Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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?
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.
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?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
We need a much much much weaker copyright system. Already, due to "copyright infringement" the *IAA has managed to fine single mothers and college students outrageous amounts of money for supposedly "stealing songs" this has already harmed the emergence of P2P software as a way of distributing bandwidth better as simply a way of "illegally" distributing material. In technology, there is little innovation compared to what there should be due to software patents, outrageous licenses and copyright. We need to protect fair use and give the right to make backups and to share files and songs, without it, despite what the *IAA thinks, our economy of software, music and movies will collapse leaving the *IAA and artists without a penny. Our copyright system is broken, if it becomes hardly any stronger the USA will be right up there with China and other nations that are hostile to information sharing and become even more digitally shackled then we already are.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
Copyright Alliance Presses Presidential Candidates
OMG! Special interest groups are pushing their agenda by pressuring politicians! We've never seen that before! But what will become of us!?!
You just got troll'd!
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!"
Tis women makes us love, Tis Love that makes us sad, Tis sadness makes us drink, And drinking makes us mad.
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.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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:
I think that about covers it. Any more that I missed?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I know someone who is older, around 60, whose father wrote music for movies and TV shows between the 1930s-1950s. He still gets a very handsome check each month for every time one of those shows or movies are broadcasted. The son lived his entire without working, just resting on the fruits of his father's labor. No new music is being produced nor does it encourage anyone to make any.
So I am left asking, what is this BS? This would encourage less productivity, not more.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
"My fellow Americans, today we face many pressing issues: the war in Iraq, assaults on traditional liberties at home and abroad, a difficult economy, climate change, and the list goes on. There's another issue I'd like to address today, and it may seem like it's not quite on the scale of those others. But it's an important one, and it has implications for everything I just mentioned, because the way we're going to solve those problems isn't just to ignore them and hope they'll go away; it's to use our heads and figure out solutions. More than two hundred years ago, the Founders of this great nation decided that one of the best ways to do that was to make sure that smart people who came up with important ideas were rewarded for their work, and I'd like to thank the Copyright Alliance for bringing this issue up.
;)
"Today, I am calling on Congress to fulfill their Constitutional duty to 'secure for a limited time' copyrights and patents. And limited time means limited time. It doesn't mean extending copyright every time Mickey Mouse might be due to enter the public domain. It doesn't mean sitting on patents for things that you didn't invent until someone else figures out how to make money off it, and then suing them out of the blue. When the Constitution was signed, it meant twenty years. If twenty years was good enough for James Madison, it's good enough for me. So I urge Congress to send me a bill restoring the terms of intellectual property law to their original forms, and making it clear that it's a civil matter, not a job for the FBI, because you know, Osama bin Laden is still out there and frankly I think the FBI has more important things to do."
"Thank you, good night, and God bless America."
But that's probably not the answer CA is looking for.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Way to try to justify your illegal activity, slashfags.
Not that you care about either, AC, but laws should follow morals, not the other way around. Copyright laws are the result of corruption and following them is often immoral. They prevent the free flow of information more important than pop songs anyone can hear on the radio anyway. If the US is still a functional democracy, these initiatives will be defeated and bad laws like the DMCA will be rolled back. As is usually the case, private privilege has led to vast public harm.
Copyright laws have gotten so bad that scientific and medical journals are restricted and hard to find. This is both against the author's intentions and a sever blow to the whole purpose of copyright law. Authors who publish seek the widest possible audience. They want anyone who's interested to have ready access to their findings and that's what publishing is supposed to be about. The purpose of US copyright and patent law expressed in the US Constitution is 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." Any law that goes against that purpose requires a constitutional amendment. Again and again, prominent scientists and artist have stepped forward to complain.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
The real point that should answer the questions is who owns the copyright the creator or the community at large? That really seems the debate. As a copyright holder I've already radically changed what work will be released to the public and how it will be released due to the weakness of the current copyright system. Electronic distibution and foreign markets that ignore copyright has seriously threatened the market and the ability of creators to make a living. Yes there's still money to be made but for how much longer? I have films based on my work in stores in Malaysia shortly after their release for a $1 a copy. South East Asia is already spoiled as a market with the largest potential market China being almost exclusively pirate. If the creator doesn't benefit from his/her work then why do it in the first place? Yes we'll still create but why release it to the public? I can make money off my lesser work so I decided to not release any of my favorite work to the public because of the current system. It's like a genie in the bottle and once it's released it will be copied endlessly. I'm a writer by preference and even if I strictly limit my work to printed text even then some one will likely scan it and post it. The point I'm trying to make is if I can make a living off what I consider lesser work and I want to avoid others exploiting work that is important to me then the world at large will never benefit from the better work. You can say who cares and I agree one artist may not be important but I do know of others quietly doing the same. As free distribution of material gets worse so will the restricting of material so in the end the community suffers. Many artists were mentioned like Shakespear. He's a perfect example. Let's say his work was strictly performed live and never published in any form. He would be completely unknown today. All artists especially writers have work that they never publish. What if they as a group decide to restrict their best work? Already there's been a noticable drop in the quality of the work available. It may not be the primary cause but I will say I know for a fact that some writers are no longer releasing their best work. An artists creation is very much like a child to them and it's at times like throwing your children to the wolves. In the past it was publishers and film studios that molested writers but now the community seems to feel they own our children so it might be time to start keeping our children in a closet. There are two sides to any situation. If the community at large feels they should be able to freely exploit an artists work then they may find one day they control smoke because there might not be much out there to exploit. We need to encourage the best people not punish them. Been to a movie lately? One of my passions is film and in the past I've been known to see three films in a single day in a theater. Now I rarely go and going to Blockbuster is a depressing experience. Dozens of films were released this week for the holiday rush and yet I found myself renting several older films. I'm hesitant to sell film rights anymore due to how poorly they are treated by most film makers these days. Anyone see The Mist? They turned one of Stephen's best stories into a tedious yawn fest. If our best work is going to be stolen and butchered whats the point? I'd rather restrict my favorite work to family and friends and my safe deposit boxes.
Without Newton, string theory would have been invented hundreds of years ago.
And that is the very least of his great achievements.
"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.
Twinstiq, game news
You have to translate these things so the troll can understand. Trolls have no use for your "facts" or "reason". I'll do the honors.
"OMG no ur wrong fag.Lol."
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.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Some of the Bard's work was based on the work of other artists.
Actually, 35 of his 36 plays reuse plots from previously published works.
If you have not researched Ron Paul, then you should.
He doesn't take money from lobbyists or large corporations. Over 99.999% of Dr. Ron Paul's donations are from individuals, not PACs or corporations. Lobbyists don't even bother to talk to him in Congress because he is known as "Dr. No".
Contrast this to Fred Thompson who was a lobbyist for years.
If you vote, consider voting for someone who is principled and honest.
Libertas in infinitum
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.
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.
This piece of garbage actually made my head hurt. One of the things I do to help keep a roof over my head is edit the news stories for the Faculty of Law of the local university, and if one of my writers ever tried to pass me something like this, I would have their head on a plate.
The first four paragraphs are fine. They state the facts, raise questions (which is always healthy), and everything is backed up. And then it descends into ranting and fear mongering.
"It is ironic that the content industry invokes the Constitution to support their position."
No, it isn't. In the face of acts by the FBI and the government that plainly are unconstitutional, this is a laughable statement. The intention of the American founding fathers, as has been mentioned many, MANY times, was to promote science, research, and art by providing some protection for the creators. The American Constitution, however, was built so that it could be amended, as the founding fathers were also smart enough to realize that things change over time. To call upon their intentions is hardly ironic, particularly since those same founding fathers passed the first legal extension to copyright law before the 18th century ended - so the history says that the founding fathers were flexible.
"Recent changes to copyright law influenced by the content industry--most notably the egregious Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act--have undermined the balance by restricting fair use and expanding the length of copyright protection to preposterous durations."
This is where the editorializing starts to get even less subtle, and the factual content pretty much disappears. The word "egregious" is a value judgment completely out of place in a news story, as is the statement that copyright protection has been extended to "preposterous durations." Lifetime plus seventy years is the author's lifetime, plus that of his/her children and grandchildren - in short, the people who knew him/her in life. It is far from unlimited. And just because some corporations have tried to abuse copyright law, that doesn't mean that fair use has disappeared - it hasn't. There is a great distinction between the content of a law and the abuse of that law.
"The steady expansion of copyright law poses a grave risk to creativity and innovation because it threatens to further erode the public domain. Artistic creation will suffer gravely when the cultural heritage of America can be chained down and held ransom."
This is a statement better suited for an op-ed, not the news section. Aside from which, history has already proven it wrong. The writer has conveniently forgotten that the United States has tended to lag decades, and sometimes generations, behind the rest of the world on copyright law. If expansion of copyright law to meet the European standard of length is so terrible, how is it that Europe and Canada, which have been functioning under those terms now for decades, have remained vibrant in their cultures, rather than becoming a literary and artistic wasteland?
"When the public domain shrinks, the potential for modern adaptation of classic works is severely constrained. In the future, innovative companies that want to bring older content into new mediums will be deterred by excessive and unjustifiable licensing costs as a result of copyright expansion."
Another unfounded statement. The public domain is NOT shrinking. In fact, the Sonny Bono act specifically stated that work that had already entered the public domain could not be brought out of it from the copyright extension. The Sonny Bono act also mandated that private letters and correspondences from public figures that had been kept out of the public domain due to lack of publication ("common copyright") would now enter the public domain, vastly INCREASING it.
Aside from which, a cursory knowledge of copyright law leads you to understand that you CANNOT copyright an idea. You can only copyright the exact implementat
Robert B. Marks
Author, Demonsbane in Diablo Archive
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.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?