Comments on: Napster judge proposes copyright reforms http://www.teleread.org/2008/11/13/napster-judge-proposes-copyright-reforms/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:01:59 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: pond http://www.teleread.org/2008/11/13/napster-judge-proposes-copyright-reforms/comment-page-1/#comment-953591 pond Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:41:24 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/11/13/napster-judge-proposes-copyright-reforms/#comment-953591 Yeah, I second Bill's remarks above. And the problem with US copyright law is not that the government takes a 'hands-off' approach, but rather that the content media cartels have been able to get lawmakers to rewrite the copyright law regularly ever since 1976. And then international agreements work to ensure that the 'highest protection in any country' eventually works out to be the law of all countries. The content rights-holders (who are, of course, almost entirely separate from writers and musicians and content creators) will go to country A and get lawmakers to say, 'In country B rights are respected, we need to reform our laws to match their terms.' Then they get even a boost in protection in country A, and go back to country B and get lawmakers there to say, 'In country A rights are respected, we need to reform our laws to match their terms.' Larry Lessig is on the right track in deviating from advocating copyright reform to concentrate instead on advocating corruption-free government. Just a note as to how insane current copyright law is here in the US (if I understand it correctly): what I have just written here is copyright by me, and TeleRead is breaking the law in publishing it... Yeah, I second Bill’s remarks above. And the problem with US copyright law is not that the government takes a ‘hands-off’ approach, but rather that the content media cartels have been able to get lawmakers to rewrite the copyright law regularly ever since 1976.

And then international agreements work to ensure that the ‘highest protection in any country’ eventually works out to be the law of all countries. The content rights-holders (who are, of course, almost entirely separate from writers and musicians and content creators) will go to country A and get lawmakers to say, ‘In country B rights are respected, we need to reform our laws to match their terms.’ Then they get even a boost in protection in country A, and go back to country B and get lawmakers there to say, ‘In country A rights are respected, we need to reform our laws to match their terms.’

Larry Lessig is on the right track in deviating from advocating copyright reform to concentrate instead on advocating corruption-free government.

Just a note as to how insane current copyright law is here in the US (if I understand it correctly): what I have just written here is copyright by me, and TeleRead is breaking the law in publishing it…

]]> By: Bill McHale http://www.teleread.org/2008/11/13/napster-judge-proposes-copyright-reforms/comment-page-1/#comment-952625 Bill McHale Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:49:55 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/11/13/napster-judge-proposes-copyright-reforms/#comment-952625 The first problem with Judge Patel's proposal is that such a board would have powers beyond those limited to regulating copyright. After all, since many modern devices are capable of recording sound or images, the Judge's proposal would give this committee effective veto power over every mp3 recorder, cell phone, camera, computer, etc. That of course ignores how one makes up this committee; sure make sure every party is represented, but how? Does the record industry, the publishing industry, the TV industry and the movie industry each get an equal vote to the public? The simple fact of the matter is that this proposal ignores the basic purpose of the copyright/patent provision in the Constitution which is the people's interest, not the interest of the content providers. Protecting the interest of the content provider is the means of promoting the public interest. Ultimately copyright law does need revision but not a revision that increases red tape. Media needs to be divided into reasonable divisions that make sense, and the terms also need to be revised to make sense; for example, 95 years for software is just plain stupid. The public does not benefit in any way from a software copyright lasting that long. The first problem with Judge Patel’s proposal is that such a board would have powers beyond those limited to regulating copyright. After all, since many modern devices are capable of recording sound or images, the Judge’s proposal would give this committee effective veto power over every mp3 recorder, cell phone, camera, computer, etc.

That of course ignores how one makes up this committee; sure make sure every party is represented, but how? Does the record industry, the publishing industry, the TV industry and the movie industry each get an equal vote to the public? The simple fact of the matter is that this proposal ignores the basic purpose of the copyright/patent provision in the Constitution which is the people’s interest, not the interest of the content providers. Protecting the interest of the content provider is the means of promoting the public interest.

Ultimately copyright law does need revision but not a revision that increases red tape. Media needs to be divided into reasonable divisions that make sense, and the terms also need to be revised to make sense; for example, 95 years for software is just plain stupid. The public does not benefit in any way from a software copyright lasting that long.

]]>