Slashdot Mirror
The Parallel Politics of Copyright and Environment
zumaya100k writes "In recent months, Slashdot has covered the rise of
the Pirate Party and the battles in Europe over iPod
interoperability. Canada's Hill Times has an insightful
column from Michael Geist
that links these developments as the growing importance of copyright as
a political issue. He argues that copyright is now tracking the
environment as a mainstream political issue." (Geist is talking about Canada here, but much the same can be said about the U.S. and other places.)
Complexity is anathema to politics in most countries.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
This has been a very big issue for corpoprations and politicians for years now (think of Disney getting copyright extensions for mickey mouse), but only recently due to the advances in technology has it become a household issue.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
And similarily, landmark court decisions and not legislation will probably determine the direction that copyright will take us...back to the slave owning days, or to a future of equal opportunity.
Environmental issues went big in the late 70s and 80s, but I doubt we'll see a similar development today. You have to see that people were quite a bit different then. Many were looking for "alternatives", there was a general sentiment for less technology and more back-to-the-roots. The peace movement in the shadow of the atomic stalemate between the two superpowers was a huge driver as well, and people were generally more politically interested than they are today.
To make matters worse, to be concerned over copyright, you first of all have to have access to copyrightable material. If you don't then, well, the stuff doesn't really matter to you. So you have to be one of those that actually either produce or consume content. Now, producers of copyrightable material will hardly argue that there is too little restriction for the user, and people who're the proverbial "lazy consumer" will hardly stand up and become political movers.
Let's also not forget that the environment and peace movement was also driven by songwriters, poets and other "content creators", and only a handful of them were actually concerned with the issue, the rest saw a huge market to milk. Now, which artist out for money would sing against copyright?
Generally, I'm a little pessimistic that copyright becomes the "green" movement of the 2010s. I'd love to see it, and I'll support it with everything I can, but my hopes are not too high.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
After the manufacturing sector imploded and now the services sector is hit by outsourcing, the only strongly exportable products produced by the American economy are linked to IP.
The problem is that for this to work, the rest of the world has to adopt USA IP laws, and most countries know it goes against their best interest, so they are not very enthusiastic about it.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
I.e. getting rid of copyrights (or bringing them back to 14+14 years) would help the environment.
I can't believe this hasn't been modded up.
I think you hit the nail on the head: copyright has been a political issue for a while, but it's only recently that it's started to affect normal people. Thus they care, where they didn't give a damn before.
Most people don't care about things in the political realm, outside of the small sphere which they perceive as actually having a direct effect on their lives.
E.g., one of the reasons the gun lobby is so big in the U.S., is that there are a lot of people who own guns, and realize that changes in gun laws could directly affect their lives, and thus take an interest in it, one way or the other.
If you had as many bittorrent users as there are gun owners, and if those bittorrent users found their bittorrenting to be as important to them as gun owners find their gun ownership and its associated activities, then there's no reason why the "BitTorrent Lobby" wouldn't be equally powerful.
It's all about making average people care.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Without copyright, maybe even Microsoft might come up with a protection scheme that works.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Most human beings are happier under the boot of some dictatorship or the other. As long as they're in a relatively snug groove of the boot, the stamping doesn't really bother them.
Let's look at the history of humanity. For most of human civilisation, and even before that, humans lived in societies without rights, equality, freedoms or justice. The powerful ruled, and if you objected, you would either be brutally beaten or killed outright. Not only that, your extended family could also be expected to suffer as well.
So with that in mind, lets consider the human "liberty loving" gene, the one that bristles when your rights are infringed upon. Do you think that is now a common gene? Do you think most human beings have retained a strong expression in genes like that one. Or do you think that rather, it is those humans who expressed more "quiet sheep" genes that proliferated throughout most of history.
Most people are descended from a long, long line of quiet, contented serfs. Ergo, most people will naturally act and behave like quiet, contented serfs. You are surrounded by them daily, choked by their suffocating apathy. They are individual only in the individual ways that they acquiesce to other humans who exude the "master" pheromone. Ultimately, democracy collapses under the dead weight of their inborn complacency
May the Maths Be with you!
It's no wonder copyright has become a political issue -- copyrights have been extended (in the U.S. at least) everytime they're about to expire, effectively having infinite lifespans. How can you ignore something that's forever?
Solution: limited copyrights, like it was originally intended. Current law "reduces" the rate of new work since authors can ride the gravy train of one work forever. Infinite copyright also makes copyrights assets to be acquired, hoarded, and protected via lawsuits. Limited copyrights would make all that go away.
We'd certainly live in a different landscape with limited copyrights and I think I'd like to try it out for while. Wake me up when that happens (like never..).
Moderation in everything, including moderation.
The position people have on copyright is not inherent, and I think you have been educated/conditioned to believe that one thing "should" be and the other shouldn't. I think we "should" decide whether copyright is right/moral based on the perceived value of that tradeoff.
I see where copyright supporters come from, because they simply have different ideas about how important each item in the above list is.
I personally find number 1 and 3 less important, and find number 2 (Both in the freedom and in the efficiency aspect) to be of much higher importance.
That is why I think copyright is wrong.
Even if that were the case (not having all the facts, I think it is not), a limited law about the ability to make a civilian libel case against those who attribute your work to them would be a satisfactory solution, regardless of copyright.