Slashdot Mirror
EU Record Companies Push to Extend Copyright
TPIRman writes "European record companies, as represented by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, are pressuring the European Union to extend copyright terms for music producers. Critics like Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig are predictably opposed, but the IFPI argues that the move is needed in order to bring the E.U. in sync with U.S. copyright regulations. Ironically, one of the original rationales behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was that U.S. copyrights needed to sync up with European standards."
Never let one hand know what the other is doing and if discovered, deny all knowledge and blame the foot.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
But seriously - why would ANYONE want the kinds of copyright nonsense we have over here? Talk to your senator, congressman, or the equivalent (don't know how your system works :p ) and shoot this down!
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
Glad to see we are on the right track to a civilian uprising that will abolish copyright.
This is the last thing we need. Syncing up european and american copyright laws is not a reason to change laws. Laws should be passed to serve the people, not to follow others. I hope this doesn't happen.
Why bother coming back every 50 years when Mickey Mouse is about to expire and slapping another 50 years onto copyright terms?
Why not just make it 50 billion years and save Mickey Mouse from exploitation forever?
Unfortunately I can't argue for the unconstitutionality of these laws since we don't have a constitution here, but this copyright extension thing is stupid. Really stupid. We only just got Elvis in the public domain (is he even there yet?) from years and years ago. The UK even retroactively takes things out of the public domain, so if this passes we could lose that. (copy as much as you can, now, while you can).
I am trolling
is me pounding my face into the wall.
It's not all that ironic that the justifications overlap. These are the excuses they use. They start in the US with: "We need to Sync up with Europe." then they change something just slightly so that it's longer than Europe. Then they goto Europe and say: "We need to Sync up with America." Rinse, repeat.
- AMW
That's not irony, that's a deliberate strategy.
Do all nation's laws need to be in sync? Is it possible that one nation has made a grave error and that others should avoid doing the same? Why does our whole world now have a bad case of "keeping up with the Jones'" in relation to legal matters. We all have our own governments, why can't they seem to think independently anymore and make better decisions....
Damn globalization!
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
..... Shorter
Like say, authors life time or 50 years wich ever is greater and thats it....
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
Anyone in the UK really should take the time to write to their MP. Already this week we've seen a report in the Times saying that a labour MP is proposing to extend Copyright to be 100 years... ..."to protect the artist".
:-)
How they can say that with a straight face is beyond me. I guess the record industry makes it easier for them?
I wrote to my MP on Tuesday, and got a response the next day thanking me for my concerns, stating that he has read up on, and now understands the issue, and that they will discuss it with the Labour MP that is proposing the bill.
It might be mere platitudes to keep me oppressed, but it might just work. We are supposed to be in a democracy, although with the EU constitution "no" votes from France and the Netherlands, one does wonder if the hierarchy will merely push it through no matter what the public says.
No doubt someone will point out that this is EU policy which will need to be enacted in UK law, but all the same, make yourself heard. I did, and boy do I feel good about it
at least all the poor movie stars will be able to have their graves upgraded each year. Maybe we could have a letter box on their gravestones so they dont miss out on one cent.
All spelling mistakes are due to solar flares...honest
Someone needs to cut the head off of this act.
The guy in the UK pushing this is James Purnell. If you live in the UK you should write to him.
It'd would be great to take one of their issued statements regarding syncing up, swap US and Europe, and see what people think of it. Maybe even send it to the senators and congressmen who thought they were syncing before.
Cunningham said that because the copyright term is longer in countries like the United States, Australia and Singapore, the European countries' copyright terms should be extended.
That's a pretty poor reason to change a law - just to be the same as someone else. There are lots of things that are good about European laws compared to the named countries, and we should fight to keep the good things the way they are, rather than giving in to greedy corporations.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Two words one never strings together.... understandable and wrong. This is, however, the perception of the EU's debate over the extension of length of copyrights. I will also preface my remarks by outright stating my anathema towards IP and its handling in the US.
That having been said....
Imagine for a moment that you are a patent holder in the US. You put out a product that does well in the US. Now imagine another patent holder from the EU. His product does well in the EU. Assuming both do well in their respective markets, the US patent holder garners revenue for use of the patent long after the EU patent holder does. What are EU innovators to do?
Leave the EU, that's what.
Aside from the right or wrong of IP, the EU seemingly wishes to address this long-term market value of a work and adjust to losing innovators overseas to the US. How to properly deal with that is another matter, but we must be careful to acknowledge all aspects of the issue.
The Crimson Dragon
Did anyone else read this as International Federation of the Pornographic Industry?
For fuck's sake, is 50 years not long enough?! If you need that long to make enough profit on something to carry on doing business, then YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS FUCKED!
And put up a JE about it: Email to my MP regarding copyright.
Wikileaks, no DNS
I am pushing to have unemployment benefits extended until 50 years after I die. Not only do I want to get paid for doing nothing now, but for at least 50 years after I have died so that my beneficiaries can also get paid for doing nothing.
Later I will be lobbying for an extension to that extension... in about 40 years from now.
While I disagree with how long copryrights have been extended here, I don't see what's wrong with the concept of consistency in global copyright laws. With inconsistent laws, the enforcement of copyrights from country to country would be chaotic at best.
Then again, you were probably just looking for a reason to take your daily swipe at "greedy" corporations.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Why don't we (the US) curtail our copyright terms in order to sync up with the EU?
Just a thought...
(I know, this is as silly as exercising more and eating less in order to lose weight.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Your lucky that "little shit" did not turn around and sue your ass..... I would have had you done that to me. I am surprised you are so STUPID to physically grab a MINOR in such a way. I sympathize with your children.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
but the IFPI argues that the move is needed in order to bring the E.U. in sync with U.S.
Easily done. US needs to reduce the copyright term as per EU, not the other way around.
Is the director of the organization pushing for this the infamous Ben Dover?
See my reply to the previous posting of this spam/troll post here:
d =12768928
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152166&ci
Thank you...
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
And the giant tentacled monster said, "Roll over, roll over."
And they all rolled over, and one fell out, and the giant tentacled monster said, "Roll over, roll over."
Sure, a nice emotionally written troll but it asks for a simple reply still:
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple.
Brilliant.
Now, please come back when the music and movie industry have stopped stealing from society.
WHat do I mean by that?
The recording industry has for a long time prevented society to reap their side of the benefits from copyright: getting work into the public domain.
When copyright is reduced to a normal term, many people will have far less of a problem actually keeping to the rules.
Now, go find a new business model, one that actually works in the time you happen to live in, and tell your overlords to do the same.
I'm as shocked as you are, but I aim to please.
Copyright should last for only around thirty years.
Also, Constitutionally copyright is a reward bestowed upon an an inventor or artist by the people. It is a temporary monopoly granted to give incentive to create works which eventually enter the public domain. Therefore, just as trade secrets may not be patented to ensure that the new art eventually enters the public domain, works which are copy-protected should not be protected again by by the copyright.
John
Seriously, are European politics REALLY thinking that european citizens (like me) are THAT dumb?
Firstly, dear politics, you washed down the drain everything that has to do with democracy, by obliging us to have a constitution that NO-ONE likes (except for you, powermongers), without even letting us have our say. Result: You saw France and Holland. You are going to see Belgium (and that's pretty sure, it seems).
Secondly, the "commission" wants to enforce software patents. That would mean that THOUSANDS of medium to small enterprises would shut down immediately. But for the sake of our poor Microsofts, IBMs, HPs and all the poor little companies that have the strength to force intellectual death to "me-monkey".
Thirdly, the copyright. Why don't you, straight ahead, extend copyright till "The End Of Times". Why 50 years? Do it forever. And force us to stop using any "illegal" ways of sharing files.
No, dear politicians. You sign the copyright extension. I'll just break the law more frequently than before. And urge that anyone else does that. Because this is a disgusting joke you're playing. I want out of it. Immediately.
"Now hold on Geoff. We haven't even finished with that patents business yet. You can't expect me to push this so soon."
..."
"Sure you can. Look, we've deflected the interest. Do you know how difficult it was to get two countries to vote no to that constitution? Very expensive business. We need to move quickly."
"But
"Now look. If you push this one you can have the contents of this box. It used to belong to a groovy chick called Pandora..."
In the EU, performers get 50 years copyright. 2005 minus fifty years is 1955, the dawn of the modern era of rock and pop. The late Elvis is the first big goose scheduled to stop laying golden eggs, but other huge ones loom over the next decade - the Beatles in particular.
No wonder the corps are pressing for extensions; why wouldn't they want indefinite copyrights? It's certainly in their interests, but it's most definitely not in the wider interestes of society at large. This proposal will do nothing to pomote the useful arts and sciences.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
This news article was published at 12:52 am by my time zone. Your post was made at 12:55 am, 3 minutes later.
You are either the fastest typist known to man or a copy and paste squatter ready for the right news article.
By the way, why do people run businesses that make losses and don't do anything about their situation but blame outside factors and continue to run themselves into the ground? Brainstorm some new business ideas and act on them or move on to something profitable. I feel for your family situation but you need to find out what people are spending money on nowadays (such as DVDs, consoles, etc) and follow the money. Have you noticed music stores sell mostly DVDS nowadays? The entertainment dollar is spent on a whole lot more than just music cds nowadays.
The US was the first to suffer all the copyright bullshit because the US was the first to truely feel the real pressures of the information age. But, when push comes to shove, Eorocrats and Canadacrats, are just as susceptable to corrupt political bullshit if not moreso than anyone else.
I say this because allot of US people are hopeing that other countries will fight the copyright battle for them. I say the opposite is true, we need to get rid of copyrights here first and the rest of the world will take care of itself in due time.
i have some insight into the record industry, and be told:
99% of all illegal mp3 releases are forced by the "legal" industry itself just to push the promotion.
its all a funny game... first the EU brings out a law which makes circumventing a technical copyprotection a crime. then they bring out a law which forbids internet-providers to log connection data....
think about that.
Nah, they just copy/paste their 'story' over and over to some weblog about 'stuff that matters'.
WIRED ARTICLE
[1]
There needs to be more of a balance when considering changes to copyright terms, said Rufus Pollock, director of Friends of the Creative Domain
[2]
Cunningham said that because the copyright term is longer in countries like the United States, Australia and Singapore, the European countries' copyright terms should be extended.
WIKIPEDIA
[1]
Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyright Act of 1790, that a difference in copyright terms between the United States and Europe would negatively affect the international operations of the entertainment industry, and that some works would be created under perpetual copyright that would never be created under time
[2]
Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, noted that "Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever", but that since she was "informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution", Congress might consider Jack Valenti's proposal of a copyright term of "forever less one day"
interesting and the way the copright laws keep mutating is amazing. I just wonder everyday what it will look like tomorrow. Most interesting http://www.bootcity.org/
I'm loving the tactics the *PAA uses. Pay off the politicians in one country to extended copyright length. Then lobby other coutnries to do the same so copyright lengths can be "in sync". Then, repeat the process over and over again until the whole premiss of limited copyright and public domain are out the door.
That's just about right.
It also explains why the new constitution got such bad press, it attempted to fix things and give more power to the elected parliament... what a disgrace. Bring back the good old tyrans instead.
The worst thing was that the people campaigning against the new constitution claimed that european institutions were broken, so let's not fix them!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is? Don't fix it and keep complaining... that will help.
TODO: 753) write sig.
14 years with one renewal for another 14 year = 28 years..
1790: Copyright Act of 1790
The First Congress implemented the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in 1790. The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies, was modeled on the Statute of Anne (1710). It granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years and to renew for another fourteen. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain." Major revisions to the act were implemented in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976.
from A History of Copyright in the United States
to extend the copyright for the Phornographic Industry...
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
I'd make people pay at supermarket checkouts for the privilege of listening to musak while they shopped. And I'd make it so elevators with musak wouldn't open until money was deposited for the same privilege.
If I were the MPAA I'd have police checkpoints surrounding outdoor movie theatres to make sure anyone driving by while the movie is playing pays their fair share.
And if were the Association of American Publishers I'd burn every library to the ground.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
As a South Asian pirate, my business faces ruin. Pirated CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many pirated CDs as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.
I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those boutique record stores that pirates obscure, independent releases that no-one else will sell, least of all the industry that created them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Hindu rock sections that I know of.
The business strategy worked. People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase pirated records without profanity or violent lyrics. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer pirated CDs. Why is no one buying pirated CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - The recording industry is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - thousands of pirates prosecuted, on the mere suspicion of having engaged in piracy. On The Internet, you can be sued for millions of dollars for downloading hundreds of dollars worth of music in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the pirate industry, from rippers, to syndicates, to pirate stores like my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the pirated book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike CDs, books have no built-in copy protection.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with kids gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to turn this guy in for pirating music."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the pirate industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to turn me in to your friends in the R.I.A.A., punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of industry tools. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of piracy, then they should be excluded from piracy. If the music industry wants to steal from the pirate industry, then the pirate industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable pirated record store will allow you to buy another ripped CD. If the industry can't sell the CDs to begin with, then why should they bother us about copying them? It's no different from patients buying cheap prescription drugs in Canada.
I have just written a letter to the RIAA outlining my proposal. Stealing CDs one by one isn't going far enough. Not to mention the RIAA uses the fact that they're being pirated to unfairly portray themselves as victims. A national register of industry shills would make the problem far easier to deal with. People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected tools to a hotline, similar to TIPS. Once we
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
You seem to take for granted that the music industry should always exist as it is now, where people goes to buy music at the music store instead of just subscribing to far more convenient solutions such as the iTunes online store and many others. Do you really think that all of your problems come from piracy?
What I see from your post is simply that you are having a bad time, but instead of trying to get the money from the few customers that do come to buy CDs, you kick them out because you believe them to be pirates. You're playing the judge without a trial. No matter how much you twist it.
By the way, your blacklist law proposal is crap. Who is going to add names to that list... you? Because you think you're right? And what if you are not right and the kid was just trying to sound cool or something?
diegoT
The problem with copyright is that its becoming a commodity. How long until artists can float copyright on an open market? That seems to be the end game for media corporations who consider copyrighted works stock.
But thats not what copyright was for. Copyright was designed to protect artists from having their works exploited without fair remuneration i.e. stop this kind of thing happening. It seems to me that this current legislation will do nothing but further enslave the creative - as their works become the property of someone else for longer, instead of being free to inspire more arts in the public domain.
Why would a company employ an artist in these situations? Supply and demand. If you are producing a work for someone you are doing them a favor, not the other way around. If they could do it themselves, they would - such is the nature of a free market. Why people who pay for the works think they own it, is beyond me. You commision a painting you own the painting. You copy the painting, no harm is done. You sell the copy, you owe the artist an agreed percentage/lump sum.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
wouldnt it just make sense of copyrights simply extend to the lifespan of their creator. at the same time wouldnt it be nice if corporations were not allowed to own intelectual property... that way they always had to pay some guy who thought it up... and at the same time wouldnt it be nice if laws were even more obscure but in such a way that it made it hard for large corporations to do business... laws like: "its legal to shoot a CEO on the first tuesday of a month begining with A" and "employees must be supplied with insurace and a retirement package"
just a thought (snicker)
At least there is one good spin off from extending copyrights. It makes copyrights much stronger and more desirable than patents, which is good for software development.
Oh well, what the hell...
As upset as I get when I read stuff like this, eventually my head clears up and I remember that in order for a music company to hold the rights to a song, a band/musician needs to sign it over to them. Are we really going to be worse off not being able to d/l Britney Spears songs for 70-100 years? I realize that there are some bands that already made the mistake of choosing this path, but too bad for them. They got greedy and now their music will not be heard as much as, lets say, bands that allow their music to be put on http://archive.org/. I'm probably one of the few jamband fans on /., but I know the bands I listen to enjoy playing music and enjoy other listening to it. Yes they will have CD's to buy, but they will also allow you to record their live shows(better then prerecorded anyway, the test of a good band). And although I'm not sure, I think they make more money from people coming out to see them play then from CD/T-SHirt sales. So again, if you want to keep all the crap music away from the public for 100 years, I say THANK YOU.
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
Well, between the copyright madness and the private copy tax that we're paying on all blank media, I really can't see why I should feel bad about downloading copyrighted material.
So, as we don't seem to have a democratic way to vote against this, let's go protest it on emule...
Fuck 'em.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
What I cant understand is that there are many companies making money off of out of copyright work. You can still buy Charles Dickens books or any of the books in the project Gutenburg in bookshops and people still do. Its called value add.
Music is the same. Simply add value and the fans will still buy from you even though they can get it free elsewhere. Signed T-Shirts, Postcards, anything really that adds to the package and as you are the person who created it you have access to more things that your fans would like.
Out of copyright definately does not mean out of profitability you just have to try harder.....
I was always horrified that future generations would be listening to their crappy new music instead of Elvis Presley and the Beetles.
I wanted to freeze time so that when music reached its peak in the 60's everyone after that would be made to listen to nothing but cover version of these classic songs.
Now finally the UK and EU have found a solution! Extend copyright, keep the record companies selling the same old excellent shit over and over and over and over and over and over again!
That way that new annoying music from those youngsters won't have room in the market place!
Britney can do her "I love rock and roll" and Britney Junior can do her cover version of "I love rock and roll" in another 25 years! Brilliant! A perfect way to prevent new music from being made.
Ok, so I didn't RTFA, an' I'm gonna rant, so I'll burn in hell, but here goes anyway
BULLSHIT! All this "get the copyright laws in sync" is bullshit. Isn't it obvious? There's no irony here, just sadness personified--great big lobby groups on both sides of the pond steamrollering over as much public domain / creative commons stuff as they possibly can and using really, really weak "rationals" to pretend to justify it.
The "get the laws in sync" thing carries no weight. Suppose I support law A. But my country doesn't have law A, my country has A-lite--well then I'm definitely gonna be arguing to "get the laws in sync" duh. OTOH, suppose my country has law A, the other country has law A-lite, and I like A-lite better--well then I can make the exact same, damn argument.
Now suppose I hate law A-lite, and my country's the one with law A--then instead I'll be arguing, "woah! Let's not change things! That country's got law A and it's all full of vermin and lice and bad stuff 'cause of it! One of the great things about our nation is we have law A instead of A-lite.
I'm probably not explaining myself very clearly, but I hope I'm making at least an A-lite level of sense.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
NOW whose got the ridiculous overbearing government extending copyright regulations to absurd lengths to show that they are purely moronic tools of the Recording Industries?
....both of us.....(*cries*)
(looks at Europe)
(looks at the US)
-Styopa
Perhaps this is a signal that the EU also wants to reinstate capital punishment like many states in the USA. People would rather commit murder in a region that doesn't have the death penalty so, in effect, the EU is inviting criminals by not having capital punishment. By keeping the laws in sync, that incentive would be eliminated.
"International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" /. is messing with my mind.
"I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of."
So you're saying your Christian clientele is stealing music in lieu of purchasing it from you? I think you should blame the problem on the Devil! Because what other force would cause this demographic to act so contrary to its beliefs.
Maybe, because the constitution is not yet in force?
If you are lucky enough to live in one of the countries where your opinion is asked, read part II, article 77, paragraph 2:
Now, contrast this with the US constitution: What's missing in the EU version?- Reference to promoting progress
- Absence of term limits
===> So once the constitution is approved, the EU record companies will be able to buy laws and directives giving them perpetual copyright. They won't need to play any Sonny Bono games, where they extend copyright Salami-like, 20 years more every 20 years. They wil be able to go straight away for eternity!I don't go into a lot of record stores to buy the CDs I want.
1) I have specifc taste.. it seems that few stores have a lot of the lesser known things I love. I must go to a specific store.
2) specific stores are far far away.
3) internet is right here.
4) even when it wasn't, I used mail order for above reasons.
addendum
2a) and many retail workers at these stores all seem to suffer from Condescending-Indie-itis.
screw you, scenester. Nice $40 used shirt...
Also:
I may be a hacker, but I have not a single mp3.
I buy *everything*.
I want the artwork. I want to touch it. I want to hold it as I listen. I want to see my CD cases piled high on my player and a box of records next to it..
ls -l just doesn't compete with that!
wont somebody think of the children? (walt disneys childrens childrens childrens childrens children)
While it is true that the constitution gives the EU parliament and the national parliaments more power than they had before, it doesn't go far enough. For instance, with the constitution, the EP will still have no rights to propose laws by themselves, they can merely vote (and amend) laws projected by the Commission. If things don't work out as the Commission wanted (law being heavily amended by EP in favor of the citizen), Commission just can withdraw the law, and the parliament can do nothing to let its views prevail. Just whitness what is going on with software patents right now.
Then, to be more relevant with the event under discussion, the EU constitution does not, unlike its US counterpart, impose any term limits on "intellectual property", nor does it mandate that "intellectual property" actually promotes progress.
US version:
Drafters of the US article were remarkedly balanced in their views, stipulating not only that protection of creative works should be limited in time, but also recognizing that such protection only makes sense if society as a whole benefits (promoting progress).Now contrast this with the EU version:
That's all there is. "Intellectual property shall be protected". No safeguards against abuse, no nothing! Just "Intellectual property shall be protected". And drafters of the EU version had the benefit of hindsight (Betamax case, Sonny Bono controversy,It's as if they did indeed learn from experience gained by the US constitution. However, they did not really apply the lesson learned for the common man's interest. No, they rather appear to have had media major's interest at heart!
So what is 'limited time'? is 1000 years ok? what about one million? Besides, Constitution is a law, it can be ammended - only in the US it's treated like some sort of Bible for the words of the holy Founding Fathers or something.
I doubt anyone in Europe will have the guts to explicitly make the copyrights unlimited, so the point is rather moot.
Too right , Those corperate Bastards are getting fat off of our hard work.
A reasonable limit (comparable with a typical human lifetime).
is 1000 years ok?
Although this would be conforming to the letter of the US constitution, it would clearly limit the spirit. Not only is this far beyond the human lifetime, but also beyond the likely lifetime of the US itself...
Besides, Constitution is a law, it can be ammended
That's true, it can be amended. But it can be amended for the worse as well as for the best. And fundamental orientations are unlikely to change dramatically: amendments will probably address small detail errors or oversights, and not turn a pro-business constitution into a pro-citizen constitution.
I doubt anyone in Europe will have the guts to explicitly make the copyrights unlimited
It will take less guts to do so in Europe than in the US; after all, nobody will need to play any semantic tricks to make any such unlimited copyright conformant with the constitution. Why would it take guts to do something which the constitution more or less explicitly allows?
Don't just gripe that you can't get free music. No one cares about freeloaders. Complain about monopolies, loss of the right to produce derivative works, and especially, point out that the term of copyright is already too long.
If you're in your 20s, point out that you'll probably live 50 more years, and that would make a 70 year term last 120 years. Then trot out something like:
"120 years ago, women couldn't vote, or own property independ of their husband. They couldn't hold their copyrights. If we extend copyright go to back 120 years, shouldn't those women get the rights to their creations?"
This will cause a big hassle, and no one likes hassles. Drag in a few screaming feminists who will argue that if the bill passes, the rights of women everywhere must be respected, and a big lot of lawsuits will happen if their ancestors don't get the same rights as all the men. Make it an ugly media storm.
In the middle of it all, start bitching to the press, and let them ask: "Do we really need all this? Isn't the term already more than generous? How can paying out to a dead man's great-grandchildren foster innovation?"
The politicians won't like all the mudslinging flying at them, and they'll probably back down on the whole thing. Later, when we make a push to cut back the term of copyright, the old media arguments of "copyright lasts too long" will resonate, and we'll gain more ground than we will right now.
Remember, guys, use the media to your advantage. They may have a vested interest in copyright, but they're also not always the brightest lot, and they're hard-wired to report on thing, and they're hyper-competitive, and paranoid about missing a scoop. Make the media events about compelling absurdities involving copyright, link extreme pro-copyright stances to unpopular groups (like Satanists United for Strong Copyrights), and always be anti-file sharing, at least in public.
In short play the game. You may not win, but you'll have a lot of fun lampooning the current system, and you'll probably have more success than stern and sober debate will ever give, sadly enough.
Now who are the Real Pirates?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
First of all, the press has consistently been presenting this as a copyright issue. What is at stake is a subset of copyright called recording rights.
In the E.U., copyrights last for 70 years after the death of the composer/songwriter. Recording rights last for 50 years after the first publication of the recording. A recording artist need not be the same person who wrote the song.
In 2004, the European Commission (EC) had its staff research whether the five E.U. directives on copyright and related rights contained inconsistencies, could be simplified or had other wrongs that could be righted.
The result was a report that had the following to say about recording rights:
"There has been a call from certain circles to extend the term of protection of related rights and align it to that of an author since performances are claimed to provide a similar element of creativity. There has also been a specific concern expressed when the performer is also the author of the music as this results in the same person's performance falling into the public domain before the work itself. Moreover, in view of the recent changes to the term of protection under the US Copyright Act, it has been argued by some stakeholders that it would be advisable to align the term of protection of phonogram producers in the Community with the new, extended protection of 95 years from the year of first publication for sound recordings in the USA. Otherwise, according to the proponents of change, European music producers and music industry might be at a disadvantage as compared to their US equivalents."
"Strong views have also been expressed in support of maintaining the status quo. It is feared that an extended term of protection would only tend to diminish the choice of music on the market by enforcing the flow of revenues from few bestselling recordings, while at the same time not providing any real new incentives for creation of new recordings or motivating new investment. It has also been pointed out that practically all developed countries, with the exception of the USA, apply the term of protection of 50 years. As to the need to achieve parity between the EU and the USA, it has been argued that the same term of protection would not result in equal economic benefits for the right holders in these two territories. On the contrary, due to a different approach to which uses of phonograms are remunerated, US right holders already benefit from a better protection of their recordings in Europe, and the extension of the term would only aggravate this divide."
"From the point of view of the Internal Market, the term of protection for phonogram producers does not cause particular concern since the term has been harmonised in the Community and also been incorporated by the 10 new Member States. Moreover, it seems that public opinion and political realities in the EU are such as not to support an extension in the term of protection. Some would even argue that the term should be reduced. At this stage, therefore, time does not appear to be ripe for a change, and developments in the market should be further monitored and studied. "
[Emphasis from the report]
As you can tell, although the EC looked at arguments for both sides, the conclusion was pretty, er... conclusive: no extension of recording rights.
The EC then invited "all interested parties" to comment. The result was a smallish tidal wave, mostly consisting of comments by stakeholders in the music industry who naturally wanted more pie at the cost of the public.
Notable is the submission of Cliff Richard, who began recording at the end of the 1950s, and whose income from levies is to diminish starting in a few years. The public has always kept its end of the deal, which has allowed Sir Cliff to make truckloads of money, but now the time has come to repay the public he wants to break the
Most people know the Bono Act extended copyright, but few know the specifics. In most of the world all recordings made before 1954 are in the public domain. But thanks to the Bono Act, in the U.S. all sound recordings made before 1972 are now copyrighted until 2067. This applies even to the earliest recordings on wax cylinders and discs made in the 1890s, which Sony now claims the rights to. That's more than 170 years of copyright protection for those items.
The old world aristocracy claimed that it had the divine right to own and control everything, because God in his wisdom determined everyone's place in life. That was the rationalization, but the plain and simple reason was that they had armed soldiers working for them to enforce their decrees. And in spite of the modern rhetoric that's exactly the way it still is today.
The groups mentioned all appeal and are marketed to the teen and pre-teen set.
The big reason that record labels can succeed in marketing pap-ular music to adolescents is that many adolescents have no way other than commercial radio of being exposed to music. The drinking age is part of the problem: most independent bands play only in bars, which are off limits to minors.
Rather than lobbying to increase Euro © to match the US, why not lobby the US to shorten OURS to a more reasonable term. Or rather, less unreasonable term.
The RIAA is amde up of Sony, Vivendi, and other foreign (to the US) interests. If they can send four thousand dolars to bribe my Senator, why aren't you as a private European allowed to?
Now contrast this with the EU version:
...)!
Intellectual property shall be protected.
That's all there is. "Intellectual property shall be protected". No safeguards against abuse, no nothing! Just "Intellectual property shall be protected". And drafters of the EU version had the benefit of hindsight (Betamax case, Sonny Bono controversy,
I hear, in the back of my paranoid mind, a new voice calling out from the future? In 20 years time, they'll no doubt be arguing for a ruling that goes something like this...
"In order for the public's longstanding IP rights to the public domain to be protected against unauthorized use, no one shall speak, write, sing, perform or otherwise make use of the public's intellectual property unless prior authorization is granted, by the appropriate government authorities, in writing. No such authorization shall be granted without a formal government review as to the suitability of the proposed use with respect to public values; indecent or immoral use of the public domain is strictly prohibited. From time to time, in order to fund it's operation, the officals in charge shall post it's schedule of usage fees with respect to a particular work in the public domain. This fee schedule shall be open to all members of the public, and kept up to date on a timely basis."
With this innovative new legislation, we're going to send a strong message to would-be criminals! Theft from our valuable public domain will no longer be tolerated! Fines and prison terms will be in place to deter IP theft, and keep our country's heritage rich and honourable, presented in the right historic context. We think this new legislation is the right balance between providing access to our public domain, fostering growth and industry, while at the same time preventing the ravages of IP theft which have plauged our nation for centuries past. We look forward to a bold new age where innovation and novel ideas can grow and spread, thanks to these new intellectual property protections.
Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen. That will be all."
--
AC
Dear moderators, don't mod down if you don't understand.
Wondering why i am doing so strange posts? I am trying to get a "+5,Flamebait" or "-1,Insightful" rating.
As of today in this country (Hungary), the relatives of a deceased musician who worked in the 50ies cannot put his work into public domain because that would violate law.
Does Hungarian copyright law also specifically prohibit using something similar to a Creative Commons license on musical works or sound recordings?
What do patents have to do with copyrights ?
Some products can be viewed both as an original work of authorship and as a new and useful invention. The maker of such a product will often seek exclusive privileges under both patent and copyright law to restrict others from making the product. Publishers of entertainment works may hire an artist to create and fix on paper the likeness of a cartoon character and then use that likeness as a mark to identify the origin or certification of goods. These areas of overlap between patent law and copyright law (especially for computer programs) and between copyright law and trademark law (especially for entertainment franchises) have led to the use of the confusing term "intellectual property" to describe the entire spectrum of exclusive rights granted on new and distinctive elements of a good.
Dude, it's a royal PITA to do copyright searches already due to some of the screwball changes to the laws over the years.
...
If we're going to change it, let's make it a nice, *FIXED* term. That way, we know ahead of time that on this date, the copyright will have expired. No if's, and's, but's and some shyster can't someday freeze someone and claim they're still alive (if Disney really *had* been frozen and that wasn't just an urban legend, I honestly would NOT be surprised to see lawyers trying to claim that rather than letting any Mickey copyrights expire)
-----
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 24 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
damn... EU to sync US, US sync EU ?
debian has cyclic dependencies ?
copyright has cyclic dependencies ?
please upgrade your copyright from sarge.
Oh, Of course! You mean the "Walt Disney Copyright Term Extension Act." But that sounded too much like large corporations were drafting legislation and paying off their senators and congressmen to get that legislation passed. And dead men can't complain about their name being used in vain... The genie has been let out of that bottle and I suspect that corporate copyright holders only have about another century of greed to enjoy before they get a nasty surprise. Poor Sonny....
Bad moderation
You seem to take for granted that the music industry should always exist as it is now, where people goes to buy music at the music store instead of just subscribing to far more convenient solutions such as the iTunes online store and many others.
Is iTunes Music Store "more convenient" for those customers who can afford a CD player and CDs but cannot afford a computer? What about those who can afford a CD player, CDs, and a computer, but not the monthly fee of Internet access? What about those who can afford a CD player, CDs, a computer, and dial-up Internet access, but not the monthly fee for the upgrade to broadband? What about those who can afford a CD player, CDs, a computer, and high-speed Internet access, but not the price of emigration to a territory where Apple Computer offers iTMS? And given that iTMS has no downloadable preview service, how is it convenient to discover new music inside a moving motor vehicle, as a replacement for commercial popular music radio?
specific stores are far far away. internet is right here.
Two things: First of all, some goods are better purchased in a brick-and-mortar store, where the buyer has the opportunity to look at the products from all angles and touch them before buying them. Would you buy ready-to-wear clothing without trying it on? Second, many people have Internet access only by going to a public library, which in many cases is farther away than a store and/or closed on Sundays and Mondays.
I may be a hacker, but I have not a single mp3.
Smug Vorbis weenie? Or worse? Do you carry a huge CD wallet around with you wherever you go so that you don't need to put MP3s on an iPod?
I want the artwork [included with a Compact Disc phonorecord]. I want to touch it. I want to hold it as I listen. I want to see my CD cases piled high on my player and a box of records next to it..
How do you expect independent recording artists to afford the up-front fees for having a disc pressed and getting a UPC number?
Suprising what gnat's can do, huh?
Kinda like Slashdot's new Scripting crap and 8 min. between posts, they irritate the fuck out of everyone.
Denial of Service attack everyone. Hit that damned submit button thirty thousand times a second.
But [copyright in original musical works is] stock anyone can buy, and even better its stock anyone can produce. There's no way to corner this sort of market.
BS. There exist a finite number of legally distinct musical works. Apply the generalized birthday paradox, and watch the legal sparks fly.
But the artists are not the victims here, the people are.
If there's a risk for songwriters to fall victim to lawsuits alleging infringement through subconscious copying, such as Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton, then songwriters are potentially the victims.
So, yeah, we actually had these unemployment benefits once -- though they were oriented towards retirements and not layoffs, and called "Pensions". But increasingly, these are just too expensive for corporations to afford, so we're letting them declare bankruptcy and default on these obligations.
To make up for that, however, we're encouraging evil rotten deadbeat individuals who just overspent to pay for their purchases. And extending copyright law.
Tweet, tweet.
To get in line with the US, you need only 95 years.
I guess their plan is to let EU and US leapfrog each other, and the record companies will just laugh their way to the bank.
The function f(x) = x is BOUNDED for each specific x, which fits with that ruling, but in practice, f(x) = x is unbounded.
In math, it is said that lim_{x->inf} f(x) = inf iff for each M exists x0 so that for all x>x0 f(x) > M.
Indeed, for every time in the future M, exists a time x0 so that for every time after that, the extention is longer than the time M.
There is nothing in your argument that proves this series is infinite. You mistakenly assume that Congress is required to repeatedly renew copyright for longer and longer terms; and this is not the case. You've offered no evidence that this is what they will always do; and if you're offering a probabalistic argument, be aware how those fare in cases of an infinite time domain (hint: not well).
The Supreme Court's ruling was correct: the right to extend the limited duration of copyright is a power of Congress: notwithstanding the fact that such time has been, as it happens, increasing lately.
There's nothing within the law that proves Congress can't reverse vote to set the duration of copyright to a mere six minutes, for example.
That's all just a matter of politics: and the Legal branch is supposed to remain independant of politics, at least in theory.
Lobby your member of Congress, and claim that the limited time is too great (which it is). But don't claim that a particular extension can increase the time limit without bounds, because it can't.
--
AC
I represent the group; "Stalanists United for Strong Copyrights" and you have misrepresented us. Indeed, you have infringed on our copyright on our Acronym. We do not need confusion in the market place.
We must have 200 year copyrights in order to stamp out new ideas. This is necessary for our work towards bringing about the Apocalypse and to support our yearly tithes to the 700 Club.
SUfoSCo lawyers will be calling on you if you persist in your slander.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Since "intellectual property" is being treated by the law more and more as if it were physical property, then perhaps it should be taxed like physical property (real estate tax, etc.) too. An interesting discussion of this can be found at Copyright Term Reform/Taxation. I doubt the movement to reduce copyright terms will have any effect, so this seems like the next best thing, which (because it would mean more revenue for the government) might have a tiny chance in hell of actually happening. The idea of yet more taxes doesn't particularly thrill me in and of itself, but read this article and see what you think.
and you didn't foresee the game of leapfrog the **AA were setting up? now, let's see which political entity we can convince to play catch up and give us powers to search and seize, make our own arrests without warrant ... erm ...
Question Authority before IT questions You
No, you're missing the part that actually makes the decisions - the Council of Ministers. The Commission does the ground work, and makes a proposal to the parliament. The Parliament gets to say yes or no. If they say no, the Commission needs to rework their proposal.
However, it's not decided until the Council of Ministers has had their say. This is representatives straight out of the EU's governments, who are the ones actually making the decision (but behind closed doors, so nobody knows who said what) and then go home to their home countries, point finger at Brussels and say "They decided it! It wasn't me! It's the EU, damn them!".
And that is actually what's happening in a lot of the member countries.
I think the US should get its drug laws in sync with the Netherlands and decriminalize marijuana.
Thank you. I've been using exactly the same method to explain most corporate lobbying and government propaganda for years now.
;-)
The older I get, the more I realise the truth in those old saws and sayings used by one generation against the next...
(You should hear me explain the Iraq war in terms of "If you keep picking at it, it'll never heal!"
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
> 3. Distribution and advertising, well well,
> looky here, an internet. Who put that there?
I think you missed an important point in the article:
James Purnell, the U.K. minister for creative industries and tourism,
recently discussed the copyright issue in several newspapers.
"The music industry is a risky business and finding talent and
artists is expensive," he told the Sunday Times. "There is
a view that long-term earners are needed so that the record
companies can plough money back into new talent."
The purpose of the proposed changes in copyright laws is not to encourage more productivity from the artists. It's just to make sure that the requirement that artists are "found by record companies" as a prerequisite to distribution is met. At least that whatit seems that this guy is trying to say. Artisits have to be "found", (you agreed with this) and they should be found by "record companies" in a way that wastes money (compared to costs of self promotion and distribution using the internet).
"How do you expect independent recording artists to afford the up-front fees for having a disc pressed and getting a UPC number?"
I am an independent recording artist.Paying these fees is not an impossibility. We're not all starving. Promise. If you want it badly enough, what money comes goes to production. A lot of limited pressings are made like this, which also makes their resale value soar quite a bit if the name of the artist(s) gets highly sought after.
Also, there are many ways to get your art produced that does not involve having a disc pressed (merzbow self-released a lot(> 100) of casettes before he was big! They're pretty cheap these days.)
And quite a large amount of the music I see in stores with a diverse selection does not have UPCs on them at all. Even if on a larger label like Fat Wreck-Chords, Propaghandi got their last albumn realeased sans UPC. (Major stores that req'd a bar code for inventory just did what they usually do in that case, make their own that fits their own database schema.)
"Do you carry a huge CD wallet around with you wherever you go so that you don't need to put MP3s on an iPod?"
Actually I like the sounds of living, so usually I don't carry music with me. Also, I like the process of choosing what I'm going to take with me. It feels a bit like designing a clean piece of code going through and selecting each one by hand. It also allows me to have a moment of introsepction. Seeing where my mind is and what it is drawn to is always illucidating.
"Two things: First of all, some goods are better purchased in a brick-and-mortar store, where the buyer has the opportunity to look at the products from all angles and touch them before buying them."
Very true. Physical reality is great. I like walking and touching things before I buy them and seeing the color of the vinyl or CD print and getting a first impression of liner notes.
I wasn't trying to make the case that brick and mortar should be abandoned. Just saying that where I am (a swim from NYC) the city and all it's great record stores are quite a trip if I already know what I want. I love Kim's and Other Music and all the places that let you go in and listen to things. (kim's vinyl rules for this! but bring yr own headphones and have a 1/4" plug on them.)
"Second, many people have Internet access only by going to a public library, which in many cases is farther away than a store and/or closed on Sundays and Mondays."
Yea, been there myself. Used to use a lot of mail order back then and then of course there were 2 stores in the area that always had new stuff I wanted, but again mail order for the things I already knew I wanted..
love and light,
-=[psyphiber]=-
What's missing in the EU version?
* Reference to promoting progress
* Absence of term limits
Does current US IP law actualy promote progress? It's not hard to find examples of it doing the opposite.
Once the term is longer than a human lifetime it might as well be infinite.
You seem to be agreeing with what I say, only in a disagreeing tone ;)
I agree with most of what you said except:
The US Constitution dosn't even mandate "copyright". It's perfectly possible that there are different ways of protecting the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors so as to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" in the 21st century.
The constitution does say "give exclusive copying rights"...
Sure there are such examples, and many of them (cough... software patents ... cough).
But the nice thing is that the US constitution is hanging over those laws like a Damocles sword, and these can be stricken down any time somebody sufficiently wealthy, motivated and patient take these matters to supreme court.
Moreover, these constitutional articles ensure that there is a healthy discussion whenever such laws are passed, which in some cases may sway enough congress people to oppose/amend it (doesn't work out everytime, unfortunately, but IMHO the situation would be far worse without constitutional protection against such abuse).
In Europe, no such restrictions on IP will exist. It's "outlaw whatever you want, and citizens will have no legal recourse".
One web log said that trying to "harmonize" copyright laws can lead to a "copyright leapfrog" effect. This involves two sides repeatedly lengthening copyright terms in trying to keep up with each other.