I think the main problem with modern copyright is its length. Originally you had to register for copyright protection and it lasted 14 years (28 if renewed) before entering public domain. It was also primarily used to curb commercial infringement. The purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."[1] The limited monopoly is simply the means to encourage creative work.
The current time frame of 70 years after the death of the artist distorts the purpose - it's no longer about encouraging creating works, but rather artists controlling and profiting for generations. This, in tandem with orphan works, makes nearly the last 100 years of culture off limits from the public. Perhaps most strangely the copyright time extensions have been retroactive which is really bizarre considering that people clearly don't need to be incentivized to create works they already created.
Today you can't even opt for something to be in the public domain, the best you can do is license it permissively. Unfortunately, because of large powerful interests and the heavy distortion of copyright's purpose I feel the problem is only going to get worse.
If I had the power to change copyright I'd do this:
1. Must register for protection (no implied copyright).
2. Lasts 7 years (14 with renewal) before entering public domain.
3. Non-profit sharing is not illegal.
Of these three points, the third is the most controversial. My opinion is that without draconian measures you can't stop file sharing. I also think the ability to make instantaneous and very cheap copies is one of the primary advantages of digital goods (making them non-rival goods). The public benefits from the ability to share and there is too much waste policing it. It would be better for businesses to adapt and find the advantages within the system (much how they already do).
1. Implied copyright is important--it eliminates the barrier to entry (as opposed to a patent, which requires a remarkable amount of paperwork and legal fees to attain).
2. 14 years is more than reasonable for a first pass before it enters the public domain. The reason it got up to 70 was because Disney didn't want Mickey Mouse to enter the public domain. The chief proponents of this are corporations, since they have lifespans much longer than you or I. They were retroactive because of Disney wanting to create new properties with the Mickey Mouse likeness.
3. That's high and mighty of you, but what determines "non-profit"? Surely you mean non-commercial? At any rate, then you or I could claim a profitless, personal use of an album that gets released, and share it freely. I'm very much a proponent of the idea of "fair use," but to say that "non-profit sharing is not illegal" is a little naive, methinks.
1. The problem with implied copyright is that the majority of work is not intended for profit. Implied copyright gives at least 70 year protection to every trivial thing - every written email, doodle, picture and since people don't typically put a permissive license on everything they create that they don't intend to profit from we're left with a ton of work with hard to find authors that can't legally be used by anyone. It also means that services that deal with what people write (which is most online services) have to grant themselves lengthy terms of service conditions in order to operate.
Yes it is a balance between barrier to entry and public content, but I think the default should be the common case that benefits everyone - the public domain. I wouldn't want the registration process to be arduous or expensive though.
2. I agree (and this would solve the biggest problem with implied copyright, it's length).
3. You could claim non-commercial, profitless use of an album and share it freely - albums are a poor way to make money in the internet connected world. In my system they'd be thought of more as promotion for merchandise and tours. The fact that distribution is cheap and sharing is essentially free can be used as advantages. This would be a big difference, but I think the efforts would be better served in working with technology then artificially trying to prevent it from what it does well. I think the old way of doing things is only viable with draconian measures that don't benefit the public.
There's a lot of waste in the current system that doesn't need to be there, but the old distribution channels seem to want to create legislation to necessitate their existence rather than adapt.
The problem with implied copyright is that the majority of work is not intended for profit. Implied copyright gives at least 70 year protection to every trivial thing - every written email, doodle, picture and since people don't typically put a permissive license on everything they create that they don't intend to profit from we're left with a ton of work with hard to find authors that can't legally be used by anyone. It also means that services that deal with what people write (which is most online services) have to grant themselves lengthy terms of service conditions in order to operate.
Basically most work is intended for public domain, but not licensed permissively so it's lost.
The current time frame of 70 years after the death of the artist distorts the purpose - it's no longer about encouraging creating works, but rather artists controlling and profiting for generations. This, in tandem with orphan works, makes nearly the last 100 years of culture off limits from the public. Perhaps most strangely the copyright time extensions have been retroactive which is really bizarre considering that people clearly don't need to be incentivized to create works they already created.
Today you can't even opt for something to be in the public domain, the best you can do is license it permissively. Unfortunately, because of large powerful interests and the heavy distortion of copyright's purpose I feel the problem is only going to get worse.
If I had the power to change copyright I'd do this:
1. Must register for protection (no implied copyright).
2. Lasts 7 years (14 with renewal) before entering public domain.
3. Non-profit sharing is not illegal.
Of these three points, the third is the most controversial. My opinion is that without draconian measures you can't stop file sharing. I also think the ability to make instantaneous and very cheap copies is one of the primary advantages of digital goods (making them non-rival goods). The public benefits from the ability to share and there is too much waste policing it. It would be better for businesses to adapt and find the advantages within the system (much how they already do).
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause