Re: Rethinking Copyright

Like many others, I suppose, I held off replying to Martijn Magermans since the questions asked were too huge (and not exactly never-heard-before), but Larry Urbanski's reply deserves comment:
>
> On 3/28/97, Martijn Magermans <mt.magermans[_at_]student.unimaas.nl> wrote:
> >

clip
> >
> > 1. What is the main purpose of the copyright-system?
> > 2. Who are the players on the Internet regarding copyright?
> > 3. What do we want to achieve with an Internet-adapted copyright
> > system?
> > 4. How can we achieve this goal?
> > 5. What are possible sollutions?
> >
> > ad. 1: The way I see it, the original purpose of copyright was to
> > develop a system that will create an incentive for writers and artists
> > to deliver works for the public to read and enjoy. Proliferation of
> > knowledge and free access to this knowledge was one of the main
> > objectives.

Larry Urbanski's comment was:
>
> Correct. However, what has happened over the past years is authors
> groups have simply lobbied for "author rights' without bringing to
> light negative effects on the public, or users, of copyrighted works.
> Free access to knowledge doesn't work well with copyrighted works,
> unless they have fallen into the public domain after term expiration.

My comment:

This is a strange perspective - I feel that Martijn correctly analyses describes the situation as being a case of creators creating and users using, with publishers and producers occupying the (necessary, value-adding, no doubt) middle ground. This middle ground shifts in cyberspace and is not necessarily (rarely ever) the same as on terra firma. In some cases, it may even be unnecessary to have a middleman. It is a shame anyone has to doubt that authors' rights need asserting - especially when a typical publisher's ploy is to take a work which has had all its value added publishing and editorial input carried out for a commercially viable terrestrial product, and then place it online or on disk without much further velue-added effort for another commercial round - without any compensation to the author. To protest that users suffer when publishers pay authors seems a peculiar argument. Publishing is the most profitable (in terms of percentage growth year-to-year) out of all the economic sectors - see the recent FT500 analysis, while the average British author earns £4,000/$6,000 per year.

Martijn wrote:
> >
> > ad 3: The new copyright system should take the new circumstances into
> > account. The fact that works are no longer tangible but liquid,
> > changes the basic premise. The fact that works are now digital changes
> > the game and whith this change the players of the game change. The
> > present copyright system is created with the intrests of the parties
> > of the analoque world in mind. Because new copyright treaties include
> > the normal civilians a new balance has to be found. Civilians should
> > also be able to understand the law which applies to them else it will
> > not be maintainable. Before we start thinking about new law we should
> > try to find an answer to the question whether the new circumstances
> > really disrupt the balance which the copyright-system has to maitain.
> > Because the market for the present rightsholders has grown immensely
> > I'm not so sure that the revenue for the creators will diminish (if it
> > diminishes at all) that much that they will stop creating works.

Larry replied:
>
> I don't see revenues for creators diminishing also. When new
> technology is introduced there is oposition because it is not
> understood. The studios fought tooth and nail against home video.
> It's now one of their biggest sources of revenue.

My comment:

For print authors, the revenues from electronic re-uses of their works is frequently zero. One interesting distinction between film and print is that, since the Internet is a broadcast (or even multicast) environment, while the print/publishing world is narrowcast (in the sense that there is generally a clear audit trail between a publication and a buyer). Publishers keep acting as if they should be controlling the whole audit trail through various encryption-guarded payment schemes, rather than broadcasing the information and profiting from broadcast payment models (e.g., advertising). So the film community can be reasonably calm in confronting such things as video-on-demand through the Internet, while publishers are confronting cyberspace with genuine dread while they cling to outmoded models. Tooth and nail, indeed!

Martijn wrote:
> >
> > ad 4: I think we should start thinking from scratch and take into
> > consideration the unique circumstances on the Internet. I'm not saying
> > we should eliminate all of the existing law, but we should very
> > carefully evaluate what applies in the digital world and not just copy
> > the copyright law into the internet (a world we don't really know at
> > this moment).

clip

Larry replied:
>
> Agreed. There have been too many changes in copyright law when present
> law can apply. It seems to me new laws are lobbied because author
> groups (publishers, studios, songwriters) see an opportunity to get a
> BETTER edge for themselves with these changes. In other words, even
> though changes are not needed, new technology is the catalyst for
> changes that help those groups with the money to lobby for it.

My comment:

I honestly don't see that authors' groups can be blamed for trying to get a "better edge", when they generally don't have any edge at all in electronic uses of their material. Personally, I'd be happy to see only modest adaptations of copyright law, in most cases. The main focus should probably be on liability aspects.

Martijn wrote:
> >
> > Ad 5:
> > a. the reproduction right should be abolished and paid acces to
> > information should be the new standard; I understand the state of mind
> > is not yet ready for this radical approach. Untill this happens I am
> > in favour of excluding home-copying from the copyright law in the
> > digital environment (as long as it doesn't interfere with the normal
> > exploitation of the work). Not a good, but rather a practical reason
> > for coming to this view is that controlling homecopying is not
> > possible, not reasonable and it is my opinion that trying to control
> > it would invade the privacy in a way that is unnacceptable; b.
> > commercial exploitation should remain the exclusive right of the
> > creator, but we should reconsider the duration of this right; c. we
> > should create a secondary copyright net which aggragates enough money
> > to create an incentive to writers and artists. Since in he analogue
> > world a maximum of 20% of the profit from the exploitation reaches the
> > pockets of the creators of the work this net should create at least
> > this amount, for instance by paid access.

Larry replied:
>
> The home recording coalition felt home recording of programming was
> a public right. They had to take the issue to court to prove it.
> Realistically, won't technology handle this issue in the next several
> years, with mini-royalties (1/2 cent a download), and so on?
>

clip
>
> I do not think the reproduction right should be abolished. This is
> simply a loss to the public. If there is need for change, the authors
> must come up with a workable solution, but NOT at the public's expense.

My comments:

I agree with Larry that what we need is a clarification of the reproduction right that is acceptable to all, or at least workable, rather than doing away with it altogether. All parties concerned (not just the authors) need to achieve consensus on this. We are leading a European-Commission-sponsored project called IMPRIMATUR on this very topic (i.e., achieving consensus on the trading of intellectual property rights in an electronic environment). Substantial progess is being made and we expect to have a working solution available on a live server by the end of the project.

Chris Zielinski, Secretary General
ALCS, Isis House
74 New Oxford Street, London, WC1A 1EF
Tel: +44 (0)171 255 2034 Fax: +44 (0)171 323 0486 <chris.zielinski[_at_]alcs.co.uk> Received on Tue Apr 01 1997 - 17:59:54 GMT