Re: Abolish Reproduction Right

Martijn Magermans <mt.magermans[_at_]student.unimaas.nl> wrote:
>
> I'm writing an article on the subject of possible adaptions of the
> copyright system in a digital environment.
>
> My central thesis is that the reproduction right is not the most suitable
> instrument to use in a digital environment. Since reproductions are no
> longer tangible, and irrelevant reproductions manifest themselves on
> unwanted moments (e.g. when your simply browsing the net), I agree
> whith Prof. Jessica Litman* that the most sensible thing to do is to
> look for alternatives instead of building of fences that have no
> place in a digital environment.
>
> One of her ideas is to make a distinction between exploitation and
> private use. Exploitation of somebody elses work should be subject
> to some sort of retribution scheme. As long as private use does not
> conflict whith the normal exploitation of the rightholder, this use
> should be free. This system is understandable, reasonable and
> therefore maintainable.
>
> My questions:
>
> Can anybody refer me to sites where I can find articles about the
> above mentioned subject?
>
> Does anybody have any ideas about the above mentioned subject?
>
> Does anybody have any ideas about alternatives for the reproduction
> right?
>
> *Revising Copyright Law For the Information Age, Jessica Litman,
> Oregon Law REview, 1996
>
> Martijn Magermans
> <mt.magermans[_at_]student.unimaas.nl>

The question which should be asked about reforms to copyright and the reproduction right is how do we keep it economic to be creative and to invest in creativity.

Copyright gives authors - which in copyright terms includes artists and composers - the right to determine what use is made of their work so that they can make a living from it. That includes licensing it or assigning it to an investor (e.g. a publisher).

The opposite principle is that those who enjoy (in the widest sense of the word) the results of the creator's efforts should pay for it. The reproduction right is so far the best workable approximation to the principle of payment for enjoyment, but it is (and has always been) an approximation.

If it is abolished and not replaced with an equivalent approximation, there are several consequences. Artists and authors could be remunerated by the taxpayer (as are most academic authors); or we could go back to the mediaeval system of patronage (today called corporate arts sponsorship). Personally I think that copyright is preferable to either state funding or private patronage.

WIPO at Geneva devoted a lot of time to the question of intangible and transient reproductions. Under UK law they count, but this is not a requirement of Berne or the new WIPO treaty.

The key to the problem is that copyright is firstly economic, and secondly legal. The law may need to be changed if the economic outcome is wrong - but again, the law that needs changing may not be copyright law but for example contract law.

Most of the reproductions made as a result of browsing the web are explicitly or implicitly authorised by the copyright owner, and do not infringe.

Home reproduction is an infringement, often unenforceable, but an unrestricted statutory licence for home copying has equally difficult consequences. Where does the home begin - is a business "home", a hotel room, a hostel?... Not everyone lives in recognisable family boxes....

Edward Barrow
<edward[_at_]plato32.demon.co.uk> Received on Tue Apr 01 1997 - 18:43:40 GMT