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.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I'm pleased some people in Europe are at least proposing such useful ideas, even if they aren't yet fully fleshed out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A: Make copyright opt in and set up some public directory that lists all copyright material so that people don't have to be psychic to know what is and what isn't copyright?
B: Substantially shorten copyright length (no more than seven years). Also make these shortened terms apply retroactively so that tons of work can make its way into the public domain before it disappears into history. Or force it into the public domain using eminent domain laws. Make it apply to software as well, so Windows 95 can make its way into the public domain, and Windows 3.1 as a historical piece of software people can study and play with.
C: Make the punishment for accidental infringement much less than the punishment for accidentally claiming copyright on something you do not have copyright to.
D: Make any discontinued/out of print work automatically enter the public domain.
These are some changes I would like to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The last one is for the case of someone video taping a birthday party with music or the TV on in the background, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only harmonization of minimal set of exceptions
Well, to be fair they are only talking about harmonizing a minimal set of exceptions but without any upper limit for what individual countries may choose to do. That sounds like a very good idea to me and would also mean a lot to people with visual or reading disabilities who could benefit from a greater supply of books.
Here's what they write: "If exceptions to copyright laws were harmonised at an EU level, with these exceptions forming a minimum above which member states can extend, individual contracts for each member state can be avoided, facilitating cross border trade and minimising negotiation related transaction costs."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only harmonization of minimal set of exceptions
But now the rate that these corporations are advancing their absurdly unfair agenda is slowing down and the courts are starting to change their decisions even. We still have quite a ways to go but the Internet is allowing an open communication platform that enables the organization required to correct these problems and forces the legal system to pass and enforce more equitable laws. But still, we need to be more aggressive and organized and everyone needs to spread the news and get more people aware of these issues. Most people, by and large, are unaware of many of the issues because they only get their news from the mainstream media (even those with the Internet) and many people don't even have the Internet. Yet, despite such little awareness and such a small audience, look how much of impact we're having (ie: the pirate party in Sweden and the decision for Parliament to reject ACTA by such a large margin). We still haven't corrected any of the existing laws in place (ie: copy protection length) but we are slowing down the rate that things are getting worse. Imagine what we can accomplish if many more people start becoming aware of these issues and started to participate in the organizational structures designed to combat these retarded laws. You think the big corporations are unaware of possibilities? They're very aware, and that's why they're scared half to death. They no longer control the news and public opinion the way they used to, they can no longer prevent the communication required for us to organize groups against their agenda. You're darn right they're afraid. and if they're not we need to make them more afraid. We need to organize, get the word out, and make people more aware of these issues to get the existing laws corrected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easier to address specific issues first
The areas which seem to be the easiest to address are:
1. Archiving content.
2. Expanding public access via libraries.
3. Clarifying fair use in academic/educational situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easier to address specific issues first
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
Do you also feel that if we know the author, even if the content was posted anonymously, we can feel free to reveal it? In other words, will there be any secrets or is everything up for grabs once we find out about it or have access to it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
Similarly, if you post a song on MySpace, does it become available for MySpace to do whatever the company wants to do with it, even if you take the song down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
Yeah, everything should be up for grabs. If I have a contract with you and you that says that I pay you $20 for a song but you are not allowed to give the song to anyone else, and say you do give the song to someone else and they copy it and redistribute it. They never agreed to the terms, you are the one that signed the contract, not them. You should get punished and pay any damages, no one else should pay damages (no one else agreed to the terms) and everyone should be allowed to redistribute the content all they want without paying anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
If everything is available to everyone, would that knock down privacy walls as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easier to address specific issues first
So, if someone publishes something anonymously, it's against EU law to reveal their name against their will. And if the author doesn't want their work published, you can't publish it.
This only lasts for the life of the author, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard to push through
My guess is that if you actually started out with, "Once you post it, say it, or write it down, you lose control over it," you'd find it very hard to get popular support, even among average people. It would be very easy to spin it this way: "Big companies and the government will come and take your ideas and make money from them and give you nothing." I think the pro-copyright folks could generate a degree of paranoia in people similar to what has been done with any suggested changes in health care.
I'm just being pragmatic. Saying that once anyone else hears it or sees it, what you have said or created enters into public domain will not likely win you anti-copyright supporters, even if you think it's better for society as a whole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hard to push through
Even if I would find it hard for the average person to agree, which neither of us know if this is the case or not, I will not compromise what I believe just because others won't agree. They can use reason, logic, and evidence to try and change what I believe, but merely disagreeing with me isn't good enough. I will try and convince others with reason and logic regardless of how you think others think. I'll let them decide what to think on their own.
Also, what I said was that if you write it down and you show it to someone under the agreement that they won't redistribute it and they break that agreement, then you only get to sue that one person who initially broke that agreement for damages. Others who continue to redistribute it made no such agreement and shouldn't be punished. It's ridiculous to waste precious legal resources and privacy and property invasions, technology and free speech restrictions, and all the effort required to go after those who didn't agree to such agreements and continue to redistribute a work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High stakes poker
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1635132/google-plays-filesharing-card
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
evidence awaits discovery
Amen, but I wonder if the seeming lack of evidence isn't as much due to lack of looking by researchers as it is lack of policy diversity in the world.
Obvious places to look for the impact of different policies include different copyright lengths, exceptions, DMCA-like laws, levels of enforcement of all of these, and especially dates of implementation for each.
There's been lots more policy variation over the ~300 year history of copyright, the impacts of which could be studied.
Public licenses have also introduced variation in levels of copyright restriction that ought be ripe for finding evidence.
Just be sure to evaluate costs as well as benefits -- concentrated and diffuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
copyfraud?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]