S.167 and “Making Available” v. “Distribution”

FvL posted a concise, insightful analysis of the Family Entertainment and Copyrights ActCathy Kirkman (via JP) discusses the bill’s relationship to copyright’s distribution right.  Susan Crawford also picked up on this thread.

One Response to “S.167 and “Making Available” v. “Distribution””

  1. Crosbie Fitch
    April 26th, 2005 | 8:57 am

    Obviously, unauthorised publication/’making available’ of as yet unreleased works is wrong. This is a real violation of an author’s moral right to choose whether to publish. (Though any penalty should be inversely proportional to the prevalence and accessibility of the pre-release work)

    However, using the FMA as a back door to update the definition of ‘distribution’ as including ‘making available’ is despicable if it’s intended to further strengthen unjust and anachronistic aspects of copyright law.

    The more freedoms the cartel legislate against, the more freedoms self-publishing artists must grant the public if they are to compete.

    I wonder if the cartel quite realise that the deeper the hole they dig for themselves, the less visible, accessible and amenable their works become to the public?

    Legislating copyright into an albatross.

    It’ll never be abolished, but simply fall into obscurity, because people will simply stop using it. “Why on earth would I want to inhibit the free and unfettered diffusion of my work?”