Part 1:
The Hudson Institute makes a compelling argument in their white paper, “A 21st-Century Copyright Office: The Conservative Case for Reform”, for the removal of the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress. While the Copyright Office has been part of the Library of Congress for nearly a century and a half, it doesn’t mean that it should stay in this current position just because that’s how it’s been historically. I agree with Tepp and Oman that it makes sense on all levels to move the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress.
The Library of Congress is a large entity with a lot on it’s plate; according to the Hudson Institute, it prioritizes other functions as being more important than the Copyright Office; because of this, the office’s services are outdated and have been neglected. The Copyright Office has a database that serves copyright rights and licensing; however, “this system is so outdated that recorded transfers are not searchable online and the application process itself remains entirely paper based. The result is a system that takes longer, costs more, is less accurate, and is less easily searchable than it should be” (The Hudson Institute, 2015, p. 7). In today’s digital age, this doesn’t make sense.
Financially, the Copyright Office is a great buy for the American taxpayer and it’s logical to take steps to help this entity to function properly in our digital age. The Hudson Institute points out that the $1.1 trillion industry that is supported by the Copyright Office has a $73,000 return on every tax dollar that’s spent. Modernizing the Copyright Office along with removing it from the Library of Congress will bring many financial and economic benefits. Along with this the creation of “interoperable registration and recordation databases can become a go-to resource for would-be licensees to identify and locate authors and copyright owners and conduct transactions” (The Hudson Institute, 2105, p. 21). This is sorely needed as our current version is archaic and doesn’t fulfill the needs of those utilizing the Copyright Office.
More evidence supporting the removal of the Copyright Office from the Library of Congress are the three current proposals that are highlighted by the institutes as acceptable and abide by the Appointment Clause of the Constitution: the “Code Act”, having the Copyright Office become a stand-alone agency in the legislative branch, or move the Copyright Office into the Commerce Department. While these are only three choices that are discussed, they serve as examples that this is an issue being discussed and solutions are currently being thought about.
The Hudson Institute does deliver a thought provoking argument. It seems like the most difficult obstruction in moving the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress is one of tradition. This is where the office has been for nearly a century and half, so that is where it should stay. To keep things as they are just because it’s how things have been traditionally doesn’t make sense in a forward moving nation like ours. As well the initial expenditure put forth is inconsequential when one looks at the amount of revenue that is handled by the Copyright Office. I agree with The Hudson Institute, it’s time to move forward and remove the Copyright Office out of the Library of Congress.
Part 2:
Plagiarism is when someone represents words, thoughts, or ideas as their own without attribution. Basically, using someone else’s original thoughts and ideas as your own without giving credit to them.
Copyright infringement is the violation of one or more of the rights granted to a copyright owner by making unauthorized use of the work. Meaning, that an owner’s rights are violated legally by someone who is using their work without permission.
The difference between these two is that plagiarism is an ethical issue while copyright infringement is a legal one. Examples of plagiarism is using a picture without giving credit and taking someone else’s words and using them as your own without providing and citations showing they belong to someone else. An example of copyright infringement is using corporate logos without permission.
Attribution is when you use a resource or text that has been released with an open-copyright license. The legal requirement states that a user must give credit, an attribution, to the creator of the work. An example is when an author gives advanced permission to use their work but must give attribution.
Transformative use is part of the fair use doctrine; “transformative uses take the original copyrighted work and transform its appearance or nature to such a high degree that the use no longer qualifies as infringing” (Stim, 2020). Some examples of transformative use Google Books’ library digitization project where snip-its of novels are available and mash up parody t-shirts.
What I’ve found to be true for myself through all of the material is that it’s a lot to remember. I’ll make sure that I check to make sure that I’m not infringing on anyone’s rights when I’m writing and creating.
Stim, R. (2015, July 30). Fair Use: What Is Transformative? Retrieved March 1, 2020, from
The Hudson Institute. (2015). A 21st-century copyright Office: the conservative case for reform.
Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.hudson.org/research/11772-a-21st-century-copyright-office-the-conservative-case-for-reform
Comments