An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 7 - Administration
The administration of copyright is where we get into very contentious waters. This is the manifestation of the concept of the right to copy, the Copyright Act, and the protection of remuneration to creators for copies. Naturally, the administration of copyright is currently causing massive headaches for everyone involved because the factors on which it relies still need refinement and consensus.
As it stands, copyright administration intends to protect the right to copy and, peculiarly, other creators’ rights such as moral rights. Law suits where copyright is improperly being used to protect moral rights (whether a petty claim or not) often cause people to cry “foul!”. IMO, this is a result of different creators’ rights being lumped under copyright, rather than working alongside it.
Conceptually, the administration of copyright would only address the right to copy. This administration would naturally have to work very closely with the administration of other creators’ rights, such as moral rights, and other sources of income for creators, such as payment for exhibitions, lectures, performances, etc.
From what I’ve seen, the administration of copyright involves many parts for which there is increasing disagreement on how things should work:
- Business models – how the distribution (authorized & unauthorized) of copies is part of the marketing strategy and income base.
- Administrative bodies – how different bodies, such as copyright collectives and producers, operate; issues with these are primarily a combination of communicative and financial accessibility.
- Creator participation – groups such as the CMCC are indicative of the fact that creators are increasingly disagreeing with how their copyright is being administered by administrative bodies (in the case of the members of the CMCC, the administrative bodies are their record labels).
- User participation – end-users and professional creators are now, more than ever, having more technical access to works and desire to creatively reuse primary works; however, they are often at odds with the preceding items for various reasons (to be discussed in more detail later).
Are there other major aspects of the administration of copyright which I missed? Remember that at this point I’m just sorting and defining, and the in-depth discussion will come later.
Table of contents for Deconstructing Copyright
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright - Part 1 - Intro
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 2 - Concept of copyright
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 3 - I.P.
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 4 - Creator’s Rights
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 5 - Copyright Act
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 6 - Money!
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Other Summaries
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 7 - Administration
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 8 - End Users
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 9 - User Rights
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 10 – Professional Creative Reuse
- An Experiment In Deconstructing Copyright – Part 11 – Mind-mapping


One area to refine is point #1 - Business models. This is where the “not all creativity is exploited equally” type conversations.
Collecting royalty payments is just one business model among many, which is why I get worried when people say copyright is about “the protection of remuneration to creators” (We already spoke about the “for copies” part already). Far too many people assume that remuneration == royalties (ie: monopoly rents).
I like the way the UN UDHR says it:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
“Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.”
That is “moral and material interests”. Material interests might include the collection of royalties, but may include other things, and may in fact exclude royalties (IE: some FLOSS licenses exclude royalty payments, and some impose returns of derived software works as a material reward).
In my case, protecting my material interests requires protecting me *from* someone imposing royalty-based business models on me. Adding collective-society style royalty collection onto software would effectively wipe out my material interests.
Thanks for the reminder, Russell. I’ll try to keep that in mind for future posts, but keep nudging me if I loose sight of it again. Fran has also noted some of that here.