Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Considering Legalizing File Sharing
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Brazil may be the country to watch if you're interested in much more consumer-friendly copyright laws (assuming US diplomatic pressure doesn't interfere). As that country goes through a copyright reform process, among the proposals is one that would create fines not just for infringing, but also for hindering fair use and the public domain. Also, there is a big push underway, with widespread support — even from some artists groups — to legalize file sharing in exchange for a small levy (~$1.74/month) on your broadband connection. Of course, one reason why Brazil may be doing it this way is because of the massive success the Brazilian musical genre technobrega has had by embracing file sharing as a way to promote new works, and making money (often lots of it) through other avenues, like live shows."
This is information retrieval not information dispersal
Musicians making money from performing music to live audiences. You know, the way they did for thousands of years (figuratively speaking).
Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.
I don't download music at all. I also don't buy it. I barely ever listen to it outside of occasionally turning on a rock station in the car. I don't miss it much either.
Honestly, since there is no way they are ever going to stop filesharing, its not a bad idea to legalize it IMHO. Its like legalizing marijuana. It wouldn't hurt anyone if they did that in my opinion, but it would let the government tax the sales. Perhaps thats a solution? Let the government tax your time on a P2P network? Nah
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
And demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars per "infringed" song isn't insane?
The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
They made millions to the detriment of other smaller artists. Back then the label/distributor system was absolute: there was no way into the music industry without being signed. The labels would only take up so many artists, who they promoted the hell out of, while all other artists were forced into obscurity.
That's a terrible system, because there's less music being made that way, and people are spoon-fed only what the labels want them to listen to.
Today things are changing, because the labels' promotional machine is being overridden by more open distribution systems. So--- today it's not about making millions, it's about making a fair living (fairer distribution of wealth, and a level playing field) and having a chance to fame based on the quality of your work rather than dumb luck of getting picked up by a bunch of professional marketeers.
I think Brazil has the right idea, and I'll really really hate it when the big WIPO/ACTA/TRIPPS bullies shit their usual brick.
Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.
Keeping your grandparent's work under lock and key almost a century after it was created, however, is asshattery of the highest order and does nothing for the public good, nor does it encourage new work.
Brazil has a stellar record of not caring much what the US thinks or does. They are true pioneers of "un-American" practices in many areas, like reducing dependency on oil through ethanol fuels, requiring as tough visa/immigration requirements of Americans as the US does of other countries and so on. If anybody can pull it off it's the Brazilians.
I've spent a fair amount of time in Brazil in the past decade. If you wanted to position yourself to live in a country that's going to be in really good shape over the next few decades, with good quality of life and vibrant economies, you could do a lot worse than learning Portuguese and moving to Sao Paolo or Campinas or any of several smaller cities in Brazil.
There really seems to be a progressive spirit and socially responsible direction to the way Brazil is heading. There are still plenty of problems, as you would expect in a country so large and so relatively young. But they seem to be proving that you can be a developing country that will compete in the world economy without selling out entirely to corporate interests. It's not entirely paradise, but there are places in Brazil where you'd think you died and gone to heaven. There are opportunities there. And even in Rio de Janeiro, where there are horribly poor slums and rampant corruption, there are indications that things might turn around. They're smart enough to be taking the bits of European Socialism that work best, and the bits of capitalism that seem to work, and not worrying about what America and Morgan Chase think.
Brazil is destined to be a success story, I think. And a good example for other South American countries. At least it'll be a success as long as the US can keep from sending assassins to take out any political leader who dares speak to Hugo Chavez, and putting in some military dictator so the corporations can rape Brazil too.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Unless they fix their wealth distribution don't expect too much. I would love to see them do well, but when a couple people ride around in helicoptors and children starve in favelas, it leads to crime, corruption and many of the other problems that plague latin America.
The USA will do anything it can to make sure Brazil is safe for US corporations, knocking off a legally elected politician is only the tip of that iceberg.
Was copyright invented by writers and artists, to protect themselves?
No. Actually, it was invented by publishers, to preserve an information ownership monopoly based on a government censorship policy.
Do musicians, writers, and artists depend on copyright to earn a living?
The vast majority of musicians, writers, and artists will never see a dime of copyright royalties in their lives.
Is copying a copyrighted work the same as stealing it?
If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle. If I copy your song, now we both have it.
Would creativity dry up without copyright?
If there had been no worthwhile or enduring artistic work produced before copyright, this would be a more plausible argument. But the world before modern copyright was hardly a barren cultural desert: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, Li Bo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo...
Inform yourself on http://questioncopyright.org/faq, as a bonus you can download a free movie Sita Sings the Blues
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute