Re: copyright under stress

On Wed, 31 May 2000, Dodi Schultz <schultz[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2000, Ewan Kirk <ewan.j.kirk[_at_]solent.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > [S]urely as technology advances, the ability to make money from
> > your copyright is increased, therefore a shorter term is needed
> > in order to make a 'fair' remuneration from your work, and
> > therefore the term of protection should be shorter, not longer.
>
> In the first place, copyright is not a source of income, as you
> seem to believe, or an assurance of income, but a form of protection
> for a creator's effort to realize income from a work. The potential
> source of income is the created work -- the book, the photograph, the
> song, whatever.

Oh no, you misunderstand; I agree with your point above; I just don't think that such a large period of protection is necessary; in fact, as far as I can see, the last extension of term did little for authors and much for large multinational rightholders.

> But just exactly how do you figure that the advance of technology
> increases a creator's potential for realizing income from a work?
> In fact, Ewan, most authors, photographers, et al. will confirm that,
> on the contrary, the advance of technology has vastly multiplied the
> opportunities for infringement--and there are plenty of people ready
> to take advantage of those opportunities. Creators have lost, not
> gained, from these advances.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I totally agre with that one -- sure, new technology has allowed easier, cheaper, less detectable infringements of copyright, but it's swings and roundabouts -- technology has presented the opportunity for creators to more actively assert their rights; metered access, pay-per-view, encryption technology, etc. I just think that the potential strength of these technologies and the associated legal protection is starting to overcompensate in the direction of the rightholders.

Ewan Kirk
<Ewan.J.Kirk[_at_]solent.ac.uk> Received on Mon Jun 05 2000 - 08:54:33 GMT