US Gov seeks to strike a copyright balance, wants your input

[Alexander Turcic]

Last month, the US Department of Commerce's Internet Task Force (IPTF) issued a tentative report titled Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (download PDF) to advance discussion on a set of copyright policies. From its introduction:

It is time to assess whether the current balance of rights, exceptions and responsibilities – crafted, for the most part, before the rapid advances in computing and networking of the past two decades – is still working for creators, rights holders, service providers, and consumers. The Internet must continue to support a legitimate market for copyrighted works as well as provide a platform for innovation and the introduction of new and dynamic services that drive digital commerce. And we must ensure that free expression, respect for consumer privacy, and cybersecurity are preserved in the online environment. The government can promote progress as a convener of the many stakeholder groups – including creators, industry, and consumers – that share an interest in maintaining an appropriate balance within the copyright system.

According to Shira Perlmutter, Chief Policy Officer at the US Patent and Trademark Office, the report calls for your input:

The Green Paper calls for new public input on critical policy issues that are central to our nation’s economic growth, cultural development and job creation. It is intended to serve as a reference for stakeholders, a blueprint for further action, and a contribution to global copyright debates. As promised in the paper, we will soon be reaching out to the public for views on a variety of topics. Please stay tuned for announcements about how to share your thoughts, insights, and recommendations.

If your input could really make a difference, what is it first and foremost that you'd want to change about current copyright policies?

[via Slashdot, source: Recording Industry vs The People]

[doctorow]

Interesting. The paper seems to raise issues that have been discussed by the US Copyright Office in their discussions of copyright reform. Just curious how the US Patent and Trademark Office fits into this.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by doctorow

Interesting. The paper seems to raise issues that have been discussed by the US Copyright Office in their discussions of copyright reform. Just curious how the US Patent and Trademark Office fits into this.

Overlapping jurisdictions. Both protect new ideas. (More accurately, the way in which the ideas are expressed-I'm saying this poorly but you can say or do the same thing in different ways. The thing itself isn't protected by either copyright or patent, only the way in which you've done it.)

One obvious (to me) change is shorten the ridiculous length of copyright. I don't think a single length will work for all situations but I can see a 'longer of the options' type of thing. For example, copyright lasting the life of the creator or 25 years, whichever is longer. That protects a work whose creator dies before it is published (think A Confederacy of Dunces) as well as during his life.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

If your input could really make a difference, what is it first and foremost that you'd want to change about current copyright policies?

Copyright should last as long as the copyright holder wants it to last; as long as the copyright is renewed every "x" number of years (around 10 years or so). Failure to do so will send the work to the public domain.

[rkw]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright should last as long as the copyright holder wants it to last; as long as the copyright is renewed every "x" number of years (around 10 years or so). Failure to do so will send the work to the public domain.

makes too much sense so it can't possibly appeal to "They".

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright should last as long as the copyright holder wants it to last; as long as the copyright is renewed every "x" number of years (around 10 years or so). Failure to do so will send the work to the public domain.

I tend to agree with this laissez-faire approach in theory. In practice, it's more complicated...

We stole countries with the cunning use of flags. Just sail around the world and stick a flag in. "I claim India for Britain!" They're going "You can't claim us, we live here! Five hundred million of us!" "Do you have a flag …? "What? We don't need a flag, this is our home, you bastards" "No flag, No Country, You can't have one! Those are the rules... that I just made up!...and I'm backing it up with this gun, that was lent to me from the National Rifle Association."

Ideas are kind of like that. People use an idea for centuries, some guy likes the idea, fills out a form, and no one else can use it.

So, you have to at least strictly define what can be copyrighted and for how long and that is a pragmatic thing. You only want something protected long enough to encourage people to continue to work on ideas then you want to release it to the public domain for integration into bigger ideas.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

One obvious (to me) change is shorten the ridiculous length of copyright. I don't think a single length will work for all situations but I can see a 'longer of the options' type of thing. For example, copyright lasting the life of the creator or 25 years, whichever is longer. That protects a work whose creator dies before it is published (think A Confederacy of Dunces) as well as during his life.

Can't happen while the US is a signatory to the International Berne Copyright Convention. This mandates a minimum copyright term of life + 50 years.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Copyright should last as long as the copyright holder wants it to last; as long as the copyright is renewed every "x" number of years (around 10 years or so). Failure to do so will send the work to the public domain.

This is what I think, too, though I would allow longer renewal terms--say, 50 years initially and 25 years per renewal. This kind of scheme would allow an entity like Disney to keep control of Mickey et al. forevever while letting a lot of other material fall into public domain.

[TuxGirl]

My thought of an option that would make everyone mostly happy:

Initial copyright term: 25 years
Renewal: 75$, every 5 years
Can renew indefinitely

That way, orphan works move quickly to the public domain, but Disney can stop messing with copyright law.

There would need to be an online registry of all books under copyright, which would need to be publicly accessible in order to find the copyright status of any work.

The cost of renewal could be adjusted. Its main purpose is to create some tiny barrier to renewing forever, so that a work that is earning the copyright owner very little will not be worth renewing forever, but should be low enough that it isn't a problem for an owner who wants to keep their book for a longer time if they want to.

[Greg Anos]

Alex, I will write a opinion for the public input this evening. I will repost it here afterwards.

I recognize the limits of the Berne Treaty. I also recognize that the US does not follow it completely, either.

[pdurrant]

Forget thinking that you'll be able to shorten copyright terms in this consultation.

I suggest that people might make a difference arguing for more explicit exemptions from the DMCA and more explicit fair use exemptions.

It ought to be legal to rip a DVD or Blu-ray movie to a computer hard disk just as it's currently legal (in the US) to rip a CD to hard disk.

It ought to be legal to convert ebooks to other formats, even if that requires removing DRM.

I just hope this isn't a cover for 'let's extend copyright again'.

[Greg Anos]

pdurrant, don't you want me to win my zinc cent?

[Greg Anos]

It is (as we Texans say) a "hanging judge". Looks like SOPA under another cover.

Please note - it's over 100 pages. I'll be spending this evening reading it...

From the Executive Summary:

The Task Force has taken into account the views expressed in the public meeting, submitted comments, and listening sessions, and is now issuing this paper to stimulate further public discussion on a number of specific topics that were either raised through those avenues or that have emerged subsequently. The paper does not purport to provide an exhaustive catalog of all issues relating to copyright in the online environment,6 but outlines the major issues that are making their way through the courts, merit further attention, or require solutions.
.
.
.
2) Assessing and improving enforcement tools to combat online infringement and promote the growth of legitimate services while preserving the essential functioning of the Internet.
a) The Task Force repeats the Administration’s prior call for Congress to enact legislation adopting the same range of penalties for criminal streaming of copyrighted works to the public as now exists for criminal reproduction and distribution;
b) The Task Force will solicit public comment and convene roundtables regarding the application of statutory damages in the context of individual file-sharers and secondary liability for large-scale online infringement;
c) The Task Force will establish a multi-stakeholder dialogue on how to improve the operation of the DMCA’s notice and takedown system;
d) The Task Force supports the Copyright Office’s improvement of the DMCA database of designated agents, as well as its examination of possible small claims procedures that can assist individual creators and SMEs in enforcing their rights online;
e) The Task Force supports and encourages the development of appropriate voluntary private sector initiatives to improve online enforcement, and will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of such initiatives to determine whether additional action should be considered; and
f) The Task Force encourages enhancing public education and outreach efforts to inform consumers about both rights and exceptions and to encourage the use of legitimate online services.


.
.
.
6 We do not address various broader or newly emerging topics, among them: the term of copyright protection; jurisdiction and choice of law issues; implied license; the scope of statutory licenses for cable and satellite retransmissions; certain limitations and exceptions not specific to the Internet environment; and the copyright implications of data mining and 3D printing.

[Jessica Lares]

I just want there to be a policy where if you publish something, whether it be a song, album, e-book, movie, or TV show, that it always has to be readily available to the people who bought it, even if you do revoke the rights from the distributor.

Not that we don't LOVE having our content digitally, we all do. However, it's not right that they can take it away from us after paying the money to "own" it.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by wizwor

So, you have to at least strictly define what can be copyrighted and for how long and that is a pragmatic thing. You only want something protected long enough to encourage people to continue to work on ideas then you want to release it to the public domain for integration into bigger ideas.

This is what copyright is meant to do.

rjb