Slashdot Mirror
UK Copyright Under Fire Again
stupid_is writes "Following on from the story on the Gower Report in the UK, a host of musicians (over 4,500 of them, including poor, starving stars such as U2, Paul McCartney and Peter Gabriel) have taken out a big ad in the FT to back the call for an extension to copyright in the UK. Allegedly, that's what the British public wants — although the survey seems to be asking a different, rather biased, question." From the article: "A spokesman for the Open Rights Group, which campaigns for greater digital rights, said: 'The big music firms have done a good job of persuading some artists to sign up to this but anyone who reads the Gowers review will see it demolishes the arguments for extension. An awful lot of content creators are not represented by this and recognise an extension will do nothing for creativity and nothing for the public.'"
Law is supposed to benefit the public...interesting edict there...The general public? Interested public parties? Random sampling of the public?
Now, I do get what you're suggesting, however you're ignoring a very important part of your argument...the artist's ARE part of the public. Copyright laws are (intended) to protect THEIR rights...not some magical right of the people that did not create the music to have free access to someone else's work.
Don't take that wrong, I'm not discussing the validity of copyright term lengths, or extending copyrights from deceased artists into private corporate control, or any of the debatable areas of copyright law.
All I'm arguing is that copyright does NOT exist to benefit you, unless you have created something you wish to have protected via copyright. Rather, it exists to protect the artist FROM you.
This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information.
No Comment.
I understand your feelings, even though I'm a pro-copyright games developer who relies on the concept for a living.
The thing is, you don't often hear from people who create content, and will defend it 'up to a point'. The only voices you hear are the 'everyone download my stuff' anti-copyright gang, and the 'its my property for the next thousand years' brigade.
Judging how long something should remain copyrighted is tricky, and probably should vary depending on the content type. Some things are useless after a few years, some things cost megabucks to make and payoff slowly. The idea that ANYTHING should remain in copyright for over 50 years is just bullshit though. If, as a creative person, I can't come up with another good idea every 50 years, I need to find another flipping job.
My own field is PC games, and I reckon 15 years is a reasonable length of time. Nobody is making real cash on games on older than this, and if they are, they probably made a shedload at release time.
If theres a petition from content creators requesting that copyright NOT be lengthened, just point me at it. We need emphasis on shorter copyright periods, but better enforcement (and fair use for format-shifting etc).
But U2 can just fuck off.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Survival in the long term surely means reliable provision of future wealth, such as a pension. The creator needs to know that they're going to survive, rather than survive if they get lucky. Besides, to encourage serious, honest art, you need to encourage the artist to take risks that they might never be popular. Long term copyright doesn't do that.
Property is both an individual right and a social concept. There are forms of property that are not recognised because to do so would bring more harm than good. For example: patents beyond a certain period of time.
Wikileaks, no DNS
In reality, songwriters already have a 70 year copyright - that is the length of their lifetime plus 70 years; the 50-year rule applies to recording owners like, er, the BPI's major label donors.
The musicians already have the copyright for their entire lives, PLUS 70 years after they die.
Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
This is a very important distinction, and I'm shocked that you've been modded to +5 insightful for providing completely misleading information.
And I'm shocked you misunderstand copyright so fundamentally. The function of copyright is to provide artists with protection for their works. The theory is that this stimulates the creation of new works, thus enriching society. And *that* is the benefit to society at large (the creation of new works). Thus, the idea that "copyright does NOT exist to benefit you" is flat out ridiculous.
The problem is that extending copyrights will likely do nothing to spur creation of new works. All it will likely do is place more power in the hands of corporations and the rich, who can afford to litigate to ensure their works are suitably protected. Meanwhile, if the extension the retroactive (as was the extension introduced in the Sonny Bono Act), materials from the public domain will be *removed*, which amounts to theft, IMHO.
What is increasingly at risk here is the very important connection between a "right" to protection in law and the reason for the existance of that right.
The protection of copyright (and other IP forms for that matter) is intended to provide a reward to those who would contribute to the public good; to culture, society, the fine arts and our understanding of the human condition.
To this extent there is a good basis for creating a social contract whereby we protect in our courts of law the creative work of an individual from being passed off as the work of another, or modified in a way that misrepresents a work or distributed for free where that is not what the creator wants.
What they are arguing for now in the UK is the difference not between no protection and protection but between one degree of protection (its duration) and another. Importantly, though, they are using the arguments for and against protection in the debate about the degree of protection. That is a mis-use of the reasons for protection which provide no clear guidance in their favour here.
Given a 95 year term over a 50 year term are we motivated to be 90% more creative? Are great works of fiction or music not written on the grounds that they will *only* be protected for 50 years and not the all important 90 years? Fifty years represents a term in which the creator gets to benefit from their work but also then that society, in a meaningful time frame, gets to benefit culturally from the full propagation (not based on economic means) of a work throughout that society.
It's important also to note that a longer, stricter term of protection fails to acknowledge that all creation is based on the work of those that have gone before us. The true "originality" of a work is of course mollifed by the influences that it has taken. It is only right that creators accept their place in that great progression and let their work eventually also pass into the public domain to be recognised as the influence for more works that help society's culture to flourish.
A shorter copyright protection term could surely only encourage investment in new songs, new books, new acts rather than taking the easy route of holding on to back catalogues that are continuously re-released. Back catalogues are of course another source of irritation since the availability of most music that has been made and of most books ever written in the stores is extremely limited.
The creators of tomorrow would live in a poorer world if proprietary protection for what is, after all, our shared culture was extended arbitrarily to suit the present generation.
It was the Americans that shifted the idea of copyright as something ANYBODY could get for a small price per document. It was a radical then as GPL is now.. for about the same reasons.
American's seem to forget Congress is FORBIDDEN to grant "titles of Nobility"... that doesn't just mean Congress can't call somebody "King" or we have to kick a girl out because she marries a REAL prince. A title of "nobility" is something that endures.. you pass on or inherit. Something "abstract" like a knight in service to a queen, or a lord over land... "IP" as a concept is beginning to fall into a "title of nobility" status. Only this time it's not one person that gets the "title" it's a corporation. YUCK! That makes it worse because the corporation never actually DIES. It makes the executives of the RIAA and MPAA like the religious priest class in other cultures. Only they can spread knowledge, entertainment, and even legal documents of the govt because of their "IP" property. Only they have the ability to protect "IP" property.. so you have to pay "fealty" and "prostration" to them to be heard.... that's 100% Un-American!
One idea I've had is to have maybe 20 years of "free" copyright, after that, the work would have an (owner-stated) value, and be taxed annually at some percentage of that value, and any person or group of persons could, by paying the stated value, "buy" the work into the public domain. There'd be an outside limit on the length of copyright, too, but it wouldn't have to be too short (though shorter than the current US system, IMO), perhaps the greater of 75 years from creation or creator's life+20 years for personal works, and a flat 75 years for corporate works.
There are people who spend a lot of money (in some cases hundreds of millions) designing or creating products, they then apply and get a patent.
They get exclusive rights to that product and make money from them for 20 years, after which the patent expire and the public is then free to make use of the idea.
But a person who spend a few days jotting something down at almost no cost get to profit for 95 years?
Okay granted, there is some real cost involved, in materials, such as paint, pen, musical equipment and sometime rented space, but even then, the cost to create is low in comparison.
I would propose that copyrights be limited to 20 years just like patented products, with one (maybe two) exceptions. If a copyrighted work proved to be commercially viable, then the copyright holder can apply and pay to extend the copyright another 20 years. This is a one time deal. An additional exception could be for certain works (think Mickey Mouse), then for a large fee (say about a hundred thousand dollars, or more) they can retain the copyright another 20 years, up to a maximum of four extensions. This would of course be dated from the time of the original creation. This way if a work is commercially viable, the copyright holder would have no problem paying the fees. Those works that is not "commercially viable" in terms of the fees, would become public domain as they should be.
The people who is whining about this should learn to manage their money better just like the rest of us.
Right now, the way I see it, the **AA member companies are "buggy whips" manufacturers, they need to adapt and change their business plan, or go the way of the buggy whips manufacturers.
As someone mentioned, copyright is for the public good, not for the corporation good. Let's make it that way!
Bach (I suppose you mean Johann Sebastian; there were several others) was an organist and a composer, and hardly the best performer of his solo violin and orchestral works. His notes could be published, and re-published by pirates. Many works were; most of Shakespeare's dramas were published by pirates even years before there was a legit version, by people who memorised or shorthanded the plays and wrote them down afterwards. Those were the "cam" versions of the days. Since proper publishing was a more time consuming activity back then, it was even more difficult being first to market.
Of course all of this is irrelevant as to whether Paul McCartney needs copyright extension. I don't care about him. Another problem is the other artists who are about to fall out of copyright, those who aren't world famous superstars, and won't be on iTunes, and won't be re-released on CD. With a copyright extension, those would still be illegal to distribute. A copyright extension will come to protect the already rich.