RSS
Twitter
Professor Slams European Commission For Ignoring The Evidence On Copyright Extension
from the it's-not-about-evidence,-it's-about-campaign-contributions dept
We were pretty surprised a few weeks back when the European Commission endorsed a plan for copyright extension, despite ample evidence that retroactive copyright extension is a bad idea. Soon after that announcement, a group of European academics sent a letter warning that such extension would harm innovation. The academics keep piling on, as Professor Bernt Hugenholtz, the director of the University of Amsterdam's Institute for Information Law (IViR) has sent an open letter to the Commission blasting them for ignoring all of the research showing that copyright extension is bad. Specifically, Hugenholtz is amazed that the Commission relied only on reports prepared by industry, and willfully ignored research prepared by independent academics, such as his own group, claiming that by ignoring such studies, the Commission has a clear intention to mislead the rest of the EU by hiding the research that shows why copyright extension is a bad idea.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
His letter was promptly filed in the round cabinet
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Ok, wait
So you're saying he blasted the round cabinet instead of the EU. Niiiiiice. :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What a corporate little money can do
Dear Lord, I would expect this of the US and its puppy Canada but the EU?!?! Who paid off the commissioners?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What a corporate little money can do
Mickey Mouse's leashholders.
Oh, and probably the guys who own the rights to all those songs by that silly Beatles band.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: What a corporate little money can do
mm that would still be Mickey mouse Jackson?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
How disheartening it must be for an academic to realize that others do not seem to give a darn about his academic opinion. Poor baby.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
How disheartening it must be for an academic to realize that others do not seem to give a darn about his academic opinion. Poor baby.
Actually, in Europe, they do take these things pretty seriously.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
"Actually, in Europe, they do take these things pretty seriously."
The linked article suggests otherwise.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
How disheartening it must be for an academic to realize that others do not seem to give a darn about his academic opinion. Poor baby.
Looks like you are a few fries short of a happy meal
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Incomplete theory
Hugenholtz is right... but it goes further than that.
Extending the term of copyright is bad. That much is clearly true. The next conceptual step that needs to be taken is to consider that reducing the term of copyright is good. As long as:
a) it's renewable; and
b) there's a 'use it or lose it' clause.
I wrote a post recently called How long should music copyright be? where I explain, and argue in favour of a 5 year renewable term.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Incomplete theory
"Extending the term of copyright is bad."
Why is that...?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Incomplete theory
Primarily because the rationale behind the extension is not to promote new works.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Incomplete theory
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Incomplete theory
In all fairness, what the individual has expressed is a 5 year renewable term. Every 5 years a copyright holder has the option of either simply abandoning further claim to copyright or paying a renewal fee (i.e., a tax). Of course, this renewal could continue into the future far longer that the terms currently provided by law.
His view in some regards mimics what US Copyright Law entailed prior to 1/1/78. The law embodied formalities that when met provided a 28 year copyright term, with the possibility of one extension for an additional 28 years.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
academics v commission
When will Europeans realize that it's US lobbyists, and not academics that the Commissions listens to. Also, more than 'performers' these benefits go to record companies, lumped together with broadcasters as neighboring rights. Labeling this a benefit for poor performers is the same trick as 17th century printers saying 'it's about the poor authors'. It never was, it never will be. Performers will continue to get screwed, just as they always have. It's the lobbies, Europe.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment