Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Cutback Proposed As RIAA Solution
An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe proposes a novel solution to the ongoing spate of RIAA lawsuits over alleged music copying. He suggests legislation which cuts back corporate copyrights from 120 years to 5 years. 'We should do what we do to children who misbehave,' he writes. 'Take away their privileges.' Wolfe says this is regardless of the misunderstanding surrounding the latest case, which apparently isn't about ripping CDs to one's own computer. As to those who say copyrights are a right: "That's simply a misunderstanding of their purpose. Copyrights, like patents, weren't implemented to protect their owners in perpetuity. They are part of a dance which attempts to balance off societal benefits against incentives for writers and inventors. You want to incentivize people to push the state of the creative and technical arts, but you don't want give those folks such overbearing protections that future advances by other innovators are stifled." What do you think; is it time to cut off the record industry?"
Aw, poor baby. Reality leave a bitter taste in your mouth?
On the other hand, seeing as that is neither the notion behind nor the effect of copyright, maybe it's not reality but your own warped perspective that leaves you bitter. Either way, if your post is indicative of your ability to think, it is not surprising that you do work for hire rather than generate content for personal copyright. I'm always curious at the way the deluded think their personal perspective is so much more important than democratic processes and suchlike. You should try becoming a politician - that instinct for disregarding the concerns of other people then becomes a useful attribute.
I agree with you, the general public in the USofA is very pleasant company.
Yet some 75% of them did in 2004 not do their duty and go out to vote against the man that is the biggest smear on American democracy since (possibly) 1776.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Yeah, well -- there isn't a really polite way to put this -- suck it up.
I mean this in the nicest possible way, but well, fuck you too.
Nobody keeps paying ME for the creative work I did a month ago in my job.
Nice to know your think-through of policy issues is limited to your own perspective. And your post doesn't even give much indication you've thought that through clearly.
You and the musician have exactly the same protections under copyright law right now. If he writes something while working for an employer, nobody pays him for the creative work he did a month ago either. And if you write something on your own time, a month from now, you totally have the right to negotiate revenue from its use. And either of you might well be able to negotiate rights to work done on company time with your employer, even if that stuff is typically classified as a work for hire.
In short, current copyright law has nothing to do with the fact that an independent musician has a greater claim on future revenue from their work than a clock puncher -- it's all about when and for whom the work was done.
So if you want some parity between you and said independent musician, rather than yanking away somebody else's protection, feel free to "suck it up," as you say, and get out there and take the risk of doing your best work on your own time.
five years is the compromise position, not the extreme.
Five years is much better than 120, but it's a pretty ridiculous compromise position. The apparent absence of understanding of the public benefit side of the copyright equation in discourse in the current halls of power is no reason to throw out the personal incentive/benefit side of the equation.
I seem to recall that the first act of Congress establishing copyright covered it from 17 years;
14.
that still seems awful long to me
There are people whose works don't become popular enough to bring income within the five year period you proposed, and it doesn't always have anything to do with merit. Aside from the fact that some works take years to realize, there's a certain luck that comes to buzz and word of mouth and promotion, and there's enough worthwhile work that doesn't see it inside of five or ten years that you're essentially giving it away for free by making a copyright period shorter than that. Something around 15 years starts to seem like a pretty good spot once you realize that.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
If you want to get rid of the companies, why don't you just go live in North Korea?
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com