I agree. Not only did I find the arguments presented rather weak and unsubstantiated but I also found the suggestion of turning copyright into a form of income for the government interesting as I don't recall that being in the Constitution nor do I see how more money for the government for some undefined purpose relates to furthering the arts or sciences that is supposedly the cornerstone of the argument for any changes. Overall that paper seems to me to possibly be more about creating a new form of income for the government while trying to justify it as a public service, something that is probably going to become more commonplace.That's both fascinating and disturbing. I'm not sold on the DJ/remix argument, nor do I quite hold that current copyright law limits creativity - I would argue the opposite, since artists of any form need to create their own works, not simply repackage the work of others.
I'm not an attorney or copyright expert but my conversations with attorneys and rights prepresentatives is that might not stand up. You could possibly iinclude language making the renter responsible for procuring rights beyond public performance rights, but in the end it probably comes down to what was the venue's role and did they benefit from any violation?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.