scholarly journals PUBLIC GOOD THEORY: A THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR PERMISSIVE LICENSE TO USE AND RE-USE ORPHAN WORKS

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (Number 1) ◽  
pp. 179-197
Author(s):  
Muhamad Helmi Muhamad Khair ◽  
Haswira Nor Mohamad Hashim ◽  
Maria Anagnostopoulou
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Good Theory ◽  
Theoretical Justification ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
The Arts ◽  
Grassroots Innovations ◽  
Potential Use

This paper explores the adoption of Paul Samuelson’s Public Good Theory as a theoretical justification for a permissive licensing scheme enabling the use, and re-use orphan works in Malaysia. Orphan works are copyright-protected works with unlocatable or unidentified right holders, and are currently on the rise due to the proliferation of unregistered, anonymous, and abandoned copyright works. The literature denotes the challenges arising from the difficulty faced by potential users in obtaining the permission for creative and innovative use of orphan works as required under Copyright law. Such challenges impede the potential use and re-use of orphan works for the purpose of knowledge dissemination, progress in the arts, preservation and digitisation activities. This paper contributes to the current body of knowledge by canvassing two important issues. The first issue focuses on the challenges faced by potential users to use and re-use orphan works in Malaysia. The second is Paul Samuelson’s Public Good as a theoretical justification for permissive license to use and re-use orphan works. It is anticipated that a legislative reform grounded on Paul Samuelson’s Public Good Theory will spur grassroots innovations, creativity and entrepreneurialism among members of the public. The permissive licensing scheme supports global calls for legislative reform of copyright law to facilitate the use and reuse of orphan works.

scholarly journals Abandoning Copyright

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Perzanowski ◽  
David Fagundes
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Copyright Holder ◽  
Private Benefits ◽  
The Public ◽  
Major Fault ◽  
Reliable Mechanism ◽  
Public Costs

For nearly two hundred years, U.S. copyright law has assumed that owners may voluntarily abandon their rights in a work. But scholars have largely ignored copyright abandonment, and the case law is fragmented and inconsistent. As a result, abandonment remains poorly theorized, owners can avail themselves of no reliable mechanism to abandon their works, and the practice remains rare. This Article seeks to bring copyright abandonment out of the shadows, showing that it is a doctrine rich in conceptual, normative, and practical significance. Unlike abandonment of real and chattel property, which imposes significant public costs in exchange for discrete private benefits, copyright abandonment is potentially costly for rights holders but broadly beneficial for society. Nonetheless, rights holders—ranging from lauded filmmakers and photographers to leading museums and everyday creators—make the counterintuitive choice to abandon valuable works. This Article analyzes two previously untapped resources to better understand copyright abandonment. First, we survey four decades U.S. Copyright Office records, demonstrating both the motivations for abandonment and the infrequency of the practice. Second, we examine every state and federal copyright abandonment case, a corpus of nearly 300 decisions. By distilling this body of law, this Article distinguishes abandonment from a set of related doctrines and reveals the major fault lines in judicial application of the abandonment standard. Finally, we highlight the potential of abandonment to further copyright’s constitutional aims by suggesting a series of reforms designed to better align copyright holder incentives with the public good.

Copyright and the modern car: Colliding visions of the public good in DMCA section 1201 anti-circumvention proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 146144482110152
Author(s):  
MC Forelle
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Computer Software ◽  
Copyright Law ◽  
Personal Computers ◽  
Individual Autonomy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Conflicting Goals

In 2015, a debate unfolded over who should be allowed to access vehicular software for the purposes of repair, maintenance, and modification. Conducted as part of the triennial anticircumvention exemptions proceedings of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, this debate surfaced tensions that had long been brewing about copyright’s applicability to computer software, with the added complication that rather than personal computers, the devices being discussed were cars, trucks, and tractors. At stake was whether copyright was the appropriate tool for striking the balance between economic incentivization and individual autonomy—and whether that was really the balance in question. I argue, rather, that while copyright law has been written and interpreted with these two conflicting goals in mind, a third goal is possible: the public good served through communal and sustainable commitments. By re-prioritizing this goal, we could rewrite copyright to could lead us to a more equitable future.

scholarly journals New Look at the Public Good Theory

2011 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 715-719
Author(s):  
František Ochrana
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Good Theory ◽  
The Public ◽  
New Look

Positional Commitments and the Public Good: Perceptions of a Defecting Group Leader

1999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E. Sibicky ◽  
Cortney B. Richardson ◽  
Anna M. Gruntz ◽  
Timothy J. Binegar ◽  
David A. Schroeder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Good ◽  
Group Leader ◽  
The Public

Finding Fault with the Nexus Pipeline? Agency Capture and the Public Good

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Andrew R. Kear
Keyword(s):  
Natural Gas ◽  
Environmental Impact ◽  
Public Good ◽  
Health And Safety ◽  
Environmental Impact Statement ◽  
Gas Industry ◽  
The Public ◽  
Fracturing Process ◽  
Natural Gas Industry ◽  
Regulatory Commission

Natural gas is an increasingly vital U.S. energy source that is presently being tapped and transported across state and international boundaries. Controversy engulfs natural gas, from the hydraulic fracturing process used to liberate it from massive, gas-laden Appalachian shale deposits, to the permitting and construction of new interstate pipelines bringing it to markets. This case explores the controversy flowing from the proposed 256-mile-long interstate Nexus pipeline transecting northern Ohio, southeastern Michigan and terminating at the Dawn Hub in Ontario, Canada. As the lead agency regulating and permitting interstate pipelines, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is also tasked with mitigating environmental risks through the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act's Environmental Impact Statement process. Pipeline opponents assert that a captured federal agency ignores public and scientific input, inadequately addresses public health and safety risks, preempts local control, and wields eminent domain powers at the expense of landowners, cities, and everyone in the pipeline path. Proponents counter that pipelines are the safest means of transporting domestically abundant, cleaner burning, affordable gas to markets that will boost local and regional economies and serve the public good. Debates over what constitutes the public good are only one set in a long list of contentious issues including pipeline safety, proposed routes, property rights, public voice, and questions over the scientific and democratic validity of the Environmental Impact Statement process. The Nexus pipeline provides a sobering example that simple energy policy solutions and compromise are elusive—effectively fueling greater conflict as the natural gas industry booms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document