WEEKLY WHINE

Discussion of GoobNet’s solution to copyrights

In the hours and days since the announcement of the GoobNet Use It or Lose It Copyright Act, we have received many plaudits from all types of people. The vast majority of the population of Earth realises that in order for the public to receive the benefits of a copyright policy that encourages the creation and distribution of creative works, the public must actually have a copyright policy that encourages the creation and distribution of creative works.

All types of people recognise the importance of having intellectual property laws that actually make sense. Large firms seem to disagree, but they are not people. Only people are people.

But although there are a great many people who recognise that we have done them a great service, there are some who do not quite understand the GoobNet Use It or Lose It Copyright Act, why it is needed, or what it does for the public. Of these people, many have written in to the GoobNet Mailbox in hopes that we would answer their questions.

So we are now going to do just that – for some bizarre reason that we do not fully understand. We invite you to join us as we answer your questions about the GoobNet Use It or Lose It Copyright Act. Just be careful to stay behind this yellow line that designates the seventy five metre safe zone around the GoobNet Mailbox. The GoobNet Mailbox can be very dangerous in the wrong hands.

You may currently be wondering whose hands are the right hands. We’re not entirely sure, but we feel confident that we will find someone whose hands are right for the GoobNet Mailbox. If you think your hands are the right one, please step across the yellow line. Go ahead. Come on up. Of course it’s safe. Why do you think we call it the safe zone?

How do you plan to enforce your one year rule on copyrights?

– Bill Majersen
Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Enforcement is through civil court. This is unchanged from normal copyright law.

What does that mean in practise?

– Tina Banks
Colorado Springs, CO, USA

If a publisher believes that someone has infringed on its copyright, it may only claim damages by suing the alleged infringer.

So does that mean people would be able to post TV shows on Youtube a year after they’re on TV?

– Charlie Akego
Alexandria, VA, USA

Only if the show has not been repeated, released on disc, released on demand, or otherwise made available within that year. If it hasn’t, go crazy!

As an attorney who specialises in copyright claims and other intellectual property law, I must state that your proposed amendment to US law is unworkable. It is full of loopholes that can and will be exploited. For example, if a movie enters the public domain after one year, that means a studio can simply ensure that it is broadcast on television once per year, and it will be able to retain the rights indefinitely. Therefore, this approach will never work.

– Jonathan Albawicz
New York City, NY, USA

The situation that you have described is not a loophole. It is the whole point of our proposal. In the same scenario, under current law, the studio does not even have to do that. It retains the rights to the film for 95 years. It is patently obvious [Intellectual property pun!] that this creates an enormous public harm and contravenes the purpose of copyright law.

However, under our proposal, everyone has the opportunity to gain access to the film at least once per year. For example, if A Christmas Story continues to air on US television every December, MGM will continue to retain the rights to it until 2078, even if there are no further home video releases.

That’s a great proposal for changing copyrights. I do have a question about your rules regarding distribution of a television show. You say that the work must be made available to consumers throughout the United States who wish to access it. But what about regional TV shows, like local news? They are not made available to people throughout the United States, so how does that work?

– Geraldine Gaggler
West Adam Township, PA, USA

The one year term begins as soon as a work is distributed to any segment of the general public. Therefore, a programme must be made available on a national basis within one year of the original local broadcast.

We at YouTube believe that your proposed change would make it more difficult to share content online. For example, YouTube would be forced to investigate every notification of claimed infringement presented to us in order to determine whether the work has been distributed within the past year. This would incur additional costs that could mean the end of free video sharing online.

– Susan Wojcicki
Mountain View, CA, USA

Your assessment is incorrect. Youtube need not change anything about its current operations. It already has the right to remove any video at any time for any reason, which is another issue that needs to be fixed.

I think your copyright reform initiative does not go far enough. Copyright holders should also have to show that use of their material causes actual monetary harm. Otherwise, we are all wasting money and time trying to, for example, remove videos of people doing a dance that comes from a music video.

– Rochelle Bakinchor
Mosstown, MT, USA

We agree that copyright laws relating to fair use and derivative works also need complete overhauls. We here at GoobNet look forward to continuing to help America fix its copyright laws.

As far as we are concerned, the only issue with copyright law in the United States is that terms are too short. Also, all content should use digital rights management that permits it to be played only once, and then it deletes itself. And it automatically detects when someone is trying to circumvent that limitation and makes the user’s computer explode.

– Cary Sherman
Washington, DC, USA

Go away.