The Case for Copyright Reform by Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge Page A
Authors: Christian Engström, Rick Falkvinge
Ads: Link
the money” is enough
to enable the authorities to keep track of commercial activities. If an
entrepreneur wants to make money the very first thing he has to do is to tell
as many people as possible what he has to offer. But if he is offering something
illegal, the police will get to hear about it before he has had the time to
attract any larger circle of customers. No further restrictions on fundamental
rights are necessary. The control systems that are already in place for other
reasons are enough to keep track of commercial activities.
But where do you draw the line between commercial and non-commercial?
It is true that there is a gray zone between commercial and
non-commercial activities, but this is a problem that the courts have already
solved many times in different areas.
We already have a number of different laws that make a distinction
between commercial and non-commercial intent, including copyright legislation
as it exists today. This is a good thing, since it means that the courts have
already established a praxis for determining what is commercial or not.
If you need a detailed answer as to exactly where to draw the line, you
should ask a copyright lawyer (and pay 300 euros per hour). This is about how
courts interpret the current legislation, and there the lawyers are the
experts.
But generally speaking, the line between commercial and non-commercial
intent is roughly where you would expect it to be. If you as a private person
have a blog without any ads, it’s non-commercial. If you get a few euros per
month from Google Ads, your blog is probably still non-commercial, since it is
a limited amount of money and your primary purpose with the blog is not to earn
money from it. But if it is a big blog that generates substantial income from
ads, it probably crosses the line and becomes commercial.
There are a number of copyright licenses, including the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial License , that make use of this already existing
definition.
Even if it is true that drawing the line can sometimes be a problem, it
has already been solved in a reasonable way.
20 Years Of Commercial Monopoly
Much of today’s entertainment industry is built on the commercial
exclusivity on copyrighted works, and we want to preserve this. But today’s
protection times – life plus 70 years – are absurd. No investor
would even look at a business case where the time to pay-back was that long.
We want to shorten the protection time to something that is reasonable
from both society’s and an investor’s point of view, and propose 20 years from
publication.
And we want to have the same protection term for all kinds of works.
Wouldn’t it make sense to have different protection times for different
kinds of works?
20 years protection for a computer programs probably has different
implications than 20 years for a piece of music or a film. Wouldn’t it be
better to adapt the protection times according to what is reasonable for
different categories of works?
This is actually what I (Christian Engström) thought myself, until I
discussed it with a friend who agreed completely. When we started talking, we
both agreed that it would be reasonable to have different protection times,
since the markets work so differently.
I, who have a background as a programmer, thought it was quite
reasonable to have a longer protection time for computer programs, since they
quite often continue to be useful long after they were written. Code that I
wrote in 1984-86 still runs in production today, and continues to generate
income for that company. This is something different than a pop song, which at
best is popular for a year or so, before it is forgotten to leave room for new
songs. This is what I felt.
But my friend, who has a background as a musician (but is now a
copyright lawyer, since that is an easier way to make a living), had the
completely opposite opinion. He
to enable the authorities to keep track of commercial activities. If an
entrepreneur wants to make money the very first thing he has to do is to tell
as many people as possible what he has to offer. But if he is offering something
illegal, the police will get to hear about it before he has had the time to
attract any larger circle of customers. No further restrictions on fundamental
rights are necessary. The control systems that are already in place for other
reasons are enough to keep track of commercial activities.
But where do you draw the line between commercial and non-commercial?
It is true that there is a gray zone between commercial and
non-commercial activities, but this is a problem that the courts have already
solved many times in different areas.
We already have a number of different laws that make a distinction
between commercial and non-commercial intent, including copyright legislation
as it exists today. This is a good thing, since it means that the courts have
already established a praxis for determining what is commercial or not.
If you need a detailed answer as to exactly where to draw the line, you
should ask a copyright lawyer (and pay 300 euros per hour). This is about how
courts interpret the current legislation, and there the lawyers are the
experts.
But generally speaking, the line between commercial and non-commercial
intent is roughly where you would expect it to be. If you as a private person
have a blog without any ads, it’s non-commercial. If you get a few euros per
month from Google Ads, your blog is probably still non-commercial, since it is
a limited amount of money and your primary purpose with the blog is not to earn
money from it. But if it is a big blog that generates substantial income from
ads, it probably crosses the line and becomes commercial.
There are a number of copyright licenses, including the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial License , that make use of this already existing
definition.
Even if it is true that drawing the line can sometimes be a problem, it
has already been solved in a reasonable way.
20 Years Of Commercial Monopoly
Much of today’s entertainment industry is built on the commercial
exclusivity on copyrighted works, and we want to preserve this. But today’s
protection times – life plus 70 years – are absurd. No investor
would even look at a business case where the time to pay-back was that long.
We want to shorten the protection time to something that is reasonable
from both society’s and an investor’s point of view, and propose 20 years from
publication.
And we want to have the same protection term for all kinds of works.
Wouldn’t it make sense to have different protection times for different
kinds of works?
20 years protection for a computer programs probably has different
implications than 20 years for a piece of music or a film. Wouldn’t it be
better to adapt the protection times according to what is reasonable for
different categories of works?
This is actually what I (Christian Engström) thought myself, until I
discussed it with a friend who agreed completely. When we started talking, we
both agreed that it would be reasonable to have different protection times,
since the markets work so differently.
I, who have a background as a programmer, thought it was quite
reasonable to have a longer protection time for computer programs, since they
quite often continue to be useful long after they were written. Code that I
wrote in 1984-86 still runs in production today, and continues to generate
income for that company. This is something different than a pop song, which at
best is popular for a year or so, before it is forgotten to leave room for new
songs. This is what I felt.
But my friend, who has a background as a musician (but is now a
copyright lawyer, since that is an easier way to make a living), had the
completely opposite opinion. He
Similar Books
