[pp.int.general] International day of Sharing - September 12

[Reinier Bakels]

> Fair use, or as in Europe, exceptions and limitations in copyright, is
> something most people, even our opponents, can't be against. It's the
> perfect starting point for breaking the dogma of copyright never being
> able to be weakened. Because who could be against the visually
> impaired getting books more easily?
>
> I think it's wrong if we look at copyright as a problem only from the
> file-sharing perspective. Copyright legislation today is a labyrinth
> of problems, layer upon layer of ridiculousness. We need to identify
> problems and create solutions for each of those problems. Exceptions
> and limitations also.

I think it is *very* modest to focus on "exceptions and limitations". This 
is more a passtime for *lawyers*, see e.g. 
http://www.ip.mpg.de/ww/de/pub/aktuelles/declaration_on_the_three_step_.cfm 
(judge yourself whether you are impressed by those proposals). The "three 
step test" of the TRIPS agreement is currently the "umbrella" of both "fair 
use" and "exceptions and limitations". The good news is that it exists, the 
bad news is that nobody really knows what it includes. TRIPS sets rules for 
national *legislators* rather than *individuals*. Legistators tend to be 
cautious and tend to stay on the safe side, so national legislators may 
allow less exceptions than they actually would be allowed by TRIPS.

Some copyright experrts advocate an overhaul of (European) copyright in the 
sense that "exceptions and limitations" are no longer treated as exceptions, 
but as an integral part of copyright. The word "limitation" implies that you 
start with the normal 100% case, and deduct from that. Why not start from 
the perception that freedom is the principle rule, and exclusive rights are 
the exception?

A more radical proposal would be to implement some sort of "first sale" 
doctrine, allowing free re-publication once something has been publlished.

reinier