CD Copying Kiosks Endorsed in Australia

Iron Sun writes: "While the story is somewhat misleading in stating that the plan legalises piracy, CD copying kiosks have been given the go ahead here in Australia. It will be interesting to see what the Australian Recording Industry Association says about this. Supposedly the plan involves royalty payments to ARIA, but where artists stand is not discussed."

Comments

Cornered, eh?

[hkhanna]

...the industry has been cornered into a compromise with the unstoppable pirating of music

When will this industry wake up and realize you're not being cornered into anything! Accept the digital future and capitalize on it! I bet the RIAA/MPAA was "cornered" into accepting VHS only to find out now that it's one of it's biggest cash cows. They never seem to learn from their history. I bet once the conglomerates see how well this works in Australia, we'll see some relaxation on the lobbying from RIAA/MPAA.

Hargun

targeted at technophobes

[call -151]

Apparently, this is targeted at people who can't figure out how to make their own copies. From the article

Music industry consultant and former copyright lawyer Owen Trembath said: "The only ones whipping down to Woolies to make a burn will be parents. Mum has become the pirate."

Since at $5/burn is steep enough that anyone who doesn't already have a burner would probably come out ahead buying their own (about 20-30 disks worth should pay for it) it seems like the people springing for this are ones who don't have a computer setup or the knowhow but don't want to miss out on all this CD duplication...

geez, bias enough???

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone else notice the article says 'cd-pirating kiosks' (italics mine) all the way through?

wtf ever happened to integrity, or better yet just proper use of the english language? it's called 'copying' because i get a COPY, i don't go into this thing and walk out holding a pirate...

More public domain

[martyn s]

Now that the first step is being implemented, we only need to take care of a few more steps.

1) lower copyright restrictions to 12 years.
2) require that if any work wants to have copyright protection, that it must submit it to a database for safekeeping
3) Open up all the works in that database that is older than 12 years old.
4) Network these kiosks to allow anyone to download and burn anything they want from the database
5) Now you have a library system that the founding fathers would be proud of.

Re:More public domain

[martyn s]

Ok, first of all, let's lay down some of the theory and history behind copyright. According to the constitution, copyright is supposed to be for limited times, and only as long as it is furthering progress in the arts (and sciences).

Now, the consitution didn't actually have any copyright law in it; it was just an enumerated power of Congress, since congress, at least in theory, can only use the powers given to them in the Constitution.

So the first copyright act basically made copyright 14 years. Not 70. Not 30. Just 14. This was because, people at the time understood that copyright was designed to enrich the public domain. You use the word "freeloading" and I will not contest that accusation. This is the purpose of copyright. To eventually enrich the public domain so there is free art available for everyone.

Until now, however, if you went into any bookstore, there was hardly any difference between a copyrighted and a public domain book. Maybe a copyrighted book costed a little more, but for the most part, no one was hurt by having copyright extended. There was no such thing as getting a book "for free" or a movie "for free". There were printing costs.

But, now we have this extraordinary ability: we have the ability to copy and distribute any form of art for virtually no cost. The reason why libraries have traditionally only "lent" stuff was because it costed money, a significant amount of money, to make a copy of anything, so since there were a limited number of copies, they had to be shared among the community, and therefore people could only "borrow" it.

So here's the meat of the question: how much will artists lose if copyright is reduced to 12 years?

Well what if I told you that any given piece of art only makes 10% of it's revenue after 12 years. That means if some book was going to bring in 500,000 dollars revenue in 150 years, on average, it would bring in 450,000 in 12 years. So basically we are locking up all forms of art for 138 more years, just to squeeze out an extra 10% revenue. That doesn't really make any sense, and it goes against the spirit of the first copyright act, and against the spirit of a truly open society.

In the year 1930 over 10,000 books were published. Of those 10,000+ books, only 175 are still in print. Don't you find that tragic? 9,825 books are locked up forever to protect those 175 books, books that probably don't sell that well anyway, and books that would've been written even if copyright were only 12 years.

Copyright is not a natural right. It's something that we, as a society, offer to maximize the art produced.

I don't care what you hear, but copyright is not intended as "incentive". People's passion for their art is the incentive, copyright is just designed to let people devote their life to their art and still have money to live. The money itself is not the incentive.

But that is really inconsequential. Even if people are just making art just to get rich, they'd still get nearly as rich with just a 12 year copyright.

In 1790 copyright lasted 14 years. Since 1790 the following things have happened

1) The cost of printing has decreased
2) The time to market, time for people to learn/hear about your product has decreased
3) The available audience has increased, therefore a greater potential sales.

All these things indicate a need for *less* copyright. Yet all this things have increased since then. Why?

Just like shakespeare is free, I believe art of our own time should be free, at least while it's still relevant. It's not about being too "cheap". It's just incredibly wasteful to lock up art that no one is buying anymore, but that many many people will watch/read/listen to if it were available for free.

If you read the dialogue between the founding fathers about copyright, they were suprisingly prescient about where things were going, and the discussion is very relevant today. They were very clear about it, and at the time they decided on 14 years. The fact that it became longer was because it didn't really affect anyone negatively before it was too late.

This I can assure you: If this technology was around before copyright was extended, it would never have been extended. And the world would be a richer place for it.

Re:More public domain

[DarkZero]

The concept of copyright was meant to be permanently attached to the concept of the public domain. Since allowing authors, musicians, etc. to claim their work as "intellectual property" undermines the free flow of information within a society, copyrights in the United States were originally attached to the idea of the public domain. After about 14 years (I believe it was fourteen), anything that was copyrighted would enter the public domain and thus could freely be used, copied, and reworked by anyone.

Because the public domain has been unintentionally halted by Congress (as well as legislative bodies all around the world) through copyright extensions throughout the last century, the value of the public domain has become unknown to the average person. For instance, most Disney movies could not have been made without the public domain, because Disney would not have been allowed to rework and rewrite previous literary works like Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, Sleeping Beauty, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, etc. into new movie classics.

Also, libraries only let you borrow books because books are physical objects, and thus are in a limited supply. Librarians across the country are now in favor of distributing e-books and giving them out permanently, because that was always the idea behind libraries --- the most free flow of information possible. Lending books was not a purposeful idea, but instead a necessity of the past.

Re:More public domain

[martyn s]

I didn't even take into account all the cannibalization that goes on in the entertainment industry. Actors, being so valuable, manage to suck up all the extra revenues that the movie studios manage to bring in with extensive copyright. Music and movie studios cannibalize each other with advertising.

I can't really back this up entirely, but this is my position: If there were less money at stake, there'd be less money to pay actors, less money to waste on advertising, but the output, would remain the same, because the public demand would remain the same.

Think about advertising. If I spend 100 million dollars on advertising, and you spend 100 million dollars on equally effective advertising for a competing product, we end up where we started. Advertising is a necessary evil, but I believe that will be the first thing to go, along with exorbitant actor's salaries if reduced copyright led to reduced revenue for the entertainment industry.

Plus, read this:
creative motivation

Of course, it's always important to consider the source; I don't think Richard Stallman would post any studies which didn't support his theory. But still, this cannot be ignored, and adds a whole new dimension to this question.

Re:More public domain

[thales]

"Personally, I think that (unless the artist choses otherwise) copyright should last until the death of the artist. Don't forget, in 1790 the average life expectancy was a lot lower than today"

Why limit the gravy train to artists? I would like to continue recieving payments from my employer of 14 years ago for the rest of my life. Why shouldn't I be able to avoid the 9 to 5 grind. 14 years ago I was maintaing Radar systems at a base where the US Navy trains pilots, and some of these pilots are still flying Naval aircraft so the Navy should be paying me "royalities" for the rest of my life.

Sorry "Artist" is just another job field. It's special nature of payment IS deserving of a limited copyright protection, but NOT a lifelong mealticket. 14 years of automatic copyright protection covers this for most works, perhaps with an aditional ONE TIME 14 year extension upon payment of regestration fees but that's as far as it should go. Certainly not life plus 70 years so that the grandchildren of the "artist" can continue to collect long after they bury Gramps.

Re:definitions?

[intermodal]

Answer: it was never piracy. Nothing is actually taken. it's copyright violation. The idea of "theft" or "stealing" is incorrectly labelling the act. Anything other than:

1 : an act of robbery on the high seas; also : an act resembling such robbery
2 : robbery on the high seas

is a blatant misnomer which has become popularized to demonize fair use by labelling all copying of content including that protected/allowed by law. What actual "piracy" that goes on is simple copyright infringement, not piracy. People need to get their terminology straight. This is how the term "hacker" became demonized by the media, too.

Newsflash! Foobaria endorses photo-copying kiosks

[jukal]

Rioters News: Foobaria supports piracy!
After a hot debate, the Government of Foobaria decided to legalize self-serve photo-copying kiosks. Famous book authors are shocked.

CD burner, photocopier, what's the difference? Why does a CD- burner automagically become a piracy tool and at the same time a photocopier is considered just a necessity ?? Is it because the journalists just know how to operate the other one? :))

Re:Price Clarification

[aebrain]

Since at $5/burn is steep enough that anyone who doesn't already have a burner would probably come out ahead buying their own (about 20-30 disks worth should pay for it)

That's $5 Australian, between $3 and $2.50 US per burn. ($1 Aus this morning was 57c US, but it's been less than 55c US for most of last year). But since according to here CD writers in Oz are only about $125 Aus, then you're right.