Can You Really Be A Copyright Expert If You Think Copyright Should Last Forever?
from the all-kinds-of-cluelessness dept
A couple months ago, a so-called "expert" in copyright law in Australia, Dr. George Baker, the director for the Centre of Law and Economics at the Australian National University, argued that rather than pushing back on over aggressive copyright law, New Zealand ought to be making copyright law a lot more strict, to the point that he actually argued copyright should last forever:"Why not have copyright law like property law - ie it lasts forever?"And then he claimed -- really -- that if copyright law were infinite it "would in turn increase the investment in industries like music." Does he have any support for this at all? If you look through the actual academic evidence on these things, no one has ever found any proof that longer and longer copyrights leads to greater investment. It's not as though Universal Music is going to think "gee, if only copyright lasted another century we'd invest more in it now." No one makes decisions like that. A key study from 1998 (the last time the US extended copyrights) in fact found that increasing copyright terms would "not be a useful" as an incentive to create more content. Even more ridiculous is Baker's focus on music, as that same study pointed out that, of all the major types of content, the revenue generated by copyright extension would have the smallest impact on music.
But Baker isn't done with his ignorance. He's also against any kind of fair use/fair dealing, even for research. Yes, this is an academic arguing against research exceptions to copyright.
Dr Barker was also critical of the exceptions that have crept in.Impossible? Is he crazy? The US has decently broad fair use rights. Is he seriously arguing that it's "impossible to secure investment in creative goods" in the US because of our fair use policy? No serious person would ever make such an argument, which raises questions about just how serious Dr. Baker truly is.
"It has become like Swiss cheese where someone can turn up and say I'm doing research and therefore I don't have to pay you copyright. It makes it impossible to secure investment in creative goods."
Meanwhile, over at the EFF's Deeplinks blog, another New Zealand based academic, Eric Crampton, has posted a detailed rebuttal explaining why the idea of an infinite copyright is absolutely ridiculous.
As the piece concludes:So why shouldn’t copyright be infinite?
Five years ago, Larrikin Music, who bought the rights to an old Australian folk song, sued Men At Work for including an 11-note flute sequence from it in their 80s-hit, “Down Under”. Where Men At Work had intended homage in its celebration of all things Australian, Larrikin, and the law, saw copyright infringement.
But does that really go far enough? If an 11-note sequence counts as infringement, how much do modern artists owe Pachelbel’s descendants? The four-chord sequence making up the core of his Canon in D has been repeated in dozens, if not hundreds, of subsequent songs. Should evidence produced by Australia’s Axis of Awesome be used in copyright lawsuits by anyone who can document that, ten generations back, Johann Pachelbel was a great-great-grandfather? It seems absurd.
Even from the perspective of a profit-seeking artist, copyright is a double-edged sword. Stronger copyright both increases the rewards from having produced a piece of work and increases the cost of creating new works.
Current creators draw on a global commons in their artistic creations, and future generations of artists deserve a commons tooA true expert in copyright would actually understand that simple fact.
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 term extension, copyright terms, eric crampton, george baker, infinite copyright, new zealand, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good point, alternate universe
But instead of seeing how this highlights the obvious point that copyright is nothing like property, he reverses it by claiming it's an argument to treat it more like property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good point, alternate universe
And if copyright were more like property:
‣ registration would be mandatory (and not free); the property would be very specifically identified and anyone could look up ownership
‣ taxes would need to be paid based on value; otherwise it could be forfeited
‣ laws could require the owner to develop it, and set standards on this
‣ the government could purchase it via eminent domain
‣ there could be rights of easement, etc.
‣ the owners would have responsibilities and potential liabilities to the public
‣ it could not exist simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YES!!!
Always follow the money, you can get a LOT of experts willing to shill if the price is right. The vast majority of people are not moral unto themselves and if you check you will find most would do things if reasoned no one would ever find out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not? One site I know of has a soi-disant "expert" who makes the hoot-able claim to support both copyright and Kim Dotcom!
The above is contrived to test whether that AI bot at all relates to external reality. I suspect it's the same pre-megalomaniac program that concluded humans should be kept safe in a zoo, and that problem with self-driving cars is similarly, humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not? One site I know of has a soi-disant "expert" who makes the hoot-able claim to support both copyright and Kim Dotcom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not? One site I know of has a soi-disant "expert" who makes the hoot-able claim to support both copyright and Kim Dotcom!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not? One site I know of has a soi-disant
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
And I can't think of any way that I'm harmed by Mickey Mouse being locked up forever! In fact, I'd like LESS of it!
BUT there is a distinction can be made for technical writings / patents. Keep that same. Just lock up entertainments so stoops don't repeat those, only worse. -- Oh, and softwares? Those should never be copyrighted, but operating systems should in fact be open source by law. We the people can't let Microsoft, Google, and Apple just spy on us without limit. -- Whatever serves the public should be the law, but the "give away free and then try to grab back when others do take it" looniness of "Dan Bull" simply won't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
Just because "The People" have collectively abused or misused it, does not make the idea terrible.
The only terrible ideas are the ones that allow too much power flow to a single figure, allowing them to cause massive damage on a whim.
Every political ideology you can come up with from Capitalism to Communism only go south because people are corrupt not the ideas. What made them bad ideas is because there are NOT enough protections built in to ward off corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
The constitution and its amendments give the citizens the means to protect their rights, but they have to exercise those rights. Militias marching through Washington might be enough to remind the politicians who they serve, and give a chance to avoid a shooting match.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
So you think when Eisenhower sent the Army to desegregate the Southern schools, the Southerners should have raised a militia to fight them and remind the politicians who they serve, and give a chance to avoid a shooting match?
In the end, enough of them decided that blacks in their schools was not really worth dying over. It was not like they would be enjoying their school time in their white schools, anyway, even if no accident befell them before they finished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
Yes. There is no way to know what would have happened if people had stood up for their beliefs. Eisenhower, fearing a blood bath, may have backed down.
If you're not willing to die defending what you believe in, then perhaps what you believe in is a lie, or the belief itself is the lie, or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
WIllingness to die for something does not in any way indicate whether or not that something is truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
A book plate from the age of the printing press was good for almost indefinite copies, and any mechanic can make you a press when you have only the plates. So what do you do if I hand you a 5¼" floppy disk with a WordStar document on it? Where's the "continuing value" in that?
How would the Founding Fathers have had less faith in media durability than warranted today? The only known media were durable for centuries, when done according to the state of the art, for millennia. And only a very small headstart in that time was reserved for copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
Really? I can't, because there are relatively few books printed 500 years ago that are available, and access to them is usually limited due to their fragility.
Instead, if you want to read a book written 500 years ago, you're going to need someone to make more copies of it, and distribute those copies widely, both of which increase the odds that any copy of the book will even survive. And when anyone with a desire to do so can do this, this increases the odds for the book's survival further. In fact, virtually all the books we have from antiquity survived in exactly this method; only a handful of manuscripts from that era survived.
And that's the solution to your 5.25" floppy problem. You have to keep copying stuff all the time to maintain access to it, and keep converting the file formats to newer ones that are still viable (or older ones that are so basic and common that they're not going anywhere, like ASCII).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
For example those writing the Constitution were entirely familiar with printing presses. Little has changed since then with regard to printed books, so there's no reason to believe that they would have extended copyright terms since then.
While they likely didn't foresee audio and video recording, the copyright principles are the same as with books. They'd likely extend copyright to audio and video, but there's no reason to believe that they would have extended the terms.
And why should operating systems be "open source by law?" Privacy is a separate issue than copyright. Either pass a law declaring that users should be able to turn off all telemetry, or have them do a better job of explaining when and why the SmartScreen Filter sends the URLs you visit to a malware-checking server, or why Cortana sends your requests off-site.
It's REAL EASY to check whether an OS is sending information elsewhere, with free tools like Wireshark. That's why we know that Windows, iOS etc. do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You do recognize that recording tech makes for more continuing value than foreseen in US Constitution, right?
You know that Audio recordings weren't included in US copy law until 1978.
At the last major update of copy law before that, in 1909, the gramophone had been around for 32 years and there was no protection of Audio recordings added. So it's more likely that they wouldn't, or not for 101 years anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes perfect sense to me.
Yeah, it's like "scientific whaling" in Japan: the "researchers" kill thousands of whales for "scientific" purposes just to bring their meat to market as a "byproduct".
In a similar vein, people can just download all those phoney "research papers" into their MP3 players and, uhm...
Anybody seen my harpoon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's see just how that would play out
Beethoven.
There would in fact be no public domain.
And it wouldn't just be an individual asserting rights, it would be a bunch of greedy corporations.
The guy who proposes infinite copyright is also advocating stricter copyright laws. I can only assume this would include the expansion of what is eligible for copyright. How about things that are presently patentable like ideas? Or rectangles with rounded corners. Or colors. Clothing cut patterns. Clothing colors.
Just think what the world looks like only 200 years down the road. It is impossible to express any idea. Any tune. Any kind of text of speech whatsoever. Somewhere in history, that combination of words, chords, colors, etc will have been used. And stricter copyright means that ever smaller and smaller elements should be protectable. Forget Rigthhaven's copyright on words, how about copyrighted letters of the alphabet. Or simply combinations of digrams or trigrams of letters strung together. I, for one, claim copyright on the letters "T" and "H" consecutively put together.
There could be no two maps that are of the same place. I'm sure copyright owning corporations would work out which map makers get the 'copyright' over maps for certain geographical regions like states, or even counties.
Let's do it. Ever stronger copyright. Ever expanding copyright rights. And infinite copyright. Pass the popcorn. This is going to be fun to watch the economic havoc.
The best way to get rid of an unjust law is to enforce it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's see just how that would play out
The single letters did not exactly fall off a tree, either, you know? Someone designed them as well.
Ok, I was being facetious. We all know that the Mycenaean Linear-B artifacts and/or their Minoan Linear-A predecessors likely borrowed their syllabic character from Phoenician merchants' accounting methods, but the Romans did not exactly leave much of Carthago for us to corroborate, just like RIAA and MPAA do with historic recordings that are not permitted to get copied before falling apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's see just how that would play out
yep, factually INEVITABLE...
here's why (real simple):
korporations are immortal, immoral, legal fictions with -relative to the 99%- infinite resources; people are comparatively short-lived, and needing money *now*, not over hundreds+ of years...
... do i have to draw a fucking diagram ? ? ?
ALL your copyright belong to us ! ! !
hee hee hee
ho ho ho
ha ha ha
ak ak ak
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's see just how that would play out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First the Huffington Post, now Techdirt.
You do know that New Zealand is a completely separate country from Australia, don't you?
That should be "a New Zealand academic".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Property doesn't last forever . . .
Except property law does not allow for property to last forever. It requires constant maintenance in the law or it becomes abandoned.
Any decent property law scholar knows this.
Utter fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Property doesn't last forever . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Property doesn't last forever . . .
If IP is really property why isn't there a use it or lose it clause. Because I know if I don't maintain property that I own most cities will take it away. Why don't you pay property taxes to the government for enforcing your exclusivity, even if you don't make it available to others, like you would with real property. Why should everyone else bear the burden for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Property doesn't last forever . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Property doesn't last forever . . .
Do you pay any automobile registration fees? If so this is a per se property tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Property doesn't last forever . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Property doesn't last forever . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Property doesn't last forever . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom
You find that various members within the united kingdom do have local property tax like taxes. For instance (from the linked article)
"Council Tax
Main article: Council Tax
Council tax is the system of local taxation used in England,[30] Scotland[31] and Wales[32] to part fund the services provided by local government in each country. It was introduced in 1993 by the Local Government Finance Act 1992, as a successor to the unpopular Community Charge ("poll tax"), which had (briefly) replaced the Rates system. The basis for the tax is residential property, with discounts for single people. As of 2008, the average annual levy on a property in England was £1,146.[33] In 2006/2007 council tax in England amounted to £22.4 billion[34] and an additional £10.8 billion in sales, fees and charges,[35]"
It wouldn't be surprising if there are more local exceptions within the listed broad areas that don't charge property taxes. and, if a government does provide the service of allocating/enforcing property rights then they should charge property taxes as the overwhelming majority of governments do.
But IP laws were just made by a bunch of freeloaders who want free laws to enforce their agenda without having to pay for the social and governmental cost of those laws. They want all of the benefits of property laws without any of the costs or requirements (ie: requirement to maintain it that most jurisdictions have, property tax to pay for the government's allocation and enforcement and the social cost of having these laws). and the only way they managed to get something for nothing is by unethically subverting the democratic process by buying politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fact, copyright in music is an attempt to enclose and control part of a heritage which belongs to the public, just like the Enclosure Acts stole common land in Britain. The longer copyright persists, the more it steals from the public. Downloading and reselling for commercial profit is not an answer, it is a parasite on the original immorality.
Rationally, copyright must be viewed as an indulgence granted by the state to borrow from the cultural heritage for a limited time, not a corporate right to steal from it forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Current since 1710.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, not at all. It arose from copyrighted music under the control of the RIAA, is possibly identical in parts to music under the control of the RIAA, has possible predecessors in music under the control of the RIAA, and came into being with debt to a shared musical heritage under the control of the RIAA. The novel elements are surely due to an artist under contract of one of the RIAA subsidiaries, so once the pesky Public Domain has been terminally dealt with, accounting becomes very straightforward: everything is taxable to the RIAA.
Copyright expiry on a continuing basis eventually leads to a situation where the RIAA's control over culturally relevent music converges towards zero eventually, eternal copyright would instantly fix their control at 100%.
Whatever bribes or propaganda or reality distortion fields it takes will be worth the investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intereseting take...
* Strict definitions for what is copywritable: Make clear delineation for digital (or easily replicated) vs physical works. Properly define a segment and how many changes per segment are needed to constitute an new work. Also take considerations for overall context and spirit of the new work.
* Opt in Copyright: works must be registered to qualify for tracking compensation. Ownership is determined by first to file, but can be contested within 3 years with evidence of first created. Due diligence must be taken by copyright office to identify prior art.
* Fair use: Cases similar to existing usages for but with strict burden of proof on accuser and heavy ramifications for false accusations.
* Narrowly Defined Ownership: Only be one full owner of the copyright with no partial transfers nor temporary adjustments. Word the legislation to remove the usefulness of conglomerates to get around the issue. The only exception being for compensation agreements with the original creator (non revocable after initial transfer away from creator). Require upfront explicit opt in for "work for hire" situations.
* Timing/Grandfathering: Ownership only 'controls' new works created with the said content. Works created previous to current ownership are not subject to current owners demands.
* Content creator first right of refusal: (not completely thought out yet) some rights giving the original owner (that is still being compensated/or that retained the right at time of initial registration) first right of refusal (at market rates) when ownership is transferred.
* Public work clause: Owner can permanently transfer the content to be a public work at any time during their ownership (subject to first right of refusal).
* Alteration/Destruction clause: Owner can destroy or permanently alter physical works at anytime with no regards to the original owner's claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny how you left off this part from the EFF "rebuttal":Can you really call it a "rebuttal" if the person thinks that it's "hard for new innovation" to occur because they can't copy/infringe works under copyright?
Seriously, if the work is innovative and new, then it wouldn't come from copying to the point of infringement? Can't they just work up something fresh, i.e., noninfringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it amusing?
I just hope I'm not the one who has to explain to him what humanity has been doing when Jesus has his second coming. It would be more embarrassing than explaining to Archimedes the experiments at Lagado.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We are throwing away what makes us stand out from animals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Seriously, if the work is innovative and new, then it wouldn't come from copying to the point of infringement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facts about Dr. George Barker
He has a Post Graduate Degree in Economics - this also means he knows about the interactions of goods, services, etc : you think?
On the website page, //researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/barker-g, he has a picture that shows his incredible intelligence : you think?
He email address for contact is NOT available on said website page - not acceptable.
On said website page, there is a reference to another website for further information which just happens to return the following information
I think the above says it all about the level of expertise, this fellow exhibits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's actually a good idea
That would mean that, if you want to retain ownership, you'd have to pay periodic taxes on your works. Failure to do so means losing ownership to the government.
It's not unlike my favorite solution to the IP fiasco: Charge people $100 every 10 years for copyright renewal. Those works that don't get paid for are released into the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I think the rest of the world hopes to hell that you never vote for a welfare system bent on throwing money at dead bodies. What the fuck is with you copyright fanatics who think that the world is irreparably screwed if we don't keep paying royalties to cadavers forever, anyhow?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End with the creator
We really should make copyright closer to the term of a patent. I would like to see 14 years, with a non-automatically renewing 14-year term.
However, if that's too much to swallow, copyright should in no instance last longer than 70 years. This would be a 14-year term, with 4 14-year renewals.
If we can't get it back down to 70 years, it should, for corporate creators (rather than individuals) be forced into the public domain after 70 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]