Napster judge proposes copyright reforms
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, who famously decided the Napster case seven years ago, gave a speech at her alma mater proposing a sweeping reform of existing copyright law. The reform seemed focused on music in particular, which is understandable given the nature of the case Patel decided.
At the heart, the reform proposes establishing a copyright commission made up of people from every group that has a stake in copyright, including the public. Under this commission, all current compulsory licenses would be abolished and a blanket licensing system adopted instead. The commission would administer royalty payments under that system and adjucate royalty disputes.
Not everyone agrees that this level of bureaucracy would be a good idea, but the last point in Patel’s proposal is one that some find especially troubling: the commission would also have veto power over any new device or application capable of recording, distributing, or copying music. This would have the effect of stifling innovation, particularly in the open source/free software movement.
Thomas Sydnor of the IPCentral.info blog thinks that Patel is barking up the wrong tree altogether. Sydnor thinks that the reason America has evolved such a burgeoning market of expressive works over the last century is the relatively hands-off position the government has taken:
In short, the critical difference for the U.S. may be that we have tended to encourage the production of expression through mechanisms that more strongly tend to encourage creators to please private, rather than governmental, tastes—be they those of wealthy private patrons or private markets.
For now, the discussion is largely academic, as Patel does not have any backing for her proposal. But copyright system reform is a subject on the minds of many in these days of rampant illicit peer-to-peer activity, and sooner or later someone’s proposal may be put into effect. With that in mind, any proposal merits consideration.
November 13th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
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.
November 14th, 2008 at 10:41 am
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…