Today published the story that the chief of the U.S. Copyright Office, Maria Pallante proposes reforms Copyright major, including the reduction of life plus 50 years with the possibility of proactive renew for another 20 years. Although this was a step in the right direction (but not enough), there were many other proposals that have been a source of concern. Some details and more people begin to leave.

First, I'm at a conference at Santa Clara University is all about the DMCA (the fun part!) Today, Rob and the Kasunic Copyright Office said the British Pallante discuss a few weeks ago, where most of this information comes from, it was only a "short" version of the big proposal. This is impressive since his speech covered

much

different areas related to copyright. Now, the Association of Research Libraries has published scores of some participants at the conference that Greg Cram, of the New York Public Library. He stressed that this is only their own notes, and may not be entirely accurate. However, there are few details. Firstly, the reduction of the duration of copyright is essentially what we talked about:



period of 50 years, renewable for another 20



-The decision of the Supreme Court in Golan v. Holder is the last word on whether life plus 70 years is constitutional

However, the term of protection of copyright can be changed to 50 years after the death author, renewable for 20 years

This would put the onus on the copyright owner to renew the term of copyright, to the end of 50 years of the death

- Depending on the model of  108 (h), that the Copyright Office is very amateur -This proposal would acceptable under various international treaties, including the Berne Convention

It is a small step in the right direction, which is surprising, given that almost all the measures were the other way, in favor of maximalism. However, there is much to worry about. Some of these points:

stricter enforcement, the new law should respect the integrity of the network, including freedom of expression must be, however, a combination of legislative and voluntary fight against counterfeiting online solution may be to increase the penalties for streaming, or at least in line with the penalties for distribution download

In other

terms ... may compromise shorter for other criminal charges for "streaming", even when there are serious questions about why basic transmission should be illegal

and

if clear that the application more recently to help align the copyright holders below. This is a problem.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act-The Internet has evolved since the DMCA was enacted in 1998, Congress should revise the  512 safe harbors, Congress must also consider the  1201 regulators, particularly in view of the White House response to a petition in unlocking mobile phones

This is the part that concerns me. The entertainment industry has been really wanting to get rid of the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA that protects service providers from liability for the actions of its users. If

Compensation

for shorter periods of copyright is

not

value. The provisions of the DMCA safe harbor is a very important part of why the Internet has been able to develop such a wonderful service.

regulations  1201, however, is the issue of circumvention that

must

absolutely re-examined because it created a huge mess for all legitimate uses. But again, reopen the safe harbor should be a non-starter. Nothing good can come of it.

Copies
in the back not all copies are the same, maybe there could be exceptions for certain discrete copies accessories: For more information on this issue See Law Offices Copyright 2001 study of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

Depending on where this fails, it could be very important. Hollywood has often tried to argue that "incidental" copies must be considered a criminal offense, and cases such as Cablevision raised questions around that.
Find best price for : --Office----Pallante----Copyright--