Yes, I've seen it. The funny thing is, it's like someone comes up with a far more equitable way of allocating space on lifeboats just as the Titanic begins to sink and half the lifeboats have already gone. Copyright isn't going to last long enough for there to be much of a market to release works from it. In any case, copyright is a wet paper bag from the public's point of view. Only established publishers need to worry about it, and they're already quite able to make bargains with each other to purchase the copyrights to each others' works. This principle of copyright registration being proportional to the copyright holder's estimate of its worth should have been instituted long ago - so, yes, that's a good idea. This would also have meant that the extension of copyright term could have been costed as a measurable, financial benefit to copyright holders and consequently a financial loss to the public domain. What there will be a market for is the buying out of the source materials to published works, or the release of the digital master, etc. In other words, there's always a market for what you want, but don't have. And that includes new works. This model will be pioneered by copyleft works before copyrighted works. Only then will copyright holders realise they can also sell their works this way too, e.g. selling the copyleft release of the source materials. However, the essential point to note is that copyright becomes redundant in such a market. Otherwise, it's a case of "Your liberty to share and build upon each published work will be suspended by default, and you wiill be prosecuted for any liberties you do take, until you pay the respective ransom for the restoration of your liberty". This is holding the public hostage for each work, letting them pay small amounts in the interim for the perk of a TV set in their prison cell (being permitted a copy that they can look at, but not share or build upon). But, as we know, prosecuting the public for taking liberties with their own culture is not a strategy with much of a future - even if you do provide people with the ability to liberate works for a fee, they aren't necessarily going to think it's much of a bargain if they already have them. Far better simply to give the public their liberty back, and restore the free market in which artists offer the release of their unpublished works to their audiences and/or patrons. Abolish copyright and let artists sell their work in a free market. All you then need are mechanisms that enable large audiences to haggle with artists as to the value of their work, and to exchange their money for a copy of the art (with a copyleft license if copyright hasn't yet been abolished). Something like the Digital Art Auction, say: <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_art_auction&action=edit> Digital art auction: In this indefinitely long auction, designed for unreleased works that are trivially reproducible at zero cost (recordings, software, drug formulae), bidders openly submit their maximum bids (which may be adjusted or withdrawn at any time). The seller may review the bids and close with a price of their choosing at any time - the successful bidders that pay this price are those whose bid meets or exceeds it, and these are the only bidders who receive a copy of the item. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction>
_____ From: Tim Cowlishaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, 25 May 2007 10:01am To: Open Rights Group open discussion list; UK FreeCulture Discuss List Subject: [fc-uk-discuss] A Modest Proposal from questionCopyright:proportional registration Anyone else seen this? http://www.copyrightmyths.org/proportional_registration <http://www.copyrightmyths.org/proportional_registration> Karl Fogel suggests that after an initial copyright term that functions as at present ( i.e. - with no registration requirement, but reduced in duration), rights-holders should be required to register their work, paying a fee that is a proportion of an estimated 'value' of the work that they themselves set. The work can then be 'bought out' on behalf of the public domain by paying the entire 'estimated value' to the creator. Further details at the link above, but I'm intrigued by this position, as it leads to a copyright term proportional to the market value of a work. Any Thoughts? Cheers, Tim
_______________________________________________ fc-uk-discuss mailing list fc-uk-discuss@lists.okfn.org http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/fc-uk-discuss
