I like the idea, always provided that "personal and noncommercial use" is interpreted as "transfer to iPod, reading to one's children, burning CDs for personal use, writing fan fiction, etc." and not as "Napster." We have the problem that our popular culture is all under copyright, and this would do a lot to resolve that -- not impeding the profits of the creators of the works in question, but simultaneously not dampening cultural expression or exposure to the culture.<p>This sounds particularly appealing as an aspiring content creator: finally a legal standard that neither requires pursuing creators of fan fiction, fan mods, and so on, nor creates a risk of accidentally losing copyright over one's own works!<p>@anigbrowl: I agree that there's a potential issue with sufficiently negative use of material under the expanded fair use rules; but then again, philosophies, governments and religions aren't given legal protection from rotten eggs. A creative work, too (even the architecture of a mall), becomes part of the culture; other members of the culture have the right to react negatively as well as positively to it.
Interesting, but as a content creator I can't help feeling it alludes to cases but fails to set any standards for how to handle them.<p>For example, just now I'm thinking about the costs of getting a release to shoot video in a private location (a shopping center). It would make my film look more interesting but hurt its budget. If I shoot by stealth (not so hard with modern cameras) they would have a copyright complaint against the film and could sue for damages. The copyright claim subsists in the interior architecture, configuration and decoration of the building.<p>But what if I release my film for free, just to say 'hey look at my film (and consider investing in the next one)'. The analogy would be using an allegedly proprietary algorithm in a piece of open-source code, I suppose. There's an indirect commercial gain on my part (if it proves popular), but should the IP owner have a claim on a free work?<p>The proposal does include a threshold of whether such a violation does harm to a business, or is likely to. Unfortunately, that puts the defendant in such a case in the position of having to prove a negative, ie that the complainant's allegations of likely harm are unreasonable. If my shopping center scene involved a successful pickpocket, they would have a good claim, but suppose they just complain that I made it look drab or old-fashioned?
Could the objections about personal, non-commercial use not be overcome by adding (or replacing "personal" with) a qualifier such as "private" or "without redistribution"? Surely the point is that if someone has legally obtained a legitimate copy of a work, it is reasonable for them to enjoy it as they see fit in private, without being under any obligation to pay for it repeatedly rather than format shift, back-up etc? Redistribution to others is obviously contrary to the basic principle of copyright, and shouldn't be covered, but for once this is a black-and-white issue and could be easily and unambiguously coded into the law.