<br><a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4945/196/" target="_blank">http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4945/196/</a><br><br><quote><br>
The Economist has a <a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004" target="_blank">must-read editorial</a>
on copyright, arguing that the law <br>has swung too far toward being
restrictive. It argues for shortened copyright <br>terms, renewal
requirements, and expanded fair use. <br></quote><br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004</a><br>
<br>"When Parliament decided, in 1709, to create a law that would protect
books from piracy, the London-based publishers and booksellers who had
been pushing for such protection were overjoyed. When Queen Anne gave
her assent on April 10th the following year—300 years ago this week—to
“An act for the encouragement of learning” they were less enthused.
Parliament had given them rights, but it had set a time limit on them:
21 years for books already in print and 14 years for new ones, with an
additional 14 years if the author was still alive when the first term
ran out. After that, the material would enter the public domain so that
anyone could reproduce it."<br><br>....<br><br>"Over the past 50 years, however, that balance has shifted. Largely
thanks to the entertainment industry’s lawyers and lobbyists,
copyright’s scope and duration have vastly increased. In America,
copyright holders get 95 years’ protection as a result of an extension
granted in 1998, derided by critics as the “Mickey Mouse Protection
Act”. They are now calling for even greater protection, and there have
been efforts to introduce similar terms in Europe. Such arguments
should be resisted: it is time to tip the balance back."<br><br>....<br><br>"Intellectual property can seem very like real property, especially when it is yours,..."<br><br>.....<br><br>"Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right."<br>
<br>.....<br><br>"Copyright protection is needed partly to cover the costs of creating
and distributing works in physical form. Digital technology slashes
such costs, and thus reduces the argument for protection."<br><br>.....<br><br>"A return to the 28-year copyrights of the Statute of Anne would be in
many ways arbitrary, but not unreasonable. If there is a case for
longer terms, they should be on a renewal basis, so that content is not
locked up automatically."<br><br><br>-----------------------<br><br><a href="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15868004</a>