Good. As intended.
I don't see how this improves on the current model.
I don't even want a copyright on this post, but I've got one.
Thats my issue. I see it as the public domain shrinking immensively. Things posted without vetting attached will 99% not be anything worth stealing and 1% spammed as badly as a meme if it's semi-interesting. And Disney can still lobby congress under this model to expand copyright.
What really improves here? It doesn't even benefit open source development.
With affirmative registration we can trivially prove/disprove whether a specific work is registered under copyright. It also greatly expands the works in the public domain.
> It doesn't even benefit open source development.
Sure it does. Code by default is usable by anyone. A registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.
>Code by default is usable by anyone.
"by default". Any serious entrepreneur wouldn't fall on the default to begin with if the potential losses are that large.
> registry of copywritten code would appear which we could easily cross-reference.
Sounds like a good recipe for more Oracle vs Google battles in my eyes. We just have a reference on what NOT to write. Now there will be discretion on if you just happened to write this kind of code or if you took X+1 lines of a code base when X is allowed. Very useless metrics for a productive piece of software, but the kind thst will absolutely be used by courts.
Huh? It's no change at all for someone who wants to retain copyright. They would just need to file to register.
> We just have a reference on what NOT to write.
You may be confused. This is how it already works. No change.
Even more importantly, the vast majority of copyright claims aren't litigated in a court at all. Most are handled by extrajudicial processes such as the DMCA takedown process. You do not have to register to issue a DMCA takedown.
Furthermore, right now people just register before bringing their suit because they have 5 years to do so. The proposal above is a lot different than what you're suggesting and the law doesn't work as you're describing.
It is. You don't seem to know what you are talking about. https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/supreme-court-cop...).
>Even more importantly, the vast majority of copyright claims aren't litigated in a court at all. Most are handled by extrajudicial processes such as the DMCA takedown process. You do not have to register to issue a DMCA takedown.
Service providers don't take things down in the absence of any proof of a copyright.
>Furthermore, right now people just register before bringing their suit because they have 5 years to do so. The proposal above is a lot different than what you're suggesting and the law doesn't work as you're describing.
You have unlimited time to register. It's not 5 years. You just need to register prior to bringing a suit.
It is not, as explained by your own link. You should read your own link. Registering makes it enormously easier and nearly everyone will register prior to bringing a suit, but it is absolutely not required -- again, as your link clearly explains.
Furthermore, your point is academic because what people do in practice is simply register just prior to bringing a suit (after the infringement takes place)
> Service providers don't take things down in the absence of any proof of a copyright.
Yes they do - in fact the DMCA requires them to do so.
> You have unlimited time to register. It's not 5 years. You just need to register prior to bringing a suit.
The 5 years matters, but yes, this is why your point about registering is entirely without merit.
Oh so you're making a point about the narrow exceptions that generally don't apply? I'm not going to engage in a bad faith conversation like this. If you are suing over a US work, the only way to bring suit is to have a registration, been refused a registration, or, as you seem to think is an incredibly important distinction, is a VARA work. Do you litigate copyrights? Where exactly are you coming from on this?
>Yes they do - in fact the DMCA requires them to do so.
No, they wont in the absence proof of ownership of a work which is conventionally reflected in a registered copyright.
>The 5 years matters, but yes, this is why your point about registering is entirely without merit.
No, it doesn't.
Having an easily accessible registry of copyrighted code would make it easy to "patent troll" any open source projects.
The reverse is also true, but open source projects have much less money to dedicate to legal battles.
The difference here is that the vast majority of works would suddenly be free from this system and unavailable for any type of IP litigation.
It means your post, above, isn't automatically copyrighted, and the public domain expands massively. I don't even want a copyright on this post, but I've got one.
Thing is most people won't even think to apply. That's why the copyright is granted automatically, with an option to renew for a longer term afterwards. An important distinction from patents. this was one of the earliest revisions to to protect he unaware, since consulting a lawyer under the original system would be too late.