James Boyle Deconstructs Copyright Stupidity

[cquark]

I enjoyed Boyle's April 21st article in the Financial Times. He doesn't pull any punches, and he makes he points effectively as possible in a short article. He points out how modern copyright extensions harm us more than they help us:

Since only about 4 per cent of copyrighted works more than 20 years old are commercially available, this locks up 96 per cent of 20th century culture to benefit 4 per cent. The harm to the public is huge, the benefit to authors, tiny. In any other field, the officials responsible would be fired. Not here.

then quickly gets to the core flaw in the concept of copyright maximalism:

The first thing to realize is that many decisions are driven by honest delusion, not corporate corruption. The delusion is maximalism: the more intellectual property rights we create, the more innovation. This is clearly wrong; rights raise the cost of innovation inputs (lines of code, gene sequences, data.) Do their monopolistic and anti-competitive effects outweigh their incentive effects? That?s the central question, but many of our decision makers seem never to have thought of it.

He also addresses the Romantic image of the author as a creator ex nihilo, often used to generate public support for copyright maximalist laws:

Authorial Romance: Part of the delusion depends on the idea that inventors and artists create from nothing. Who needs a public domain of accessible material if one can create out of thin air? But in most cases this simply isn?t true; artists, scientists and technologists build on the past. How would the blues, jazz, Elizabethan theatre, or Silicon valley have developed if they had been forced to play under today?s rules? Don?t believe me? Ask a documentary filmmaker about clearances, or a free-software developer about software patents.

You can read the full article at http://news.ft.com/cms/s/39b697dc-b25e-11d9-bcc6-00000e2511c8.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The laws do precisely what they are intended to. There is no stupidity in this. It's purpose is to lock up innovation in perpetuity to line the pockets of corporations first, then individuals second. It is in fact well thought out.

 

[shrumpage]

Orginally it was supposed to protect the author, i think for 17 years. Now its up too 70 years or something? Just slap any method with words "electronically" or "on a computer" and you can panent it. Or sure auctions have been around for hundreds of years, maybe longer, but if you do it electronically, its a patentable thing. And you can sue people who use "electronic autions."

yeah copy right law needs some work.

 

[alent1234]

you can still build on the past to create something. If you couldn't then battlestar galactica and a bunch of other sci-fi would have been sued out of existance. What you cannot do is make money of someone else's creations. You can't write your own star wars EU story and sell it without permission since GL made up star wars.

It seems the only people for "copyright reform" are those that have never created anything of value and want to make money off someone else's work.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: alent1234
you can still build on the past to create something. If you couldn't then battlestar galactica and a bunch of other sci-fi would have been sued out of existance. What you cannot do is make money of someone else's creations. You can't write your own star wars EU story and sell it without permission since GL made up star wars.

It seems the only people for "copyright reform" are those that have never created anything of value and want to make money off someone else's work.

Hardly. Supporters of copyright reform include a wide variety of well known authors, software creators, movie makers, and musicians.

You can build off the past...if you can go through the arduous process of legally searching for the appropriate parties.

It's often very difficult for out of print works, as copyright lasts life + 70 years, so you may have to deal with multiple grandchildren who dispute the ownership of the copyright monopoly, but going through multiple levels of lawyers, agents, and managers can be worse sometimes.

Then, if they let you, you can pay the vast majority of the cost of a documentary film for clearances for everything in the background of your film from what's on the TV screen for a second to even furniture. Then you'll have to get insurance in case your lawyers missed any tiny image or fragmentary sound that may appear for a second or less.

See "Untold Stories: Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture for Documentary Filmmakers" by Pat Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi for a study of what documentary makers have to go through today to pay their major cost.
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/rock/index.htm

Documentary authors aren't the only ones who have to go through this process, but their story is the best documented one of those who do.

 

[cquark]

The Toronto Globe and Mail has a story on how we're losing existing documentaries at
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/...C/20050117/DOCS17/TPEntertainment/Film

As Americans commemorate Martin Luther King Jr. and his legacy today, no television channel will be broadcasting the documentary series Eyes on the Prize. Produced in the 1980s and widely considered the most important encapsulation of the American civil-rights movement on video, the documentary series can no longer be broadcast or sold anywhere.

Why?

The makers of the series no longer have permission for the archival footage they previously used of such key events as the historic protest marches or the confrontations with Southern police. Given Eyes on the Prize's tight budget, typical of any documentary, its filmmakers could barely afford the minimum five-year rights for use of the clips. That permission has long since expired, and the $250,000 to $500,000 needed to clear the numerous copyrights involved is proving too expensive.

This is particularly dire now, because VHS copies of the series used in countless school curriculums are deteriorating beyond rehabilitation. With no new copies allowed to go on sale, "the whole thing, for all practical purposes, no longer exists," says Jon Else, a California-based filmmaker who helped produce and shoot the series and who also teaches at the Graduate School of Journalism of the University of California, Berkeley.

It's also important to see the impact this is having on our culture and our understanding of our history too. Also from the article:

But at a time when documentaries are probing the U.S. war on terrorism or globalization, for instance, in ways that are more in-depth than typical mainstream news media, the question of whether copyright restrictions are creating a blinkered view of the world is a serious one.

"Why do you think the History Channel is what it is? Why do you think it's all World War II documentaries? It's because it's public-domain footage. So the history we're seeing is being skewed towards what's fallen into public domain," says filmmaker Robert Stone in the American University study.

As an alternative, documentary-makers are turning to animation, but that's hardly a substitute for the photographic evidence of real historical events.

 

[dullard]

I disagree with much of what was in that article. Boyle just isn't looking at the whole picture. Take Disney's Goofy for example. Goofy is ~73 years old. Goofy is one of the few key figures in Disney themeparks, cartoons, movies, etc. Thus Disney gets lots of money from Goofy and other characters similar to Goofy. What if we do as Boyle suggests and let everyone copy Goofy?

"The harm to the public is huge, the benefit to authors, tiny." Where is this huge harm to the public for letting Disney keep Goofy? I can't think of any significant harm at all. What would happen if every company could use all the Disney characters, movies, cartoons, etc as they please? I bet the harm to Disney would be great. That simple example contradicts Boyle quite nicely.

Instead of trashing the copyright laws, we should put common sense into them. Damage should be limited to the percent of copied materials. A recent case is a good example. One UNKNOWN artist created a CD and left ~30 seconds of quiet space on it. Years later, another band created a CD and left ~2 minutes of quiet space on it. That is roughly 3% of the material on the CD. A lawsuit was filed and the first artist won. What was the damage awarded? 100% royalty on the entire CD. Yep that includes all the original songs from the band that were unrelated to the quiet space. That is completely wrong. The first artist should not be rewarded for good work on other original songs on that CD. Instead, I suggest that damage should be limited to 3% of the revenue since only 3% was copied. That would dramatically lessen the cost associated with the copyright.

The second necessary change should be to have mandatory yearly costs to maintain a copyright beyond 20 years. If you can't put the material to commercial use, you won't pay the fee and that 96% can be used by society. If the material is still of commercial value to the creator, the fee will be minimal and Disney can still have Goofy as a symbol of Disney. Patent rights have a justified yearly fee. Copyrights should too (after a grace period of 20 years to prevent needless clutter of fees for anything that anyone ever produces).

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: dullard
I disagree with much of what was in that article. Boyle just isn't looking at the whole picture. Take Disney's Goofy for example. Goofy is ~73 years old. Goofy is one of the few key figures in Disney themeparks, cartoons, movies, etc. Thus Disney gets lots of money from Goofy and other characters similar to Goofy. What if we do as Boyle suggests and let everyone copy Goofy?

"The harm to the public is huge, the benefit to authors, tiny." Where is this huge harm to the public for letting Disney keep Goofy? I can't think of any significant harm at all. What would happen if every company could use all the Disney characters, movies, cartoons, etc as they please? I bet the harm to Disney would be great. That simple example contradicts Boyle quite nicely.

You can't look at one character or work in isolation. Look at where most of Disney's stories come from--our common public domain culture. Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and almost all of their work is based on older, public domain stories.

Why shouldn't future authors be able to reuse Walt Disney's creations long after his death in the same way that he and his corporation have reused so many others?

More importantly, what will happen to our culture if we can't built on it, as we've built on the Protestant Bible and the works of Shakespeare, both of whom built on their predecessors as well?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: dullard
Instead of trashing the copyright laws, we should put common sense into them.

I, and most of the free culture/anti-modern copyright movement, don't want to trash copyright laws. What we want is to put common sense into them, to restore fair use as you suggest and to get rid of the damaging laws like the DMCA and Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act that retroactively extended copyrights.

It's people from the Free Culture movement like Lawrence Lessig, who wrote Free Culture and argued the Eldred case before the Supreme Court and who has worked for legislation like your proposal to save orphan works, who have the sensible view in the copyright wars. Unfortunately, the media portrays it as a simple black and white battle between copyright infringers and the big media cartels, when neither of those sides advocates a copyright solution that will preserve both our culture and right to innovate.

See also
http://eldred.cc/ for information on saving orphan works.
http://creativecommons.org/ for a voluntary way to avoid copyrighting a work forever.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: cquark
Why shouldn't future authors be able to reuse Walt Disney's creations long after his death in the same way that he and his corporation have reused so many others?

More importantly, what will happen to our culture if we can't built on it, as we've built on the Protestant Bible and the works of Shakespeare, both of whom built on their predecessors as well?

Nothing should stop you from basing your work on other creations. The copyright laws are abused in courts and it is allowed to sue for something that is even remotely similar. There is a key in the name, "copyright". No one should be able to COPY your work. Basing work on another's work should and must be allowed given that there are sufficient differences to make your work new and unmistakable with the original.

Thus I should not be able to take Goofy, recolor him, and call him my own. However, I should be able to create a whole new dog character that acts strangly. You can state that the new character is "based on Goofy", but Disney should not have any rights in this case.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: dullard
Nothing should stop you from basing your work on other creations. The copyright laws are abused in courts and it is allowed to sue for something that is even remotely similar. There is a key in the name, "copyright". No one should be able to COPY your work. Basing work on another's work should and must be allowed given that there are sufficient differences to make your work new and unmistakable with the original.

Thus I should not be able to take Goofy, recolor him, and call him my own. However, I should be able to create a whole new dog character that acts strangly. You can call that new character "based on Goofy", but Disney should not have any rights in this case.

I think you should be able to re-use characters in the same way that Disney has reused characters from all sorts of past works. Unfortunately, the length of Disney's monopolies is extended every time Mickey Mouse approaches going out of copyright.

However, today's restrictions are far tighter than that, with almost anything vaguely similar can result in you being sued for creating a derivative work.

 

[dullard]

If this:

"However, today's restrictions are far tighter than that, with almost anything vaguely similar can result in you being sued for creating a derivative work."

was taken care of, then this:

"Unfortunately, the length of Disney's monopolies is extended every time Mickey Mouse approaches going out of copyright."

would not be a problem in my view. I say let Disney extend that out as long as they want (and as long as they pay my suggested minimal fee). But they should not have the right to sue any derivative work as long as that work is substantially unique and unmistakable.

 

[alent1234]

you can make all the copyright laws you want, but a lot of these cases are either settled, or decided by a jury. You have to convince your peers that you didn't copy anything.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

dullard, if Goofy is 73 years-old, maybe Disney should create another character to retain its right upon, and let Goofy become public domain.

Let's say GALILEO had these laws in his time - you'd still be paying his real estate a sum every time you even think about building a telescope or buy a pair of binoculars.

Greed is all that motivates these laws, and the politicians who push them should be drowned in cesspools, along with the CEOs who lobbythem.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
dullard, if Goofy is 73 years-old, maybe Disney should create another character to retain its right upon, and let Goofy become public domain.

We really wouldn't benefit, and Disney would be harmed. Why do it again?

Let's say GALILEO had these laws in his time - you'd still be paying his real estate a sum every time you even think about building a telescope or buy a pair of binoculars.

That falls under patent law, not copyright law.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
dullard, if Goofy is 73 years-old, maybe Disney should create another character to retain its right upon, and let Goofy become public domain.

We really wouldn't benefit, and Disney would be harmed. Why do it again?

Let's say GALILEO had these laws in his time - you'd still be paying his real estate a sum every time you even think about building a telescope or buy a pair of binoculars.

That falls under patent law, not copyright law.

Why should I give up my right to sell copies of orginial Mikey Mouse movie? What do I gain by giving that right to Disney. Sure 75 years ago by giving up my right to copy the movie I gained Disney selling it to me, but I gain nothing by extending the time I give up my right to copy of movie.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Why should I give up my right to sell copies of orginial Mikey Mouse movie?

How would you sell it? With 6 billion people also legally copying and selling it, who is the buyer that you are targetting?

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Spencer278
Why should I give up my right to sell copies of orginial Mikey Mouse movie?

How would you sell it? With 6 billion people also legally copying and selling it, who is the buyer that you are targetting?

I could improve the qualtiy. I could provided it on a better format. I could sell it for less. Digitilizing the film would grant me a new copyright on that work so I could make money sueing college students who download the digital copy i made. People sell public domain works all the time. For example with Shakespeare the authors added english that makes senses. I could create additional sences.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I could improve the qualtiy. I could provided it on a better format. I could sell it for less. Digitilizing the film would grant me a new copyright on that work so I could make money sueing college students who download the digital copy i made. People sell public domain works all the time. For example with Shakespeare the authors added english that makes senses. I could create additional sences.

I can and will provide it on formats that anyone wants at the cost of the format. No markups at all. How will you compete? Thats a tough market to get into.

If we eliminated copyrights, how do you "grant me a new copyright on that work so I could make money sueing college students who download the digital copy i made"?

Shakespere rewritten is not 100% copying, it is only partially copying. This means the judicial interpretation of the law should be changed, not the length of time of copyrights. Plus, Shakespere (or his heirs) did not pay my hypothetical maintainence fee. Thus the copyright that was originally there would have been lost.

Additional scenes should be original work and copyrightable to you (the original portion of the new scenes that is). But if we do as you say and eliminate copyrights, then I guess not. I'll just copy your new scenes and include it in my version that I am selling at the cost of the format.

Again how do you make a profit. Sure you can find customers that I haven't reached yet. But your profit will still be tiny. Not HUGE as the original post says.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Spencer278
I could improve the qualtiy. I could provided it on a better format. I could sell it for less. Digitilizing the film would grant me a new copyright on that work so I could make money sueing college students who download the digital copy i made. People sell public domain works all the time. For example with Shakespeare the authors added english that makes senses. I could create additional sences.

I can and will provide it on formats that anyone wants at the cost of the format. No markups at all. How will you compete? Thats a tough market to get into.

If we eliminated copyrights, how do you "grant me a new copyright on that work so I could make money sueing college students who download the digital copy i made"?

Shakespere rewritten is not 100% copying, it is only partially copying. This means the judicial interpretation of the law should be changed, not the length of time of copyrights. Plus, Shakespere (or his heirs) did not pay my hypothetical maintainence fee. Thus the copyright that was originally there would have been lost.

Additional scenes should be original work and copyrightable to you (the original portion of the new scenes that is). But if we do as you say and eliminate copyrights, then I guess not. I'll just copy your new scenes and include it in my version that I am selling at the cost of the format.

Again how do you make a profit. Sure you can find customers that I haven't reached yet. But your profit will still be tiny. Not HUGE as the original post says.

Umm I might have missed it where did I say to elimenate copyrights. Also you couldn't sell mikey mouse because you would need to have one of the orginial copyes. You can't buy my version and then sell it because I will hold the copyright to my changes to it.

You missed the point on Shakespere the companies don't rewrite it because of copyright laws but the rewrite it to add value.

Besides how I could make money off it is irrelevent it is my right to copy the work.