I checked out voluntary collective licensing upon DebaterPrime's recommendation. It sounds like a great idea. However, voluntary collective licensing is incapable of eliminating the need for copyright law reform. First, voluntary collective licensing is by definition voluntary, and it is unrealistic to expect that all artists will choose to use it. Their work should still be protected. Second, the principles of voluntary collective licensing couldn't be effectively applied to other media, such as books or inventions. We need appropriate copyright laws for more than just recorded music. Third, our copyright laws are a joke. They're impractical, unrealistic, and unfair. Even if voluntary collective licensing insured that they would no longer effect our lives, such stupid laws should still be eliminated.
Our laws should protect what should be protected but no more. We need a philosophy regarding what should and should not be legally protected, and then shape all copyright law - for recordings, sheet music, books, everything - around that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I don't disagree, with the premise that copyright law should be rethought. I just see voluntary collective licensing as the most practical solution to many of the piracy problems that we have now.
Though, this system can be used for other media, such as e-books, movies, and photos.
Even though it is voluntary it would still work because the artists would have a very strong incentive to join. File sharing is here to stay, and those artists on the outside of the licensing system would have no good way to collect revenue without joining the system.
Post a Comment