Slashdot Mirror
EU Proposes Online Music System
jefu writes "According to a story in the Globe and Mail, the European Commission has proposed a unified online music licensing (and copyright) system. The article says that one of the points of doing this is to get copyright and license fees to the artists and to simplify the maze of copyright regulations that cover Europe."
Since allowing you to have to deal with just one copyright office to be valid for all of Europe is the exact sort of thing that inspired the European Economic Community thing that became the EU in the first place.
Unfortunately, you can absolutely bet 100% that if a system such as this is proposed or comes anywhere near to implementation, the biggest and most affluent copyright holders will use it as an excuse to grab new and undue powers for themselves-- powers which they will then never, ever let go of, and be defending in a hundred year's time as "the way things have always worked".
Thus what ought to be a plus for everyone (a unified, more efficient copyright system) is going to be a massive downer for consumers, or at least that subset of consumers who wish to be treated like consumers or citizens and not cattle.
"providing they come up with a system which can take part-time and amateur artists into account."
How likely is it that a centralized government collection system, probably lobbied into existence by large copyright-holding companies, will do that?
The EU was initially set up as a free trading group. The aim has since become to create a level playing field that allows businesses from all member countries to operate in the eurozone; this isn't just free trade but e.g the free movement of capital and labour. This inevitably means changes at the political level to harmonise standards and regulations.
So I think harmonising licensing and copyright systems is a natural step, and a good one SO LONG AS it is not seized as an opportunity for radical reform in the favour of corporations over the citizen, e.g. extending the lifetime of copyright.
let the project be discussed by politicians, artists and fans. Lock all the managers, producers, studio owners etc in a dungeon, take their phones away from them, close the exit with a concrete wall, and don't let them contact the outside world until the project is ready. Otherwise it will be another horrible "all your base" takeover of your rights.
Actually, once the project is over, don't let them out either.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
The problem with that is that open DRM is an oxymoron. If it's open it can be bypassed. DRM works only if there is a secret component that can't be bypassed to get at the raw data, and that inevitably means that access to the implementations of it has to be covered by restrictive NDA's.
More likely than the large copyright-holding companies themselves doing it, and right now those are the only ones operating such systems.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
It's called the doctrine of first sale and it has been recognized time and again by the US and other courts that it also applies to instances of copyrighted works. It's fair use.
The doctrine of first sale has even been used to challenge End User License Agreements
Therefore is the following is self evident that copyright legislation should grant the following rights under the concept of fair use:
1. Acknowledge the supremacy of the doctrine of first sale : When you purchase an instance of a copy of copyrighted work, your rights to view,use,modify,combine,inter-operate with, dispose or resell that one instance should not be impeded by either legislation or technology. This fact has been recognized time and again by the US courts.
2. The doctrine of first sale applies to both physical media and digital content where the receiver pays a transaction for particular instances of a copyrighted works: When you purchase an instance of a copy of copyrighted work that involves the buyer making a choice for that instance of copyrighted work and entering into a transaction with the seller, then the buyer has the rights to that instance under the doctrine of first sale. Sellers of instances of copyrighted work cannot hide behind "provision as a service": when you pay for an instance, you own that instance.
3. You do not have the right to record content without permission of the copyright holders of a live performance ( play, concert etc ) or private performance ( film theater ) held on private property or performance venue. You pay to attend a performance at a physical venue, not for a copy of an instance of that performance.
4. Instances of copyrighted works broadcast ( as apposed to downloaded ) and received by a device held by individual person or on that person's property, may not be redistributed outside of that person's household to anyone who does not receive the content though the same service. You may record an instance of copyrighted work for later viewing ( timeshifting ) and distribute a copy along to any person whos household also receives that same broadcast service ( samaritan clause ). You many not redistribute or resell content recorded from a broadcast service to anyone not receiving that same broadcast service content.
5. Although you may not redistribute recorded copies of broadcast copyrighted content outside of the terms of (4), there should be no limit to what you may do with instances of those works within your household. You should have the right to modify the works, combine with other works and inter-operate with other works. You should also have the right to transform the instances of the copyrighted work so that it operates or can be viewed on other devices (mediashifting).
6. Copyright protection extends only to the particular work copyrighted. The copyright holder's exclusive rights should not extend to the right to deny others combining a legally acquired instance of a copyrighted work with other works. You should have the right to distribute and/or sell, patches, recipes and add-on components that refer and link to the content of the copyrighted work, as long as the distributed items do not contain content from the original copyrighted work. The resulting combined and/or transformed work that contains content from the copyrighted work sources can not be legally redistributed without the permission of all the copyright holders.
We have to ensure that file formats and protocols adopted should not limit the ability to sample mix and match. To do otherwise would limit peoples creativity.
If I purchase an instan
If you pay your tax in dollars then you will be glad to know that your tax will not be wasted on this system.
It is for Europe.
Too true. Remember, this is the same EU that brought us the EU Copyright Directive, which is pretty much Europe's DMCA. It'll take a lot to convince me that they're doing this for the benefit of consumers.
Here's a great scenario for you, based on some investigation for an amateur dance club in the UK about the possibility of burning a selection of the best tracks used at club activities onto a small number of compilation CDs, so the club DJs don't have to carry several large boxes of CDs everywhere. For reference, the club already pays a fee to PPL for the right to play the copyrighted music in public at its classes and events. It also buys the original CDs just like anyone else.
It seems the club can also pay another fee to a different organisation, which gives it the legal right to make the compilations (and even to make multiple copies and sell the spares, with a few restrictions). However, while this would be more than enough, under UK law, to make the compilations normally, thanks to the EUCD those people making the compilations could be criminally liable for doing so if they take material from any "copy-protected" CDs. After all, circumventing copy protection now seems to be a criminal act in its own right here, even if you had every legal right to copy the protected material. <sigh>
Now, if the EU were to introduce some common sense to copyright -- the equivalent of fair use rights so everyone knows they're safe making a back-up or format-shifting material they've legally purchased, for example -- that would be great. If the EU want to introduce mandatory escrow for DRM-based material to guarantee that fair use, and prohibit the sale of music in any DRM'd form that doesn't submit a copy for escrow first, that would be in the interests of consumers and yet still consistent with protecting the legitimate rights of copyright holders.
I'm guessing this is neither of those things, but then this is also the EU that just threw out software patents, so there is some hope and perhaps I should keep the faith. Time will tell...
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
the key word here is artists; not the industry. i couldn't care less about popular artists not getting their royalties, but less popular artists need the money. i thought mp3.com was great back in the days before it became what it is now. the sad fact is for people who are interested in underground music there is sometimes no way to get this music other than p2p. a paid system which supports these artists is long overdue.
facing the reality of the way technology is changing business practices and legislating appropriately which is so normal it should not be newsworthy
Erm, surely politicians understanding changing technology and legisilating appropriately is definitely _not_ normal and _is_ newsworthy.
upfront studio time fees (well over 5k a day for a cheap studio)
5k a day?!?!? The studio where I work is 300 quid a day. If you're not getting change from 500 quid you're being conned mate.
Your context was for "emergent artists" who could not afford studio fees, not megadrome filling prog/cock-rock dinosaurs. Maybe if you want to go and record at Abbey Road it might cost you a fair wedge, granted. If you're just starting out go record at the Cowshed instead.
When I purchase a car, I own that car. I have the right to that particular instance of that car to use,modify ( pimp my ride ),combine, dispose or resell without having to seek permission from the car builders, vendors etc.
***************
Of course its not easy to make two cars out of one, else noone would pay 250k USD for a Ferrari but ask a friend to clone one for him. Last time I checked noone ever got the Banach-Tarsky paradox to work in his garage.
But I can easily make 100 exact same MP3 CDs from a single MP3 CD and give it to my 100 neighbours so they can skip buying all that music. (Socialismo o muerte! - as commandante Castro likes to say).
In many countries you have to get permission to significantly modify your car, either the authority or from the vendor. Similarly, you have to bring the car back to the vendor or a state-authorized tear-down shop to dispose of it and get a receipt. If you just leave it in a forest to pollute, state will fine you mightily or have you sit a few weeks in jail. Deleting an MP3 file will not destroy the environment, however.
Real-world objects cannot be compared to virtual goods at all, so your three pages long rant was good for nothing.
I think it's more important that copyrights exist in order to prevent others from taking your work and then slapping their name on it and selling it as their own or making copies and selling it without your authorization on the streets where the customer thinks they are buying a legitimate copy.
However, if someone says this is such and suchs work and puts it on their own media and gives proper credit it is my belief that it should be legal to do so.
This might seem strange, but copyrights were never really intended to extract money from the populace, but rather promote science and arts and to credit where credit is due.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)