Comments on: Book To The Future http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/2004/10/11/book-to-the-future/ The personal web site of Brendon J. Wilson, a software developer, technologist, and entrepreneur living in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Mon, 06 Sep 2010 10:19:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Andrew Tinka http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/2004/10/11/book-to-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-270 Andrew Tinka Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/?p=193#comment-270 Nice idea, except no book written after 1923 is ever going to enter the public domain in the USA. Nice idea, except no book written after 1923 is ever going to enter the public domain in the USA.

]]> By: Brendon J. Wilson http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/2004/10/11/book-to-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-271 Brendon J. Wilson Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/?p=193#comment-271 Well, we'll see. However, your point is well taken - with writers and artists assigning their copyrights to corporations (the business equivalent of the undead), some copyrights may never expire. I sure hope Brewster will be successful in his <a href="http://lessig.org/blog/archives/001796.shtml">bid to free orphan works</a>. Well, we’ll see. However, your point is well taken – with writers and artists assigning their copyrights to corporations (the business equivalent of the undead), some copyrights may never expire. I sure hope Brewster will be successful in his bid to free orphan works.

]]> By: Andrew Tinka http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/2004/10/11/book-to-the-future/comment-page-1/#comment-272 Andrew Tinka Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.brendonwilson.com/blog/?p=193#comment-272 I may be over-simplifying here, but it looks like <a href="http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/about/cases/kahle_v_ashcroft.shtml">Kahle v. Ashcroft</a> is trying to kill the principle of unconditional copyright protection, taking us back to the days when copyright had to be registered and declared. While this would certainly help expand the public domain, to the benefit of archivists and remixers, I can't help but feel that the drawbacks would greatly outweigh the benefits. I think it's fair to say that the major motivation for Kayle v. Brewster is to liberate creativity. Quoting the CIS page: <blockquote>"Just at the time that digital technologies could enable an explosion in creative reuse of our culture, the burdens of an opt-out system of copyright make most reuse of orphaned work essentially impossible."</blockquote> But the same digital technologies are currently enabling an explosion in <em>original creativity</em>, and the unconditional copyright system protects the small-time creator who can't afford to register their work. An opt-in copyright registration system may be workable for substantial works, like movies or books, but how would it deal with webcomics or blogs? It would be naive to assume that these new creative forms do not need or deserve copyright protection. The existing automatic copyright system seems to me to be the only practical way to do it. The U.S. government has decided, thanks to heavy lobbying by the entertainment industry, that copyright should be effectively perpetual. That's wrong, in my mind, and the Eldred case was a fair shot at that bad idea. The courts said no, and now many of the people who supported the Eldred case are aiming at a different target. But I think that if they succeed they might be doing more harm than good. I may be over-simplifying here, but it looks like Kahle v. Ashcroft is trying to kill the principle of unconditional copyright protection, taking us back to the days when copyright had to be registered and declared. While this would certainly help expand the public domain, to the benefit of archivists and remixers, I can’t help but feel that the drawbacks would greatly outweigh the benefits.

I think it’s fair to say that the major motivation for Kayle v. Brewster is to liberate creativity. Quoting the CIS page:

“Just at the time that digital technologies could enable an explosion in creative reuse of our culture, the burdens of an opt-out system of copyright make most reuse of orphaned work essentially impossible.”

But the same digital technologies are currently enabling an explosion in original creativity, and the unconditional copyright system protects the small-time creator who can’t afford to register their work. An opt-in copyright registration system may be workable for substantial works, like movies or books, but how would it deal with webcomics or blogs? It would be naive to assume that these new creative forms do not need or deserve copyright protection. The existing automatic copyright system seems to me to be the only practical way to do it.

The U.S. government has decided, thanks to heavy lobbying by the entertainment industry, that copyright should be effectively perpetual. That’s wrong, in my mind, and the Eldred case was a fair shot at that bad idea. The courts said no, and now many of the people who supported the Eldred case are aiming at a different target. But I think that if they succeed they might be doing more harm than good.

]]>