White Paper Decries RIAA Attempts To Raise Infringement Payouts

Little Big Man writes "Public Knowledge, the CEA, and six other industry and public interest groups have issued a white paper critical of the attempts of the RIAA and other major copyright players to have statutory infringement levels raised. 'Noting that the courts can currently award massive statutory damages without rightsholders having to demonstrate that they have suffered any actual harm, the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties ... The authors of the white paper paint a dreary future where "copyright trolls" file lawsuits in order to rake in massive amounts of statutory damages, where innovation is stifled, and where artists are afraid to "Recut, Reframe, and Recycle" because of the financial risks involved.'"

Comments

Nice idea but...

[Anonymous Coward]

A hundred whitepapers wont do much good unless you can afford to lobby a few politicians and they only deal in cash.

Re:Nice idea but...

[Speare]

We need a "-1 Cynical" (or maybe +1) moderation choice.

Re:Nice idea but...

[mrxak]

It's a money war, and unfortunately every forced copyright settlement is paying politicians for the sorts of laws that make extorting people so easy. Somebody form a lobby group for shutting down the RIAA's frivolous lawsuits and I'll gladly donate money to it.

Re:Nice idea but...

[CodeBuster]

Its called the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and they would be pleased to accept your tax deductible donation right now. I have donated money to them each year for the past three (3) years now. I think you will agree, after reviewing their website, that their lobbying efforts have been intelligent, organized, informed, and as their list of successful actions attests, surprisingly effective as well. The professional lobbyist is an inevitable and some would say unfortunate part of our democracy, but the EFF proves that it does not take a fortune to effectively agitate for positive change or resist unwelcome changes. If you can donate even fifty ($50) US dollars on a yearly basis then that would be a useful and powerful statement against the RIAA and other special interest groups who are fighting to take away and roll back your rights and carve out unwarranted new rights and protections for themselves at your expense.

Re:Nice idea but...

[u-235-sentinel]

A hundred whitepapers wont do much good unless you can afford to lobby a few politicians and they only deal in cash.

And with the way the economy is going, it must be in euro's ;-)

Re:Nice idea but...

[ontheroll]

Which once again reminds me of what is maybe one of the best short stories ever written (IMHO), Spider Robinson's Melancholic Elephants.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm

With every new RIAA related item I get the feeling that Robinson was more a prophet than a sci-fi writer.

Re:Nice idea but...

[mpe]

It's a money war, and unfortunately every forced copyright settlement is paying politicians for the sorts of laws that make extorting people so easy.

Maybe "they" will mess up sometime and buy a law which allows the "plebs" to extort "them". In which case they won't have time to pay politicans to do anything about repealing/altering the law in question.

Not going to make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless whoever wrote this white paper is prepared to bribe congresmen, presidents, and government officials at the rate at which the RIAA is doing it nothing will ever change.

Put simply, corruption and bribary are the language of American politics.

CEA to RIAA:

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

We are in your politics killin' your business models

Re:CEA to RIAA:

[Dr.Merkwurdigeliebe]

Wear in ur politics killin ur biznis models If you're going to lolCat something, do it right. at least half the words have to be spelled phonetically

Poison Pill

[TubeSteak]

Let them raise the statuatory infringement cap...
But only if they cut copyright back to 14 years instead of life + 70 yrs.

Re:Poison Pill

[TheRaven64]

That would put everything before 1994 into the public domain. That includes things like Super Mario Bros., the original Linux kernel, the first two Terminator movies, Blade Runner, the first six Star Trek movies, all the Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, and more into the public domain. And, of these, which are you saying has not made enough money to finance the original development and make a reasonable profit? The aim of copyright, after all, is to promote the development of creative works by allowing the creators to make money from them. If 14 years is enough time for the creators to make enough money from their creations to both fund their development and provide an adequate return on investment to encourage for future funding then 14 years is long enough. It might not be, but none of the counterexamples you cite back up your claim that it's too short.

Re:Poison Pill

[Lord_Breetai]

...although even 50 years would public domain some stuff that's still making the creators money.

But that's just it, ip holders will always claim they're still making money with their ip, and continue to lobby for extensions. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Re:Poison Pill

[Nullav]

14 years is just about as ridiculous as what the RIAA is proposing, the only difference is that it hurts people on the other side. Say what you will about riding a single work for a lifetime, but if someone's buying what you spent time to make, I'm sure you'd want a chunk of it, too.
I'd rather see it reduced to ~70 years or the artist's lifetime (whichever is shorter), with (significantly) derivative works expiring at the same time. This wouldn't fix the current mess, or the dystopian future of shotgun lawsuits the whitepaper paints, but at least it would add some sanity to the currently broken system.

Re:Poison Pill

[Maxo-Texas]

Regarding "Blade Runner", released in 1982 (26 years)

Aug 3, 2007
Ladd jury orders WB to pay up over profits

The 12-juror panel then ruled 10-2 to adopt the plaintiffs' suggested damage calculations for 12 films produced by the Ladd Co., including "Blade Runner," "Chariots of Fire" and the "Police Academy" movies.

The Superior Court jury delivered a unanimous verdict in finding that the studio breached its duties to the producers. The 12-juror panel then ruled 10-2 to adopt the plaintiffs' suggested damage calculations for 12 films produced by the Ladd Co., including "Blade Runner," "Chariots of Fire" and the "Police Academy" movies.

---

The movie was profitable loooooong ago and the studios are still ripping people off with fancy accounting.

I personally support the original "14 years + option to reup 14 years".

The current disney purchased "forever" system is obscene and removes any respect for the copyright system because it is so obviously unfair and corrupt.

Re:Poison Pill

[mrxak]

Copyrights should last 70 years because that's probably how how the artist will live after they've made it, and possibly help their family after they're dead. Copyright holders are rarely the millionaires you seem to think they are. Yeah, you have the big record companies and movie companies, but a lot more copyrights are being given to authors or freelance photographers, exactly the sorts of people that need long-term protection because chances are they aren't making a lot of money off of their work. You want to shorten patent terms, sure, you want to make it harder for the RIAA to extort people, sure, but let the starving artists have control of their work during their lifetime.

Re:Poison Pill

[PitaBred]

I think it seems just about right. If you haven't profited in 14 years, then you're doing it wrong.

Copyright isn't there to create a gravy train. It's there to encourage the useful arts and benefit the country as a whole, not just the original content creators of things that become popular.

Re:Poison Pill

[jimicus]

14 years is just about as ridiculous as what the RIAA is proposing, the only difference is that it hurts people on the other side. Say what you will about riding a single work for a lifetime, but if someone's buying what you spent time to make, I'm sure you'd want a chunk of it, too.

What you're effectively saying is that anyone who produces any sort of intellectual property which becomes sufficiently popular should receive an exception to the rule of thumb which says "keep some of your money aside and put it into a pension scheme" which applies to practically everyone else in the developed world.

Why? The original purpose of copyright was to enable creative people to make a living from just doing the creative stuff - not necessarily riches untold for them and three generations succeeding them.

Re:Poison Pill

[Shagg]

Think of it the other way. How many artists will stop creating because they "only" have 14 years to make money off of it.

Copyright was not originally intended to guarantee the artist a paycheck for the rest of their life. Having copyrights that last for the life of the creator isn't about "encouraging the arts" it's about locking in control and legally enforcing a profit, neither of which are what it was created for.

Re:Poison Pill

[vimh42]

But the goal of so many isn't to make money to fund development but rather to hit it big with their one hit wonder and ride on its laurels for the rest of their lives.

Re:Poison Pill

[dada21]

It means that the content you've now dumped into the public domain will suddenly start showing up on TV, surrounded by ads, making money for the TV network but offering nothing back to the creators.

It means that it'll show up on boot-leg DVDs for $5/pop - with all $5 going to the person who ripped the disk and nothing to the creator.

Good! That's how it should be!

Someone taking a near infiite resource (digital info), combining it with a very finite resource (time/airwaves) and then finding a hungry market for it!

Everything I create I release to the public domain, yet I still make good income on it.

Re:Poison Pill

[Shagg]

I think it seems just about right. If you haven't profited in 14 years, then you're doing it wrong. Agreed, and if you haven't done anything new after 14 years in order to keep paying the bills, maybe you should go out and get a job like everyone else.

Re:Poison Pill

[dgatwood]

To be fair, it was originally 14 years with the ability to renew once for an additional 14, for a total of 28. That would mean that unless a title was not making money, the effective term was 28 years. That would release anything made before 1980. That pretty much puts all the old UNIX code in the clear plus a few early Atari games, but not much else.

Also, you seem to mistakenly believe that copyright holders are usually the original creators. Almost all works of consequence made since about 1970 have been works for hire, which don't necessarily pay residuals to the creator at all.

Despite the word "right" being used in the name, copyright is not an inherent natural right. It is a privilege bestowed upon content creators for the purposes of promoting the arts by allowing time for it to make a reasonable amount of money through a limited monopoly. Patents are similar in this regard. Patents, however, no matter how ingenious, last only 20 years (and much less for things like design patents). It requires far, far more work to create something worthy of a patent than it does to write a three minute song. Why, then, should a song get almost five times the protection? (I feel this way even speaking with my songwriter hat on, BTW.)

IMHO, the protection of a copyrighted work should depend on the amount of work that went into its creation. Writing a song takes a few hours, so it should be protected for maybe ten years. Recording a performance of a song takes a few hours, so it should similarly receive a short protection period. Writing a novel can take a year or more, so it should be protected for maybe fifty years. Writing a piece of computer software depends on the software, but fifty years seems reasonable IF AND ONLY IF the author is an individual or a group of individuals holding copyright for their relevant contributions individually.

Corporate-held copyrights (works for hire) should be much shorter. The authors of works whose copyright is held by corporations almost never get any compensation beyond a salary, so the actual creators do not benefit from the copyright in any useful way. Even when they do, the vast majority of the benefits occur in the first year, and after that, it quickly approaches zero. As such, the rights of these third party "owners" to protect these works for hire should be limited to a shorter duration than similar rights for the actual creators. A duration of 14+14 seems too long. I would suggest 10 + 10, with the exception of musical works, which should be capped at the shorter 10 year total duration.

All dates should be from the date of first publication. (In the case of music/movies, this should apply to either A. the first public printing of the score/script or B. the first time a recording of the song/movie is published, whichever comes first.) Unpublished works should be protected by copyrighted until 10 years after the creator's death, or for up to twenty years in the case of a corporate work for hire. In the case of publication during this time period, the copyright durations described earlier would then apply, beginning on the date of publication.

In cases of copyright transferred from an individual to a corporation, the duration should be the remainder of the corporate copyright period from the date of first publication or 10 years, whichever is longer, with maximum duration not to exceed the duration the work would have been protected had the individual retained the copyright.

Re:Poison Pill

[syousef]

That would only make sense if the artists were getting a reasonable amount of money from their copyrighted works. In general they don't, and few those that do get too much which is then spent on the cult of celebrity, drugs and hookers.

Even if you still do subscribe to the idea that the artist should profit from their work, the idea that an artist should CONTROL (or sell control of) their work for their lifetime is a separate issue. It would be possible to award civil damages for use of a work without compensation, but still allow others to use it without having to negotiate terms.

Re:Poison Pill

[zenkonami]

But the goal of so many isn't to make money to fund development but rather to hit it big with their one hit wonder and ride on its laurels for the rest of their lives. That may be the goal, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Re:Poison Pill

[zenkonami]

True, but I think it's important to remember that the creative arts are a different kind of business than many others. In most cases, you get no pension, no retirement, no health care, no sick days...it's a freelance gig (most of the time) and with it come those hazards...hazards the artist hopes can be made up for over the life of their works.

The artist is being paid for work they did, but if they stop promoting it, it is likely to stop producing money for them, so they are also, effectively, being paid for work they are doing. Very few can actually "rest on their laurels" and watch the mailbox money roll in. Promoting often involves performance, the creation of new material, etc... Except for some major corporations, the arts are not as lucrative for most people as some are led to believe...even with copyrights that extend to the life of the copyright holder.

The problem is when the creator is no longer the copyright holder, which is frequently the case in exchange for the opportunity to promote and distribute their work.

Re:Poison Pill

[mOdQuArK!]

I think it's important to remember that the creative arts are a different kind of business than many others

No they're not. That's the incorrect assumption that keeps this stupid argument about "intellectual property" going.

"Being creative" is no different than providing any other sort of service. For most types of services, you get paid for what people think is the value of the provided service, at the time that you provide the service. Only the greedy want to get paid over and over for providing a single act of service.

Re:Poison Pill

[JudgeFurious]

You have a good point and so does the fellow you're talking to. I can't help but feel like there is no perfect answer to this however and I find myself thinking of the age old sequence of events where a relative few screw things up for everybody. A handful of people own the laws now and when it no longer suits their purpose they buy extensions on existing laws or sometimes entirely new ones. We may not be able to afford to keep helping those starving artists you speak of. The few may have broken the system beyond repair and the many may just need to get a day job (or keep the one they have).

  I'd like to let the starving artists have control of their work during their lifetime because that just seems like a good thing to do. At the same time I don't see a lot of people lining up to exploit the work of artists who are themselves "starving" (so to speak). If you're not making any money off of your work then what's the point of giving you 70 years to "not" make money off of your work?

  I'd like to see a system where works enter the public domain relatively quickly (the 14 years being tossed around sounds about right. I'm thinking 15-20 though) and then entire a halfway-public state with a graduated and decreasing scale of revenue going towards the copyright holder. Say for instance I invent a cute cartoon rat when I'm 20 years old and copyright it. It takes off and I make some money off of my rat. We'll call him Ricky Rat or "RR" for conversations sake. At 15 years RR becomes "semi-public domain" and anyone who wants to can use him for whatever they like. If they're making money off of him however they have to pay me a percentage of the profits to use him. That percentage decreases as the next decade or two goes by until I no longer get to leech off of other peoples work. I think that would be more than fair.

Re:Poison Pill

[milsoRgen]

I'm starting to understand now... I like this imaginary property thing, let's have it apply to other works as well... Like if I'm a house painter, I should still get paid for that house I painted 20 years ago... That would rock... Seriously tho the length a copyright can be held should be drastically shortened, it would keep the creative types pumping out new works.

Re:Poison Pill

[Chosen Reject]

You have just demonstrated that you haven't any idea why copyright was created in the first place. People are by nature creative. We do stuff all the time that is new. Not all of it (or even a majority of it) is interesting or useful to other people, but a lot of stuff is. As a society we only grow when everybody's creative ideas are out on the table. We take the best ones and build upon that.

However, ideas are an infinite good. Some people don't want to share their creative ideas unless they have some way to profit from it. Because ideas can't be controlled like a physical thing can, some people a long time ago designed copyright to give incentive to those people. In brief, copyright is the government granting a temporary monopoly on your idea (so that you can profit from it) to you in exchange for you to share that idea with society. During that copyright period, you are free to charge however much you want for the use of that copyrighted material (free use excepting). After that copyrighted period though, the public and society as a whole is now free to build upon that idea however they see fit. If you want to have another monopoly that allows you to create money off an idea, then you have to come up with something new and creative again. Thus, copyrights give incentive to create more copyrighted work from even the original author. However, with a copyright term that is guaranteed for life, what incentive do you have to create something new more than once? Sure you can create more works to make even more money, but if you are content with what you have, you have no reason to create new works. Let's take an example. If the copyright for Star Wars ran out in 1993 (14 years after 1979) then George Lucas would have been forced to come up with something new to make money. He couldn't just continue riding the Star Wars wave the rest of his life. (For those of you who didn't like the prequels, this means that after 1993 anybody could have made them). As it is, he just sits around and makes money off of a few properties he's made.

I will only be for lifetime+ copyrights once my work as a plumber guarantees me and my posterity money for all individual jobs I do. If I make a toilet and install it somewhere, then guarantee me that I can get a decent income from that work for the rest of my life and my childrens' lives as well. If I happen to want more money, then I will install a second toilet and then you have to guarantee me profits from two toilets. But it doesn't work like that in real life and it shouldn't be that way for anything else. To make a more appropriate analogy: Say you are a marketing guy and you come up with a neat way to advertise a product. Should you be guaranteed an income for you and your posterity for that one idea? No, that would be silly. You get paid a salary and if you stop coming up with ideas then you're fired and the next idea-man gets hired in your place. Same with individual authors of creative works. They should have to keep coming up with ideas if that is how they want to make a living. If they don't, then they can go work as a salaried employee somewhere.

In either case, if you want to leave your children some inheritance, that is your deal. People who don't make money off of copyrighted things have to save up and invest in order to provide for their families. Why should a person who came up with some idea before anyone else be treated any differently in that regard? We, as a society, gave them an opportunity to market their creative work and make money, now it is our turn to build on it.

I have kind of gone astray. Anyway, the purpose of copyright is to grant a temporary monopoly to give incentive for you to release your work of art into society. Society grants that (through the government) and in return we get your creative work and get to build upon it. Copyright gives incentive to people who have creative works to release it upon society for the express reason of society being able to use that

Re:Poison Pill

[meringuoid]

Let me guess, you're one of the "information wants to be free" types who thinks that a work entering the public domain means that it will become freely shared and easily available. Wrong. What it means is that people can start making money off it without giving the original creators a dime. It means that the content you've now dumped into the public domain will suddenly start showing up on TV, surrounded by ads, making money for the TV network but offering nothing back to the creators. It means that it'll show up on boot-leg DVDs for $5/pop - with all $5 going to the person who ripped the disk and nothing to the creator.

Why, in all of this, would it not also be freely shared and easily available? Just about every public-domain written work you could name is to be found on Project Gutenberg - freely shared and easily available. The complete Dickens is there. So is Poe. You can freely read the complete adventures of Sherlock Holmes and pay not a penny to the descendants of Arthur Conan Doyle or to the Strand Magazine in which he published. Set copyright back to fourteen years, and we'll do the same with movies and music and software. It's not as if we don't have the infrastructure in place for the task. I believe there are some guys in Sweden who are doing it already...

Re:Poison Pill

[click2005]

and possibly help their family after they're dead.

I've never understood that part.. why should the family (usually not a family but a company anyway) get to live off someone else's work? Is there some reason why the family of an artist/author/creator of whatever cant earn a living like most other people on the planet? Why do they deserve special treatment? Its not like they contributed to society in any way.

Re:Poison Pill

[bishiraver]

Answer:

If copyright is issued to a legal non-human body (ie, corporation, LLC):

Copyright term is 14 years with possibility to re-apply.

If copyright is issued to a human person (as opposed to a corporation or legal body), it is copywritten for 70 years.

Re:Poison Pill

[Damon Tog]

Reducing copyright terms will discourage independent music and art.

Sound backwards?

There are many artists who labor in obscurity for years before gaining recognition. Small musicians that slowly build up careers over time will be hurt by short copyrights. Major labels that can afford to aggressively promote their wares will not be as hurt because they will make most of their money in the first few months anyway.

It will not be to the public's benefit to have every author, musician and artist immediately selling their rights to their work to corporations instead of holding on to them.

A blanket reduction of copyright terms is a blunt instrument. The problems of copyright can be more effectively be resolved by reducing the copyright terms of works that are out-of-print and are no longer actively being sold. 90 percent of copyrighted works are out-of-print and collecting dust. If the copyright holders can't be bothered to release them, these works should revert to public domain. This would resolve the orphaned culture problem without discouraging independent art and music.

Re:Poison Pill

[mrxak]

Why should your kids or spouse benefit from your income? People actually work to support their families. And when they aren't around, it's usually nice if they still provide some support, from insurance, or whatever's in the estate. I guess it's that whole evolution thing where you take care of your family so your genes survive.

Re:Poison Pill

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyrights should last 70 years because that's probably how how the artist will live after they've made it, and possibly help their family after they're dead.

I'm sorry, but that's a really stupid argument.

First, copyright isn't intended to help authors or their families. It is intended to get them to create and publish the work and otherwise to protect it as little as possible, for as brief a time as possible. That is, we want the maximum incentive for the minimum cost. If most authors would be incentivized by five years of copyright, then fifty would likely be excessive due to the problem of diminishing returns.

Second, there are other incentives besides copyright. For example, if I pay you paint me a portrait, the commission was your incentive. You can't exploit your copyright to sell copies of the painting, since it isn't in your possession. And I'm not planning to make copies, so I don't need to get a license from you to do so. The work still gets created, but not because of copyright. Works created and published for non-copyright related reasons are actually extremely common. Slashdot posts are a decent example; I bet not a single post would not have been written if they were not copyrightable.

Third, the vast, vast majority of copyrights have zero economic value. Of the teensy tiny minority that do, the vast majority of those have all of that value realized immediately after publication in a given medium. For example, a movie will sell more tickets at the theater on opening weekend than the next weekend, or the weekend after that. Eventually it does poorly enough that it has to go to the second run theater, where the same cycle occurs. Then it goes to pay-per-view, and the same thing happens. Then DVD sales and rentals, and again, it's popular at first, and then does worse and worse. With books, the time span is a few months. For a morning newspaper, the time span is a few hours; people don't buy old news.

So this means that your reason is bunk. It doesn't matter how long the author lives, it only matters how long the work has material copyright-related economic value. Fourteen years would be generous! For most works it's far less time, if there's any value at all. A work that retains value for a long period of time is as rare as winning lottery tickets.

You would surely say that anyone who tried to provide for themselves or for their family by buying a box full of lottery tickets was a fool, right? That if you're worried about what happens to your survivors, you should act responsibly, and get life insurance, save and invest your money carefully, and support social welfare programs if all else fails. Leaving behind copyrights would be foolish. And if the work was valuable, then the cash money that was wrung from it should've been spent in a smart manner so that the family wouldn't need to pray that there's anything left in the copyright.

So not only do we want copyrights to be as short as possible while still incentivizing authors enough, merely as a matter of public policy, we also want them to be short so that authors will not act foolishly and rely on them when they shouldn't. We certainly never want to suggest that they should last a long time so as to help the widows and orphans, since we know that they almost certainly won't help one little bit! It is grossly irresponsible to pretend otherwise.

Copyright holders are rarely the millionaires you seem to think they are.

I agree. But long copyrights don't help them, and do hurt the rest of us. That being the case, we might as well shorten them.

the sorts of people that need long-term protection because chances are they aren't making a lot of money off of their work

And again, that's where you have it wrong. Long term protection will not help them to make a lot of money off of their work except in incredibly rare circumstances. Just because you do it for longer doesn't mean you can wring blood from a stone.

Re:Poison Pill

[cpt kangarooski]

Don't worry about it. In 99.44% of cases, the work isn't of any value anyway (whether valueless originally, or has lost whatever value it once had), so the family isn't helped one iota. It's like giving them a box full of losing lottery tickets. The public is still harmed because the work isn't in the public domain, but the family isn't helped because the work is of no economic value. Everyone loses!

Except for the rare lottery winner who has a work that is valuable. Of course, that work was probably always valuable, so they were probably well provided for even if the copyright didn't last so long, making the whole system just that much more infuriating.

Personally, I think that if we are concerned with the widows and orphans then we ought to encourage people to save money, invest wisely, procure life insurance, and offer social welfare programs as a safety net. The advantage is that this works for everyone, rather than the extremely teensy tiny minority of families where the work that they were left has long-term economic value.

Re:Poison Pill

[cpt kangarooski]

Sounds good to me. Besides, the middle man in your example has no monopoly on that position. Nothing prevents the author, or me, or anyone else from hawking the exact same thing. For example, I can go to the bookstore and buy a copy of Hamlet, or I can go online and download a copy for free, and I can sit outside the bookstore and give copies away, or whatever. So can Shakespeare. Well, zombie Shakespeare, anyway.

Also, by mandating that authors who want a copyright on their work deposit a copy of the work at the Library of Congress, we can ensure that there is always a copy preserved and available. Though really, redundancy is the best means of preservation. Libraries and other central repositories have a bad habit of getting burned down. If everyone has a copy, it's more likely that the work will survive for the long term. This is precisely how we came to have most works from antiquity.

Re:Poison Pill

[cpt kangarooski]

Why, then, should a song get almost five times the protection? (I feel this way even speaking with my songwriter hat on, BTW.)

Well, that's sort of apples and oranges. Patents don't last as long (originally the patent term was 14 years, then 17, and recently 20, and we've altered when the clock starts) but the protection is much broader, and on different subject matter.

Still, I do agree that both should be as short as possible while still encouraging the creation or invention of as much as possible. Frankly, I don't care whether a work was easy or difficult to create. If about as many still would've been created had the rewards been less, then reduce the rewards; if many more would be created if the rewards were greater, increase the rewards. It's all about getting the most bang for your buck. This is why I'd like software to have extremely short terms, maybe five years, tops; because I bet it would still get written. The revenue from years 6-50 (or more) is too little to matter much, so that's not much incentive.

Corporate-held copyrights (works for hire) should be much shorter

First, I disagree. Second, there is a difference between works made for hire (where the employer is the author) and works where a corporate entity holds the copyright but a natural person was the author.

Unpublished works should be protected by copyrighted until 10 years after the creator's death, or for up to twenty years in the case of a corporate work for hire.

Why? Copyright is meant to cause works to be created and published that otherwise would not have been. If a work is unpublished because it's still being created or prepared for publication, then fine, protect it. If a work isn't really meant to be published, don't protect it. At that point, we clearly aren't getting the author to do what we want, so we might as well remove obstacles so that some helpful third party will do it. Likewise, why so long? A decent but not overly long period of time is better. If it takes you a century to create a work, then screw it, that's too long to bother granting protection. If you can't manage in 20-30 years, you're probably hopeless.

Re:Poison Pill

[click2005]

That still doesn't give any reason why people who create copyrighted works should get special privileges. What you said applies to everyone, not just artists/authors etc.

Re:Poison Pill

[kaizokuace]

Seriously. lifetime copyrights is for corporations and studios only. As an artist I understand that what I create isn't for me but for the world to have. I think its better that way than to hoard it! People that just are greedy and wanna make money ruin the fun for everyone else. Disney ruined history with their forever copyrights. Only my great grandchildren might be able to enjoy disney's works in the open domain probably. Also if there is any money to be made from an artwork 95% of it will be made within 2 years of public release. If you can't make enuff in that time you probably are in the wrong business (that of selling works not necessarily creating it).

Re:Poison Pill

[aussie_a]

Yet most of those things were profitable well within 14 years. Sounds like 14 years is a good timelength.

Re:Poison Pill

[aussie_a]

The solution is easy. Coporations will assign all copyright to 1 person, and that person then gives the corporation an exclusive license for 100 years.

Re:Poison Pill

[dgatwood]

Frankly, I don't care whether a work was easy or difficult to create. If about as many still would've been created had the rewards been less, then reduce the rewards; if many more would be created if the rewards were greater, increase the rewards.

That's my point, though. Some things would be created far less if the copyright were short. If it takes a year to write a book and six or seven years to shop it around to publishers (not unusual for new authors), a ten year copyright term would basically mean that few would consider becoming a novelist. The same isn't true for things that don't take several years to create, edit, and get published. I'm not talking about the difficulty to create it, but rather the amount of time.

First, I disagree. Second, there is a difference between works made for hire (where the employer is the author) and works where a corporate entity holds the copyright but a natural person was the author.

I assume what you meant to say was that there is a difference between a work for hire---a work in which the copyright is held by a corporation because the creator was under contract---and a work owned by a corporation because the other transferred his/her rights to the corporation. If so, I agree. If you're trying to draw an arbitrary line between works for higher and corporate creation, I disagree. Whether something was created by one person creating it under a contract to create that specific work or by a thousand people working together to create it as part of their normal jobs as employees, the net effect is still the same. The only difference is how much the sucker^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployee gets paid. :-)

Why? Copyright is meant to cause works to be created and published that otherwise would not have been. If a work is unpublished because it's still being created or prepared for publication, then fine, protect it. If a work isn't really meant to be published, don't protect it. At that point, we clearly aren't getting the author to do what we want, so we might as well remove obstacles so that some helpful third party will do it. Likewise, why so long? A decent but not overly long period of time is better. If it takes you a century to create a work, then screw it, that's too long to bother granting protection. If you can't manage in 20-30 years, you're probably hopeless.

I don't think it is reasonable to require an individual to publish something within a particular period of time. Requiring that of a corporation is reasonable because a corporation presumably has the resources to do so. Requiring that of an individual means that it has to be the individual's reason for being. It takes significant time and money to get something from being a raw story to being publishable. If it is just something that the person did for fun, it seems perfectly reasonable that he/she might look back at it many years later and say, "Hey, I should try to publish that." That person should have the right to do so without having those rights stolen by someone who happened to dig a draft copy out of his/her trash bin.

Further, if someone breaks into your house and steals something that you wrote twenty years ago, that person (or someone who gets it as a result) should not be able to make a profit from it merely because you haven't chosen to make it public. Perhaps you never intended to do so. Perhaps it might even be embarrassing to you or someone you care about. To protect the privacy rights of individual content creators, as long as you are alive, your unpublished creations should be yours and yours alone. After the person's death, it is no longer a source of potential embarrassment for the author, and should be either published by the author's heirs or released into the public domain in a timely manner. In effect, the same protection that limits seizure of personal papers should also apply to unauthorized publication of the same.

Re:Poison Pill

[Loibisch]

> damage calculations for [...] the "Police Academy" movies.
That had to be a harsh number...
I can't remember anyone who saw this who didn't go out brain-damaged from those stupid movies...

Re:Poison Pill

[jrumney]

Why should copyright holders' families be entitled to anything after their death? If they want to provide for their families, why can't they buy life insurance and invest the money they make while they are alive, like the rest of us?

Re:Poison Pill

[DarthJohn]

It would be nice if I could tell a person where the power button is on his computer is and get an income from that one action for the rest of my life.

I know the analogy falls apart (having created something is different from providing a service) but if an artist hasn't created something new in ten or fifteen years is copyright doing its job? That sounds like discouraging creativity.

Sure it probably already takes a bunch of creative works to make a living... and a bunch of those don't make any money... I think the point still stands.

If you can make some number of works (enough to have a few big hits and several smaller hits and so on) and be guaranteed an income for the rest of your life why make any more? For the love of the art? I would hope so, but using that as an argument for decreasing copyright (people will still make art because they are people and people make art) gets laughed at.

Re:Poison Pill

[zenkonami]

"Being creative" is no different than providing any other sort of service. Wrong. It is a completely different kind of service. Someone mentioned painting a house as analogous, but it's not, because over time the paint degrades and a house painter will need to be called on again, while the actual content of the intellectual property does not physically degrade (in contrast to the container the content is carried in.)

For most types of services, you get paid for what people think is the value of the provided service, at the time that you provide the service. Only the greedy want to get paid over and over for providing a single act of service. This suggests that the service is provided once, by the provider. It may be performed once, but again, this completely excludes the consumer of the service in the equation.

An accountant comes to do the books for a sole proprietor. One person's books are done. Accountant gets paid.

An accountant (who is apparently a programmer as well) writes a program that will do the books for 100 sole proprietors. If they all want and use the software, should the accountant only be paid once? Does it matter that 100 people are benefiting from the accountant's methods and ingenuity rather than just one? Clearly it is not in the accountant's best interest to distribute the program, as the sole proprietorships can also use the program again the next time they need the books done, etc... In this case, there is no incentive for the accountant.

A better analogy still. This is where creative arts as services breaks down. There is a commodity at hand here. There is a desired "product", even if the "product" is ephemeral. If a dancer performs on stage and we pay to see her, we consider that acceptable, but if the show is recorded, then it should be passed out for free? "Yes," some say, "but she's already performed it once, the media is "free", and people initially paid for the "experience of seeing it live." That's hogwash. Whether people desire to see it live or on video, they desire to see it, and that means there is a demand for it, and if there is a demand for it then the consumers of her work should be paying her for it.

I personally do not advocate "pay-per-play", and neither does the market. I, too, am a "consumer" and have my limits. However I do believe an artist should be paid for the work in some manner by each person that is deriving satisfaction from that work, and that differentiates it from being an ordinary service.

Re:Poison Pill

[zenkonami]

Seriously tho the length a copyright can be held should be drastically shortened, it would keep the creative types pumping out new works. No, it wouldn't. At least not necessarily. I do agree that copyright beyond the life of the author is absurd, but a shortened copyright period may provide less, incentive because the potential for returns on their work would be dramatically minimized.

Say the copyright period were 14 years. I could write a song now and be well ahead of my time. I do everything I can to exploit the work, but nobody's biting. Have I written a bad song? Maybe...maybe it's just not the right "market" for the song.

20 years from now perhaps I have some success...or perhaps I don't...but the song's time has come. Whatever it is...the style, the form, the lyrics...whatever...it's a huge hit. Everybody wants this song that I've spent 20 years trying to exploit (because you virtually never stop trying to make money on your work...part of the business no-one seems to pay much attention to.)

And I don't make a dime off of it, because it's in the public domain.

Now some say, "Great! Now's your chance to pump out some more work like it, and you can make money on that!" As anyone in the creative field knows, sometimes it just doesn't work that way. You're in a different place in your life. You have different perspectives. Sure, you can craft stuff, but it's just not as good, or it's different...or perhaps it's also 20 years ahead of it's time.

Just as an addendum, when people talk about the amount of work that goes into creating a song, they periodically forget the amount of work that goes into promoting and exploiting a song (or other creative work.) It doesn't stop when the pencil comes off the page. If no-one ever hears it, then you'll never make any money off it.

Re:Poison Pill

[milsoRgen]

I think you are placing to much monetary value on art... A lot of people make art simply for the sake of creating something.

But you do have an interesting point about, "being ahead of your time". That is certainly a possibility. However, if someone is to make anything profound and truly meaningful being it book, music, poetry, etc., etc.. People who are interested in that work are generally going to seek out the truest version, the "Authorized" editions if you will. The editions the author is directly tied to, and public domain or not, you can still make money down the road. Or they will buy all the paraphernalia related to that artist or that artists work, once again the artist can make money with or without copyright. He would be able to make a living if his work justifies attention from the fans.

These are just my thoughts on the issue, as I am struck by what happened to J.R.R. Tolkien when a edition of The Lord of The Rings was released in the states by an unauthorized publishing house. When Tolkien finally had a proper edition released stateside many of the book contained a warning about those unauthorized copies. I for one would of gladly bought a proper copy... Also his works were not as popular as they have since became after his life time. He also wasn't creating for profit, in fact he seemed at times rather annoyed with the constant upkeep the publishing of his works required. As well as the attention it brought from fans even during his life time.

I do not believe creativity (in the long term) would be harmed or diminished by a drastically shortened copyright life.

Re:Poison Pill

[dgatwood]

1. Yes, you could do that to be "published", but no, posting it does not necessarily constitute publication. Posting it in a private area for select individuals to view is no more publication than lending a draft to your friend. We probably do need to clarify the definition of publication, though. In any case, while you can "click post" and publish, you can't really make money that way, and as such, copyright law should not pressure authors to "publish" in such a self-defeating manner simply to meet some arbitrary deadline.

2. Technically, internet posts are copyrighted for the author's life plus seventy years just like anything else. What was your point?

Re:Poison Pill

[cpt kangarooski]

That's my point, though. Some things would be created far less if the copyright were short. If it takes a year to write a book and six or seven years to shop it around to publishers (not unusual for new authors), a ten year copyright term would basically mean that few would consider becoming a novelist.

The problem is, that I suggested that there would be a lesser form of copyright for unpublished works, and regular copyright for published works. The former would have a term subsisting from fixation of the work until, the sooner of 20-30 years later or publication. The latter would have a term subsisting from publication (provided that the work was registered properly no later than one year after publication and bore certain indicia of copyright during that year, if it wasn't registered immediately, to help put the public on notice).

So the timeframe you suggest would be no problem whatsoever. It would only be an issue if you took an ungodly long time to make the work, in which case you could still get the regular copyright upon publication anyway.

I assume what you meant to say was that there is a difference between a work for hire---a work in which the copyright is held by a corporation because the creator was under contract---and a work owned by a corporation because the other transferred his/her rights to the corporation.

No, I meant what I said. When a work is made for hire, the employer _is_ the author; it's little different than if you dictated a book to a secretary. The secretary's involvement doesn't mean that they are an author. Plus of course, very few works are works made for hire due to a contract; employment is the normal route due to the details of the statute.

If it is just something that the person did for fun, it seems perfectly reasonable that he/she might look back at it many years later and say, "Hey, I should try to publish that." That person should have the right to do so without having those rights stolen by someone who happened to dig a draft copy out of his/her trash bin.

If it is something that was made just for fun, then copyright was not an incentive to cause the author to create that work. Ideally then, he shouldn't get a copyright. I'd be willing to give him one if he'd at least publish, but until he does, the public would be equally as well served if anyone published the work. So it's fine if someone gets a draft in a reasonable way (e.g. not by breaking in to the author's home) and publishes it. They couldn't get a copyright, but at least we'd be better off.

Nor should we give the author forever to decide to publish. There are plenty of excellent works where it would be great if they were published, but the author has no intention of doing so. Why should we wait for them to come around, if they ever do? Why shouldn't we help the third-party publisher with an assurance that he can't be sued if he obtains the MS in a reasonable fashion? Otherwise we run into the bizarre outcome of giving the most protection to works that never benefit the public by being published and which were not created due to the incentive of copyright! That's just absurd.

Further, if someone breaks into your house and steals something that you wrote twenty years ago, that person (or someone who gets it as a result) should not be able to make a profit from it merely because you haven't chosen to make it public.

Yes, but only because he broke in. If I had given him a copy and then ignored the work, then that would be a different matter.

To protect the privacy rights of individual content creators, as long as you are alive, your unpublished creations should be yours and yours alone.

The big problem with your idea is that the public policy driving copyright couldn't give a rat's ass about privacy. In fact, it wants as many works as possible to be created and published and ultimately enter the public domain, and to grant protection to no, or as few works as possible, and for that protection to be as minimal as possible, to further the goal of getting works in the public domain.

Do you see the Copyright Clause making any mention of privacy? I don't.

Re:Poison Pill

[zenkonami]

I think you make some good points. I would like to clarify a few things, though.

The discussion is about copyright, which is essentially about the monetary value of a work. It is by scarcity (to be simplistic) and demand that a work of art attains monetary value.

Personally, of course, I'm just thinking of rent and supper. If I work creatively and enjoy what I do (and I do), it's too my benefit. If others enjoy what I do, I might be able to derive further benefit from what I've created by "exploiting" the work. I think this is the case whether one is a musician, a woodworker, or an electrical engineer. Copyright merely protects the artist's ability to exploit those works, since those works are the "intellectual property" of the artist. Those who produce tangible goods don't require those kinds of protections (but may have other protections instead.)

All that said, it is the creative side that I think most artists would rather spend their time with, and not the commercial side, and I credit those who do it merely for their own pleasure or the pleasure of those around them. It's just that when one starts to think one is good at something, and really enjoys doing that something, one begins to consider using that something as their means of keeping life and limb together.

I do not believe creativity (in the long term) would be harmed or diminished by a drastically shortened copyright life. You're probably right. Creativity would not be impacted negatively, but would we get to experience as much of it? Without a significant paradigm change in other areas of our social and economic behaviors, I think not. Personally, I'm all for trying that paradigm change, though. My short years have jaded me, methinks =D


And just in case anyone decides to come after me over the "intellectual property" issue...remember that all property could be considered an artificial construct, whether intellectual or otherwise. Isn't there a joke that goes something like, "Why do you own this land?" "Because I inherited it from my father." "And how did he come to own it?" "He bought it from his uncle." "And how did his uncle come by it." "He fought for it." "Then I'll fight you for it!"

(sigh) I never was good at jokes.

Is this misworded?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Noting that the courts can currently award massive statutory damages without rightsholders having to demonstrate that they have suffered any actual harm, the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties

I'm misunderstanding how the assignment of statutory damages without a demonstration, much less proof of harm can be considered in the interest of both parties.

Obvious really

[Recovering Hater]

The RIAA won't be happy until they can sue someone for "100 Jillion dollars" *

* Spoken in Dr. Evilese

Re:Obvious really

[HikingStick]

In all likelihood, I believe the RIAA would prefer to make copyright infringement a capital offense.

The executions, themselves, will be recorded (and copyrighted) and then tacked on the beginning of every DVD or future media type.

After a few years, consumers will be able to purchase "The best of RIAA Executions" in a variety of formats (each disk or download fully protected by DRM, of course).

Re:Obvious really

[snarkh]

Finally it would be clear what exactly the RIAA "executives" do.

Re:Obvious really

[waim]

Or even better, 100 Brazillion Dollars!

Re:Obvious really

[jimicus]

In all likelihood, I believe the RIAA would prefer to make copyright infringement a capital offense.

I doubt it. It's rather hard to get money off a dead person.

Future?

[Anonymous Coward]

The authors of the white paper paint a dreary future where "copyright trolls" file lawsuits in order to rake in massive amounts of statutory damages, where innovation is stifled, and where artists are afraid to "Recut, Reframe, and Recycle" because of the financial risks involved.'" Strange. That sounds remarkably similar to the dreary present.

Copyright lawsuits to censor, intimidate, or extract cash are already fairly common. Also, the financial and legal burden to remixing content and culture is already so high that no independent artist can endure it, and most big-name outfits avoid it wherever possible.

Welcome to the future.

content creators

[SoupGuru]

I have a dream. I have a dream that content creators will find it easier and easier to retain the rights to their works instead of being coerced into signing them away to a 3rd party.

If large monolithic recording companies and their associations didn't con the artists into handing over the rights to their labor in the first place, none of this would be an issue. Hopefully the industry will change and allow the artists more freedom over their work while still being able to make a living.

Re:content creators

[squallbsr]

I almost died of laughter...

Re:content creators

[zenkonami]

+1 Good Idea.

This just in

[LockeOnLogic]

A late amendment to the PRO-IP would give the RIAA permission to "hold you upside down and shake out every last penny" on suspicion of copywrite infringement. Not satisfied with this development, RIAA is now pushing for a further amendment permitting cavity searches as well.

Re:This just in

[jedidiah]

Someone needs to put this on a t-shirt.

I think Lars Ulrich or James Hetfield would be the perfect
subjects to be oversized the "troll" holding a poor media
consumer up in the air by his leg.

Higher return-on-investment.

[fahrbot-bot]

The RIAA makes perfect sense here. In response to dwindling (or flat) profits from lawsuits, they want to raise the guaranteed ROI on fewer lawsuits. Models the recording industry business practices perfectly... Rape, don't innovate.

Copyright trolls?

[Malevolent Tester]

The RIAA raised my infringement liberally.

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[Bombula]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal." - Pablo Picasso

What was that you were saying?

Having their cake and eating it too

[Shagg]

Why is it that the RIAA (and I guess the MPAA too?) are able to basically have the best of both worlds with current copyright laws. They have the reduced burden of proof that a civil court gives them, but are also allowed to basically get criminal levels of punishment. If they really want to be able to financially ruin someones life for a single infringement, shouldn't they at least have to do it in criminal court with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof.

Re:Having their cake and eating it too

[pembo13]

Seems to me that the punishments are higher than the average criminal punishment

Re:Having their cake and eating it too

[jedidiah]

You would get about 1/100th punishment from just shoplifting it.

There is nothing new under the sun

[spun]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.
If you can't be bothered to ask the originator if she minds if you reuse her work, you can't call yourself respectful.
If you can't honor the wishes of the originator when he says he doesn't want you reusing his work, you shouldn't call yourself honest.

All in all, the only way in which I'd miss the recyclers is in the lack of easy targets for mockery. Everything in art is recycled. If you can't see that, you have not studied art, literature, or history. Go ahead, find me one original piece of art, something that has never, ever been done before, and which is not influenced by anything which went before. Or try a thought experiment: if you raised a kid in a box with no contact with the outside world, would they be capable of producing anything approaching art?

Re:There is nothing new under the sun

[Chosen Reject]

Go ahead, find me one original piece of art, something that has never, ever been done before, and which is not influenced by anything which went before.

Ask and you shall recieve

I kid. I kid. I actually agree with you.

"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[sm62704]

...the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties

I don't. I think copyright is WAY out of hand. Terms should be brought back to the eighteenth century's tewnty years, and no noncommercial use should be called infringing except in the case of plagairism.

P2P is advertising and MP3s are free samples of a far better commodity.

If copyright were reasonable, you wouldn't have folks on slashdot calling for its abolition like you do now.

-mcgrew

PS- I hold hundreds of copyrights, two having ISBN numbers. The two registered ones would have gone into the public domain already if I'd had my way, as they are both over 20 years old. How are you going to convince Jimi hendrix to record any more songs? That is what the US Constitution says the purpose of copyright is!

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[FishWithAHammer]

P2P is advertising and MP3s are free samples of a far better commodity.

This is disingenuous. The difference between a 256kbps MP3 and an audio CD is negligible and you know it.

The complaints about copyright--and I might add that holding copyrights does not make you an expert, though it might make you an outlier--boil down to "I can get it for free, so I want it for free."

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[shark72]

"P2P is advertising and MP3s are free samples of a far better commodity."

I've purchased hundreds of MP3 and AAC tracks. Not once have I proceeded to purchase the CD version, nor have I gone to see the performer play live, or -- to use the Slashdot cliche -- "bought a t-shirt." The track was the product, not an ad. And the fact is that there are many, many consumers like me. If I could have legally gotten those MP3 files for free, then the copyright owner would have seen exactly zero money from me. Let's not pretend that MP3 files hold no value... while I acknowledge that many people reading this use P2P as their primary source for music, Apple and others have done quite well in the business of selling downloads.

"I hold hundreds of copyrights, two having ISBN numbers. The two registered ones would have gone into the public domain already if I'd had my way, as they are both over 20 years old."

Possibly a dumb question... if you hold the copyright, don't you have your way? Does obtaining an ISBN hamper your ability to release something into the public domain?

I'm thinking of what Cory Doctrow has done with some of his stuff... he didn't see the need for it to be under copyright any longer, so he set it free. His stuff, too, has ISBNs, so I don't understand what the difference is here.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[EzInKy]

...and no noncommercial use should be called infringing except in the case of plagairism.


You would think this would already be the case as current copyright law stomps all over the first amendment.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[UncleTogie]

People aren't on slashdot arguing about copyright because copyright is a problem. They are doing it because it helps them justify piracy/theft. There was no huge outcry 20 years ago about copyright terms or the penalties for infringement. In fact, I never heard anyone ever criticize anything about copyright until it became easy to download copied music and movies from the web.

Guess you weren't born early enough to hear the whining about VCRs, were you?

I'll gripe when any industry gets too big for its britches 'n' starts pissing on the consumer. No "piracy" excuse needed.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[Dusty00]

False analogy.

The argument made on Slashdot, and elsewhere, is that the music is the promotional material. No promotional material is ever 100% effective. If I'm at the grocery store, get a free sample and don't purchase the product I don't feel any obligation to pay for the sample I've received.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[stubear]

Even if copyright terms were brought back to 20 years there would still be MASSIVE violations occurring on P2P networks. People don't pirate movies, music, and software that is 20+ years old, they are illegally distributing works that are barely days or weeks old. In some cases works that have yet to be publicly released wind up on P2P networks. Your advertisement argument, weak as it is, only works for music. How do you suggest movie and TV production companies make a living? TV shows are traded on P2P networks sans advertisements hours after they air and I doubt advertisers are going to continue to dump money on shows that people aren't watching on TV or through an authorized distributor. What about authors? Are you honestly suggesting that authors should live off a tip jar based system? The only way to make copyright work is to maintain the SOLE right of distribution with the cpoyright holder for both commercial and NON-commercial use, period, even if you go to a five year term.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[zenkonami]

I hold hundreds of copyrights, two having ISBN numbers. The two registered ones would have gone into the public domain already if I'd had my way, as they are both over 20 years old. IANAL but doesn't Section 203 of the Copyright Act allow you to release your works in to the public domain if you are the sole copyright holder? Or am I completely misunderstanding how that works...?

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[zenkonami]

I've purchased hundreds of MP3 and AAC tracks. Not once have I proceeded to purchase the CD version, nor have I gone to see the performer play live, or -- to use the Slashdot cliche -- "bought a t-shirt." The track was the product, not an ad. And the fact is that there are many, many consumers like me. If I could have legally gotten those MP3 files for free, then the copyright owner would have seen exactly zero money from me. Let's not pretend that MP3 files hold no value... while I acknowledge that many people reading this use P2P as their primary source for music, Apple and others have done quite well in the business of selling downloads. Absolutely correct. I think the assumption is that because the "physical" supply is unlimited, then there is no value to the product, completely dismissing the demand side of the equation. It presumes the container is the measure of value and not the contents.

I think it is perfectly acceptable to use the product as promotion (and am attempting to do so myself in my own band) but that should be a decision on the part of the artist/publisher.

Some people don't want T-Shirts, and they don't go to concerts. They just want a soundtrack for their lives. Why shouldn't artists be compensated for that?

------------------

Do You Experiment?

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[shark72]

"The argument made on Slashdot, and elsewhere, is that the music is the promotional material. No promotional material is ever 100% effective. If I'm at the grocery store, get a free sample and don't purchase the product I don't feel any obligation to pay for the sample I've received."

It can be promotional material. It can incite the customer to buy more music from the same artist, or do Ye Olde t-shirt and concert thing. But, any product can also be described in similar terms. Hyundai could give away cars as promotional items. But it's their choice.

I believe the GP's point is that MP3 files' primary benefit is as a promotion or advertisement -- and that's patently false; in fact, this argument is often used as a self-serving validation for copyright infringement. The great thing about the free market is that the copyright holder has a choice. Many record labels can and do release select tracks for free, and lots of unsigned artists release their entire catalogs for free under Creative Commons. But copyright gives the rightsholder the right not to.

Many Slashdotters believe that the key to success is to release your creative works freely, and relying on ways to make money other than selling your work piece by piece. Copyright law is opt-in: you don't have to sell your product, and you don't have to keep your stuff under copyright for the maximum duration. This is often a business decision; your personal goals and the free market work together to make their magic. Many Slashdotters would like these rights taken away from the producers, for the benefit of the consumers. This is all a bit too Randian for me.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[cpt kangarooski]

Perhaps he means that he wants the same time limit to apply to everyone. If he dedicates them to the public domain, then he's at a disadvantage with everyone else. If that's the standard time limit, however, then he's in the same boat with everyone else, and there's no comparative disadvantage for him.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[sm62704]

In the US, before a thing can be copyrighted it must be "affixed in tangible form". That should give a clue to one place where the insudtry has gone and is going wrong. They should NOT be selling downloads, certainly not selling them for a dollar a pop.

Instead, downloads should be free, or at least cheap enough to discourage anyone from wanting to upload them. Instead of a dollar, a nickle or dime should be enough. If a file is on my own server the cost of letting someone download it from me is negligible.

CDs should have value added, and this should be touted by the record companies. The musicians understand this - when the Offspring finished Original Prankster they wanted to put the whole CD on their website in MP3 format, and their label had a cow. They "compromised" by putting one song up. Their stance made me want to buy that CD (well, that and I like their music).

I was pleasantly surprised to find a half dozen videos on the CD. I shouldn't have been surprised - the label let their musicians down (when don't they?) by not advertising this fact!

And finally, the biggest reason CD sales are down is because nobody likes getting ripped off. I can buy a two hour movie, with extras, at Wal Mart for five to fifteen dollars. In case the record labels haven't noticed, there is music all through about every movie ever filmed.

Contrast the five to fifteen bucks for a two hour movie for twenty or thirty (Beatles White Album). Add the fact that music CD prices haven't declined much, while blanks have dropped from five bucks a pop to a quarter or less.

Most of us aren't rich. We have l a limited supply of dollars, and an even more limited disposable income. Do I spend that thirty bucks on a CD or two DVDs? Not a hard choice for most of us.

If the music industry sold cars, they'd be trying to sell Yugos for a hundred thousand bucks each and suing anybody who made their own cars (this actually happened in the beginning of the auto industry, the established players sued Ford for patent infringement).

If the internet didn't exist the established recording industry would still be dying, because nobody likes being ripped off. The cost of recording has plummeted, the cost of distribution has plummeted, the cost of the media has plummeted. CDs should retail for no more than five bucks each, and downloads should be no more than a dime.

It's incredibly insulting to be called a thief by a pack of thieves. But then again, thieves think everyone steals. That's part of the problem as well.

I get my MP3s by ripping CDs. And I buy my CDs from the independant bands themselves; I think Original Prankster may have been the last RIAA CD I bought. And it will remain that way AFAIC until the music industry gets a clue.

-mcgrew

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[sm62704]

WOOSH!

I'd post anonymously too. The point is that copyright is supposed to convince artists to create in order to make more works go into the public domain.

Hindrix' works should be in the public domain, as there's no way outside of hell he's going to record again.

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[sm62704]

Nope, no contract, I own the copyrights. One of them is completely worthless, since it will only work on a computer that they stopped selling in 1983, a program that hacked it into a higher graphics mode than it was designed for, along with a crude (by today's standards) program to let you draw pictures on it.

The other one is Artificial Insanity, I may port that one to javascript. I may even open-source it.

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[freedom_surfer]

Because we know all artists have originated all their work and techniques and not built upon the foundations of their predecessors...

I have a better idea...if you want to horde your art, then don't share it or release it to the general public...a real artist would prefer his/her work to be enjoyed by many rather than locked away with a financial key...IMHO

Now should people have protections for their created works? Of course....but for 70+ years? No way... if you can't make your money back in 14 years, then you made a bad decision with your investments and time...and probably weren't driven to make 'art' at all... societal progress and their ability to embrace and extend the work of previous generations shouldn't be stiffled to benefit a few. (and might I add those that benefit from extensions often simply bought the 'rights' and had no part in the creation of the 'art' at all)

Also, to get back on topic...the courts need to throw these awards out...its about time they have to prove actual losses...these large awards and litigation are just foundations upon which to extort out of court settlements...again IMHO

Re: limited terms

[Migraineman]

Do you have any idea how ridiculously fucking short 14 years is?!

Long enough so you have a reasonable time to market your work and make money; short enough that you don't get to sit on your ass for the rest of your life, and short enough that you are prohibited from obstructing other peoples' progress.

Go re-read the Constitution ...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As copyright stands now, the term can outlive the author. That's bad. Exactly how does that beyond-death structure encourage the dead guy to create additional works? (hint - it doesn't.)

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Every musician who's written a song that uses the I-IV-V structure is a laughable fraud, because somebody else came up with that idea first.

Don't even get me started on the hacks who use the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus song structure!

Re: limited terms

[hedwards]

Clearly the funds should be used to bring back the author as a zombie.

Re: limited terms

[Anakron]

how does that beyond-death structure encourage the dead guy to create additional works? It doesn't. However, it also reduces any incentive for the artist to suffer an "accidental" death.

Colors

[Teflon_Jeff]

White papers aren't going to et it done, Green papers are the only way to make a change in laws.

Already seeing "Copyright Trolls"

[Jason Levine]

The authors of the white paper paint a dreary future where "copyright trolls" file lawsuits in order to rake in massive amounts of statutory damages

It's not widespread yet as a means for profit, but copyright protection laws are being already being (mis-)used to silence critics and competitors. There was the Lexmark DMCA case where they argued that a competitor's ink replacement system was a violation of the DMCA. There are the widespread Scientology claims of copyright on items they don't own, but want offline. In general, anyone who wants a site offline quickly can just file a DMCA claim on it You can sort out those messy perjury issues later (if they come up at all). Attach a financial reward for filing DMCA claims and suddenly copyright trolls will appear everywhere.

Re: limited terms

[sconeu]

Or, as someone said many years ago...

P2P Killed Elvis!!!

Re: limited terms

[dgatwood]

So does having a fixed period of 14+14 years. Having it automatically outlive the author by a given number of years, however, could be an incentive to keep the author alive in a persistent vegetative state for 50 years....

*shivers*

Wash. Rinse, Repeat

[SeaFox]

Let them raise the statutory infringement cap...
But only if they cut copyright back to 14 years instead of life + 70 yrs.

They'll accept the offer, then in 13 years when there's a different Congress they'll have copyright extended again.

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[tepples]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist. If I write a song, how can I tell whether I have subconsciously copied something that I had heard on the radio ten years ago?

You obviously need a clue.

[znerk]

14 years is plenty of time to make plenty of money from an idea. Star Wars would be public domain, yes, but do you really think George Lucas (or his estate) needs more money from Skywalker and company?

The idea is not to "milk products until they're dead", the idea is to put the ideas into the public domain so that all can profit from them... after the original creator (who, half the time, isn't even the one who got the copywrite) makes a reasonable amount of money from it.

Yes, I have a *very* good idea just how short 14 years is. Maybe you have no idea how *long* 14 years is? 14 years isn't even half my lifespan. it's just over a third. I know how long it took (subjectively), and I know how long it seems now. It's over 5,000 days in which to try to make a profit on something.

Super Mario Brothers would be public domain? Including the original 8-bit Nintendo Entertainment System you'd need to play it? AWESOME. Nintendo isn't selling them anymore, anyway (Not that it stops them from claiming millions in losses when they catch someone counterfeiting them).

I can't get parts for my NES, and when I asked a Nintendo rep where I could find an NES after reading that they busted a counterfeiting ring that they said cost them some $800 million plus in lost revenue, I was told "try Ebay". Why should I have to try to locate a product on Ebay, if the counterfeits of the exact same product cost your company nearly a billion dollars in lost sales?!? One of your statements is utter and complete bullshit.

It's ridiculous for a product that has been on the market for over a decade to be protected by law. If everyone knows what it is, if it's a household name, don't bother trying to stick a Band-Aid on the situation, just have a Coke and a smile, and deal with it.

If it's no longer being produced by the original company, don't bother trying to protect it anymore. Obviously, Nintendo is done with the 8-bit Entertainment System. Let it go to public domain, so we can play the games we loved 20 years ago without having to dig through the bargain bin at garage sales. Besides, I've got 2 NES Advantage controllers, and both the original Zeldas in the gold carts. (nevermind Metroid, Castlevania, Contra, etc.) Why should I have to just suck it up and hope I can find something on Ebay to play them on?

My post got sidetracked, but my core idea is sound. 14 years is plenty of time to make a profit on an idea. Let it go when you're done with it, instead of being greedy bastards.

Selfishness rules

[ThurlMakes7]

Spot on. In one way it's even worse: denying the originators (of music, or quality games like your good self) has become a moral crusade in its own right.

This quote summed it up for me:

"can there ever have been a more empty and worthless cause than fighting for the right for artists not to be paid?" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/03/jammie_thomas_attorney_flees/

Which is an interesting PoV from the guy who coined the word "pigopolist".

People used to campaign to make everyone better off, to raise everyone higher. Now they campaign to make talented people worse off. The anti-copyright nuts will disappear up their own backsides eventually, I just wonder how much damage they'll do before they feck off.

Re:Selfishness rules

[russotto]

"can there ever have been a more empty and worthless cause than fighting for the right for artists not to be paid?"

Didn't Slashdot just report about the RIAA doing just that?

People used to campaign to make everyone better off, to raise everyone higher. Now they campaign to make talented people worse off. The anti-copyright nuts will disappear up their own backsides eventually, I just wonder how much damage they'll do before they feck off.

Copyright's terms have been increased (Bono), its subject matter expanded (DMCA and other laws), penalties for infringement increased (NET act), secondary protections added (DMCA), and vicarious liability widened (Grokster). Just what sort of damage do you think "anti-copyright nuts" are doing? If there's any damage going on, it's the unlimited-copyright nuts doing it.

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[meringuoid]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.

Damn. Well, there goes Shakespeare, then.

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[IndustrialComplex]

The Queen song goes da da da da da da da... my song goes da da da da da da DA

Corporate use of an individual's copyrighted work?

[Christoph]

A corporation took a photo from my website (cgstock.com) and used it in an entire ad campaign (phone book, brochures, newspaper). I saw it, they refused to pay, then sued me for defamation when I wrote about it on my website ( http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana ).

The case went to trial in federal court November 5th, 2007 (case 06-01164, District of MN -- my copyright infringement claim and multiple counterclaims over me "disparaging" them...it was a bench trial and I'm still waiting for the judge's ruling).

I explicitly permit non-commercial use of my photos -- personal web pages, schools, etc. (I require a photo credit, but I would not sue over it). But I greatly object if you are making money from my work, you HAVE A BUDGET to pay me, but are cutting me out of the loop to inflate your profits while I'm earning nothing.

There are excessive penalties for copyright infringement where the infringer does not seek to profit, but (speaking subjectively) I would like the corporation that stole my photos (two photos, actually), lied about it, forged evidence, and tied up in court since 2005, to pay "a billion dollars"...not just a token amount, or a few hundred. The risk of getting caught has to be a deterrent, which (for this company) it was not.

(licensing photos largely relies on professionalism and the honor system; if a local bank tells me they are going to use my photo in 1,000 brochures, I assume they are not using it in a TV campaign, billboards, and 100,000 brochures -- if so, the damages should outweigh the benefit of lying).

I guess this relates to the change in copyright law (to address P2P) that equated infringement without a profit motive = infringement with a profit motive.

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[zotz]

"Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist."

Cool, so any works found to be built upon works in the public domain and so on down the line will automatically be put into the public domain then? I mean, if they are building on the works of others, they can't be artists and why should we give copyrights on artistic works to non-artists? Right?

How about we go on a copyright offensive everyone?
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensive.html

all the best,

drew

100 jillion dollars

[Artuir]

At the rate we're going, 100 jillion dollars is gonna be pocket change.

Re:YOU have to MAKE a difference

[billcopc]

My U.S. History is a bit weak, given that I don't live there, but wasn't there a certain fellow who fought for freedom, waaaaaaay back in the day ? The kind of freedom that occasionally requires people to kill their oppressors and bring balance to their world ?

If government gets so far out of line that it becomes a threat, it needs to be fought, knocked down and slain. The whole point of democracy was to run things from the ground up, people in control of their environment, their health, their economy and their destiny. Why do we vote if our elected leaders act like fascist tyrants ? The biggest difference between North American leaders and the despot dictators of Africa and the Middle East, is that the North Americans feel the need to lie about their betrayals - they're every bit as evil and corrupt.

A new idea

[GregPK]

I think that the artists should get 50 percent of all settlements... The RIAA of course would balk at this. But it goes with thier primary arguement that its robbing the musician of hard earned money. If artists got half of all settlements they'd be more likely to help the RIAA catch people.

Re:You're proving his point

[UncleTogie]

Remind me which industry is too big for its britches, again?

Broadly, the entertainment industry.

"Big Music" earned $18bn globally last year - much less than Apple Inc. alone, and about the same as Google Inc.

They could've made more if they'd given their customers what they wanted, instead of sticking to what is widely seen as a flawed business model.

You're proving his point.

Try reading carefully before you post next time. My reply was to this:

In fact, I never heard anyone ever criticize anything about copyright until it became easy to download copied music and movies from the web.

I simply pointed out that it's a rehash of the earlier fight.

But don't let facts spoil your argument, if it allows you to justify not paying for stuff. Heck, that's your Freetard right, dammit.

Wow. What a jackass. If you read any of my other posts, you'd find my reasoning. To paraphrase 'em: I've never advocated piracy. But when it's been made criminal for a deaf guy to view legally-purchased DVDs on his own computer {to avoid noise complaints from the neighbors} because of the RIAA's lobbying, the RIAA has to go.

Re:"Recut, Reframe, and Recycle"? Good Riddance

[neminem]

* Mashup artists take entirely from existing music, to create new music. I happen to be a huge fan of the genre, and would not hesitate for a second to call what they do art.
* The vast majority of the music that goes into such works, however, is not owned by the artists who made it! Case in point: one of the best full mashup albums ever made, in my opinion, was Dean Gray's American Edit, mixing, of course, Green Day's American Idiot with dozens of other songs. Green Day's lead singer actually came right out and said that the album was really cool. Nonetheless, 10 days after its release, Warner Records shut the album down (of course, it still exists in torrents all the hell over the place, but that's beside the point).

Now, I'd be perfectly happy if people like Timbaland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbaland#Plagiarism_controversy) were to fall off the face of the earth, but don't generalize that sort of thing to all sample-based art.

Re:Copyright starts when published

[dgatwood]

No, copyright starts when it is fixed. There's a difference. A draft is, in fact, copyrighted under the Berne convention, and the U.S. is a signatory to that. Under current copyright law, publication is not required for copyright protection. I believe that this should remain the case, as failing to do so could produce a whole string of burglary of authors' homes....

Note: publication does affect the duration of copyright protection for commercially-produced works, so it is not completely meaningless under current copyright law... just nearly so.