Post of Masaki's bias/position (due 4/28)

I belong to congressional task force for amending the dmca team and personally think that all issues could be solved with simple compulsory licensing mechanism for all copyrighted works, rather than mainly relying on flexible construction of the fair use doctrine. It is likely to be policy balancing between protection of copyright holders and public benefit from utilizing contents more easily, but it is obvious that the compulsory license provision, 17 U.S.C. § 115, targets very specific contents and rights, so the scope should be broader and more consistent. It is not so easy to create the licensing scheme which fits with all copyrighted works and all type of rights, but it seems to be ideal solution for public benefit and improvement of current unbalanced treatment of copyright holders. Broadening the scope of compulsory license will very likely change many business models around Internet, because it will generate certain royalty revenue with contents, however, it is better for both copyright holder who will get the revenue and content user who can easily use any contents without complicated negotiation with copyright holders. I think my opinion is a kind of dissenting/minor perspective, but could be interesting for some people. (198 words) / Masaki Kotani