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.""
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
"Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?"
Make all downloads legal, and there will be no more illegal downloads.
Well, that's mighty fucking white of them. Next up: Reports from Herefordshire indicate a possible end to meat rationing starting mid February.
Fuck Slashdot
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.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)