[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Fw: Re: [ARSCLIST] NYT Editorial: The Coming of Copyright Perpetuity
At 02:22 PM 1/19/2003 -0800, Paul T. Jackson wrote:
It's possible (if enough pressure is brought to bear) that congress can
update the copyright law to indicate that a work would be open to copying
for certain purposes if it was not being commercially exploited, and that
the companies involved would have to file with the copyright office that
indeed they were pursuing commercial exploitation of their products --
otherwise they would be open to P. D. -- sort of a mandatory licensing
like music, but for reproduction of the original. DMCA initially had this
type of necessary burden on the producer, but apparently it didn't make
the final cut.
There is some of this in DMCA. As I understand it, a library or archive may
jump the gun and reproduce a protected work after 'only' seventy-five years
if the copyright holder does not state an intent to reissue it themselves.
I have not seen definitions of "library" or "archive", a mechanism for
informing those who might have rights, or a means for declaring intent.
But then, I am not an attorney.