UK Report Suggests Tougher Copyright Laws

danpsmith writes "The BBC has an article about a government report which proposes new powers against copyright infringement. Interestingly, however, it also: "says private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player" and further "recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended," saying, "The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators." While satisfied with most of the report, The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says, "it would continue to press for the copyright extension.""

Comments

Legalize file sharing already.

[QuantumG]

"By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format." I've got some bad news for you.

Re:Legalize file sharing already.

[91degrees]

Indeed. and there's the problem. Laws should reflect what people in general think is right and wrong. Many people genuinely don't believe that the copyright holder has a right to a cut if they give something away, and aren't aware that they're breaching copyright.

So, we have a law that people routinely ignore, that's essentially impossible to enforce. This sort of thing gives people considerably less respect for the law.

Re:Legalize file sharing already.

[Mateo_LeFou]

No. This is *not a good basis to oppose Draconian copyright (viz., the idea that most people don't feel it's wrong, so it's not). That leads to utter relativism, and as soon as most people think redheads are subhuman, or smoker's don't have rights, you've got ordinary fascism.

File sharing should be legal because it doesn't impinge on anyone's right to control their own person and enjoy their own property.

Re:Legalize file sharing already.

[nurb432]

Umm file sharing already is legal. ( and in most cases, format shifting is too ) Its what you are sharing with whom that is the issue here, not the fundamental ability to do so.

Re:Legalize file sharing already.

[91degrees]

Yes, I see your point. I guess my previous comment was a little too far reaching. I do however maintain that given large scale ambivalence about a law, then the law should be reconsidered in light of people's attitudes.

Re:Legalize file sharing already.

[Mateo_LeFou]

Yes I think the populist support is coming from the fact that people are recognizing that copyright doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to, viz: reward the creation of culture at the *least possible cost to the public domain.

BPI

[Anonymous Coward]

Please insert here obligatory remark about the British Pornographic Industry

So much time, so many wasted days

[zappepcs]

Its a shame really that so much of the world is caught up in wasting their time trying to argue with the **AAs of the world, or trying to help them protect their (stolen) products. Why are our governments wasting so much time on this? Could it be that they are all being paid on the hush hush to do so? If that is the case, why don't we revolt?

Seems that stubborn headed ignorance is the rule of the day?

Its a shame... No matter what decision is made, all this time, money, and resource has already been wasted to try to equalize what one industry wants made into law to line their own pockets. Yeah, I know, this is just one industry, but this is the industry that is on topic... its a start if we all, and I mean all, simply stop buying music. See how that suits them. Don't buy any for gifts this year; don't buy any for personal use. They can't possibly prosecute all downloaders, nor could they afford to continue to do so without revenue. We can't all be put in jail...

signed: frustrated

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Josh Lindenmuth]

How else would you suggest they stop the problem? No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime. It's no different than someone taping a new movie with a video camera and selling it (or, more analagously, giving it away) on the street the next day. Was it "stubborn headed ignorance" when Giuliani, and now Bloomberg, decided to crack down on illegal sales of bootleg DVD and VHS tapes on NYC streets? Sure it still happens, but it's not as bad as 10 years ago. I don't think it would be any different, or receive any lower penalty, if instead of selling dozens of DVDs these vendors were giving them away.

Now compare this with kids who setup their copyrighted music collections to be shared online. Instead of giving away dozens of copies, they could be giving away thousands or tens of thousands of songs per computer. Somehow this needs to stop. Law enforcement is trying, as is the RIAA (obviously), but their methods are not effective.

In my opinion, the tech community needs to help law enforcement stop illegal downloads. I believe there must be some technical means to stop illegal sharing without the annoyances of DRM, and only brilliant developers/designers will come up with an alternative. Instead, we complain about their methods, and about how unfair and litigious the RIAA is being.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[zappepcs]

Part of my point is this... there are already copyright laws in effect, and they are effective at producing the desired effect, both 100 years ago and today. What I'm lamenting about is that we are trying to enact new laws to provide the same protection that current or previous laws provided. All that is lacking is effective or efficient enforcement methods.

So, in the end, we are wasting untold resources on re-inventing the wheel as regards copyright. Those that want to extend copyright are only trying to line their pockets, not produce anything close to something that promotes inventiveness or creativeness.

We are still wasting resources for a single industry.... It doesn't take much to apathetically say "let them die on the vine" like buggy whip makers and wagon wheel mechanics....

Their business model is outdated and not EVEN trying to keep up with technology or society... let them die!

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Josh Lindenmuth]

I definitely agree with you here. Extending copyright is ridiculous. I'd favor reducing it, or at least setting it at 50 years after the creation of the copyrighted material instead of 50 (or 75) years after the author's death. It seems crazy that something I'd write today wouldn't be available to re-use by the general public for another 100-125 years or longer (depending on how long I live).

I have no love for the music industry, but I don't think we should ignore certain forms of illegal activity simply because we don't agree with the enforcement approach taken by it's sponsors.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Anonymous Coward]

You're conflating downloading and uploading. Please don't do that.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Mr2001]

How else would you suggest they stop the problem? No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.

Not all crimes are equally worthy of our attention. There's probably more jaywalking in your city than there is copyright infringement - why do copyright laws deserve any more enforcement effort than jaywalking laws?

Now compare this with kids who setup their copyrighted music collections to be shared online. Instead of giving away dozens of copies, they could be giving away thousands or tens of thousands of songs per computer. Somehow this needs to stop.

No, it really doesn't. It's just people sharing information. No one is dying as a result, nothing is being taken away; the only conceivable loss is a loss of potential sales that may or may not have occurred anyway, and if you're worried about that kind of loss, you should be twice as worried about negative reviews (which also have the ability to prevent sales).

In my opinion, the tech community needs to help law enforcement stop illegal downloads.

In my opinion, law enforcement and legislators need to realize the technical impossibility of stopping copying, and work to reform the industries that currently depend on copyright. All the money and effort spent on making information uncopyable is simply being wasted; it's no less foolish than trying to make water unwet. Instead of pouring money down that hole forever, we should give up on it, and let industries deal with the fact that it's hard to make money by just selling copies. There are other ways to make money, and they'll find them if that's what they have to do.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[1u3hr]

I have no love for the music industry, but I don't think we should ignore certain forms of illegal activity simply because we don't agree with the enforcement approach taken by it's sponsors.

As you've mentioned, copyright can last for a century or more. Violating the copyright of someone who's been dead for 50 years is "illegal", would you support enforcing that to the full extent of the law, 10 years jail, etc, etc? When laws are unjust or unreasonable, they invite lack of respect.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[bky1701]

"I have no love for the music industry, but I don't think we should ignore certain forms of illegal activity simply because we don't agree with the enforcement approach taken by it's sponsors."

So you propose we all help enforce unjust laws passed by the rich and corrupt politicians just because they happen to be laws? No, that's not going to happen. It's your duty as a good citizen to stand up against this, not to give in and help them do it. Sadly there are few good citizens in the world today willing to put their livelihood on the line for what right. The technical community has a good position to do this with little direct response. I say we use it for all it's worth.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Dun Malg]

How else would you suggest they stop the problem? No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.

Ah yes, and the fact that it is illegal is the end of the argument of course. The law is the ultimate decider of morality, right? The fact that certain groups have purchased law that leans heavily in their favor, in direct contravention of the stated premise of the area of law in question, that is immaterial, yes?

I do not have to supply an alternate solution to the "problem". The "problem" is the solution. If a small cartel of non-producing corrupt money-grubbers think they can erect a permanent fence around our common freakin' culture and charge us admission, the only solution is to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the fence and knock it down wherever we can.

"but it's against the law!"
moron

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[cpt kangarooski]

The real question, I think, is whether it's actually a problem at all. In November 1933, alcohol was a problem in the US. The next month, Prohibition was repealed, and it wasn't a problem any more.

The current situation is pretty analagous. Almost no one had respect for Prohibition, that disrespect for one stupid law led to disrespect for other laws, widespread corruption, powerful criminal organizations, etc. Well, pretty much no one now has respect for copyright law, at least in certain contexts (e.g. P2P downloading). This will have, and I think is having, a corrosive effect on other laws which are more desirable. If copyright were really all that important, then it might be worth fighting for. For example, enforcing civil rights laws despite their unpopularity in the 50's and 60's. But copyright is hardly on that level. While I don't think that copyright abolition is called for, getting rid of copyright laws that are ignored anyway, would be a good start. So, for example, make it legal for natural persons to do anything noncomercially that would otherwise be infringing. Then copyright is only left as being useful against those who want to make money, and organizations and corporate entities. Since social norms haven't gotten to the point where they're not expected to respect these laws either, voluntary compliance will be a lot easier. But in the areas where people feel that the law isn't relevant or just or applicable, why should they be wrong? The law is the servant of the people after all, and again, this isn't some civil rights issue. Copyright is a utilitarian monopoly meant to serve the people.

Also, not all downloading is a crime, even now.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[ThaReetLad]

The thing that gets to me is that the artists are campaigning for the extension, saying that it ought to be their income for retirement. I don't know about you but I don't earn nearly as much as these people do and I have to put away a proportion of what I earn today in order to have enough money to retire on in 40 years time. I don't see why recording artists should be any different. They have a lifestyle and talents that many of us would kill for, and they still moan that they ought to have a right to more. I think they should learn to understand how lucky they are, and be content with that.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we revolt, we should design our own government system, legal system, copyright laws, everything else etc from scratch, so that once we take power we will already have a sane system in place rather than ending up with something insanely complicated based on the current system.

Actually it probably wouldn't work because if we didn't sign international copyright treaties then no one would trade with us and we'd be screwed. I think we'd need to take over the world to rid ourselves of the insanity.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[LordSnooty]

the only conceivable loss is a loss of potential sales that may or may not have occurred anyway,

Yes, it's an often-used quote but this has actually made it into the report. It says that the UK music & film industries lose up to 20% of annual turnover to piracy.

How can anyone come to that calculation seriously? They add up the value of every known pirate item, then say that every single consumer of prate goods would go out and buy the real thing? Such faulty logic yet there it is in the report. A real disappointment as the rest of the report seems eminently sensible in other areas. But this line sounds like it was cribbed directly from record companies' submissions.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[melikamp]

So, for example, make it legal for natural persons to do anything noncomercially that would otherwise be infringing.

**IA's sees a problem here, a big one. What you propose + bittorrent = abolition of copyright for all practical purposes.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.

No, you are wrong. It's uploading of copyrighted material which you are not authorized to distribte that is against the law. The RIAA/MPAA are going after the uploaders, not the downloaders.

There's plenty of copyrighted material being shared that's perfectly legal to share.

Here's one solution proposed by the EFF http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[julesh]

No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.

No, it isn't. It's a civil offence which gives the copyright holder (or their appointed agents) a cause of action against you in a civil court. I.e., they can sue you for it.

Copyright infringment is only a criminal offence in the UK if it is:

* for the purpose of "sale or hire"
* imported, but not for personal use
* "in the course of business"

I.e., only if you're intending to profit from it.

My understanding is that in the US, in order to be a criminal matter, copyright infringement must involve more than some threshold value of copies ($10,000 sticks out in my memory, but I may be wrong).

Not intending to dissuade from your argument, but please don't use legal terms when they don't actually apply.

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[fair_n_hite_451]

Actually, from where I sit (the snowbound wastelands of Canuckistan) it's not. It's not a crime, it's a right - negotiated/forced on us by the fact that the same organization that owns the copyright collects money on recordable media whether I record music on it or not.
 
They can get stuffed for all I care with their whining of plummeting sales. I haven't heard of any record companies laying off people in droves because their massive profits have dried up, have you?

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[MikeFM]

Capitalism is an unbalanced system that leads to corrupt government. All these IP law issues are being caused by that central issue. IP can create lots of easy money and then those with that easy money use the money to influence politics which in turn influences if they get laws to protect their easy source of income.

The government needs to recognize that capitalism isn't really a democratic system and therefore does not align well with a democratic government. Of course they won't - because politicans stand to benefit to much from the play of these misaligned pillars of our society.

And no - I don't think socialism is better than capitalism. The problem is both systems are broken and will eventually destroy themselves. All because they have no checks and balances like most of our governments are designed with today. There needs to be counter forces put into place so wealth will gather to the middle with it being difficult to grow super poor or super wealthy. Force our society to grow wealth, so that all our lives are better, rather than fighting over each other's table scraps. Why doesn't wealth distribution fit a bell curve?

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[Hyperspite]

Wealth distribution doesn't fit a bell curve because opportunity begets opportunity. If someone is perceived to do something right, more people find out about them through word of mouth (most of the time). Of course, these effects have local maxima at a given socioeconomic level, but if you manage to squeeze into the next one, the positive reenforcement effect happens again. What you are talking about is controlling decentralized activities to an absurd degree. Adding money to a system doesn't create more wealth, adding products and culture does. If you constrain the distribution of the money in the wrong way, then you'll miss the little things along the way that accidentally open the door to something much better. Of course, maybe you could say the same thing about the current system....

Re:So much time, so many wasted days

[blahplusplus]

"If that is the case, why don't we revolt?"

Because people are caught on the on the money treadmill my friend... or hamsterwheel, or whatever other metaphor you like. When people are economically insecure and are busy earning money to pay down their debts and pay off their bills their time is trapped by the money system so they rarely have time to do anything, and even when they do laws have been passed and that basically neuter protestors, not to mention the corrupt police officials as the the paid gangsters of business, politicians and the money market system.

Australia was woken up as well.

[FatSean]

Maybe the USA can borrow some good ideas from the UK? We seem to be giving them bad ideas lately...

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Firehed]

The summary didn't cover the part where intentional copyright infringement can land you in jail for up to ten years. Yes, the DMCA sucks and is overly draconian, but I'd rather violate that within my home than endg up in the slammer for having accidentally including a snippet of something copyrighted in something I upped to Youtube.

Best of both worlds would be nice, though.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Odiumjunkie]

> The summary didn't cover the part where intentional copyright infringement can land you in jail for up to ten years. Yes, the DMCA
> sucks and is overly draconian, but I'd rather violate that within my home than endg up in the slammer for having accidentally
> including a snippet of something copyrighted in something I upped to Youtube.

Where did that come from?

From TFA:

"It calls for penalties against people who sell pirate versions of music and films on the internet to be brought in line with those who make hard copies. Currently, the former face two years and the latter 10."

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

It's nothing but talk anyway. With the current situation in Britain and our Fifty Or So Strikes approach to law enforcement it's more likely to be an ASBO preventing offenders from "committing anymore piracy, please".

Absolute worst case scenario is probably "10 years" becoming 1 year, out in 6 months on good behaviour. Or they could always get out whenever they please if they invoke the Human Rights Act and point out that being imprisoned violates their basic human right to "do whatever the fuck they want".

Not that our legal system has left me disillusioned or anything...

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[squiggleslash]

Ignoring the sibling's point that the prison sentences are for selling pirate copies, how is "accidental" the same thing as "intentional" again?

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Firehed]

I'd read a different article earlier that stated any sort of copyright infringement can get you ten years. According to the laws of laziness, the first article was correct.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[alshithead]

As a US follower of BBC I have to heartily agree. I can't believe the lenient sentences handed down to serious criminals. If you want to kill someone take them to the UK so if you get caught you will at least get off easy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6212684.s tm (BBC)

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're Pete Doherty up on yet another drugs charge you may as well just not bother showing up at all, because the magistrate will only let you off without even a slap on the wrist, anyway.

I'm going to change my name to Pete Doherty. Then if I'm ever up in court I'll pretend to be a no talent assclown with a hard drug adiction and get let off. My plan can't fail!

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Dj]

Er, you do know the difference between murder and manslaughter? Obviously not, as you talk about murder then link to an article about a conviction for manslaughter.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[drgs100]

I grantee that life gets much less stressful when you stop reading the Daily Mail.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[drgs100]

Your boring

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[LordSnooty]

Maybe we could finally see a clampdown on those morons who sell off-air DVDs of TV shows on ebay - the very same shows which are normally available for free at your local p2p network. I'd love to see these conmen go to jail. I'd be laughing up my sleeve as because I didn't exchange money for the product, my penalties are less severe. Which is how it should be.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[emj]

Maybe because it sounds like murder, I'm not quite sure what makes in manslaughter. The court said:
You could have left the scene. But you delivered a forceful blow to a man who was no threat to you at all.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[julesh]

With the current situation in Britain and our Fifty Or So Strikes approach to law enforcement it's more likely to be an ASBO preventing offenders from "committing anymore piracy, please".

Right, because of course the number of criminal prosecutions brought in this country (which doesn't include issuing ASBOs, which are a civil matter) hasn't increased from 1.3 million in 2003-2004 to 1.5 million in 2005-2006, over a timescale during which the number of reported crimes actually fell.

The notion that Britain is getting "soft on crime" is perpetuated by tabloid journalism, but the figures don't hold it up.

Absolute worst case scenario is probably "10 years" becoming 1 year, out in 6 months on good behaviour.

Few crimes have had their maximum sentences reduced in the recent past; in fact, the current government seems bent on increasing maximum sentences wherever possible, e.g. for unlawful sex with a child between 13 and 16, where it has been extended from 2 years to 14, or posession of an offensive weapon (2 years to 4), etc.

Britain has (and has had for a long time now) a very successful system where people imprisoned are usually permitted out of prison for the second half of their sentence, but if they reoffend during it, the second half is automatically added on to their next sentence. What you refer to as "out in 6 months on good behaviour" is actually an extremely good system for deterring reoffending that has shown good results.

Or they could always get out whenever they please if they invoke the Human Rights Act and point out that being imprisoned violates their basic human right to "do whatever the fuck they want".

Funnily enough, that isn't a right enumerated by the Human Rights Act. The rights are:

* The right to life
* The right not to be tortured
* The rigth not to be enslaved
* The right to a fair trial
* The right not to be punished without law
* The right to respect for private life (e.g. no unwarranted searches, tapping of communications, etc. except where necessary for law and order)
* The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
* The right to freedom of speech
* The right to freedom of assembly and association
* The right to marry
* The right to remedy for violation of rights
* The right not to be discriminated against in application of rights
* The right to hold property
* The right not to be executed for a criminal offence

Tell me which of these rights you object to? Unfortunately, I can't discriminate in how I feel the rights should be applied, so I can't suggest that you should live without it, but still...

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[julesh]

Maybe because it sounds like murder, I'm not quite sure what makes in manslaughter. The court said:
You could have left the scene. But you delivered a forceful blow to a man who was no threat to you at all.

I think you're confusing manslaughter with "justifiable homicide", which is where there is no choice but to kill (E.g. to save your own life or somebody else's). That clearly is not the case here.

Its manslaughter if there was no intent to kill, which seems like the case here. From the description in the article of the convicted man's actions, it seems clear that he didn't expect what he did to kill the man, so there's no reason to infer that he intended to do so.

In fact, it's one step further than this -- it's only manslaughter if it is reasonable to assume that the actions you take may cause death. Punching somebody in the head once is so unlikely to kill them that I completely understand why this guy didn't even get manslaughter (which he'd have done about 5 years for, not the 2 and a half he did get), but merely a serious assault charge.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Claws Of Doom]

IANAL, but I think it's a provable intent to kill.

A punch, while an obvious attempt to harm, is difficult to prove to be an attempt to kill. I think that's the difference between manslaughter and murder. Not sure though ;)

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[julesh]

As a US follower of BBC I have to heartily agree. I can't believe the lenient sentences handed down to serious criminals. If you want to kill someone take them to the UK so if you get caught you will at least get off easy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6212684.s tm (BBC)

OK, so what we have here is somebody who punched another man forcefully, in the head, being punished for doing so. 2 and a half years is quite a strong sentence for that crime.

It happens that the man he punched died. But the convicted man didn't intend him to, and couldn't reasonably have expected his actions to have that result, so the more serious crimes of murder and manslaughter were not committed. There was a serious affray, during the course of which one man was accidentally killed. The man who did it was convicted for his part in the affray.

I don't see the problem here -- other than the fact that people are complaining about how lenient the sentence is, as if it were a murder or manslaughter case that had a ridiculously light sentence passed down.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up! LOL!

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[l33t_f33t]

Why do I never have Mod points when I read a comment like this? It made my day.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[wombley]

From the article:

Chambers, from Leckwith, knocked Mr Barnes out with a single punch after he confronted youths after his car window was smashed. Mr Barnes, who ran an aquarium business, got a 14-year-old he believed responsible, in a headlock when he was attacked.

Wouldn't this suggest that the first aggressive action was actually by Mr Barnes, getting someone else in a headlock. Admittedly he had (or believed he had) a reason, but it was still the first act of physical aggression against a person (as opposed to a car), and it could be argued that punching him was a reasonable thing to do in order to protect the 14 year old. Obviously (since there was prison time) the court believed that it was a disproportionate amount of force, but portraying this as a cold blooded murder doesn't seem to fit the facts.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[alshithead]

How is this a "strong sentence"? If you punch someone in the head really fucking hard there is a good possibility of doing serious harm. Dude shouldn't have hit him in the first place. Here in the US when someone dies while you are committing a felony, that is considered first degree murder. In my opinion this was felony assault even if you don't consider it all came about because they were throwing rocks at moving vehicles in the first place. I remember a case in Virginia where a couple of guys threw a big rock through a pickup's windshield and caused a wreck where the driver died. They went away for 20 years or more. It's not like it was self defense. Much bigger dude chose to punch the hell out of the guy...and the guy he punched died. A couple of years in jail is in no way proper punishment.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[alshithead]

"Your boring"

I'm sure you meant "you are"...

TROLL

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[alshithead]

Wrong. In the US, a death in the commission of a felony is murder. It sounds like felony assault to me...and dude died. In the US, without very expensive lawyers, it would be at least 2nd degree murder. With just a public defender and no plea bargain I would expect 1st degree murder.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

* The right to life
* The right not to be tortured
* The rigth not to be enslaved
* The right to a fair trial
* The right not to be punished without law
* The right to respect for private life (e.g. no unwarranted searches, tapping of communications, etc. except where necessary for law and order)
* The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
* The right to freedom of speech
* The right to freedom of assembly and association
* The right to marry
* The right to remedy for violation of rights
* The right not to be discriminated against in application of rights
* The right to hold property
* The right not to be executed for a criminal offence

Tell me which of these rights you object to?
--------

Okay. I object to that last one, for starters. I don't believe that the life of a torturing, cannibalistic child rapist/murderer is sacred, so I disagree with "The right not to be executed for a criminal offence."

"The right to marry" is kind of weird, too. It sounds out of place when viewed with most of the others. I suspect its motivations are political rather than philosophical.

Also, "The right not to be discriminated against in application of rights" is redundant. These are human rights, no? How can they be considered such if any human is discriminated against in their application?

A bit of a sloppy list if you ask me. Fairly well done, but needs tightening up. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it an 8.5.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[julesh]

Wrong. In the US, a death in the commission of a felony is murder

Well, perhaps, but this happened in the UK, where not only is there no such concept as "felony", but murder is defined as intentionally killing someone. I think that definition is a good one, to be honest with you.

If I break the law, and somebody dies as a completely unpredictable result of that action (like in this case), I think I should be punished for the crime I committed, not the random and unfortunate consequence of it.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[xantho]

If you try to exercise your right to speech or assembly and your employer fires you as a result of that exercise, then you have been discriminated against in application of rights.

Yeah, that one's necessary.

Re:Australia was woken up as well.

[alshithead]

You rob a bank with a gun...the guard confronts you...you shoot him to keep from being shot by him. How is that unpredictable? Your buddy asks you to drive him while he robs a store at gunpoint...he shoots someone. How is that unpredictable? Your buddy asks you to drive him to set a fire...a fireman dies. How is that unpredictable? You drink and drive and wreck and kill someone...how is that unpredictable?

All great points that a death in commission of a felony is murder. If you choose to commit a crime where someone COULD die you should be guilty of murder if someone actually dies. It's not random or unpredictable.

I follow BBC daily. It is incredible to me that so many criminals get such light sentences for serious crimes. If I wanted to commit a murder I would definitely pick the UK over the US. Not only would I not face the death penalty but I could bank on getting out at some point. In the US it is likely that a murder conviction means you never get out.

Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Salvance]

I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes. I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.

While most of us here at /. buy our music legally, this is not the case for the majority of people with MP3 players and digital music collections. While the move to independant music publishers and online distribution of legal music is good for some (particularly those who like to listen to non-mainstream music), it won't address the problem.

Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Yartrebo]

"Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?"

Make all downloads legal, and there will be no more illegal downloads.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[matt21811]

Yes much tougher and much shorter, say 15 years.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Anonymous Coward]

Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?

Legalise downloads.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[QuantumG]

Umm, you want me to flame you? Ok, fine.

They're musicians, who the fuck cares if their grossly inflated incomes are "declining" due to people recognising that a copy from their friend is exactly the same as a copy bought from a record label. At least at a concert you actually get something for the price of admission. "The problem" as you call it, is freedom. Your musician friends don't like it cause without draconian laws that try to turn people against each other, they would actually have to work for a living.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroy the internet. The end.

In all reality, illegal downloading will not stop. Charge a "theft tax" on all internet connections akin to the Canadian tax on media, or give people a system wherein they can pay a set amount to swap files to their heart's content.

Call me a jerk, but I'm still skeptical about the direct downloads = lost sales connection. More people come to your musician friends shows, so they're getting paid more, right? But they aren't selling more CDs? Where / how are they available? How much are they sold for? I don't know how all those factors would .. um, factor in, but there are more variables in the music marketplace than just the music.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Salvance]

OK, so how about we just drop all copyright laws, including for software? While we're at it, let's drop all patents too. Investment is driven by an expectation for a return on that investment. By eliminating protections for that investment, we eliminate the drive to invest. The Pharmaceutics, Auto, Software, Defense, and Movie industries (along with almost any other) would basically collapse without copyright and patent law.

If you could legally download a movie for free, and watch it on your massive home theater, why would you pay for it? You probably wouldn't, or at least, most people wouldn't. This would DESTROY the movie industry. We'd be left with little independant movies that were done for the love of it. Sure, some would be great, but I like to watch a good big budget action film every once in a while too.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[QuantumG]

Man, I am so sick of this "but that would cause chaos" argument. I don't care ok? Copyright is wrong. If we have to completely reshape the way our society works to get rid of it, that's a small price to pay for doing the right thing.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[zappepcs]

You are almost right. Musicians have to worry about this because they sold their souls to companies that belong to the RIAA or equivelant. They sold out because of the monopoly that the music industry forced on musicians, and now they can't sell directly. The problem IS the RIAA, not just what they wish to be enacted as law. The entire business model of the RIAA is fscked, outdated, and not even compatible with current technologies. Let the RIAA die!

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Anonymous Coward]

If they were really his fans, they would buy his cd regardless.
If he's really a musician, we wouldn't care less about piracy.
Musician in the olden days don't make much money, albeit at all. Somehow that industry and profession survive up until now.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Salvance]

I Agree! Independant publishing is the way to go in the future, both for the artist and the listener. But by turning our heads and ignoring illegal downloads we also hurt those who want to move away from the RIAA. Some artists now view the RIAA as their only means to protect against illegal downloads, and stay with the big labels as a result. This is counterproductive for the artists and for us. Let the RIAA die, yes! But illegal downloads actually makes the RIAA stronger ... as their legal team grows so does their strength.

If we can figure out a way to stop illegal downloads, more artists will move to small/independant labels and probably release more free music. Copyright laws aren't going away in our lifetime, so let's figure out how to make more music freely available legally instead of ignoring the problem.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[zotz]

"I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes."

Well, if you mean better protections, I don't think it is needed, but... However, if you mean harsher penalties, they are already way over the top. I think I know why, but that doesn't excuse things.

As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.

all the best,

drew

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[zappepcs]

You delude yourself... to imagine that the artists will move away from what they know simply because what they know was successful???? WTF... only revolution will change what is!

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Mr2001]

This would DESTROY the movie industry. We'd be left with little independant movies that were done for the love of it. Sure, some would be great, but I like to watch a good big budget action film every once in a while too.

Sure, who doesn't? I do too. In fact, I like them enough that I could put a dollar amount on my enjoyment, and I bet you could too. Both of us would be willing to spend some amount of money to keep action films alive, right?

The solution is simple. If we can find a lot of people who all like big budget action movies, then we can all pool our money together and fund the production of one. The demand is out there already - action movies make money. Ten million people each paying $10 adds up to $100 million, whether it comes from ticket sales or individual contributions to the movie's production.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[westyvw]

They have decline in music sales, but they are getting more at their concerts? And they are complaining???? WTF? AOL proved that a CD is an advertisement, they should be loving it. You pretty much prove the point, make sharing legal and they will get more concert revenue! Hell, some people will even buy the CD of the show they saw as they are walking out the door if you give them a chance.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[shark72]

"I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts."

Cue the "we don't owe your friends a living" straw man builders in three, two, one...

"While most of us here at /. buy our music legally, this is not the case for the majority of people with MP3 players and digital music collections."

That doesn't strike me as correct, although I don't have any hard data to back it up, either. I'd say that a higher percentage of Slashdotters than the average populace do indeed fly the Jolly Roger with pride. At the same time, MP3 player ownership is so pervasive nowadays that the percentage of owners who stick to legit content is probably higher than many Slashdotters think. Hardcore pirates tend to skew to male, under 30, and when they see a 50-year-old with an iPod, the typical assumption may be that they pirated most of their content, but I'm not so sure. FWIW, I'm slightly older than the typical Slashdotter. My iPod has some 1,800 tracks on it. A few are rips from friend's CDs (which is indeed technically illegal), but the rest are either from my own CD collection or purchased from the iTMS. I have never used a P2P app to pirate music.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Anonymous Coward]

I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections ...

How do you reckon the need when such laws will do nothing to stop file sharing? It's also illegal to send unsolicited spam and hack but these activities are at an all time high, even though the penalties have never been tougher.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[ZachPruckowski]

You overestimate the problem. Movie and music production costs are simply out of hand. The difference between a $250,000 performance fee and a $25,000 performance fee is at best a 2x quality increase. The increased attendance was due not to musical quality, but due to brand (in this case band) promotion. On the low-end, all you pay for between $300 and $3000 is experience.

Since we're talking about the movie industry though, the issue there is actor salaries and OMG-VFX!!1!1! Realistically speaking, if one used good actors who would do a movie for $250,000 instead of ones who demand $2.5 million, we'd save a lot of money for little quality loss (honestly, tell me couldn't find someone who could replace Lindsey Lohan for under $3.5 million). Additionally, if people settled for "great" VFX instead of awe-inspiring, it'd help the bottom lines. Additionally, people seem to act as though budgets don't matter in Hollywood. Even a slight bit of fiscal sense would help a lot. I met (and did a charity screening of a movie for) a director who shot a movie for $1.4 million. He's a decent writer/director/producer, and the movie was "not that bad" on the technical side for $1.4 million. If he had 5 times that much, he could have likely made a movie that would rival most $30 million movies.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[1u3hr]

have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts. ... Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?

Sure. Filter every byte to stop people sharing music. Nothing else will work.

Perhaps your musician friends could try to make what they sell more atractive, eg, nice printed liner notes in the CD case, vouchers for concerts, t-shirts, etc; other extras that can't easily be copied and downloaded. You can argue about the justice of it, but the fact is that something that can easily be copied for almost nothing can't be sold at a premium price.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Kingrames]

I hate to break it to you but the Movie "industry" is in the process of falling apart right now. What movies there are that are successful are successful in spite of this.

People are still willing to go see a good movie and pay money for it.

But as evidenced by our pocketbooks, crap movies like "Turistas Go Home" aren't the get rich quick schemes they once were.
Seriously, you expect average people to get off their average-sized asses to go see a crap movie AND pay ten fucking dollars to do it? I'd rather troll Slashdot! And that is NOT an exaggeration.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[MidnightBrewer]

So you're saying that you could get ten million people to invest ten dollars, sight unseen, into a movie, for the eventual hope that they'll possibly like it? Do you think a business model like that would genuinely fly? We have enough trouble just getting people to donate money to people who really need it, let alone to people who just want to create entertainment/art/whatever. The entire idea is completely against human nature.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[MidnightBrewer]

Good flame. Bad reasoning, but very flame-y.

It's supply and demand. If my product is in high demand and people are willing to pay my price, then it doesn't make me a bad person if I become wealthy because of it. However, saying "fuck you" to somebody for doing well for themselves is just sour grapes. Whether you buy a CD or you buy a concert ticket, you get exactly the same thing - the music, and the experience of listening to it. A copy from a friend is no way the same as a copy from a record label. You don't get the nice CD, liner notes, etc. You don't get the knowledge that you are (hopefully, in some way, after the label is done bleeding them dry), paying the musicians in appreciation of their work. You assume that their salaries are big, because that's how the media portrays them. To be fair, most label-signed musicians usually make the big bucks from the concerts. However, it all starts with selling their CDs; this encourages the labels to promote and advertise them. They may be evil, but they're a very useful evil. Until we get to the point where do-it-yourself advertising and distribution is just as effective, we're stuck with it. Since musicians are usually not trained in advertising, graphic design and web programming, I'd say we have a long way to go.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Mr2001]

So you're saying that you could get ten million people to invest ten dollars, sight unseen, into a movie, for the eventual hope that they'll possibly like it? Do you think a business model like that would genuinely fly?

Yes and yes. If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would. That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?

We have enough trouble just getting people to donate money to people who really need it, let alone to people who just want to create entertainment/art/whatever. The entire idea is completely against human nature.

No, it isn't. See, this isn't a donation, it's payment for a service, which incidentally benefits more than just the people who pay for it.

It's like if ten people live on a dirt road, and eight of them get fed up with the dust, so they pool their money and hire someone to pave the road. They aren't donating money to the paver, or to each other; they're paying for the benefit of living on a paved road. Now, it happens to be the case that the two people who didn't pay, and any of their visitors, will also get to enjoy that benefit, but the reason it got paved in the first place is because those eight people felt strongly enough about it to open their wallets.

If enough people feel strongly enough certain types of movies, those movies will get made. It's just like what we have now, but with a more direct connection between funding and production - studios won't have to drop $100 million on a movie just to find out that it only sells $50 million worth of tickets.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[drsmithy]

I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes. I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.

So record sales are down, but concert attendance is up.

Where's the problem here ? Apart from your friends being dismayed that their free ride is drying up and they actually have to go out and work to make some money, that is ?

Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?

Decriminalise not-for-profit downloading.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[QuantumG]

It's supply and demand. No it isn't. The supply is limited by a government issued monopoly.

There's nothing fair about the price of music.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[TheLink]

Actually many popular movies already make money from box office takings (skip the Hollywood accounting crap). Any extras due to DVD is icing (and a lot of icing sometimes).

So even with the current overinflated costs, many existing movies would still be profitable with copyrights as short as 1 or 2 years.

All the 100+ year copyright stuff is just greed.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Mr. Freeman]

"While most of us here at /. buy our music legally, this is not the case for the majority of people with MP3 players and digital music collections."

What evidence are you basing that on? How can you be so sure that the majority of people with digital music collections and MP3 players are pirating music?

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[ZachPruckowski]

This is very true. However, the grandparent seemed to be implying too no copyrights at all, meaning people might skip theaters altogether. You are correct that some current movies are profitable at the box office. I'm just pointing out that with moderate cost-cutting, more films could be profitable at the box office, or at least not lose much due to piracy.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[TheLink]

In my country you can easily get DVD copies from unauthorized distributors at very low prices, from nice well lit air conditioned shops with catalogues etc.

But tons of people still queued up to watch the LoTR at the cinemas - legit. Even a month later if you didn't book tickets there was a high chance you wouldn't get a seat.

So, I daresay people won't skip theaters altogether if there weren't copyrights. And yes, with saner (less evil?) control over costs more films would be profitable, but the way the movie industry works the high costs appear to be part of the strategy to control and distribute the flow of money to the relevant parties - on the subject of LoTR, I believe Peter Jackson wasn't/isn't happy about the way it worked out ;).

Even a copyright of 5 years is quite long- with increasing improvements in communications, technology and distribution, people would find out pretty soon whether you should be encouraged to produce more...

Actual creators (software, books etc) should work with direct donation sites that make it easy for them to get paid. Right now it is so hard to pay people (no I do not want to use Paypal).

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[jZnat]

Because the CEO of Universal said so! ;p

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Tim C]

As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article.

It's all to do with the perceived risk of getting caught and of the seriousness of the crime. "Everyone" agrees that stealing a physical object from a shop is wrong (at least, every right-thinking person does), and the risk of getting caught is much higher. With illegal downloads, I think most people really know it's wrong in some way, but convince themselves that it's okay really, that no-one's really losing anything, etc (witness any discussion here about it, lots of people make some good arguments along those lines (which imho are wrong, but they're still good)).

So we have a crime that most people don't really consider to be a crime, that's almost risk-free in terms of getting caught. How do you persuade people to respect the law and not download illegally? You jack up the punishment. You make the consequences of getting caught so high that people dare not transgress just in case.

What you end up with is punishments that are disproportionate to the crime committed, and so you have to be careful not to push it too far (or the law ends up in disrepute). However, I don't really see what else the law makers can do - it's not their job to offer alternative business models, or to turn a blind eye to things, etc - that's down to the copyright holders. All the legal system can do is ratchet up the punishment until people take notice and stop transgressing.

Note that I don't necessarily agree with this method, but that's what I understand to be going on (IANAL, etc)

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[ZachPruckowski]

But what stops the theater from keeping that money?

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[cliffski]

Thats nonsense. AOL sell a *service* which they can advertise with a CD. bands sell music, which is what's on the CD. Talk about completely and utterly different.
Maybe AOL should give away free unlimited broadband access as a service?
Playing gigs isn't anywhere near as profitable as people think it is. A lot of bands lose money on tour, but they tour anyway to promote album sales. If you want them to tour for nothing, and give their music away for free, they might as well go become plumbers.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[AGMW]

So you're saying that you could get ten million people to invest ten dollars, sight unseen, into a movie, for the eventual hope that they'll possibly like it? Do you think a business model like that would genuinely fly? We have enough trouble just getting people to donate money to people who really need it, let alone to people who just want to create entertainment/art/whatever. The entire idea is completely against human nature.

*cough* Sellaband *cough*

Musical artists put up some songs and if you like them you can buy "parts" in their next album. Once $50000 is reached (and one band has reached it and another is half way there) the money it used to record the album with a good producer in a good studio. Seems to be working fine!

There isn't a "Sellafilm" yet, but it's the same model! A named director with a short description of the story, perhaps named actors and proposed budget. Might work a treat!

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[rohan972]

I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.

So, you have friends who are unable to produce sufficient income in a free market from their chosen proffesion, and instead of suggesting that they change their business model or proffesion, you want me to help enforce and strengthen an unnatural government granted monopoly, preventing the utilisation of modern technology for the efficient reproduction of goods?

No.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[zotz]

"So we have a crime that most people don't really consider to be a crime,"

And how exactly does that happen in a democracy? In a government Of the People, By the People, For the People? Interesting thought that.

"that's almost risk-free in terms of getting caught. How do you persuade people to respect the law and not download illegally? You jack up the punishment. You make the consequences of getting caught so high that people dare not transgress just in case."

Like I said, I think I know why they do it. It is still not right in any way though. (But I know, let's make copyright infringement a felony, convict everyone, take away their right to vote and then we can do what we like. Nice idea that. ~;-) )

"Note that I don't necessarily agree with this method, but that's what I understand to be going on (IANAL, etc)"

Oh yes, I wans't asking for thoughts on why they do it, I see things as you do when it comes to the why. it is a terribly wrongheaded thing to do none the less.

all the best,

drew

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[AntiDragon]

Woah there - Copyright exists for some very good reasons! The basic principles behind copyright aren't wrong, it's the abuse and misuse of copyrights and copyright law that's causing the problems!

There's nothing unreasonable in offering content producers ("creators of culture") some limited protection for a limited time.

It's just that it's no longer reasonable. And no longer just about the content creators.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[TheLink]

Legally binding contracts, the promise of a steady stream of money, if they keep doing things the way they do it?

Their way of doing business could also be threatened if they are not careful - it's not as if they aren't making decent money now.

No more big screen films for them = more people doing other stuff instead = playing WoW, game consoles, watching movies/TV serials at home (downloaded?).

That said there were plenty of parents here that took their kiddies to watch Finding Nemo on big screen, so maybe ties could be looser and independent filmmakers could work direct with theater owners.

Maybe a copyright term of 5 years could help and have less negatives than positives, but I don't see any good justification for 120+ years. I feel even 50 is excessive nowadays.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[QuantumG]

regardless of the reasons why it exists, it is still immoral. The "principles" behind copyright is basic utilitarianism. Everyone gives up a little freedom so that creators may have a little more control and hopefully this will encourage them to create more works. The greatest good for the greatest number. Well guess what, I don't wanna give up that freedom.. cause if you give an inch, they take a mile. The only way to protect your freedom is to be ever vigilant and proudly say no when you're offered a chance to compromise it.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this flame bait? Musicians are OVERPAID. Only in the last 70 years has Musicians had the "posh and rich" lifestyle. all other times in history the bard was a normal person that either made enough to get by (reasonable income, you don't need solid gold Ferrari cars.. we are talking you eat, you drink, you have a place to keep out of the weather.) Only extremely rare composers who SOLD their works completely to the rich who were only using to brag to each other were able to make any money that was above the normal family.

What moron thought that artists DESERVE to be billionaires? The same idiot that thinks football players deserve more than 60K a year?

People will pay you what they think you are worth. Because some idiots bought into the illusion that artists should not have to work for a living or actually ever want for something basic so they can be creative does not make it reality.

Yes I am a creative person, I have a studio at home I do music AND films. But I'm a realist, I know that if someone wants to buy my works they will pay me for them. (and have) yet I still go to work every day.

Posting anonymous to keep the RIAA loving from modding me down.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Shaper_pmp]

"If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would. That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?"

But that would inevitably lead to a system which repeatedly cranked out sequel after sequel, hammering home the same tired franchises over and over again, refusing to produce anything new or innovative because it might not be profitable.

Oh, wait-

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[orkysoft]

Your dirt road analogy breaks down because in real life, the government would levy a tax on all ten residents to pay for the paving. Of course, with no-bid contracts and $6000 hammers, this is a little less efficient...

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[dlim]

(particularly those who like to listen to non-mainstream music) "non-mainstream" -- would that exclude Norah Jones fans?

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a number of factors that can explain a loss of money from sales. Does their contract not give them cash for iTunes sales or other electronic distribution? I understand thats happening quite a bit. There's always the creative accounting on the part of the RIAA. Not like that's never happened before.

Peter Gabriel, quite the savvy buisnessman if you do some reading, once was asked what he thought of people copying his music. This was casette to casette copying back-in-the-day, mind. He said it was his advertising budget.

Your friends are enjoying a larger turnout at live shows then enjoy. That's where the bulk of their money comes from anyway; not from their CD sales. Essentially what your saying is that, even assuming pirating IS hurting their record sales, they are more than making up for it with more people showing up at their live shows.

Seems anyone with a basic understanding of math would be overjoyed.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[cliffski]

"Apart from your friends being dismayed that their free ride is drying up "

WTF?

What free ride? Its called writing songs and learning to play an instrument, both of which take years and for which the pay is zero. This sounds like the people who think everyone is an overnight success, when they've been playing gigs in crappy clubs for no money for ten years.
Before you mouth off about musicians getting a 'free ride' maybe you should go learn an instrument and spend a few years in their shoes? I don't think that 'rock star' is a simple ticket to easy money.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[cliffski]

its not a free market. People are cirumventing the market by taking the product without paying. It's just pure bull to suggest that downloading pirated music is part of the free market. A market implies a meeting of supply and demand, where a price is agreed by negotiation. If the supplier has no control over the supply, there is no equilibrium, and no market.
And whats that bull about 'a government granted mionopoly'? You dont need a government licence to start a band. go buy a guitar, nobody will physically stop you. In fact, the market for music is more open than most, requiring no qualifications and minimum startup costs.

I love the fact that one of your suggestions is that they change their proffesion. Way to go. Maybe all musicians should follow your advice, and we can all listen to the beatles forever.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[julesh]

As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.

Then you live in a crazy country. In Britain, you could be sued for the price of the CD or DVD. If you didn't settle with the copyright owner before trial, you could also be ordered to pay their legal costs. If enacted, the proposals in this legislation would change it somewhat: the trial would take place in a "fast track" court where any costs award given would be capped at £350.

In order for copyright infringement to be a criminal offence, you must be profitting from it, in the knowledge that that is what you are doing.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Anonymous Coward]

How about making it illegal to sell copyright in your creation? How about a requirement that any DRM enforcing software is LEGALLY REQUIRED to "unlock" at the end of the copyright period?

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[AndrewRUK]

Living as part of a society inherently involves making trade-offs for the greater good. Public services (such as law enforcement, fire fighting, national defence) require funding, which implies taxation and therefore a restriction on your freedom to send your money on whatever you want. Unless you reject entirely the concept of the state in favour of anarchy, you are accepting certain restrictions on your freedom that give collective benefits.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[QuantumG]

s/anarchy/libertarianism/ The function of government is to protect freedom by carrying the burden of force in society. So yes, police, courts, jails, that's about it. Fire fighting can be done privately. National defence is easily acheived by a trained, armed population. Sure, you can't go galavanting off overseas to "look after your interests" but you shouldn't do that anyway.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Mr2001]

Not necessarily.. in rural areas, there are plenty of roads that the government doesn't bother to maintain. My parents live on one. Any paving, grading, or snow plowing has to be done by private individuals and paid out of their own pockets.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Mr2001]

Wow, thanks for the link. I've been envisioning something like that, but I didn't realize anyone had actually done it.

The next step, I think, is to let artists sign up just to record MP3s using their own equipment. Instead of raising $50,000 to pay for studio time, they'd set their own price. The site might take a cut to pay for maintenance, but the artist would keep the rest. Anyone who wants a CD could download the tracks and burn their own, or order one from the band or the site to be burned on demand.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[drsmithy]

What free ride?

Selling music.

Its called writing songs and learning to play an instrument, both of which take years and for which the pay is zero.

Straw man. This is no different to many other skills.

Before you mouth off about musicians getting a 'free ride' maybe you should go learn an instrument and spend a few years in their shoes? I don't think that 'rock star' is a simple ticket to easy money.

Selling CDs (or even better, selling music online) *is* a free ride. You only have to do the work _once_ and then you can sell the resultant product essentially forever, for basically zero ongoing expense. It's a great racket if you can get into it, but it's still a racket.

Contrast this to concerts - ie: live performance. The artist has to actually get out and *perform* - ie: work - each and every time.

The latter is akin to how most working people earn a crust. The former is how people getting a free ride out of copyright do it. The OP suggested that revenue from the former is drying up, while the latter is increasing. I can see *why* someone in the system would be disappointed with that, but I can't say I feel particularly sympathetic towards them. Welcome to the real fucking world.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[westyvw]

Listen to yourself, the AD is the CD, the Service is the Performance and show. And the fact is, typically more money goes to the artist during a performance and shirt sales, then through the cd sales.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[rohan972]

its not a free market. People are cirumventing the market by taking the product without paying. It's just pure bull to suggest that downloading pirated music is part of the free market.

Your post is loaded with presuppositions that not everyone shares. Many people think, for example, that if they buy a CD, that they own it. I know that this is a revolutionary thought, but bear with me, there actually are people who think that. There are those that would answer, yes, you own the CD, but not the music! Since I can't separate the music from the CD, this is nonsense. What the author does have though, is the copyright, which is indeed a government granted monopoly. Not on all music, but on that particular album. Remove the government granted monopoly though, and there is no moral imperative to prevent me from taking the product I purchased and making another product from it. An mp3 file for instance. The public domain is definitely part of the free market.

Entertainment has been around a lot longer than copyright. If the entertainment industry as it exists today can't earn it's way without a government granted monopoly enabling it to overcharge for products with near zero reproduction and distribution costs, then it's not clear to me that they are providing a benefit to society worth protecting. Certainly not giving up the public domain for as is effectively the case now. Introduce 14 year copyright terms, then talk to me about preventing piracy.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[AGMW]

No Worries. It was actually a mate of mine who put me onto it, and as you can see from my sig he's one of the artists. It was actually quite difficult to post the link without making a direct reference to him and his account, though I did leave my sig as is! Extra prize for working out which of his "believers" is me!

If you like well crafted songs with bits of violin/cello and a couple of backing vocalists, do check Daniel Ward-Murphy out - he's about No 6 in the top ten at the moment, or use the link in my sig.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[cliffski]

You have no idea how the 'real fucking world' works, clearly. Sounds like you are opposed to any business model that involves a big up front investment on the basis of the chance of ongoing returns per copy.
Maybe you want the same lunatic communist ideal applied to pharmaceutical patents too? Well done, you just wiped out the pharmaceutical industry. How about the movie business? whoosh, you just wrecked that too.
You can dream up any twisted bullshit to justify taking peoples hard work for nothing, but if that system relies on other people paying for it to fund its development, you will always just be a freeloader.
Grow up, and pay your way.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[cliffski]

yes entertainment was around beforehand. We had minstrels strolling singing a few songs. whopeee. Now show me the pre-copyright Show me me the pre-copyright lord of the rings, or Matrix. Show me the pre-copyright recording studios.
Dont kid yourself that if everyone downloaded free movies that any blockbusters would be made Pure simple economics for toddlers will tell you it aint gonna happen. Would new line cinema invest 100 million dollars knowing theyd get 1 sale. No.
So basically you support a business model where either

nothing new gets made

or

some people (the 'mugs') pay for the stuff so that you and your buddies can take it for free.

Thats called freeloading. Nice attitude.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[Weedlekin]

"Fire fighting can be done privately"

That's been tried in various countries during certain historic periods. It seems to have inevitably resulted in lots of extra fires that the fighters luckily knew were going to start, and were there in record time offering distraught property owners "this month's special offer" of 10% off the usual fee plus a year's free insurance. Said insurance was extremely effective, because insured properties rarely caught fire, while the uninsured ones seemed to go up in flames so regularly that anybody who could afford it paid to have their premises covered.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[rohan972]

Show me me the pre-copyright lord of the rings

The Iliad, The Odyssey, Saint George and the Dragon, Journey to the West. How many did you need?

or Matrix. Show me the pre-copyright recording studios.

Obviously the video technology was not yet developed when copyrights were invented, but surely you aren't suggesting that pre-copyright cultures didn't have theatre?. Or that video and audio recording technology would not have been developed without copyright?

To be honest, I don't really care if no more 100 million dollar movies get made. But to say that no movies would be made, well, I find that unlikely. There is still merchandising, movie theatres, advertising. They'd find other business models. It may require them to be more economical in producing them.

So basically you support a business model where either ... nothing new gets made ... or ... some people (the 'mugs') pay for the stuff so that you and your buddies can take it for free. ... Thats called freeloading. Nice attitude.

Maybe you should try reading posts before you reply. It makes for more enlightening conversation. Hope you don't mind if I quote myself "Introduce 14 year copyright terms, then talk to me about preventing piracy." I didn't say there should be no copyright. Nor am I in the habit of breaching copyright. To me, the bottom line is that I perceive copyright to be an exchange, a social contract: you get temporary monopoly, the material goes into the public domain. The contract has been broken by the copyright holders preventing the material from going into public domain (through lobbying etc). Until they fix their end of the deal, they can quit bitching about copyright violation as far as I'm concerned.

Copyright has been "strengthened" for the copyright holders at the expense of the public to the point that it is really more honest to talk of the misappropriation of the public domain than it is to talk of "theft" of songs. So if your freinds can't make enough money without further "strengthening" copyrights at the publics expense, let them find other ways of making money rather than rob the culture.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[zotz]

"Then you live in a crazy country."

That may be, but it is a Commonwealth country and our court of ultimate appeal is the Privy Council though.

"In order for copyright infringement to be a criminal offence, you must be profitting from it, in the knowledge that that is what you are doing."

One of the problems is that people keep tweaking what "profiting from it" means.

Like, from reading a long while back, trading copies of songs with your buddy even with no money exchanged was changed to be deemed commercial as you gave him a copy of song X expecting to get a copy of song Y from him and the reverse.

The laws get worse and worse every go round...

all the best,

drew

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[cliffski]

I agree copyright terms are WAY too long, there is no way they should extend for 50 years past the life of the author, thats insane.
Much of current copyright law is insane.
But the concept of copyright and IP is a valid, and useful one, and it should be strictly enforced.
people who are against copryright extensions have a good point, but they make themselves look like idiots when they defend the rights of people to downlaod the latest hollywood movie on bit-torrent. Its weakens their case and gives ammunition to the RIAA, MPAA etc.
The best thing anyone who wants copyright law reformed could do is to help clamp down on the 0day sharing of new creative works on p2p without the copryright holders permission. The thing is, the VAST majority of p2p trading of stuff is not stuff beyong 20-30 years or even 14 years of copyright. Its this years hits, this years music.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[drsmithy]

Sounds like you are opposed to any business model that involves a big up front investment on the basis of the chance of ongoing returns per copy.

No.

Maybe you want the same lunatic communist ideal applied to pharmaceutical patents too?

You are conflating two completely different issues (copyright and patents).

Well done, you just wiped out the pharmaceutical industry. How about the movie business? whoosh, you just wrecked that too.

Prove it. Heck, even some actual supporting evidence would be good.

You can dream up any twisted bullshit to justify taking peoples hard work for nothing, but if that system relies on other people paying for it to fund its development, you will always just be a freeloader.

I don't want to take anything.

Grow up, and pay your way.

Come back when you can argue the situation rationally, without resorting to mindless ad hominems. Then try actually addressing my statements, rather than your paranoid fantasies.

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[rohan972]

But the concept of copyright and IP is a valid, and useful one, and it should be strictly enforced.

Agreed.

The best thing anyone who wants copyright law reformed could do is to help clamp down on the 0day sharing of new creative works on p2p without the copryright holders permission.

I'm not sure you've hit the mark here. Most people today have grown up in an environment where the public domain has already been plundered. This has happened long before they start their downloads, and looks to continue unabated. With the likes of Cliff Richard, Disney and the *AA's continually pushing for longer and stronger copyrights, can you provide any evidence that reducing illegal downloading would result in reasonable copyright terms? They have been lobbying for longer, stronger copyrights since long before the internet. The way to reduce illegal downloading is to return the public domain. If someone is illegaly downloading a movie, what difference is it to them if its 0day or from the 80's. If we had to choose between a legal download from the 80's or an illegal 0day, I think many, even most people would choose the legal download. If we had an abundant public domain, you would have very little difficulty persuading people that stronger enforcement of copyright is a good thing.

You say that much of current copyright law is insane, but you want it to be enforced more strictly. Do you really see great benefit coming from more effectively enforcing insanity?

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[InspectorPraline]

Hate to burst your bubble, but there's a lot more struggling musicians out there than there are affluent ones. Yes, there's a chunk of them that are independently wealthy and are able to sit on their asses. However, the real schlubs go out and work a 40-hr/wk job just to put food on the table and then go play at some dingy club that's full of smoke and half-drunk people just to barely make enough in gas money to get home.

More still join bands that make no money.

Why? Because they love their art, and making money is a secondary thing. Popularized musicians are RARELY about the art of making music and more about making money from it, and hence, this is the real problem.

Making blanket statements like that is one of the main reasons that our society is so unbelievably ill-informed - when the only thing you know is an image perpetuated by the top 1% of a segment of society, things get rather skewed out of balance. This is made far worse when those same people refuse to do the legwork necessary to inform themselves of what it's like for the other 99%.

In reality, making the kind of money those "musicians" make is nigh-impossible. More often than not, most musicians have enough trouble breaking even doing what they love because our society places so little actual value on music and art.

As an example:

I, as a trumpet player, charge $200 for a wedding service. That's me coming in and playing at your church service at your blessed event. Now, the typical wedding lasts about 2 hours. This turns out to be about $100/hr. Great pay scale, right? Well, not so much. If you only do one or two weddings a month, that's maybe $400/mo you can add to your paycheck. Which doesn't really get you all that far in the grand scheme of things. And this kind of money doesn't happen unless you've managed to really establish yourself nicely. It's rare to find an instrumentalist who can truly support himself with gigs.

Now, add this to the fact that MOST people will grouse and bitch at you when you tell them your fee. Yet, they don't realize that your fee is what it is because the gigs come so infrequently. And more frequently, they don't care about this simple fact, they simply want you to play for pennies because it would be "a nice touch." They frequently forget that you have to eat too.

Many, MANY couples will balk at the idea of paying $200 for a musician. Far more frequently, they'll offer one of three things: A) No money, B) Free dinner at the reception, or C) $25-50. And they'll use the same argument as I explained above: "$25 an hour is a great payscale! What's your problem?" They fail to realize that there is no earthly way I can work a 40-hour week like that. Nobody can. Even some of the most famous players in the world have trouble commanding the rates they are truly due. These are guys struggling to make ends meet playing their instruments.

Note that these are -NOT- people who are over-hyped, over-makeupped, and over-plastic-surgeried into false images of extreme hotness like some pop stars, nor are they the gurus of rock 'n roll that we all recognize. They are average people, who work desk jobs to earn a "real" paycheck, like you and I. They just happen to play an instrument as their real passion and love, and work their desk job to make sure they don't go hungry.

So, before you go generalizing all musicians as people who don't have to work for a living, why don't you try finding out what real musicians actually do "for a living?" Because I'll guarantee that the large volume of musicians hold down "real jobs" of one flavor or another.

THAT SAID: Tougher copyright laws are not the answer. Curtailing corporate greed -IS.- Making it harder for the record labels to squeeze every last penny out of their contracts -is.- Forcing the record (and movie) industry to abandon old, consumer-punishing business models -is.- Knocking the astronomical fees of pop-stars, actors, and actresses down a few pegs to show them that they're not above the rest of society -is.- Shifting

Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent

[blahplusplus]

"I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections,"

I disagree, there is no scarcity of intellectual property only the labour to produce it, copyright protections grant monopolies on infinite revenue sources (i.e. they cannot *exhaust* the resource that produces them... i.e. especially digital downloads, you can make as many as there are people on earth or even more for near zero costs).

IP is the most dangerous form of property ever invented, it can be used to enslave others and give others passive profits for eternity if left unchecked. You get economic warlords and dictatorships with intellectal property laws and infighting amongst them like you do now with lawsuits and such nonsense. Like we need more legal bullshit clogging up an already clogged legal system.

Uh...yeah.

[Demona]

"private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player"

Well, that's mighty fucking white of them. Next up: Reports from Herefordshire indicate a possible end to meat rationing starting mid February.

Re:Uh...yeah.

[Repton]

It's still illegal in New Zealand..

(and the local recording industry is fighting hard against a suggested law change)

Re:Uh...yeah.

[TempeTerra]

True. The bit that makes me proud to be a New Zealander is that everybody has been completely ignoring the stupid, stupid laws. iPods and other music players are at least as popular here as they are in the States, and yet until now there was no legal way to put music on them...

Re:Uh...yeah.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well given that you can only legally copy a CD to another CD under the current law in the UK, what point were you trying to make? Of course people should be able to copy their CDs to their MP3 player, but it is currently illegal so this point does need to be stated and the law should be changed even if most people don't know the law or even care.

Stealing...

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA: Peter Jamieson, chairman of the BPI, said: "Stealing music is effectively stealing the future of British musicians and the people who invest in them.

Copying is NOT stealing.

Re:Stealing...

[MidnightBrewer]

It is if you keep the free copy in lieu of buying a copy directly from the musician or distributor. If you take a copy of, say, a movie that I made, copy it and watch it, you've stolen it. When you watch it at the theater, you pay. When you watch it on TV, you pay (through advertising.) If there is no revenue from the presentation, then you're getting something for free. This is only okay if the people who've invested their time, money and effort don't mind you doing so.

I have no problem with people sharing movies in their home. I have a real problem with them sharing them with a million perfect strangers who might have otherwise gone to the theater or waited for it to come out on TV. I also appreciate the plight of people in other countries frustrated because they want to see something from abroad that isn't being distributed in their home country (I'm one of those people: I live in Japan and can't get some of my favorite shows here, period.)

If you still say it isn't stealing, then perhaps "freeloader" or "leech" would be more appropriate. I think you'll find those kinds of people aren't any more socially appreciated, though. Look at it this way: if you have a job at a restaurant as a waiter, and no customers come in that day because someplace else is giving away food for free, do you still expect to get paid?

Re:Stealing...

[fuzznutz]

Look at it this way: if you have a job at a restaurant as a waiter, and no customers come in that day because someplace else is giving away food for free, do you still expect to get paid?

Yes, I expect to be paid for any time on the job because I am a legally contracted employee. Now... Do you think that the "someplace else" giving away free food should be construed as somehow illegal or immoral? FISH pantries and soup kitchens do this all the time.

Great analogy...

Re:Stealing...

[Pofy]

>If you still say it isn't stealing, then perhaps "freeloader" or "leech" would be more
>appropriate.

How about calling it copyright infringement which would be the correct thing. Copyright infringement also happens to be illegal by the way. No idea why you would insist in calling it something erroeous. What would be the point in using the terminology "stealing" instead of "copyright infringement"? If for no other reason you end up with the wrong conclusions about how it works, like your "if you did not pay it is not OK" which is quite wrong since there are many ways of not paying, yet seeing a movie and none is copyright infringement or illegal. SO what is the point in using the terminology "stealing"?

Re:Stealing...

[aadvancedGIR]

Nice analogies...
*If you are caught in a theater without a ticket, they take whatever change you have in your pocket then you are kicked out, maybe blacklisted and that's all, noone will bother to sue you for that.
*If someone give away for free (or simply less) what you sell, you have the choice to either compete on quality or on price, but whatever your job, yo uhave no F*cking absolute god-given right to make a profit. If your competitor can sustain its offer and you can't compete, your restaurant will close and you will lose your job, period. Recording and selling CDs should not be an exception, they can't compete on price and refuse to compete on quality (DRM), so they deserve to disapear.

Re:Stealing...

[jrumney]

Leaving aside the stealing accusation for a minute, I can see how it is stealing the future of the people who "invest" in them, but I suspect that the increase in popularity that results from widespread copying actually benefits the musicians themselves by driving more people to concerts, T-shirt sales etc which is where the artists get a more reasonable cut of the proceeds.

Record companies have to wake up to the fact that just like has happened in other industries, the role of the middleman is being made redundant by the internet, and if they continue to fight it instead of adapting and finding a new role for themselves that fits into the new economy, they will soon be extinct.

Re:Stealing...

[MidnightBrewer]

Would have worked better if the other place was giving away the food they'd stolen from the original restaurant, huh? That's where the material vs. immaterial comparison breaks down; copy a song, and you still have the original left over. Take somebody's sandwich, and they know they're missing their lunch.

However, musicians can be legally contracted (and often are.) They expect to be paid. However, if people are stealing their music, the record companies do not pay them regardless; they say too bad, suck it. That's where the restaurant employees make out like bandits.

Re:Stealing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh man, there's so much going on here, where do I begin?...

If you take a copy of, say, a movie that I made, copy it and watch it, you've stolen it.

No, I may have committed copyright infringement. You are still in possession of the movie you made. Nothing has been stolen.

I have a real problem with them sharing them with a million perfect strangers who might have otherwise gone to the theater or waited for it to come out on TV.

Keyword: might. They also might not have ever watched your movie or seen it on TV. If they were never going to watch/buy it anyway, then you haven't lost a sale. Do they still owe you money? What if they are in Best Buy and your movie is playing on all the big screen TVs? Is everyone who even catches a glimpse of your movie without paying for it "stealing" it? What about all the people who hate the kind of movie you made and refuse to ever see it? Are they "stealing" possible revenue from you because they didn't watch your movie, or talked someone else out of watching your movie?

If you still say it isn't stealing, then perhaps "freeloader" or "leech" would be more appropriate.

How about calling them what they are: copyright infringers.

if you have a job at a restaurant as a waiter, and no customers come in that day because someplace else is giving away food for free, do you still expect to get paid?

Damn straight I expect to get paid. I'm just an employee and it's in my contract. However, I wouldn't expect any tips. If there are no customers because of the "free food" giveaway down the street, then the restaurant owner better do something quick (change the business model), like offer better quaity food, or better services (topless waitresses perhaps?) to provide value to customers who then won't mind paying because the food and amenities are better and worth paying for than what you get at the "free" place. If not, then the owner shouldn't expect to be in business much longer. He has no God-given right to a profit.

Re:Stealing...

[mdwh2]

The quote I love is: "By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying ... as well as format to format."

Yes, heaven forbid that people be allowed to do these things!

Re:Stealing...

[fuzznutz]

Would have worked better if the other place was giving away the food they'd stolen from the original restaurant, huh?

A better analogy would be the other place was serving food made with the same recipe as the restaurant. Oh... But recipes are not copyrightable. Tough luck.

However, musicians can be legally contracted (and often are.) They expect to be paid. However, if people are stealing their music, the record companies do not pay them regardless; they say too bad, suck it.

If a musician enters into a contract with a record company, the record company should be held to the terms of the contract. God knows the musician will. If the contract is unfair and one sided (as they generally are) the musician has nobody to blame but himself. Record companies count on the greed factor to cloud the judgment of most record contract signees. They always bank on the belief that they will be the next Britney Spears. When you make a deal with the devil, expect to get burned.

Copyright is horribly broken. Nobody can argue with a straight face that 95 year copyrights encourage the useful arts. Horribly one-sided and draconian laws have bred contempt for the entire idea of copyright. Apologists for greedy media companies have nobody to blame but themselves for their current predicament. When millions of people every day willingly face lawsuits to share music with each other, the record companies need to sit up and take notice. They are obviously doing something very wrong.

Re:Stealing...

[MidnightBrewer]

I agree. If everybody involved at the time the song was created is long dead and gone, then current claimants to the rights are just full of crap. What's even worse is the idea that you can "arrange" someone else's work and get credit for it, thus securing the copyright. There's no justifiable reason that "Happy Birthday" should be under copyright, but there it is.

Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work?

[ConfusedSelfHating]

Only if you invest your weekly paycheck. I don't understand why copyrights have to last longer than 20 years. If have a successful song or book, invest the money. If you want to continue making money by making music or writing, create new material. Otherwise, there's always demand for new MacDonald's employees.

Patents expire. Does that mean that no one can make money on patents? Ignore patent trolls and American lawyers for a moment. Think of a company that files a patent and makes the product described by a patent. They have a monopoly for a set period of time, allowing them to sell a product that no one else has. Because the patent will expire, the company needs to continue innovating. Competitors will have access to the patent eventually and will be able to release different (often better) products based on the technology. If the patent system wasn't profitable, no one would file patents.

Re:Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is central to the whole issue. From a philosophical standpoint society should begin the debate with: copyrights or no copyrights? And from there we assume they will choose copyrights.

The next question is logically: what form should they take, what restrictions should be imposed, and how long should they last?

A copyright of >20 years is damn hard to justify, yet we've got them. Further, for the vast majority of works 20 years is excessive and five or ten would be far more realistic.

The other questions involved include distribution mechanisms. If someone only puts out their music on vinyl, people who buy it should have every right to transfer it to their media of choice. But what about those who don't have access to archival technology? While you cannot force someone to distribute in a given format, it makes sense to allow someone to purchase a rights-only copy and have whatever third-party vendor put it in the format they want.

Currently we do not have that luxury. Currently it's very sketchy as to whether a purchase of an album constitutes a physical property purchase or an intellectual property purchase. The reason it's sketchy is you're allowed to resell the album, and you're also allowed to make backups of it. You can't replay the album, but you can publicly display it (while not being allowed to publicly perform it), etc. If they want it to be a physical property purchase then they should expect it to be copied and shut the hell up. If they want it to be an intellectual property purchase then they should expect media-transferrals, and expect consumers to demand they have the right to download a copy, or buy a copy in a different format at cost of media, etc.

Basically we're stuck in a loop of idiots claiming on the one hand "you're stealing from us" while they neglect us and refuse to make logical conclusions about their business. To hell with them, if they won't play ball then they should not expect reciprocity from their customers (and currently they don't have it).

Re:Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

This though is worth exploring some more.

Businesses decide what to do based on "discounted cash flow analysis". Think compound interest in reverse. Only the most predictable of industries will invest money because of a possible income stream 20 years in the future.

In other words, a copyright term of 70 years, 90 years or whatnot is no more of an incentive to a business than a term limited to 28 years after renewals.

An individual might see things differently, which means the current system of longer copyrights for corporate holders is completely backwards from an incentive point of view. It would be fairer to have life or life plus one generation for an individual, 20 years for a corporation or assignee.

Re:Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work?

[GauteL]

"In other words, a copyright term of 70 years, 90 years or whatnot is no more of an incentive to a business than a term limited to 28 years after renewals."

Not entirely true, because there can be "predictable" long term business around to purchase your copyrights, and these will pay you more if the copyright term is 30 years than if it is 20 years. More than that and chances are investors will not think that far ahead and it becomes pointless, UNLESS you are talking about extensions to already existing work, which can be very lucrative if you are on year 49 of the 50 year period. This is, however, theft from the public.

Re:Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work?

[ThaReetLad]

It would be fairer to have life or life plus one generation for an individual, 20 years for a corporation or assignee.

Why? No-one's going to pay me for the work I do today when I retire. Instead I invest a proportion of what I earn in a pension. I see no reason why musicians shouldn't do the same thing for their retirement. They already have talent and a lifestyle that many of us would kill for, and I don't see why they cannot be satisfied with the tremendous hand they've been dealt.

The ideal copyright system...

[mark-t]

• Is one that only allows copyrights to be owned by people, not corporations.
• Is one that is of a definite scope and duration, with possibly shorter durations for works that are intrinsically transient, such as software.
• Is one that has a limited-scope exemption from copyright infringement for purposes that would qualify as fair usage.
• Is one that has an unlimited exemption from copyright infringement for personal and private copying.
• Is one that does not get ammended to legally inihibit people from excercising the priveledges afforded by the above two exemptions merely because of the obstacles posed by enforcement.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[zotz]

"The ideal copyright system..."

Iwould appreciate you comments on what is below at the following link:

http://yro.slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/154538

Here are some thoughts for your consideration:

1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.

2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee.

3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt.

4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright holder declared value of the work.

5. The copyright holder will be encouraged to declare an honest value by having to sell the copyright to to work at the declared value or 5 percent above that value to any and all comers. At the value if the purchaser will put the work under a copyleft, 5 percent above if the purchaser will keep the work copyright.

6. Copyright status lasts for 10 years, then the works convert to copyleft for another ten then they go into the public domain.

7. Orignally copyleft works remain copyleft for the life of the author (and perhaps plys whatever.)

all the best,

drew

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[Hemogoblin]

I won't comment on points 2 through 5, but your first point is a little flawed.

First, a corporation is a legal entity, ie essentially a person. Why would a corporation be allowed to own any number of other assets, but not this specific intangible one? In addition, how would preventing a corporation from owning copyrights benefit consumers or artists?

Second, if corporations can't own copyrights, who will? For example, if a team of employees in a company creates material FOR the company, who owns the copyright? The team? Why then would the company fund their work?

Cheers,
Jim

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[muonman]

It is supremely ironic that the 'modifications' you suggest
to improve copyright law are precisely those that would
be forced by a careful reading of the U.S. Constitution.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why then would the company fund their work?

Because then the company would receive the benefits of their minds. And when the company no longer needs the benefits that their minds provide them, they can let them go.

Works for millions of consultants across the country. Why shouldn't it work for anyone else?

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[teknognome]

Why then would the company fund their work?

Presumably because the company could get a better license to use the work by funding the employees than by not funding them.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[ZachPruckowski]

You misunderstand. If the company doesn't own the copyright on their work, when the company lets them go, it has to pay them royalties for their work, the same royalties its competitors have to pay. In this instance, that's unfair, because it actually paid the people to do the "work-for-hire" a real salary. By contrast, an artist makes their money touring, not from anything the label does. All the label does is promote.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[mark-t]

I prefer the term "copyright" by virtue of what copyright is... literally, the right to copy (and an exclusive one, at that). Everybody else needs permission from the copyright holder to copy the work. "Copyleft" may be a funky term, but it doesn't literally imply anything other than trying to be some sort of pun-like alternative to copyright (which it fails at IMO, because the 'right' in copyright actually means something significant relative to the entire word 'copyright', where 'left' doesn't connote any such similar concept in 'copyleft').

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[cpt kangarooski]

Is one that only allows copyrights to be owned by people, not corporations.

I don't really see what good that does.

Personally, I have a simpler definition. The ideal copyright law is the one that best serves the public interest by promoting the progress of science. Whether it should include this exception or that one, or last for a term of so many years, or some other amount, or whatever, should be based on how well it serves the public interest in as quantifiable a way as possible.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[cpt kangarooski]

It sounds awful. Limited copyrights are no substitute for the public domain, which is superior in every way.

Specifically responding to your points:

1. If an author doesn't care about his work enough to comply with applicable formalities, then he should get no rights at all, and the work should be in the public domain. Copyright is meant to serve the public interest in part by providing an artificial economic incentive to authors. An author who doesn't care about his work enough to take simple but significant steps to get a copyright is very likely one who isn't incentivized by a copyright. Thus, there's no reason to give him anything at all, since he pretty certainly would have created the work regardless, because the other, natural, incentives were sufficient.

2. This fails for basically the same reason; when a copyright isn't an incentive, it should never be granted. Formalities are the best system we've got for determining when copyright is or isn't an incentive.

3-5. Price controls are pretty dumb, especially since a work might have a variety of prices for different markets. For example, a DVD of a movie might retail for $20, but the right to broadcast that movie on TV might be worth a small fortune.

6. Again, since only the initial term is likely to provide any incentive to the author at all, that's all that is needed. There's nothing inherently desirable about 'copyleft,' and I can't imagine why you think it would be some sort of panacea.

7. Awful. Terms should be as short as possible, highly granular (i.e. many very short terms are better than few longer terms, even if the maximum overall term length is the same for both), and of known length so that they can be planned around by the author (who knows how long he's got) and third parties (who know when they can start using a particular work).

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[cpt kangarooski]

Setting aside that everyone would just use exclusive licenses as a condition of employment, achieving exactly the same result as assignments or works made for hire, you really are underestimating the importance of publishers. Music labels finance musicians, investing in a work that the musicians couldn't afford to create on their own. They can provide useful help for musicians in the form of constructive criticism (c.f. the relationship between authors and editors, where the former really does need the help of the latter). They can help provide skills and contacts for musicians that the musicians haven't got on their own. And they do help promote songs and albums, which is important, because they don't sell themselves as a rule.

Stop being such an ass. Creators need publishers in order to live up to their full potential as creators. Otherwise they're stuck doing two jobs, neither one of them as well as they could if they concentrated on one. They are both important lines of work, and neither should automatically be disrespected.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[strider44]

I think a better way would be to have the length of copyright be shorter than personal copyrights. Currently they are quite possibly longer. In my opinion it should be ten years for corporations and twenty for personal copyright.

The current copyright system is stupid and in no way encourages anything but corporate exploitation. All copyright is supposed to do is encourage the distribution of works as opposed to covering it up and never releasing it, or not working on it in the first place. Can people really say that this is now happening? I'd not be surprised if more work was distributed without worrying about copyright than was distributed with copyright enforced.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[ZachPruckowski]

I'm not underestimating the role of publishers, I'm just saying that from my point of view (which involves a lot of work with the music industry, including booking bands and working at a radio station), record labels aren't necessarily the best fit. If they weren't essentially a cartel, and if bands realized exactly what selling the rights to their songs meant, I really think that more traditional organizations could take the place of record labels, like specialized financial groups or more powerful agents, bands can probably do better without labels. Getting them out of the picture to make that possible, however, is unlikely to happen.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[Tim C]

Is one that only allows copyrights to be owned by people, not corporations.

This one I'm not so sure about; who would you have own the copyright to a major motion picture, for example? One person can't possibly produce it on their own, there's far too much work requiring far too great a spread of skills. The only fair solution to that, to my mind, is to allow the copyright to be jointly owned by all involved; but then I fail to see how that's any different in practical terms to a corporation owning it.

I also don't see that it's necessary; what problem do you intend it to solve? Was it to remove the temptation for powerful corporations to lobby for copyright extensions, etc? That can still happen if corporations don't get to own copyrights, unless you also intend to outlaw people forming groups to work together for a common cause (ie individual copyright holders could simply team up to lobby).

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[mark-t]

The main problem I intended for it to solve was to put a cap on the possible duration of a copyright so that it does not extend far beyond the death of the person who held it. It's definitely a bigger problem with patents than copyrights though.... but for different reasons, however.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[Pofy]

>Setting aside that everyone would just use exclusive licenses as
>a condition of employment, achieving exactly the same result as
>assignments or works made for hire,

That is how it works in many countries in the world which has no "for hire" conditions in their copyright laws (software would often be an exception though).

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[kinkie]

Is one that only allows copyrights to be owned by people, not corporations.

As far as I know the italian copyright system is just like this: authors' rights (the italian version of copyright, in a way) are non-transferrable. Does it make a difference? Of course not, the publisher can just have the author sign a perennial, irrevocable license to administer and receive all compensations for all its author's rights in exchange for an upfront amount of cash or a percentage of the profits, et voila`, authors' rights become nothing more than an empty shell.

Is one that has an unlimited exemption from copyright infringement for personal and private copying.

This is already the case in some jurisdictions (including Italy, where the consumer is allowed to back their legally-purchased copyrighted works, subject to certain restrictions). This is being eroded by removing (via technical and legal means - DMCA-lookalikes) the ability to technically create the backup.

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[zotz]

cpt, good to see you again.

I will not argue your points except to say that I think there may be a slightly better chance of getting my plan going than yours and that mine would be an improvement over what we have now.

Oh, and as an explanation since you may have misunderstood what you lump under 3-5. The value would be the price you would sell the copyrights to someone else for. not the value for any particular instance of the work.

all the best,

drew

Re:The ideal copyright system...

[PixelSmack]

"Is one that only allows copyrights to be owned by people, not corporations." As much as i agree with the sentiment of this it would be useless in a large majority of environemtns. For instance study and research at univercitys requires that any major developments are owned by the uni in order to fund future research.

Innovation crap - as usual

[unity100]

They cant find any reason to bark more copyright crap other than 'innovation' hullabaloo.

They just cant say 'the copyright holders need more heaploads of money for longer durations' to the public of course, hence they come up with 'innovation' crap.

You cant innovate nothing if you dont already have huge capital behind your back. There are millions of people trying to 'innovate' under the current system, yet the percentage of those who succeed are comparable to the rates of people winning lotteries.

More bought 'opinion', i say, about this 'report'. Give me 2-3 million dollars extra, ill go buy you another 'respectable' 'report' that is saying copyright is bad.

Re:Innovation crap - as usual

[MartinJW]

Pfftt you people just don't get it.

As a hapless musician said on Radio 4 yesterday - "it just isn't fair". You can't get a more compelling argument than that, now can you?

OH FUCK! That sounds like....

[Anonymous Coward]

.... freedom.

What's their point?

[heroine]

Not sure what these guys's point is. You can always ask a recording executive what their opinion is and get a vote for more copyright laws. The fact that we study European copyright laws brings up an interesting point.

There's a drastic difference in the number of copyright laws and the attitude of the country towards licenses.

Europeans take copyright laws much more seriously than u.s., they analyse the licenses exhaustively before they touch any IP even if there's no consequence to them, so they don't have as many laws enforcing the licenses. Because they care about the license, open source software has become much more popular in Europe.

U.s.ahans don't take copyright laws seriously at all, so they've created more laws. U.s.ahans go by whether it's downloadable and what the password is. When the emphasis is on downloadability over licensability, you get less attention to open source in u.s..

Re:What's their point?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? What the hell are you on?

Re:What's their point?

[dlim]

You can always ask a recording executive what their opinion is and get a vote for more copyright laws. You might ask Time Warner CEO, Edgar Bronfman. His chosen punishment seems to be an explanation of the principle

Each year the ultra-rich try to steal more n more

[WillAffleckUW]

I say to heck with copyright extensions. What was written in the US and UK Constitutions way back when (e.g. 17 or 20 years max) is good enough for then, and it's still good enough now.

And trying to pretend you can make me sign a DRM contract that's on a website at the bottom of a file drawer in the local planning office is just as insane.

Don't get me started on patents. My granddad had a patent, and 17 years was good enough for him, and it was for something real, not some fake software "concept".

here's an idea

[boojumbadger]

Not having read more than the headline but having followed the copyfight with more than a passing interest, I have an idea which I haven't seen expressed anywhere. That is the biggest problem with copyright isn't anything to do with copyright per se, it is that it is a privelege granted without the compensating responsibilities that go along with it. Make it so that anything out of circulation, that is anything copywritten that cannot be purchased new at a reasonable cost in any five year window reverts the rights to the author/artist who will have a further five year period to find a new publisher/distributer or to make it available in an digital format for non-commercial use. The copyright traders should not be allowed to pick and choose what the public can use. If the industry chooses to abandon their products by not offering them for sale their exclusive rights should go along with it.

Re:here's an idea

[DKP]

Completly agree

Lobbyist newspeak

[Sir Homer]

"Criminals made over £270m from film piracy in 2005, making this the worst affected single sector for intellectual property crime out of all IP industries.

"This is revenue that has been lost to the local and national economy and is affecting British jobs."

SO the supposed £270 million lost suddenly disappeared from the British economy? If you are going to make a case for more copyright protection, at least be honest about it. Stop trying to look like you are working for "the people" cause we all know "the people" want free movies.

Re:Lobbyist newspeak

[GauteL]

"SO the supposed £270 million lost suddenly disappeared from the British economy?"

In quite a few cases, probably yes. The money probably went abroad by illegal channels. The sale of illegal DVDs is something I really can't condone and is quite different from illegal downloads where there is no profit being made.

But all of the £270 million obviously did not disappear, but are being used in Britain. However, no tax is being paid on it either, so it definitely is cheating "the people" if not as much as the industry claim. It is obviously also benefitting a lot of people since they get cheap DVDs.

Re:Lobbyist newspeak

[julesh]

SO the supposed £270 million lost suddenly disappeared from the British economy?

Well, of course it did. We all know that the proceeds of copyright infringement are used to fund terrorism, don't we?

Article needed one more comment...

[nokiator]

While satisfied with most of the report, The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says, "it would continue to press for the copyright extension." It is surprising that the viewpoint of the largest supplier (at least in terms of bandwidth) of Internet content is ignored by the authors of the original article. It would be more interesting to hear what the other BPI (British Pornographic Industry) would have to say about the new copyright proposal...

Music is not farmland

[Anonymous Coward]

I read some label / RIAA-type rep call extended rights similar to the farming family who would lose their land after 50 years. On that I call shenanigans - the farming family continues to work the fields (or hire someone to do so), while the musician continues to make music. His or her kids should not be able to live off of the procedes - they did nothing but were born to the family.

I agree that copyrights should only last a few decades at most. Yes, creating something new is hard, but keeping anyone from using your work to create something more is bunk. In the case of the pharma.co., they are also the ones who have the name, even when the patent expires. People will most likely remember the name, most not trusting (or recognizing) the knock-offs as the same thing.

OH! The Irony

[tkrotchko]

In the sidebar is this little gem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214512.s tm

When you click the link, as it turns out the recording industry has cheated Olivia Newton John out of royalties related to her Grease movie.

Doesn't that put it all into perspective. Some poor slob gives a copy of a CD to his mother and he's a criminal. The recording industry cheats millions from performers and it's just an accounting practice.

Holy cow.

Flog the filesharers!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those crazy Brits. Bet it won't be long until they are caning the kids over mp3's.

"Tougher" laws, as if this is a crime

[noidentity]

I could understand a headline about "tougher" laws for people who have murdered, where the act fundamentally violates another person, but "tougher" copyright laws makes it out as if copying things is similar. The very concept was created for the ultimate purpose of making more things available for sharing freely, in a way that also provided new benefits to content producers. It never was a fundamental human need that only recently became protected by law, as the title suggests. Since I'm stating the obvious, I'll also remind you that water is wet.

Gowers Report Link

[schwaang]

I know nobody here even read TFBBCA, but here's the full Gowers report (see PDF under Final Report), with background etc.

Lawrence Lessig blogged about one interesting recommendation -- that copyright term not be altered retrospectively. I think that's British for "retroactively".

Re:Gowers Report Link

[ougouferay]

I think that's British for "retroactively".

I think thats English for ..umm...retrospectively ;)

retroact verb (retroacted, retroacting) intrans 1: to react. 2 law: to act retrospectively.

Copyright is wrong

[jwiegley]

Not that it's anything we don't already know but the current copyright laws do not serve the purpose that they were intended to. Protecting the rights of the author to profit from his ideas while protecting the public to make use of and grow from the benefits provided by the idea.

Personally, I feel copyright laws should be abolished and redone from scratch.

My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent??? Ask the 'A' in "RSA" about this sometime. He's not dead but the protection of his property is. Walt disney has been dead for 40 years, yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.

Is a song worth more than a fusion reactor? No. Is a fusion reactor worth more than a song? No. (Well, I think it is but I'm generally considered uncultured.)

My point is that both are intellectual property and both should be treated fairly and equally with regards to each other. Whether your view is "Copyrights should last 20 years after the filing of the copyright" or "Patents should last 70 years beyond death and be renewable", I don't care. But the intellectual effort of all authors should be treated with a measure of equality.

My view point is 20 years after filing for both. That seems to strike the right balance of the author gets to make a huge profit for 20 years while the public can derive a benefit in the foreseeable future.

Re:Copyright is wrong

[stubear]

"...yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.:

That's funny. I recall watching Mighty Mouse and Tom and Jerry cartoons while growing up. I also recall a british cartoon called Dangermouse. Once again, I have to explain that copyright protects the EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea itself. You can create all the cartoon mice you want as long as they don'te resemble the aforementioned or Mickey Mouse, amongst others. Not to mention that true artists learn by being inspired by others work, not by hacking it to their liking.

Re:Copyright is wrong

[jwiegley]

Yes, You've got me there. There have been other mice. I wonder though if any of them had litigation brought against them.

In fact, Mighty Mouse was "Supermouse" for two years until the name was changed, presumably under threat of lawsuit by DC comics over the Superman trademark. Not exactly Disney but very similar none the less and a good example of Copyright is used as a weapon to stifle the creativity and profit of others rather than being used to promote and encourage growth and public benefit.

I also find it humorous that Danger Mouse (the band, not the cartoon) was sued over their Grey album for use of Beatles songs. Yeah, not for artwork but another example of lawsuit over rights that should not have existed beyond twenty years. I would also venture to guess that since Danger Mouse (The cartoon, not the band) was a British product that may have made it difficult or impossible for Disney to bring a successful lawsuit against it during that tmie period.

And lastly, I couldn't find lawsuits pertaining to Tom and Jerry specifically but a cartoon short named "A Close Call" featured the characters Milton and Rita Mouse and was sued by Disney in 1931. Though this is probably a righteous lawsuit since Mickey was copyrighted only three years prior to this and I would agree that intellectual property should be protected for a period longer than three years.

Re:Copyright is wrong

[cpt kangarooski]

My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent???

Well that's just idiotic.

Why don't we allow people to buy uranium just as easily as we allow them to buy copper? They're both just elements, after all.

The reason is because they're radically different. Patents and copyrights do not overlap; they pertain to totally different things. Giving them a stupid and misleading collective name (i.e. 'intellectual property') does not change the fact that they are different. The subject matters are different, the scope of the right is different, the requirements to get the right are different. They are very difficult to compare at all, in fact. This is unavoidable, because it's in the nature of the thing.

Pretty much the only similarity is in the most fundamental purpose, which in both cases is to promote the public good. Of course, other forms of IP don't even share that. Trademarks only partially do, and trade secrets or publicity rights don't have the public good in mind at all.

Really, your whole suggestion there, it's just really stupid. (And incidentally, you can't author a fusion reactor, but you can invent one. You even got that wrong.)

Re:Copyright is wrong

[1u3hr]

, presumably under threat of lawsuit by DC comics over the Superman trademark. Not exactly Disney but very similar none the less and a good example of Copyright is used as a weapon

No, it's not. As you said, "Superman" is a TRADEMARK. Trademark law is not copyright law. You have to pay to file a trademark registration, and while it can last indefintely, if not used and defended, it can lapse. That's why you see the little circled R after all the Star Wars characters in their ads. Patents, trademanrks and copyright are all distinct ways of protecting intellectual property.

Re:Copyright is wrong

[julesh]

Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent???

Because the copyright only prevents other people from directly copying the work of the song, whereas the patent on the fusion reactor containment system prevents anyone producing a similar fusion reactor containment system whether they are copying the original design or merely working with the same laws of physics and principles of engineering that the original designer used to come up with a similar result.

There's a substantially broader range of possibilities in the arena that's covered by copyright than there is in that covered by patents. Inventions are constrained by the limits of physics and engineering process; artistic works are only constrained by human imagination.

Put another way, patents stifle innovation by making it difficult to invent new things. Copyright doesn't. Therefore the balance between promoting development and the public interest has to be put in a different place for each of them, because the public interest is affected differently.

It's a lot more than tougher laws

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

OK, since <obligatory moan> for some reason the eds posted a story about a BBC article and not my version straight from the source</obligatory moan>, let's get a few things cleared up.

We're talking about the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property. This was a wide-reaching review, covering a lot more than just copyright, though of course copyright is a major component in our IP framework.

In terms of copyright law, here are some of the major recommendations from the review:

• The EC should not extend the copyright term for sound recordings and performers' rights. Moreover, if any extensions are proposed, they should not be retroactive. (The arguments given for this approach would make most Slashdotters proud, I imagine!)
• The UK should introduce a tightly specified private copying exception, to legalise format-shifting.
• Enforcement needs to be stronger, with tougher penalties and consideration given to a fast track procedure.
• It is too early in the development of DRM to start legislating about it, but it should not be allowed to interfere with legitimate uses of copyright material that are non-infringing. An existing mechanism to report such abuses of DRM is noted, but is so convoluted that no-one has ever used it. The Review recommends making this process much more obvious and easier to use. The Review also recommends taking another look at some of these issues further down the line to investigate whether the system is working fairly.

Personally, I agree with most of the review's conclusions and recommendations. I was, however, disappointed that they felt the need to limit their recommendation for a personal copying exception so much. The Review acknowledged that some personal uses were perceived, incorrectly, to be legal by many people, and that banning such uses by law damages the credibility of copyright as a whole in the public eye. They also acknowledged that some of these uses do not harm the interests of the copyright holder. They have also stressed throughout their process that their review would be evidence-led. I find it intriguing, therefore, that they have completely failed to address other reasonable personal uses mentioned in several of the submissions, such as backing up, recording broadcasts, and making compilations.

Some submissions gave quite reasonable arguments based on existing law in favour of explicitly legitimising these. For example, under blanket UK consumer protection legislation, any article purchased from a shop must be (a) fit for purpose, and (b) capable of lasting for the expected lifetime of the product. Since the expected lifetime for information is indefinite, abusing copyright and/or DRM so that when someone's CD wears out they have to buy a whole new CD because they couldn't take a back-up should be a violation of UK trading laws. (Bizarrely, under the proposed system, you could take a back-up as long as it's in a different format, and if your original copy wore out you could then shift the information back again as you would still have only a single copy in any given format of material you had legitimately obtained.)

On the whole, I give them 8/10 given the huge scale of what they were attempting. At least pretty much everything I've read of the review so far is a reasonable position, and most of it is a clear improvement on where we are now. My complaint, such as it is, is more that they didn't go far enough in some areas than that they went in the wrong direction. But such is progress, perhaps.

Re:It's a lot more than tougher laws

[julesh]

I find it intriguing, therefore, that they have completely failed to address other reasonable personal uses mentioned in several of the submissions, such as backing up

Backing up is already covered by the Copyright (Computer Programs) Regulations, 1992, which amended the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to include the following text:

Back up copies.
        50A.--(1) It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use.

recording broadcasts

Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988:

70. The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it.

Only allowed for the purposes of time-shifting, but that's probably all that should be allowable, I think.

and making compilations.

Yes, it is disappointing that this isn't covered. However, with the advent of MP3 players with programmable playlists, I find it is becoming less relevant. And you can always make your compilation on a different format (e.g. Audio DVD) and be within the letter of the law, as proposed.

Re:It's a lot more than tougher laws

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I know what you're saying, and I do appreciate that some of these things are already legal here via obscure special cases in the law. My point was that these things tend to be (a) poorly known/understood by the population, and (b) overly specific. I would have liked to see something more akin to the US "fair use" approach being proposed, where a small number of general and reasonable criteria are given, such that "obviously fair" private uses are covered, and future beneficial uses also do not require additional legislation.

For example, my local dancing club gets through several CDs a year just through playing them until the accumulated damage means they won't play any more, yet we are not allowed to back them up; the law you cited applies only to software, not any other material covered by copyright.

Similarly, the wording of the law for recorded programmes sounds reasonable, but in practice this has been interpreted to mean for varying (often rather short) time periods in different jurisdictions. I don't really believe that recording a show off TV and keeping it indefinitely would unreasonably damage the interests of the people who made it; they've already been paid a lot of money for broadcast rights, and I take a similar philosophical view to the Doctrine of First Sale here. Moreover, this is another one of those "everybody does it cases" where most of the population already expects the behaviour to be legal.

Another advantage of rewriting the exceptions/exemptions in general terms is that you could then issue blanket rulings defending them. For example, such uses should not be unfairly inhibited by technological means (note the review's comments on abuses of DRM, and how little known and completely unused our mechanism for objecting is).

Even more insidiously, take a look at the BSA's first submission. Their clearly stated view is that exceptions to copyright do not provide "rights" to end users, and as such may be overridden by specific agreements (such as EULAs or the "licensing terms" when you download a DRM'd music track, I assume). I question whether there is any basis in law for such bold claims; we've often talked around these parts about how copyright only restricts certain activities, and therefore if what you're doing with the content isn't restricted by them, no-one has any authority telling you you may not do it however much they'd like to. And yet, the BSA's comments repeatedly take the approach of presenting these claims as if they are a legal certainty (and here's a proof-by-arrogant-statement to show it). Given the frequent observations throughout the Review's findings that the public generally aren't very knowledgeable about IP issues, a blanket statement to debunk such industry FUD would be in the public interest, IMHO.

Perhaps it's just me living in my ideal world, but I like simple, reasonable laws that the average people affected by them can understand with minimal effort. I favour generality and principle in codifying law, and broad discretion in the courts that enforce it to decide whether the principles have been violated in any given case, based on the specifics of that case, and if so what an appropriate penalty would be. Given this philosophy, "fair use" is one of the few areas where I think the US clearly has better law than what we have here today.

News to me!!

[ZDRuX]

"By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format."

Wha.. huh? Do they really think people have been sitting under a rock all these years and haven't already thought of sharing their music either physically or electronically? Yea, I`m sure there's billions of people just WAITING for this to be legal so they can finally do it!

a refreshing view

[sumday]

Wouldn't it be nice to hear an artist like cliff richard say something along the lines of "oh, i'm wealthy enough as it is. Who cares if my music will soon gradually make it's way into the public domain, as i'll never have to work another day in my life!" ? Or perhaps something more like, "I look forward to people having a chance to make some cash from my material that stopped generating me any significant amount of money forty five years ago! It'll make me feel slightly better about this vast fortune i've accumulated over the course of my career."

Forgot one...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Sorry, forgot one other significant recommendation from the Review: they opposed software patents.

Re:Forgot one...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray! That should be news in its own right.
(I doubt it will stop the evil lobbyists trying till the end of time to get them introduced anyway though.)

Nice try but ...

[troll -1]

Tougher laws will do about as much to stop file sharing as the CAN-SPAM Act has done to stop unsolicited email. I'm guessing this report was written by a bunch of bureaucrats who just don't get it.

In these "digital times"...

[erroneus]

The planet is much smaller. The exchange of information and culture is much faster. Technological development grows and changes at a pace that isn't easily contained by the interests of copyrighted content holders. Indeed, the amount of intellectual property claims also seems to be growing at ever-increasing rates.

I argue that the current mass of IP is already beyond managable levels and in fact has grown to the point that it impedes new artistic works and inventions which is contrary the original intent of "IP" as a concept and institution. As a means to reduce the present condition and in the interests of preventing the stagnation of technology and human advancement, I propose that a REDUCTION in the term limits of copyright and patents such that they not extend beyond five years for patents and ten years for copyright from the point of such claim is initially granted.

We don't need to extend copyright and patent terms. We shouldn't keep them at their present duration. They should be reduced as it is quite obvious that patent claims are used and traded to the exclusion and extortion of smaller, emerging business. Copyrights serving beyond the death of the original creators are not serving the purpose commonly cited which is to compensate artists for their work. Indeed, it is being harvested by non-creative parties whose interests are not those of the public which represents a complete abuse of both parties intended to benefit from the creation of copyright as a concept and institution. A reduction in copyright terms would restore copyright to better serve the public's interests and those of the creators of copyrighted materials.

Re:In these "digital times"...

[sane?]

I agree that terms should be shorter. However I would view it slightly differently. The time taken to move from patent to exploitation can be significant. With licensing, manufacture setup, distribution, etc. it can be quite slow. Conversely the time for music, book, and other media to reach the marketplace is shorter - and likely to get even shorter as online mechanisms predominate.

So I would suggest a 20 year term for patents, and a 15 year one for copyrights.

However, a major difference would be on the standard for 'obviousness' in patents, which needs to be tightened significantly. Much of the time the 'inventive step' is perfectly obvious to those in the subject domain, if the problem is presented correctly. I would suggest that the minimum standard should be 'surprise'. Anyone reading the patent, with knowledge of the domain, should be surprised and interested by the brillance of the inventive step. The aim would be to reduce the number of patents granted by an order of magnitude or two. Obviously software and business methods should continue to the excluded from patents.

Re:In these "digital times"...

[erroneus]

Perhaps patent "classes" should be established. How many patents become obsolete before their time is up? That's a pretty sure sign that patent terms are too long. (not always the case... I think people still use GIF format and it is now patent unencumbered isn't it?)

what is really needed here

[Anonymous Coward]

IP needs to be set FREE!! While i'm against taxing things such as internet connectivity and computer equipement, there needs to be a way to collect revenue in a general fund for artist and inventors based on use of the IP. Distribution of IP needs to have many channels and IP holders need to loosen the noose on distribution control. Brodcast flags and copyright protection schemes need to go into the toilet. Fair use means i have the right to copy the shit I buy or get my hands on and spread it around the world! Every computer should be running distribution enabled software and the content should be free! Fuck paying for music and cable service, after all, why is there over the air radio and telivision? I'll go to a concert and pay or an occasional play and pay. The library to get my dvd's for free and then rip em' so I don't have to keep going back to watch it again! I wouldn't be against a tax on the richest 2% of americans to pay money in a general fund for IP and then go after the rest of the money somehow else. I suggest everyone buy hd video camcorders and make their own news stations and sitcoms and use advertising revenue to make your living off of your IP. I remember when cable was commercial free and everyone wanted it and as soon as ppl subscribed in mass numbers the commercials came aboard, BULLSHIT!! I personally like watching several commercials but there are some that make me want to turn off tv forever. I'd like to see coke, pepsi and other companies sponser off brand video productions and put it available on the net for download, while the video has actors driking soda from their sponsers. I hope the cable ompanies, phone companies and satillite companies all GO UNDER! long live high speed internet and VOIP through the power lines!

Note to moderators

[QuantumG]

The guy I was replying to was the "flamebait". He specifically says he wants people to flame him. I was doing so.

not extending copyright != stealing music

[gsn]

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which represents the mainstream recording industry, broadly welcomed the report but said it would continue to press for the copyright extension. Peter Jamieson, chairman of the BPI, said: "Stealing music is effectively stealing the future of British musicians and the people who invest in them. "The decision on extension is ultimately for the European Commission and we will be putting our case vigorously when it reviews the relevant directive next year."

I love this bit - they don't even try to justify the reason for copyright extension which is they want to continue making money of something old - and they probably can because *some* people will still buy 51 year old stuff if they find it valuable. The point is that the material has passed into collective conciousness if its still wanted after 50 years and it ought to be free (I mean in the public domain not free as in beer). Putting things in the public domain doesn't translate to free as in beer - you still have to get it from someplace and unless its widely available someone can certainly charge you for the convenience of making it available. Ofcourse you can turn around and host it yourself and they can't do anything about that.

What putting things in the public domain does do is allow anyone anywhere to study it freely, edit it, really do whatever they damn well please with it and not have consequences. Yes I'm being a heretic and saying that something that is old but still profitable should be given away to anyone for anything for essentially free because that will encourage creativity. It will also help ensure those works actually get preserved. If something is available freely and openly and anyone can make copies of it (books, music, movies software, whatever) then it stands a much better chance of survival then if its still controlled by one company.

Theres a massive disconnect here - Jamieson is talking about stealing music and copyright extension at the same time but not extending copyright terms is not stealing from the artist or the people who invested in them - its allowing them to make money of older stuff which they wouldn't have otherwise - in a sense its really stealing from the general public who IMHO have a right to work that is part of our common "heritage" (for want of a better term).

The Association of Independent Music (AIM) said it was particularly unhappy over the issue of allowing more private copying. A spokesman said: "This is taking pragmatism to the point of capitulation, and falls drastically short of creating the progressive copyright framework needed in the digital age. "By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format."

This one is od coming from AIM precisely because they are supposed to be independent and I thought the issue of pivate copying was more of an issue for the major labels - I've not had time to follow the money yet. I think they misunderstood something though - Gowers advocated private copying and format shifting yes but they did not say without DRM. This ofcourse begs the $64,000 question - how the heck do you get something under a DRM scheme into the public domain after the copyright term is up. Frankly I'd hope that with 50 years in the interim we could break any DRM there was quite easily by brute force if need be but the question is if the format will remain readable over that period at all. I'd say obligate companies to release material into the public domain after their copyright term is up in a current format without any restriction. Yes this costs money but they did profit of the damn thing for 50 years - its minimum payback and the cost is already pretty damned low.

Stop DRM, Legal alternatives. Modernize copy law

[openright]

Instead of fighting the tide, lawmakers should look again at the purpose of copyrights and look at a creating a model that more fits the internet instead of trying to emulate the 500 year old "Stationers" publishing control model.

I would suggest:
1. Use of DRM should be abandoned. It is the governments role to control publishing, not the private company.
2. Copyright length decreased to a length that would encourage innovation from both invention and extension, say 15-50 years (depends on type of work). This should be periodically reviewed by independent groups.
3. Legal, official, and unencumbered "pay per download sites" should be create with reasonable prices and direct payment to the owner. (The owner should be listed to help the consumer making a support/purchase decision).
4. Governments should shut down and block obvious illegal download sites. (Precondition (2) and (3). WIthout (2), there is no moral basis. Without (3), you are kicking the hungry out of the kitchen.
5. non-commercial copies should be allowed. With no DRM, and legal alternatives available, and reasonable copyright limits, there is little need or desire to hunt around on temporary questionable sites.

How About ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Making the playing field a little more fair? If you are going to sue a person who doesn't even own a computer for illegal file sharing and win, you must also sue 5 of the top spammers and win or forfit the judgement. It might make the **AA a little less hesitant to persue such matters... Nah, they would sue their own grandmothers (but not the CEO of Warner's kids. There the good guys).

but that destroys the ....

[Anonymous Coward]

..."something for nothing" get rich quick and forever scheme that they want. Duplicating a CD or setting up a server for downloading is rather easy and cheap, and they want huge monies for those endless cheap copies, whereas a live concert is actually *work*. A live concert ticket is a fair trade, watching a movie on a huge screen with a six figure sound system is a treat and worth the cost, paying an absurd amount for a cheap digital copy is arrogance and an attempt to lock away technological advances to the "elite" only. Screw 'em!

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could get paid over and over and over again for work done once? It doesn't work that way for 99.9999% of the planetary population,in the vast majority of "jobs" out there, so the others who _demand_ endless payments for generations for work done once need to get with the program and realise that they can and do get paid well for good work, but trying to sell and re-sell and re-re sell cheap digital copies of that work is mostly a pure ripoff scam the way it is set up now. Once they realise that and start dropping music CDs down to a buck and a movie for two bucks, top price,something like that, or a legit download something like that (no, not a dollar a tune, a dollar an album and two dollars for a feature length movie, not 20$) they will go back to selling a lot of disks, but not before. People are now quite hip to what dupes cost, and 10 to 20 for a plastic disk with bits on it is a RIPOFF deluxe. This applies to software as well. Want to sell more copies of your brainstorm, drop the price!

Stuff that can be digitially copied cheaply should be offered for sale at a price that reflects this level of expense and should be constantly adjusted as technology advances.

  That is the only business model that can work in the long run for digital products.

I just have to ask

[WindBourne]

1. How many are going through the RIAA and how many are not?
2. for the yes, how many of them are allowing downloads?
3. For the no's, are they going through downloads? what is their costs? and how much are they making total? and are their fan's growing faster than the ones who belong in the RIAA?

I suspect that the musicians that do not go through the RIAA but use the internet to push their music, will end up further ahead WRT fans and money. I truely believe that using a label/riaa is a no-win situation for the musicians. So you and your friends may bitch about the downloads, but that is the cost of free advertising. If it puts more ppl in their concerts and gets them known, then it means that later on, they will have more sales in CDs and perhaps in downloads.

Yeah, sure.

[bky1701]

1. Make your weak, long ranged laws strong but short ranged.
2. Back stab people and extend them with the DMCA 2.0.
3. The RIAA profits (you don't).

The trinity

[Anonymous Coward]

"Three great powers rule the world: greed, fear, and stupidity."

--Mark Twain

Free Market Economy ?????

[eyeb1]

intellectual property rights(a true oxymoron) .. copyright laws .. and patent laws have nothing to do with .. and should not be tolerated in a "free market system' .. otherwise it is a lie and untrue to say that it is a "free market" .. it's a "limited protection market" .. just like our democracies are in truth just limited dictatorships ..

the idea that someone should get a "royalty" note the root of the word .. every time something they made and or may have been the first to think of .. is used .. why not a royalty for every time i wear a shirt .. or a pair of shoes or any thing else ..

if you are a musician get out sing your songs .. if your good and if the people who hear your appreciate your songs .. you will get payed ..

if you are a writer get out and recite your works .. and get payed ..

the idea that someone spends a day .. a week .. or six months writing a song or a book .. what's it worth without mass marketing .. $100 .. $1000 .. $10,000

what does the average person get for an hours .. a days .. or six months work .. the idea that someone will continue get payed long long after the work is done is ridiculous .. it the road to fame and fortune in the mass marketing game ..

the idea that it is what encourages innovation and there will be no incentive for people without these protections .. is just stupid .. there will be lots of innovation and incentive in a TRUE "free market" .. but it will be to get out in front and stay there .. as apposed to a system designed to allow some to get to and stay on the top ..

and it is a good part of the reason why 2% of the world population has 50% of the worlds wealth and why they pay the other 8% of the top 10% to protect it for them .. by letting them have 35% .. an to teach the masses that party politics democracy .. where swaying 1% is all that's necessary to rule at any given point in time .. is the way to go ..

why would 90% of the people agree to let 10% of the people have 85% of the benefit of the labors of mankind ..

a worse than Las Vegas odds .. that they will make it into the top 10% ?????

public education .. the greatest mass brainwashing in history ..

People would respect copyrights if the *AA did

[Anonymous Coward]

And by "respect copyrights" I don't mean by not stealing from their own artists, although they apparently do that often enough.

No, I had in mind that the *AA should honour the original contract between the artist and society. When they extend (or try to extend) copyrights, they are basically stealing from the public domain - and by extension from you and I.

The public domain is important beyond estimation. I would dare to say that every creative work has been inspired by something the artist experienced. Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing happens in strict isolation.

If creative works are essentially derivatives of something else, it does not make any sense that they should be locked up forever - particularly if the copyright has been transferred to someone other than the original creator.

Besides, copyright terms are already effectively infinite insofar as anything created in my lifetime will not enter the public domain during my lifetime. It may not enter the public domain during my childrens' lifetimes either. I suspect that if the *AA have their way, none of the copyrighted works they own will ever enter the public domain.

Society does not benefit from extending copyright beyond it's current term, and society is literally stolen from when copyright is retroactively extended. If the media cartels want people to respect copyright, they should try leading by example!

silly

[idlake]

private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player'

They already can and do.

and further 'recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended,' saying, 'The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators.'

50 years is not "balanced"; "balanced" copyright, in today's world would be 10-20 years. Furthermore, copyright should go back to applying only when the work has been explicitly registered, so that things actually can fall into the public domain and people can determine ownership.

Re:silly

[LordSnooty]

Under current UK law, such format-shifting is actually illegal. The report notes that this is an anomaly. The BPI won't be suprised, it was something Peter Jamieson had already agreed with a while ago (maybe he had a sneak preview)

Re:silly

[agingell]

Errr no,
In the UK it is NOT legal to copy music from a CD to MP3 player or to magnetic tape or any other format full stop.

The only legal way to put MP3's onto an MP3 player is to purchase the MP3's on-line.

oh for goodness sake

[salparadyse]

Two things.

Remember the "warnings" on record sleeves "Home taping is killing music" - did it?

Precisely.

Copyright was supposed to be to protect the melody and words of a song so that another artist cannot copy large parts of the song/melody without paying royalties. Not to stop the audience getting hold of the song.

It's a greedy, ugly industry trying to scare governments into passing laws to make their income stream bigger and easier to maintain.

Want to know why sales are falling?

Because a lot of mainstream music is bland, boring crap. Where are the protest singers in the charts? Where are the artists? It's all family oriented, safe for the children, shrink wrapped, corporate approved, vaguely pornographic nonsense.

95 years tooooo long...

[Anonymous Coward]

The proposal to extend copyright in the UK from 50 to 95 years, is far too long. It would put some classical music into that time frame, not to mention the cheery old knees-up war-time sing-a-longs. No more cockneys huddled around the pub piano singing "London town", "My old man" and "Knees up mother Brown"! I mean who would collect the royalities for these songs anyway?
This has come about because Cliff Richard's early work will soon fall out of copyright, but who cares? Why can't the old git just die and leave us in peace anyway? (Joke)

As for letting us transfer music from CDs THAT WE OWN to MP3 players, that is just common sense. As new media formats are being introduced in realitively quick succession, its only right we are allowed to move our property around. Do the record companies really expect us to re-buy our music again on a new format?

"Musicians sign copyright advert"

[daveewart]

Sounds like Cliff Richard et al aren't happy about the idea of copyrights on their old recordings 'expiring': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6216152.s tm

People *knew* the copyright on recordings was only 50 years when they made them. Tough.

Re:"Musicians sign copyright advert"

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you know Cliff Richard is releasing an Xmas song this year? It is called "Mistletoe and Whine".

Re:"Musicians sign copyright advert"

[mrjb]

Sounds like Cliff Richard et al aren't happy about the idea of copyrights on their old recordings 'expiring' ... and let me guess, they protest because it is so more convenient to keep collecting dough for an effort that you made in a long lost past than it is to come up with something good enough to live up to the standards of today?

Re:"Musicians sign copyright advert"

[daveewart]

and let me guess, they protest because it is so more convenient to keep collecting dough for an effort that you made in a long lost past than it is to come up with something good enough to live up to the standards of today?

I was actually wondering about this: the only way that I would agree to any extension to the copyright term, is if Cliff Richard promises not to create any new material whatsoever, under any circumstances.

extending copyright == stealing music

[dido]

Very well said. Further extensions of copyright, with the way copyright works these days, is tantamount to stealing music from future generations. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to continue creating more works, then the last thing we should do is allow them to rest on their laurels! The length of the copyright term is actually a disincentive to artists to make new works. It also hinders artists in the future from building on top of those works.

By the way, unbreakable DRM really is impossible: it's not even possible to make the problem mathematically infeasible. There is always a way around it provided you have control of all the hardware and software used to play back the protected media. As Bruce Schneier famously put it, making bits on a general-purpose computer uncopyable is like making water not wet. The only way to make DRM work absolutely would be to make true general-purpose computers illegal, or make it illegal to interface protected media to a general-purpose computer. As long as there is no law preventing people from circumventing DRM, someone will do it.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Any advice on immigrating to the UK?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how so many foreigner's want to come and live here in the U.K., when most people born here want to leave!!!???

Misleading Headline?

[mdwh2]

The report suggests:
* Not extended copyright length (as some have campaigned for).
* Legalising copying for private use (between devices, or reencoding between formats - yes, it's sad that this has to be made legal, but it's still a step forward).

The "tougher regulation" appears to be for "people who sell pirate versions of music and films on the internet" and furthermore it is merely saying that penalties should "be brought in line with those who make hard copies".

Whilst many including myself are against tough penalties for file sharing, I'm not sure many people have a problem when it comes to those profitting from piracy?

Having said that, I am worried about the mention of "bootleggers" - I would worry if this covered those selling (often rare) live recordings which have never been published by the record companies; many of these would have been lost forever if it wasn't for bootlegging.

Artificial "good" reasons.

[jotaeleemeese]

Culture and economy would find ways to prosper and flourish if copyright was completely abolished.

I for example can't write a book, I will be willing to pay an advance to a good writer to write a good novel, I don;t fucking care if one he is finished everybody copy it ad nauseam.

Famous musicians would get off their asses and do some real work that is not to wait for royalties while living a jet set lifestyle. Humble musicians that rely on performances could not care less about copyright (actually it hinders them since they can't play whatever the fuck they want without giving a cut to somebody else).

Movies? Same as writers, they would switch to an advance method of financing, and frankly I would not mind if the $100 000000 bluckbusters became a thing of the past.

Kindly explain why they are different crimes....

[jotaeleemeese]

There is a mighty good reason why stealing and copyright infringments are governed by different legislation and penalties: because they are not the damn same thing.

So stop it right there buddy. Others have replied why what you are saying is nonsense, but all modern legislation tacitally agrees that copying is not stealing.

even better

[Webspit]

Reading the report it applies to video too so all those DVDs I've ripped to watch on my palm will become legit!

Don't be stoopid now!

[ancient_kings]

It's time to choose just don't fall for another ruse you only lose watch as they abuse You keep it up And you're only asking for Moore you need to stop believing they work for (you) As time goes The lies unfold But once you know you forget what you were told They twist and redefine The truth they tell is true to them only They claim divine And assemble at the frontlines You're out of line if you question or speak your mind they want you blind Stupid and behind What to believe? Nowhere in sight in industry can you receive without being deceived This is your brain and this is your brain on Fox news you are insane if you buy their sell-out truth Don't be stoopid now! Just like the (R)ecording (I)ndustry (A)ssholes of (A)merica They promote mass ignorance cause that's what floats their aerials Don't let them turn you into legion of stoopid Don't let them turn you into drones Right now, knowledge is the one weapon that you can not throw away Or else we all will pay

Balancing capitalism.

[MikeFM]

Adding money to a system doesn't create wealth - it just creates inflation - but better controlling the flow of money can optimize the system so that wealth grows for us as a society and for us as individuals. Without taking care to balance the flow of money the system eventually becomes unbalanced for precisely the reasons you mention. Those with money can use their money to seize opportunities they want and crush opportunities they don't want. It becomes a form of power which is easily abused and that with our current unleashed system almost has to be abused in order to function. Unbridled capitalism is all about being clever and ruthless. It's survivial of the fittest which sounds good until you remember that a few over dominant species can throw an entire ecosystem out of wack which ends up hurting every species, including themselves, in the progress.

Like wildlife management, creating forces to keep capitalism balanced will help everyone involved including the super wealthy. It needs to be easy to climb economically but to grow more difficult the more you succeed. The rich need to reach a point where in order to grow their own wealth they are required to grow everyone's wealth. They'll still be at the top of the stack but they'll pull others up with them. Something close to the inverse situation happens now as it's very difficult to rise out of poverty into the middle class and it's difficult to climb from the middle class to be wealthy but it's easy for the wealthy to become wealthier. As you said those with money have far more opportunities.

I think it's important to point out that opportunity is not something that is in limited supply. I have twenty good ideas a day and could easily do my part to build the wealth of our society if I had the resources to do so. My pursuit of any of my good ideas would not decrease anybody elses opportunities. In fact it'd often create more opportunities for others to think of new products and services based on what I've created. If I write a book it does not decrease my neighbors chance to write a book also. Today the limiting factor is the ability of capitalism to reshuffle resources fast enough to allow opportunity to flourish for everyone. Unbalanced capitalism is actively slowing the growth of wealth for our society.

Money, in the end, is just a method of resource management. Choosing to take a blind eye is a foolish way to manage resources. I'm not saying there shouldn't be poor people and there shouldn't be rich people. Some people clearly work harder and have better ideas and make better choices. I'm saying that with better management we can make the system work better. Wealth tends to flow back to those who have it which is why I don't think trickle down theories work very well. It's much more functional to have the wealthy seed the bottom layers of society with a great deal of wealth and watch that wealth quickly flow back to them. Rinse, repeat, etc.

I certainly wouldn't redistribute wealth willy nilly either. It needs to be done with a comprehensive system designed to benefit those that make wise decisions that benefit all of society. Which is why I'd build a trust ranking network that works as a resource management balance that modifies the tax and allowance (inversed tax) rates of the cash system. Everyone would have equal access to the trust system - able to give a single vote for or against anyone else and thus able to help decide how resources will flow in a completely democratic way. Of course you need to use short circuiting to keep people from spiking the system up and down. I also would make votes expire, with a sliding scale of value, after a given time period and not allow people to vote for that person (or company) again until their vote had again reached a neutral value. So if I voted that I didn't trust George Bush then I might not be able to vote for or against George Bush again for a whole year and during that time my vote would gradually slide from a -1 to 0 in incremental steps. The exact processes could be fine tuned throug