Re: The Eric Eldred ActDear Linda,
I appreciate your posting and would like to further elaborate on one specific item you mentioned - the effect technology is having on the ease of access to copyrighted materials.
I am responsible for obtaining and securing duplication permissions for the university at which I work. Our professors genuinely want to provide our students with a balance of the most current and up-to-date instruction available at the highest quality for the lowest possible cost. Technology is such that we do have almost instant, world-wide access to a virtually endless supply of copyrighted materials available in most any subject.
Unfortunately, the methods of securing duplication rights and permissions has not kept up the pace. We have an abundance of materials right at our fingertips and a copyright permission process that is at best cumbersome, but all too often lengthy, full of red tape, and prohibitively priced. It is no wonder we have a problem with compliance!
Is it not time for us to consider the impact of "individual choice," the freedom our country was founded on, into our equations when devising and mandating laws? Rather than forcing and enforcing our rights on others, perhaps a look in the mirror is appropriate to determine exactly what it is we are asking others to do for us. Perhaps I am naive, but I truly believe in the collective "goodness" of the individuals that make up our great country. Most of us really do want to do the right thing.
The retail industry has learned, "if we don't serve the customer, our competitor will." In the publishing industry, our competitors (like it or not) also include the photocopier and other reproduction equipment. Good old-fashioned respect, service, and accommodation for the individual works just as well for business in the publishing industry as it does in your favorite retail shop downtown. And, just as in retail, competition is great - because it keeps us all honest and at our peak performance.
I second your idea for creating an online licensing system with which the public would have easy access and availability to locate copyright holders, determine fees, and secure permissions and/or copies when needed. Make it as easy and reasonably affordable to get permission as it is to make the copy, and I'm certain you would see an outstanding increase in compliance.
Annalee Hall
Academic Publishing
Utah State University
annaleeh[_at_]cc.usu.edu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
[mailto:owner-cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org]On Behalf Of Linda
Gruber
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 1:44 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: The Eric Eldred Act
Hello Eric
Having seen the effect of rampant copying and distribution
on the music
industry and the effect of competition from too much
royalty free stock art
and works of old masters on the illustration industry, I
don't think introducing
more works into public domain promotes progress enough to
offset the
depressing effect that releasing a flood of republished
works has on original
creations and emerging markets in the digital age.
However, since you asked
for opinions, I'd like to suggest a carrot instead of a
stick.
If your goal is to nudge languishing copyrighted works
into the public domain
sooner, why not petition Congress to offer a tax
incentive for donating works
that copyright holders don't plan to exploit themselves
rather than thinking of
ways to unfairly push creators into giving up copyrights.
Creators' heirs already
give more than other citizens. Who else in our
capitalistic society is forced to
give up valuable holdings to the public domain without any
compensation for
the loss of income their unique property can potentially
produce?
If your goal is to make works more available and
accessible to the public,
why not petition Congress to be more proactive in
supporting the exclusive
rights of creators during their limited terms? Laws only
help IF creators can
afford to register the works, and IF they can take the
time and effort to track
down infringements, and IF they can afford the money and
time spent to
pursue infringement cases. Congress could do much more.
They could
set up a licensing system for copyrighted works so
creators could update it
online with info about available licenses and fees. Then
the public would
have easy access and the ability to do price comparisons.
Congress could
also authorize public information broadcasts telling
people about the harm
copyright infringement does and how to avoid doing it.
Public domain works
could carry a distinctive mark allowing the public to KNOW
when they are using
works legally. Congress could entitle original creators to
participate in copyright
infringement insurance so the insurance company could
pursue infringement
cases thus allowing creators to keep creating more new
works. Then creators
could actually earn the income to which they are suppose
to be exclusively
entitled.
Instead, Congress keeps putting a fresh bandage on a
gushing wound. The
struggle to exercise the creators' supposedly exclusive
rights has become
incredibly difficult due to rampant infringement, ease of
copying, instant access
to worldwide distribution, and increasing competition from
republished public
domain works. Extending the time creators and their heirs
have to earn from
their creations every time technology makes earning from
those works more
difficult is the least Congress can do. The very least.
Regarding reasonable term limits in today's environment,
the ability to earn from
their creative efforts is so difficult, that children and
spouses of creators often
have to sacrifice for the sake of the "art." Maybe even
more than the creator does.
The creator may be blissfully happy creating while the
rest of the family struggles
to make ends meet on scant income. Being a creator is
often a cottage industry
with the entire family invested in the business. They all
deserve to be rewarded for
the duration of their lives for their contribution,
sacrifice, and continued marketing
efforts. In addition, other publishers may alter the works
in ways that embarrass
the heirs. The heirs have a stake in both the creators
reputation and the work.
They have insight about how and where the creator would
want the work to appear.
The public does not deserve to step in and benefit ahead
of those who helped
bring the work to the world. So the authors life plus 70
years or the lifetime of the
children, whichever is longer, is reasonable in my view.
(If you made it dependent
only on the lifetime of the children, it might endanger
their lives.)
Just wanted to let you see what the opposite end of the
spectrum looks like. :)
You may see red about term limit extensions, but things
looks pretty blue on my
end.
Linda Gruber
Novel Art
http://www.novelart.com
on 1/27/03 9:03 PM, cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org at cni-copyright[_at_]cni.org
Eric Eldred wrote:
In response to the stunning decision in Eldred v.
Ashcroft, we have come up
with an idea that we would like discussed here.
It is for a tiny tax on works in the 50th year of
copyright. If the tax is
not paid, the work would enter the public domain. Thus
works with no
commercial value would enter the public domain much as
they would earlier when
the term expired. Works with commercial value would be
paid for and would
enjoy the current copyright term. The tax could go to
support the
registration process.
Maybe 50 years of copyright is too long. The Economist
has spoken out for a
14 year renewable term. But we recognize we have to make
significant
compromises with the strong copyright interests in
Hollywood in order to
persuade Congress about the benefits of this proposed act.
For more information, please see
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/EAFAQ.html
What do you think?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:48 GMT