Slashdot Mirror
UK Copyright Extension in Exchange for Censorship?
Awel writes "The UK opposition leader, David Cameron, says in a speech to the British Phonographic Industry that his party would work to extend the copyright term to 70 years and crack down on piracy. But in return, labels would have to agree to bear more 'social responsibility', which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'. He doesn't spell out how this would be achieved in practice.
This follows the publication in December of a UK government report recommending that the standard copyright term in Europe remain at 50 years (and not be raised to 70 or 95 years)."
Look at what music has become. A great way to express your opinion huh?
Think about it! The whole thing is ridiculous. The labels decide what the artists sing so it's not really the artists opinion and the labels just make them sing what gives the most money.
If they sing about anarchy then it's no ones opinion? It might just affect the listeners but what if the listeners know it's not the artists opinion?
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
Well, considering he was at the British Phonographic Industry trying to drum up votes any politician worth his salt would tell them what they want to hear and therefore why they should vote for his party.
I hope he's lying to them as usual as per UK ministers' standard operating procedures. If this makes it into the manifesto then I cannot support the party, and if there are enough likeminded people that will cost them more votes than pandering to the racket.
Apologies if I come over as a bit bitter and twisted, but a poll of my peers (8 of us, professional, 40 years old-ish) has indicated that none of us believe either of the two main parties represent our wishes.
-- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think
The irony, of course, is that one of the main problems with effectively-perpetual copyright is the many restrictions it places on open commentary and free speech. Perpetual and rigidly-enforced copyrights essentially produce a chilling effect in the domain of free public discussion. Since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is hard to not label this as censorship.
In many ways it's good to see Mr Cameron getting "Back to Basics" here. After all the original purpose of copyright, from before the Statute of Anne was to ensure that the Company of Stationers censored all works that might have been critical of the Tudor monarchy.
Way to go, medieval values ...
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
I believe the OP was suggesting that there should be some pubs where it's allowed.
If local councils were allowed to license, say, 5% of pubs in their area to allow smoking, on condition of having good air conditioning, not allowing children in even with families, and an extra license fee, for example, it's highly unlikely that anyone would go to that pub, or indeed work in that pub, who didn't want to be in a smoky environment.
I think it would be a pretty fair solution. Most pubs remain smoke-free, but smokers willing to sit in a filthy haze of carcinogens are able to, surrounded by other smokers willing to sit in a filthy haze of carcinogens.
It would also allow places like cigar clubs to still exist.
So the music industry want to retroactively change the terms of the license. Thing is we already have already aggreed a contract. In particular I have a number of spoken word audiobooks, the original text of which is long out of copyright. I had a reasonably expectation when I purchased those audiobooks that the copyright on the recording of the books would lapse 50 years after it was made. I have made special note of the dates, and fully intend when the 50 years is up to release these professionally made recordings by leading performers on the internet (or equivalent) free for all.
What gives them the right to change the terms of that implied contract, and can I demand my money back? Alternatively if they have broken the contract can I just ignore it as well?
You can banty around high minded ideas relating to personal freedom all you want but seeing the law in person will give you a much different impression.
New York City passed the law several years ago and it has been AMAZINGLY successful. It has been popular with smokers and non-smokers alike.
Non-smokers don't like sitting in smoke. Smokers don't like sitting in other people's smoke. People don't like coming home from pubs smelling like an ash tray.
Bar owners feared that people would stay away because they couldn't smoke indoors. The opposite happened. People stay LONGER because they're not poisoning themselves by breathing the air.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
To achieve the aim of maximizing the quality of the culture transmitted by copyrighted works, the term of copyright should be shortened, and the rights of citizens to make certain types of copies even within that term should be expanded. Why? Because the larger portion of the crassness in our culture is there in service of commercial interest - commerce whose shape and nature is in part determined by the ecological niche allowed it by our extravagant copyrights and other legal structures which are designed to amplify the profits of our largest corporate players.
The proof of this? Compare the musical offerings of small, independent labels to that of the majors. There is proportionately far less lowest-denominator sexuality, gangsta worship, women-hatred - and there's far more actual aural art as compared to the cheap sonic wallpaper the big labels prefer to sell us. The same differences can be found between the offerings of the small presses and the big publishing houses. And when the small recording labels and presses do release something with sex or violence featured, it's usually of much greater artistic worth, and doesn't trivialize either the sex or the violence the way the big corporations prefer to.
Unfettered capitalism by smaller players is the cure to our cultural failings. But they will not prosper as long as government regulation tilts the field towards the largest corporate interests. Long copyright terms are one brick in the wall preventing the free flourishing of the arts. And it's the lack of better-done art which leaves the public hungry enough to accept the empty calories the large, government-favored firms want to sell. Those empty calories will inevitably be dressed up in sex and violence, because the higher, more mindful forms of expression require levels of art largely incompatible with corporate packaging, and in any case tend to contribute to unwelcome challenges to the dumbed-down public mentality which proves so pliable to our political and corporate masters.
You'd think a Conservative in Britain would realize that this current regime is playing mostly into the hands of New Labor, and that a return to the more conservative form of capitalism, where small players are encouraged to do their entrepreneurial best, and corporations towards the monopolistic end of the spectrum are restrained or even broken up by government, rather than treated as its special partners - which is the very neo-fascism that New Labor has led Britain into.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton