1. The problem with implied copyright is that the majority of work is not intended for profit. Implied copyright gives at least 70 year protection to every trivial thing - every written email, doodle, picture and since people don't typically put a permissive license on everything they create that they don't intend to profit from we're left with a ton of work with hard to find authors that can't legally be used by anyone. It also means that services that deal with what people write (which is most online services) have to grant themselves lengthy terms of service conditions in order to operate.
Yes it is a balance between barrier to entry and public content, but I think the default should be the common case that benefits everyone - the public domain. I wouldn't want the registration process to be arduous or expensive though.
2. I agree (and this would solve the biggest problem with implied copyright, it's length).
3. You could claim non-commercial, profitless use of an album and share it freely - albums are a poor way to make money in the internet connected world. In my system they'd be thought of more as promotion for merchandise and tours. The fact that distribution is cheap and sharing is essentially free can be used as advantages. This would be a big difference, but I think the efforts would be better served in working with technology then artificially trying to prevent it from what it does well. I think the old way of doing things is only viable with draconian measures that don't benefit the public.
There's a lot of waste in the current system that doesn't need to be there, but the old distribution channels seem to want to create legislation to necessitate their existence rather than adapt.
Yes it is a balance between barrier to entry and public content, but I think the default should be the common case that benefits everyone - the public domain. I wouldn't want the registration process to be arduous or expensive though.
2. I agree (and this would solve the biggest problem with implied copyright, it's length).
3. You could claim non-commercial, profitless use of an album and share it freely - albums are a poor way to make money in the internet connected world. In my system they'd be thought of more as promotion for merchandise and tours. The fact that distribution is cheap and sharing is essentially free can be used as advantages. This would be a big difference, but I think the efforts would be better served in working with technology then artificially trying to prevent it from what it does well. I think the old way of doing things is only viable with draconian measures that don't benefit the public.
There's a lot of waste in the current system that doesn't need to be there, but the old distribution channels seem to want to create legislation to necessitate their existence rather than adapt.