Quote:
Originally Posted by charleski
Format-shifting is covered in the US only under the fair-use defense, and doesn't apply to other countries.
|
The Google Books settlement also only applies to the US, so I think it's OK to discuss US laws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charleski
Anyone seeking statutory damages in the US is already obliged to register....
|
Yes, that doesn't mean you can't sue at all (though it is highly advantageous to register).
Multiple registrations still mean increased costs, increased complexity, and a bigger burden on a US Copyright Office that already has a tremendous backlog.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charleski
If it wasn't onerous in 1708, I can't see why it should be onerous now.
|
Perhaps because the volume of content that requires copyright protection has inflated dramatically since 1708, and because the copyright office already has an 18 month backlog? Just a thought.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charleski
Objections to registration seem to be founded on little more than hysterical scare-stories such as the one you provide.
|
Objections to automatic application of copyright also are based on hysterical scare-stories of orphaned works languishing inaccessibly in attics, with the public weeping over the perceived loss.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charleski
There is no reason for it to be massively expensive or time-consuming, we have copious tools for handling and indexing data.
|
I agree we
could build a system along those lines. If we had such a system, I would not object to a one-time initial registration.
However, the reality is that we are not dedicating the resources to such a system -- even in a time when registration is optional. So as I asked earlier: Who gets to tell Congress, in an era where people apparently want less government interference and are slashing discretionary funds for critical functions like public education, that we need to spend $500 million to upgrade the Copyright Office's website and databases? And a few million every year thereafter for maintenance and further upgrades?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charleski
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.
|
Every time I turn around, someone is modifying what copyright and/or the public domain is about. I swear, I'm getting whiplash.
So remind me, what is the horrific fear-mongering -- oh, pardon me -- the critical data for which the public is crying? The 10% of books that Google scanned, that were sitting in libraries, no one bothered to republish? Yet again, keep in mind that per Google's own estimates, 90% of the books they scanned are NOT orphaned -- they're just out of print.
And realistically, how many works will we save from being orphaned this way? At least some of the works will get re-registered at some point, only to later come under dispute and/or the rights holder goes out of business. I.e. unless you make registration an onerous burden, you're not going to rescue a lot of work.
Required registration is a bad idea, that only gets worse when the government agencies in question are already overburdened and/or underfunded.