tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post1835275494680430967..comments2024-03-26T10:41:35.852+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Early responses to Hargreaves: at least the Pirates are pleased ...Marie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-30177532998881990362011-05-24T01:41:53.580+01:002011-05-24T01:41:53.580+01:00The report suggests extended collective licensing ...The report suggests extended collective licensing of 'orphans', by definition this equates to rent paid to people who can be found: non-orphans ,paid for the 'service' of representing 'orphans' . Obviously every collective management society wants it - but- What is the wide community point of that payment? <br /><br />Non exercise of Copyright is a perfectly viable economic model for some creatives , for some it is the best model. Would they have to register (and pay?) for non service?<br /><br />The report also calls for a sort of 'Torrens' title registry/title exchange.<br />The transaction costs of such a system could really get out of hand. Unlike land titles , the supply of copyright titles in a global world is huge, possibly infinite and unlike land titles, the intrinsic value of many of these titles would be less than the fixed costs of a Torrens title exchange style system .<br /><br />Finally 'Artists Societies' are Academies, The Nordic model thus creates mandated/compulsory payments to Official Academies of the Arts.... Is the UK really keen on such an European, illiberal, idea of Cultural Authority? <br />Academies always end in what Eugene Delacroix called the " conscientious servant of the art of boredom".<br /> It will cost you.John R walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-28605429620956877652011-05-22T06:38:35.968+01:002011-05-22T06:38:35.968+01:00About social 'needs'- the Stockholm conven...About social 'needs'- the Stockholm convention (as incorporated in the Berne convention) is a 3 step test needed to justify restrictions of exclusive rights of control of usage. <br />Clear definable purpose and clear net community benefit is needed: education for public benefit and free speech are good examples. Any restrictions of exclusive rights must not have wider 'collateral' damage to the economic rights of right holders .<br /><br /> Therefore this convention favors minimalist approaches.<br /><br />Copyright debates and the advocated changes tend to be far too maximalist , confused as to what is being talked about and unclear about who could be affected.<br /> <br />The rejected Google Books Settlement was exemplary of this problem -it was virtually impossible to say what might have not been affected by it: it was impossible to say what might not be an 'orphan', it was very hard to understand: it contained self reflexive definitions and it would have radically changed wide understandings of individual economic rights. <br /><br /> It was Too big a project.<br /><br />For example- Surely wider availability of public library books published 30 or more years ago can be achieved by some minor 'furniture' movements;<br />Ease the public libraries burden of seeking consent (a bit) and limit affected 'orphans' rights (a bit).<br />Advance this '30 year event horizon' a year at a time and the problem could in time greatly ease.John R walkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-29855649136501119792011-05-20T12:39:58.670+01:002011-05-20T12:39:58.670+01:00Hats off to everyone who (like us pirates) managed...Hats off to everyone who (like us pirates) managed to digest and respond to a 130 page report in about an hour, and double hats off to the 1709 Blog for being one of the very few media outlets to highlight that everyone has only bee able to make early responses.<br /><br />Digging a bit further into the review, I think it's quite interesting that Hargreaves holds back from taking the next obvious step in quite a few places. For example he's critical of copyright duration being set by 'lobbynomics', and wants evidence based policy, but doesn't put two and two together and call for evidence based copyright duration. Similarly, he advocates legalising digitisation of content by libraries, but doesn't look into the implications. From one angle, that recommendation looks a lot like advocating a state funded Pirate Bay!Andrew Robinsonhttp://www.pirateparty.org.uknoreply@blogger.com