« Artists copyright vs. corporate copyright | Main | Chasing file sharers into the Darknet »
Finding middle ground in the copyright wars
I've blogged before about Scott Matthews' proposal, called DRUMS, for a middle ground in the copyright debate. (It's a database of creative works and metadata including rights and permissions.)
Over at the IPcentral Weblog, Patrick Ross of the Progress & Freedom Foundation likes Scott's idea, too. (I signed on as supporting the concept last spring.)
It's a praiseworthy idea -- one that says nothing about passing pernicious, restrictive new copyright laws, which I oppose.
Laws aren't the answer. Inventive, forward-looking new business models are.
David Weinberger and Siva Vaidhyanathan also weigh in on this, and Scott discusses this further on David's blog.
February 8, 2005 at 11:39 PM in Digital rights & copyright | Permalink
| Comments (5)
| 
| 
(1)
» Toward a Kinder, Gentler Debate? from Copyfight
See: David Weinberger @ Joho: DRUMS - Digital ID for Stuff: "Scott Matthews has an idea-in-progress called DRUMS. It's a database of creative works and relevant metadata including, crucially, rights and permissions. It'd be maintained by a trusted auth... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 10, 2005 8:04:56 AM
Comments
"It's a database of creative works and metadata including rights and permissions."
This suggests a global and universal DRM system, and that is what content cartels will push for, and little guys like me will not stand for.
It's all fine and good to have rights and permissions for making material commercially available over the internet, but under fair use doctrine personal copying is allowed, also the AHRA allowed noncommercial sharing of sound recordings in exchange for a media tax we still pay. Why does this not apply to the internet? well, there was a loophole in the definition of recording.. they defined it as fixed on a physical medium rather than intangible mp3 file.
Posted by: Alexander Wehr | Feb 9, 2005 2:13:35 PM
Good laws ARE the answer to bad laws. If the law creates a term of copyright that is too long (as it currently does in the U.S.) then the answer is to pass a law creating a shorter term of copyright.
Posted by: Timothy Phillips | Feb 10, 2005 7:41:13 AM
Alexander:
Do you favor the notion of some ACS (alternative compensation system) that would compensate authors while leaving unrestricted P2P intact?
If so, how could you possibly build such a system without a trustworthy registry that oversees who is supposed to get compensated for what?
In fact, DRUMS does not say anything at all about DRM (it would not include the works themselves -- think of it more as a card catalog)
-Scott
Posted by: Scott Matthews | Feb 10, 2005 8:40:13 AM
Timothy, you're right -- but in an ideal-world kind of way.
Yes, copyright terms should be shorter. It's certain, however, that if Congress were to revisit the issue, it would make them *longer,* not shorter.
In the same way, almost every copyright bill in Congress would worsen the already sad state of fair use and digital rights in this country.
Until that changes and we can see an opportunity for copyright reform, the most we can hope for is: No more bad laws. (Like INDUCE and its likely offspring.)
Posted by: JD Lasica | Feb 10, 2005 6:35:16 PM
But you can do it. Form a consumer group and lobby at them, much like the way those RIAA pigs have been doing. Join the groups and the electronic groups and tell them to protect your rights.
If the recording industry tries to take all our rights away, it will only worsen the problem that we have today. Innovation will freeze, and we will be left sitting in handcuffs like we, all of us, are digital criminals.
Posted by: James Donahue | Aug 22, 2005 6:13:10 PM
