Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Libraries already have an exemption for archival uses. You as an individual are also allowed to format shift. However, you are not allowed to redistribute that content without the permission of the rights holder.
|
Under US law, you're referring to section 108. This only applies to recognised libraries open to the public or to anyone who desires to research the material, so it won't help you when you find that stack of newsprint in your attic (and, BTW, it does allow them very limited redistribution rights).
Format-shifting is covered in the US only under the fair-use defense, and doesn't apply to other countries.
Anyone seeking statutory damages in the US is already obliged to register. Other forms of IP such as trademarks and patents need to be registered to have any protection. Registration of copyright has been a central aspect of its legal framework since the Statute of Anne. If it wasn't onerous in 1708, I can't see why it should be onerous now. Objections to registration seem to be founded on little more than hysterical scare-stories such as the one you provide. There is no reason for it to be massively expensive or time-consuming, we have copious tools for handling and indexing data.
I think it might be reasonable to allow a limited initial period in which registration was not required (say 20 years), under the assumption that the author of the work is unlikely to abandon it so soon after creation. But any further protection, or any transferral of the copyright, should be registered. A lot of our current problems can be traced back to Victor Hugo's ill-considered crusade that resulted in the Berne Convention. The function of copyright is to provide a balance between private remuneration and public good, and that balance is currently not being achieved. We should not allow ourselves to be shackled by the mistakes of the past.