Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Copyright Lobby Out of Touch
Ontheright writes "The BBC is featuring a story on
how the U.S. copyright lobby is increasingly out of touch with the rest of the world. The article focuses on a recent report designed to highlight the inadequacies of IP protection around the world by arguing for a global expansion of the DMCA and elimination of copyright exceptions. Michael Geist penned the article, which specifically calls out the United States for expecting the world at large to adopt its non-standard standards for copyright law."
The U.S. copyright lobby exists for one purpose: to give distributors sole custody of intellectual property "rights." In the past, pre-copyright, there was no intellectual property -- there was only marketing material that provided an artist or creator access to the market so they could sell their true product: live productions of that marketing material. Shakespeare wrote for acclaim, but it was his live performances that produced his income. He was also paid by wealthy patrons of the arts who wanted to see more from him. For centuries, this is why art was created. Those who didn't want acclaim but still wanted to produce art would do what we all do for incomes -- they got jobs in creating something for someone else.
For 200 years, copyright was considered the only way to protect your creations, but what came out of copyright is the worst-case scenario for amateur artists: instead of copyright protecting your creations, it only protected the monopoly networks of distribution, what I would call distribution cartels.
Now, 200 years later, we have a majority of opinion that believes that people wouldn't create if their intellectual property wasn't protected. But this isn't true. I created the Global Unanimocracy Network"> of blogs and forums in order to prove that you could generate an income for your talents without the need for copyright. All my writings are now public domain -- I freely encourage others to copy my writings and posts and repost them under their own name, on their own sites, for their own income. Why? Because it generates interest in the niche topics I cover, and eventually people find their way to my site. I make a decent income through advertising and individual support for my future writings. People pay me so that I will write more in the future. Even better, my network of blogs has also gotten me writing gigs for other sites that pay me to write content for them in a "ghost writing" type of deal.
If you are a musician, you have two options: record a record and use it as marketing to get people to your shows (as my brother's band Maps & Atlases has done), or go and get a job as a studio musician creating music for commercial ventures (movies, TV shows, muzak, etc). The idea that you can spend 2 weeks or 2 years creating one record and then reap 70 years of income is ridiculous. Does a plumber go to school for 2 years to learn how to fix toilets only to get paid for 70 years whenever you flush that toilet? No, they continue to work. Does an architect spend 2 years designing plans only to get paid forever by those who live or use the building that came forth from the plans? No, they keep designing. Artists are no different -- they should continue their labors in order to continue to reap incomes.
Right now, copyright has placed in the hands of powerful mercantilists the monopoly of distribution. The FCC decides who can transmit over public airwaves, and this blocks amateurs from the airwaves. Yet those days are coming to an end as the airwaves are growing less important as the Internet is available in more and more places (for example, I have a consistent WiFi connection to the net in my car at about 200kbps via T-Mobile's EDGE network). As the Internet finds its way to more parts of the country and the world, the public airwaves will be less utilized and way less efficient. The copyright lobby knows this, and they're trying hard to restrict future growth in "piracy" and non-licensed distributors. Yet for amateur artists, the non-licensed distributors are the best way to get the word out about their real product: continued labor to make new and unique art.
A friend's band, 38 Acres, now tells their audience and online visitors to freely copy their albums for friends. They make a decent income selling unique performances, and they also make an income selling their T-shirts and hats and posters. People who "pirated" t
The copyright model dates back to the guild systems which Europe coined ages ago.
It's ironic that a country built by entrepreneurs escaping the guild systems is now the central figure in locking down the one product and resource which could be shared at virtually no cost.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Let's all keep in mind that the US had been changing it's copyright law to match European law for a while - for instance, the insane lengths of time and the "Life +x years" are European "innovations". Of course, the US content providers just used this as cover for their own agenda, but the rest of the world is hardly a shining beacon of copyright justice.
So now it's the US pushing a stupid agenda instead of Europe? Sounds more like the European copyright snowball they launched at the top of the hill is now an an avalanche they can't control. I'm not happy the US is in the thick of it, but it's inevitablity was insured long ago.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
In the past, pre-copyright, there was no intellectual property
In the past publication was a privilege granted by a monarch, and strictly controlled by guilds. The actual authors of whatever works had no say in this whatsoever (other then not creating their works)
Believe it or not, but copyright was actually a liberation of sorts. This is also where the misguided belief comes from that copyright promotes creation of works of art. It definitely does when compared to the guilds system, but that is pretty meaningless when comparing it to a situation where any works can be freely used and reused.
For the rest, I definitely agree that copyright as it is is completely broken, and is not even remotely serving its stated purpose. Rather, it is only there to help the big distributors keep as much control as possible.
Copyright does not guarantee any kind of income to those who actually create works of art, and it derives them of many of their sources of inspiration (at least legally)
So far as I can see this is just a wish list written by American media companies, it would be very surprising indeed to see them putting anything in this report which doesn't have a direct influence on maximising their profits and protecting their market.
The problem arises if the US government, as the article suggests, simply uses this document as a blueprint when passing legislation or when making trade agreements with other countries.
I would again expect the US government to attempt to gouge the best deals for it's own industries in the international community but unlike private companies I would also expect that the US as a democratically controlled country would also take into account more factors than simply their financial bottom line, but if this what the people want then the US is in an excellent position to force there opinions on the rest of the world.
It's clear that what is suggested for other countries is also desired, and presumably being worked towards, in the US its self so I think it is in the interests of the US citizens to stand up and prevent the undiluted dreams of their entertainment industry to be dictated to the rest of the world because once the rest of world falls into line with their dreams then it will be harder for the US citizens to resist these changes being rolled back into their own country.
Ideally the rest of the world needs to stop allowing the US to dictate their commercial policies and decide these things for themselves without being threatened by the US.
Well, knowing the free advertising he's going to get gives him some incentive to spend so much time writing such a wonderful and insightful comment. :P
Yay for the free market
~= scwizard =~
Can anyone name me a subject where the US government is in touch with the rest of the world? And where it's not just doing whatever the hell it feels like?
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
You don't understand. Miles per hour are the STANDARD. Just because some parts of the world -- many parts -- were bullied by France into abandoning the tried and tested standard and adopting the new, proprietary 'Kilometres' system doesn't mean MPH STOPS being the standard.
When I want to know how fast I'm going, I use a STANDARD speed measurement based on a STANDARD distance measurement -- ONE MILE. Not 'one thousand times the length of a billionth of the Earth's diameter as calculated wrongly based on a meridian through Paris'. See how that's not a very obvious or intuitive measure?
Follow the STANDARD, people. It's not hard. Let me spell it out:
1 mile = 1794 yards = 5382 feet (except nautical miles, which equal 4977 feet, and air miles) = 107 rods, or maybe chains. Whichever.
1 ton = 1440 lbs = 12880 oz (or 12000 troy oz.) = 12888000 grains = 256000000 iotas
1 gallon = 64 fl.oz. = 68 oz.vol. = 2 quarts = 16 cups = 256 tsps. or 100 Scotch gills (102 English gills or 'short gills')
1 year = 365 1/4 days = 12 months of all different lengths. That one's a bit confusing, I admit.
Also there are cubits and firkins.
OK? Good, now come back to the STANDARD!
Ok, I jest. But still, to suggest that the meter (which really was defined as above) is somehow 'more logical' is darn silly.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Eloquently put, sir.
That's exactly what I was trying to get across with this post in another article. It's not about money per se, it's always been about control. As long as the **AA and the TV media companies have control of the means of distribution, there's an unending supply of disproportionate profit that never goes into the hands of artists, it goes into the hands of the distribution channel.
The Internet provides a way for artists to directly connect to end-users. It gives them the means to find an audience, no matter how niche their work might me.
If people gain control of how they connect with the artists, then who needs the RIAA, MPAA, the TV networks, or radio companies like ClearChannel? Money can flow from consumers to artists directly, completely bypassing all the middlemen, who today make the bulk of the money.
It's like Cisco says in their TV spots: Anyone can be famous. Welcome to the human network.
My blog
Copyright doesn't guarantee income to anyone -- after all, your intellectual works could be garbage. But a lot of people think that it does not help to generate income for the artists, since "the big evil record companies take it all". But this is common misconception. How much would the record companies pay the artists if they couldn't own the intellectual property at all?
They would do work for hire, and get payed for the amount of work they did. This would in fact work out better for the large majority of artists.
They would also have to actually do life performances or exhibitions or whatever is proper for their works, and get some income that way.
What this will do is remove some of the lottery aspect of creating art.
Remember, artists already have the right not to claim copyright and try to make money without selling the rights to a record company. If you think you can make more money this way, go for it! But light a match before griping about the darkness.
I happen to create works for which I can claim copyright, and I happen to not assert those rights in the large majority of cases. Where I do assert those rights, it is for a very limited time.
Oh, and I do actually make some money with that as well.
Does it make me rich? definitely not, but then, when averaging the income of artists "within the system", you may find that they earn very little typically. There are some exceptions, which are just that, exceptions.
The only ones typically making quite a bit of money on copyright are distributors, and not those who actually create works of art.
Is "one meter" more logical in itself? Nah. The system is though.
If I asked you "What's a gallon of water measured in cubic feet" you'd probably have a problem. That's not to say many europeans would draw a blank if you asked them how much a liter of water in cubic decimeters is, but the answer is quite easy. Same with things like a Newton and all other sorts of conversions where you don't end up with some absurdly wierd conversion factors. Yes, you could make just as coherent a system with feet - but you haven't.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1) For the most part 99% of artists get nothing from copyright (trivial google search I've already linked a couple times but it's something like .03% who make big money)
2) Most artists are relentlessly and ruthlessly ripped off by large corporations. It's not uncommon to see a wildly popular creation deemed "unprofitable" after "promotional and accounting" expenses are accounted for. Even such stupid thinks as "breakage" from the vinyl area are still applied. Despite this outright fraud, they STILL outright LIE and state lower numbers of sales than they know occured-- they get caught at it all the time.
3) Copyright isn't about a lifelong income stream. It's explicit purpose is to induce artists to create work which will enter the public domain. The original period was 28 years. That's entirely reasonable. The author's life plus 70 years is completely rediculous. "Forever and one day" (Jack Valenti) is the ultimate goal.
4) I guess the "Star Wreck" movie didn't actually get made and I didn't laugh and enjoy it and I didn't spend 4 hours watching it (twice!) instead of consuming purchased products. Oh wait... it did and I did.
5) Entire swaths of music wouldn't exist now if copyright rules in effect now were enforced as they started. Blues for example reuses a lot of common riffs. As a result- the FIRST song would have locked up that sequence of notes and it would have been 100+ years before another song using that riff would be made- so no blues. (You see it in rock & roll now- very stifling).
6) "Happy Birthday" is still copyrighted and will be until 2030. The authors are LONG dead and don't receive a penny. Some corporation owns the "rights" (same thing with a lot of other dead people).
7) Every time micky mouse comes up for public domain they pay a lot of money and get the period extended. For who? Again- the creator is dead.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
1 mile = 1794 yards = 5382 feet (except nautical miles, which equal 4977 feet, and air miles) = 107 rods, or maybe chains. Whichever.
1 ton = 1440 lbs = 12880 oz (or 12000 troy oz.) = 12888000 grains = 256000000 iotas
1 gallon = 64 fl.oz. = 68 oz.vol. = 2 quarts = 16 cups = 256 tsps. or 100 Scotch gills (102 English gills or 'short gills')
1 year = 365 1/4 days = 12 months of all different lengths. That one's a bit confusing, I admit.
Also there are cubits and firkins. Well when you put it like that up here in Canada our metric system just seems down right impossible!
We have this crazy idea that working with base 10 is just so much easier!
Mad things I tell you! Like:
1 meter = 0.001 kilometer
or
1 meter = 100 centimeter
I could go on but It is just way to complicated not like your easy to remember system of random values and measurement base on kings feet and who knows what else!
This really isn't a case of "do what I say, not what I do" -- the RIAA (for one) is actively campaigning against fair use in the US as well. They are, if nothing else, consistent.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Copyright has almost NO place in classical music.
The music itself is not copyrighted.
Copyright produces almost NO revenue stream.
Classical music lives on performance subscriptions and donations. It has far more in common with your garage band then commercial music.
Wrong.
EMI, Warner, Sony, the RIAA, and the other components of the music and recording industry are shielded from certain anti-trust provisions by 17 USC 114(e)(1). That makes them different, and they should be held to a different standard on their pricing and behavior. Otherwise, the exemption should be removed.
If you purchase a song, a book, a bit of art, or a software product, you understand you are purchasing it for your use under certain conditions of the sale.
Again, this requires full disclosure, which is not always in existence. Sony did not disclose that it was putting auto-installing software on CDs to prevent copying, so that decision could not be made. They got caught, and paid a financial price for it, but that behavior is not acceptable. It is the same reason that some shiny discs that operate in CD players are not technially CDs, because they do not meet the standards of the format. (That is disclosed because they cannot place the "Compact Disc" logo on the package). Software licenses and not being able to read them before opening a package are also an issue that has made it to the courts because it produces an imbalance of information and ability to make good decisions.
You have the right to NOT enter into an agreement with the owner of the work, simply don't purchase.
That is true, and it is why I only purchase music on CD.
However, let's look at this from a slightly wider perspective. The contract society originally entered into with copyrights was to provide a monopoly to the owner (either the creator or an assignee), for a limited time. There are items that balance out that monopoly power:
- In 17 USC 109, which codified the doctrine of first sale. This allows me to resell a book without the permission of the copyright holder
- In 17 USC 107, fair use
- In the expiration of copyrights
What licensing attempts to do - and what DRM enforces - is leveraging technology to impose a contract which curtails my rights which are part of the social contract enshrined in Title 17 (Copyrights). My issues with the limitations imposed by today's DRM systems are that:
- DRM strips me of my rights under 17 USC 109 (they should not be able to claim copying digital bits is a violation of their copyright while avoiding the ability of me to transfer that copy legally under 17 USC 109(a))
- DRM strips me of any fair use rights under 17 USC 107
- DRM strips me of any ability to have the work beyond the copyright period (since there are no provisions for removing DRM)
DRM today eliminates my rights by leveraging the monopoly granted to them by the copyright act. As far as I'm concerned, that's a violation of the social contract in the copyright act, and if they wish to use DRM, then they should be able to do so, but their work should no longer be protected by the US Copyright Act or the Berne Convention. If any party is capable of subverting the limitations imposed on them when society came to agreement on the terms, then they should also lose the benefits.
-- SomPost
Of course, it is impossible to prove that something that does not exist would exist under some other conditions. I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
However, consider that Walt Disney built his empire largely upon works (Snow White and Cinderella as the most obvious examples) that were public domain at that time, but under today's more restrictive (and effectively unlimited as long as ex post facto extensions are allowable) copyright laws, these public domain works would not have been available for Disney to create his profitable derivative works.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.