So, Carlos deftly sidestepped the concept of balance as a rationale for copyright. I say deftly because it feels (to me) naive and outmoded to conduct a useful analysis of general copyright policy under the consideration of interest balancing. I believe this for two reasons. One is the general inertia of the legislature and the judiciary to further limit and constrain the interest of end users, particularly in regard to digital materials, while expanding the coverage and terms of copyright. Second, is the fact that for balance to occur, you need parts wtih opposing interests to seek compromise. Mostly, I'm not sure the general public has genuine representation.
Balance, however is essentual to copyright exceptions like fair use, which are in turn, essential to non-profit digitization and online access projects. I believe fair use was developed to accommodate libraries and other cultural institutions in the early days of copyright legislation. My concern is, that with the general government trends towards austerity, and the dire consequences for cultural institutions, the historical expansion of copyright, the lobby power of the media industries, and (arguably) public indifference, is fair use becoming an artifact of the past? What does this mean for preservation? Do we need a reaffirmed, more clearly described statutory version of fair use? If so, where will this push come from and with sort of coalition will it be? Or, would eliminating the vagaries surrounding fair use be detrimental to people with a more hesitant approach to copyright expansion and encroachment?
No comments:
Post a Comment