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
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
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
The guy in the UK pushing this is James Purnell. If you live in the UK you should write to him.
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
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.
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
"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"?
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
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!
Now who are the Real Pirates?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."