are no longer commercially available, and cannot be made available because the copyright holder is either unknown or cannot be determined. Think books that have been long out of print or films that are unavailable and in danger of being lost. Also applies to music.
As for reducing the term of copyright, that's clearly not going to happen anytime soon. These are good first steps in copyright reform, ones that have a decent chance of at least being seriously considered by legislators. If you try to cram changes of copyright term in there, you only severely hurt the chances of moving forward on these first steps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike asked
I have one question where is TAM?
he must have a headache I can fix that pass the scalple and ZX81 please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mike asked
Kinda funny that no one is defending existing copyright law, isn't it, given the frequency of comments defending other aspects of copyright law all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP maximists have no defense but logic takes no part in the legislation process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright and IP in general
While there might be little chance of making the much needed changes now; we can engage younger people who are still willing to consider change, and as they grow older and take over, they will be influenced to do this.
IP needs to conform with the Constitution, and at this time, none of it does; it is simply a method for the wealthy establishment to slow or stop progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyright ; is that the right word for it ?
Vow. In any education panel there are not more than 10 comments. That is the reason education as it is today in USA.
My view only for material which can be delivered from internet .
1.- All writers should be paid a fair amount?
2.- Please show me one who says he has been paid fairly today from pubklishers.?
3.- Writers go after publishers for months to have him to publish his books. Publishers have to invest lots of money until book is on the shelves. So he almost kill the writer to reduce the fee he will pay to him.
4.- Then expenses investments starts.
Finding paper, cutting the forest
Buying ink dirting earth
Spend electricy, man power and ink and paper print the
book
Binding the papers more dirth glue
Distribute to whole salers,then books stores., more gas
more CO2 .
Let the books sit in the bookstore until someone buys.
You see publishers spend money money
He gets his rewards after 1 may be 2 years . There is danger of staying on the shelf forever. Wasting the forest .
My Proposal is very very simple and RADICAL:
1.- All books, musics, videoes can be accessed by internet.
2.- Writer , composers etc sets their price.
3.- I suggest $ 5 per book per person per year.
Some writer may claim $ 6 or $ 7 . But not more than
that.
4.- Composers may say $ 1 or 2 or 3 per listening per year.
5.- Videoes can be more expensive.
6.- ONLINE Courses $ 10-20 per semester per person per
course.
Please look up the result. Look up the volume. You will gain from the volume and fairly. If people like your work they will pay you more.
If a book is liked it will be bought by millions. Writer will make lots of money. Be careful there is no investment beforehand. No money wasted.
Google can collect fees very easily from credit cards. Even we do in Turkey. USA should be able to do that.
Google should organise itself very well . It can be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]