[wos] The Economist on Copyright

[Matthias Spielkamp]

A brief account of the Grokster ruling, and then these four paragraphs:

The Supreme Court tried to steer a middle path between these claims, and
did a reasonable job. But the outcome of the case is nevertheless
unsatisfactory. That's not the court's fault. It was struggling to apply
a copyright law which has grown worse than anachronistic in the digital
age. That's something Congress needs to remedy.

In America, the length of copyright protection has increased enormously
over the past century, from around 28 years to as much as 95 years. The
same trend can be seen in other countries. In June Britain signalled
that it may extend its copyright term from 50 years to around 90 years.

This makes no sense. Copyright was originally intended to encourage
publication by granting publishers a temporary monopoly on works so they
could earn a return on their investment. But the internet and new
digital technologies have made the publication and distribution of works
much easier and cheaper. Publishers should therefore need fewer, not
more, property rights to protect their investment. Technology has tipped
the balance in favour of the public domain.

A first, useful step would be a drastic reduction of copyright back to
its original terms—14 years, renewable once. This should provide media
firms plenty of chance to earn profits, and consumers plenty of
opportunity to rip, mix, burn their back catalogues without breaking the
law. The Supreme Court has somewhat reluctantly clipped the wings of
copyright pirates; it is time for Congress to do the same to the
copyright incumbents.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4128994

Best,
Matthias