[d@DCC] What do you think the ideal copyright law would look like?

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 23:02:55 -0400

  First, please send letters to your MPs about the current consultation
that is happening on "Counterfeiting and Piracy of Intellectual
Property" - http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3930   I posted a copy
of the letter I sent to my MP at
http://www.cluecan.ca/pipermail/discuss/2007-May/001199.html




  I posted a BLOG article earlier that might be interesting to discuss
here as well, for those who don't like commenting on the BLOG.

Copyright is not a binary yes/no question. What should it look like?
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3932



  A few differences from what I've written in the past.  I enjoy these
types of conversations as it allows us to each think not only about
changes we don't want to see, but changes we do.

  The one that I would like to highlight is:


"f. industries who only provide the technical means for recording,
communicating or distributing works should not be offered copyright.
Only human creators (authors, photographers, performers, directors, etc)
should be offered copyright, not broadcasters or sound recording makers.
Creators should be offered tools to enable them to skip intermediaries
and make their own choices as to how to exercise their own rights. No
matter how a creator is employed, the first holder of copyright should
be the creator and copyright could only transfer to an employer as part
of a contract."


  As most will know, the loudest lobby group in the copyright revision
talks right now is the recording industry.  This makes sense, given
their industry is currently redundant and they are fighting for basic
survival against progress.   Musicians will tell you that the roll of
the labels is to be a "big bank" to pay the up-front capital costs for
the recording and distribution of recorded music.  As the capital costs
went down with new technology, so did the need for these third-party
investments.

  New technologies have always caused changes to copyright laws.  While
this has sometimes involved adding new exclusive rights, or transforming
a requirement to obtain permission to only a requirement for payment
(compulsory licenses).

  I think it is time that we removed the exclusive rights that were
granted to the providers of historically expensive means of recording,
communicating or distributing works.  While there is a debate at WIPO
right now about a broadcasting treaty, we need to go to opposite
direction and revoke the existing exclusive rights that providers of
broadcast equipment have.  The same with makers of sound recordings who
no longer have any need for an exclusive right.  Songwriters and
performers should have rights, but makers should not any more than the
local hydro company should have a copyright simply for providing
electricity.

  Any thoughts on this idea, or anything else in my "ideal copyright"?
Darryl Moore has posted some ways he agrees and disagrees with my ideal,
and Karl Fogel offered a correction of my interpretation of his article.


-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
 rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
 http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

 "The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
  manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
  portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss