[Insight-users] The Economist: "Copyright and wrong: Why the rules on copyright need to return to their roots"

[Luis Ibanez]

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4945/196/

<quote>
The Economist has a must-read
editorial<http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004>on
copyright, arguing that the law
has swung too far toward being restrictive. It argues for shortened
copyright
terms, renewal requirements, and expanded fair use.
</quote>



http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004

"When Parliament decided, in 1709, to create a law that would protect books
from piracy, the London-based publishers and booksellers who had been
pushing for such protection were overjoyed. When Queen Anne gave her assent
on April 10th the following year—300 years ago this week—to “An act for the
encouragement of learning” they were less enthused. Parliament had given
them rights, but it had set a time limit on them: 21 years for books already
in print and 14 years for new ones, with an additional 14 years if the
author was still alive when the first term ran out. After that, the material
would enter the public domain so that anyone could reproduce it."

....

"Over the past 50 years, however, that balance has shifted. Largely thanks
to the entertainment industry’s lawyers and lobbyists, copyright’s scope and
duration have vastly increased. In America, copyright holders get 95 years’
protection as a result of an extension granted in 1998, derided by critics
as the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act”. They are now calling for even greater
protection, and there have been efforts to introduce similar terms in
Europe. Such arguments should be resisted: it is time to tip the balance
back."

....

"Intellectual property can seem very like real property, especially when it
is yours,..."

.....

"Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported
monopoly on copying a work, not a property right."

.....

"Copyright protection is needed partly to cover the costs of creating and
distributing works in physical form. Digital technology slashes such costs,
and thus reduces the argument for protection."

.....

"A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in many
ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable. If there is a case for longer terms,
they should be on a renewal basis, so that content is not locked up
automatically."


-----------------------

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-users/attachments/20100410/efa63961/attachment-0001.htm>