Rent-Only Copyright Hurts Creators and Consumers

We’re taking part in Copyright Week, a series of actions and discussions supporting key principles that should ⁢guide copyright policy. Every day this week, various groups are taking on different elements of copyright ⁤law and policy, and addressing what’s at stake, and what we need to do to make sure that copyright promotes creativity and innovation.

In the Netflix/Spotify/Amazon era, many of us access copyrighted works purely ⁤in digital form – and that means we rarely have the chance to⁣ buy them.Instead, we⁣ are stuck ⁣renting them, subject to all kinds of terms and conditions. And because the content is digital, reselling it, lending it, even preserving it for your own ⁤use inevitably requires copying. Regrettably, when⁣ it comes to copying digital media, US copyright law has pretty ⁤much lost the plot.⁣

As we approach the 50th anniversary ⁢of the 1976 Copyrights, the last major overhaul of US copyright law, we’re not the only ones wondering if it’s time for the next one. It’s a high-risk proposition, given the wealth and influence ⁣of⁤ entrenched copyright interests who will not hesitate to send carefully ⁢selected⁤ celebrities ⁣to argue for changes that will send more money, into fewer pockets, for longer terms. but⁢ it’s equally clear that and nowhere is that more evident than the ‍waning influence of Section 109, aka the first ⁤sale doctrine.

First sale-the principle that once you buy a copyrighted work⁣ you⁢ have the right to re-sell it, lend it, hide it under the bed, or set it on fire in protest-is deeply rooted in US copyright law. Indeed, in an era where so many judges are looking to the Framers for ⁤guidance ⁤on how to interpret current law, ⁢it’s worth noting ⁢that the first sale principles (also characterized as⁤ “copyright exhaustion”)Consumer‍ Ownership and Data Rights

Restoring agency ‍to⁣ American consumers ⁣through ownership models is ⁢gaining traction as a potential solution to concerns⁤ about data privacy and ⁣control. This centers on the idea of individuals having greater ‍rights over their personal data and the ability to benefit ⁣financially from its use.‍

The current data ecosystem largely operates on an extraction model, where companies collect and monetize user data with limited direct benefit to⁣ the individuals ⁤who generate it. ⁣ Proponents of⁣ data ownership argue this system is ⁣unfair⁣ and hinders innovation. A shift towards‍ ownership could incentivize⁢ companies to offer more valuable services⁣ in exchange for data access, and empower consumers to participate in the ⁤data economy.

For example, the Federal Trade ⁢Commission (FTC) is actively seeking public comment on⁤ a proposed data security rule, signaling increased ⁤regulatory⁤ scrutiny of data practices and a potential move towards stronger consumer protections. This rule, ⁣announced August 23, 2023, aims to address lax ⁣data security practices that lead to⁤ breaches and misuse of personal information.

Data as property

The concept of treating data as a form of property is central to the ownership debate. ⁢Currently, U.S. law does not generally recognize data as property, which limits consumers’ ability to control ⁢its use and transfer.

Several proposals aim to change this, including legislation that would grant individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and port their data. Some proposals go ⁤further,suggesting a right to compensation for the use of personal data. The data Privacy ⁤and Protection Act of 2022 (HR 8172), though ‍not enacted, exemplifies this approach by proposing a comprehensive federal data privacy framework.

California’s California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), effective ⁢january 1, 2020, and its subsequent amendment, the California Privacy ‍Rights Act ⁣(CPRA), effective January 1, 2023, already grant California residents certain data rights, including⁢ the⁤ right to know what personal information is collected about them, the right to delete their personal information, and the right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information. These laws serve as a model for potential ⁢federal legislation.

Potential for Innovation

Empowering ⁤consumers with data ownership could unlock a wave of innovation by creating new business models centered around data sharing and monetization.

Instead of relying on centralized data collection by large corporations, individuals could choose ⁢to share their data‍ directly with companies in⁢ exchange for personalized services, discounts, ⁤or financial rewards. This could foster‍ competition and lead to more innovative and consumer-centric products.

As a notable example, companies like Digimarc ⁣are exploring technologies that allow consumers to control the⁤ data associated with physical ⁤products, potentially enabling new forms of product authentication and supply chain ⁣transparency. This illustrates how data ownership can extend beyond digital information.

Current Status⁣ (as of January 23, 2026)

As of January 23, 2026, a comprehensive federal data privacy law has not been enacted in the United States. However, momentum continues to build for such legislation, driven by increasing consumer awareness of data privacy issues and ongoing regulatory actions by the FTC and state attorneys general.Several states are considering or have enacted their own data privacy⁣ laws, creating a patchwork ⁤of regulations across the country. The debate over data ownership remains active, with ongoing discussions about the best way to balance consumer rights with the needs ⁢of businesses.