Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Maybe the USA can borrow some good ideas from the UK? We seem to be giving them bad ideas lately...
Blar.
"Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?"
Make all downloads legal, and there will be no more illegal downloads.
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.
Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?
Legalise downloads.
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.
"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.
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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!
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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
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.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
"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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
In the sidebar is this little gem:
s tm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214512.
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.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
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:
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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!
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
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.
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).
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.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
..."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.
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?
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.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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).
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
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.
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.
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.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/