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: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.

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.

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: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

[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: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