<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Thanks Tom, very interesting post. Especially the chart of <span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-CA"><a
href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Copyright_term.svg">Expansion
of copyright term in the US</a></span> - 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. <br>
<br>
-M<br>
<br>
On 11/20/2012 01:39 PM, Bishop, Tom wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:EC679C26D5CC934EA467E95EECB6390F032DA60F52@rcs-exch-be1.rcseng.ac.uk"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]-->
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">As
just mentioned – includes details about the Republican Study
Committee report and its subsequent retraction.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Tom.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""
lang="EN-US"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:1709-copyright-blog@googlegroups.com">1709-copyright-blog@googlegroups.com</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:1709-copyright-blog@googlegroups.com">mailto:1709-copyright-blog@googlegroups.com</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Blogger<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 19 November 2012 17:59<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:1709-copyright-blog@googlegroups.com">1709-copyright-blog@googlegroups.com</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [The 1709 Blog] Is the term of protection of
copyright too long?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">Last Friday the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/">Republican Study
Committee</a> published a policy brief entitled "Three
Myths About Copyright Law and Where to Start to Fix It",
which
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121117/16492521084/hollywood-lobbyists-have-busy-saturday-convince-gop-to-retract-copyright-reform-brief.shtml">Techdirt
</a>labelled as "surprisingly awesome". </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">"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...."</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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 <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://infojustice.org/archives/27807">here</a>
thanks to InfoJustice.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html#P127_22000">Berne
Convention</a> 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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dgooKH8lsSE/UKpw87XdYxI/AAAAAAAAAnw/duBGbroi_hw/s1600/int2F7C.PNG"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1025"
src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dgooKH8lsSE/UKpw87XdYxI/AAAAAAAAAnw/duBGbroi_hw/s320/int2F7C.PNG"
border="0" height="198" width="320"></span></a><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">An interesting post by the
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2012/pre-1976">Center
for the Study of the Public Domain</a>, 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:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">- J.R.R. Tolkien's The Return of the King, the
final installment in his Lord of Rings trilogy.</span><br>
<span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">- Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita.</span><br>
<span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">- Richard III, Laurence Olivier's film version
of the Shakespeare play.</span><br>
<span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">- 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.</span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">The<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://opengov.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Reduce-copyright-terms-to-the-minimum-required-by-the-Berne-Convention/5603-4049">
Open Government Dialogue</a> 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.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">The RSC's policy said that:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">"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."</span><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yziCPGoPOBQ/UKpxBDkdP8I/AAAAAAAAAn4/qZ3F26q-gN4/s1600/int7228.PNG"><span
style="text-decoration:none"><img moz-do-not-send="true"
id="_x0000_i1026"
src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yziCPGoPOBQ/UKpxBDkdP8I/AAAAAAAAAn4/qZ3F26q-gN4/s320/int7228.PNG"
border="0" height="141" width="320"></span></a><span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif""
lang="EN-CA">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.</span><br>
<br>
<span
style="font-family:"Cambria","serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-CA">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?</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-CA">More legible versions of the above images can
be accessed here:</span><br>
<br>
<span lang="EN-CA"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_copyright_terms.svg"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">Map showing
copyright term worldwide</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="margin-bottom:9.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-CA">© Balfour Smith, Canuckguy, Badseed</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif""
lang="EN-CA"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Copyright_term.svg">Expansion
of copyright term in the US</a></span><br>
<span
style="font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-CA">© Vectorization: Clorox (diskussion), Original
image: Tom Bell.</span>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Posted By Blogger to <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://the1709blog.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-term-of-protection-of-copyright-too.html">The
1709 Blog</a> on 11/19/2012 05:58:00 PM <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- <br>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google<br>
Groups "1709 Copyright Blog" group. To unsubscribe, email <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:1709-copyright-blog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">1709-copyright-blog+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<hr>
<font color="Gray" face="Arial" size="3">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.<br>
</font>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Marcin Wojnarski, Founder and CEO, TunedIT
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://tunedit.org">http://tunedit.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.facebook.com/TunedIT">http://www.facebook.com/TunedIT</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://twitter.com/TunedIT">http://twitter.com/TunedIT</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski">http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinwojnarski</a>
TunedIT - Online Laboratory for Intelligent Algorithms
</pre>
</body>
</html>