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?"
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.
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 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.
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.
Congrats, your Apache2 install went well. Now make sure you lock that box down and make us proud.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
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 :-)
I think you should be guaranteed 20 yrs, and anything after that (up to life of creator, or 100 years for a corporation, whichever comes first) would be fine as long as:
1. The owner pays for continual upkeep and maintenance on a pristine "master copy." This mean recopying it, restoring it, digitizing it, or transcribing to new media/formats as necessary to guarantee that a usable copy is available at the end of the copyright term. This also includes storage costs for the Library of Congress (or equivalent body in country where copyright is being extended.)
2. For every year beyond the minimum, compulsory licensing must be made available if there are no publicly purchasable copies of the work. For example, if Vol 1, Issue 9 of Comic X is out of print, and the publisher wants to hold on to the copyright, they must make that material available for sale (ie, via a digital download, on-demand copy, graphic novel or other compendium) or else be subject to compulsory licensing of the work. This ensures that copies of the work are publicly available (even if they have to be extremely expensive.) None of that stop selling for X years to build up demand crap that Disney pulls.
Why these conditions? To make sure that the material is available to the public, and if the owner doesn't want to pay for the master copy (to ensure that the work is accessible after the copyright expires) then the copyright expires right there and then, and if people think it has value, they will copy/distribute it and preserve it that way.
For an example of where this is happening, some copy-protected programs/games from the 80's are no longer available from the original owners (no master copies exist.) The copyright has yet to expire, but even if it did, there are no master copies exist for people to copy and examine. However, there are collectors (ie, pirates) who might have broken the copy protection, archived those copies, and have kept copying them to new media (5 1/4 floppy -> 3.5 floppy -> hard drives -> CD-Roms -> DVD, etc.) This is moot without the hardware to run this stuff, so enter emulators to run the software.
Thus, an item that had value was maintained by the copying of collectors even when the original owner lapsed in their duty to preserve that original. Ironically, this behavior, preservation of a public good (which it would have been, once the copyright lapsed), is illegal under the DMCA. What a way to erase cultural history and hundreds of man-hours of creative work in the name of profit and greed.
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!