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."
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?
want a better alternative? Shoot them down!
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.
..... Shorter
Like say, authors life time or 50 years wich ever is greater and thats it....
M$ it's whats for diner!!!!!
don't know how your system works :p
Works? What is this "works" of which you speak? ;-)
As far as I can tell our system works like this: the European Commission decide to do something. The European Parliament vote, and decide it's a stupid, stupid idea. The European Commission then ignore the democratic process altogether. I believe that the advantage to this system is that it's easier for lobbyists to get their lobbying done, without getting dirtied by contact with democracy.
Someone with a less cynical view than me may wish to clarify, however...
This is where the serious fun begins.
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
You're discovering the power of "the precedent".
The reason people don't want bad laws passed, even in small ways where it seems irrelevant is because it establishes a precedent. In many ways, a precedent is like the thin end of a wedge. Once you've worked in the smallest thing, you can just push from the back and eventually drive it all through.
The laws don't necessarily have to be the same, but if you check the article you'll find that the debate is in terms of competition, not in terms of what copyright is all about. The EU has no desire to fall behind, they really do want to keep up with the US in a lot of different areas. So a precedent in copyright has been established: let's extend the lifetime in the US. Now comes the pressure behind the wedge: the europeans want it too!
Hmm...I think I can see where this is going...
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
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!
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.
Hmmm, getting all coutries to be "in line" with each other seems to deprive each country of it's own individuality. Aren't countries supposed to be self-determining? If every country is "in line" with everyone else then they're not coutries anymore. I'm suprosed the black helicopter croud hasn't started screaming about how this is letting in a world government through the back door....
Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
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.
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
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
If all they want is globalisation, they could campaign to decrease the length of the copyright in the US instead...
I'll probably be modded down for this...
"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."
What's special about copyright? By your argument, all the laws around the world should be the same, and we could just elect one government to write them.
Of course, that ignores cultural differences and assumes everyone shares exactly the same view of what's right. And it's only a small step between believing that other people "should" follow your laws, and starting a war to enforce that view. Not exactly a democratic view to hold.
"With inconsistent laws, the enforcement of copyrights from country to country would be chaotic at best."
And that's bad how? Too confusing for policemen? Many people already deal with different laws, taxes, etc. in every state, and even laws that apply to particular places within a state.
If courts can already deal with complex financial crimes across many locations (which they can) where the laws are different in virtually every state, country, and region, then what's so difficult about copyright that requires the imposition of a "world government"?
I for one am well and truly sick of the shenanigans being pulled by these media conglomerates. They need to be replaced, and rapid. So lets look at the root causes of the problem.
1. People like music.
2. Musicians make music.
3. People will never hear the music unless its advertised to them; they just won't know it exists. Enter your friendly neighbourhood media conglomerate, with all the fun that entails.
Solutions:
1. Music is just information, a stream of bits and bytes. And here we have a whole industry called information technology.
2. The production of music can be done relatively cheaply, especially by applying modern technology.
3. Distribution and advertising, well well, looky here, an internet. Who put that there? And no I'm not talking about itunes.
4. Profit, and the vanishing of the media conglomerates and their tired, wretched little business model.
I mean come on, with all the big brains around here, surely it is possible to come up with a decent technological response to these vermin... the only thing lacking at this point is a concerted effort at marketing the stuff, and poof, no more MTV. Whatever restrictive contracts current artists have signed with said media groups is there own problem; there are always more artists. If ever there was a place google could shine, its right here.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
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.
Sorry, I don't think that's right. The new constitution, from what I understood, would actually give _MORE_ power to the non-elected non-democratic bodies like the Commission.
Check with the FFII...
http://ward.vandewege.net/blog/
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!
They won't dare. The no has been so overwhelming in France, and even more so in the Netherlands that they won't dare to pull this off. It will have to be renegotiated, no matter how difficult that will be.
The Dutch government left themselves the option to ignore the result of their referendum if participation was below 30%. However, participation was a whooping 62.8%, more than double that was required to make it "binding".
Incidentally, this copyright discussion is relevant to the constitution, as the EU constitution does not mandate any term limits on copyrights or other intellectual property, unlike the US constitution.
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
"wouldnt it just make sense of copyrights simply extend to the lifespan of their creator"
IMHO it would make much more sense if copyrights lasted for a set number of years after publication of a work. Copyright enables an author to earn money with a work. If an author is incapable of capitalizing on publication of the work within a set amount of time, what use is it to grant him extra time?
Currently, copyright is implemented as a welfare system.
You and I are of the same stripe. It is work, but the rewards are great. I thought good music had all but died until the web age. As more and more lesser-known artists developed a web presence, I discovered a wealth of good music. It was just, by and large, not coming out of the mass-production manure factories owned by the big labels.
The trouble is that people are inherently lazy and would rather spend the time sitting on the couch for hours watching the latest (un)reality crap on the box and accept whatever audio garbage is marketed at them.
Now who are the Real Pirates?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."