Slashdot Mirror


Taiwan Rejects US Copyright Extension Demands

An anonymous reader writes "Taiwan has rejected the US's demand to extend copyrights from 50 years to 70 years. Here's the news article on the Mercury News."

25 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. Knowledge can't be monopolised. by billstr78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm with the protesting students. Haven't the heirs of these long since dead artists recieved enough royalties from thier work? I am all for *certain* people getting paid for what they create, but the patent holders need to take some cues from Linus Trovolds and learn how to sustain on the satisfaction of millions gleaning pure joy from your creation. Not Money.

    1. Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised. by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not the heirs of the people who did the work who hold the copyrights -- it's the companys they sold their work to.

      It sounds0 to me that you are somehow against posthumous copyright. There is a good reason for there to be some posthumous copyright -- it enables authors to enjoy some of the future value their work will generate within their lifetime.

      However, once the copyright has been effectively relinquished by the author, either by actual sale of the copyright or by granting of exclusive licenses to a corporation, there is little rational reason for a copyright term more than ten years, at least if you think the purpose of copyright is to reward authors. Events more than ten years out simply don't factor into any corporate decisions, and therefore do not contribute to the price authors receive from their works.

      The position of creative people with respect to copyright is different from corporate entities -- it is more balanced. While the ability to claim exclusive benefits from their own works are good for them, they are restricted from working with other author's materials. It follows that copyright terms over ten years (except for material that remains within the full control of the author), are a pure evil for authors, since its restricts their ability to create on one hand, and compensates them with nothing on the other.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. They Can by Martigan80 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well it is well with in their rights to do so. What is America going to do raise the tariffs? Better yet what is Disney going to do? Not a damn thing. They can try to not sell movies anymore but then again where do you think a good portion of the bootlegs come from? Beside living overseas for a while I have noticed that American media "takes" allot of idea from foreign TV and adds them into theirs and visa-versa.

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
  3. Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone by raju1kabir · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps they'll serve as inspiration to other countries.

    There are a whole lot places that lose out on this - places that don't have giant entertainment industries with 100-year back catalogs to recycle endlessly.

    Can anyone explain further how the harmonization treaties work, and whether everyone is for some reason actually bound to follow the US' lead?

    --
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    1. Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone by mr_tenor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope that more people start realising that all this IP/copyright/DRM crap is just big US companies trying to preserve their profits.

      Did you read in the story that "Billions of dollars of entertainment-industry profits are at stake.". I mean - geez! Do they expect to have laws mandating their profitability forever or something??

  4. Piracy == ++Popularity by billstr78 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Washington, Taiwan's main trading partner and arms supplier, has said the island's failure to protect intellectual property rights is causing hundreds of million dollars damage annually to U.S. recorded music, software and motion picture industries.

    But pirating music and software is what makes Bill Gates and Brittany Spears "Super-Stars Number One !!!! {:>" in those countries minds.

  5. Re:WTF!! by Cs.Ender · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Then why are you posting here???????

    The point is that an issue that is undergoing some debate domesticly is being debated abroad as well. The copy protection in games/music cds/dvds/etc. isn't there as much for script kiddies who want to burn copies for their freinds as it is for the people in "shitty little third world aisian countrys" who are more likely to buy a bootleg copy than a real one.

    It's people who think that America is the only place that matters who are make the rest of the world hate us. If you are too stupid to realize that everything you do is affected by the rest of the world, you are too stupid to post on slashdot.

    --
    I know lots of things. Most of them are wrong.
  6. Further reading by harper18 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regarding the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, aka the "Steamboat Willie Preservation Act" and Lawrence Lessig, the lawyer who argued the case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, there's a great article in this month's Wired magazine that gives a little bit of depth and insight on what the timely extension of copyright law means to the artistic world.

    The big problem, as Lessig sees it, is that continual extensions of copyright prevent anything new from entering the public domain. This is most ironic, notes Lessig, since Disney dredged the public domain for its most lucrative properties... Because of the Bono Act, Lessig asserts, "no one can do to Disney as Disney did to the Brothers Grimm."

    --
    # Users are merely variables. I prefer to comment them out.
    1. Re:Further reading by mpe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They took something in the public domain and remade it, and when that entered the public domain, Disney remade it.

      This is what people have done since prehistory.

      Except that now, Disney's remade versions aren't passing into the public domain to allow the next generation of interpretation.

      Copyright is fairly new idea. It was invented when the printing press originally as a way for the state to control who could use that then new invention. This was later revised into copyright V2 which gave rights to the author, rather than the publisher. This is the version the writers of the US constitution used as a model.
      Since then copyright has grown both in length and scope, such that it is completly out of step with "the next generation of interpretation". Not a problem for the big corporate publishers though, since they can easily cross licence with each other, but a big issue for those outside that cartel.

    2. Re:Further reading by rseuhs · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Now let me get that right:

      When the Grimm brothers take something from the public domain and remake it, "it's not theirs".

      But when Disney does it, it is not only theirs it also should be protected for decades and decades?

  7. Wise decision by Jinjuro · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Copyright was designed to give the creators of some kind of intellectual property a reasonable amount of time to profit from their creation before opening it to the rest of society for use in derivative works, not to tightly control use of one's works, even long after they may have been dead.

    Its bad enough Taiwan's copyright duration was increased so much...10 years does seem a little short, but 50 seems too much, its still better than 70 or 99 though. It's good to see a country not give in to what was most likely pressure from the media.

  8. Re:Odd Move by jon787 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Taiwan's decision is right for all the wrong reasons. They are just going to use that as a bargining chip for more arms or something, I guarantee it.

    --
    X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  9. Disney are hypocrits by Poilobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disney's fortune has been made utilizing public domain works. Their entire movie list is made up from the works of the Grimm brothers (Grimms Fairy Tales is public domain). Now that they are being required to add pack to the public domain they are pushing to extend the time (which they do everytime the expiration period comes up).

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
    1. Re:Disney are hypocrits by DragonMagic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget:

      The Little Mermaid (Anderson)
      The Lion King (Kimba the White Lion)
      Atlantis (bears a STRIKING resemblance to Dinotopia)
      Alice in Wonderland (Carroll)

      Probably many more that I can't name right now. But so far, Disney has made most its money off titles based on or too similar to others' works.

      And they want control over their derivative works for as long as possible to ensure no one can profit off them.

      Too bad people are crying for them about this who don't know WHY the CTEA truly is bad.

      --

      Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
  10. Just shoot you by WinPimp2K · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Life plus X years is very bad law. Copyright should be the same period for everyone.

    So if you come up with the "next Mickey Mouse", just kill yourself before the copyright expires

    Besides, what happens to the whole life plus X years argument when people stop dying? It seems an extreme example, but what if the medical nanotech Pollannas are right?

    Certainly life expectancies have increased in the past 200 odd years. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that considered 19 years an upper limit based on the actuarial(sp?) data available at the time. His concern was for limiting the freedom of the living due to the acts of the dead. (like maybe someone with a genetic melanin deficincy wanting to perform Porgy and Bess)

    Have you ever bothered to watch all the credits on a movie and then at the very nd see the notice that says "for Bourne Convntion purposes, the copyright owner of this work is ..."? The owner "of record"is a person not a corporation. Ever wonder how old that person is?

    If copyright were for a uniform period of time it would be much easier to handle. Currently, everything written by Stephn King will fall into the public domain in 2070 (he did die last year didn't he? :)

    But if copyright were for a uniform 20 years or so, we would already have his earlier (and arguably better) works already in the public domain. We also would not have silly legal arguments over the allowable name for an Austin Powers movie (as the original Bond novels would all be in the public domain)

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  11. Re:Odd Move by Hal-9001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In truth, I don't think Taiwan needs to worry too much about either China or the U.S. China has to be on its best behavior until the Olympics in Beijing, and you can bet that beating up on a smaller democratic and practically sovereign state would be frowned upon by the international community and probably get the Olympics yanked. And the U.S. is extremely dependent on Taiwan's high-tech manufacturing industries. This fact was made obvious a few years back, when a major earthquake damaged Taiwan's semiconductor manufacturing capabilities. RAM prices skyrocketed for about a year, until Taiwan got their semiconductor production back up to speed. So if for no reason other than cheap motherboards and RAM, pray for the safety of Taiwan.

    --
    "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
  12. Some info... by DigitalHammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Outside the Board of Foreign Trade where the negotiation was held, dozens of college students protested against the U.S. demand, shouting ``Knowledge can't be monopolised.''

    This excerpt of a previous post of mine explains some of the reasons why Chinese peoples (in China and Taiwan) have resisted or have not accepted the idea of intellectual property. I believe this quote is the most important:

    "Confucius's concept of the transmission of culture and Marx's views on the social nature of language and invention arose from very different ideological foundations. Nonetheless, because each school of thought in its own way saw intellectual creation as fundamentally a product of the larger society from which it emerged, neither elaborated a strong rationale for treating it as establishing private ownership interests.[15] Deeply influenced by these two ideologies, China falls behind all developed countries and many developing countries in the field of intellectual property protection. It is also not difficult to understand why most of Chinese did not know what were IPRs in 1980s."

    Read about more of those reasons here.

  13. How many 51yr. old movies and songs... by dameron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    are being pirated in Taiwan anyway...?

    -dameron

  14. Re:Copyright reform by silentbozo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No need to extend copyright for items that can be covered by trademark law. Mickey Mouse and Superman are trademarked characters, and can be protected, without having to lock up earlier works created using their characters. 35 years is a bit short - I'd argue we should go back to having periodic renewals for an additional 15 years, up to a period of 65 years.

  15. Re:art vs. commerce by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Literature from the period 1908 and 1928 will now be under the complete control of their owners, which are mostly major corporations. A work of art is now deprived from the view of the public, and will in many cases be unavailable completely.

    Copyright libraries, such as the Library of Congress and the British Library, already have problems with storage. Even then they don't hold works such as films, TV, sound recordings, computer programs, etc. Copyright holders often do not take good care of works they are not activly issuing.

  16. Yeah, well why should... by The+Fanta+Menace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the world give in to all of the US's increasingly insane demands?

    After all, they didn't vote for the US president or congress.


    --
    -- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
  17. I suggest 20 years by The+Creator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I mean, if you can't make enough profits of your work in fucking 20 years...

    --

    FRA: STFU GTFO
  18. So? Harmonize already... by tlambert · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So? Harmonize already... Taiwan is 50 years after the death of the author, Australia is 50 years after the death of the author. What part of "Don't think originally, and adopt everyone else's laws" doesn't the U.S. understand? I guess it only works with European laws...

    I would say that this was an example of "Some pigs being more equal than others", but of course, since the Sonny Bono extension, "Animal Farm" is back to being copywritten...

    -- Terry

  19. Re:This first post by mocm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry to hear you died today. Maybe your heirs can profit from this fine piece of literature

    --
    ***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
  20. This is a far more prickly issue... by hklingon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... than is readily apparent. Some stuff, like Windows 3.1, will be completely useless in another 60 or so years. Do you think anyone will even be able to find the source code then?
    I'm not even sure the law is such that you are encouraged to release computer program source code-- but wouldn't that be something? But a kind-of long copyright term on other stuff, like.. great works of society (a tiny percentage of books, etc) deserve a longer copyright term. But what about The A-Team. The copyright on the A-Team should have long since expired, the same as Windows 3.1. www.archive.org contains a lot of early films.. but they complain that movie studios destroy the originals when a movie is about to expire... effectively hampering its descent into public domain. Extend this into a DRM enabled future, where it is unlikely that many people will have an "unauthorized" work, and media companies can revoke all DRM liceses just before something expires and then (digitally) destroy the only copy. This is highly irritating, wouldn't you say? But the examples here suggest that yet more complex laws need to exist to deal with (a) copyrighted works that suck need not be copyrighted long (b) two-part copyrighted things (i.e. programs and program source code (c) legal recourse for companies that knowingly inhibit works entering the public domain.