Comments on: British Library calls for digital copyright action

U.K.'s national library says copyright law must be updated to curb the excesses of digital rights management.

[Don307blue]

Copying journals

The statement that library patrons are able to photocopy journals
does not mention that the Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA) in the
UK collects a license fee from libraries to permit that activity. In
the absence of some form of license or compensation for digital
reproduction the two issues are not identical.

[C.Schroeder]

Symptom of the problem

If the publishers weren't trying to rewrite the rules they would have already rolled out a compensation system for digital copies that mirrored the print version. Their not having done so is a symptom of the problem.

[markdoiron]

Someone Gets It!

The Brit's get it. Just because a digital system can be implemented that restricts fair use rights below what the law allows doesn't mean that it should be legal to do so! It makes just as much sense as having a chip in a spark plug that says after X warrantied miles of service for that plug, that plug refuses to fire. Sure it's technically possible, but it doesn't mean it should be legal!

--mark d.

[Don307blue]

Get your facts straight

"Fair use" is part of US copyright law. In the commonwealth
countries we have an exception called "Fair Dealing", the
articulation of which varies from country to country.

In all cases, the exception has nothing to do with the perceived
fairness or unfairness of the action. With varying degrees of
precision, each act tries to define under what circumstances
copying without permission may take place.

Unfortunately, many people have misunderstood this and
misapplied this exception to justify their actions. In no case do
either Fair Use or Fair Dealing permit the copying of copyrighted
materials for the purpose of personal enjoyment or
entertainment - no matter how fair somebody might think it is.

[hadaso]

Berne convention

One real peoblem in copyright law is the Berne convention that requires that any kind of work automatically get maximum legal protection.

There is no sense in requiring that this post get the same kind og legal peotection that a multi million Pixar production gets. These are two extremes and in between them there are many intermediate scenarios, most of which reqire copyright protection slightly higher than this post but not getting close to the Pixar investment of millions in one film.

Legislators in most countries cannot really change this situation because they are bound by international agreements like the Berne convention. This should change to allow a variety of levels of protection, providing minimal protection for all works, more protection by request, and maximal protection for those that need to protect their financial investment for a fee. Those who spend millions to can be expected to invest a bit in protecting their investment.

The idea that registration should not be required for legal protection of a creation by copyright law was right for the end of the nineteenth century. However, in the twenty first century registering a work doesn't mean a few days on horseback to the capital city were several days are then spent looking for the right clerk. Today it can be done from anywhere through the internet, and I'm sure WIPO is capable of creaing such a system that would work globally and a new legal framework of international agreements to go with it.

Anyway, a new legal framework that doesn't put a Pixar full length film on the same level as a blog post would work better for both Pixar and the internet public, and would solve the problem of orphaned works.

[zaznet]

About Time...

It's about time they started to push back on DRM a little bit. DRM is not there to ensure copyrights are followed but to unilaterally and arbitrarily restrict use of content without exception. Copyright owners would love to have a way to secure their copyright ownership indefinitely.