Dan Heller’s Photography Business Blog. Proposal for Privatizing the Copyright Registration Process. Jan. 21, 2008. Citing other instances of government outsourcing — including U.S. Postal Service allowing Mail Boxes Etc. and other commercial mail receiving agencies to manage mail delivery and pickup — Heller suggests that the U.S. Copyright Office accredit private sector business to handle copyright registrations. (Although Heller does not mention this specific example, America already is quite familiar with this model, since domain name registrations are outsourced to hundreds of registrars that are accredited by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).)

We already have some businesses that purport to handle copyright registrations, but many of these firms seem suspect at best. A rigorous accreditation process (similar to the one ICANN uses), overseen by the U.S. Copyright Office, likely would weed out the fly-by-night firms. (Look at the questions you have to answer in order to get ICANN registrar accreditation. Then there is a $2,500 application fee, which is just steep enough to make pretenders think twice.)

Further, the U.S. Copyright Office already has received poor marks for its online registration system after a lengthy development period, so there remains a legitimate question as to whether the agency can implement a solid solution. And online registration clearly is the way to go, since (a) USPS mail to federal government agencies still gets delayed because of anthrax screening; and (b) it’s 2007 and our federal government should have online services like this down pat by now.

Further, broadening the registration process may encourage more people to register their works. Currently, copyright is the only one of the Big Three forms of intellectual property where neither registration nor public review is required prior to the government granting monopoly status. This leads to several problems, not the least of which is a huge orphan works nightmare, and a suppressed, downstream licensing market that suffers because no one can find the correct copyright owner.

We don’t reflexively get on the “business can do better than government” bandwagon, and the current domain name registration model has its own unique problems, but this is a marvelous idea in so many ways.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings, where it was an Article of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

“One way to look at plaintiff’s difficulties here is as further evidence of the disproportionate difficulties African-Americans have had in getting the benefits of IP protection.” — Rebecca Tushnet.

43(B)log. Strikeout: Baseball Player’s Claim Against Cards Fails. Jan. 5, 2008. Georgetown law professor Tushnet (no, the junior Tushnet) ends her analysis of a lawsuit against the Topps trading card company with this interesting comment. The lawsuit (which was based on right of publicity, trademark and related claims) was brought by the daughter of legendary Negro Leaguer James “Cool Papa” Bell, alleging that the trading card company did not have permission to print Bell’s likeness on a trading cards released earlier this decade. Tushnet’s summary says Bell granted to the Baseball Hall of Fame permission to use his name and likeness on various products. (Bell was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 1974.) Tushnet’s comment raises interesting issues about IP protection and race.

Stories are legion about the extent to which creative, technical, or scientific achievements by African-Americans have been appropriated without initial or residual compensation. And strains of complaint often make it into the lyrics of contemporary music. (Even Jay-Z once said in “H.O.V.A.” “I’m overcharging labels for what they did to the Cold Crush.”) We would be very interested in seeing any articles, reports, books, or scholarly work that addresses this phenomenon and estimates the lost value therefrom.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings, where it was a Quote of the Week selection.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Bill Board (BBC News.) Locking Down Open Computing. Jan. 28, 2008. BBC columnist Bill Thompson discusses copyright restriction technologies and digital rights management, and points to examples where both technologies have been implemented fairly. Most importantly, he positions them as benign technologies that only are as fair or onerous as their implementer intends them to be.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

SiliconValley.com (via The Associated Press). Google Cuts Ad Incentives for Domain Name Tasting. Jan. 26, 2008. Last week, we wrote about the “domain tasting” phenomenon and Network Solutions’ poor policy choice to eliminate that fraudulent practice. Money is the reason people engage in domain tasting, and it seems the proper solution is not to hijack the domain registration system, but instead to eliminate the economic incentives.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense

Jeremy Kirk. Antipiracy Group’s Tactics Violate Swiss Law. InfoWorld. Jan. 25, 2008. This is another novel theory of the privacy issues that are raised when the music industry uses private firms to track file sharing networks for alleged copyright infringement. We first heard about this approach late last year, when the University of Oregon questioned the authority MediaSentry had to engage in investigative tracking on the RIAA’s behalf. The University argued, among other things, that MediaSentry’s tracking activities may be illegal because the Maryland-based company does not hold a investigator’s license in Oregon.

(Editor’s Note: Copycense editors originally commented on this article in the Jan. 29, 2008, edition of Copycense Clippings.)

Copycense™: Incisive IP.™

Technorati Tags: Copycense