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).'"

Comments

NIGGER TIME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop. Niggertime!

Ron Paul, MD

In the USA, we're more concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

with defeating niggers.

RON PAUL '08

ISP filtration

[Anonymous Coward]

If only we had reality filters.
Then I wouldn't have to be exposed to niggers.

I hear Steve Mann's mediated reality might allow for this. Can't wait for the future.

Life+70 is just obscene

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Disney have a lot to answer for. Veto all Disney products :-)

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[fm6]

Actually, it's not the lengthy term that's obscene. That's just irritating. The real problem is that every time some valuable copyrights threaten to expire, congress extends the term. And here's what's obscene: the Supereme Court's inability to grasp that endless extensions abrogate the Constitution's requirement that copyrights be "for limited times".

But here's some good news: more and more old books and music will go public-domain in Europe, and will be available for order at a reasonable cost — or downloadable from the inevitable "pirate" servers. Another reason to buy a Kindle.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Ajehals]

I wonder what current/future legal/technical restrictions will prevent the movement of material that is public-domain in one jurisdiction but under copyright in another will appear. There are already issues surrounding Australia (which IIRC at least up until recently had a more limited copyright term).

My greatest fear however is still that an effective DRM mechanism will add massively to the usual problems involved in the long term accessibility of culturally relevant material. After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Just to give a taste of the potential confusion etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy#Copyright_status

It can only get worse.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[webmaster404]

DRM can be broken quite simply. DRM isn't the real evil, software patents and DMCA-style laws that prevent you from breaking it is the problem. I can see documents stored in digital form being unreadable in 75-100 years due to a lack of standards used and DMCA-style laws though, just think about all those floppy disks with all those documents from '95 made on some application and today are just about unreadable, also data from obsolete storage formats are heading the same way.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Ajehals]

DRM is a part of that evil, it is an arbitrary and generally pointless (as you said it can be broken) method of preventing access. I would suggest that an archivist having to maintain not only data reliably, but also DRM circumvention for a long period would be an added burden (that is if there is a requirement to store things in their original format, i.e. with the DRM). In cases where an archive breaks the DRM and stores DRM free copies, well that adds a whole additional process before storage.

Now for a normal person, most of this will become impossible, and unlike previous problems with media longevity (i.e. the media physically changed and the method of reading it was significantly different between generations) we are talking about being able to access a simple file, a file that (under its DRM) is in a format that probably has publicly available (even if only from the historical record) specifications as to how it is to be decoded. A file that is probably easily stored and retrieved (its all just data after all) even on the most futuristic storage system, but one that will be difficult to read because the company that produced it and its protection no longer exist. It wont make it impossible (I hope) but it will make it more and more difficult. After all I can read a document stored in the National Archive 500 years after it was written with little difficlty, but I cannot easily open and read that text document that I have on floppy disk from 1992

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[fm6]

After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects. True. But if a work is copyrighted in country A and public domain in country B, what's to prevent a citizen of A going to a B web site and downloading it? To prevent that, you'd have to have mandatory copyright enforcement on every computer sold. There are those who'd like to impose just such a restriction, but I don't think it's either technically or socially feasible.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[TheLink]

Confusion? I see Disney wants it both ways :).

There's also the battle over "Winnie the Pooh":

http://iblsjournal.typepad.com/illinois_business_law_soc/2006/03/winnie_the_pooh.html

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Winckle]

It doesn't have to be an effective mechanism to annoy the end user. Nor in fact do you have to wait to see this effect, some games run perfectly in emulation or a WINE style implementation except for code governing DRM.

For example I recently tried to play red alert 2 under crossover on OS X, but every time I play, my units blow up 30 seconds in. Apparently this is a form of copy protection, one which I have no idea how to fix. I have paid for this game, admittedly, it was a few years ago, but I the only thing stopping me play this game is short sighted DRM.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[chthon]

Especially since I discovered this week what MacroVision means. One does then have a collection of Disney videos.

Oh, and it is not as if these videos are of high quality. It is just this year that I set up Peter Pan for my daughter (a video that I owned already a couple of years, but never played before). I think I must have played maybe 20 to 30 times. Two weeks ago, the tape broke, luckily at the beginning. We have repaired it with the goal of recording it on DVD : no go due to Macrovision. Well, I let it play, and I noticed that later on the tape I got already white specks on screen, from wearing out.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[heinousjay]

Yes, it's evil, evil I tell you, that you can't have every movie you want in any format you desire for whatever price you're willing to pay. Evil. Truly evil. Shockingly evil. Abominably evil.

There, have I watered the word down to meaninglessness yet? Oh wait, that was you guys a long long time ago.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Gideon Fubar]

According to this, the white dots you're seeing are likely an artifact of the way your TV renders the image.

If you're really interested in preserving those tapes, i'd suggest using a TV tuner/video capture card.. an old SD card will do fine.. you just have to be able to make sure that you can manually configure (or disable) the gain control. Of course, i imagine some cards will just ignore the macrovision system..

unfortunately, YMMV Wildly... I recommend reading this.. should help a bit.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Gideon Fubar]

Hah.. i just read what i wrote there.. haha.. the way your tv renders the image..

</dweeb>

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Jesus_666]

I think Disney would favor a two-pronged approach to copyright:

- Author's life + 70 minutes for everyone who isn't Disney
- Author's life + 70 centuries for Disney

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Ajehals]

Parent is not a Troll, offtopic at a pinch but probably not.

You are right, it is not an evil, it is a potential problem and an inconvenience. I don't know about you but I don't have a single piece of media that I haven't paid for (or been given), primarily because I do think that people who produce things I want to see/listen to deserve to be compensated, also I would find it rather difficult to argue for copyright reform and yet ignore the law as it stands.

What I am guilty of in my previous point (and it is probably clear that this is the case given the fact its currently +4 insightful) is sensationalism, the term evil is there simply for its impact. It is a game played by politicians and in the context of any copyright debate, the media industry. I apologise for its use here, although I will probably use it again in a similar context as it does suit my purposes rather well and is probably the only method of combating the opposition if they are using the same tactics.

Now, as for having every film (or other piece of digital media) in any format you desire, well that is probably an accurate description of what I want. I want to be able to buy a film and format shift it as I see fit, mainly because when I buy a CD or a DVD I am buying a piece of media with data on it and for the first time this means that format shifting and portability are built right into the format. I do not see a problem, nor an valid argument that is persuasive in explaining why I should not be able to use any media I have purchased in any manner I see fit, as long as it is for personal use and I am not re-distributing work that is subject to copyright.

However what is happening is that artificial barriers are being put in place, primarily to encourage repeated repurchases of the same material on different (or even the same) media, these barriers have other consequences, they limit the longevity of the material purchased. sure you could argue that a VHS tape or Vinyl record are also not necessarily long lasting, but this is a problem inherent to the format, something not true of media distributed in a digital manner.

Lastly DRM really will limit the way digital material falls into the public domain. If there were no DRM at all, when $film falls out of copyright in 500 years (given the current trends... :) ) it would be possible for that to immediately be made available to everyone by anyone willing to make it available, with DRM schemes (and potentially increasingly complex and effective DRM schemes) that may not be the case, that would mean that the only way to get hold of that 'public domain' film may still be via a media cartel, who would still be perfectly entitled to protect the media with DRM. DRM is potentially a way to short circuit a transition of currently protected media into the public domain.

Anyway, I feel that this is potentially quite damaging, I also feel that it sets a trend toward corporate control of things purchased by a consumer, it shows a lack of consumer rights (albeit coupled with current consumer ambivalence and apathy), so I would say its a bad thing for us all, although, as you rightly pointed out it is not evil (The misuse of the term evil and similar terms (disaster springs to mind) probably is to blame for the fact that people are simply not aware of, or interested in current acts that really are evil, things like genocide, misleading propaganda that leads to unjustifiable war, torture and the gradual but systemic erosion of freedoms and civil liberties worldwide. As such I will try not to misuse it if I can avoid it.)

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Anonymous Coward]

That's whacky....if it's a SecuROM issue - that's easy to fix (in WINE, at least).
Otherwise...I don't even know where my RA2 disk is anymore, but erm C&C 3 works just dandy with a simple reg fix...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\MountedDevices
Nothing in it...just needs to be there, and like magic SecuROM starts working. This assumes, that you have a legit game CD, of course.
Sometimes I wonder what color crack they were smoking....

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Fred_A]

I think Disney would favor a two-pronged approach to copyright:

- Author's life + 70 minutes for everyone who isn't Disney
- Author's life + 70 centuries for Disney Damn, who leaked the memo !

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Redwin]

While I can't view the site to check for red alert 2 as I'm at work at the moment, www.megagames.com has game fixes that crack the games which have some DRM problems as well as other fixes. I've used those a few times when I've run into problems playing games in windows that seem to crash just after starting up. It might be worth a try?

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[ultranova]

After all I can read a document stored in the National Archive 500 years after it was written with little difficlty, but I cannot easily open and read that text document that I have on floppy disk from 1992

In other words, with DRM the entertainment industry can sell you the same content in a new format every ten years, while with open formats once bought it's yours. I think that's the real purpose of DRM.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[ultranova]

Apparently this is a form of copy protection, one which I have no idea how to fix. I have paid for this game, admittedly, it was a few years ago, but I the only thing stopping me play this game is short sighted DRM.

Short sighted ? Because of copy protection, you can't keep on playing the old game but must buy a new one if you want to keep playing. Putting it in for that purpose requires foresight and long-term planning and is the very antithesis of shortsightedness.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[pxlmusic]

other than because they suck?

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Gr8Apes]

Anything that is beyond the average life-expectancy can be argued to be effectively unlimited duration. There are, for example, Disney works that are effectively copyrighted from long before I was born to quite possibly after I'm dead. How is that a "limited" duration from my POV? How does this law benefit the public good?

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Grym]

Short sighted ? Because of copy protection, you can't keep on playing the old game but must buy a new one if you want to keep playing. Putting it in for that purpose requires foresight and long-term planning and is the very antithesis of shortsightedness.

Frustrating/haranguing your paying customers (or even simply those people interested in your product) is NOT a prudent long-term strategy.

Take the OP, for example, do you think he would be as enthusiastic about buying from the C&C franchise after his experience?

-Grym

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[dogs4ar]

Done. Or have you not been to Euro Disneyland lately?

Oh, you and all the other French people.

It's becoming impossible to make a buck in France, anymore, if you are an American. Like the local waiters here totally spit in your food. How often do I have to tell them "Je ne parle pas français" to get that right?

Just because the Americans have the audacity to call them cowards, change the name to French Fries to Freedom Fries (I'm not sure what French people have to do with deep-fried potatoes, sounds English to me), and give the name French Toast to egg-battered bread -- these aren't valid reasons to hate us.

Corrupting their language, making fun of Quebec, and calling them all a bunch of effete limp-wristed bastards...those are valid reasons.

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[Winckle]

Well they made a mac version of CnC 3, so yeah I did.

I'm not very good at voting with my wallet. :(

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[jonaskoelker]

But if a work is copyrighted in country A and public domain in country B, what's to prevent a citizen of A going to a B web site and downloading it?

That depends; which country's the global police?

Re:Life+70 is just obscene

[fm6]

What, you mean the U.S. is going to declare war on anybody who doesn't get on the copyrighted forever bandwagon? Get real!

The EU Parliament.

[Anonymous Coward]

They have to be the most ineffectual monolithic government on the planet, surpassing China's.

The only conceivable way it could be less efficient is if it were somehow conquered and then run by niggers.

Dr. Ron Paul

show as much spine as the French

[sconeu]

You don't understand. Those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys CAVED IN to the Evil Terrorist Content Pirates[tm].

Clearly we must support our patriotic "content producers" to defeat the evildoers.
</SARCASM>

Re:show as much spine as the French

[Amorymeltzer]

...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...

Re:show as much spine as the French

[Ajehals]

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.

Re:show as much spine as the French

[earthforce_1]

> The two together is just about as close to Christmas in January as you can get

Actually, Christmas does fall in January if you belong to one of the few Christian groups who use the Julian Calendar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Julian_calendar

Re:show as much spine as the French

[ppanon]

The unaccountable segments of the EU, the EU commissioners, are the ones that keep putting forward the motions to "harmonize' copyrights with the USA entertainment lobbies' demands. The accountable MPs are the ones who, so far, have been shooting the law proposals down.

Up until now, the xIAA thought to save money by just lobbying the commission. I expect that during the next EU parliamentary elections, the entertainment lobbies will try to shift the power balance in the elected parliament to get their way. It remains to be seen if they will succeed.

The local European movie industries aren't as interested in DMCA restrictions: the DMCA is about controlling distribution and the MPAA member corporations' grip on US and European theatre and distribution channels has smothered local production in many countries. The MPAA don't do enough European filming to have the associated fiscal/employment clout they do in North America. Let's face it, the US Dollar doesn't go as far as it used to either, so that's not going to help either situation. The music business has similar issues outside of England.

Because there isn't as much justifiable financial European interest in copyright changes as there is in the US, MPs who support those changes will be vulnerable to charges of corruption by US interests. The US is currently perceived quite disfavourably by many in Europe, so that's likely to limit change for quite a few years even if a Democrat gets elected President and starts undoing the damage done by the Bush Administration to the USA's overseas reputation.

On the other hand, there's always hope that, before the European political landscape can shift, the financial clout of the RIAA and MPAA will be much diminished.

Re:show as much spine as the French

[init100]

The unaccountable segments of the EU, the EU commissioners, are the ones that keep putting forward the motions to "harmonize' copyrights with the USA entertainment lobbies' demands.

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.

Re:show as much spine as the French

[z0idberg]

Correction:

You don't understand. Those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys CAVED IN to the Evil Terrorist Content Pirates[tm].

Clearly we must support our patriotic burger-munching invasion-monkey "content producers" to defeat the evildoers.

Re:show as much spine as the French

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, christmas *is* in january in russia...

Human lifespans will soon double.

[Anonymous Coward]

And technology will eventually allow for immortality. Governments should be praised for planning for the near-future.

Re:Human lifespans will soon double.

[Captain Hook]

And technology will eventually allow for immortality. Governments should be praised for planning for the near-future.

And technologoy already allow for immorality....

Re:Human lifespans will soon double.

[weierstrass]

I work for a majorly evil lobbying company. As a whistleblowing service to the internet community, and at great personal risk, I can reveal here the text of the proposed amendment. This is the original paragraph:

9. [The European Parliament] urges the Commission to rethink the critical issue of intellectual property from the cultural and economic point of view and to invite all those active in the sector to join forces and seek solutions equitable to all, in the interest of a balance between the opportunities for access to cultural events and content and intellectual property; draws Member States' attention on this point to the fact that criminalising consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution;

and this is the amendment which we submitted and was rejected:

9. [The European Parliament] urges the Commission to rethink the critical issue of intellectual property from the cultural and economic point of view and to invite all those active in the sector to join forces and seek solutions equitable to all, in the interest of a balance between the opportunities for access to cultural events and content and intellectual property; draws Member States' attention on this point to the fact that criminalising consumers so as to combat digital piracy is the right solution;

Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you've never produced any creative work worth selling ever in your life.

Let me take a second guess... you're a greedy, selfish pirate as well.

Re:Let me guess...

[Jugalator]

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.

Re:Let me guess...

[TehZorroness]

Maybe when we listen to a song, the first thing we see isn't money, it's emotion.

PS: I am a musician by the way.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let me guess...

[badboy_tw2002]

I know you were being snarky but seeing as I don't know much about the music industry could you elaborate on how they make money by giving away their product? T-shirts?

For software I understand the business model, but in the free software business model you're not really selling software (because you're giving it away), you're selling support. How do you sell music if you're giving it away? How do you provide "support" for a song?

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Let me guess...

[Heddahenrik]

Yepp! We were there to crush the Roman empire. We were there to defeat the Spanish. And we crushed the feudal system, the British Empire, the Third Reich and the communists. Now we'll get the copyright monopolies too.

If they are nice, their heads will be gently cut off. Otherwise they will not be so lucky.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nice in theory. In reality, people already do this, and all the indie bands also have day jobs.

Re:Let me guess...

[gad_zuki!]

Actually I dont understand how 'I Dont Believe in Imaginary Property' gets all these articles approved.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

"and all the indie bands also have day jobs."

Oh no! That's so horrible! Poor people.

Re:Let me guess...

[CmdrGravy]

I have a day job too, and so does everyone else I know. Why should amatuer musicians be exempt from working like the rest of us ?

Re:Let me guess...

[Jesus_666]

It's fairly easy to build up a fanbase like that. The Swedish Band Machinae Supremacy, which plays something they call SID Metal, offer most of the songs that don't make it on their albums as free downloads on their site. They offer some of the songs that do make it on their albums there, as well. For example, their last album was released in two versions - one from their website, one via retail*. Someone who has bought one version can go to their site and download the tracks he didn't buy.

This has gotten them my attention. I mean, free music! What's not to like about that? You listen to your free music, you like it and then you decide that you want to support the band that was nice enough to entertain you for free. And they have a new fan.

Yeah, I shamelessly plugged them. They deserve it. Not onl for their muic but also because they show that a band can make a decent living without subscribing to the MPAA's "omg copying is teh evul" stance.


* They did that because they and the publisher couldn't agree on which tracks should go on the album.

Re:Let me guess...

[Marcus Green]

Even if you really, really like doing it, being a musician is work. It's not unusual for a gig to "start" (i.e packing the van) at 2 in the afternoon and finish (turn out the lights, pull up the duvet) its 2 in the morning. Yes a 12 hour day, maybe 2 hours with the buzz on stage. The rest is work. Selling CD's at the gig can be the difference between eating and stopping "work". The audience sharing the music can make it unviable.

Re:Let me guess...

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

STEAL ANYTHING THAT IS NOT NAILED DOWN!
I propose one small alteration-
Rule #1 - Anything that isn't nailed down is mine!
Rule #2 - If I can pry it loose, it isn't nailed down

Re:Let me guess...

[mwvdlee]

A lot of software doesn't require support, or atleast not the amount of support that'll make you a living.
The support model only applies to complex software packages. Small, well-documented products cannot profit from a support model.
Imagine game developers giving away the games for free and trying to make a profit from a support model. Most reasonably well-built games require very little support if any.

Re:Let me guess...

[Fred_A]

It's fairly easy to build up a fanbase like that. The Swedish Band Machinae Supremacy, which plays something they call SID Metal, offer most of the songs that don't make it on their albums as free downloads on their site. They offer some of the songs that do make it on their albums there, as well. For example, their last album was released in two versions - one from their website, one via retail*. Someone who has bought one version can go to their site and download the tracks he didn't buy.

This has gotten them my attention. I mean, free music! What's not to like about that? The fact that it's Metal ? But the idea certainly has merit and we'll hopefully see more of this. Although in this case they appear to be working with a record company that was enlightened enough to let them do this. I doubt many artists have contracts that allow for this kind of thing.

The other problem is that this so far mostly seems to work for people who already have a bit of presence on the market (usually established with the help of a conventional record company). If I were to start a band tomorrow with my neighbours and create a website with free music, nothing much would happen (regardless of the quality of the music).
There just would be no reason for someone to stumble upon that particular site. Some kind of active promotion would have to take place in the background. However that takes both time and money which newcomers don't have. So that part would theoretically be the job of a record company. Most of which aren't really keen on that "free music" idea. Unless you're already an established player in the market and can push your weight around.

So there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem there unless some sort of major restructuration of that industry eventually takes place (which will presumably happen some day, amidst much screaming and kicking).

Re:Let me guess...

[Jedi Alec]

The other problem is that this so far mostly seems to work for people who already have a bit of presence on the market (usually established with the help of a conventional record company). If I were to start a band tomorrow with my neighbours and create a website with free music, nothing much would happen (regardless of the quality of the music).
There just would be no reason for someone to stumble upon that particular site. Some kind of active promotion would have to take place in the background. However that takes both time and money which newcomers don't have.

Enter the whole Facebook/Myspace/whatever thing.

Re:Let me guess...

[Lodragandraoidh]

There is another model - You don't gig in the traditional sense - except very selective to your tastes (local club you like etc). Instead your primary audience is world-wide - you use online venues - such as Second Life - to expose people to your music and earn a few bucks (I've been to quite a few of these - and it is really cool to be able to interact directly with the artist - and the artist has an appreciative audience that is actually interested in the music, rather than a captive one that is only there to drink beer and pick up women - not to mention dealing with club management that primarily wants to sell beer and stiff you on the proceeds).

This way:

1. You can keep your day job while you see if the demand is viable enough to think about music as a primary occupation.
2. You can spend more time writing and recording music, rather than packing the van - which means more recordings for your fans.
3. You can sell your latest CD for a set period of time (until your next CD is ready), then give away your previous recordings, and perhaps a few teaser tracks from your current work; competition is fierce so you can't demand premium prices when people can download headliner tracks from iTunes for a buck - without driving your fans away. The consolation is you don't have to share any of your profit with a bunch of middle men.
4. Merchandising is easy online (T-shirts, Mugs, etc...) and again, most of the profit goes to you.

You're not going to be mega rich unless you're really popular and can drum up enough volume to make the buck-a-song and merchandising model scale, but at least your music can enrich your life in other ways without driving you insane or into the poor house while you pursue that goal (if that is your goal - some folks are happy to let music be a hobby rather than a job).

I've toured with bands before as a roadie, and a sound and light tech, and I'm a musician myself - so I know what that is like - not fun beyond the first few gigs...I like the freedom that the internet and associated new technologies provide. Particularly as I get older (I'm in my 40s now).

Re:Let me guess...

[Marcus Green]

About as sensible as suggesting that TV would replace live gigs. People like live gigs, real life not second life. Why mention mega rich, most musicians know that they are unlikely to be even affluent let alone rich.

Re:Let me guess...

[Jesus_666]

Although in this case they appear to be working with a record company that was enlightened enough to let them do this. I doubt many artists have contracts that allow for this kind of thing.

Yeah, but they actually spent some time without a record company.

As for the presence: They gain more presence by making commission work (for example, German gaming mag [i]GameStar[/i] occasionally uses their music on special edition DVDs), although I first heard of them before that started - over the internet. Their CDs certainly didn't hit music stores in my area.
Relaxed redistribution rights allow for much broader advertisement, too; for example they occasionally get played on Nectarine Demoscene Radio, a web radio the focuses mainly on chiptunes and related stuff (MaSu is relevant because they have several metal medleys of C64 game tunes). Other radios play them as well, but Nectarine is one I actually know about. Of course being in rotation on popular web radios improves one's visibility - at zero cost, even. Especially when said radios feature a download link for the music they play, which conveniently points to one's website.

So, if you want your band's website to gather attention, you need to use other online services to tell people about it. When you give away some tracks anyway, you can send your stuff to online radio stations as well; no difference. Make videos involving your music and put them on YouTube. Put a link to your site into your Slashdot sig. Explicitly allow people to use your video as background music for their noncommercial stuff as log as they credit you. All those things get you into people's minds. Also, offer to do live gigs for everyone who pays your travel and lodging expenses and maybe a small tip; once you've gathered a bit attention in the 'net people might want you to play at their conventions. Offering to play there for cheap gets you more attention (and a positive image with con-goers). The opportunities are many; you just have to be agile enough to use them. Most of the promotion is actually done by other people once you've got it going.

By the way, I don't know whether MaSu is completely self-sustaining, but they're certainly self-sustaining enough to not fall apart. Their business model seems to work.

Re:Let me guess...

[RichardX]

I propose an amendment to your amendment
Rule #3 - If I do manage to pry it loose I get to keep the nails as well.

Re:Let me guess...

[imthesponge]

So this makes it OK for you to steal from content creators yourself?

Re:Let me guess...

[sconeu]

What a tool.

Note to self: Idiots don't read SARCASM tags. Find some other mechanism, such as a clue-by-four for them, so that I'll be compliant with the ADA.

Re:Let me guess...

[Lodragandraoidh]

I did not make the assertion that the network capabilities would replace other venues. In fact I simply prefaced my statements with 'There is another model'. To put it another way: more people now have options that were largely unavailable/too expensive to pursue just 10 years ago.

This was in response to the parent post regarding the trade-offs of gigging and having a day job. If you are losing money gigging - and/or are complaining about burning the candle at both ends to make ends meet by holding a 'day job', then I suggested an alternative that would provide the satisfaction of pursuing music while limiting the hassles to what you can manage (e.g. gig as much or as little as you want - and fill in the rest using the technologies I mentioned - so you can keep your day job, and still get enough sleep to be functional the next day). On a personal level, I've done enough gigging to know I don't particularly enjoy 90% of the venues that a typical band can book (I've been in dives where the stage was surrounded by a chicken wire cage, and the band, the gear, and crew ended up covered in beer by the end of the night - not to mention the threat of bodily injury -- who needs that crap?)

People like live gigs, real life not second life.

There are also people that use Second Life, myself included, that enjoy live music in that venue - you're argument is a logical fallacy that, to paraphrase: 'everyone likes live gigs in RL only (not Second Life)'. I've attended 6 concerts in the past month in Second Life - for a fraction of the cost I would have payed, and time lost traveling to the same number of RL concerts. I also got to talk to the artist, and since the crowds were smaller (20 to 70 people at most) - it was a more intimate experience, which allowed the artist to open up about their music and life - more than they would at a club in RL. This aspect is particularly appealing to me as a musician. Now, the simple fact that I, and many others prefer attending Second Life gigs - invalidates your argument.

My experience in this area illustrates that it is doable. To be successful I would argue it needs to be a hybrid model - where you provide a path for your music to travel from pay to free content as time progresses (e.g. sell premium CDs - but also provide lower quality MP3s for free, and/or eventually provide high quality .wav lossless files of older music for audiophiles etc - there is any number of models I can think up that would probably work and please your fans (customers)) - and gigging or not gigging to what ever degree you see fit can be a part of that too. Ultimately YMMV.

Re:Let me guess...

[Lodragandraoidh]

P.S. - one more point I wanted to touch on:

Selling CD's at the gig can be the difference between eating and stopping "work". The audience sharing the music can make it unviable.

In the 70s and 80s people shared music via cassette tapes. The record companies were up in arms and wanted the practice banned. The courts ruled in favor of mix tape sharing. In that same time period sales of recordings in the new cassette medium were breaking records - even while record sales leveled off (kept alive mainly by the sale of singles). Then along came the compact disk, which sealed the fate of Vinyl records.

Fast forward to today - we are going through a similar paradigm shift as the result of the progression of technologies. Vinyl records can no longer be found at your mainstream record stores - replaced by compact disks. But now ubiquitous computers and digital music formats are changing the way people listen, mix, and buy music. As a result CDs are seeing a decline in sales - even as other formats and business models see an increase in revenue. We are in the midst of these changes - so it is hard to point to irrefutable proof. Nonetheless, if history tells us anything, it shows that the new technologies are shifting the power to control music production and distribution from the large record companies to the individual.

In that environment - if we look into the future and follow current trends out - we can see that clinging to the old model will be a loss leader. Is any mainstream record company pumping out millions of vinyl records today? No - because the changes to technology made that business model obsolete. Similarly, selling compact disks will drop off as the new distribution models shake out. Additionally, I would also argue that more of the profits will be available to artists because the technology eliminates the requirement for a 'middle man'.

Given this trend, you - as a musician - would do better over the long run to start thinking about network distribution, and reducing your costs by building your own recording capabilities.

For established bands this will be difficult initially - it is really easy to let to record label handle all that 'stuff' for the lions share of the profit. But that cash cow is going to dry up - unless they embrace the new business models, which the RIAA so far has been resistant to.

The Grateful Dead were real pioneers in this area (encouraging concert goers to record and distribute their performances). The most recent experiments by such groups as Radio Head, and abandonment of traditional record label by Madonna are just signals that change is imminent. You can either ride the wave, or be overtaken by it. You can't ignore the network and only be a regional band if you want to make a living doing it - with rare exception. As the baby boomers retire to fixed incomes, and the Gen X/Y kids gain affluence you will see this accelerate rapidly.

That is my 2 cents (2p or 2/100th of a Euro...whatever that is; please don't be offended if I ignored your favorite monetary system - yen, peso, shekel etc...).

As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Whuffo]

I've contacted my representatives regarding the attempts by the media companies to make their continued existence and profitability a legal requirement. The responses I've received are less than useless.

The worst response reward goes to Barbara Boxer. When I contacted her regarding proposed legislation that was intended to further erode fair use and hand more of the public rights to the media companies I got a form letter in reply. That form letter thanked me for my letter and let me know that Barbara Boxer was listening and fully intended to support the legislation that I was writing about (and against).

I don't expect any representative to do what I wish - but it would be nice if they took a few moments to actually READ and maybe THINK a little about what the people they supposedly represent are thinking. Ms. Boxer has clearly identified herself as being on the side of further abuses by the media companies - I don't know about other "representatives" but this one clearly does NOT represent the people who elected her.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[mr_matticus]

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.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[webmaster404]

Next time I see a senator wanting copyright reform I will be sure to vote for them. However almost none will state their stance on the issue. Writing to them doesn't ever seem to get a clear answer and most are swayed by what the **AA says. So far no congressman has really ever been a solid freedom supporter.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[tknn]

If they said it, the media would crucify them, being interested parties. So they don't dare say it.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[milsoRgen]

Same thing happened to me, several times... Eventually old Mr. Bill Sali did send a reply, and it didn't seem like a form letter. I can only assume a staffer typed it up. But I was impressed nonetheless.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[earthforce_1]

For anybody who has been living under a rock, there is a US presidential election underway. There may be no better opportunity to bring these things to the forefront and make the candidates publicly show their hand as to where they stand on these issues. We have to know who is isn't owned by the copyright cartels. Given her husband signed the DMCA into law, I wouldn't put much faith in Hillary. (And don't say he had to - the president has something called a VETO which can be overridden, but requires a lot more votes and would at the very least be a symbolic guesture.)

(I don't live in the US, but this is a prime example as to how sooner or later we will all continue to feel the pressure to adopt similar laws if the wrong man or woman gets the job)

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Seriously, I want to know.

The one that writes the biggest check come election time.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You don't think that corruption, power, influence and conflict of interest have any effect on our government? I'll grant you apathy is a problem, but larger part of the problem (and source of much of the apathy) is also that fact that we allow lobbyist and private interest too much sway over public officials and there are no working safeguards against incestuous industry-elected official relationships.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

> Really. Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Seriously, I want to know.

All of them. Every last one. And if she can't meet the standards to which she has been charged she should setp aside for someone more capable.

> 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.

The problem is, your republic is a piece of shit and everything happening toady proves it. What you need is a representative democracy.

> They're in place because we (theoretically) value their (hypothetical) decisionmaking abilities and they best reflect the
> () values of those electing said representative.

And in practice? Why are you defending a theoretical system that doesn't work? This isn't even reasoning, it's more like faith based emotional thinking.

> 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.

But they are untrustworthy, and prove it at every juncture. Right now, a rabble of people passionately speaking their own truths would serve your country much better a chorus of lies in unison. Politics is not supposed to be easy, you choose the lazy mans way out.

> If you don't like the values of the representative, get a different representative.

You are unspeakably naive.

> 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.

And a cynic who hides behind blame.

> The fact that they don't generally give a crap is just part of the reality of our society,

And a defeatist who dishonours your own countrymen.

> and in true democratic fashion, they get an equal voice for their apathy, pound for pound.

And spiteful.

In short, you're entire way of thinking is part of the very problem we face. Have some ambition. Have some hope. Grow a fucking spine America.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst response reward goes to Barbara Boxer. When I contacted her regarding proposed legislation that was intended to further erode fair use and hand more of the public rights to the media companies I got a form letter in reply. That form letter thanked me for my letter and let me know that Barbara Boxer was listening and fully intended to support the legislation that I was writing about (and against). My guess would be there was something intentional in there beyond simple negligence. Did you know that the Big Media is one of the largest backers of Democrats? That's not to say that Big Media does not contribute also to the G.O.P.'s war chest, but when you take the average over the whole party, Democrats, for all their "liberal-ness", are worse for our freedom and fair-use rights than Republicans.

And Democrats, especially in California, think that they can do anything (like sending you a "form letter", essentially saying that your opinion does not matter) because California is such a Democratic stronghold. It's time that we show them that they are wrong, and when the election time comes in November, turn California into a Red State. Give the Dems a wake-up call. Tell them to go **** themselves.

Vote Republican.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[ardle]

I wonder what the copyright lifetime for the movie mentioned here will be? Hopefully less than the lifetime of the author ;-)

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[mr_matticus]

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.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Wylfing]

I don't know about that. This is a hair off-topic, but I contacted my Senator (Herb Kohl) regarding the telecom immunity and he responded promptly, politely, and on-point. He told me he also did not think the telecoms needed immunity (i.e., they've said they did no wrong, so clearly they need no immunity from not doing wrong).

My point is that it does influence your representatives if you call their office and/or mail them. You won't talk to El Jefe, but you will talk to someone who will help shape El Jefe's opinion. The system only works if you participate.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[mr_matticus]

All of them. Every last one. And if she can't meet the standards Unfortunately, God isn't available. As long as there is a constituency of two, it's impossible to do as you require.

The problem is, your republic is a piece of shit Actually, it's working exactly as designed.

What you need is a representative democracy. Yeah, because that is not only (a) realistic and (b) would fix anything...oh, haha, I forgot we lived in the real world for a minute there. It's much simpler than that. What we "need" is informed participation. Without that, no government system is going to make any difference.

You are unspeakably naive. On the contrary, you're simply a vacuous sophist.

In short, you're [sic] entire way of thinking is part of the very problem we face. Have some ambition. It's not a question of ambition. I participate. My phone calls are returned. I have no problem making my influence count. It's people like you with scrap-it mentalities (speaking of "defeatist"...moron), "call-them-corrupt" blame assignment(I'm the cynic?), and unrealistic expectations that cause the greatest institutional drag. Instead of doing something, you just bitch. Throwing stones is easier than building houses though, so I understand.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Lost Engineer]

Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Apparently the one who's funding her next campaign. I mean all of 5 people must have contacted her supporting forever-copyright.

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.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Atario]

Better than frickin' corporate pocket-liner Dianne Feinstein. I wrote to her about that damned telecomm immunity crap she was pushing, and not even a form letter came back.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

Really. Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Seriously, I want to know.

Any one of them would be a start.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.... he DIDN'T say she had to dance to his tune. He just hoped she'd READ his letter. Instead, she sent back a form letter which suggested that she thought he supported DRM instead of opposing it. Exactly the error you have just made.

Your argument for participative republican democracy would sound a lot better if it came from someone who could be bothered to understand the question. Since you obviously can't, may I suggest that you are:

a) a wanker
b) part of the problem, not the solution
c) a good argument for ditching republicanism and getting a King again, since if you haven't got the brains to participate in legislation, you could at least wave a flag in a procession....

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.... he DIDN'T say she had to dance to his tune. He just hoped she'd READ his letter. Instead, she sent back a form letter which suggested that she thought he supported DRM instead of opposing it. Exactly the error you have just made. Pot, meet kettle.

The response does not imply a misunderstanding of the original letter. It is simply a canned "thank you for writing" response. His comment has nothing to do with her misunderstanding of the issue--he wouldn't have mentioned the response if that were the case. His complaint was that the big and powerful office couldn't be bothered to respond to his letter with a clear position on the issue and a point-for-point response. The issue in the comment quite clearly is the response itself and not her position on the issue.

You might want to read that comment again before shooting your mouth off, AC.

It is unreasonable to expect a detailed response to every letter. It is unreasonable to expect that a clear and detailed position would be ready to send out for an issue that isn't even on the table anywhere. She does not work for him personally. His interest, if any, is one 37-millionth of her job. The fact that he received any response says something, as anyone who has worked as an LA knows that most letters are read by an intern and that's it. Only a fraction are passed up, and most of those get a generic "thank you" response like this.

Someone did read the letter. He received a generic form response. It did not suggest that he supported DRM. You've got the words, now work on the comprehension part.

Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is, your republic is a piece of shit Actually, it's working exactly as designed. Doesn't change the fact that it's a piece of shit.

As for the rest of your "dialogue" (yeah, both of you) it looks mostly like mud-flinging by now. Get a room? Less crap flung on the rest of us that way. Would be appreciated. Thanks.

Congress? Phooey.

[ScrewMaster]

When it comes to (gagh) "intellectual property" our Congress is either on the take, or just doesn't care.

HEATH LEDGER: KILLED BY NIGGERS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Grok this:

Niggers sell drugs.
Heath Ledger died of a drug OD.

Anyone else seeing the link there??

Ron Paul

Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

Stopping the already insane copyright system from becoming more insane is a good thing, but it is not the same as actually trying to make it less insane.

1. The copyright must be registered
2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
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)
4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
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.
7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.
8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.

And that's about the bare minimum needed to make copyright fit for the intended purpose of encouraging the science and the useful arts. It still doesn't make copyright just but it would at least make it something people would be willing to respect.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Rakishi]

Congratulation you just killed open source.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Ajehals]

I wontget into a lengthy discussion of your points, mainly because I generally agree with the direction (if not the specifics). However there is one glaring problem:

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) Firstly I don't think that copyright should be about terms of life + X years, it should be about a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more), but short enough that material is still culturally relevant when it becomes public domain (IMHO this would be far shorter for software due to the pace of change, especially when compared to other arts, probably longest for books as they seem to endure). 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 :) .

Re:Now is the time for reform

[mouko]

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) Yeah? What about Tupac?

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more), And therefore, by your own justification for the duration of the term, it should expire when the person dies - or, for that matter becomes unable to produce more works of the same type, by say:

1. they lose their mind
2. are imprisoned
3. go missing

or even, that they are so damn rich that a profit motive is unlikely to be effective anymore.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

What about him? You and Rakishi should get together and have some training on making an argument.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Bogtha]

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.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Ajehals]

No, quite simply a 5 - 10 - 15 year term would be just that, if the creator dies the copyright stands, any royalties could be paid to the heirs or a foundation for promoting whatever arts were being produced by the creator, or they could go to a charity nominated at the time the copyright was registered, hell for all I care they could be used to fund copyright enforcement, the point at which something becomes or ceases to be culturally significant will not be impacted significantly by the creators death (although its value (in cultural and/or monetary terms) may rise). The important thing is to get some sort of reform, and reduce the period works are locked away, especially if we can prevent the current dilemma where works are out of print (or otherwise not produced) not easily available and (as they are under copyright) not easily reproducible.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[OECD]

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.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Rakishi]

I realize the difference and I should have said something else, I need more sleep so sorry.
Also even the BSD takes advantage of copyrights for both keeping the original authors listed and removing liability. People don't often make their work public domain or with truly no strings attached. It would kill what people nowadays consider to be open source software in most regards and not replace it with anything equivalent.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Propaganda13]

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.

I see problems with this. First, a multi-platinum artist would get paid the same for a limited number of plays as some artist that never went gold. OK, maybe you think that's a good idea. The second part takes away control from the artist. Their song could be used to promote Nazism (everyone hates Nazis) and legally they have no recourse. You could sabotage other artists by using their songs to promote unpopular ideas or ideas that the artist is opposed to.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Anonymous Coward]

Liability is part of the license agreement, not the copyright.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Merusdraconis]

So as long as you don't claim a copyright, someone else can take your work that you've not claimed as yours - those that can afford to become copyright holders - and copyright what is essentially your work? And then make money off it?

I'm not sure what the objection to implicit copyright is in the first place. Perhaps it's to stop people from being able to sign their copyrights over to holders (like a movie studio), but that kills the concept of work-for-hire. Most Hollywood writers don't work-for-hire anyway, they sign over their rights when they sell the work so they're no longer involved in the process.

Nice thought, but frankly it doesn't solve the issue at hand and impacts lots of people who don't need to be.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[The One and Only]

You're probably going to have to make sure that the CEO's 1-year-old daughter isn't named as the copyright holder for everything.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

Why? What's the point? I think the point is to promote the sciences and the useful arts. That's what a lot of people think. How does collecting royalties for heirs or some foundation encourage a dead person to make more works? It can't. Does it promote the sciences and useful arts in some other way? How exactly?

Re:Now is the time for reform

[SQL Error]

1. The copyright must be registered

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.

2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)

Just destroyed any right to privacy.

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?

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.

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.

7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.

Levied by whom, and payable to whom? Currently, copyright infringement is in miost cases a civil matter, requiring the rights holder to bring suit. If you are legislating penalties, are you saying that this is now a criminal offense? Who will police it, and how?

8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.

I'm not sure what "indoctrinated fair use" is even supposed to mean.

As far as I can see, your proposal is worse than the status quo in every way imaginable.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

These are exactly the reasons why I suggested it, yes. Giving "recording artists" control over how society can use their works is just retarded.. it's like giving the presidency to an imbecile or something. Oh, I see.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[grumbel]

Your reform would be great in giving the small guy nothing (most of his work would fall into public domain since he fails to register) and the big cooperations even more control (registration don't bother them, since their legal department handles them). So, very bad idea.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[rtb61]

Don't forget just one more

9. The work to be copyrighted must actually further the arts and the sciences as per the constitution.

Now that one really does scare the crap out of the pigopolists. Don't play nice and we will get the christian right to decide what work should have the protection of copyright and what work should not have any protection at all.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[zippthorne]

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)

This, ironically, makes it more difficult for a living artist to receive compensation for his work. For one thing, it reduces the utility to anyone he might transfer the copyright to in exchange for a bunch of money right now. Which many artists might like to do that have few resources and no desire to market their work themselves.

Not to mention that as artists age, it becomes an increasingly viable strategy on the part of publishers and distributors to simply wait them out. Certainly, the risk of copyright loss based on actuarial tables means that the value of the rights diminish with the age at which the work is produced.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[The Warlock]

The idea is that it discourages a large corporation from having a small author whacked so that the author's work becomes public domain (and therefore exploitable).

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

If this really is a problem then it would be tolerable to not cease registered copyright terms when the creator of the work dies.. but seeing as we have fixed terms under this new system, and these terms are reasonable then "waiting them out" is still the strategy most publishers and distributors will take if the timeliness of the work is not relevant.

BTW - why do you continue to use terms like "artist" when we're talking about copyright? Copyright covers a hell of a lot more works than those created by so-called "artists". I can't help but feel it is to evoke some sort of emotional response.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought of the same problem, thinking back to the poor guy who had his finger cut off to steal his fingerprint locked car.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[grumbel]

Does it promote the sciences and useful arts in some other way? How exactly? Most people care about their family and if they know that all their work will do nothing do help their family after their death, they simply might stop what they are doing and getting a normal job instead with a more regular pay check. It of course also wouldn't exactly encourage the heirs to publish anything that the author didn't publish before his death, when they couldn't make money with it.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

Don't we have some laws already to prevent that? I think they start with 'm'.

Idiot.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

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?

Re:Now is the time for reform

[harlows_monkeys]

Amusingly, US copyright law used to be much closer to your suggestions, but it was changed in order to make it fit better with Europe, so the US could join the Berne Convention. We used to have registration requirements, and a fixed term with one renewal available only to the author.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[ardle]

It of course also wouldn't exactly encourage the heirs to publish anything that the author didn't publish before his death, when they couldn't make money with it. If the creator didn't get it together to publish their creative work during their lifetime and their family can't see any value in the work beyond money, maybe society doesn't need said creative work?

Re:Now is the time for reform

[1u3hr]

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)

However, while I broadly agree with your other proposals, this one has some problems. For instance, an elderly, or ill, author, or one involved in dangerous sports like mountain climbing, would have a hard time finding a publisher, as they would be afraid that their investment in advances and publishing costs would not have time to pay off before the copyright went into public domain. So the author would either not get published or get a very unfavourable deal, probably no advance at all. Copyright for ten or at most 20 years after the author's death is reasonable, I think.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[sessamoid]

Don't we have some laws already to prevent that? I think they start with 'm'.

No, we have laws that punish that behavior. Big difference. If it truly prevented it, nobody would ever be murdered.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[trawg]

.. that said, encouraging such a system would be the effective equivalent of putting out a bounty on the RIAA and MPAA

Re:Now is the time for reform

[KefabiMe]

If some old GPL'ed code falls into the public domain, is that really that bad? It won't affect code that is still currently GPL'ed, and why not let anyone (even "greedy" corporations) use the old code? If someone wrote something a decade ago, and then dies tomorrow, is there any harm in releasing that old code to the entire population? Isn't that the point of copyright? That the entire population gets to benefit after a while?

Re:Now is the time for reform

[grumbel]

If the creator didn't get it together to publish their creative work during their lifetime The problem here is that the big publishers probably won't take the work in the authors lifetime if the author is old or sick and thus expected to not life much longer. It is cheaper for them to wait for the death, then to pay for the work now. This is not exactly behavior that I would like to encourage.

A copyright reform should give the small guy, those who actually created the work, more rights, not the big cooperations more reasons to screw them.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

A copyright reform should give the small guy, those who actually created the work, more rights, not the big cooperations more reasons to screw them. Umm, why? How does that promote science and the useful arts? Please, make an argument.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[grumbel]

How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die? The point here is that the author or his family gets money for the work that was done. A normal job gives you a regular pay check each month, if you die, your heir will get what is left. Writing a book on the other side might not give you a penny until after it is finished and published, if you die before that, your family would never get to see any money from that work, all the work would become worthless.

And also lets not forget that death isn't always random, some people are old, some are ill and some of those still produce plenty of creative work, having copyright expire after their death would give publishers a very good reason to not pay them in their lifetime, since death will make things a lot cheaper.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Rakishi]

No you're missing the point. The GP wants it so that every single time you want to release ANY code (no matter how small in size) as GPL you would need to pay ~$50 to the government and fill out a copyright registration form. Note that this form needs to currently be sent in physically with a print out of the source code (of up to 50 pages). That's not even counting whatever hell would happen if you tried to register additions to an existing GPL work by another author. Can't be anonymous either so everyone needs to know your real name if you contribute some code somewhere.

If you don't then the GPL can't apply as the work has no copyright thus is public domain.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[zippthorne]

Artists, because they create works of wordcraft, imagery, sound, and cinema. As opposed to inventors and engineers, who create useful devices. And who, you'll note, are attributed less of the spoils of their work under the current system. Or scientists, who not only don't get residuals or royalties, but actually have to pay for the privilege of publication.

It seems that those who contribute the most to society are afforded the fewest benefits under the 'promote the useful arts and sciences' clause.

Still, creators of copyright-able works do contribute something to society so they should be able to receive some resources in exchange for that benefit. Copyright reform is a nice idea, just as long as you maximize the benefit to society. I've written a journal entry outlining what I think might be a way to bypass some of copyright's downsides until then.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[grumbel]

Umm, why? How does that promote science and the useful arts? Please, make an argument. Well, duh. If you can get payed for "promoting science and useful arts" (whatever that exactly is), you will be motivated to do more of that, if you can't then you probably won't. If big cooperations are shrewing those who actually produce stuff, then you have a problem in the long run.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

There are already solutions to this "problem". They're called "advances" and frankly, this is clutching at straws.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[zoltamatron]

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.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The copyright must be registered
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".

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Brother Seamus]

Tying it to death of the creator would become even more complicated if more than one creator were involved -- which applies to almost everything applicable to copyright laws.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Anonymous Coward]

2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)

Just destroyed any right to privacy.

lol wut? How does Anonymous claim copyright on anything?

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?

Get a job. I hear McDonalds are hiring.

Since copyright is currently extended to millions of creations every single day, this is completely untenable.

Of course it is possible. Just don't publish anything you won't take the time to register.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[istartedi]

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)

Do you hear that? It's the sound of hired goons stroking their weapons. What creative person in their right mind would want to provide a motive for their own murder? BTW, I didn't write any of this. I left my laptop for a few minutes in the coffee shop and some homeless guy came up and used it.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Gazzonyx]

OT

mods, cut me some slack and mod other people up instead of modding me down! :)

Quantum, it's past midnight and you're no less than five (well, I didn't count) posts deep on a single thread! Cut back on the caffeine, man! :P

Re:Now is the time for reform

[QuantumG]

Here's a tip, genius, not everyone on Slashdot is in your timezone.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[oojimaflib]

1. The copyright must be registered 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. And made the public domain a much larger space, thereby removing the problem that CC was supposed to solve.

2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents) Just destroyed any right to privacy. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if someone wants to make money from, say, a copyright, they should be identifiable (or have an identifiable agent) as the author of that work.

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? No. Because you worked hard designing boats, you earned money which you can now pass on to your children. Equally, the boat-builder earned boats which he can pass on to his children. Whether you invest in boats or money, so long as it exists and is transferable, the only reason your children should starve is if you neglect to provide for them.

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. However, since in this utopian system copyright would only be extended to a fraction of the number of works, this is entirely tenable (if depressingly beauraucratic)

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. Yeah. This is just price-fixing. Don't do this. What would be useful would be a set of standard licenses which Joe Bloggs could just pick off the shelf for their work and fill in the blanks (e.g. how much money they want) (like CC).

7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does. Levied by whom, and payable to whom? Currently, copyright infringement is in miost cases a civil matter, requiring the rights holder to bring suit. If you are legislating penalties, are you saying that this is now a criminal offense? Who will police it, and how? Well, paid by the infringer, to the copyright holder, by order of a civil court should the holder sue the infringer. Like most cases for damages, punitive or otherwise. (I would guess)

8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial. I'm not sure what "indoctrinated fair use" is even supposed to mean. No, I don't know what "indoctrinated fair use" is either, but if you take out the word "indoctrinated" then it makes perfect sense and is a worthwhile idea.

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.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[mykdavies]

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? Hey, welcome to the real world! Most people who "work hard building boats" have no interest in the capital; when they die the children get sweet FA from their life's work. That is, unless the parent had taken their responsibilities as a parent seriously, and saved their income or got life insurance. It's not society's responsibility to ensure that your children are well-provided-for by your income, it's yours.

I think I find this such an objectionable argument because it uses a shallow "think of the children" justification to make a special case which primarily benefits corporate copyright holders.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

No. Well, actually - while most of the GP's ideas are pretty nutty, this one is actually sensible, and you've fallen into the usual trap of assuming that copyright represents some kind of PROPERTY. In reality, it doesn't; it's a time-limited government-granted monopoly, granted for the specific purpose of encouraging you to create stuff.

So the GP got that right: if you're dead, you can't be encouraged to create any more stuff. Don't think of copyright the way you think of a car; think of it the way you think of a driver's license. When you die, do your children inherit your driver's license even if they haven't got one themselves, and are they suddenly allowed to drive cars just because you were? Of course not; the whole idea is totally silly. And that's just what the idea that copyrights should pass on to your heirs is like, too: totally silly.

(As for your children starving, maybe they should just get jobs and become productive members of society, just like everyone else, instead of whining about how they can't rest on daddy's laurels for the rests of their lives.)

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Weedlekin]

The Berne Convention is international. The fact that it was originally signed in Switzerland doesn't make it European any more than the Kyoto Convention was Japanese just because Kyoto happens to be in Japan.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL depends on copyright to exist in more ways than one. For one, it simply wouldn't work the way it is if copyright was gone or significantly different in the right ways.

For another, if copyright was gone/different enough in the right ways, such that the GPL wouldn't work... then we wouldn't need the GPL.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[houghi]

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?

They can still sell the designs. Just like anybody else.
The moment you sell your boat, your kids won't be able to sell that same boat anymore.
What you can do is sign some printouts and they can sell those papers, compared to other people who can not sell the same design with your signature on it.

What you can give your children is both the infrastructure and knowledge to sell your designs.

Copyright shoulde be about protecting the maker of whatever is copyrighted. your kids are not the makers. Copyright is not about providing endless money for you and whomever comes after you.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Gazzonyx]

No, but I posted @ 3AM, giving it 3 time zones in either direction. Lighten up, bro, it was supposed to be a joke. No need to be dick about it.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[LordVader717]

Wouldn't creating a colossal international copyright-managing-bureaucracy-manufacturing super Organisation, demanding standard fees for registering any copyrighted work, severely hinder the efforts of open-source projects?

And in what way would such a system change the way traditional software companies operate by keep their source-code to themselves and not allowing any modification? After all, paying fees for registering shouldn't be a problem for a profitable company.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[kaizokuace]

Why not just limit a copyright to like 10 years. If you cant make money in 10 years then you are probably not adding much to enrich our culture. I am guessing that 95% of profit on a movie is made within the first year after release, hence the large amount of shit coming out the pipe all the time. It's either cutting copyright down to 10 years or somehow getting rid of the middlemen (distributors) by having a national centralized music database/ store where the money songs make go directly to artists that publish them. The site can be paid for not out of the artist's pocket but from the tax payers'. Hopefully it keeps taxes from paying for war (if that could ever happen in this country). Anyway, advertising for artists is done on this central site (through searching algorithms and paid ads maybe). If the artists want more advertisement they can pay out of pocket to ad firms on their own. This way artists that are chosen by the population (by buying their music) can afford to keep themselves going and creating more art. Btw, I don't know how this will work with movies cuz those still take a lot more actual money to make and a lot more people. Music is really on a smaller scale on the content creation end.

Re:Now is the time for reform

[tepples]

1. The copyright must be registered 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. Then grant the bare minimum granted by Berne to all works. Just don't grant term extensions, criminal penalties, or anti-circumvention rights unless the copyright is registered. U.S. copyright law already does part of this: statutory damages apply only to infringements that happen after registration or within three months of publication.

2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents) Just destroyed any right to privacy. Do patents also "destroy[] any right to privacy"?

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? I'd be more in favor of eliminating the life of the author from copyright terms, going back to a fixed term of 56 or 75 years or whatever, but Berne happens to require it.

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. See what I wrote above about different privileges for automatic copyrights vs. registered copyrights.

5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid. And this too. The millions of unregistered copyrights would just expire 50 years after the death of the author, as required by the Berne Convention.

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. Then why does U.S. copyright law already have such a system for compulsory licensing of musical works for use in sound recordings?

Re:Now is the time for reform

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Not sure this is a great idea. Let's say that a copyright holder is approached by a movie studio wanting to make their copyrighted idea (book/comic/song/poem/whatever) into a movie. The holder of the copyright is holding out for some favourable terms from the movie studio, but the studio doesn't want to pay the amount being asked for. Given your approach, if the copyright holder is dead, then the movie studio doesn't have to pay any royalties at all. How much money would need to be at stake for a corporation to consider murder as being an acceptable outcome? We already have car companies not performing a recall on life-threatening defects if the cost of the recall exceeds their potential civil liabilities. How much profit does a highly successful movie make in a ten year time span (box office + DVD + TV rights + merchandise)? More than a few billion? And what is the highest ever civil award for wrongful death? I think you would find it would be economically favourable to bump off the copyright holder. Even if you think that the movie studios are a bastion of moral fortitude, providing an incentive to kill people for profit probably isn't a great idea.

Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[Anonymous Coward]

RIP Heath. At least you won't have to deal with niggers anymore.

Re:Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[jaxtherat]

Seriously, what the fuck is up with this shit? Can't we do something about these 'nigger' trolls OTHER than reading at +1 only? This nigger stuff is either spread by immature 13 year old fucktards who giggle when someone says penis, or anti Slashdot trolls on someone's payroll out on a mission. And what gives you the right to disrespect the dead!

My advice to you, 'nigger' trolls:

Stop being a moron, you're wasting precious moments of your life that you will be regretting on your deathbed, which if Heath is anything to go by may not be when you are 70. Either way, get a life and FUCK OFF!

Also, I realise I'll be modded down for feeding trolls and being off topic, but I feel I have to speak up, as if nothing happens soon I'm leaving Slashdot for good (and no doubt many others).

Re:Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[jaxtherat]

Flamebait?? Huh?? I'm not trying to start a flamewar, I'm just at a loss to communicate my frustration with Slashdot lately. If you're gonna mod me down, at least do it sensibly, like Offtopic or something.

Re:Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, what the fuck is up with this shit?

You could use Profanity Blacklist, though it will block your own posts also... since you are just as much of a foul-mouthed cretin.

Re:Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, 'nigger' is not a profanity, although it is an offensive word depending on the context. This context is what I find offensive.

Secondly, this is one of the few posts where I swore, so the Profanity Blacklist wouldn't affect my ability to get a message out there.

Thirdly, I'm glad you enjoy berating and insulting random people online, I'm sure it gives your life a warm happy feeling.

Re:Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[Kjella]

Seriously, what the fuck is up with this shit? Can't we do something about these 'nigger' trolls OTHER than reading at +1 only? Believe it or not, but this is what most online forums look like. The only difference is that most other forums have a "report this" button with moderators that'll nuke it. Not editors mind you, usually some kind of recruited user moderators and that brings a whole new level of noise as well. I like the fact that the worst you can do with a comment on slashdot is mod it to -1, which means there's still a chance people will see it. Still, I'm sure there's way to tweak it, maybe differentiating mod points for ACs and normal users or something. Still, is that terrible to browse at +1? I regularly browse at +3 to only get the registered+karma bonus+modded up comments, and drop it down when there's an interesting discussion going on. If you're walking in the sewers, it's not much point complaining the walls are dirty.

Re:Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[jaxtherat]

Still, is that terrible to browse at +1? I regularly browse at +3 to only get the registered+karma bonus+modded up comments, and drop it down when there's an interesting discussion going on. If you're walking in the sewers, it's not much point complaining the walls are dirty.

lol, you brought me out of my depressed stupor by your lucid and rational comment. That makes sense I guess, thanks mate :) Keep it real! Either way, I'll switch from -1 to +1 comment trawling :)

Again, thank you!

Re:Heath Ledger: buttfucking in Heaven

[Anonymous Coward]

why dont you niggers get a room and buttfuck there?

(helping things along...)

Provocative Video

[explosivejared]

This past November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking in earnest at Europe's cultural products and heritage as an engine for economic growth.

I came acrossthis video the other day. It talks about the economics of culture. I found it thought provoking and figure it will add to the discussion.

Disclaimer: the lecturer is an Austrian School follower and the talk was held by the von Mises Insitution, so most people, including myself, will disagree with a lot of points. Also, it is long, but given the dedication /.er's have for discussing culture and IP economics I think a few might suffer through it :)

Hmmmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would hazard a guess that about 1/4 to 1/3 of the /. ppl here HAVE produced creative work that IS sold. So, let me take a guess..... you are a fool that buys into either MS's or RIAAs crap.

Re:Hmmmm.

[TeraCo]

Hmm.. you must be using some other internet then, that isn't full of people claiming that they've done stuff they haven't. I'd be surprised if 5% of people around here have contributed anything worth mentioning to anything at all.

Rather than abuse of Copyright

[enoz]

I'd be rather fearful of abuse of Copywritees(?), given your proposed "Death of Copyright". Produce anything too good and you might become a target of some nefarious corporation wanting to steal your copyrights:

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)

Re:Rather than abuse of Copyright

[QuantumG]

Another good reason to be reluctant to become a copyright holder.

Re:Rather than abuse of Copyright

[Husgaard]

Please explain the big difference you see between copyright lasting until the death of the author and copyright lasting 70 years after the death of the author as is currently the case.

Do you expect record companies to hire killers to kill artists to avoid paying? Do you know that in most cases the recording contracts mean that the recording company gets money from the performing artist (to pay "expenses") and not the other way around?

Re:Rather than abuse of Copyright

[grumbel]

### Please explain the big difference you see between copyright lasting until the death of the author and copyright lasting 70 years after the death of the author as is currently the case.

70 years after the death of the author is basically meaningless. All it means it that nothing of the work created today will be public domain in our lifetime, which is very close to 'never' and the next copyright reform will surely come before the end of those 70 years, so the chance of that 70 years ever getting applied properly is very slim.

Directly after the death of the author is completly different, since it can mean tomorrow or in 70 years or at any other point. Its totally random. The record companies might not send around killers, but they for surely will be happy to avoid selling royalties surviving dependants, which I don't consider a good thing. Copyright shouldn't depend on random events that have *nothing* to do with the work in question.

A simple fixed term, say 10 or 20 years is a far better solution.

Re:Rather than abuse of Copyright

[houghi]

The moment you write something, you become the copyright holder.

Re:Rather than abuse of Copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

OT, but just wanted to mention that your sig is faulty...
shouldn't it be "Under the Patriot Act, asking that constitutes an act of terrorism"?

Heath Ledger, dead at 28

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read some sad news on the internet tubes - Actor Heath Ledger was found dead in a Manhattan apartment today. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly a faggot cowboy icon.

Good news

[Husgaard]

Although this is far from as important as a vote on a EU directive, I think this is good news.

Unfortunately there is no information on exactly which amendments were rejected. In particular I was worried about amendment 80 (which TFA implies is rejected), amendment 82 (extension of protection time for related rights), and amendments 81 and 83 that looks like a requirement that educational institutions should proliferate the propaganda of MAFIAA.

As for the extension of copyright protection time: This is the same in Europe as in the USA. But in the EU the protection of recording artists and whoever makes the recording is limited to 50 years. There has been big pressure in particular in the UK to extend this, but this has been rejected as not being helpful to cultural development. I am glad that this first attempt by the copyright lobby to force EU member countries to adopt legislation they do not want has failed.

Oh, BTW here is a link to the prosed amendments voted on tuesday.

Fixed term

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, a fixed term would simply be better in most respects. Then you KNOW when it'll be over, period.

Have you ever tried to figure out when a copyright expires? You have to figure out when the copyright holder died, which isn't exactly easy.

While I certainly hate life+X copyright terms, I could live with the copyrights outliving the authors so long as I knew when the copyrights would die.

Re:Fixed term

[QuantumG]

It's actually much harder than that. You have to figure out when the work was created and where, and when the creator died, and then there's exceptions for different types of work in some countries.

For the US see:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

USCongress::EUParliment as Kindergarten::College

[OldHawk777]

Politicians in the USA are not stupid, just uneducated and inexperienced.

EU politicians serve the national interest, US politicians serve private interest.

The public/citizens hope that the national/private interest will provide some trickle-down benefits.

So, US citizens get neither national/personal security, nor economic/infrastructure stability.

Dogma4US is a sacrificial religious cult, much like Catholic ...to... Islamic clergy death goDma.

As long as you (citizen) suffer/sacrifice and not me (politician/plutocrat) ... it is not a problem for US.

Re:Wrong drugs

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

The drugs which killed Health Ledger are the ones sold by white guys - in suits.

Re:You obviously have no children

[Vincman]

As much as I agree with the fact that current copyright-laws are too restrictive and ridiculously long, the fact is that we do not live forever and achieve immortality through our children. If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death.

One thing I believe about the law is that is should follow nature, and it is natural to extend copyright beyond a lifetime (though not necessarily longer than a few generations (ca. 30 years)).

Oh, to die young, rich and buttfuckingly hot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Heath Ledger will be a legend like James Dean, Hendrix or Cobain. He went out at the top of his game, after topping Jake Gyllenhaal. His "Joker" character in the upcoming Batman will immortalize him much the same as Raul Julia was immortalized as M. Bison.

R.I.P. Heath
You Ruled

Re:Oh, to die young, rich and buttfuckingly hot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Allah be praised that Heath Ledger was not in real life a homosexual and so avoids an eternity of burning in fiery hell.

God is great.

I'm sorry, I forgot you said Boxer--make that 37M

[mr_matticus]

37 million constituents. Hundreds of thousands of letters. You do the math.

No, just GPL

[EmbeddedJanitor]

GPL uses copyright law to give it teeth. BSD is effectively anti-copyright and would survive fine without any copyright law.

Re:No, just GPL

[tepples]

GPL uses copyright law to give it teeth. In the absence of copyright, software that does not come with source code would just get disassembled, black-box reverse engineered, and traded openly on Usenet.

Re:You obviously have no children

[The One and Only]

This might change once I have kids, but I'd rather my children to become wealthy or not based on their own merits, instead of being spoiled with wealth that I've earned. I'm serious--aside from the costs of raising them properly and sending them to college, my kids ain't getting shit from me. Any money that's left over after I die is gonna go towards the Phil Welch Memorial Library, in memory of my dedication to learning, naming things after myself, and meritocracy. If I die before they're properly raised and sent to college, then it'll go to the Phil Welch's Kids Support And Education Fund, the remainder of which will be donated to the Phil Welch Memorial Library after they graduate.

About point number 1 ...

[Nerdfest]

I think there's been a fairly significant number of exceptions.

Re:About point number 1 ...

[OldHawk777]

Not the you could prove by the laws passed and problems caused over the last 40 years.

Okay, Jimmy Carter, Harry Trueman, FDR were exceptions as POTUS, and some congress folks Udall, Goldwater ... a few others, but today mostly corporatist "clowns are in the house/senate" and own it.

Re:You obviously have no children

[CSMatt]

So if I work in a coal mine and suffer an untimely death, should my children continue to receive my salaries?

Re:You obviously have no children

[TheDugong]

"If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death."
Then, like most people, you can invest some of the money you make during your lifetime, from copyrighted works or otherwise, and leave that as part of your estate. Life insurance helps as well.

Chastity Bono? Three strikes.

[tepples]

The real problem is that every time some valuable copyrights threaten to expire, congress extends the term. And here's what's obscene: the Supereme Court's inability to grasp that endless extensions abrogate the Constitution's requirement that copyrights be "for limited times". The opinion of that court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stated that a pattern of extension, enacted with intent to make copyright perpetual, is not constitutional. The court upheld the Bono Act because it and the Copyright Act of 1976 were not enough evidence of an intentional pattern. But as I read it, the court left itself room to overturn a subsequent extension that would more clearly establish such a pattern, such as a Chastity Bono Act of 2018.

Re:Chastity Bono? Three strikes.

[fm6]

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?

technical problem

[RichMan]

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.

Re:technical problem

[BlueParrot]

Not to mention that SSL will kill it promptly. The algorithm would have to determine which data was "authorized" and not, while it is encrypted. Basically what you would be looking at is every node examining the encrypted traffic and then trying to guess through traffic analysis if the sender had permission to transfer the clear text, weather it was fair-use , if it was a parody etc ... It is about as likely to succeed as trying to tell if a song is good or not by examining its md5sum.

Re:technical problem

[A beautiful mind]

The situation is worse. Not the encoding of the information, but the information itself is copyrighted, and not even that, but parts of it aswell. This is a technical impossibility to make work right.

Where's the artist in all this...

[Anonymous Coward]

What many may not realize is that copyrights in music are typically owned by the record label, not by the artist... so taking as an example a recording artist from the 1960s whose albums are still in production... LONG ago that artist ceased to receive any revenue from the continued sale of their album. Their record may be taken out of print and reintroduced without even informing them, much less consulting them or asking for consent.

A few, notably Robert Fripp of King Crimson, fought the legal battle to own his copyrights and assumed responsibility for his back catalog and any music he does from now on. The fruits of this in Fripp's case is a frugal income which suffices to keep his small company of five or so employees operating. A small independent business. Plumbers make more money, and with fewer headaches.

An early copyright expiration would chiefly mean that recordings would be released to public domain sooner, adding insult to injury for the artists who have already been robbed once of their financial interest in the work they created.

Re:You obviously have no children

[ardle]

Ok, first off, take a look at this. How should the law follow nature in this situation?
Everyone would like to know that their children will be ok after they're gone.
If your copyrighted work is worth anything to society, then your children - and/or maybe their children - can benefit from that, for a start.

Which bothers you more, the idea of life being relatively hard for your children or the idea of strangers profiting from your work at your at your children's expense?

Re:You obviously have no children

[ardle]

Sorry, I was trying to link to this.

fD$p mare!

[Anonymous Coward]

coomon knowledge than make a since8e Shit-filled, invited back again. at least.' Nobody conversation and market. Therefore,

Got that backwards

[hellfire]

Politicians in the USA are not stupid, just uneducated and inexperienced.

The US politicians are incredibly smart. They work in an incredibly complex ever changing system in a melting pot of a country to get elected in a crazy election system, and make and pass incredibly complex and sophisticated laws.

The problem with the american system is not their intelligence, it's morals and their motivation. They write laws for the corporation, not for the people. They haven't written a real law for the people in a long time. All that matters to the politicians is who's lining their pockets.

Bush is probably one of the dumbest people all around I've ever seen in a political position, but he's great at shmoozing with people to get fundraising and then staying on message despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He has skills to get elected, he just doesn't have much of any other skills I desire in a politician. Then again, to be a smart politician in the US, that's all you really need, isn't it? That's not that dumb to realize what you have to do to make it as a major leader in the US huh?

Here, let me fix that for you

[iminplaya]

Now if we could only get the US voter to elect a Congress that will show as much spine as the French...

But this isn't a matter of spinelessness. It's more of a matter of just plain corruption.

tagging

[gaderael]

tagsalmostaslongassummary

Didn't life+70 come from Europe?

[istartedi]

IIRC, the standard excuse for life+70 was that it was the Berne convention. The phrase "harmonization with Europe" was used to defend it. So what's all this about the US being the one driving life+70? Yes, it was Bono, Valenti et. al., who drove it; but life+70 wasn't their original creation, was it?

Not even copyleft would be killed

[Per Abrahamsen]

Even that would not kill copyleft for "professional" software. The FSF already has copyright assignments on file, and could easily afford the FSF. Same goes for corporate sponsored software like SAMBA. Depending on the details, it might mean that anonymous cvs access would be cut off, which would be annoying but survivable.

It would kill off copyleft for most hobbyist software though. I think this is an acceptable price for a more sane copyright regime. And I say that as a card carrying FSF member.

as much spine as the French (ouch)

[Saffaya]

I am French, you insensitive Clod !

Different opinion, plus confusion

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

Eh? Check your facts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright in France is already at life+70 years over here and has been since 1957.
The EU law is the same since 1995.
Thankfully, there are very few lawsuits for illegal downloads as the rights
holding golden slugs often lose them because judges are not that stupid and have a right to make law (jurisprudence) just as much as the bought and paid for politicians.

The americans (thank you Bill Clinton!) signed the Copyright Extension Act without any debate
or record of who voted for it. If that isn't corruption of democracy I don't know what is.
It's the same all over the western world, money talks and the rest is more or less ignored.
Just like the drug laws, even though they are a complete failure and the repression
is a waste of police resources, they keep being enforced even though they are absurd and do not stop people who want to get wasted from doing so.

OT But..

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if we could only get the US Congress to show as much spine as the French (ouch). What is the problem Americans seem to have with the French? Is it something inherited from the British? To me it seems that hatred of the French is an integral part of the American psyche, much more so than in England. And this despite the fact that France is across a vast ocean, most Americans have probably never even seen a French person, much less interacted with them in any way.

Re:OT But..

[CrazyBusError]

It's because they're ignorant, arrogant smelly misogynists with no sense of humour


And so are the French.

Re:OT But..

[SimonGhent]

.. and the French supported America in the War of Independence. Hence the Statue of Liberty...

Why would they wait for expiration?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's out of copyright, then ANY corporation, not just the one delaying deliberately, will get free access to the work. And since the copyright is the only reason why there's any profit in "art" production and profit is the only goal now of corporations, why would they bother with it now?

you make no sense

"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 45 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"

See, now. This is why I won't register with slashdot. your coding skills are shite and your website evident of this.

Don't worry, it will come back for Plenary

[zoobab]

The report will be voted in Plenary.

The proponents of internet filtering still have the opportunity to collect 40 signatures of MEPs to table some amendments for plenary. Or get a political group to table them.

Don't worry, the war is only starting.

Life + 70 years is already reality

[Noonian Soong]

The bad thing that isn't mentioned, is that some countries in the EU already have adopted the US life+70 years term. For example in Germany, it is exactly the same rule. Making copyright law univeral across the EU would be a great success if it would decrease this term, but actually I don't think the EU has done much for its citizens in terms of copyright or ISP filters. The article is simply wrong about this because many things that are mentioned haven't actually been decided yet.

Re:USCongress::EUParliment as Kindergarten::Colleg

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know what you're sayin', man.

(f/x: inhaling sound through pinched lips: pffffffft)

Hey man, don't bogart it.

Canadians: send this to your MPs

[alexo]

We are facing the same problem.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2601/125/

iunctim

[tepples]

Liability is part of the license agreement, not the copyright. The reasoning in permissive licenses is that the liability is tied to the copyright license. If you accept the grant of rights under copyright, you must also accept the attribution part (preservation of copyright notice), the disclaimer of warranty, and the limitation of liability.

Creation or publication date?

[tepples]

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. A fixed term also complicates figuring out if the content is in or out of the public domain. You have to determine if and when each work was officially "published", after all. If the term for is x years after publication or x + 25 years after creation, which ever expires first. (The United States uses this system for pre-1978 works and works made for hire.) In this case, an author could extend the copyright term by not publishing the original work and then publishing a derivative work. Even after expiration of the term of copyright in the derivative work, it would still be subject to copyright in the original work. One could argue that dates associated with an author, not a work, are much more reliable.

Why must copyrights be life insurance?

[tepples]

If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death. Why should this not also be the case for patents, which currently expire 20 years after filing, with no consideration given to the life of the inventor? If you want life insurance, buy life insurance, possibly with the royalties you derive from an invention under a 20-year patent or from a work under a copyright with a fixed term after publication.

Harmonize to which other country?

[tepples]

If doing it twice is constitutional, why isn't doing it three times, or four? For much the same reason the pitcher in baseball has to throw three strikes: to establish that the first and second failed attempts to hit the ball were not flukes. The 1976 extension was for harmonizing to the Berne Convention. The 1998 extension was for harmonizing to the European Union, which had previously harmonized to Germany. When evaluating the rationale behind the Bono Act, the Supreme Court read the congressional reports, which clearly stated that the intent was to harmonize to Germany. But now the Congress has run out of industrialized countries with longer copyright terms to harmonize to, and a third extension would likely be perceived as a pattern where the first two were not.

Re:Got that backwards, maybe, but not4me...

[OldHawk777]

Uneducated and inexperienced, from my growing up lessons, if you are of no essential value to my mental and emotional health (family! a/o friend!) or physical survival (got your/my back!), then you (a politician/corporatist/clergy... like fellow/broad) may regret never learning and experiencing what is important to others, and this/these other person/s (me or some folks like me) would use the "uneducated and inexperienced" [AKA: Richard Cranium and John Doe] as bait/feed for survival of family, friends, and trustworthy folks. USA/French/Russian revolution .... So, politicians ain't dumb, but fools (without any help) hang and shoot themselves all the time. If push (a history proves) ever came to shove (which is still about 20...30 years from now) ... Darwin awards would be awarded to these plutocrats and their (baby to old-folk) families would like king/zar/... families be genetically eliminated. I hope that such does not happen, because the good and bad will suffer great horrors, but I will not shed a tear for any plutocrat, politician, corporatist, clergy ... family and/or their blood kin. Also, luckily, if it holds off for another 30 years, there is a high probability, I will be dead by a few ears from old age and youthful injuries (You should wink at the bright side of life!).

Oh, sidebar, Bush (the cheerleader) & Reagan (a sidekick for a monkey actor) had a few things in common ... stupidity and Chaney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfowitz ... many others. Puppets look good, honest, entertaining, but they are always just dumb fucking puppets of "uneducated and inexperienced" fools. Reagan and Bush were proof positive that anyone can be a POTUS (including a Democrat or Independent), the policies and problems simple prove that the rest are really very poorly educated clueless megalomaniacs.

!HAVEFUN! Chaney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfowitz ... many others (just in the USA [Russia/China... have their own megalomaniacs jockeying for position]) all are still on track to be world power by dogma4US or W4R3.

Re:USCongress::EUParliment as Kindergarten::Colleg

[OldHawk777]

You are fycking righteous dude ... the same shit was being passed around during Vietnam. Like it was some seriously heavy shit man, but no one really cared about getting blown-away on some heavy duty major cool shit .... Today, cool shit is money, it is still green, but not any good for smoking just wasting and fycking up people really bad in Iraq, NOLA .... Damn god, I wish the 60s were back for US ... without Vietnam ... like ... that would be like so psychfuckingdelicoutamotherfuckingsight cool, dude it is all just BadBizBuz crap that gets you wasted!

SFMF - !HAVEFUN!