US leadership in the global copyright debates – the Green Paper on Copyright 2013/2014
von , veröffentlicht am 02.08.2014Deliberately written in English: Just visiting Stanford Law School I got into contact with the present US discussion on a new Copyright Act. The US Department of Commerce installed in 2013 a Internet Policy Task Force (Task Force) which released in July 2013 a Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy (Green Paper).[1] The Green Paper mentioned the following topics on which the Department would conduct more work:
- "the legal framework for the creation of remixes;
- the relevance and scope of the first sale doctrine in the digital environment;
- the appropriate calibration of statutory damages, in the contexts of individual file sharers and of secondary liability for large-scale online infringement;
- improving the operation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) notice and takedown system; and
- how the government can facilitate the further development of a robust online licensing environment."
The Paper was discussed in several workshops until July 2014 (I had the chance to listen to one of these sessions).
I don´t want to discuss all the items mentioned in the Paper. However, one sentence in the paper astonished me: “We hope the issues and findings discussed in this paper can serve as (… ) a beacon for U.S. leadership in the global copyright debates” (p. IV).
Well, well – US leadership in the global copyright debates: Of course, the USA are a very important country with a lot of national sophisticated experts in international IP debates. But leadership in copyright law?
Let us remember: The United States refused equal treatment for foreign authors for centuries (claiming that they cannot afford such as a protection for Charles Dickens & Co. as they are a developing country).[2] They only adhered to the Revised Berne Convention (RBC) in 1989 (however without changes as to moral rights). Since they entered the RBC, the WIPO never succeeded in finishing a new regulation in copyright law. The US tried to push their own views in copyright law by using secret diplomacy within the ACTA negotiations – but failed. The US copyright law is determined by the pressure of Disney & Co. (if you take for instance the so-called Mickey Mouse Act), by severe sanctions (such as statutory damages), by an unclear system of exploitation rights, by waivable and foggy limitations (such as “fair use”) and a missing concept of unfair contract terms regulations. The Green Paper however neglects recent trends in the EU and other non-US countries – of course on the assumption that the USA are the leader in global copyright debates. Which they are not!
[1] http://www.uspto.gov/news/publications/copyrightgreenpaper.pdf
[2] See Charles Dickens und das internationale Urheberrecht, GRUR Int. 1993, 195 et seq.,
Hinweise zur bestehenden Moderationspraxis
Kommentar schreiben
7 Kommentare
Kommentare als Feed abonnierenDear professor,
I think you are perfectly right. There is something in US history which leads us to say: "We are the best in everything". But why?
Leadership doesn't mean to have the best regulation or practice or the most advanced debate, leadership just means that you can set the rules.
Which is what the US want, not only in copyright regulation. Simple as that.
Woran machen Sie denn die Qualität einer Urheberrechtsordnung fest? Ich bin Laie, aber ist das US-Recht nicht vergleichsweise effektiv, die Interessen amerikanischer Rechteinhaber zu schützen? Die aufgezählten Kritikpunkte scheinen mir dies jedenfalls nicht zu betreffen.
In einer auf das Individualeigentum zentrierten Kultur ist der Anspruch naturgemäß geringer, ein Rechtsgebiet mit Verteilungs- und Kulturpolitik aufzuladen.
I don´t agree with No. 2. Leadership means leadership. It is a topos just quite often by US politicians. But the professor is right in stating that leadership in copyright law is a new variation of this topos.
Lieber Herr 3,
ich kann Ihre Frage gut verstehen. Mir geht es nicht darum, das US-Recht in sich als nationale Lösung zu kritisieren. Das steht mir gar nicht zu und wäre auch eine sehr komplexe Aufgabe; immerhin hat sich dasUs-Urheberrecht offensichtlich über Jahrzehnte in den USA grundsätzlich bewährt . Was mich nur irritiert hat und ich in dieser Form auch nur hier zum ersten Mal gelesen habe, ist ein absoluter Führungsanspruch der USA für die Urheberrechtsordnungen alle anderer Staaten. Dazu kann man dann doch noch etwas aus der Perspektive eines deutschen Urheberrechtlers sagen. Vielleicht ist das auch nur ein Mißverständnis - eine Führungsrolle haben die USA (neben anderen wichtigen Staaten), nur nicht "den"Führungsanspruch per se.
Spannend wäre übrigens zu wissen,ob Sie das Urheberrecht tatsächlich mit "einer auf Individualeigentum zentrierten Kultur" in Verbindung bringen wollen. Gruss Th
I want to make reference to a text where this understanding of the global leadership of the US is even stressed to the utmost. Read
http://www.gallup.com/poll/142631/worldwide-leadership-approval.aspx
Does that Gallup poll ask a question about approval of
a.) the USA leading other countries or
b.) the USA's leadership leading the USA?
To me, the latter seems the case.