In reporting the British government’s rejection of a 95 year copyright (from the 50 year copyright they have now), Cory Doctorow mentioned something interesting:

Reuters is reporting that the British government has rejected a proposal to extend music recording copyrights from 50 to 95 years. Virtually all music is out of print in at 50 years, and extending copyright for another 45 years would only ensure that the vast majority of British recordings were long vanished and forgotten before they returned to the public domain. Economists calculated the net present value of the 95th year of copyright at less than the net present worth of a lottery ticket — so the government would do more for the average recording artist if they bought her a lotto ticket than if they gave her 45 years more copyright.

That’s ultimately why super-long copyrights are bad. They’re worthless. The vast majority of creativity gets sucked into a black hole for little gain, either to society or the artist. These laws are essentially rackets for record labels, movie studios, and hyper-successful artists (e.g. Paul McCartney). To often, people forget that copyright is only valuable if rights are temporary. The principle is that creativity breeds more creativity which enriches society. Copyright and IP protections are a limiter or throttle on that process to make sure the artists can make a living while enriching society. There’s no argument by which the labels and mega-artists like McCartney are not making enough money on their work. On top of that, they hold back really awesome new work. Copyright terms aren’t the only issue here, obviously, but they’re a big one in the U.S. since the passage of the Disney-tailored Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.

I’m no lawyer (though I like to play one on the Internet), but I wonder if Google’s blog posting today on Google Video will create (or draw attention to) any legal exposure for them. They highlight the awesome video of those two Chinese kids singing and another cool video of a guy juggling a soccer ball in Amsterdam.

Both of these clips feature nearly the complete audio for a copyrighted song. Google is hosting the video on their site. Isn’t that bad for Google?

I think Google Video is a great idea, and I’m all for it. In the current IP climate, though, aren’t we going to encounter copyright issues? And wouldn’t the recording industry have a legitimate point in this case?

What’s the answer? Compulsory licensing? Who pays then, Google or the video producer?

I was thinking about getting another Tivo at some point when we had the money to get an HDTV. Our DVR is starting to show its age. After Tivo announced that they’re limiting storage time based on the wishes of the copyright holder, I’m pretty much never going to buy a Tivo again. I think we’re not there yet, as the flags were set on the shows accidently.