STEP 1:  Create

STEP 2:  ?????

STEP 3:  Profit!

What is Step2?

Floor64's Step2 is a community brainstorming platform for asking about, suggesting, creating, and building models for success, with help from the Insight Community. It's not just about the "business" model, but the overall "success" model. How do you create that connection with the marketplace? How do you offer something worth buying? Step2 is here to help.

If you're trying to figure out how to succeed, provide some details and ask for some insight. If you've got ideas, jump into the existing discussions. Let's all team up to help turn the Step 2 in every plan into something more than just question marks.

Start a discussion >>


What would a better copyright law look like?

2 like 0 dislike
I like to follow the various discussions concerning copyright, and I find myself quite unhappy with the current state of things, to say the least.  A while ago, my friend, being quite tired of my complaining, asked what I would change if I could single-handedly rewrite the copyright law.  That got me thinking…

I looked at laws in several countries starting with Canada (yes, I am Canadian!).  The thing that bothered me the most was the awesome complexity.  Canadian Copyright Act clocks in at 178 pages before the latest amendments.  Reading it, it’s a tangle of provisions slapped on it whenever some industry or artists or consumer groups felt they did not have enough rights.  Laws in other countries are not much better and various legal precedents muddle things even further.  After some more web searching, I found that most copyright reforms focus on tweaking some numbers or adding more clauses.  I think that this is a step in the wrong direction.  If a new law is needed, it should be written from scratch in a way that an average consumer or artist could comprehend.

I propose this discussion as a brainstorming exercise in creating the simplest and most inclusive example of a copyright law that we come up with.
initiated Oct 19, 2012 in General Feedback by Adam Fajner (350 points)   1 1 3

3 Responses

1 like 0 dislike
I think you've already hit a couple of the key points: simplify and clarify. I'd then expand on them with shorten and make a clear definition between commercial and non-commercial use.

I know this is in contradiction to the "simplify" point above, but if you've done that then this would be much easier.

The other key bit would be to internationalise. That's a crap word but you know what I mean. Digital content is global the moment it goes on the web, we need one set of rules for this.
response added Oct 26, 2012 by drew stephenson (3,370 points)   3 10 22
0 like 0 dislike
What works can be copyrighted?

It's easy to name a few examples, but new kinds of works pop up every year.  To future-proof the law, could there be a definition of copyright-able work?  Or perhaps a x-step test?
response added Oct 19, 2012 by Adam Fajner (350 points)   1 1 3
@adamf Good question... right now, the answer is basically... anything creative that's "fixed" in some manner.  And that's unlikely to change any time soon unless countries finally agree to ditch the Berne Convention... and that seems unlikely.

It seems like having a system of "formalities" makes more sense, where you require those who want copyright to register for it, rather than granting it automatically.  But, again, that would go against Berne...
Berne is another beautiful example of how to make legislation as opaque to the general reader as possible.  One annoying issue is the vague statement in Article 2 (3):
“Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work.”

Where is the line between an original work and an adaptation drawn?
0 like 0 dislike

A new and better copy[rite] law would be extremely simple to do.  It woul be very hard to accept accurately separating the human moral rights and the legal RITES used to monopolize profits made due to these original creations.

The fundamental human right to control original communications is closely related to the fundamental human right to protect honor. The need to prevent lies about prior communications like "he-said she-said" troubles or the moral human right NOT to be repeated inaccurately by rumor(s) and/or lie(s).

This human right to prohibit lies was first attempted to be preserved with a rite to protect book printing. Artists of original material surrender the natural right to prevent "he-said she-said" claims because the original physical creations can be copied exactly. Inaccuracy was no longer an issue except for distortions. 

This means artists no longer had the human right to repent or challenge repetitions of original creations or communications the artists latter retract or repent for creating.  See Robert Oppenheimer's use of, "I am become death, destroyer of worlds", or Chapter 11 verse 32 from Bhagavad Gita thought to be written around 5,000 years ago.

The first "English" copy[rite] or 1710 "Statute of Anne" was copied nearly verbatim in the U.S. Copy[rite] Act of 1790 where lexicographer Noah Webster USED the U.S. Second Congress to coin his Americanization of the copy ritual or rite as [sic] "copyright" for his Americanization of a word first used in England by Sir William Blackstone in chapter 26 of "Rights of Things" circa 1766.  This new U.S. law was an official "misspelling" of the compounding of "copy" and "RITE". This copy of the English RITE did not protect the fundamental human RIGHT to protect abuse of reputation caused by abusing original creations that existed first in England in 1734.

The human right to control USE of original communications would not marginally protect original communication but would protect attribution for these. The U.S. moral RITE to protect original communications was ruled no not apply online by a culturally senile porn addict.

response added Nov 2, 2014 by Curtis Neeley (270 points)  

Please log in or register to contribute to this discussion.

Related discussions

Terms & Conditions · Privacy Policy · FAQ · Contact
Brought to you by Floor64 and the Insight Community.