Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Rumblings
dcunning writes "The Economist has a short opinion piece entitled Copyrights: A radical rethink that suggests (horror of horrors!) going so far as reverting back to the original copyright term of 14 years, renewable once. The article suggests that, in exchange for this, the 'content industries' be given 'much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies.' A worthwhile and fair tradeoff?"
Why would the content industries be content with a fair compromise when they can buy enough influence to have all the legal, anti-copy methods they want, and enough influence to buy 357 year copyrights?
For the first 14 years of release, the content industry would actually be able to leaglly force me not to read a book aloud? (If you recall this is one of the looney rules they have been trying to make fly with eBooks.) I don't really see how this is fair at all, especially given that 90% of attempted use of such material happens within a few years of its release.
Ñ'
The record companies know that, even if they were given all copy protection they wanted (barring the banning of unlicensed microphones), people would still pirate music. It only takes one person circumventing the protection to open a work to the world.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
The proposed copy protections are extremely unfair and unreasonable. Why should we allow ourselves to be bribed to permit such a thing?
The question of whether copyright limits should be shorter (I sure think so!) should be independent.
Personally I think eventually we consumers will win all of these battles. There's no reason to even think of accepting bribes from a corrupt industry.
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
if you really think copy protection will suddenly disappear after 28 years, or the copyright owners will configure it to do so, I have a bridge to sell you.
sulli
RTFJ.
Damn straight it is. You get twenty-eight years to milk something for all the millions it's worth, AND you get to crush utterly and punitively anyone who dares steal even a penny's worth from you? Sounds like a good deal to me.
-Mark
Is there any such expiration date on open source code licenses?
word.
It's an old tactic:
First: present the consumer first with a horrible way of doing things.
Second: the consumer will take almost *anything* else, and even something else bad seems good.
This is a regular management tactic in some places. You should be able to sniff this one a mile away.
Further, the problems related to fair use remain. I have an affirmative right to use short segments of copyrighted material in other works. For example, if I wanted to preach a sermon demonstrating how media culture affects us, I might want to use a short clip from the truman show. I have that right under fair use - but I can't do it from a DVD legally right now because of the DMCA which prevents me from legally owning the technology that would enable it. The chilling effect is a scary thing.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
It's simple to fix... require that those who release works with legally-backed copy protection file an unencrypted digital version with at least the quality of the protected version with the Library of Congress, who will place that version on a public web server the moment the 28 years are up.
Much of the inefficiency of current copyright law comes from the lack of registration, deposit, and renewal, all of which strenghtened the public domain in earlier copyright law.
h ives/ EAFAQ.html
Larry Lessig has proposed a tiny tax 50 years after a work is first copyrighted. If the tax is unpaid, the work goes into the public domain. The tax represents some positive move to show the work has commercial value.
Maybe 50 years is too long. But if we are to lobby for such an act we need to make compromises with the strong copyright interests such as Hollywood.
It might seem immodest to have an act named after me, but I have grown accustomed to the loss of my name after the case Eldred v. Ashcroft. I think it nicely opposes the Sonny Bono Act.
For more on the Eric Eldred Act, see
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/arc
What do you think?
when it comes to rolling stones i think some of their oldest stuff is whats still defining them, but i dont know if they go back 28 years
Um, dude, this year the Stones are celebrating their 40th anniversary as a band. They've released a 40-track double-CD collection called "40 Licks" in honour of the occasion.
-- Alastair
The record companies are confident that they can get all that and a bag of chips (er, 95+ year copyright terms, that is.) So why settle for what's behind door number three when you can get doors number one and two at the same time?
They have their cake and we eat it? Or we have the cake and they eat it? Or to we share tha cake? Or maybe it's a pie? I like blueberry.
Why do I have the feeling that this decade is going to be known as the "Mine! Mine!" decade.
The genie is out of the bottle, and no law, technology, or ad campaign is ever going to put it back in. Copyrights have been violated since the first artist in history signed their name (or stamped their mark) on their work.
(and as a descendent of one of the artists in Altamira, I would like my cut of the souvenir profits)
Why the recording industry (and others) now feel threatened enough to start raising a fuss, is because it's just become much easier. Although, overall, I don't see how it can really hurt their bottom line. They are making many times the profit on their product than they did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's (am I the only one who's noticed how $1 and $2 paperbacks are now selling for $9 - $12. Was there a sudden paper shortage that I never heard about?). Don't even get me started on CD's, do you really expect me to believe that the bottom line cost of a CD is twice as much as a cassette tape (considering the markup).
If the industry would get smart and offer their products at a decent price, it would help to insure that the run-of-the mill consumer is not tempted to use other means to acquire the product. But if they expect that a few words in a lawbook is going to stop what has already started, they are dreaming.
Dr. Wu
PS: If the music industry is so perfect themselves, then why are they settling the lawsuits against them for illegal price fixing.
Music CD Settlement
The author makes a great case. He proposes trade-offs that would be in everyone's best interest. And that's why it will never fly.
The problem is the content industries feel they "deserve" the original copyright term, and that the digital age is simply infringing on their "rights." And, quite short-sightedly, that all they need to do is get "better" laws and the next generation of technology will put it right.
Hundreds of people proposed very reasonable, in fact still too expensive, methods to make music available online. The problem with these systems was that they were reasonable. The current system of paying $15 for CD with 3 good songs 2 mediocre, and the remainder, crap is extremely profitable. No self-centered individual would endanger such a system for one that would allow a user to pay $3 each for their two favorite songs and ignore the rest. It just won't happen.
These people will fight tooth and claw to retain total control of our culture until we wrest it from their grasping hands.
The next generation of crypto-verifying players, and per user-agreement encrypted, signed music downloads, will be a telling test. They will lower the prices enough that many people won't care. They will then usher in laws that make any tool that plays digital music a "tool of piracy." Large proprietary software corporations will step right into the meal line with their ticket in hand, and the FOSS community will be all that stands in their way. Should be exciting to watch.
DRM at restriction systems hurt their relationship with buyers like me. I buy a lot of IP, in fact IP accounts for virtually all of the non-essential things I buy. I own a hell of a lot of CDs and still buy a lot of CDs when I find something I like. I am the type of customer that they depend on, not little sally who loves her some Britney. I am to them, what the PowerMac and Powerbook owners are to Apple, the backbone of the bottomline. Not surprisingly, I own one of each as well.
Burning buyers like me by not letting me make MP3s or Oggs is a stupid move. Not only do I buy a lot, I keep in contact with my congresscritter. I let him know that it ain't piracy, but rather self-righteous greedy fucks at Sony, Columbia, Universal, et al that are killing off their own market by treating customers like criminals. They can of course do that because copyrights to the degree we have gone now are not capitalist. They are a socialist construct. If you don't like the price of a CD you cannot buy a competing product. Korn doesn't compete with Gravity Kills because they're totally different types of music and they don't play each other's songs. Why don't the copyright crusaders argue that hard drives compete with lawn mowers because if I buy 5 200GB hard drives I probably won't have the money for a new riding lawn mower.
I'd rather be buying DVD Audio, but hey, until I can rip it into very high quality data it's useless to me. My idea of a playlist is Winamp or XMMS, not a 200 DVDA changer set on shuffle.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
It would certainly change the business model. Those artists would either have to live off of what they've made already, or go on tour to do music and make money that way. Or *gasp shudder die* write new material. Not that all don't, but you'd see more of it for certain . . .
It'd be a boon for musicians starting out, because they'd no longer have to secure rights to play those classic songs, they could just perform them. And it would ALSO spell an end to those stupid bad substitutes for Happy Birthday you hear at resturants.
The previous has been a secret message to my comrades.
Copyright extension should be halted because it drains the public domain of material. Period. We shouldn't have to bargain for that one. 75 years was plenty of time, we had settled into that time frame, and we had plenty of older literature and materials flowing into the public domain. Then along came the DMCA - reverse engineering, making compatible devices and software, using your own media (that you legally purchased) in other devices of your choosing - all these basic property rights and common law understandings of what people can do with things they own flew out the goddamned window.
I'm not willing to cut a deal with the devil, or the so-called content industry in this scenario, to bring back reduced timespans for copyrights. Cut copyrights back, abolish the DMCA (perhaps some parts are not unreasonable, but as I see it, everything in there is either not needed because it was covered by existing jurisprudence, or is flat out morally wrong), and THEN we can have an intelligent debate and discussion as a society about what kind of legislation should be in place to help protect content producers from unreasonable amounts of piracy, IF in fact existing laws don't provide them that protection already.
If in fact the problem is an economic one (people are pirating because it is economically sensible for them to do so) why not try modifying your business model to one that doesn't so strongly encourage such illegal copying? You're never going to eliminate it entirely. Sorry, but we don't want and won't take crippled devices. If the content industry hasn't figured that out yet, then fuck them. I'd rather have a crippled, less profitable, re-organized content industry with my rights intact, than have mandated, legally enforced DRM embedded in my hardware, and have Disney's profits secured so they keep pushing their schwag out on audiences. Oh yeah, and what do we get out of it? Copyright terms are only 14 years. Of course, that doesn't apply retroactively, it only applies to new content. Oh, so sorry about that. And in 14 years what happens? Copyrights get extended again, without public debate, once the sheep have gotten used to ubiquitous DRM.
Sorry, but I'll go down with guns blazing before I accept this "compromise". Right now, we are getting the strength of momentum behind us. The popular press is buying into it. Copyright term extensions are going down, though it may take a while. As for the DMCA - it's not going away just yet, but the debate in the public forum is just starting, and we'll get there eventually too. Once the content industry realizes how shaky the ground they are walking on is, perhaps we will hear a real compromise deal out of them, hrrmmm?
REAL pirates, people who are motivated by profit . The same mass copiers that operate in Ukraine, China and Taiwan today and who sell the pirated copies. They don't "open [works] to the world" unless the world pays them.
And people who are willing to pay will pay the record companies, if the price is reasonable.
And in the meantime, we wont' be able to make backup copies, mix cd's, a copy for the car, a digital work of criticism which incorporates a "quote" from the original, etc.
Is that worth it?
At this point, I really believe that the future of music is going to involve just completely circumventing/reinventing the middle, distribution/parasite layer of the industry, and perhaps finding ways to add value to music above just charging for the music itself.
The big studios have the money to change the rules of the game at will. If they agree to something like this, don't be surprised to see them lobbying, 28 years from now, to change the law and extend the copyright period. Then they would have both draconian technical copyright enforcement measures, backed by the full force of law, and infinitely renewable copyrights.
Of course, some would argue that we already have both.
Not just classic rock, but a lot of Metallica that still sells. Lars would go nuts. It would never happen.
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Make copyrights like tyrademarks.
You get copyright protection for only as long as you use it. Mickey Mouse gets used today, then Steamboat Willie and the MM icon used by Disney gets protected.
Sony doesn't sell N'sync CDs anymore to retailers? Fine, their music is now public domain.
On the plus side, it allows vendors with known icons (the Mouse) to retain the legal proection they need, while allowing 'abandonware' to go where it rightfully belongs - the public.
Don't forget this would cover games too, solving that nasty question of older games that aren't being made anymore.
How about this.. you are either entitled to copyright protection (current books, records, etc)... ie: no technological protections...
OR
you are entitled to technological protctions. not both.
If you want to restrict sometihng by technology, you are free to, but you have no protection of the actual work under law.
You seem to mis-understand Marxism. A Marxist would suggest that "to the victor go the spoils", not "to the share holders of the multi-national company go the spoils". Would you rather the author got the credit or the shareholders of the publisher?
Yeah, I might be willing to make that trade, if you add in one more piece: as per the Constitution, only the original author can hold a copyright. And that author must be a human, not any kind of corporation or publishing house.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
"the Congress shall have power...to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
Everyone argues about how long the "limited times" should last. And all the arguments have totally missed the point. They all come from the standpoint of "I want to do something with this old work-- it should be public domain so I can," or "I want to keep making money off of this old work-- it should stay copyrighted so I can."
The phrase we need to be concerned with is "promote the progress of science and useful arts." The government should appoint a team of unbiased experts to study the benefits and downfalls of differing lengths and mechanisms of copyright, come to a final conclusion about what would most "promote the progress of science and useful arts," and go with that.
c-hack.com |
That solution is bad because
just like what happened recently with
the copyright laws. Some corporation
(Disney) will buy themselves some judges
and have the time limit changed to infinity.
The only real solution is to stop price fixing
by the recording labels and dvd resellers.
In a truly capitalist system 15$ for a CD would
NEVER have been allowed for each and every cd.
To do this we need Campaign Finance Reform in
America, I don't know who to blame in the rest
of the world but in America the people have lost
their voice.
You are absolutely right. The point of copyrights is a trade -- we all give up our rights to make copies of some work, in order to promote the creation of new works which we all can eventually prosper from. We should only extend these copyrights to people who are fulfilling their end of the trade -- creating new works with which we all can (eventually) do whatever we want.
The point of the various DRM technologies is to take the issue of making copies of works completely out of the legal arena, and make it an issue completely controlled by technology and whims of the big copyright holding companies. Only even that doesn't completely describe it, because they aren't willing to COMPLETELY give up the legal side -- they want to make sure they can throw you in jail if you win the technology side.
That is why I will never adopt or support some lame-ass "compromise" such as The Economist suggests. The whole system has to come to an end, until the publication and entertainment industry is run by normal humans. The current bunch of mafioso will take every inch you give them and then also take every inch they were supposed to give you; they no more understand a reciprocal agreement than did Al Capone.
I've been suggesting this for a while:
Reduce the term of copyrights to somewhere between 20 and 40 years. (Basically, the working lifetime of an author.)
More importantly, I believe that copy protection clashes with the Constitutional purpose of copyright. I propose to not allow materials which are copy protected to be copyrighted. Make the author choose between the two. I think this is important since the purpose of copyright (at least under the US Constitution) is to produce art & science which eventual enter the public domain. Since copy protected materials are designed to impede reproduction, propogating those materials will often be difficult once copyright expires. Since they can't easily enter the public domain, they should not be copyrightable.
(You might also be able to convince me to make the penalties for violating copyright more severe if this is done, to help convince people to not copyprotect materials.)
I am for strong copyrights. I don't think Gone With the Wind, the Three Stooges, and maybe even Elvis should be under copyright any more, though, and I don't think any copyrighted materials should be copy protected.
John
Call me inflamatory, but we screwed up copyright the first time (Gosh... if forever was good, forever and a day is better!). Why do we have to give the content industry a lollipop (copy-protection enforcement) to get them to accept something that's sensible and in the public good?
The only copy-protection I'll settle for will consist of a Supreme Court justice in every box that tells me that what I'm doing is or isn't fair use. Unfortunately, unless the content industry and the Raelians team up, that tends to limit sales.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
It should have stayed 14 years anyway, regardless of any other change. If we give the content industry all the crazy protections they want, it should be more like 2 years. Also, in exchange for allowing any of these extreme copy-restriction systems, they should automatically quit working at the end of the copyright term, or the copyright holder should be forced to deposit an unencumbered version with the Library of Congress or something.
I think we also need to introduce the idea of copyright lapse. There are a lot of books, movies, and music recordings that the world is being deprived of because the copyright holders can't or won't release new copies of them.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Marxists? Please.
The entire notion of copyright has been utterly bastardized. The philosophy behind the US Constitution's Copyright Clause is that Copyright is a grant BY THE PUBLIC to the creator to allow the creator to make a bit of cash before reverting the material -back- to the public.
There is not truly "original" content. In fact, there's only 7 basic stories, or plotlines. Unless the creator has -no- contact with anything outside of their own closed mine, the public has a direct impact on the creators, and on the content they produce.
For a -much- better explanation of this, please read Justice Stevens' dissension in the Eldred case (Ginsberg's is excellent as well).
The gist, though, is that -without- works falling into the public domain, creativity and the production of new works -SUFFERS-. Why the hell do you think we're getting sequels to all of the Classic Disney films (I mean, do we -really- need 4 101 Dalmations sequels/retakes?)
OK. This sounds reasonable, with the following additions:
0) Corporate copyrights are set to 14-year terms, renewable once. Copyrights held by natural persons remain in force for the lifetime of the author or 28 years (nonrenewable), whichever is greater.
1) After the original period of 14 years, a copyright may be renewed once, unless no editions of the work have been released for sale in the past three years and plans have not been formally announced to release it within the following year. In other words, if you haven't been actually making money off the copyright then you shouldn't be able to hold it "defensively".
2) Copyrights apply to specific versions or editions of works, rather than the work in general. To give an example, Version 2.0 of a piece of software is protected by a different copyright than Version 1.0 was.
3) All copyright-protection mechanisms must stop working when the copyright expires. While this need not necessarily be automatic, if it isn't then the mechanism to disable the protection must be made available to the public, free of charge, at that time.
4) All copyright-protection mechanisms must allow for the fair-use rights of all users. To aid in this, a minimal, non-exhaustive list of fair use rights may be drawn up; at the absolute least this must include both time-shifting and space-shifting rights.
5) Content creators may not specify how a product may be used (also known as End-User License Agreements). Standard copyright law will forbid illegal redistribution, public performance without permission, etc. and this may not be modified by content creators except to grant permission there the law dows not automatically do so.
6) Computer code is to be considered a written work, protected by copyright but not patent. Copyrights will, as noted in Point 2 above, apply to specific versions of the software, rather than the software in general. When copyright on a specific version expires, the source code for that version is to be released into the public domain.
7) When and if this goes into effect, all corporate copyrights still in force will be set to expire in 14 years. Some old copyrights will be extended by this, and some will be truncated. Oh well; we can't pick and choose. This will be the last time copyrights can retroactively extended or shortened; see Point 8 below.
8) Congress may, at its option, pass laws extending these terms, by no more than five years at a time. Further, these laws may apply only to copyrights on works created after said extension was put into force.
OK. Build these into the law -thus putting binding restrictions on content creators to make their copy-protection mechanisms fair- and I'll let them have their little legal restrictions on DRM-circumvention (modified to take these into account, of course). If they want this, fine, but only if they agree to restore the balance between creator and user first.
This article makes a fair enough point, but it still doesn't sound terribly much like a 'radical rethink'. The Economist is simply asserting that current American law is too permissive, not calling for a return to copyright in its original sense as a social rather than economic bargain.
Writing as an economist, I personally think this entire approach to IPR is a plague on society. A much healthier debate would throw out the absurd notion that only commercial systems provide good content, or the implicit corollary that the current system of industrial organization in the United States is the "only way" content will be or has even been produced.
This isn't to argue that copyright is a bad thing -- just that debating the appropriate LENGTH of protection is to engage in a loaded debate. Doing so implicitly accepts the highly-questionable assumption that commercial copyright is necessary for ALL content provision, and comes without significant costs on other parts of society. This distracts attention from the way indiscriminate protection crushes non-commercial content producers, academic researchers, open source developers, etc.
A healthier approach would worry less about duration than about the way protection is structured.
Why do we live under the pretense that artists get to live on the proceeds of their works for the rest of their lives? Other jobs are not like that. If a manager organizes a company or division in a way that makes more money, he is only compensated as long as he continues to work for the company. Or a conservator restores a book or painting so that the public can appreciate it more; she doesn't get rewarded monetarily her whole life. Or a sofware engineer...
I agree copyrights are useful, but they are not natural rights. They are arbitrary and granted rights that are regulated by the government (ie. the people). In essence the government, by granting copyrights beyond beyond a reasonable length of time, has decided that artists are more important than the common man.
Digital technology has made copyright moot in not one but two important ways.
The first is that content can be replicated with perfect fidelity for little or no cost.
The second is that copyright simply is not needed. The intent was to encourage people to produce works of science and useful arts, but history has shown that that is simply not necessary. People produce such works even without the promise that the state will use violence to ensure their compensation.
Just look at the open source revolution. Compare the quality of open source software with that of its copyrighted commercial equivalent.
Or compare the quality of literature and art before today's abuse of copyright with the pure shit that saturates our existance today.
Copyright is as archaic as slavery. It is as absurd to give ownership of a sequence of bits to an individual as it is to give ownership of an individual to another individual. And ironically, the very same Constitution originally gave sanction to both.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
The other obvious problem with the solution is that all parties could agree now, with legally enforced use restrictions, then 14 years from now as the copyrights are about to expire, intense lobbying results in legislation to extend the term to 20 years ... then 30 years ... and so on, without repealing the restrictions.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
...until they extend copyright protection to databases like they've done in the EU with the European Database Directive.
The European plan not only extends copyrights to protect databases (which are large assemblages of facts... which have been the one thing you can't copyright here in the U.S. ever since copyright was written into our laws) but it also creates a new protection (that is not a copyright) that they term "sui generis" (in a class of its own). This protection is beside that of copyright and is renewable with olny a modest updating of the database... and, yes, this does mean that all you have to do is update your database every 15 years to get your protection extended another 15 years!!! This is truly perpetual copyright!!!
Let us switch to 28 years but no fair use ! Full copyright belonging to holder without permission to use it (note that I don't even say author).
25 Years later. Oh let us rise the period to 37 years. Retroactive. After all the copyright holder financed the work and has to get a return !
10 years later (35 years after the 1st work has been done under this law) Ho 37 is not enough, let us rise with a new law to say, 56. This is fair isn't it ? Oh, and it is retroactive.
10 years again later... We are abck to 74/98 years of copyright. With prolongation if the holder pay a small symbolic sum. Retroactively.
I certainly would not want such law as a consummer.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
An interesting read about the copyright bargain is found on gnu.org.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
I'm a bit disappointed in the old guard Economist for failing to make the strongest economic argument for revamping the copyright laws.
Copyrights are like tariffs. They distort the true value of goods and thereby make trade inefficient. The end result is that they decrease the amount of wealth in the world. Reducing copyright terms is like lowering tariffs. Even though some industries and segments of society will be injured, in the short term by such an action, overall, it results in greater wealth for the nation and for its trading partners.
That's speaking in terms that the businessmen who read The Economist can understand. They can relate to the benefit of lower prices for textiles and hardware, so they ought to be similarly receptive to lower prices for textbooks and software.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
The authors are indeed every single person who contributed to the code. That's why it's nearly impossible to re-license any open source project after a few people have worked on it, because you need to get permission from every single person who worked on it, or remove their code. c.f. Mozilla's dual-licensing efforts.
If a piece of software is continually updated, the copyright for that incarnation will be as well. This should make sense. If you go back X years (where X is the copyright expiration) and download a copy that is exactly as it was then, then that is in the public domain, even if elements of it survive unchanged in the current version.
Basically, the rules are straightforward, it's just that some actions (like relicensing) because prohibitively expensive because they require too much agreement from people that you may not even be able to find again.
Ummmm. Ever hear of Metallica?
;)
Oh, wait. You said semi-intelligent band....my bad.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
intense lobbying results in legislation to extend the term
Not if even more intense lobbying results in legislation accepted by 2/3 of the US House, 2/3 of the US Senate, and 1/2 of each of thirty-eight state legislatures, to limit the term to an absolute maximum of 50 years once and for all:
Wishful thinking, but as they used to say in the McWorld commercials: "Hey, it could happen!"
Will I retire or break 10K?
I don't argue that making illegal copies of copyrighted material is morally correct. I don't care if it is or is not. I want to know if it's worth spending my tax dollars to enforce.
As it grows easier and easier to steal copyrighted material, I think the question of what should we and should we not do to protect corporations like Time Warner is better though of after taking an example to heart. Let's suppose I ran a radio station. Let's suppose I wanted everyone to pay me $.10 a minute to listen to my radio station. I have no technology to do this any differently from a normal radio station. People can turn to my radio station and listen regardless of whether or not they have paid me. It seems likely that thousands of people (at least if my content was any good) would listen to my station without paying. This angers me, and I ask the legislators to start passing laws with long sentences, and law enforcement to invade privacy to find violators.
Clearly there would be no reason for the government to artificially create a situation where my failed business model works. There has to some damn GOOD REASON to expend the time and money to make a business work despite the ease of cheating.
So the question isn't whether or not people steal content. It's not whether or not these people are good or evil. The question is, how hard would it be to actually stop them, and what do we really get by doing so?
The preceding passage has been checked for spelling, you will find no sentence without at least one mis spelled word
That's still copyright theft. You may use that as an excuse to pirate software, but it won't protect you then the BSA comes along.
Copyright law, 17 USC 107, lists four factors used in discerning fair use from infringement, and one of them is the effect on the market for the work. By taking a work out of print for several years, the copyright owner admits that he sees no significant market for the work. Thus, an otherwise infringing use would have zero effect on the market and inflict zero actual damage to the copyright owner. Fair use. And even if the judge doesn't see a use as completely fair, he can still reduce the section 504 statutory damages far below the maximum when some fair use factors apply.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Ummmm. Ever hear of Metallica?
Metallica didn't even care about Napster until their unfinished work started showing up. The same thing was what got Dr. Dre, Madonna, and every other artist who cared to come out against Napster.
Oh, and Al Gore never said he invented the internet, Geroge W. Bush isn't an idiot, a good slice of Rush Limbaugh's audience are democrats, and sometimes Microsoft is better than Linux.
*sigh*
The problem is such. Whenever you offer a "trade-off" to a powerfull group such as the copyright lobby, they will take the benefit but not the burden.
The copyright lobby mind you essentially control the media, and thus only few magazines like the Economist (which pride themselves on being controlled by the international investment institutions instead) even dare suggest reducing the terms of copyright.
And since they control the media they can easily spin the story and make the public forget about any trade-offs. And terms of copyright will be once again long.
There are many examples where similar trade-offs have been essentially forgotten. The most drastic example is where the US tevision networks received a monopoly on a huge and increidbly valuable piece of the spectrum in exchange to performing a public function. And nowadays that tradeoff is complketely forgotten and no television network will ever admit that it owes anything to the public nor they will ever perform a public service that hurts their profits.
So my belief is that in these situations we should not do any gives and takes... Because they will take without giving.
OK, Copyright is providing a protection service of a work. No need to impose a time limit, rather impose a fee for the service. Maybe make it a progressive fee. As long as the fee is paid up, you would have a valid copyright. Let the fee lapse, you no longer have one.
As for the progressive part, let the fee double each year. You could start low to provide a reasonable time of relatively low cost protection, but the geometric progression would impose a practical limit.
So, you would start off with something like:
year 1 $10
year 2 $20
year 3 $40
year 4 $80
So any entity that wanted the protection could have it for as long as they cared to pay. The payments would balance off against the ever increasing value to society to allow the work to be shared.
This should apply to all works to be protected. A business would use something like a trademark to proctect their assets, again with an anual fee, but not geometrical.
Also, anything copyrighted should have the full work on file in a useful form. That means source if you are copyrighting source to a program. ect.
To me the worst thing of the copyright question is, that companies acrue title to the rights to copy and THEN decide not to as it is economically not "prudent" to do so. As a consequence a lot of important material never sees a reprint even though there is a need for it.
When material is "available" the cost of getting things that are rare like classical music is such that it cannot only be described as in money terms but also in effort. I live in a 200.000 person town and my personal collection is bigger that what can be found in the record shops. The function of a recordshop is to allow me a listen befor a sale. Without an infrastructure for the sale of material how can the punters be held responsible for not buying or for copying copyrighted material?
When I need a book for study and I cannot have it because of it being out of print, is it not criminal that I cannot get it? That I cannot have a digital copy and print it myself because of this "copyright" joke ?
When the Economist argues for a short period where an artist is to be protected, where does the publishing company come into play when they DO NOT provide the service that they ARE named for; publishing?
In my opinion, any period I can live with as long as there is an equal weight on the other side of the balance. That weight must be service.
Thanks,
Gerard
pay money to rent studio time to copy audio
I think you need to read the right to read by Richard Stallman.
You so totally misunderstand the world around you. I don't know a single person without a personal computer, and a hard drive. Do you think they need to "rent studio time" to make copies of data? What? Are you going to live in everyone's hard drive and control every single thing they ever do to make sure they don't "pirate" someone's work?
The DeCSS hack was perpetrated by a 16 year old kid in his spare time with a personal computer. A computer just like the one everyone has in their living room. There will always be bright people. There will always be bright kids. The idea of trying to stifle all those human beings by limiting their capabilities, just so one "approved" group can profit from their creations, is vile and disgusting.
Is there really an underground of millionaire hackers out there, digital Robin Hoods...
Yes, but they are rich in brainpower, spare time, and available knowledge. Which ones are you hoping to take away?
No, giving the copyright industry what they want for even a one year copyright term is not acceptable. DRM is itself immoral, for any length of time. If I buy a DVD that is encrypted (pretend for a moment that there's no DeCSS), and the copyright expires a year later.... I still have to get a decryption system from the content provider. That means I'm still at Disney's beck and call. That still means that historians viewing this period of history will not be able to view any of our encrypted art.
Saying that what's inside the box is free and public does not work when the box is locked and the key costs $1000. That is not free (in either meaning of the word).
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
That being said, positive copyright reform is unlikely to ever happen, as the public domain has no billionaires to bribe legislators on its behalf.
"Piracy" is a paper tiger. Home taping never killed the recording industry. The photocopier did not kill the publishing industry. The VCR did not kill Hollywood. Content providers are running scared from file trading because it is a new technology. They have done the same every time a new medium has been invented. Each new medium they claimed would be the death of them actually turned out to be a boon.
Outrageous copyright lengths should be taken away from copyright holders, but they deserve nothing in return. They have robbed the public domain far too long.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Everyone keeps saying how "copyright can't be protected" on the internet. Well, that's absolutely right if you follow this rediculous method of turning a blind eye while crimes occur, and attempt to make it impossible for the crime to happen at all.
People learned long ago in the real world that for a free society to function properly, many things must be possible, but actual crimes need to be policed and criminals punished to have law and order. How long do you think it'll take them to realize that even in the digital world crime can not be coded out of the system?
The two questions of copyright:
1) Is it a crime to take some things apart and understand how they work? Yes! Even worse if you share that knowledge!
2) Is it a crime to knowingly aquire copyrighted works illegally and use them? Not at all!
All i have to say is.. http://www.redcoat.net/pics/riaa.jpg
magnanomous.
Best of all, Congress would see it as a source of income and might not dismiss it out of hand.
Dyolf Knip
Ok...so they pass a law that limits copyrights to 14 years. Then they embed DRM, etc. in all of our consumer electronics.
How long does it take to change that law back, and how long would it take to completely remove the the fully implementedinfrastructure of DRM, DMCA, etc?
Answer: One vote by our 'representatives' and we're screwed.
I think the first step to allowing works in the public domain to be actually availible to the public is the establishment of some sort of cross-platform, cross-network method to identify works that are free to the public. Filesharing services have been tryin to demonstate leigtimate uses for their networks; they usually cite unsigned artists volunteering their content for distribution or incorporate pay-per-legal-download schemes into their products. Distributing older works in the public domain could provide them with another legitimate reason to exitst, I doubt the previous content owners will volunteer their bandwidth to the distribution of works they previously owned, so the peer to peer networks seem like a natural solution for free ownerless content.
It is worth noting, of course, that very little of the work in the public domain exists in digital format. The sort of leigislation suggested here in the economist provides some hope, though. One day, even though content owners have abandoned work from which they can no longer profit, each user's computer may be like a small piece of a distributed digital cultual museum.
Too busy staying alive... ~ R.A.
As the power and reach of the internet continue to grow, the illicit trading of perfect copies may well devastate the music, movie and publishing industries.
It may hurt todays music Publishers but not Music. In fact I think the quality and diversity of Music will explode once the chains that these middlemen have on it are broken. Excellent Music can be produced in a basement using equipment costing only a few thousand dollars by a hobbyist. Once again songs will be popular when they reflect the attitudes of the listeners rather than because they have been associated with crotch shots of a sexy blonde teenager in a multi-million dollar marketing and payola campaign.
However, to provide any incentive at all, more limited copyrights would have to be enforceable, and in the digital age this would mean giving content industries much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies. Many cyber activists would loathe this idea. But if copyright is to continue to work at all, it is necessary. And in exchange for a vast expansion of the public domain, such a concession would clearly be in the interests of consumers.
If this were true then it wouldn't matter what the length of copyright terms are. The author implies that without Digital Restrictions Management everywhere the 'content industries' will not survive. I would ask him to explain who he groups into the 'content industries' because the artists will certainly not have a problem. Artists have been taken advantage of by the Music publishers for a long time. I would also ask him how long of a copyright term Shakespeare's works were published under or Mozart's. And since I already know the answer I would then ask why those men devoted their lives to their art. What incentive did they have?
At one time the Music publishers had a valuable role to play. They got rich and powerful. But like the buggy whip makers they need to diversify their revenue stream because what they used to do isn't in as much of a demand. Instead, like the Tobacco industry they want to continue to prosper with their old business model and they don't give a damn that it is to the Public's detriment.
If you actually read the GPL you'll find that it has nothing to say about using the software. Not that RMS would like it but using GPL firmware to control a baby threshing machine doesn't break the license as Theo so eloquently put it. Sure it breaks other laws but the point is the GPL has nothing to say about any use or private modifications made to the software. It even goes out of it's way to point out that agreement with the license is unecessary to use the software.
The default in copyright law is that no one other than the copyright holder can distribute a work. "Fair Use" does permit limited excerpting for commentary, criticism, or parody. The only thing that lets any copyrighted work be distributed is a license. All a would be corporate plagiarist would accomplish in legally attacking the GPL is to get the license ruled null and void in his case. The violator would not suddenly gain full ownership of the work and the right to do anything with it he wants...mu! ha! ha! ha! With the license invalidated, the software doesn't become fully public domain. It reverts back to the copyright law default...which says? Right! The copyright holder has the sole right distribute or license distribution.
How is the copyright holder going to feel after being manhandled by corporate shysters? Pretty pissed I'd imagine. The best possible outcome for a plagiarist in a GPL dispute would be to somehow prove he did not violate the license...this won't accomplish what we all assume GPL violators want to do: close source a widely distributed GPL derived work. Note, the originator of a GPLed work who owns the copyright to all parts of it can relicense subsequent distributions any way he wants.
Invalidating the license would be a pyrrhic victory. He would then have to satisfy the copyright holder and would only have two choices to do so. He can remove the GPLed bits entirely and reimplement them. The other alternative would be an alternative license from the copyright holder who's going to be thoroughly torqued by this point and inclined to insist on the most expensive terms possible.
An attack on the GPL is also an attack on the legal structure that currently allows draconian copyrights. It is not coincidental that we don't see high profile legal attacks on the license itself.
Here is what Al Gore said, quoting from Wired News:
If you're a Democrat, what he said was an unfortunate exaggeration. If you're a Republican, what he said was a boastful lie. Either way, he'll be mocked for it by so many people that you could spend the rest of your life arguing the point, and get nowhere.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
The article proposes a "compromise" between two unrelated issues!
Copyright term extension has been happening for far longer than digital technology. Hence the issue of copyright term extension is simply not something to be traded for digital technology restrictions! It is a different issue.
It is true that digital technology may change the feasibility of various copyright enforcement, but that does not have anything to do with the reasonableness of the term of copyrights.
If there were no internet, image scanners and printers, copyright extension would still be the same issue. Logically then, digital copyright protection schemes have no relationship to copyright extension issues.
Copyrights are too long. That is clear and should be changed.
Digital media is easily and routinely stolen. That is clear and presents us with challenges, the answers to which are not at all obvious.
The only good weather is bad weather.
I think a fair solution would be to limit the term of a copyright except when the copyrighted material is still being used or distributed by the copyright holder. This would grant Disney full use of Micky Mouse, and would allow people to distribute works that havn't seen the light of day for, say, 25 years. If the copyright holder is the original author then they should be given the option of extending the copyright. If they don't, then it enters the public domain.
This way:
Disney would still maintain the copyrights of their material.
People could legally share music that is no longer distributed and would otherwise rot in some archive vault.
In other words, this would be a use it or lose it copyright. If a company wants to keep the copyright on their material then they are encouraged to use it and make it available. If they don't, then they lose it.
This would allow for books like Tolkein's Lord of the Rings to remain in control of his estate since they continue to use and publish the material, yet a book like "The Bulb Book" by John Weathers which hasn't been published for nearly a century would enter the public domain rather than be lost forever.
This also would give the music industry an incentive to stop pumping out crap that won't see the light of day a decade from now.
For collectors, perhapse the law should state that republishing of expired copyrighted material must state so, such that collectors can still know what is original or modern copies.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Ok, so rather than assign blame to whomever leaked their unfinished content to Napster these artists chose to blame the medium that the culprit used. Am I missing something here? (Honest question, no sarcasm intended.)
Unless I'm missing some important details, your logic would have me persecuting the various telcos and makers of fax machines if someone were to steal my industrial trade secrets and fax them to a member of the press.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
I think the problem is that "copyright" is screwed; if that's a problem.
Not entirely, of course, the Law can still, relatively easily, sue commercial infringers, but as far as personal infringement; individuals infringing someone's copy right, for no commercial gain; Copyright has been decimated by new technology.
In this area, the real way that copyright was upheld, was by the copyright holders having both the means of production and the means of distribution.
People don't need presing plants and trucks to make and ship CDs anymore, they use the internet as the means of distribution, and the inexpensive cd-rw drive as the pressing plant.
The limitation was not one of law, but of ability, and now that limitation is no longer in place.
The result: copyright against personal use is pretty much screwed.
The loom is now miniaturised and in the posession of everyone who wants one. Star Trek replicators in every home. The old business model has been replaced, subverted, undermined, transcended, made obsolete.
The main difference with the change this time, is that it's no longer the mill-workers or car production-line workers who are being turfed out on their ear, as new technology replaces them; it's the mill owners & the Gerald[?] Ford's that are being given their papers and ejected from the premises, and they have the money and the contacts such that we hear their death-rattle that much louder.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
"...Geroge W. Bush isn't an idiot..."
Y'know, I was right with you up until that.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
I've been accused of having half a brain in the past, so that's a possibility. But I fail to see how your arguments absolve the guilt of the person that leaked the unfinished content of the artists and assign the blame to the medium that said miscreant utilized.
My disagreement is not about the legality of filesharing networks; it is about the intelligence of the artists you mentioned. If their beef was that their unfinished content was posted to Napster (and hence, swapped)...why did they pursue Napster (and ultimately, their own fans) instead of the person that leaked the unfinished content?
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
Your (or whomever's) proposal sounds a great deal like the tradeoff between:
Patent (copyright): We own it for X-long, and you can all see what we did, but we control its USE any way we like for that timeframe, with legal penalties for infringement. After that, it's fair game for anyone.
Trade secret (DRM): We've hidden it, thus we *hope* no one but us can use it, forever and ever -- but IF you DO find it, you get to do whatever you want with it, with no legal penalty.
It's not a bad system for patent* vs trade secret, and I think it's likewise a reasonable tradeoff for copyright vs DRM.
* We'll ignore the issue of stupid patents for the nonce. After all, patents *do* expire. Copyrights are threatening to almost-never expire. Which is worse??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The Economist's Editorial is cogent and logically thought out as an abstraction to foster the public interest but the thinking behind it collapses in the real world.
By extending copyright, the various content providers have taken images and ideas that are public icons and locked them up behind a wall that is to all intents and purposes eternal.
Generations have grown up knowing who Mickey Mouse is and there is every reason to expect that Disney, as only one of many content companies, will want to hang on to the iconic power of their rodent for as long as possible. Having an attractive idea that is to all intents and purposes self-advertising is worth a huge amount of money to them and they will want to continue to exploit it.
The real-world problem with the editorialist's proposed scenario is that even if one could realistically expect the idea to go past two PAC-fattened United States legislative bodies and an executive branch that caresses the advantaged (e.g., the Bush Administration's handling of the Microsoft Antitrust Case), there would be no reason for content providers provided with hardware protection-schemes not to pursue the same copyright extensions in the future that they have recently won--either immediately or towards the end of their first or second copyright term. Once they were provided with the ability to define all computer hardware as machinery incapable of violating copyright (however you choose to define 'violation'), their pursuit of prefabricated eternal profit-streams would be only a matter of rational self-interest.
There would in fact be even less to dissuade them in this scenario because fourteen to twenty-eight years from now, holding the keys to all machinery that could replicate content, they would have less to lose to the threat of piracy than they do now.
To mail me, remove the 'mailno' from my email addy.
"Yeah. It smells, too..."
...should we agree to any compromise? The Constitution is clear: to the author and for limited times. Any reasonable person can see that for a corporation (which is not a person) to hold copyright is unconstitutional. Corporations aren't authors; people working within corporations are authors, and they should hold copyrights to everything they write, whether for the company or not. In addition, for anything to be copyrighted longer than the author's life is clearly unconstitutional. How does a copyright term of the author's life + 70 years benefit the author solely? There's nothing about heirs, nothing about companies being able to snatch copyrights from authors. Nothing like that! Unfortunately, it appears that most of the judges who heard this case were unreasonable.
We should not have to negotiate for our Constitutional rights.
"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
I think you guys should read the law carefully. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html)
... traffic in any technology ..." At first, this seems to support your argument that any device that could decrypt copyrighted content would be banned. But a technology is only banned if it ...
There are two main things that the DMCA bans. One is the actual act of circumvention: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." Certainly, when a work has passed into the public domain it is not protected under title 17! (They are not talking about a "brand" of technology here, but a specific instance of it.)
The other thing that the DMCA bans is the distribution of circumvention devices: "No person shall
- "... is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"
Well, if the technology can be used to decode a significant amount of public domain content, then it is probably not "primarily designed" for work protected under title 17.
- "... has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or"
Accessing public domain works is certainly commercially significant.
- "... is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."
As long as you don't market it as a circumvention device for copyrighted works, you're fine.
So where do you get the idea that the DMCA prohibits work on breaking any DRM scheme?
Finally, your argument is simply impractical. Even clearly illegal circumvention tools are available easily on the internet, and once someone has anonymously done the dirty work of unshackling a public domain work, content industries would have no way to stop its distribution. Given that they barely have any impact on movie and music trading that is clearly illegal, it's not very likely that they'd be able to prevent the distribution of stuff they don't even have any legal claim to.
I wish people on slashdot would stop asserting misinformation with authority. Please at least reveal your sources and your reasoning with regard to the actual law! (as I have done..)