tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5792647680176711787..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Making the Abstract concrete: some readers' responses -- and a lovely surprise!Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84297743013763366702014-06-25T09:17:58.447+01:002014-06-25T09:17:58.447+01:00Here's my effort at an abstract, though it'...Here's my effort at an abstract, though it's a bit long:<br /><br />The purpose of the copyright regime, a part of the legal system, is to regulate the social interactions involved in the production and dissemination of, and access to, creative works. This mechanism is now in a state of crisis thanks to the digital technologies which have reshaped the current environment.<br /><br />The article discusses how copyright law has evolved over time, and analyses the complex relationships and interests involved: in particular, amongst the creative system (creation and publishing or works), the political system (the state and religion), the economic system (right holders and various commercial parties in the market for creative works) and the technological system (the Internet and the various technical services involved in production, distribution and access).<br /><br />Historically, the introduction of new technologies into this field has been disruptive. From the early stages of copyright legislation in response to the printing press up to the present era of extremely rapid change, the laws have gradually adapted to new circumstances, largely under pressure from the interested parties, and maintained a degree of productive stability in the environment.<br /><br />However, with the advent of Internet and digital technologies, copyright law has been failing to adapt to the changing world it was meant to regulate. Reacting primarily to economic and political pressure (i.e.,<br />lobbying), legislators have upset the balance of the creative ecosystem, favouring the larger commercial intermediaries over the creative artists and the public for their cultural creations.<br /><br />As a result, legal access to and uses of creative works by the public has been increasingly restricted at the very time when digital technologies made wider access and use of the works possible for the general public. While a movement has advocated for greater freedom to use and reuse digital works as the technology permits, changes in copyright law have tended in the opposite direction, extending the period of copyright protection and implementing further restrictions and punishments for "personal use" activities now made more available to the general public thanks to mass-market electronic devices and the Internet.<br /><br />In other words, copyright law has become disconnected from the social reality of our time. Whereas its original purpose was to balance the public good of making creative works available to everyone with the right of creators to be paid for their work, its present effect is to<br />restrict and penalize the public while affording little relief to the majority of creators who lack economic and political clout. Instead, it provides an environment in which economically powerful intermediaries (media corporations, industry lobbies, etc.) are the main beneficiaries.<br />As a result, the copyright regime has lost credibility with most<br />creators and most of the public, all of whom would otherwise benefit<br />from a fairer balancing of rights.<br /><br />Hence, this article contends that, for copyright law to successfully<br />regulate the production and dissemination of and access to cultural works, it must be radically reformed. It concludes that society as a whole can only benefit from the new opportunities offered by digital technologies if copyright law properly adapts to the digital era by embracing—rather than opposing—the new realities of the digital world.Judythnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81917224500574687742014-06-18T11:13:49.216+01:002014-06-18T11:13:49.216+01:00Wow, an amazingly clear abstract in 150 words. How...Wow, an amazingly clear abstract in 150 words. However the task is probably made much easier by knowing the abstract is for IPKat readers. I think a lot of bad writing happens when the wrong audience is addressed.<br /><br />One wonders whether legislators know and consider systems theory, or at least have a list of all the 'subsystems' that need to give stimuli.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-22605074684263694962014-06-18T07:36:30.698+01:002014-06-18T07:36:30.698+01:00The author's new abstract is 402 words.
A PCT...The author's new abstract is 402 words.<br /><br />A PCT application allows 150 words. I have cut the abstract down to 150 without losing anything substantive:<br /><br />Systems Theory may explain why copyright fails to adapt to the digital world by positing that modern society comprises various systems serving different functions and operating according to different rationalities, including law, economics, politics and technology. <br /><br />Comparing the copyright subsystem to an organism trying to survive environmental change, how technological advances stimulate reaction is considered. Contemporary copyright law acknowledges different stimuli unevenly, becoming increasingly unstable and obsolete. Via lobbying, it became prey to creative industries and others eager for legal reform to ensure their survival. For copyright to survive this new environment, it must respond to stimuli from all relevant subsystems. <br /><br />Analyzing contemporary Copyright Law crisis using Systems Theory allows broader perspectives than merely 'who pays' versus 'art for art's sake', since often the same actor is a part of many diverse functional systems with competing rationalities. Authors have both economic and creative interests. Copyright Law survival requires acknowledging both. <br />Dr Michael Factorhttp://www.blog.ipfactor.co.ilnoreply@blogger.com