Amateur Megalomania

Stanford Center for Internet and Society

If you aren’t already familiar with my position on copyrights, go here and here.

Given those views, you might be surprised at my reaction to Kahle v. Ashcroft cited in the above link.

What is Kahle about?

From the first U.S. copyright statute in 1790 until the Copyright Act of 1976, the U.S. had a conditional copyright system that limited copyright protection to those who took affirmative steps to claim it — by, for example, registering their copyright, marking copies of their work with copyright notice, and renewing their copyright after a relatively short initial period of protection. (The registration, notice and renewal requirements are often referred to as “copyright formalities”).

Our tradition of conditional copyright stands in stark contrast to what we have today — an unconditional system that grants copyright protection whether or not an author desires it. Our current unconditional system grants copyright protection whether or not the work is registered, marked, or renewed. Formalities, where they have been retained at all, are voluntary and do not effect the existence or continuation of copyright. Protection is indiscriminate, and automatic.

While I am a staunch defender of the right to protect creative work, I am also a supporter of Fair Use and the eventual devolution of protected works to the Public Domain. The key here is that this devolution MUST be under the control of the copyright holder. I’ll never endorse the idea that a copyright should be stripped in the name of the Public Good as this is essentially just another form of enslavement.

However, I don’t agree with the new idea of ‘unconditional copyright’. If you desire to protect a creative work, I believe you should go through the trouble of registering for protection under the Copyright Law. While this may be onerous to some, the burden is necessary to prevent a stifling of creativity through the fear of lawsuit.

Under the terms of unconditional copyright, something as simple as a post to this Blog would become copyrighted and protected, even if I chose not to exercise that right. Others would face potential litigation if they wished to comment, expand or copy my work here. I agree that they SHOULD face litigation if I make it clear that I chose to protect my writing, but if I say nothing, the work is in limbo until I say otherwise.

The purpose of Copyright, in my mind, is to preserve value of a creative work by controlling the use of that work where commercial gain is possible. The commercial viability of the work is solely determined by the copyright holder, and not by the public or the government. But if the copyright holder is unaware that there work is protected, and the potential user is afraid of litigation, the value of the protected work is destroyed for everyone.

Make creators file for copyright. If it is worth protecting, then it is worth filing.

Filed under: Copyright