A.
Picking up in middle of discussion, “abuse” - justifies a long-term copyright to prohibit editing in such a way as to vandalise the original work of art. I claim copyright on hymns I have written to prevent alteration, but publish them with a notice giving permission for free non-commercial use in Church. Copyright to keep track of use, not to prevent use.

B.
The Queen Ann rule of 14 + 14 years covers someone’s legitimate need of an income from their work - “just reward of labour”. There is a case for an extension to support their heirs, or provide a pension. A balance of being fair to the worker who creates the piece of art. The extension of the original British 50 years after death to EU 70 years after death adversely affected amateur operatic societies with plans to perform Gilbert and Sullivan. And if the original composer or their immediate family do not benefit, is there any justification for long-term copyright benefiting only a company / publisher / recording studio?

C.
Old maps, paintings, etc. which would be long out of copyright, but their owners claim copyright merely because they are the present custodians of the item. Crown perepetual copyright. Etc.

Can these be justified?

I think it would be very useful to get teachers and educators involved in this debate and for them to provide more real life examples of socal harm in the UK.

An evening with Lessig and friends: Thursday September 29. Also blogged by Suw Charman on the Open Rights Group site

I spent this evening at the RSA, just off Strand in London, at an event organised jointly by them, the ippr’s Intellectual Propert…