Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Extension In Australia
femto writes "The Motion Picture Association and
APRA have commissioned a
report
from Allen Consulting into the
effects of extending Australian copyright from life+50 years to life+70years.
This forms the MPA and APRA's contribution to
US-Australian free trade negotiations,
currently underway. The report recommends that copyright terms should be extended.
An extension of copyright would not be in Australia's interest.
Some would argue that it is not in anyone's
interest. Projects such as Project Gutenberg of Australia
would be adversely affected by such an extension. Perhaps now is to time to write to your Member
of Parliament, asking them to oppose any extension of copyright or patents, and shore up whatever resistance there is to an extension of IP in Australia?"
Slashdotting a pdf on Allen Consulting's meager web server. Good move. Oh... good move!
(For those soon to be unable to reach it, it's basically the template rent-a-stance enumeration of weak arguments against extension, followed by a refutation, followed by an enumeration of arguments for, and supporting arguments for each. Selective focus with input from Allen associate Mr. Straw Man.)
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
They then tried abroad.............
Video Game cheats, hints a
the other thing you lucky "sheriffs of Asia" get is alignment with US patent laws...
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
Don't make it retroactive. If it's really about encouraging new products, only make it apply to new products. Any extension to copyright lifespan shouldn't apply to anything created before the law is enacted.
Ironic. Companies like Disney, which make their money by deriviting copyrighted material from out of copyright works, want to retain their own copyright for even longer.
I will certainly be writing to my MP. Unfortunately as it is John Howard this won't make much difference.
Sadly this is another example of policitians putting corporate needs before the greater good. Until corporations can have their leverage over politicians dissolved, this will always be the case.
I say I ain't giving you no tree fiddy you goddamned Loch Ness monster, get yo own goddamned money!
yes good point.
however I cynically suspect that this kind of sensible point of view has absolutely no place in politics these days, especially over anything relating to intellectual property or innovation.
laws are made by companies with money. companies with money have already succeeded. the last thing companies that have succeeded want is innovation.
Eek!
..or if there is, would someone let me know what they are.
There is no public benefit to having copyright restrictions for such a long period of time.
Man watching 6 MSCE's around a sun box, looks alot like the opening scene's of 2001:space odyssey...
Just to eke out a few more dollars from that Yahoo Serious movie?
This is surely not a major issue... IIRC the only instances of known IP in Australia is "Waltzing Matilda" and "Crocodile Dundee", and the latter was really done in the US.
:-) Sorry, mate!
Oh, right, TV soaps...! and beer...?
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Nobody cares what we geeks think.
But I'm begging someone to please prove me wrong.
Will an extra 20 years really make that much difference that movies will either be produced or not produced? If you can't enough make money in the first few years (and ideally the first year)of realease, why bother at all?
How much (other than as much as their pockets can fit) money do they really have to make to justify their projects?
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
The freight train of hysteria's due to run this topic down, but I'm gonna try anyways: The US extended its copyright laws to match those of the EU. No, we were not _compelled_ to match their IP laws, but if you want to lay the burden at someone's door, it belongs to a door in Belgium, not Washington, DC.
yes apparently most movies make their money back in the opening weekend or thereabaouts. which is why we had the story a while ago aboutt wanting to ban mobiles because they allow bad opinions to be spread too freely and interupt the PR machine.
but so long as you have absolute control over something, even if you're not clever enough to do something profitable with it yourself, at least you can stop anyone else trying.
if you can't raise yourself up, then keeping everyone else down is just as good.
copyrights would actually create a Balanced contract between composition, profits vs. public good.
life of the author plus 50 is already absurd.
how about, say 15 years? That sounds good to me.
10?
I don't have an MP, you insensitive clod! I'm an American!
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
the USA wants Australia to take away the Pharmacudical Benifits Scheme (PBS). PBS gives millions of Australians access to cheap medication. I am a diabetic, and if PBS is taken away, I will have to pay $500 or so a month for my meds.
Fuck The Corporate Scumbags and there Free Trade.
Copyright is unnatural even for a second. Abolish copyright now.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
While we're on the topic of IP, Patents and Australia, does anyone know what Australia's position on software patents are? Just wondering because it's something that may become important for me to know, but yet I have no idea about it...
Better yet, does anyone know of a comprehensive online listing of which countries have software patents, and what exactly can be patented in each country? I was unable to find such a list, but I'm sure there must be one.
---
Any man who can drive safely while kissing a pretty girl is simply not giving the kiss the attention it deserves. -- AE
The original justification for the length of copyrights, to keep them long enough to make money, no longer exists because of the rapid transmital and sales possible by current technology. IE a 100 years ago, it could have taken awhile to start amassing sales world wide. Today, distribution is possible worldwide immediatly. Copyrights should be *shortened* in todays climate. It borders on insanity (or an unrighteous desire for monopoly) to wish to extend them in this climate.
Here.
The way I see it copy right term extension is transference of public property into private hands without payment being rendered in return. What has Disney --and all those companies that have successfully lobbied for longer copyright durations-- given back to the public in return? Nothing. That's right. They got what was to be public property for free and gave the public *nothing* in return. Its corporate welfare and its theft.
So Walt Disney Corp can still sell Mickey exclusively and so that Time Warner can sue you for singing 'Happy Birthday' of course. What? You don't see the point in that??
here here
raise the cry.
"Fuck the Corporate Scumbags"
cf below
Abolish all copyrights. That's much simpler, and the right thing to do.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
Also, if I am not mistaken, these redefinations
of copyrights affect works created under the old defination, and violate the constitution and several basic principles of law. Its taking property out of the public domain and anyone who happens to be holding it without due process of law, and changing property rights after the fact, similar to ex-post facto laws.
A law that violates fundamental principles of law and the constitution under which it purports to have been passed is no law at all.
Same here, I can't even meta-moderate anymore (for about 2 weeks)
I donno, something's wrong in slashcode I suspect.
Slightly offtopic, but one bizarre thing a free trade agreement with the US would mean for Australia, is more US television content. There are currently laws in place that mean television broadcasters must allocate a certain amount of hours to Australian content. It's much cheaper to buy television content than it is to make it, so the broadcasters are well and truly in favour of it. Many consumers feel that we get too much US content as it is without opening the flood gates.
There are many ways a free-trade agreement would benefit Australia as well. As a largely primary producer, the subsidies the US government give its wheat producers price Australia out of the market. No-one has managed to convince me either way that such an agreement would work out better or worse for Australia. I certainly can't see any benefit for the US. Obviously, things will change (some for better and some for worse) for both parties. But is it truly worthwhile for either?
Refuse to make a statement in your sig!
Read CmdrTaco's journal. I don't know if it's been fixed, but he explains there have been server issues, especially with the code that deals out mod points.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
How much (other than as much as their pockets can fit) money do they really have to make to justify their projects?
I totally agree with you, in fact I think that we should just take all the money from society and distribute it equally to every person, regardless of contribution. The added benefit would be that people programming open source software (and not getting paid) would get the rewards they deserve.
How much (other than as much as their pockets can fit) money do they really have to make to justify their projects?
You don't understand how these people think. They don't care how much money can fit in their pockets. They know they can allways buy bigger pockets. That alone is justification enough for them.
Enough ranting. I'll shut up now.
People couldn't type. We realized: Death would eventually take care of this.
I was not arguing for a socialist model at all, merely a reasonable appraisal that if a project is not going to make sufficient profit to justify its going ahead within 50 years, it is highly unlikely to generate that extra money in the final 20 years.
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!
Check this out.
Use of copyright to restrict redistribution is actually immoral, unethical, and illegitimate. It is a result of brainwashing by monopolists and corporate interests and it violates everyone's rights. Copyrights and patents hamper technological progress by making a naturally abundant resource scarce. Many, from communists to right wing libertarians, are trying to abolish intellectual property myths.
Who the hell wrote that? Well, it's better than the RIAA's version. Interesting :-)
My family depends on profits from sales of MY creations, which sprang out of MY mind, not the world's. Any dilution of such royalty privileges would only serve to take food out of progenys' mouths, literally. Is it your wish that my children be thrown in the poorhouse? I worked hard to develop my skill at creation, now I and my family should be penalized for it? Is this how you propose treating those who create?
The Walt Disney Company may have already lost the copyright on Mickey Mouse due to a faulty copyright notice.
Snopes seems to think "Happy Birthday to You" is still copyrighted and owned by Time Warner. But it may not be different enough from an earlier song called "Good Morning to All", whose U.S. copyright has already expired, to be considered a distinct work worthy of a separate copyright.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Anyone who spends too much time programming open source deserves what they get now..
Are these assertions valid under Australian constitutional law as well?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Very simple: Because big studios have discovered that they can make a lot of money off derivative works, re-releases, remakes and so on. Especially now that they can release digitally enhanced special editions and DVDs. That's a lot of money for not much work. Far more profit that would have been gained from buying a few politicians.
Watch out next year for the feature blockbuster Flowers and Trees vs Steamboat Willie.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"He says Christmas Island will take the lead while Cocos will play a supporting role."
It's good to see the islands supporting our rural industries and pastimes!
DROS - Open-Source Robot Software
What happens to IP which is, for example, at life + 60 years? It's been in the public domain for 10 years and there may well be people out there happily exploiting it - for example, a publisher publishing a public domain book. Do they suddenly need to withdraw it from sale or start paying royalties?
It seem bizarre to me that something could enter the public domain and then leave it again.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
As to why, if someone creates something, it should _ever_ have to go into the public domain? If I create/discover something...why shouldn't it be mine and my descendants for ever? (not flame baiting here...I'd be really interested in learning the finer points of this debate)
The FTA is nothing but bad news for Australia.
... the list goes on and on.
If nothing else, it further entagles us with the lunatic foreign policy of the US.
But of course the bad news doesn't stop there. Health care, local media content, copyright law, drug law, terrorist law, foreign ownership,
For those who are interested, the ISO is holding a social forum this weekend, and will be discussing just such issues, and many more. It starts tonight ( 7pm ) and goes until Sunday. It's at UTS. See http://www.sydneysocialforum.org for more details. Honestly, this is the best place to discuss the issues involving the FTA, and build resistance groups to lobby the government. See you there!
I just wrote to my local MP voicing my objection to this. He is a member
of the current government, albeit a mere backbencher at the moment.
Here is hoping he doesn't tow the party line should they choose to tow
the corporate American line.
http://jesus.everdense.com/
...it's actually surprisingly understandable.
It's also surprisingly balanced. Their conclusion is that the benefits and costs of copyright term extension approximately balance each other, and hence harmonisation arguments result in a net gain for extending the term.
I noticed that they, like most pro-copyright-term-extension reports, miss out on one crucial thing, and that's that they do not acknowledge that thanks to modern technology, there is a burgeoning "public domain industry" which consists of real stakeholders whose interests are directly in opposition with the existing copyright holders on this issue.
Moreover, this industry is making a real foothold in Australia. I own a number of Australian-produced DVDs of 1930s era animated shorts, for example.
People writing to their MPs might like to point this out. A copyright term extension would effectively kill a new Australian industry.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
However, there are cases where movies which were never popularized under copyright flourish after the copyrights expire. The classic example of this is, of course, "It's A Wonderful Life". Although now one of the most-watched Christmas movies and most-imitated storylines, the initial reception for the movie was cool at best, with the movie barely making back the production costs. It wasn't until the copyrights expired that it began showing regularly every December and saw its popularity skyrocket.
If there'd been the same trend towards perpetual copyrights back then as there are today, we all would have missed out on this kind of gem. The public (especially later generations) got to see a movie that would probably have otherwise disappeared into the discount bin, and he studios lost nothing from the experience (it wasn't until IAWL was out of copyright that it took off). In fact, given how often the formula for IAWL has been copied, it could be argued that they've benefited by using its popularity to spawn a bunch of derivative works, which they later capitalized on. (I've lost count of how many TV shows and movies have used this theme.) It's unfortunate that the studios seem to prefer to take the shortsighted "milk-it-to-the-last-drop" view to a more longer-term and broader perspective.
The bold print giveth, and the fine print taketh away
Not all countries make copyright infringement a crime, eliminating police costs. The court costs are generally paid by the copyright owner (or by the loser, if legal tradition so dictates).
Will I retire or break 10K?
The answer is a utilitarian one: Human progress happens by building on the fringes of what we have now. If what we have now is locked up indefinitely, progress will effectively stop due to the cost of determining who owns what already exists.
Think about this for a moment. How much would your computer cost if, for every component in it, you had to pay a royalty to the descendents of Faraday, Telsa, Volta, Planck, Boole, Turing, Babbage and so on for everyone who discovered something crucial to its operation?
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I am an Australian who is quite frankly sick and tired of the corporate world slowly stomping away all our rights, privileges and national identity in the name of $$$. Look through my older posts for more insight on my views on copyright (short answer - they should be abolished).
I also don't believe in this "War on terrorism" we have enjoined with the United States. I see it as nothing more than a global land grab for US oil and gas interests. Read "Rebuilding America's Defenses" if you don't believe me (http://www.newamericancentury.org/).
Ironically it has taken the "war" to get me interested enough in where we are potentially headed to actually decide that if I can't change those IN power, I better get my voice heard by being in government myself.
So to this end I am interested in hearing from fellow Aussies (and others if you want to make your view known) on whether or not you want to support a future Senate candidate who is a geek at heart, and who plans to have a party based online with forums where everyone can make their voice heard. You've all heard that sending email to politicians is useless; well my view is that email and forums such as this are the BEST way to make issues known to those in politics (well, those that really care, anyway). It will allow me to disseminate my ideas and allow for consensus based policy making.
Anyone who wishes to help by donating a small amount of server space and forum expertise to set up a fledgling party page, please contact me at quizo_NOSPAM_69@hotmail.com and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
As we have learned from Pauline Hanson's screwups, I would need 500 registered party members to make this a legitimate endeavour, in time to run for the 2004 Federal Election. I'm not kidding myself though - as a lone Senator I would not be in much position to formulate national policy and have it succeed constantly, but I would be a tech savvy person who would vote down stupid laws that take away our privacy, and give $$$ to corporations at the expense of the citizenry.
Oh, and instead of a fridge magnet, I'd give everyone a CD with free software such as OpenOffice.org etc, and mandate that government use open standards to deal with the public.
Anyway, if anyone thinks they would like someone in office who is not a politician by nature (I'm a pilot by profession) then drop a comment here or email me (bear in mind Hotmail will die silently after the inbox fills so posting here is preferred!). If there's enough interest I'll begin the process of running for parliament next year.
I don't want to make this post too long so read my other posts for more insight into how I view the world.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
Tell me what copyright holders think about this. Really. They have a stake in this too but I never see their points of view written about.
Would you want to be paying royalties to the descendants of the caveman who invented the wheel?
Will I retire or break 10K?
There's an excellent short story on a possible danger of extending copyright law and archives by Spider Robinson. Seems to be available for reading online.
"I totally agree with you, in fact I think that we should just take all the money from society and distribute it equally to every person, regardless of contribution."
Well, what they're doing right now is taking money from society and distributing it to copyright holders (even if we aren't buying a copyrighted product - like with the tax on blank tapes), and suing people and/or threatening jail time for having certain bit patterns of music data on their hard drive, or just for reading the data they paid for in a manner that was not approved by the copyright holders. Under true capitalism and a free market, people would be free to copy and communicate whatever data they want using any method they want.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Actually, I suspect a large part of the Slashdot Community are concerned as copyright. Each one us who develops software are producing a copywritable work!
I wish for works to be in the public domain 2 years after the ORIGINAL AUTHOR dies. And that's really it. This would seriously promote new material, as the copyright holders such as corporations would have to bring new things into market as soon as possible in order to make the most money.
But even the 2-year span is too much. The best solution would be that the original author retains the copyright, but only LICENSES the work to publishers and others to sell and distribute for profit. That way the original author would be able to do whatever he pleases with his OWN work, including revoking a license from a publisher so that no future copies could be made. Including putting it to public domain after he's made enough money from it.
This would be the best solution from the point of view of the author, i.e. the original copyright holder. Of course it's too radical and doesn't think primarily about companies, so it wil never get approved.
I think it is ok that Disney gets to keep its cartoon characters etc. for as long as it exists. But why do they have to get that right for free? Why are laws written to keep their rights eternal, when at the same time stuff (including things that have nothing to do with their material) are kept out of the public domain as well, as a result of their desire?
Wanna keep a copyright after 25 years after the creator died? Pay for it! I'm a patent attorney, and take my word for it that intellectual property laws are there for society as a whole, not for privileging few. If the latter is the case, I call it abuse.
Bert
PC manufacturers are guilty of perpetuating monopoly abuse by M$ until they include a partition with Linux pre-installed
This Big Brother stuff is really getting upsetting.
Shutting down the Public Domain in the United Stated is one thing but the global elimination of the Public Domain is another thing entirely.
Remember, in the early 1980s, the movie industry fought a fierce legal battle to block the sale of video-cassette recorders, claiming they would promote piracy. Finally, in 1984, the US Supreme Court denied that claim, ensuring the sales of recorded movies, a business that now generates far more revenues for the entertainment industry than theatrical distribution.
Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
Originally, the copyright term in the US was 14 years. If your work was successful and you therefore felt it was worthwhile, you could extend that term by another 14 years if you applied for it. This was in the days before modern printing technology, advertisement, and mass transportation, let alone the Internet! So if you wrote a book or recorded a phonograph, it took awhile for enough copies to be manufactured and shipped across the country. Without modern communication and advertisement, it took even longer to achieve enough popularity to sell significant volume. And yet authors survived just fine.
Today, we live in a world where near-instant capitalization is possible. A popular writer can sell millions of copies in the first week of a book's release. An unknown writer of exceptional quality can become well known in a few months. Similar scenarios exist with all other forms of media. A typical hollywood blockbuster makes several hundred percent profit in a theatrical release cycle alone. As a result, most of the capitalization occurs within a few years of a work's publishing and then quickly tapers off to a relatively insignificant level.
So the question becomes: Why are copyright terms getting longer and not shorter? The vast majority of the incentive to produce occurs in the first couple years of release. After that period, one must reasonably weigh the pros and cons of allowing that term to continue. Because copyright law is a social compromise, it must be judged by its value to society as a whole. Does allowing a term to continue into years of greatly diminished sales give enough extra incentive to authors to outweigh the costs to society of the work not entering the public domain?
There are many possible factors to consider. On one hand, very prolific authors can retire earlier on the combined trickle income from the remnant sales of numerous old works. This could be seen as an added incentive to become an author. However, at the same time, it is an incentive to stop producing earlier! On one hand, a longer term allows for certain works to go through several revisions by the original authors. But at the same time, there is no longer an incentive for others to produce derivative works of what would have been public domain material! Disney is, of course, the most classic case.. They make big money on reworking the public domain but then don't want their derivatives to ever go public domain again!
Perhaps one of the largest factors is simply the shortage of modern public domain material. Besides removing the incentive to innovate on old material, this shortage creates a gap of cultural heritage. Consider music: when people go looking for music, they generally support the artists that are currently in style and/or innovative. Most are unwilling to pay for old music, not just because it is less popular, but because they can't afford both. (and after all, why would you "support" someone who's already dead?) And yet there has been a recent resurgence in the popularity of "oldies" music in youth. It is now common to hear parents saying things like, "Hey, I didn't know you kids actually listened to that stuff! That's older than I am!" Casual investigation reveals that unauthorized P2P swapping has largely replaced the functionality that public domain was intended to serve!
By and large, there is great need for copyright length reform. What was once intended to create vibrant culture of quality, public information has become a system that often chokes innovation and rewards greed and slothfulness. Copyright is a good social institution, but its implementation has been greatly corrupted. It is high time for citizens to petition their lawmakers bring reason, fairness, and the public good back into the picture.
This post is public domain. Do with it as you please.
I read the entire paper, the initial economic arguments are well presented. But supposed lack of consumer demand/price paid for public domain works in section 3.1.4 & 3.1.5 is completely speculative and one-sided.
They "convieniently" forget to mention the sale of such minor public domains products as the Bible, Koran (which people pay for premium bound editions). Or almost the entire field of classical music. What about how many other modern copyrighted books and films have lifted classic literature and children tales from the public domain(hmm....Disney).
What about all the paintings that are reproduced endlessly to grace our walls. I'm sure this is one area where public domain matches or exceeds demand for copyrighted works.
Despite the claims of the MPAA and RIAA...do they really budget on having so much time to earn money on their investment? Obviously, when copyright terms were shorter in the 20's-40's it didn't stop anybody from recording music or producing movies? (some would even argue it was the golden age of movies).
I hope the free trade agreement with the US falls on it's face.
There are so many reasons not to be involved including:
- The 'close' relationship with Dubya and his cohorts.
- What ever other nods and winks Howard and his buddys get out of the deal that we never hear about.
- Guantanamo Bay. The worst example of Human rights double standards in the world currently (and we can't talk with our refugee policy)
- IP/Copyright law
- Pharm. Benefits Scheme
- Isolation from Asia
It's a shame but its a lousy time to do business with the US. I and my friends are looking to Europe (and hoping for a new party in power in Australia).
So then they go on and claim that they have effectively solved this all but impossible task. And how do they achieve this miracle you may well ask? Simple! They construct their 'analysis' with distortions, non sequiturs, solecism and downright lies:
"No commentator denies that longer copyright extension increases incentives; what is in dispute is the degree to which incentives increase."
Downright Lie. Linked below is Macaulay's 162 year old demolition of this particularly loathsome deception and the idea that no commentator denies the lies is absurd.
"...that many copyright creators do not make decisions using purely `rational' criteria. The field of `behavioural economics' (a multi- disciplinary field involving psychology and economics) suggests a number of inter-related reasons why the pure critique of the incentive theory advanced by economists may be limited -- that copyright extends for such a long period may reduce the perception of risk associated with creation of copyright works, and provide greater confidence to creators when undertaking their endeavours. Additionally, the `bequest motive', whereby people undertake certain actions to benefit their descendents rather than themselves, also may explain why an extra 20 years fifty years after death may still provide extra motivation to create new copyright works..."
Distortion. The studies referred to are almost certainly those which found financial rewards to be the least significant of the incentives reported by creators as the motivation for their creative work.
"that existing incentives may actually be falling, and that it may be necessary to extend the copyright term just to maintain them. In possibly the major theoretical contribution to the economic analysis of copyright,9 Landes and Posner suggest that as the cost of copying declines copyright protection should expand. Thus, in 1989 they noted that: "The current length of a copyright is the author's lifetime plus fifty years. This reflects a long trend toward lengthening the term of copyright ... This trend is consistent with the fact that the cost of
copying has fallen over this period".10 Recent developments associated
with digitisation and distribution over the Internet have dramatically
reduced copying and distribution costs for many works and so there may
be a case for a corresponding increase in the copyright term to preserve
incentives."
Non sequitur as any halfwit can see - in fact it contains a double non sequitur and you don't see those very often.
I could go on but there's another 50 pages of this drivel and I feel a little sick already. I will have to counter the ill effects of contaminating my mind with this sewage by re-reading Macaulay's words on the subject.
Someone suggested that copyright holders ought to be responsible for maintaining a copy of the work in question, pay storage fees for the Library of Congress (in the US, obviously), etc.
I think you could take that one step further and simply charge an annual copyright maintainance fee which should increase exponentially with the age of the copyright. Any entity could hold a copyright for as long as it wants, so long as they continue to pay the annual fee. A reasonable formula might be:
fee = $(1.18)^(years since first publication)
So in the 25th year of copyright, the copyright owner would pay a mere $62.67. By year 50, he'd pay $3927.35. In year 100, he'd pay $15.4 million. You could pre-pay the first 10 or 20 years just to reduce your paper work if you wanted, and the first x years of the fee could be waived for a work's creator if he could show that it would cause financial hardship. The idea would be to make it cheap and easy for people to hold copyrights for a while, and to strongly encourage copyright holders to place their work in the public domain after a reasonable period.
The same would work for patents, but I'd increase the base value to 2.5 or so.
My guess is that they think that the more good free movies are out there the less their copyrighted stuff will be worth. They probably feel that ANYTHING that makes them more money is good for the public because it gives them the capital to create more new movies.
I've had a few replies already, so bear with me as I try top respond to them all.
:)
The reason I have asked for server space is so that I can give you my views on the other major issues. Rest assured I have them
One of the issues I intend to cover is just what you say - the inability of the smaller parties to have any effect in parliament.
Thanks for the comments, and watch this space.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
Thanks for your comment and you raise a great point - whilst I am trying to set up a political party that represents our broad interests, I should also acknowledge that if people would rather someone else to get elected, I will stand by that. After all, what I am trying to achieve is the election of someone who will truly understand and represent what I consider to be important issues. If I can do that (and I believe I can obviously or I would not put myself up for it) then well and good, but if along the way someone better comes along - great! Elect that person instead. That is the fundamental way politics is supposed to run.
I'm from NSW so a Victorian candidate would be wonderful. The more people willing to go for it the better.
I'll post more as I start to coalesce the plan.
Regards,
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
Anyone know who would be an appropriate person to contact about this issue (i.e. which members of parliament). I don't know that much about the politics of Australia, but I would like to try to talk someone out of doing this pointless thing. Thanks.
Disney, Yoko Ono...and many other worthy causes
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Not sure who modded this as a troll, I can assure you all this is nothing of the sort. I've already had plenty of replies to my hotmail address, so I've set up a new email address to take the load off my hotmail one. It is:
politics@leeming_NOSPAM_designs com
Please send emails to this address please. I've already had a tentative offer of server support (thanks), but please keep them coming if you feel you can contribute in any way.
Once I get some space that isn't going to melt under a potential Slashdotting, I'll post a proper site full of information on my ideas, plans etc. Stay tuned...
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
... explain why it should ever exceed the life in the first place?
I mean, one good reason beyond wealth inheritance.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
Bush just missunderestimated (sic) the impact that would have on Australia's neighbours. If leaders reacted in the same way every time bush said something stupid then we would have worldwide chaos.
Most people all around the world know that Bush is an idiot yet many of them still take it personally when Bush says something dumb, that to me is a mark of immaturity.
But getting back to the topic, this is not about patents. This issue is about copyright, a different principle entirely. I am however still going to write to my local member in Canberra about it, and you can write to your member in Canberra too after we put on our six shooter and sherrif star and annex your pitiful country.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
It is illegal to change the copyright of ALREADY published works.
Check contractual law for details and see if one part can unilaterally change the terms of the contract...
This is the time to ask for a shortening of copyright terms. Life is too long already. What use do dead people have for royalties? Also, the original intention of copyright was to encourage the creation of works which would eventually enter the public domain. This needs to be borne in mind in any discussion. Oft has it been said that "my ideas are my babies": well, babies have this tendency to grow up and develop an existence independent of their parents.
Here's what I would do if I was drafting a brand new copyright law:
Default term of copyright
Copyright should run for five years after the receipt of the first royalty payment, or five years after publication if no royalties are ever paid. If you can't make any money out of it in five years, then face it - you're probably never going to.
Extension to five year term
Extensions would be granted by court order and charged at five times the national median annual wage for the first six months, doubling the multiplying factor and recalculating the median wage for each additional six months thereafter. The onus would be upon the copyright holder to demonstrate why the work should not enter the public domain immediately.
Prevention of abuse of copy-prevention measures
If any technological measures are used to prevent unauthorised copying, then at least one unencumbered copy must be placed in escrow with the national library or a similar organisation in order that the work should be able to enter the public domain upon expiry of copyright. Failure to provide such an unencumbered copy would be grounds for termination of copyright. In such event, any penalty for attempting to circumvent copy-prevention would not be applicable in the case of such a work: it is in the public domain and the public has a statutory right to access it, using reasonable force if necessary. That the techniques used might be {illegally but successfully} applicable against other copy-prevented works should serve as a strong disincentive against "snake oil" merchants.
And finally, the bit I think is really the most important: Protection of works in the Public Domain.
Once a work has entered the public domain, whether by the expiration of copyright, by consent of the copyright holder or by court order, it would be legally protected against any attempt to re-copyright it. Exactly the same provision would be made for the fair use of PD material in copyright works as for the fair use of copyright material, except that nobody would be entitled to grant permission over and above what constitutes fair use.
It's harsh, but so was the Thirteenth Amendment. We moved out of the age of muscle power and into the age of engine power; thanks to James Watt, there was no longer any even remotely legitimate reason to allow people to be kept as slaves. Now we have moved out of the Age of Scarcity and into the Age of Plenty, and the law needs to change to recognise that -- not to create artificial scarcity.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
There are several basic reasons why they want such long copyright terms:
1.without long copyright terms, a lot more "current" stuff comes out of copyright sooner (and therefore there is less incentive to go see the latest blockbuster or buy the latest hit game or whatever because they can get the older stuff for free AND do it legally)
2.if it falls out of copyright sooner, the right to make "derived works" (for example, yet another sequal for or even just joe random movie that happens to use the same characters)
and 3.if it falls out of copyright sooner, people could edit it (i.e. creating a derived work or mabie just a new work that used copyrighted ideas from the old one) in ways that make the studio, the origonal creator, the characters etc look bad.
For example, if the origonal Mickey Mouse cartoons came out of copyright, someone could make "mickey the porn star" and get away with it (since disney no longer has the copyright)
I would like to see "Compulsory licensing" for copyrighted works.
i.e. if I want a particular copyrighted work (e.g. a song), the copyright holder must make it available in a usable form. (obviously a fee can be charged for this)
For example, songs must be on casette tapes or CDs or something.
Movies on VHS or DVD.
TV shows on VHS or DVD or something.
Books would be made available either as hard-copy books or as electronic books.
Software would be tricky (for example, what happens if someone makes a request for an old arcade game that has copy protection involved. (e.g. if someone wanted a copy of Turbo Outrun which is encrypted).
It's partly about whether US video game royalties were included in the agent's contract (Pooh stories were written decades before video games were invented).
I'm not a great fan of the heriditary system anyway - why should you inherit your ancestors book characters (copyright), or wealth (death taxes help) or Presidency/PM (USA, India)? Get a job yourself! My Uncle bought my Grandad's farm off him, which is fair.
Is sung to a Scottish folk tune IIRC. But the words are Aussie (Banjo Patterson).
I was not arguing for a socialist model at all, merely a reasonable appraisal that if a project is not going to make sufficient profit to justify its going ahead within 50 years, it is highly unlikely to generate that extra money in the final 20 years.
In how many cases is the possibility of a 50-70 year long monopoly going to be at all relevent. Even contracts for managment of buildings rarely last that long. A company renting office space or charging bridge tolls has a reasonable chance of continuing income. Typically movies make the majority of the money they are ever going to make within the first few years.
I own a small house and pay property taxes.
RIAA, Disney etc. claim to own $billions of Intellectual Property, but don't pay property taxes. How is this fair?
The price for a long period of copyright should be a tax on companies' copyrighted "property".
Just when you thought people couldn't be any more maliciously greedy. It's becoming quite depressing reading Slashdot. I think I'll go hide in front of the TV and watch Gilligan's Island Marathons until all these "bad things" go away.
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
This time limit is in the Berne Convention, which was instituted in 1905. I'm surprised that Australia has taken 98 years to institute it into national law?
Some say that people are stealing from the Copyright owners, and proceed to brainwash the public with terms like Intellectual Property.
But by extending copyrights and putting unreasonable terms and conditions, stuff is actually being stolen from the public.
Things that should enter public domain, are being kept from it, in some countries indefinitely.
If I take away someone's stuff against their will, even if I say I'm borrowing it temporarily, it can be considered stealing. Whereas if I copy someone's stuff, they aren't deprived of it. Sure some may indirectly be deprived of my money, but uh, it's my money.
So who are the real thieves?
Now I've found that I'm gonna keep it really busy. Hell, let's introduce the P.M. to the slashdot effect!
Go permanent? In your dreams and my worst nightmares.
Disney currently makes about $3 billion a year
/really/ need
licensing Winnie the Pooh movies, books, toys,
pajamas, breakfast cereals, etc.
A. A. Milne died in 1956, so they
all the life+50 countries to please extend their
copyright term to life+70 as soon as possible,
so Pooh doesn't inadvertantly go public-domain.
>;k
The Captain's Log!
It's not a lie, if you believe it.
And the RIAA hasn't been able to steal them back? Where can I get such a list? Is there a, hum, Lumiere Project in the mold of the Gutemberg Project?
This time limit is in the Berne Convention
The Berne Convention specifies at least life plus 50, which Australia already has even without this proposed Bono Act.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If all who wanted to to read and all who wanted to write anything had to pay a license to the descendants of the inventors of the alphabet?
Some slashbot already posted an actual mirror, and it's at +4, so no one will see your post, fool. As someone who's successfully gotten a mirror troll modded up before, let me tell you that YOU ARE A TOTAL FAILURE!
Proclaim it. Whenever I do I get sent down to bad karma.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
I have finished the first draft of my website outlining the plan for building the political party needed to begin the process. Please be gentle with the server, it's the personal space I am allocated by my ISP:
http://www.users.on.net/grypen/politics/
Any and all mirrors are gratefully accepted, please list them under this post.
Quizo69
Visceral Psyche Films
I want to toss this out there, because there's not much being said about why it might be a good idea for Australia to increase the term to life +70. Here's what Australian copyright owners would say: One of the reasons for increasing the term of protection to life +70 is to impove Australia's competitiveness overseas. Under international copyright, Australian works are protected in the US and Europe, but only for life +50 years, while US and European works are protected for life +70. As a result of the shorter terms, Australian works on the whole are less economically valuable than US and European works (putting Australian copyright owners at a competitive disadvantage). I suspect that the life +70 rationale is to bulk up the competitive strength of Australian works. Also, there are economic benefits to increasing the term of protection. In the US, the copyright economy makes up about 5% of GDP, or about half a trillion dollars. That money doesn't just sit in a bank vault, rolled up in stacks of gold coins, but means jobs, paychecks, tax revenues. With an increased term, copyrighted works can be rented, sold, licensed for a longer life, and will have more economic value, thus adding to things like jobs, paychecks, and tax revenues.