Categories:
Links:
The democratic paradigm emphasizes, in contrast, that copyright is, like many institutions of civil society, in, but not of, the market. Its scope must be broad enough to assure the independence and vitality of civil society's communicative sphere, but not so broad as to smother expressive diversity. While the democratic paradigm may incorporate neoclassicist insights about how copyright operates in the market, it makes clear that copyright's paramount objective is not allocative efficiency, but citizen participation in democratic self-rule. The democratic paradigm has particular poignancy for copyright's central role in the computer network environment. In that context the paradigm denies the neoclassicist vision of cyberspace as a "celestial jukebox,"[463] a place where copyright owners are entitled to full payment for each and every use of their works. It also rejects the fantasy, put forth by some minimalist copyright critics, of a hacker's heaven, a realm free from our bourgeois "obsession" with "authorship" and "plagiarism."[464] The democratic paradigm posits, instead, that copyright should be defined and delimited to engender an information infrastructure populated with a lively interplay of sustained works of authorship. Such an infrastructure-more aptly described as a digital public square-would best enhance the democratic character of civil society.
The democratic paradigm emphasizes, in contrast, that copyright is, like many institutions of civil society, in, but not of, the market. Its scope must be broad enough to assure the independence and vitality of civil society's communicative sphere, but not so broad as to smother expressive diversity. While the democratic paradigm may incorporate neoclassicist insights about how copyright operates in the market, it makes clear that copyright's paramount objective is not allocative efficiency, but citizen participation in democratic self-rule.
The democratic paradigm has particular poignancy for copyright's central role in the computer network environment. In that context the paradigm denies the neoclassicist vision of cyberspace as a "celestial jukebox,"[463] a place where copyright owners are entitled to full payment for each and every use of their works. It also rejects the fantasy, put forth by some minimalist copyright critics, of a hacker's heaven, a realm free from our bourgeois "obsession" with "authorship" and "plagiarism."[464] The democratic paradigm posits, instead, that copyright should be defined and delimited to engender an information infrastructure populated with a lively interplay of sustained works of authorship. Such an infrastructure-more aptly described as a digital public square-would best enhance the democratic character of civil society.
At the close of their discussion, the participants in the 100th Assembly on "Art, Technology and Intellectual Property," at Arden House, Harriman, new York, February 7-10, 2002, reviewed as a group the following statement. While the statement represents general agreement, no one was asked to sign it. Furthermore, it should be understood that not everyone agreed with all of it, and some vigorously disagreed with some of it.
Abstract For the past several hundred years, publishers have promoted a simplistic view of copyright. Copyright is a matter of fairness to authors, they argue. Authors own their creations and therefore should be free to control them. But the history of copyright and its underlying philosophy contradicts that simple view. Copyright is not about fairness to authors; copyright is about balancing interests, including the interest of the public. This article provides a (very!) brief history of copyright and its philosophy in order to show that the publishers’ simple view is inaccurate, and suggests that understanding copyright’s nature is the first step to solve the problems of copyright in the modern world.
Abstract
For the past several hundred years, publishers have promoted a simplistic view of copyright. Copyright is a matter of fairness to authors, they argue. Authors own their creations and therefore should be free to control them. But the history of copyright and its underlying philosophy contradicts that simple view. Copyright is not about fairness to authors; copyright is about balancing interests, including the interest of the public. This article provides a (very!) brief history of copyright and its philosophy in order to show that the publishers’ simple view is inaccurate, and suggests that understanding copyright’s nature is the first step to solve the problems of copyright in the modern world.
What can we do about the apparently inexorable influence that ignorance and politics wield over copyright and patent law? We can, for a start, learn to recognize and resist how copyright and patent owners co-opt the rhetoric of property. Such rhetoric proves especially attractive to those who have for so long courageously defended rights to tangible property. ...It might also help drive the development of alternatives to copyright and patent were we to encourage practices more clearly demarcating the line between protected and unprotected creations. This would prove especially helpful in copyright law, where U.S. law by default grants protection to every fixed expression of authorship. I've thus argued for applying notices such as "Uncopyright," "Uncopr.," or even just "(¢)" to works that have been removed from, fallen out of, or never qualified for the Copyright Act's protections. Such notices would encourage the growth of an "open" copyright system, one that respects and encourages movement across the Act's porous border. Beyond those measures, the best options for effectuating reform of copyright and patent law remain the standbys of reformers everywhere: long-shot legal claims, the diffuse effects of popular opinion, and long-term academic debates. Although that may sound dispiriting, I assure you from personal experience that it can prove a very engaging project. At the very least, the hard job of privatizing copyright and patent law promises to keep liberty-loving policy wonks motivated and busy for years to come.
What can we do about the apparently inexorable influence that ignorance and politics wield over copyright and patent law? We can, for a start, learn to recognize and resist how copyright and patent owners co-opt the rhetoric of property. Such rhetoric proves especially attractive to those who have for so long courageously defended rights to tangible property.
...It might also help drive the development of alternatives to copyright and patent were we to encourage practices more clearly demarcating the line between protected and unprotected creations. This would prove especially helpful in copyright law, where U.S. law by default grants protection to every fixed expression of authorship. I've thus argued for applying notices such as "Uncopyright," "Uncopr.," or even just "(¢)" to works that have been removed from, fallen out of, or never qualified for the Copyright Act's protections. Such notices would encourage the growth of an "open" copyright system, one that respects and encourages movement across the Act's porous border.
Beyond those measures, the best options for effectuating reform of copyright and patent law remain the standbys of reformers everywhere: long-shot legal claims, the diffuse effects of popular opinion, and long-term academic debates. Although that may sound dispiriting, I assure you from personal experience that it can prove a very engaging project. At the very least, the hard job of privatizing copyright and patent law promises to keep liberty-loving policy wonks motivated and busy for years to come.
Napster's meteoric rise in 1999-2000 made the implications of piracy apparent to the recording industry. Millions of music lovers began sharing songs in the form of digital files over the Internet. The recording industry's lawsuits finally shut Napster down, but today's next-generation software, such as KaZaA and Morpheus, allows transmission of digital movies and books. Recording-industry sales are slumping because of such software, the music labels say. Now the movie industry is getting worried. "What is past is prologue," says Matt Gerson, senior vice president of U.S. public policy for Vivendi Universal, a French conglomerate that owns a record label and a studio. "Music had the disadvantage of being first. But the movie industry is paying close attention because they face the same dilemma -- it is just a matter of when." Technology-industry players disagree, saying that the recording industry has only itself to blame. Napster happened, tech companies argue, because the recording industry failed to respond to the realities of the Internet and to consumer demand. The recording industry wasn't willing -- until recently -- to sacrifice its big profit margins from CD sales for untested models of digital distribution. The recording industry began by suing companies that created digital music players. But consumers wanted music on the Web, and that demand turned to outright rebellion when Napster opened the door to easy file-sharing.
Napster's meteoric rise in 1999-2000 made the implications of piracy apparent to the recording industry. Millions of music lovers began sharing songs in the form of digital files over the Internet. The recording industry's lawsuits finally shut Napster down, but today's next-generation software, such as KaZaA and Morpheus, allows transmission of digital movies and books. Recording-industry sales are slumping because of such software, the music labels say. Now the movie industry is getting worried.
"What is past is prologue," says Matt Gerson, senior vice president of U.S. public policy for Vivendi Universal, a French conglomerate that owns a record label and a studio. "Music had the disadvantage of being first. But the movie industry is paying close attention because they face the same dilemma -- it is just a matter of when."
Technology-industry players disagree, saying that the recording industry has only itself to blame. Napster happened, tech companies argue, because the recording industry failed to respond to the realities of the Internet and to consumer demand. The recording industry wasn't willing -- until recently -- to sacrifice its big profit margins from CD sales for untested models of digital distribution. The recording industry began by suing companies that created digital music players. But consumers wanted music on the Web, and that demand turned to outright rebellion when Napster opened the door to easy file-sharing.
THE OTHER DAY I found a video of a kids' movie I bought for my son years ago. Because my son has long outgrown the video, do I have the right to give it to a friend with kids young enough to appreciate it? ... One reader was flabbergasted to discover a discounted DVD player she had just purchased could not play all the DVDs she purchased with it, apparently because it was not compatible with the most recent DRM (digital rights management technology). "The store owner said I could buy a more expensive brand name model that would be compatible with the DRM technology the newer DVDs are using, but even then there's no guarantee it would play the next DVD I buy," she writes. "It's criminal that they can sell you a DVD without warning you it doesn't work on all DVD players. What ever happened to the idea of industry standards?" ... So returning to my kid's old video, do I have the right to give it away or even resell it? Under traditional interpretation of copyright law, there's no question that I do. And because it's an old video, I don't have to worry about whether or not it will play in my friend's VCR. Why should that change because a company decides to slap a license agreement on its product or insert a copy protection scheme in it? It shouldn't. Yet in the DMCA era, it seems as if it does. Congress has already sold out some very basic rights, and with elections coming and campaign coffers needing to be filled, our politicians appear eager to sell out some more. What can we do about it? I recommend you go to http://www.eff.org and learn how you can tell your representatives that you have a vote and plan to use it.
THE OTHER DAY I found a video of a kids' movie I bought for my son years ago. Because my son has long outgrown the video, do I have the right to give it to a friend with kids young enough to appreciate it?
... One reader was flabbergasted to discover a discounted DVD player she had just purchased could not play all the DVDs she purchased with it, apparently because it was not compatible with the most recent DRM (digital rights management technology). "The store owner said I could buy a more expensive brand name model that would be compatible with the DRM technology the newer DVDs are using, but even then there's no guarantee it would play the next DVD I buy," she writes. "It's criminal that they can sell you a DVD without warning you it doesn't work on all DVD players. What ever happened to the idea of industry standards?"
... So returning to my kid's old video, do I have the right to give it away or even resell it? Under traditional interpretation of copyright law, there's no question that I do. And because it's an old video, I don't have to worry about whether or not it will play in my friend's VCR.
Why should that change because a company decides to slap a license agreement on its product or insert a copy protection scheme in it? It shouldn't. Yet in the DMCA era, it seems as if it does. Congress has already sold out some very basic rights, and with elections coming and campaign coffers needing to be filled, our politicians appear eager to sell out some more. What can we do about it? I recommend you go to http://www.eff.org and learn how you can tell your representatives that you have a vote and plan to use it.
Web publishers have long been targets of zealous copyright and trademark holders, but free speech advocates say intellectual property owners these days are more aggressively training their legal guns on both small one-man-band Web sites and the Internet service providers (ISPs) that host or link to them, hoping to get pages or material removed. In recent years, intellectual property holders have expanded their efforts to deep linking and metatags. Now they're pursuing search services, pay-for-play sites and Web libraries . Last month, the Church of Scientology sent a letter to the Internet Archive, persuading the site to pull down archived pages that were critical of the church's beliefs.
Web publishers have long been targets of zealous copyright and trademark holders, but free speech advocates say intellectual property owners these days are more aggressively training their legal guns on both small one-man-band Web sites and the Internet service providers (ISPs) that host or link to them, hoping to get pages or material removed.
In recent years, intellectual property holders have expanded their efforts to deep linking and metatags. Now they're pursuing search services, pay-for-play sites and Web libraries . Last month, the Church of Scientology sent a letter to the Internet Archive, persuading the site to pull down archived pages that were critical of the church's beliefs.
But Marybeth Peters, who for 38 years has labored away in the U.S. Copyright Office, an obscure arm of the library, is serving as referee in the battle between entertainment firms that are trying to control the copying and piracy of their content, and technology companies and consumers eager to explore new conveniences offered by the Internet. But Internet radio is just one of many areas of debate in which Copyright Register Peters and her office will play a big role. As the federal government's top expert on copyright law, she will have a significant influence on how people can download music, tape TV programs and copy or sell e-books. Her agency recently declared that consumers -- who are free to sell books and CDs that they have legally acquired -- should have no such rights when it comes to e-books or digital music.
But Marybeth Peters, who for 38 years has labored away in the U.S. Copyright Office, an obscure arm of the library, is serving as referee in the battle between entertainment firms that are trying to control the copying and piracy of their content, and technology companies and consumers eager to explore new conveniences offered by the Internet.
But Internet radio is just one of many areas of debate in which Copyright Register Peters and her office will play a big role. As the federal government's top expert on copyright law, she will have a significant influence on how people can download music, tape TV programs and copy or sell e-books.
Her agency recently declared that consumers -- who are free to sell books and CDs that they have legally acquired -- should have no such rights when it comes to e-books or digital music.
Duke University's law school has received an anonymous $1 million gift to fund advocacy and research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law. The school, which plans to announce the gift at a conference in Washington on Thursday, is using the money to fund a center focused on finding "the correct balance" between intellectual property rights and material that should be in the public domain. James Boyle, a Duke law professor and co-director of the school's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, says that the center is likely to look skeptically at recent laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and a measure that extended duration of copyrights by 20 years.
Duke University's law school has received an anonymous $1 million gift to fund advocacy and research aimed at curtailing the recent expansion of copyright law.
The school, which plans to announce the gift at a conference in Washington on Thursday, is using the money to fund a center focused on finding "the correct balance" between intellectual property rights and material that should be in the public domain.
James Boyle, a Duke law professor and co-director of the school's Center for the Study of the Public Domain, says that the center is likely to look skeptically at recent laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and a measure that extended duration of copyrights by 20 years.
The National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) was established by Congress, and operated between 1975 and 1978 to determine how the Copyright Act of 1976 should address computers and copy machines. On July 31, 1978, it issued its Final Report, which is frequently cited, but not readily available. We have scanned a copy of the report and have converted it both to PDF and HTML files.
The National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) was established by Congress, and operated between 1975 and 1978 to determine how the Copyright Act of 1976 should address computers and copy machines. On July 31, 1978, it issued its Final Report, which is frequently cited, but not readily available.
We have scanned a copy of the report and have converted it both to PDF and HTML files.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy Activism recently introduced " Carabella," a game designed around Macromedia's Flash animation software. Players assume the role of the title character and guide her through a series of decisions as she tries to acquire new tunes by her favorite band. Carabella has to decide between licensed online music services or peer-to-peer, normal or copy-protected CDs, a regular Internet connection or a proxy service that conceals the user's identity. Players are scored based on how well they guard their privacy while obtaining the music they want without violating or giving up copyright protections.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy Activism recently introduced " Carabella," a game designed around Macromedia's Flash animation software. Players assume the role of the title character and guide her through a series of decisions as she tries to acquire new tunes by her favorite band.
Carabella has to decide between licensed online music services or peer-to-peer, normal or copy-protected CDs, a regular Internet connection or a proxy service that conceals the user's identity. Players are scored based on how well they guard their privacy while obtaining the music they want without violating or giving up copyright protections.
In the swirling debate over digital rights and intellectual property, Bram Cohen ran into a surprising discovery as he developed a new software program in the past year: It's an uphill battle to convince people that individuals can make their work freely available over the Internet, available for folks to use however they want without any obligations.
If you can set the rules, you can win the contest. That's the major reason the entertainment cartel is winning the debate over copyright in the Digital Age. Average people are not part of the conversation, not in any way that matters. To the cartel and its chattel in the halls of political power, we are nothing but ``consumers'' -- our sole function is to eat what the movie, music and publishing industries put in front of us, and then send money.
If you can set the rules, you can win the contest. That's the major reason the entertainment cartel is winning the debate over copyright in the Digital Age.
Average people are not part of the conversation, not in any way that matters. To the cartel and its chattel in the halls of political power, we are nothing but ``consumers'' -- our sole function is to eat what the movie, music and publishing industries put in front of us, and then send money.
Lessig would limit software copyrights to 10 years. After that, the code would wind up in the public domain. I can't think of a better prescription for formalizing the existing constellation of power that favors the Microsofts and Oracles over the small and independent developers. At this juncture in the history of the software industry, more so than ever before, 10 years doesn't amount to a hill of JavaBeans--not when you're attempting to build up brand, distribution and customer loyalty in an increasingly fragmented and competitive market.
Lessig would limit software copyrights to 10 years. After that, the code would wind up in the public domain. I can't think of a better prescription for formalizing the existing constellation of power that favors the Microsofts and Oracles over the small and independent developers.
At this juncture in the history of the software industry, more so than ever before, 10 years doesn't amount to a hill of JavaBeans--not when you're attempting to build up brand, distribution and customer loyalty in an increasingly fragmented and competitive market.
Digital IP Links Home | Search Links | New Links | Popular Links | Top Rated | Admin Login | Powered by ssLinks v1.22