Slashdot Mirror
ISP Filters & Copyright Extension Defeated In EU
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Last November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking at how culture affects the economy and recommended a 'balance between the opportunities for access to cultural events and content and intellectual property' saying that 'criminalizing consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution.' Industry lobbyists, of course, immediately sprang into action to try to turn that around, writing amendments that would set up mandatory ISP copyright filters and extend EU copyrights to match the USA's life-plus-70 term. Thankfully, the committee rejected all of those amendments: 'Clearly, they're not going to let the ITRE or the European recording industry push them around, which is great news for Europeans. Now if we could only get the US Congress to show as much spine as the French (ouch).'"
Disney have a lot to answer for. Veto all Disney products :-)
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
...the fact that criminalising consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution. (emphasis mine)When was the last time anyone aside from the consumer expressed that view so blatantly? When was the last time anyone in government expressed that view? The two together is just about as close to Christmas in January as you can get - and I'm not just saying that 'cause I'm a Jew...
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
Congratulation you just killed open source.
Let me guess... You don't understand how free software can be big business.
Let me make a second guess... You don't understand why indie producers make a profit on sites where you can also download their music.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I would suggest that (parts) of the EU, or rather elements of the apparatus that make up the Frankenstein-esque quasi-federal EU 'government' are considerably more pro-consumer and anti-monopolist than most other similar bodies. I am not surprised that this has come from the EU, it is in line with many of their better idea's (although there still appear to be quite a few stinkers hanging around in the system.)
My worry is that once the EU settles down and ceases to be about member nations haggling for power and influence, that the lobbyists and other 'usual suspects' of corporate power achieve some level of patronage and influence. The only really surprising thing is that given how unaccountable the whole EU system seems at present, that it hasn't happened already.
But then I am a pessimist, happy Hanukkah.
Fuck yeah im a pirate!
all for me! scrEW EVERYONE ELSE!
i took some lessons from big business..
STEAL ANYTHING THAT IS NOT NAILED DOWN!
GREED IS GOOD!
I WANT MINE!
HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH NOTHING!
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT WORTH A DAMM!
CONTENT CREATORS ARE FOR BENDING OVER THE TABLE!
ALL THAT MATTERS IS *MY* BOTTOM LINE.
LOOT, PLUNDER, STEAL!
EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH!
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS!
So fuck you. and fuck all the companys who taught me this lesson. I know no loyalty now!
What... that wasnt the lesson i was supposed to learn from big companys? well shit. someone should tell them to change their tactics. because thats exactly what they are teaching me. And i'm a quick study.
If you think any of that kills open source, then I suspect you are confusing open source with copyleft. Even if you abolished copyright altogether, open source software would remain. It is copyleft licenses like the GPL that depend upon copyright to operate.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection :) .
Plus it just complicates figuring out if the content is in or out of the public domain. You have to determine if the creator is still alive, after all. Dates are much more reliable.
Also, if there must be additional registration periods (bad idea, see above) the fee should increase exponentially each time, to discourage squatting on barely profitable properties.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
Really. Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Seriously, I want to know.
If you think that you put people in office to do what you would do, then you're sorely missing the point of a republic. They're in place because we (theoretically) value their (hypothetical) decisionmaking abilities and they best reflect the () values of those electing said representative. We send people to Washington as trustees, not as mouthpieces, because the people rarely speak with one voice and the Framers were deathly afraid of the masses.
If you don't like the values of the representative, get a different representative. Don't whine about media control or interest groups or the "myth of two different parties"--if the people wanted something else, they'd have it. The fact that they don't generally give a crap is just part of the reality of our society, and in true democratic fashion, they get an equal voice for their apathy, pound for pound.
If they said it, the media would crucify them, being interested parties. So they don't dare say it.
As far as I can see, your proposal is worse than the status quo in every way imaginable.
I still don't see how ISP filtering for copyright information would work at a technical level. Every piece of data transmitted would have to be collected, reassembled, and compared against a huge data base then cross referenced against a valid supplier list. The required computing power at all network nodes is just laughable.
How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die? Did you even think about that before you wrote it?
Here, I'll make your argument for you: if working on science and the arts will most likely result in a revenue stream for your heirs then people who care greatly for their heirs future riches will stop working 'normal jobs' and take up working on science and the arts, therefore promoting it, which is the goal of copyright.
To which I have to ask, will the number of people switching from these 'normal jobs' to working on science and the arts really make up for the chilling effects that the increased copyright terms will have on science and the arts?
How we know is more important than what we know.
First, if you offer free music on your website, people come to your website rather than The Pirate Bay to get your music for free. Then you get hits for the advertising on your site and get paid. Then, because your music is free, you get a fan base faster than you would have otherwise and sell them concert tickets, merchandise, physical CDs with liner art et al, etc.
I agree, although the commission also does a few good things. After all, they are the ones usually involved in complaints about Microsoft abusing its monopoly powers.
You're still missing the point.
The only representative that shares your policy positions on all the issues is yourself. The chances of finding an "ideal" candidate are slim to none. Candidates will seek the broadest base of support they can find, both to maximize fundraising and to seek an electoral mandate. As a result, the issues candidates take positions on are the ones most important to the electorate mixed with those most important to the nation (insert your own conspiracy theory about what guides government hot-button issues: Illuminati, media cabal, Germans, greedy politicians).
The only way to get a candidate to take a position on the issue is if "the people" think it should be discussed. Not just some people, or a few people...especially on something as unsexy as copyright. "Copyright reform" frankly is a non-issue. There's no real, serious debate in this country (or any other) about fundamentally changing the nature of copyright. There are debates around the periphery, about scope and privacy and DRM to some extent, but those are issues for legal professionals and policymakers. Validity of copyright isn't a question; commercial importance of copyright is certain. It's not fodder for a campaign.
The issues only serve as guidance about the values of a candidate. They are not dispositive. You should vote for those who share your values, as you're more likely to be satisfied with their performance than if you choose based solely on the issues.
It's nice in theory. In reality, people already do this, and all the indie bands also have day jobs.
Yeah....I don't know why everyone on this thread is so concerned with the length and registration of copyright. That's not the problem. The problem comes from the transferral of copyright to corporations who then exploit the creators and give them nothing in return. If it wasn't legal to sign away all your rights to a creation then it would vastly change the creative landscape. You might say "Well, people shouldn't be so stupid to sign away all their rights" but when your only options from the companies that run the media are to sign away everything, or lose out on your big break, you can't really blame people for doing it. There are certain things that you can't legally sign away, like certain liabilities, so I don't see why your copyrights can't be the same.
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
At present, every blog post, every comment on Slashdot, every image I use in my site design, receives copyright protection automatically. You've just destroyed that. Oh, and Creative Commons with it. That's kinda the point. Copyrighting blog posts is silly. The creative commons thing is a valid point though, you'd have to provide some anti-copyright device there too. 2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
Just destroyed any right to privacy. Nah, just don't copyright your work and your privacy is intact. 3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
So if I work hard building - let's say - boats, and one day I drop dead of a heart attack, my children inherit the boats and can sell them. But if I work hard designing boats, my kids starve? Sure, a short fixed time would be better in this respect. But few would think your children have the right to profit from your old inventions almost forever as it is now. 4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
Since copyright is currently extended to millions of creations every single day, this is completely untenable.
5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
And this too. _Currently_. The point is to discourage copyrighting every fucking thing in existence, remember? 6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.
And let's do the same for cars! Okay, Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Mercedes: All your cars now cost $20,000. Non-sequitur. Copyright is an artificial tool with artificial properties, physical objects obey the laws of nature.
Under copyright you can make a song and pretend it's worth billions and there's nothing anyone can legally do about your monopoly, but if you tried the same with a ferrari people would just manufacture their own. (ignoring copyright/etc in the latter part of sentence for the sake of argument) As far as I can see, your proposal is worse than the status quo in every way imaginable. Maybe for some definitions of "every way imaginable".
Moreover, having a lot of constituents does not justify sending them form letters. Ignore them quietly if you wish, but sending them a load of propaganda only works on... the kind of people that voted her into office. Ok, point made, but it's still insulting.
As far as I can see all the ideas here (except 6) would be really good. I'm just somewhat depressed about the fact that I don't believe that any of them will see the light of day in my lifetime.
You response to point 1, 4 and 5 just shows a different opinion. You think it is good that millions of trivial "works" are removed from the public domain every day. The GP (and I disagree).
Point 2 demonstrates a frighteningly narrow view of privacy. The "right" of a worker in a big corporation not to get credit for his work is equated with "all of privacy". Scary stuff.
Point 3 is fairy tale, both the person who build boats, and the person who design boats for a living, sell the boats/designs. There is no boats left for their children to inherit. If they want to secure their children, they better get life insurance. In that they are similar to the 98% of us who work for a salary. All of us get paid once for our work and skills, not the rest of our life when people use the product of our work and skills.
There is a tiny truth behind point 3, a small number of musicians can actually live by their old royalties. But even for musicians I would not recommend this as an alternative to a proper retirement plan. It is very rare.
Point 6 and 7 shows that you are unaware that standard royalties are existing practice, think music radio.
Point 6 also shows an inability to distinguish between imaginary and real property. Even if you could license the design of a Mercedes for US$ 20.000, an actual working car would be far more expensive. You cannot drive around in imaginary property, you need real property for that.
So, to summary: Unlike the GP you believe putting zillions of trivial stuff under copyright is a worthy goal in itself, you are woefully unaware of how the real world function in many aspects from boat building to royalty, and you are unable to distinguish between the real and the imaginary.
Of course SCOTUS admitted that perpetual copyright is unconstitutional. The enumerated powers clause is quite specific about that. They way they rationalize that a last-minute retroactive extension of copyright ownership is not "perpetual" is kind of beside the point. If doing it twice is constitutional, why isn't doing it three times, or four?