Copyright Policy Proposals

[martinbudden]

Can you please explain the justification for this? Why is this change needed if non-commercial copying is always permitted?

I don't see how automatic copyright is incompatible with PPUK policies -- indeed, automatic copyright supports exactly the sort of small-scale/independent creative work that we wish to promote, surely?:|

I'll answer your question with a question: why is a reduction in copyright length required if non-commercial copying is always required?

And I'll try and answer both questions.

The manifesto currently states;

Copyright imposes a limited-term monopoly on works (which is against the public interest), in order to provide an incentive for people to create (which is in the public interest). Copyright is only ever a good bargain for society when the results of it which are in the public interest outweigh the compromises it requires against the public interest. Unfortunately, the bargain seems to have become unbalanced: the term of copyright is far too long, and laws imposing DRM prevent the creation of innovative new business models. The Pirate Party intends to redress the balance.

So the Pirate Party recognises that monopolies are are against the pubic interest, and should only be granted if there is a corresponding public benefit (the incentive to create in the case of copyright).

If you agree with this, then surely you must also agree that the monopoly should be as short as possible and that granting an automatic monopoly is against the public interest. This automatic monopoly I am talking about is the automatic granting of copyright without requiring the author to assert that copyright.

Note that it's not difficult to assert copyright - the the author has to do is write (say) "Copyright Martin Budden, 2009" on their work. Note also copyright was not automatic in the UK until 1911, prior to that date authors were required to assert copyright.

[martinbudden]

And for a practical reason see johnb's reply on the subject of the leaked Air Traffic Control tapes:

http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1133#p8781

It's certainly not in the public interest for copyright to stop a commercial news organisation from broadcasting an air traffic control recording pertaining to an aircraft crash.

[PeterBrett]

Can you please explain the justification for this? Why is this change needed if non-commercial copying is always permitted?

I don't see how automatic copyright is incompatible with PPUK policies -- indeed, automatic copyright supports exactly the sort of small-scale/independent creative work that we wish to promote, surely?:|

Note that it's not difficult to assert copyright - the the author has to do is write (say) "Copyright Martin Budden, 2009" on their work. Note also copyright was not automatic in the UK until 1911, prior to that date authors were required to assert copyright.

Oh, right. I thought you were proposing registration as a requirement.

How would you go about writing "Copyright (c) Martin Budden, 2009" on a .wav file?

[martinbudden]

For a wav file you could just state "this file is copyright 2009 Martin Budden" at the begining of your recording.

[PeterBrett]

For a wav file you could just state "this file is copyright 2009 Martin Budden" at the begining of your recording.

And isn't the first thing that anyone does if they actually want to listen to your recording going to be to chop it off?

Automatic copyright makes everything a lot easier. Requiring explicit copyright assertion can only end in "He didn't state the claim properly," "Oh yes he did," "Oh no he didn't!" idiocy in court, IMHO.

[martinbudden]

Peter,

wav files are the exception in that they don't have metadata. Most audio formats allow you to put the copyright in the metadata.

You say:

Automatic copyright makes everything a lot easier.

No it doesn't: it makes some things easier. In particular it makes things easier for the person who wishes to retain copyright at the cost of making things more difficult for the person who wants to put their work in the public domain. Is that really the trade-off you want to make?

In any case I think you are overstating the practical difficulties, the creative commons has been quite successful and people seem to manage asserting their creative commons copyrights without too much difficulty.

By the way, although practical issues are important, you haven't answered the underlying monopoly argument.

[PeterBrett]

Automatic copyright makes everything a lot easier.

No it doesn't: it makes some things easier. In particular it makes things easier for the person who wishes to retain copyright at the cost of making things more difficult for the person who wants to put their work in the public domain. Is that really the trade-off you want to make?

In any case I think you are overstating the practical difficulties, the creative commons has been quite successful and people seem to manage asserting their creative commons copyrights without too much difficulty.

The reason that Creative Commons has been successful is because when you license something CC, you are adding permissions, rather than restrictions.

Consider seeing a photo on a blog post. Although the author of the image wishes to assert copyright, the blog post author has not stated this fact anywhere on the page. You wish to include this photo in a newspaper report.

Under an automatic copyright system
Because I cannot use the image without a license, I contact the blog post author and ask him about it. He directs me to the image's copyright holder, who says, "Fine, go ahead."

Under an asserted-copyright system
There's nothing on the image or the blog post to say that the image's owner wishes to assert copyright, so I just use it. The image's copyright holder sees the newspaper and sues me. ... What happens? Who's liable for the infringement?

From the point of view of someone who wishes to use creative material commercially, whether as producer or consumer, the nice thing about either an automatic copyright or a copyright registry is that it makes everything nice and clear. Either it's public domain because the copyright has expired, or I have an explicit license and I can use it, or I don't and I can't.

This topic is important to me because I write GPL'd software, which requires a reasonably strong copyright to remain Free. I'm totally happy with the idea of a drastically reduced copyright period. And relaxing the restrictions on non-commercial distribution is fine by me, too. But I can't support the idea of a vague "copyright assertion" requirement.

[martinbudden]

From the point of view of someone who wishes to use creative material commercially, whether as producer or consumer, the nice thing about either an automatic copyright or a copyright registry is that it makes everything nice and clear. Either it's public domain because the copyright has expired, or I have an explicit license and I can use it, or I don't and I can't.

A question: under an automatic copyright system how can you tell if "it's public domain because the copyright has expired"?

[PeterBrett]

From the point of view of someone who wishes to use creative material commercially, whether as producer or consumer, the nice thing about either an automatic copyright or a copyright registry is that it makes everything nice and clear. Either it's public domain because the copyright has expired, or I have an explicit license and I can use it, or I don't and I can't.

A question: under an automatic copyright system how can you tell if "it's public domain because the copyright has expired"?

Not sure. Of course, under the current system, copyright doesn't expire so we don't really have any experience of how to deal with the issue. I imagine it would involve following the "supply chain" through which you acquired the media until you find someone or something that tells you the date it was produced.

The point I'm trying to make is that, in the absence of the text "Copyright (c) Joe Bloggs 1993," (possibly because it has been removed), you have no incentive to research whether the author actually intends to assert copyright under the system you have proposed. Starting from the assumption that something is copyrighted -- no matter for how brief a time -- provides the incentive to actually find out the artist's intentions. And I don't see how that's a bad thing.

[rancidpunk]

As Peter says, it's safest to assume that something is copyrighted until you can confirm otherwise. One thing I am unsure of is where the law stands if you specifically state that you don't wish to copyright something you have created and don't want to use creative commons licencing, can you then change your mind under the "automatic copyright" we have at the moment, or is there a register somewhere that shows you have given up your copyright?

[PeterBrett]

As Peter says, it's safest to assume that something is copyrighted until you can confirm otherwise. One thing I am unsure of is where the law stands if you specifically state that you don't wish to copyright something you have created and don't want to use creative commons licencing, can you then change your mind under the "automatic copyright" we have at the moment, or is there a register somewhere that shows you have given up your copyright?

Is there any difference between disclaiming copyright and issuing a perpetual, sub licensable, non-exclusive, unrestricted license to your work? I.e. is there any practical difference from a legal point of view between public domain (i.e. copyright expired) and the most permissive CC license (i.e. CC0)? This page about CC0 might be informative.

Also, rancidpunk, my interlocutor is suggesting that we adopt a policy of aiming to abolish automatic copyright. I think we're both aware that at the moment automatic copyright is the law.

[rancidpunk]

That CC0 link is good. The automatic copyright was explained to me when I was complaining about us having copyright on party stuff during an NEC meeting and once I got my head round the idea that a creator of something didn't have to apply for copyright, which I confess I feel pretty daft for not knowing it worked that way, it does seem a good thing in general.
The cynic in me can't help feeling that it could be open to abuse.

[martinbudden]

The point I'm trying to make is that, in the absence of the text "Copyright (c) Joe Bloggs 1993," (possibly because it has been removed), you have no incentive to research whether the author actually intends to assert copyright under the system you have proposed. Starting from the assumption that something is copyrighted -- no matter for how brief a time -- provides the incentive to actually find out the artist's intentions. And I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of automatic copyright. I presume you agree with by 4 other proposals:

1) Fair use should be legally enshrined.
2) DRM should not be allowed to restrict fair use.
4) Orphan works should be available for use after a diligent but unsuccessful search for the copyright holder. The copyright holder retains a right to reasonable compensation if they resurface.
5) Database rights should be abolished.

[JohnB]

The point I'm trying to make is that, in the absence of the text "Copyright (c) Joe Bloggs 1993," (possibly because it has been removed), you have no incentive to research whether the author actually intends to assert copyright under the system you have proposed. Starting from the assumption that something is copyrighted -- no matter for how brief a time -- provides the incentive to actually find out the artist's intentions. And I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of automatic copyright. I presume you agree with by 4 other proposals:

1) Fair use should be legally enshrined.
2) DRM should not be allowed to restrict fair use.
4) Orphan works should be available for use after a diligent but unsuccessful search for the copyright holder. The copyright holder retains a right to reasonable compensation if they resurface.
5) Database rights should be abolished.

My own view is that automatic copyright (as required by the Berne convention) is just a little too extreme in the direction of reduced formality. For these reasons:
(i) as has been suggested, automatic copyright means anything can be considered copyright, and claimed as such after the event, as it were, and then misused to restrict the distribution of information as a means of control, against the public interest
(ii) if/when we have a reduced copyright period, then it becomes important to know when the "clock started". If I have a legally acquired copy of something, and it carries a notice (c) whoever 1998, then if we have a ten year copyright I know immediately today I can redistribute/rework starting from that copy without further ado or searching for the rights holder. If we have renewals, or it's more recent (c) someone else 2005 I've got a clue where to start checking for whether it's been renewed (implies registration needed for that), and/or who first held the copyright - one of the issues of orphan works being that if no copyright was asserted, especially with long-lived copyrights, as today, it may be clear that someone must/does hold the rights, but very difficult or impossible to know where to start looking however diligently you try. And even with shorter copyrights, knowing who first asserted that gives a useful start point.
(iii) Automatic copyright means it's necessary to explicitly assert and attach something to work in order to disclaim copyright, and choose to place something into the public domain - which is an imposition for people who want to do that, as opposed to simply being able to release it without having to explicitly figure out how to assert their wishes. So that's the other side of the coin to the question, making it automatic in one direction forces assertion in the other direction...

[PeterBrett]

The point I'm trying to make is that, in the absence of the text "Copyright (c) Joe Bloggs 1993," (possibly because it has been removed), you have no incentive to research whether the author actually intends to assert copyright under the system you have proposed. Starting from the assumption that something is copyrighted -- no matter for how brief a time -- provides the incentive to actually find out the artist's intentions. And I don't see how that's a bad thing.

Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of automatic copyright.

Okay!

I presume you agree with by 4 other proposals:

1) Fair use should be legally enshrined.
2) DRM should not be allowed to restrict fair use.
4) Orphan works should be available for use after a diligent but unsuccessful search for the copyright holder. The copyright holder retains a right to reasonable compensation if they resurface.
5) Database rights should be abolished.

Definitely. With the addition that DRM should not be allowed to prevent works entering the public domain (i.e. it should expire).

[samgower]

Moved to Copyright and Patents policy forum. Locked due to being superseded by subsequent topics.