Joho the Blog
|
|
|
August 03, 2007
Pamela Samuelson, who has taught this stuff for 25 years, has written a brilliant article [pdf] that kickstarts a commonsense rewrite of US copyright law. She provides an outline of what topics ought to be covered by a copyright law, plugs in the current US law, and then suggests a set of plugins that are simpler, clearer, better suited for the digital age, and that better balance the rights of creators and the public. Now she hopes we'll talk amongst ourselves and come up with a model law that might make it easier for Congress to make the change. Pam writes: "A model copyright law should also be written in plain English so ordinary people, and not just the high priests of copyright, can understand what it means and the normative reason that it should be part and parcel of the basic statutory framework." Appropriately, the paper itself — about ten pages, when you subtract the footnotes — while designed for lawyers, is clear and compelling. (Thanks to BoingBoing for the link.) [Tags: copyright pam_samuelson ] Posted
by D. Weinberger at August 3, 2007 10:10 AM
|
Comments
If only Pamela had spent 25 years studying computers instead of the law that predates them by 250, she might realise that 'copyright suited for the digital age' is an oxymoron.
Posted by: Crosbie Fitch | August 3, 2007 10:41 AM
Crosbie, even if you think that all digital content ought to be free for all uses (which I do not), Pam deserves better than that dismissal. Did you read her article?
Posted by: David Weinberger | August 3, 2007 02:37 PM
I had read her article. I'd already posted another comment in response here:
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/07/pam-samulesons-call-for-reform.html
It is not a case of whether I believe digital content should be free of constraint for all uses, it already is. Or rather, copyright is completely ineffective at achieving that constraint by policing use on the Internet (or in people's homes).
There is an incredible disconnect between the reality of digital diffusion and the history of policing printing press owners.
As I mentioned on my other comment at the link above, the concept of the copy as a discrete entity is beginning to disintegrate, let alone the idea that copies cost nothing to make.
We've got to get back to understanding that artists should be paid for their art with money in a free market, not rewarded with the suspension of other artists' liberty (to pretend the existence of an effective monopoly in copies).
Copies cost nothing. Art costs a fortune.
So let the audience pay the artist for their art.
Pam, or anyone else, who thinks copyright could work if only raisins were replaced with sultanas, possibly less salt was used, and cooking time was reduced, is in denial.
The purpose of arresting a young woman in a cinema for taking a 20 second shot of the screen (to be rewarded with a large fine and prison sentence) is not intended to send a message that copyright must be respected, but to send the message that copyright is a sociopathic abomination.
These messages will continue to get louder until you realise in your subjugated slumber that someone is trying to tell you something (THE FRICKING HOUSE IS ON FIRE!).
Posted by: Crosbie Fitch | August 4, 2007 05:19 AM