Copyright Alliance Presses Presidential Candidates

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Not satisfied with the current copyright terms of life plus seventy years and huge financial liabilities for infringement, the Copyright Alliance is pressuring presidential candidates for stronger copyright laws. In particular, they want the candidates to promise to divert police resources to punish even non-commercial copyright infringement. After all, without copyright, what would become of the next Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci?"

Comments

Great Works

[dintech]

I refuse to believe Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci's works would be any less great despite their copyright status. Don't those works predate copyright? Aren't they just proving the point that great works are most useful when they are free in the public domain?

Re:Great Works

[dintech]

I'd also like to add that those artists were successful in their own times. Maybe not mega rich, and maybe there were fewer people hanging off them getting rich from their talents. However their lives perhaps demonstrate a successful model for artist in the post copyright era. In the case of Shakespeare by having his work played in the public domain perhaps the future for bands? Also Michaelangelo being commissioned (and paid) for his art. I'm sure their are a few rich fans out there who would love to commission their very own Red Hot Chilli Peppers track for instance.

Oh I'm sorry, I'm forgetting about the poor media execs...

Re:Great Works

[arivanov]

They would not be less great. They will be in jail.

Sir Isaac Newton wrote, "If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".

So did Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, da Vinchi, Bocaccio, Chocer and everyone else.

If copyright was enforced at that time they would have been in jail.

Re:Great Works

[Zeinfeld]

This is such an unattractive debate. I have less than zero sympathy for either pole.

On the one hand we have media execs that demand tougher copyright laws "to protect artists" while having clauses inserted in the same bill to cheat them of their returned rights.

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Copyright is a legislative issue. The chance of a Presidential veto of copyright legislation is quite small. The opinions of the candidates are pretty well irrelevant.

Re:Great Works

[Tony]

. . . doesn't mean I want them to die broke and penniless, and that did happen a lot more prior to copyright.

Many people died paupers, not just artisans and inventors. Even today, most musicians, authors, poets and inventors die without making much money from their art, while most other folks have a bit more income.

Re:Great Works

[dintech]

It was a different era, though. During that time, there were less people who aspired to be artists.

This is true. However, I think the reason there are more artists is purely because there is more money. Not because the human race is suddenly more artistic. I'm sure if the money disappeared then so would the 'me-toos' that drown out the good works. The true artists would remain because they've always been there regardless of money.

Re:Great Works

[rolfwind]

Indeed, the great copyright myth as it is sold today covers the fact that the corporations benefit from it in the current state and they are only lobbying for more. Many famous artists don't even own their own songs in their entirety.

We shouldn't be duped into thinking this corporativism is helpful at all for the artists. Frankly, I don't think any legislation - even well intentioned legislation - will ever help artist. What will help them is open distribution channels where they can retain control instead of signing it over to Megacorp - and that is what the internet is providing.

Few mainstream muscians have gone that way (Radiohead, NiN), but hopefully it'll only be a matter of time until more realize this.

Re:Great Works

[Captain Splendid]

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds. The rest of us just want to pay a fair price, which basically means premium price for new/popular stuff, and a lot less for everything else. You know, how the market works.

Re:Great Works

[Zeinfeld]

One important option is that the copyright should never be transferable - the creator shall always be in control. There may be multiple creators involved in a work, but that's still possible to handle.

OK I have just finished writing a book. If copyright was not transferable I would have had no choice other than to self publish.

OK so you didn't quite mean that I guess, you meant that the author's share is not transferable. But that means that I have no option other than to rely on income from royalties. I can't get an advance from the publisher because doing so would mean transfering the rights.

Copyright only has a value to authors if it can be traded. If I have an annuity income stream from any reliable source I am going to be able to find someone who is willing to factor it and give me a lump sum.

The fact that the labels and the studios take assinine positions on copyright does not mean that opponents should. There was relatively little wrong with the state of copyright law in 1950. Its only recently that it went pear shaped. The studios and labels made the mistake of making a land grab at the same time that new technology was threatening their traditional revenue models.

Re:Great Works

[PopeRatzo]

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Zeinfeld, you're not paying close enough attention. I am anything but exceptional, yet I make great effort to support artists and innovators directly, completely circumventing the copyright system. As someone who makes my living with my intellectual property, I am qualified to give an opinion on the issue: Supporting the record labels, movie studios, Sony, Fox, etc., has absolutely zero to do with supporting artists. If they could get away with it, every one of those corporate vendors of art and media would do away with creative people completely. To them, we are nothing but superfluous content-providers. That's one reason you see all of the above throwing resources at "user-generated" content. They would love to turn every creative venture into nothing more than a delivery system for wealth from consumers to them.

I am well-acquainted with the anti-copyright and anti-IP community. These are not people who "want to have everything for free", but generally people who put great value on innovation and creativity. We just believe that innovation and creativity are not being served by the current system, which is designed only to enrich people who have neither innovation or creativity. Most of us actually pay more, and put more energy into supporting artists and innovators directly.

In particular, they want the candidates to promise to divert police resources to punish even non-commercial copyright infringement.

This is evidence that the corporations who control content see themselves as above the law, and will go to extreme lengths to protect their immoral and tenuous hold on the flow of ideas. They are fighting on several fronts to keep themselves rich and powerful. They want to destroy the currently relatively neutral manner in which information moves on the internet. They are using every technical tool to try to lock-down content so that they keep complete control over it's movement and use. They want to destroy any publicly-funded spread of content such as libraries. They want to destroy and lock-down any uncontrolled use of content such as Internet Radio, Slingox and similar products, or P2P content sharing. And they will go so far as to destroy the Internet as we currently know it in order to achieve their goals. They will not stop until the Internet is nothing more than a metered, monitored and mediocre method of moving money from our pockets to theirs. They will go to any lengths, including subverting the constitution, bribing lawmakers, and using the police powers hitherto meant for public protection in order to save their wealth and power. Because without their pimping of the creativity of others, they have nothing to sell, no assets, and will disappear.

I don't think it's hyperbole to say that the RIAA, their sponsors and others like them are the enemy of anyone that believes in liberty, creativity, and the free flow of information and ideas. If you support artists, creators of media, writers, inventors, innovators, or if you yourself are one of these, they are your enemy too.

Re:Great Works

[Captain Splendid]

What the fuck are you talking about? I was refuting GP's claims that one end of the argument is nothing but freeloaders, when it's nothing of the kind.

And before you say: no, allofmp3's prices were not fair prices. Not in the slightest.

And, just like the GP, you brought up a pointless and baseless claim. Nice move dumbass! Now fuck off back to your hole.

Re:Great Works

[Zeinfeld]

I'm increasingly of the belief that the morality of file sharing is irrelevant. Right or wrong, I doubt even the government can stop it, as easy as it's become. And we're already at the point where companies' pursuit of profits are inhibiting the good of society, and stopping file sharing (if we are to assume that is even possible) would go much further than that, with a result a lot worse than starving artists and media executives.

Society is not held together with technical security measures. It is held together by accountability and honesty.

The critical mistake of the RIAA is that they engaged in a whole heap of unethical practices such as the returned rights grab at the same time that they were demanding ethical behavior from others.

The RIAA made it socially acceptable to commit file sharing. People don't see the behavior as criminal, they don't see it as wrong.

This should not suprise people, after all President Thumscrews is doing the same in Iraq, preaching to the world about the benefits of democracy while actively encouraging the use of torture.

Hypocrisy has a corrosive effect on society.

Re:Great Works

[Zeinfeld]

Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds. The rest of us just want to pay a fair price, which basically means premium price for new/popular stuff, and a lot less for everything else. You know, how the market works.

It is the argument repeated time and again on Slashdot. Evul medja execs, blah, cheat artists, blah, get my movies from bit torrent via the Pirate Bay.

The objective of the Priate Bay is not to make content available at a 'fair' price, it is to make the content available for free. Same for Napster 1.0. Its not a straw man argument, its the business model of the copyright busting companies whose activities are routinely justified and defended on Slashdot.

Re:Great Works

[nEoN nOoDlE]

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists.

Not everyone just wants stuff for free (although that would be nice). Innovation and art is being stifled in the name of copyright and giving artists and execs more money for no work. It's a broken system when a person can make 1 song and live the rest of their lives without working a single day. I'm sorry, but no song is worth that much wealth, and receiving that much is a large incentive to not produce any more art and music. When an artist is threatened and actually has to keep producing for a living, that's when art is at its best. The talking point about how art will not be produced if an artist can't make "fuck you money" doing it is a flat out lie, as has been proven since the beginning of time before copyright. While 99% of the population has to struggle every day to get their day's worth of pay, artists can put in a few weeks worth of actual work and live comfortably for the rest of their lives. The music industry wants to make you think that they've got a monopoly on good music, but that's just untrue. Prince and the rest of the RIAA's artists are not the only people with good ideas for music. If they were forced to compete fairly with the rest of the musicians in this world who are struggling to get record contracts because the music industry has convinced them that's the only way to do it, then there would be a lot more music out there to listen to, and a lot more innovation and good music being produced.

And I'm saying this as an artist. I work as an animator, something I've dreamed about since I was a little kid. I would be doing this even if I didn't get a paycheck for it.

Re:Great Works

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

If you disagree with those arguments, that's fine. Misrepresenting people's views, strawman arguments, are never acceptable

But he's not misrepresenting people's views! There are a lot of people out there who are in favour of abolishing copyright. They may not get modded to +5 Insightful very often, but they are there. Some of them are more passive than others, opting to wait and try to steer the market away from copyright. Others are a bit more forward about it, some of whom demand that copyright be abolished NOW! These people DO want to get stuff for free, although many of them wouldn't admit it if you ask them. However, as an entire movement, they've managed to convince me that it isn't primarily greed that's motivating them, rather the genuine ideological conviction that culture and information should be accessible and free to anyone who seeks it out. While I respect that, and I agree it would be nice, I just don't think it's feasible, so I'm constantly locking horns with them.

Don't kid yourself, your "side" of the debate has its share of extreme views, and their influence on the debate is not insignificant.

Re:Great Works

[SonicSpike]

Actually the chance of a presidential veto with Ron Paul as president is quite high!

Re:Great Works

[ultranova]

Of course I understand your point, but my attempt at sarcasm was meant to indicate that you are making your point too broadly. "Corporations hate innovation" does not explain why so many corporations fund university research. Nor does it explain many corporations' participation in innovative schemes that bring them no immediate benefit, notably IBM's contributions to Linux.

No, you don't seem to. Big corporations hate innovation. They fund university research to stay competitive against other big corporations and up-and-coming small corporations; however, the money put to this research doesn't actually increase profits, it simply prevents them from decreasing.

Big corporations hate innovation precisely because it forces them to spend money to get as much of it as possible for themselves.

As for IBM, it is simply defending its marketshare. Funding an open-sourced OS is more cost-effective than developing one by itself; however, if not for innovation in competing systems, IBM could slash this cost altogether and be more profitable.

Big corporations hate innovation because it forces them to expend resources to keep up with it and threatens the status quo and therefore their position. Small corporations love innovation because it threatens the status quo and therefore opens up possibilities of advancement. When you're at the bottom, disruptions are good because you have little to lose and lots to gain; when you're at the top, disruptions are bad because you have little to gain and lots to lose. That's why it's in the best interests of big corporations to try to stiffle change - and that includes innovation.

Anyway, you don't have to trust my theories on this. After all, the copyright extensions are known as "Mickey Mouse Protection Act" for a reason. The current copyright laws - and, I suspect, other IP laws as well - are the result of heavy lobbying by large corporations. They did not help those corporations to grow; the corporations became big before lobbying for those laws. Innovation preceeded draconian IP laws, so it really doesn't make sense to assume that draconian IP laws would be the cause of innovation.

This is hardly surprising anyway: the whole point of innovation is to combine pre-existing things in new and surprising ways, and copyrights, patents and other forms of "intellectual property" exist precisely to stop anyone from doing this without explicit permission from patent/copyright/whatever holder. Add in submarine patents, eternal copyright term, horrible penalties from any infraction, and general FUD-mongering by the copyright holders, and it would take considerable amount of willing blindness to claim that the end result is beneficial for innovation.

Re:Great Works

[DesScorp]

"Man, I'm sick of this strawman argument. The only people who want everything free, forevah, are retarded 12-year olds."

Well, then Slashdot is dominated by retarded 12 year olds. Because the dominant ethos here is "I want it free, and if you don't give it to me, I'll steal it, and there's nothing you can do about it".

Re:Great Works

[Thing 1]

However, as an entire movement, they've managed to convince me that it isn't primarily greed that's motivating them, rather the genuine ideological conviction that culture and information should be accessible and free to anyone who seeks it out.

You might be interested in this site, Project Gutenberg, or perhaps for helping out the cause, it's companion site, Distributed Proofreaders.

Short background: Project Gutenberg is a "digital printing press" for all works that have fallen into the public domain. (They will "soon" run out of material to digitize, since nothing has hit the public domain since 1923. "Soon" could be decades, but Eldred didn't win in the Supreme Court, so expect more copyright extensions...)

I've read Einstein, Mark Twain, Leonardo DaVinci, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and many others without risking violating copyright while reading on my Palm. Highly recommend them! I now understand the two Theories of Relativity, which is no small feat. :) I recommend Plucker as the reader, it's also open source (GPL).

Damn! too late

[Anonymous Coward]

I was going to comment making a prediction that someone would completely fail to spot the "what would become of the next Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci?" comment was meant to be ironic. Seems I was too slow.

Slashdot can be depressingly predictable at times.

Without copyright...

[christurkel]

After all, without copyright, what would become of the next Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci?"

Widely imitated styles that will help usher in a new Renaissance of learning, arts and science?

Getting you money after you die...

[Slashidiot]

Copyright is already far too long, as it lets you make more money while being dead. You are dead! You cannot be productive! No reason to pay you anymore! Because, no matter how well I did at my job, once I die I stop getting money.

Copyright is supposed to exist to promote creating stuff, so you can profit of what you created. "As long as you live" should be long enough for anybody.

I certainly will not be creating anything and thinking: "And when I die, my grandson will still be getting money for this!"

Re:Getting you money after you die...

[Plunky]

The two problems with that are, one, corporations, and two, it's reasonable for an artist's dependents to be fed by his work for a little while even if he's hit by a bus one day.

My employers will not continue paying my dependents for any significant amount of time after I die.

Whats different for an 'artist' then??

Time to Pull Out Your Glad-Hand

[darkonc]

This is the time to start lobbying your presidental and congressional candidates and worker groups. If you get a handful of IT specialists and shop them around to the candidate who's attitude is most friendly to consumer issues in copyright, you'll really get their attention.

Candidates don't just need money (that's good too). They also need volunteers, and -- if they see people lobbying for volunteers to support pro-consumer candidates, they'll react to that.

This is where "Vote Early, Vote Often" actually applies.

Methinks they need to read the Constitution

[Rogerborg]

How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?

United States Constitution, Article 1: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

So I guess the correct response would be to enact legislation:

1. Prohibiting "work for hire" contracts, to ensure that the exclusive rights are secured for the author. According to the Holy Constitution, all authors should be freelance, not toiling on Massa Mickey's content plantation.
2. Setting up a body to make subjective value judgements about whether an artwork is "useful" or not, as the Constitution mandates, with an assumption that it is not (otherwise why would the Unquestionable Constitution specify "useful" at all?).
3. Repeal the Mickey Mouse Protection Act and "limit" the duration of copyright in order to promote "progress", rather than eternal milking of the same work.

I think that about covers it. Any more that I missed?

Re:ZOMG Lobbying!

[deniable]

Special interests in media. Modern politics is all about money and media. The two go together. Telling media special interests where to go would be a real smart move for a politician. He'd end up with fair and balanced reporting.

How about FAIR copyright and FAIR use?

[dananderson]

Instead of copyright law biased to the media companies, how about FAIR copyright? Current copyright has outrageously long terms lasting several decades (sometimes over a century). Copyright law has no provision for punishment for Copyright FRAUD where media companies claim copyright on public domain works. Fair use is intentionally vague. Let's level the playing field--both Republicans and Democrats in Congress are in the racket, passing ever-more biased copyright law.

Writer's strike

[Scrameustache]

Copyright Alliance executive director Patrick Ross says he speaks "on behalf of the 11 million Americans employed in the creative industries," and asserts that piracy reduction is essential.
"The future of our creative output in the United States is at stake in the 2008 presidential election," the letter to the candidates says. "It is critical not only for members of the creative community but also for the US economy to ensure that copyrights are respected and piracy is reduced. We are asking you to let us know what you would do to help preserve one of America's greatest strengths, its creative community." Would those lobbyist happen to represent the same corporations that are now denying the authors their right to be paid their share for the money that is made in new media?
My, how 'uncharacteristically' hypocritical of them.

Re:Write your own questionaires

[zotz]

Ask them if they think any crime of rape should carry a lesser punishment than any copyright infringement. And if so, which ones and why...

all the best,

drew

Re:Penn and Teller need to do a show about this

[adam1101]

Quoth the Oracle of Omaha:

"[The perfect amount of money to leave children is] enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing."

Fixed that

[HalAtWork]

"After all, without copyright, what would become of the Copyright Alliance?"

There, fixed that for ya. What is that, like the new RIAA & MPAA? All I know is if I were an artist that distributed copyrighted works, and I am, I wouldn't really see it necessary to make money off my works after I'm dead. I wouldn't really want to profit off my work more than it's worth either, that's for consumers to decide. I'm a productive member of society and I don't need to leech off of everyone to stay alive, I'm perfectly capable.

Oh, ok, I see that The Copyright Alliance is a lobbying organization formed on May 17, 2007 by 29 companies and organizations including groups that represent songwriters, recording artists, film makers, authors, photographers and sports leagues (see members below). The group is led by Patrick Ross, who recently left the Progress and Freedom Foundation [The Progress & Freedom Foundation is a U.S. market-oriented think tank based in Washington, D.C. that studies the digital revolution and its implications for public policy.]

With such members such as RIAA, MPAA, NBC, Major League Baseball, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, NFL, so basically everyone who is a conduit for someone else's talent.

Stronger copyright laws create more piracy

[Midnight Thunder]

The reality that the members of the copyright alliance fail to recognise is that if you make fair use so difficult to achieve, then people will default to piracy. The reasoning behind this is that if laws are so absurdly stringent that no mortal being can follow, then they won't even bother.

The other problem is that culture loses out when copryright still applies to works that the owner refuse to distribute due to 'economic reasons', but fail to allow the public domain to take over.

With the strength of these fascist copyright holders, we need a fair use lobby with equally strong support. The sad thing is that when so many people fail to realise what they are losing, such counter-lobbies are unlikely to get much support or funding.

Re:The issue

[khallow]

As I see it, much of the best work in history has been ripped off from someone else. I can see the argument for copyright, but keep in mind that many of the best artists in history predate copyright. So we have a old counterexample to the claim that ending copyright will destroy artistic creation.

Second, you seem to be complaining that copyright is weak and then only cite examples where copyright isn't supported? There's always going to be some place where they will copy your stuff for cheap. Is the point of your work to sell in Malaysia or China? I doubt it.

Last I checked, the US automatically grants life plus 75 or 95 years copyright to any work you create. That's far too generous. My take make copyright less generous and get third world countries to respect copyright, then it'll be reasonable. Maybe make the time period 25-50 years after creation of the work no matter whether you live or die. Partly, I'm looking at this from an economic point of view. I think artists will put out for less than the current overly generous copyright terms. And we stop the abuse of long copyrights by large businesses.

who pays to protect, for how long... Re:The issue

[bukuman]

I agree with your characterization of the issue as being about community / author ownership. I think the original idea of copyright was that the author would have ownership / 'monopoly on reproduction' for 'enough' time to reap a reasonable reward and then the ownership would pass to the community. In exchange for the value to the community it would provide a legal framework that could be used to defenf the authors monopoly for that initial period.

I'm a bit confused about who you want to be defended from though. Existing laws already protect against commercial piracy operations and even non-commercial distribution. It's just a case of enforcing them - the easy targets seem to be single mothers in the USA. Do the movie studio's steal work to make bad films? sue em under existing laws...

It seems now the copyrighteous want not only to extend the period of protection (that the community 'funds' through having laws and courts to hear the cases) but also to increase how much the community directly funds the defence of the copyright holders monopoly. They want their cake and they want someone else to pay for it, oh the want it forever.

The trick we are all faced with is finding a new balance between the author and the community under the new technical reality of zero cost copying and distribution.

Copyright is too strong already.

[CodeBuster]

Although I have made the case before it bears repeating here that copyright laws have already seen too many expansions and extensions during the last decades of the twentieth century with the the Copyright Act of 1976 and the even more notorious Copyright Term Extension Act (aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act). Prior to the copyright act of 1976 the terms were 20 years plus another 20 year extension if the author filed for one. The term was extended in 1976 to life of the author plus 50 years or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The extension act (lobbied and pushed heavily by Disney among others) extended the terms again to life of the author plus 70 years and 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever is earlier, for works of corporate authorship.

Now, the Consitution states that Congress may grant exclusive rights for a limited amount of time to their creators...they key word here is LIMITED. You don't have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to realize that most music, including the music of your youth, will not enter the public domain in your lifetime , so how does that give people an incentive to participate in the "bargain" of copyright? It is a bargain in the same way that the mob shakes down people for protection money, using their position of strength to muscle the average citizen or the honest business owner into paying them.

The last thing we need is another extension of copyright. The founders did not mean "infinity minus one day" (as suggested by former MAFIAA chairperson Jack Valenti) when they said limited. Enough is enough or would be if the MAFIAA wasn't so damn greedy.

Hover by sheer willpower.

[DavidTC]

Arguing about the morality of copyright violations on the internet is a bit like arguing about the morality of gravity after you fall out of an airplane.

You can't sit there and arguable about inevitable thing being 'good' or 'bad'. They just are. Digital data is instantly and infinitely copyable. It's not an argument, it's not a debate, there are no pros and cons to list and weighty questions to decide on, carefully balancing the rights of each side. Copyright with no barrier except legal to copying is meaningless. Poof, copyright just vanishes into thin air.

So we have fallen out of the plane. We could, perhaps, use some sort of parachute to land slowly, or we could plummet to our death, but the plane ride is over and we are, indeed, going to end up on the ground.

Notice I am, in no way, arguing this is a good thing, so don't respond with 'You're an amoral bastard who wants to steal everything from people'. We Are Outside the Plane and Falling. That is just how it is. It is not a choice. It was an unforeseen, inevitable result of the internet.

And this may, indeed, be something entirely horrible that will destroy all artistic creativity forever, leaving us with nothing, or, worse, reality TV. I hope not. But the result of being outside the airplane and falling is not my fault, and I did not say I approved of what will happen, but, nevertheless, we are still there and still falling.

Almost all discussion that goes on here about copyright is missing this one vital fact, and is instead arguing about the in-flight meal and how we're going to build our own meals instead of eating that crap. Come on, people, pay attention, we're supposed to be smart. Did you not feel the cabin depressurized when we collided with Napster?

This is why I didn't really mind DRM. It was attempting to grab hold of the plane after we fell out, with a makeshift grappling hook build out of shoes. Not a really viable option, and obviously didn't work, but you have to give props that someone in the corporate world realized: We just fell out of the fucking airplane. Oh shit oh shit oh shit. Do something!

This article, OTOH, is talking about an attempt to legislate us back into the airplane. It's somewhat sad.