The Case for Copyright Reform by Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge
Authors: Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge
Ads: Link
But having access to the studies and knowing what
they say brings a clear advantage to anybody interested in policy-making in the
copyright field.
Chapter 6
More About The Proposal For Copyright Reform
The Proposal Revisited
Let’s have a more in-depth look at the proposal that was presented in
Chapter 2. This is what the Pirate Party and the Greens/EFA
group in the European Parliament propose:
• Moral Rights Unchanged
• Free Non-Commercial Sharing
• 20 Years Of Commercial Monopoly
• Registration After 5 Years
• Free Sampling
• A Ban On DRM
Taken together, these points constitute a proposal for copyright reform
that solves 99% or more of the problems today’s copyright legislation is
causing, while at the same time allowing 99% or more of the business models
that are viable today to continue to be viable.
Moral Rights Unchanged
We propose no changes at all to the moral right of the author to be
recognized as the author. If you make something, you have the right to be
identified as the author of what you made.
This part of copyright is completely uncontroversial. In fact, good
etiquette on the net is often more strict on the subject than any copyright
legislation.
Bloggers tend to give credit and link back to sources in a way that far
exceeds any legal requirement. There are several reasons for this. It makes
your blog more trustworthy if you link to sources so that readers can check the
background if they want to. It makes the people you link to happy, so they will
get more likely to link back to your own blog on some occasion, and perhaps
increase traffic. These are good, practical reasons why it makes sense out of
pure self-interest for a blogger to be much more generous with giving credit
than any law requires.
But there is also the basic human feeling that if you found something
that was interesting to you, you want to give something back by showing your
appreciation. This is just human nature, and a very positive aspect of it.
The right to be recognized as the author is under no threat on the
Internet, and we propose no changes to this part of the copyright legislation.
Free Non-Commercial Sharing
Trying to stop or reduce file sharing through ever harsher legal
enforcement doesn’t work. File sharing continues to grow exponentially, no
matter what repressive means governments are introducing.
If you think it would be good if all illegal file sharing disappeared,
please feel free think so (even if the Pirate Party and others disagree). But
that does not alter the fact. Limiting file sharing with laws and punishments
doesn’t work. More of the same won’t either. File sharing is here to stay, like
it or not.
We should keep copyright, but limit it to when there is commercial
intent. All non-commercial copying and use, such as file sharing, should be
legalized. We can add this as a limitation in the copyright legislation, in
full compliance with the international treaties like the Berne
Convention and WIPO
Copyright Treaty (WCT).
In Chapter 3, we saw how the attempts to enforce today’s ban on file
sharing is threatening fundamental rights in the EU and elsewhere, which would
be an unacceptable solution even if it worked, which it doesn’t, or if the
cultural sector was in fact dying, which it isn’t.
In Chapter 5, we saw that the artists and the cultural sector as a whole
are doing fine despite file sharing (or perhaps thanks to it), so there is no
real problem to be solved.
The key to finding a better way for Europe is to separate commercial use
from non-commercial.
If copyright is brought back to only cover commercial activities, it
will present no major problems to society. There are some adjustments to be
made (in particular the unreasonably long protection times), but there are no
problems in principle to enforce copyright for commercial purposes.
The reason is very simple. The principle of “follow
they say brings a clear advantage to anybody interested in policy-making in the
copyright field.
Chapter 6
More About The Proposal For Copyright Reform
The Proposal Revisited
Let’s have a more in-depth look at the proposal that was presented in
Chapter 2. This is what the Pirate Party and the Greens/EFA
group in the European Parliament propose:
• Moral Rights Unchanged
• Free Non-Commercial Sharing
• 20 Years Of Commercial Monopoly
• Registration After 5 Years
• Free Sampling
• A Ban On DRM
Taken together, these points constitute a proposal for copyright reform
that solves 99% or more of the problems today’s copyright legislation is
causing, while at the same time allowing 99% or more of the business models
that are viable today to continue to be viable.
Moral Rights Unchanged
We propose no changes at all to the moral right of the author to be
recognized as the author. If you make something, you have the right to be
identified as the author of what you made.
This part of copyright is completely uncontroversial. In fact, good
etiquette on the net is often more strict on the subject than any copyright
legislation.
Bloggers tend to give credit and link back to sources in a way that far
exceeds any legal requirement. There are several reasons for this. It makes
your blog more trustworthy if you link to sources so that readers can check the
background if they want to. It makes the people you link to happy, so they will
get more likely to link back to your own blog on some occasion, and perhaps
increase traffic. These are good, practical reasons why it makes sense out of
pure self-interest for a blogger to be much more generous with giving credit
than any law requires.
But there is also the basic human feeling that if you found something
that was interesting to you, you want to give something back by showing your
appreciation. This is just human nature, and a very positive aspect of it.
The right to be recognized as the author is under no threat on the
Internet, and we propose no changes to this part of the copyright legislation.
Free Non-Commercial Sharing
Trying to stop or reduce file sharing through ever harsher legal
enforcement doesn’t work. File sharing continues to grow exponentially, no
matter what repressive means governments are introducing.
If you think it would be good if all illegal file sharing disappeared,
please feel free think so (even if the Pirate Party and others disagree). But
that does not alter the fact. Limiting file sharing with laws and punishments
doesn’t work. More of the same won’t either. File sharing is here to stay, like
it or not.
We should keep copyright, but limit it to when there is commercial
intent. All non-commercial copying and use, such as file sharing, should be
legalized. We can add this as a limitation in the copyright legislation, in
full compliance with the international treaties like the Berne
Convention and WIPO
Copyright Treaty (WCT).
In Chapter 3, we saw how the attempts to enforce today’s ban on file
sharing is threatening fundamental rights in the EU and elsewhere, which would
be an unacceptable solution even if it worked, which it doesn’t, or if the
cultural sector was in fact dying, which it isn’t.
In Chapter 5, we saw that the artists and the cultural sector as a whole
are doing fine despite file sharing (or perhaps thanks to it), so there is no
real problem to be solved.
The key to finding a better way for Europe is to separate commercial use
from non-commercial.
If copyright is brought back to only cover commercial activities, it
will present no major problems to society. There are some adjustments to be
made (in particular the unreasonably long protection times), but there are no
problems in principle to enforce copyright for commercial purposes.
The reason is very simple. The principle of “follow
Similar Books
