1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/3214/improving-copyright-law-baby-steps/

Improving Copyright Law: Baby Steps

February 24, 2005 by

As an opponent of modern statute-based federal copyright law, I’m in favor of any improvement, including incremental reductions in the scope of copyright. Lawrence Lessig suggests encouraging the Copyright Office to recommend changes to Copyright Law to make it easier to use “orphaned works”–copyrighted works where the rights holder is hard to find.

For those who are aware of the problems with modern copyright law, you might consider providing comments to the US Copyright Office to offer “solutions” to the problem of “orphan works”. More info below and here. Even supporters of copyright law should recognize the problems noted here.—–Original Message—–
From: Lawrence Lessig [mailto:COMMENTS@ELDRED.cc]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:05 PM
To: Stephan
Subject: Copyright Office request for comments on “orphaned works”

Sorry about the intrusion, but an important opportunity has come up for you to have a positive impact on the direction of copyright law and I wanted to let you know about it directly.

Thanks to some prodding by a couple of great US Senators, the copyright office is currently considering whether to recommend changes to copyright law that will make it easier and cheaper for you to use “orphaned works” — works that remain under copyright but whose “owner” can’t be found. As many of you have written me, this is a real problem that affects thousands of innovative people every year. But the copyright office still needs some convincing.

To convince them, we need your help. If you have a relevant story, or a perspective that might help the Copyright Office evaluate this issue, I would be grateful if you took just a few minutes to write an email telling them your story. The most valuable submissions will make clear the practical burden the existing system creates. (One of my favorite stories is about a copy-shop’s refusal to enlarge a 60 year old photo from an elementary school year book for a eulogy because the copyright owner couldn’t be found.) Describe instances where you wanted to use a work, but couldn’t find the owner to ask permission. Explain how that impacted your ability to create. Or pass this email on to someone who you know might have a useful story to add.

The Copyright Office is already overworked and understaffed, so I’m not asking that you stuff their inbox with demands for action, or anything like that. They are not Congress. They are not even the FCC. Their role here is as fact-finder, so “just the facts, ma’am.” (Oops, do I need permission to use that?)

Everything you need to do this is online at http://eldred.cc. We’ve explained exactly what the copyright office is asking for, how and where to submit your email, and provided some examples of stories we’ve heard from others about how their creativity has been stalled when they’ve tried to use orphan works. If you have questions, there’s a contact email there for people who can help you out.

In spite of my usual pessimism, I think we have a real opportunity here to move the law in a positive direction. Please help us “promote the Progress of Science” (and that text is in the public domain), by showing the Copyright Office where unnecessary regulation hampers progress.


Paul D February 24, 2005 at 1:17 am

Considering that all those ridiculous copyright laws in the US are bought and paid for by corporations, I don’t see what appealing to the Copyright Office is going to accomplish. Unless you can afford to pay jerks like Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) bigger bribes than the media companies do.

Curt Howland February 24, 2005 at 9:25 am

Don’t forget Ernest Hollings (D-Disney)

iceberg February 24, 2005 at 12:14 pm

There is a great short story titled “Melancholy Elephants” which I’ve read and enjoyed years ago, which offers a critique of copyright and intellectual property laws.

The short story can be found here: Melancholy Elephants

Copywrong February 24, 2005 at 5:02 pm

Beyond the issue of orphaned copyrights is the issue of suppressed works. Most aren’t *actively* suppressed but are *passively* suppressed through inaction. The best example of the suppressed work is found in magazines and newspapers. How much revenue is the May, 1968 issue of “Fonebone Digest” currently earning for its copyright holder? Likely none. How difficult is it for an interested 3rd party to reprint the material? Very. Why? The copyright law is standing in the way of both parties. The old material sits unused earning no money and discourages new uses and revenue opportunities. By making reprint rights easier, the rights holder can realize new revenue on old stock, and the new user can find innovative ways to use the old material. This applies to old audio and video too.

As a first step, I’d propose something like the situation with songwriters: old material can be re-used by anyone for a nominal fee. How old? Let’s arbitrarily make it over 10 years. Under 10 years, the original copyright holder has total monopoly rights. After 10 years, the material can be used in an unrestricted manner for a small fee. Eventually, (after another arbitrary X years), even the small fee goes away, and the material is in the public domain. Or not, if the useage fees aren’t prohibitive.

Then there’s the issue of trademarks, but we can talk about that another time.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: