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

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

[matt21811]

Yes much tougher and much shorter, say 15 years.

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

[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!

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.

[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...

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

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: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

[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: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.

"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.

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.