Cut US copyright term
p2pnet.net News:-Publishers should need less, not more, copyright protection, says Britain`s The Economist.
Nine elderly judges might have been forgiven for finding the entire subject somewhat baffling, it says, commenting on the recent US Supreme Court Grokster v MGM decision.
The court, tried to steer a middle path between these claims, and did a reasonable job but, the outcome of the case is nevertheless unsatisfactory. That’s not the court’s fault. It was struggling to apply a copyright law which has grown worse than anachronistic in the digital age. That’s something Congress needs to remedy.
The length of copyright protection in the US has increased enormously over the past century, from around 28 years to as much as 95 years, the OpEd continues.
The same trend can be seen in other countries. In June Britain signalled that it may extend its copyright term from 50 years to around 90 years.
But this makes no sense, says The Economist.
Copyright was originally intended to encourage publication by granting publishers a temporary monopoly on works so they could earn a return on their investment. But the internet and new digital technologies have made the publication and distribution of works much easier and cheaper. Publishers should therefore need fewer, not more, property rights to protect their investment. Technology has tipped the balance in favour of the public domain.
A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to its original terms – 14 years, renewable once. This should provide media firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the copyright incumbents.
Something you think we should know? tips[at]p2pnet.net
See:-
The Economist – Rip. Mix. Burn., June 30, 2005
July 5th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Oh yeah, you can bet those US copyright holders are lining up to get behind this one. The piece does make some very good points, but just like an election year Michael Moore movie, those who really need to hear it would rather die clutching their bags of lucre than acknowledge any truth in it.
July 5th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
no, don’t let congress touch it. they can be bought off vev easier than the supremes – who WERE bought off.
there should be national referendums for law changes like these – as there are in civilised countries.
July 5th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
The US has certainly went in the wrong direction with copyright. The whole purpose of the copyright was to deny the public for a limited term, without payment access to copyrighted works to encourage publishing and authors to produce more. After that term expired those works were public domain.
In the interest of protectionism, the US has protected its main remaining export. It forgets that at the beginning the US was a major pirate of copyrighted works, freely stealing those publications and the like and printing them within country. Now that business has gotten into the pocketbook of our legislatures, the public is no longer represented except for in the most trivial of terms.
With the copyright works being the length of term they are now, nothing you hear in your lifetime will ever become public domain. There is no law that requires a holder to hold on to said work either. It is in their own best interests not to allow such works to reach public domain by destroying the work before that date reaches maturity.
Many improvements and advances are based on past works, be they literary or be they technological. As it is now, none of those protected items (patents and copyright) can be used in such a manner to produce other items for the public’s use and enjoyment. Newer items and innovations will become fewer and fewer under the present laws and ideas. In essence, business has locked down the advancement of science and products while looking out for their own interests through influancing those laws passed and considered. Our children will see the results of these machinations in their lifetime and have to live with them as well.
The worse thing was the allowing of someone other than the author of a work to hold copyright or patent. The killer to that was the extensions added to the length. No good can come of this under the present scheme for any country that wishes to advance.
July 6th, 2005 at 3:24 am
oh yeah right. as if the pigopolies are gonna consent to having their license to print money “negatively impacted” in any way shape or form.
You’re preaching to the converted, but the pigopolies aren’t listening.