There was a bit in the Guardian today about the web publication of 1938 Homes and Gardens puff piece extolling the grand and glorious design of Der Furher's mountain villa. That's right, an article on Adolf Hitler's "handsome Bavarian chalet," Haus Wachenfeld. The Guardian's new media editor, Simon Waldman, posted it to his personal site. Since then, he's endured a lawsuit threat from the current Homes and Gardens for violation of copyright, received glowing praise from neo-Nazis in his comments, been spared from the copyright sanctions by a number of Jewish groups, and seems to have had a head spinning time all around.
One issue in this article (the Guardian one) is that Homes and Gardens told the poster he was violating copyright -- but they didn't bother to validate whether the article really was copyrighted. In fact, the photos were public domain, and in the end whether the article was indeed wholly owned by the publishing house was thrown into question. This bothers me as much as it did Mr. Waldman. Shouldn't there be a requirement that anyone rattling the copyright (or DMCA) saber prove that they have done their due diligence?
It bothers me that fair use is being trampled in the name of profits. If someone wants a copyright in perpetuity, fine, but they should pay for it. If Disney wants to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain, they should be charged a percentage of the annual revenue they generate off the Mouse. With movies, works should pass into the public domain if the owner does not maintain the quality of the prints. With books, if they fall out of print (and I mean large press run print -- you better be printing 10,000 copies, not 10) for more than ten years, the copyright should expire automatically. Ditto music.
Sadly, the Bush administration has sided consistently with the corporations out to protect their financial interests over the rights of the public domain. You ask any of the remaining Democratic presidential candidates to give you their opinions on the scurrilous DMCA, and you'll get a blank look. If the moment in copyright law continues unabated, "fair use" will no longer exist. You won't be able to record a TV show for later use without paying a fee. Music will be locked behind DRM, and you'll have to buy a license to play an album for EACH machine you want to play it on. You think CD prices are bad now? Wait until you have to buy an album three times just be able to play it on your home stereo, your work computer, and in your car. And just wait until e-books catch on -- and you can't loan the latest Kingsolver or Franzen to a friend because it's only licensed to your system.
Sad thing is, the abrogation of fair use sounds familiar, like the minister who stayed silent when the Nazis took away the Jews and the gypsies. When the Nazis came for him, there was no one left to plead his case.
