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

[clubby]

I'm no fan of copyright as it exists today, but just because I don't believe entertainers should necessarily be fabulously wealthy doesn't mean I want them to die broke and penniless, and that did happen a lot more prior to copyright.

That said, the idea of diverting further police resources to prosecute people who listen to music they're not supposed to listen to is terrifying. Yikes! If I didn't already live in Canada, I'd move to Canada.

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

[belmolis]

Sorry, the OP is right. The quote is not from Einstein. It is from a letter of Sir Isaac Newton to Robert Hooke dated 5 February 1675 (corresponding to 15 February 1676 in our calendar).

Re:Great Works

[arivanov]

Yep, Einstein goes straight to jail too. Quote is Newton's.

Re:Great Works

[Quantam]

"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. "

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.

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

[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.

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?

ZOMG Lobbying!

[4D6963]

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!?!

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!"

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.

Shakespear would not have happened

[Phantom of the Opera]

Some of the Bard's work was based on the work of other artists. Romeo and Juliet come to mind. From Wikipedia :

Romeo and Juliet belongs to a tradition of tragic romances stretching back to Ancient Greece. Its plot is based on an Italian tale, translated into verse as Romeus and Juliet by Arthur Brooke in 1562, and retold in prose in Palace of Pleasure by William Painter in 1582. Brooke and Painter were Shakespeare's chief sources of inspiration for Romeo and Juliet. He borrowed heavily from both, but developed minor characters, particularly Mercutio and Paris, in order to expand the plot. The play was probably written around 1595-6, and first published as a quarto in 1597. The text was of poor quality, and later editions corrected it, bringing it more in line with Shakespeare's original text. In such an idea ownership culture, those works would never have propagated and come to maturation.

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?

Penn and Teller need to do a show about this

[rolfwind]

From TFA:

The introduction to the questionnaire states that "the livelihood of the next generation, and America's global competitiveness, will increasingly depend on the strong copyright protection that allows creativity to be rewarded."

Quite the opposite. I don't quite see how the author's life + X amount of years rewards productivity.

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.

Re:Much weaker copyright

[dosius]

The most I'll grant anyone respect for is 5-10 years for software and audiovisual media, 20-40 years for books.

And I'm blatantly violating copyright laws all the time with my BT tracker, but am I bothered? Do I look bothered? I don't see anything wrong with "blatantly ignoring" a law I don't believe is right. We need so many people to "blatantly ignore" it that they have no choice but to concede (like that'll ever happen).

-uso.

insightfull?? We're moderating ironically now?

[Scrameustache]

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? Yes they do, by hundreds of years, and that sarcastic point soared majestically high above your head, like a mighty eagle.

Part of my inaugural speech ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

"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. ;)

There's an important priciple here.

[Erris]

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.

Ron Paul won't bend to this nonsense!

[SonicSpike]

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.