By: Dan Heller

Dan Heller — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:06:20 +0000

> 1. Price: … The problem is that copyright registration> is not like domain registrations, which recur annually with almost> no additional cost on the registrar. A copyright registration is a> one-time expense meaning the registrar has to recoup the entire> cost of recruiting a customer on the first purchase.I think you missed the point that the revenue opportunity is not inthe fees charged for copyright registration — it's in the right torepresent the works that the registrar processed, which includes theright to license the works as well as legal representation (pursuinginfringements). This is an entirely different economic foundationthat domain names. therefore, the race for registrars will be toacquire as much content as possible, because the financial upsideis on the sales of those works. Therefore, it is in their intereststo keep the registration fees at or near zero. The article goes intogreat detail on this, and it is instrumental in understanding theprogram.> 2. Continued Disparity: This system would not level the playing> field between big and small copyright holders, and could actually> make things worse. Large copyright holders, such as the RIAA, would> just purchase a copyright registrar and charge themselves a nominalThe actual captial cost and technical infrastructure necessary tobecome a copyright registrar (as I've outlined it) would be sominimal, that one could become one in their own bedroom. Again,read the specs I outlined. The intent is to make it so easy (thebarrier only being that of meeting regulatory compliance) that therewould be thousands of such registrars. This would not only createso much competition between them, that it would do far more thanjust insure that registration fees are low. Because the legalrepresentative (agent) for a given work (photo, song, film, video,text) is equal in the eyes of copyright law and the courts, it wouldbe literally impossible for there to be any legal disparity. Simplecase in point, I have currently registered my own photos with thecopyright office, allowing me — a sole individual — to file acopyright infringement claim against even the largest of corporations.You might say that I, as an individual, wouldn't have the financialresources to go up against large companies, but therein lies thegreat benefits of copyright registration: once done, and if a largecompany infringes, size and financial resources are erased. StatutoryDamages were created for the very purpose of leveling the playingfield. The only problem has been that there hasn't been a mechanismfor "the little guy" to participate in that system. The model I'vedescribed solves that.> 3. Still Too Expensive: Even if the cost of a copyright registration> fell to just a dollar per post, bloggers, Flickr users, etc. would> still likely find it too expensive to register all of the work.Again, my proposal specifically anticipated this concern, and calls forthe program to be designed so that the government does NOT charge on aper-filing basis, per-item basis, or anything else. By setting up theprogram so that the government derives its revenue from *other* sources,the intent is to make the cost of filing registrations zero. My articlegoes to great pains to articulate how to avoid the very problem youmention here.> 4. Increased Confusion: There is already a great deal of confusion and> misinformation about what you need to do to register a copyright,> bringing in hundreds of new official registrars would just make> things worse.Quite the contrary. The text of my proposal specifcally outlines howthe procedure for proper filing would be streamlined and simplified,much like how one applies for domain name registration. In fact, almostall the same information is required for each, even though they aredifferent programs. Not only would confusion be alleviated, but unliketoday, there would be many parties with a vested interest in assuringthat people are both well-informed, but have a financial incentive tomake the process as simple and easy as possible. Competition is thekey here.> 5. Privacy Issues: Theres a huge dust up about privacy> involving the whois database, the central database of the current> ICANN registration system. Though you can search for copyright> records and get some personal data, though not much, any such new> system would have to be done with privacy in mind. Registering a> domain is one thing, but a copyright shouldnt require one to expose> themselves to the world.Before I answer this directly, remember that "copyrighted works"are entirely different from domain names, in that people registertheir creative works with the intent to both monetize their works,and to protect them from infringement. These are not the kinds ofthings people who want to remain anonymous do. Privacy is not themain goal here.That said, I nevertheless inserted levels of privacy into mypreliminary specs for the the copyright infrastructure (which iscommprised of a database and some client-server protocols for gettingdata to and from the DB). I do this more for spam-related reasons,not for "personal privacy" reasons. So, in the current spec, there iscurrently no personal information provided in a copyright-db queryif the owner has designated the copyright registrar as the legalrepresentative. (And this would be the most common case.) So, seekingownership information for a photo, for example, would return the nameof the registrar, not the owner. Of course, this would have to passgovernment regulation, which is still quite far off.Note that the one exception to this would be legal infringement claims.If a court filing is made, the legal copyright holder's name mustbe made part of the public record as a matter of due process. Butit only needs to be done for the object in question, not all of theowners' works.Though I disagree with your idea for getting rid of copyright registration, I understand your motives for believing that solution is necessary. Those motives are not uncommon; they are the basis for many different ideas proposed for addressing the same concerns you addressed. I also disagree with your belief that "money and power" are what keeps things as they are. If properly read and understood, my proposal addresses not just your concerns, but does so in a way that does not take away anything from those who've been benefiting from the current copyright system. furthermore, I have been very cognizant of those who believe that all things should be "free" (e.g., creative commons). I think you'll find that proper reading of the proposal (which I realize is long and detailed) does address each of your concerns. Feel free to contact me if you still have questions.Dan Heller

Comments on: Copyright Registration – ICANN Style

By: Dan Heller