A New, Simple and Reasonable Copyright

Today's copyright laws are not suited for today's information society. We see some culture being locked in, orphan works and a huge part of our cultural heritige in company safes (where people nor can enjoy it or make money on it).

Positions in the discussion on copyright seems to be in gridlock. But, is it really that impossible to set up a legal framework that works reasonably well?

Below, I will outline one model. It is mainly based on Pirate Party policy - but with some personal add-ons. What makes this model attractive is not just that it would solve 90 per cent of the problems we see with today's copyright. Even more exiting is that it works well with people all over the political field; from right to left; from individualists to collectivists. And even better: It is simple and understandable...

i) If someone wants copyright protection, he or she will have to apply for it. (If people need to apply for welfare cheques, it is quite reasonable that people who wants society to protect their business and their products also will have to do so.)

ii) Works that are not acitively protected will become "public domain" - and could freely be e.g. shared, copied and sampled by others. It should, however, not be allowed to "kidnap" other peoples works in the public domain by copyright protecting them.

iii) The copyright protection time is five years, from the day the creator of a work has applied for it. (In today's world, normally the commercial lifespan is not longer than that.)

iv) The copyright protection time can be prolonged with five years at a time, for those who would like to do so. (But I´m pretty shure most works will become public domain after five years.) Prolonging the protection time must be done actively, with a new application.

v) The copyright protection for a work is transferable from the artist / author. It can be sold, inherited or given away to others. This way, it is possible for the artist to focus on creating - and leaving marketing and day to day business to experts. (One could also consider the possibility that the artist can lease the right to commercial use of his/her protected work to others.)

vi) With this system applied on an EU-level we would avoid the problems with 27 different licenses in the otherways single market. A data base could provide updated information on on the status of all works that once have been registered. (So that you e.g. can see if a piece of music is free to use or still under copyright protection.)

This is not a perfect model. But it might solve most problems. It is more reasonable than today's system. And I think most people would understand and accept it.

Starting at this point, it would also be simpler to handle the issue of file sharing of copyright protected works. (Witch I, by the way, think should be permitted if it is done without commercial intent. But that is an other discussion, that will go on regardless. And with higher stakes with today's system.) The point is that lots and lots of works in the public domain would be a goldmine for people who wants to enjoy free culture. The public domain would expand fast, as most copyright holders would probably allow their work to be public domain after five or ten years, when the commercial lifespan is over.

The model above would also stimulate new business models - even those that do not assume copyright protection at all. (See Chris Anderssons book Free, for plenty of examples and ideas.)

[This blog post in Swedish]

This IS the Market, Stupid!

Working with Pirate MEP Christian Engström in the European Parliament, I often come in contact with advocates for Intellectual Property – e.g. lobbyists from the film, music and book industry. And one thing almost always strikes me...

They don't seem to have a clue about what's really going on.

They don’t seem to realize that we now live in an information society with hyper distribution. And if some of them might have some sort of a clue after all, it seems they think the Pirate Party or Christian himself invented the internet, free flow of information and file sharing. (We sometimes respond to that, saying “No, that was someone much more clever”. But they really don’t seem to catch the subtle humor, nor the message.)

What the Pirate Party does, is “just” to point out what policies are reasonable in our new society.

Billions of people are online. Al of them can, at least in theory, connect with each other. And there are often a surprisingly sort distance (or few links) between person B and person Q. A thought, an idea or an application can spread over the world in just a few days. All kinds of data that are on my computer could be transfered to yours. Or to that that of a bike repair man in Chile. If it is good and interesting enough.

Some entrepreneurs have got the message. They start net applications, they set up web stores (that often are more successful the more specialised they are), they start their own media channels and they start projects where people cooperate. In most cases it can be done with very little money. And if they choose, they can address a global market.

The IP-lobbyists from the entertainment industry, on the other hand… They refuse to see or to accept the real world as it is. They are upset, because people don’t want to go downtown to a store to buy their products engraved to plastic discs anymore. They go bananas if someone shares the information he or she has bought with someone else. They curse the Internet. They want so supervise, filter and control the flow of information. They want to cut people of from the net. They have no problem making the world a worse place for everybody else – e.g. all the entrepreneurs, scientists, students, activists, artists, blogers and ordinary people that every day spontaneously fills the Internet with life and creativity.

The IP-lobby does not make any real effort to accept, embrace and make use of our new reality and of the information society. They could, if they wanted. And they could make a lot of money doing so. But so far, they seem unable and unwilling to think outside the box.

Sometimes it’s almost amazing. We met with a person from the book publishing sector. That person told us, with a stiff upper lip, that the amount and the multitude of information on the Internet is a problem – as no one can handle the selection process, deciding what should be published and not. So… von oben.

An online information society with a multitude of information and hyper distribution is the new market. And in many ways it is a much more free market than the old one. You should accept it – or get out of the way.

And let’s face it. Some products, business models, concepts and stuff will end up in the trash can – as they don’t fit our modern society. And they should end up in the trash – making open space for things that are new, profitable, focused on the future, viable and blooming.

No one can tell what tomorrows business concepts will look like. But you don't need to worry. We'll find out, eventually. The market will solve that. On its’ own. There will always be talanted people developing new stuff for new markets. You might call it capitalism, spontaneous order, progress, the invisible hand, dynamic effects or what ever you like. But it will be there.

Trust the Force!

[This blog post in Swedish]

One Europe, One Culture, One History?

The European Parliament last week adopted the report »Sharper focus needed on European cultural heritage«, written by Portugese MEP Vasco Graça Moura (EPP-ED).

Now, what does »sharper focus« mean? Well, the EP Press Release is a little... diplomatic.

But if you read the report you will find that it says that we have one European culture, that we should adopt one cultural agenda and that there should be one curriculum on European history in schools.

In the words of Sweet Virgin Mary: Come again!?!

I don't even dare to think what this translates into in German...

The report was adopted by the EP with 533 MEPs voting in favor and 68 against. 22 did not vote at all.


(This report has stirred up a rather lively discussion on my Swedish blog.)

What the French are up to...

Information is beginning to leak on the French governments plans for its EU Presidentcy.

Among other things, they want exceptions from Free Trade Agreements – when it comes to culture, including film and TV.

The reason is to protect and to promote "domestic" culture.

In other words: To the French, what makes culture important is where it is created, not the content!

Cultural protectionism is a term that comes to mind.

The French approach is an narrow minded and arrogant dismissal of other peoples thoughts, creativity and creations.

Baguette!