[GOAL] Re: FW: [The 1709 Blog] Is the term of protection of copyright too long?

Tue Nov 20 17:16:10 GMT 2012

Thanks Tom, very interesting post. Especially the chart of Expansion of 
copyright term in the US 
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Copyright_term.svg> 
- informative how these terms keep rising every several years, to the 
benefit of IP-based corporations and disadvantage of everyone else, 
including academia and society as a whole. I suspect very few people 
realize that such a constant trend takes place.

-M

On 11/20/2012 01:39 PM, Bishop, Tom wrote:
>
> As just mentioned -- includes details about the Republican Study 
> Committee report and its subsequent retraction.
>
> Tom.
>
> *From:*1709-copyright-blog at googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:1709-copyright-blog at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Blogger
> *Sent:* 19 November 2012 17:59
> *To:* 1709-copyright-blog at googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* [The 1709 Blog] Is the term of protection of copyright too 
> long?
>
> Last Friday the Republican Study Committee 
> <http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/> published a policy brief entitled 
> "Three Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It", which 
> Techdirt 
> <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121117/16492521084/hollywood-lobbyists-have-busy-saturday-convince-gop-to-retract-copyright-reform-brief.shtml>labelled 
> as "surprisingly awesome".
>
> The brief analysed the "possible reforms to copyright law that will 
> lead to more economic development for the private sector and to a 
> copyright law that is more firmly based upon constitutional 
> principles". It argued that the current US copyright regime has 
> retarded the creation of a robust DJ/Remix industry, hampers 
> scientific inquiry, stifles the creation of a public library, 
> discourages added-value industries and penalises legitimate journalism 
> and oversight.
>
> The brief suggested the following four potential policy solutions: 
> statutory damages reform, expansion of fair use, punishing false 
> copyright claims and heavily limiting the terms for copyright and 
> creating disincentives for renewal.
>
> However, the day after the brief was published the RSC issued a 
> statement retracting it. The Executive Director of the RSC, Paul 
> Teller, sent an email saying:
>
> "We at the RSC take pride in providing informative analysis of major 
> policy issues and pending legislation that accounts for the range of 
> perspectives held by RSC Members and within the conservative 
> community. Yesterday you received a Policy Brief on copyright law that 
> was published without adequate review within the RSC and failed to 
> meet that standard. Copyright reform would have far-reaching impacts, 
> so it is incredibly important that it be approached with all facts and 
> viewpoints in hand. As the RSC's Executive Director, I apologize and 
> take full responsibility for this oversight. Enjoy the rest of your 
> weekend and a meaningful Thanksgiving holiday...."
>
> It is hard to find any information on the RSC's website, neither the 
> brief nor the statement retracting it are there, however you can 
> access a copy of the brief here 
> <http://infojustice.org/archives/27807> thanks to InfoJustice.
>
> The suggestion by the RSC brief  to reduce the term of protection is 
> particularly interesting and has already been much discussed. Article 
> 7 of the Berne Convention 
> <http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P127_22000> 
> provides for minimum copyright protection of 50 years plus life, and 
> current US law grants copyright protection for 70 years after the date 
> of the author's death.
>
> <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dgooKH8lsSE/UKpw87XdYxI/AAAAAAAAAnw/duBGbroi_hw/s1600/int2F7C.PNG>Both 
> seem relatively long, in particular compared with the limited 
> protection granted to inventions by patents. As you can see from the 
> graphic to the right, copyright term in the US has increased steadily 
> over the years. Before 1978 (which is when the US Copyright Act 1976 
> came into force), copyright was protected for an initial term of 28 
> years, renewable for a further 28 years, giving a maximum term of 56 
> years.
>
> An interesting post by the Center for the Study of the Public Domain 
> <http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976>, at Duke 
> University, lists the works (published in 1955) that would have come 
> into the public domain this year had the US Copyright Act of 1976 
> remained in force. These include:
>
> - J.R.R. Tolkien's The Return of the King, the final installment in 
> his Lord of Rings trilogy.
> - Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita.
> - Richard III, Laurence Olivier's film version of the Shakespeare play.
> - Various scientific journal articles about the synthesis of DNA- and 
> RNA-like molecules, the effect of placebos, the experimental 
> confirmation of the existence of the antiproton, fibre optics, and the 
> synthesis of mendelevium.
>
> There is a certain irony that utility patents are currently protected 
> for 20 years from application whereas articles containing know-how 
> required to make the products of the patents can be protected for 70 
> years.
>
> In the US there is a registration requirement for copyright, which 
> makes it possible to see how many rightsholders still rely on 
> copyright in works published in 1955, by looking at how many of them 
> renewed their copyright registrations after the first 28 year term. 
> The Center for the Study of the Public Domain has done the maths: 85% 
> of authors did not renew their copyright (for books 93% did not 
> renew). This means that if the pre-1978 law were still in force, 85% 
> of the works created in 1983 might have come into the public domain 
> this year.
>
> TheOpen Government Dialogue 
> <http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Reduce-copyright-terms-to-the-minimum-required-by-the-Berne-Convention/5603-4049> 
> suggests that: "Life of the author plus 50 years is enough to take 
> care of the author and his family, and that is really what copyright 
> protection is all about. The corporations are not people and do not 
> need such protection to be successful." The above evidence indicates 
> that a term of protection of 28 years is sufficient.
>
> The RSC's policy said that:
>
> "It is difficult to argue that the life of the author plus 70 years is 
> an appropriate copyright term for this purpose -- what possible new 
> incentive was given to the content producer for content protection for 
> a term of life plus 70 years vs. a term of life plus 50 years? Where 
> we have reached a point of such diminishing returns we must be 
> especially aware of the known and predictable impact upon the greater 
> market that these policies have held, and we are left to wonder on the 
> impact that we will never know until we restore a constitutional 
> copyright system."
>
> <http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yziCPGoPOBQ/UKpxBDkdP8I/AAAAAAAAAn4/qZ3F26q-gN4/s1600/int7228.PNG>The 
> RSC's policy suggested that the term of copyright protection should be 
> reduced to 12 years for all new works, with various renewal periods 
> but with an upper limit of 46 years' copyright protection. This would 
> contravene the Berne Convention however given the retraction of that 
> policy we are unlikely to see any change in the US law any time soon.
>
> I would be interested to hear what readers think: is the current US 
> protection of 70 years plus life too long? Is the Berne Convention 
> minimum of 50 years plus life too long? Given that copyright is more 
> and more often used to protect technology, should the term of 
> protection of copyright be aligned with that of of patents?
>
>
> More legible versions of the above images can be accessed here:
>
> Map showing copyright term worldwide 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_copyright_terms.svg>
>
> © Balfour Smith, Canuckguy, Badseed
>
> Expansion of copyright term in the US 
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Copyright_term.svg>
> © Vectorization: Clorox (diskussion), Original image: Tom Bell.
>
> --
> Posted By Blogger to The 1709 Blog 
> <http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-term-of-protection-of-copyright-too.html> 
> on 11/19/2012 05:58:00 PM
>
> -- 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "1709 Copyright Blog" group. To unsubscribe, email
> 1709-copyright-blog+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com 
> <mailto:1709-copyright-blog+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they 
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify 
> the system manager. This message contains confidential information and 
> is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named 
> addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


-- 
Marcin Wojnarski, Founder and CEO, TunedIT
http://tunedit.org
http://www.facebook.com/TunedIT
http://twitter.com/TunedIT
http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski

TunedIT - Online Laboratory for Intelligent Algorithms

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20121120/31647c4e/attachment-0001.html