Profound Randomness

For years big business and the congressmen they control have been trying to extend copyright indefinitely. Sonny Bono famously stated that if it were possible, he’d make copyright forever minus one day. 

The public domain is guaranteed under the constitution, which is why Bono suggested the minus one day part. However, big business has pretty much gotten their way with extending copyright whenever it becomes inconvenient for them (I.e., when something they control is about to go out of copyright) so for all intents and purposes it is forever.

But evidently that isn’t enough for big business. 

Increasingly … copyright law is being privatized. Its meaning and application are determined not by governmental actors but by private parties, and in particular by deep-pocketed copyright owners. Increasingly, the balance between private rights and public interests is set by private lawmaking.

This is troubling for a huge number of reasons. 

One example is the widespread use of contractual provisions that enhance the rights of copyright owners. Many works, especially works delivered in digital form, are made available only to people who agree to give to the provider broader rights of ownership than copyright law itself actually confers.

For instance, the Copyright Act protects the right of fair use but in contracts accompanying digital works consumers waive the right to make any use of the work without the copyright owner’s permission. Copyright law permits consumers to give, lend, or sell their copy of a work after they are done using it. However, terms of use imposed by the supplier prohibit any transfer at all.

The scariest thing to currently come out of this, however, is The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). This bill essentially allows big business to shut down any Internet site they want with little more than suspicion the site contains copyrighted material. That’s it—no proof needed, only

[A] “good faith belief” that they are being “harmed by the activities” of a website[.]

It gets worse.

No judicial review is required for the notice to be sent and for the payments and advertising curtailed—only the good faith representation of the copyright owner. Damages are also not available to the site owner unless a claimant “knowingly materially,” misrepresented that the law covers the targeted site, a difficult legal test to meet.

Don’t think this won’t be abused. 

Go read the full story:

zenhabits:

The Privatization of Copyright Lawmaking