Slashdot Mirror
World Copyright Summit and the Lies of the Copyright Industry
Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has an incredibly in-depth look at two presentations in particular from the recent CISAC world copyright summit. Rep. Robert Wexler and Senator Orrin Hatch both gave deeply troubling presentations calling opponents of stronger copyright "liars" and suggesting that copyright is the only way to make money on creative works, respectively. "Does anyone else find it ironic that it's the so-called 'creative class' which copyright supporters insist are enabled by copyright supposedly have not been able to tell this 'great story?' Perhaps the problem is that there is no great story to tell. Perhaps the problem is that more and more people are recognizing that the 'great story' is one that suppresses the rights of everyday users, stifles innovation, holds back progress and stamps on our rights of free speech and communication? Has it occurred to Wexler that for the past decade, the industry has been telling this story over and over and over again — and every time they do, more and more people realize that it doesn't add up? "
Just another data point correlated with the general trend of Congresscritters whoring for the **AA. Even Wexler, who is a member of the progressive congress, needs wealthy donors. And he gets them by fellating the copyright cosa nostra, in this example...
Everyone in congress is owned by one or more corporate interests, and although it seems the recording and movie industries target those with a (D) after their names, Orrin Hatch proves that their corruption is bipartisan.
I can see the fnords!
Orin Hatch is renowned for being one of the most corrupt men in the United States (accepting larger bribes than any other senator from the shadiest industries in the country). He is the personification of both major parties' vitriol, not just republican. He, like Ted Stevens and the Kennedys, is proof that we need to limit the number of terms that anyone may stay in Washington. He's a royal family, all in and of himself.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
No, we don't. We are talking about, whether creators — of movies, music, literature, software, fashion designs — have the inherent rights to control their creations, or whether whoever happens to be able to copy their work has the same rights to it as the creator.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Drama queen much?
Seriously. We're talking about your "right" to download movies without paying for them.
To equate this with the end of democracy just makes you look ridiculous.
The comparison is quite apt actually, if a tad shrill. Say congress extends presidential term limits every 4 years and the House of Represenatives chose to re-elect him/her every 4 years regardless of the outcome of the "popular vote", you might cry foul. Technically, this would be legal but very unwise.
Copyrights are supposed to expire, mouse or no. Instead, they are extended ad infinitum to provide an economic moat to industries that would otherwise have none. Again, it is legal and quite common to rent congress-critters in order to bolster a failing (or failed) business model.
We were to be accorded limited/fair use of purchased copyrighted works. Instead we are only allowed to view, never transfer, transform, or reproduce these works in any way. Another bait and switch, I bought a product but now, somehow, I have no ownership rights to it.
There is a very good reason why unpopular but powerful governments shut down internet services (facebook, twitter, yahoo email, google, etc). The effortless transmission of information threatens them in exactly the same way it threatens the executives of Disney, Time Warner, Fox, and other large content creators. If you cannot control the flow of information, you cannot control the population or the consumer.
Don't you wonder why AOL could carpet the landscape with CDs/DVDs for pennies, yet when the same medium is produced by RIAA or MPAA members they cost $15.99 or $24.99? Independent filmmakers seem able to produce top quality films for only a few million, even using unionized labor throughout. When the MPAA members make movies, the budgets are in the hundreds of millions just to one up the last blockbuster with more fluff. Who pays for all this? You do. They just moved the decimal place once place to the right and rented congress to make sure that you have to pay it.
The state legislature of Indiana once passed a law that said "3 times the diameter of a circle is the circumference". So everyone who calculated the true circumference of a circle using Pi was in violation of the law. There was no Circumference Calculators Association of America at that time, so today we are able to determine for ourselves just how much runaround we get from congress on some issues.
That boat sailed a long time ago grasshopper and the answer back when Shakespeare was doing his gig is the same as the answer today. You build on the shoulders of giants, and only reach the heights you do, by the efforts of those around you and before you.
In order to give you incentive to build, and in deference to the realization that it is work just the same, you are granted the ability to control the rights to copy something for a limited time. But all the same, your work stands on our backs, and thus, we share in the ultimate ownership.
That limited time is and should always be that, limited. If you can't (or won't) monetize your products in that time, then that is on you. Not us.
And we should not be expected to limit our own rights and abilities outside of that specific right of yours to control who can copy your work for a limited time, simply because you've failed to keep up with technology enough.
They obviously don't have an "inherent" right, because if they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. That's what an inherent right is - one that exists already. In order for it to be inherent, it would have to be the case, at a minimum, that it was broadly-enough recognized that you didn't have to fight against the average person's natural inclination. But peoples' natural inclinations are pretty clear - while people generally do seem to think that artists should be compensated, they do not agree that artists have a completely unrestricted copyright. You can see this simply by observing how people generally behave.
Copyright is a created right. It exists for a purpose: to encourage people to create new works of art. And it comes at a cost: peoples' right to copy these new works is restricted. Furthermore, peoples' right to speak about these works is restricted, and this does indeed get into the arena of freedom of speech, whether you want it to or not.
When you attempt to claim all rights to your work, in perpetuity, you are taking something away from the rest of the world. It may not be something that you consider important, but it is something that we consider important. So you have two choices: kill everyone who does not agree with you, or come to a compromise.
And that is precisely the purpose of this debate, which you seem to be arguing does not exist.
We're talking about restrictions on free speech.
No, we don't. We are talking about, whether creators -- of movies, music, literature, software, fashion designs -- have the inherent rights to control their creations, or whether whoever happens to be able to copy their work has the same rights to it as the creator.
No, the earlier poster is correct. Everyone has an inherent right to make, distribute, etc. copies of works, whether they created those works or not. This is a matter of freedom of speech. It's the reason why, for example, you have the right to recite Shakespeare in public, even though you are probably not Shakespeare. During the term of copyright, the public willingly surrenders a portion of their right to make use of the work of the author as part of a scheme to derive a greater public benefit than the public harm caused by suffering such restrictions. When the copyright expires, the author loses his right to prohibit other people from making use of the work, though he retains his natural right to use the work himself. This is why we talk about copyright as an exclusive right -- i.e. a right granted to the author to exclude others from doing certain things with the work -- and why when copyright expires, no rights in the work are, or need to be, granted to the public. The public has always been possessed of rights in the work, and upon the expiration of the copyright, the public is once again free to exercise those inherent rights.
What's not an inherent right is copyright. Authors have an inherent right as to whether or not to create a work to begin with, and they have an inherent right as to whether or not to reveal that work to anyone else, or to hide or destroy it. No one is suggesting that authors be compelled to create or compelled to publish. However, copyright is the right to prohibit the public from making, distributing copies, etc. with regard to works that members of the public have managed to obtain copies of, most often by publishing. The right to prohibit other people from, e.g. reciting Shakespeare, is certainly not anyone's inherent right! And as it is impossible to reconcile the idea with the much more reasonable idea that people do have an inherent (but not inalienable) right to recite Shakespeare, or whatever else, it's clear that this nonsense about inherent rights of authors to censor the rest of the public is absolute tripe.
I'm also rather surprised by the specific language you used. Movies, music, literature, software -- these are not unusual. But in the US at least, there is no copyright for fashion designs. Copyright in pictorial, graphic or sculptural works (such as clothing) can only subsist where the work is separable from any parts which have utility. (The idea, basically, is to avoid having people use copyright when they ought to be using patents) This just isn't the case for clothing, and it's long settled that this is so. Nor is there any need for copyright in the field of clothing design; copyright exists for utilitarian purposes, i.e. to encourage authors to create and publish new original and derivative works, while minimally protecting those works in both scope and duration of protection. That is, copyright exists to get the most stuff in the public domain fastest, with as little copyright as possible along the way. The field of clothing is terribly healthy without copyright. Many new works of fashion design are made all the time. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that there would be a substantial increase in the number of works if copyright were granted. In fact, there is an excellent reason to believe that there would be far fewer, as unauthorized derivatives would not be as common. Further, rent-seeking behavior amongst monopolists being what it is, the public would likely lose access to cheap copies of the designs. There is simply no public benefit _at all_ for copyrighted fashion design. So I'm wondering, why did you mention it?
Long story short, you seem to be quite backwards on this matter. You might want to read up on the utilitarian basis of copyright law, and the actual laws on the books.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
ignoring the fact that we live in a more connected society where media like films, album master tapes, and so on last longer, and so content owners can make money on something for many more decades than in the past.
Copyright was originally introduced to cover written works such as books. Go to any decent library and you will find books that have lasted a lot longer than most films do.
Copyrights were extended to reflect the times.
In reality, copyright laws were introduced to encourage creative people to create more stuff for the enrichment of society as a whole. The terms of these copyrights were carefully chosen to give the creator enough time to make some money, but not so long that they could simply stop creating and sit back and live of an afternoon's work they put in fifty years before in a recording studio.
This [ ] left intentionally [ ]
parent's diatribe is the most repugnant smelly piece of tripe.
No, I think I've got it right, but I'm happy to discuss it.
"Authors have an inherent right as to whether or not to create a work to begin with" yup and if I want to starve I won't create anything at all or we'll let you have it the minute I produce it and still I'll starve.
It's my work, You can buy it, you can use it for your own amusement. You CAN NOT make copies of it and give it away.
No. There are plenty of ways for an author to make money without copyright. For example, Picasso could sell a painting for extravagant amounts; the sorts of people who were prepared to pay him such vast sums wanted an actual copy he made, and would not have just gone out and bought a cheap poster of the same work instead. Architects in the US have traditionally made a living without copyright. The aforementioned fashion designers still don't have copyrights, but do okay. The list goes on and on. In fact, I was a professional artist before I got into law, and I never made a penny that was attributable to copyright, but I nevertheless supported myself and had a comfortable life.
Of course, copyright is no guarantee of success either. Even if you do have a copyright, you can still starve because your work is unpopular. There are plenty of flop movies, plays, books, etc.
The work you create is indeed yours, in the sense that you created it. Other than that, you have no particularly special rights in it inherently. Certainly you cannot control whether or not other people make copies of it and give them away merely because you are the author. Whatever ability you have to control what other people do and do not do can only possibly be based on whether or not those other people consent to your control. Why would they ever do so, unless they felt that it would somehow benefit them more to submit to it than not to?
That's not free speech. You certainly have a right to say the same thing I said in your own words you can even quote me on specific points THAT IS FREE SPEECH.
Yes. And copying your work verbatim is free speech too. But I might be willing to temporarily not do that, at least in some circumstances, if you made it worth my while. But you don't just start out dictating to me what I may and may not say, merely because you said it first.
After my ability to make money from it runs out it can become public domain but not until it has run the course of being MY FUCKING WORK ASSHOLE!
That's simply never how the law has worked. Even in this awful era of copyright law we now find ourselves in, the copyright term runs out after a particular period of time, regardless of whether or not you've completely exhausted the copyright-related revenues to be had.
You are supposed to be enriched by what I write for you and teach you or make you think about. It is for you to repeat what I say or disagree with it vocally if you wish. But taking my work and copying it and giving it away at your whim is not free speech.
I don't understand how anyone can support this obvious garbage. That this "public domain first" crap exists I just don't see how in any society you could think that!
Society is enriched by: 1) Authors creating new original works; 2) Authors creating new derivative works; 3) The public being free to use works in any manner they see fit (copying, distributing, preparing derivative works based upon, etc.); 4) The public not having to pay for works, access to works, copies, etc.
An ideal world would be one in which every creative work that could be created, was, and where there was no copyright at all, so that everyone had cost-free access to the entire body of human creative output. For practical reasons, we can't manage that at this time, but we should at least strive to get as close to that as possible.
The algebra of copyright is essentially that without copyright, some number of works x will be created and published because there are non-copyright-related
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The answer to "people are stealing my shit" isn't "you honest folk who aren't stealing my shit need to give up your right to do things" especially when it still doesn't result in people not stealing your shit. Nor is it "Well because some people steal my shit, the public should have to let me control this longer". How does longer control help anything but provide incentive to steal?
There are ways of making buying something more desirable than stealing it, both by creating incentives to buy and disincentives to steal. The problem today is that rather than do either, the argument is made that they simply need to keep control over the work longer and longer. And each time, they'll use the excuse that people are still stealing it, because the point is that they realize that this means they can milk it forever.
As a professor, I write programs, papers and am currently working on a book. All these activities involve creating copyrighted content. The people of my State pay me to do this, as I work for a State university. So, you are probably thinking that my situation is a bit like Bono and the other 'creative' sorts? Nothing could be further from the truth.
Once I have written a paper, it needs to go through peer review, via the blind referee process. This is all good and stops me publishing silly stuff. The next step is where the copyright problem arises.
Once I have a paper accepted, it is necessary for me to assign the copyright to the publishers of the journal. No copyright assignment, no publication. It is as simple as that. So, who gets the fruits of my labors? Big multi-national corporations. What did they do to get this intellectual content? Absolutely bugger all, other than rigging the system! What about the people of my State who paid for my hard work? They get nothing. If they want to read my papers, they have to buy them from the journal (at $15 per paper and up), or visit a library. Libraries have to pay for a journal subscription ($750 per annum and up).
Thus, all this 'creativity' and copyright bleating is clearly bollocks. It is just a case of the powerful folks using rhetoric to fight for their monopoly 'rights'. I don't care to participate, but am forced to. Of course, I also run an e-journal where the authors retain copyright, but that is another story. My little act of subversion.
Don't fall for all this 'starving artist' rubbish. My bet is that we professors in our professional bondage produce more per year than the people represented by the members of both the RIAA and the MIAA, put together. I wonder what those crooks, or their mouth pieces, would have to say in response to that claim? I bet we will never hear.
"We are led by fools who waste our lives". Copyright is a good idea which has now been subverted into a scam and it sucks.