Copyright arguments

[dsrtao]

Everyone who is in favor of strong copyright ought to be asked:

What are the consequences of your stance if they had been applied to religious literature?

(Any of them who don't mention the Xenu-worshippers someplace in their first page of response should probably be disqualified for ignorance.)

Comments

[polydad.livejournal.com]

What precisely is meant by "strong" as applied to copyright? Not having researched the problem myself, it seems to me that the protection should be reasonably rigorous, but of strictly limited duration -- any copyright old enough to vote should revert to public domain, for example.

best,

Joel

[dsrtao]

The US has not had a copyright term as low as you consider fair since 1831.


Three hundred years today (April 10, 1710), the Statute of Anne established the first unified copyright regime, with a term of 14 years, plus one extension on request (of 14 years), for works registered with a central office, small fee paid, and three copies deposited (the King's Library, and the university libraries of Cambridge and Oxford).

The US Constitution specifically enumerates the power of Congress to determine the copyright regime of the US:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

and the Copyright Act of 1790 echoes the wording and limits of the Statute of Anne, substituting in the Library of Congress for the British repositories, and including maps and charts as protectable items. Case law further required copyright marks on documents; omitting them was equivalent to placing the document in the public domain.

We can consider this a weak or perhaps moderate copyright law.

In 1831 the term changed to 28 years plus a 14 year renewal. +14 years.
In 1909 the term changed to 28 plus 28. +14 years.
In 1954 the US asked and was granted a loophole in the Universal Copyright Convention treaty, so that no change occurred in the US.

All these might be considered moderate changes.

In 1976, the new Copyright Act made a bunch of revisions. The protectable works included literature, music, lyrics, drama, pantomime, choreography, photographs, graphic and sculptural art, movies, television, and sound recordings. Copyright protection applied immediately as a work took a fixed form, not when a (c) was affixed or registered. Specific rights reserved now included copying, making derivative works, right of sale, lease or rent, performance and display. The Fair Use defense was codified. Registration and deposit was no longer required.

The term was set at the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for works-for-hire or unknown authorship.

Except for the term, I would call this a moderate regime. Including the term, I would call it strong.

In 1990 architecture became protected. In 1995, the right to perform a digital sound recording was added. At that point, I think "strong" is a fair term to apply.