6. A Constructive Proposal For Copyright Reform

Nowadays most of the business is based on the concept of "intellectual property", so the book "The case for Copyright Reform" is now more relevant than ever. Some solutions are good, some are bad, but I want to highlight the two most interesting points.

• Free Non-Commercial Sharing

I think this is one of the most controversial points in the second chapter. This rule can indirectly bring significant losses to both large companies and relatively small ones. For example, If you want to share a disc of a game / music / movie with a friend so that he / she also downloads a copy, it will be a potential loss for the company that created this game, because she will lose one potential buyer. 

This case is controlled by current rules, but if this rule is abolished, then this can lead to uncontrolled "multiplication" of copies of one object. So it's worth saying that even non-commercial distribution of games / movies / music / books etc. on a non-commercial basis can cause significant losses to these industries. It will also be difficult to prove that this is a "non-commercial" copying, which would require surveillance of the distribution, which still violates the rule of privacy.

On the other hand, companies can abuse copyright and trademark. for example, people run the risk of being fined for distributing a self-made photo of a Hollywood sign, which seems completely absurd.

 For this reason, I consider this point controversial and even paradoxical, which leads to the impossibility of its implementation. 


• 20 Years Of Commercial Monopoly

This one is pure gold. I think this paragraph is great, as 20 years is a sufficient period for intellectual property to go into the "public domain". Even though 20 years a rather small period of time, which can be slightly increased, but this is much better than the life plus 70 year limit. This time period can lead to big problems, for example, because of such an absurdly long time, you can technically be sued for a photo of the night Eiffel tower, also large companies can exploit this rule for example, Disney.

Disney has recently started producing many life-action films based on old franchises (for example Dumbo), which has raised suspicion among the people. At first people thought it was an attempt to renew the current copyright rights, but it is not. However, Disney has made the life-action film almost identical in terms of plot, lines and visuals, which is why Disney can claim in court that the intellectual property rights of the new film are violated. for this reason, Disney can win almost any court related to the remade franchises


In conclusion, I want to say that giving some copyright freedom is good, but it can also come with some risks. However, such thoughts from the book "The case for Copyright Reform" forces us to think about the issue not only from the consumer's side, but also from the seller's side, which brings us closer to the form of copyright that will suit everyone.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

11.loeng Arendus- ja ärimudel

8.IT proffesional... ?

1. Nädal. Noppeid IT ajaloost