Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Copyright Under Fire Again

Posted by Zonk on from the can't-have-that-fifty-year-old-music-go-free dept.

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.'"

2 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Who cares what the artists want? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  2. Re:It's logical they would feel this way. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Exactly!! The original term "copyright" was "Copy Wright".. it was the king's authorization to OWN, POSSESS, or even USE a printing press. You had to promise that you'd use your new found press responsibly, not to undermine the king's power. It was a "king sanctioned" thing... like the royal baker or a knight.

    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!