Slashdot Mirror
EU About To Vote On Copyright Extension
ConfusedVorlon writes "According to Christian Engström (Pirate MEP), 'Monday or Tuesday this upcoming week there will be another round in the fight against prolonging the copyright protection term for recorded music in the EU. Now is an opportunity to contact MEPs, Members of the European Parliament, and persuade them to vote against the term extension."
The odds of copyright terms not being extended are about the same as me being struck and killed by a meteor tomorrow.
Bend over. Yeah. You like it. Because we told you that you do.
Making the copyright permanent would create a greater incentive to create and would lower the cost for consumers by extending the time to earn back the investment and shifting the intersection of the price-demand curve down.
And do the same thing for drugs while you are at it.
95 years? thats negating the right to use music that you have heard your whole life. Do these people voting understand why theres a limit?
If anything must be lowered, since music can start creating profit sooner and with computer networks can be instant and worldwide. Music don't need to move in slow trucks anymore.. has ben accelerated.
I have the feeling this has ben caused by political corruption. Money from these music companies. I hope I am wrong.
-Woof woof woof!
While I support those that want to fight this, most EU countries already have the 70 year term in law already. Meaning local law already protects recordings for Life+70.
List of EU countries with Life+70 or more: UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Sweden, Finland, etc
My point is this law actually does nothing at all...
Email sent to all my MEPs, but as the FP states: probability of voter wishes taking priority over those of industry is probably less than 1, just a little.
I blame Cliff Richard.
exactly. plus, the notion of building a whole 'new' loaf, out of the infactdead slice. as it was written.
If copyright is supposed to encourage the arts by providing future financial security, then surely varying the rate for past works decreases that security by putting across the message that the timeframe may change in the future.
If this is the case, then I can see an argument for increasing copyright term on new works (not that I agree with it), but surely older works should go into the public domain on schedule, as the artists have received what was promised.
It's the equivalent of saying you'd pay an artist $1000 every year for the next 60 years. They can decide that yes, 60k is worth this amount of work. If you then start changing this around, the artist might be getting 95k or, in a possible future backlash, 40k. They then can't use this as a basis for viability. This, then, at least partially invalidates this incentive.
Of course, this is all based on the assumption that this is the purpose of copyright, which I think is a pretty big assumption these days. I'd be interested in seeing a list of other justifications for it.
Noims.
This is not the greatest sig in the world. This is just a tribute.
Copyright law at this point has become so absurd that you now have three options:
- Do nothing. individuals completely ignore copyright law because it's insane
- Make copyright law more absurd, thus weakening it further.
- Weaken copyright law.
No matter what you do at this point, copyright law has pretty much "jumped the shark", and can't be considered relevant or applicable to any situation.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Just hope there is still a majority more concerned about fostering and promoting the culture than with stuffing the pockets of the media mob whose pockets are already stuffed to the max. We're not all sold out!
Not that it would make any difference given the average pricing policy for a piece of music and torrent being alive and well... (that's off the record by the way)
we'll share the madness, as keeping it to ourselves would be selfish.
Problem with all these politics are that population doesn't actually care about copyright law. Probability of getting hit by lawsuit (especially in Europe) is still very low, as it will cost much more than in US to sue Common Joe for copyright infringement (looser pays all lawyering fees and no one can promise victory for recording company in the court). So people seed, leech, download, install and give a shit about that. In fact, this is not only about copyright law, but that's discussion for another day.
In nutshell, deputies won't care if they electors won't care. Everyone sees copyright as necessary evil formality but nothing more. So 70 or 95 - they don't see the difference.
This is common criticism of capitalism - people stop care about things because they are overwhelmed by their own survival (and instincts which drive it).
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The public is large, poorly organized and difficult to motivate to make a stand on copyrights. Essentially the problem is that changing copyrights don't fundamentally change the lives of most people. For the general public this is a problem somewhat similar to the Tragedy of the Commons, in that the common man doesn't really benefit much from his own efforts, but rather from the collective efforts of all common men, which is only marginally reduced by him being lazy and not doing anything. Unfortunately, this is true of all common men and the result is a tendency to be apathetic.
For the copyright holders, the situation is reversed. There is a relatively small set of major copyright holders, they are well organized and well funded. With the clock ticking on their valuable assets, they are highly motivated to attempt to squeeze more out of the system, and their own efforts are likely to change their own bottom line. They stand to gain (or better said, not lose) vast amounts of money when copyright terms are extended, and are therefore willing to spend lots on lobbying, public relations and other activities to influence politicians.
In the middle we have the copyright extension opponents only hope: the various public and private organizations. They, unfortunately, tend to be underfunded compared to the copyright holders. Their task is to motivate the public, to donate money or lobby their politicians. Most of the public, as previously stated, are not really bothered by copyrights.
The more likely scenario, in my opinion, is that industry lobbying will ultimately be successful (perhaps after numerous attempts) and copyright term will become, for practical purposes, unlimited. Draconian laws will probably be implemented for copyright infringers. However, most of the public won't really care and will continue to illegally share films, music and other copyright content. The legal system will not make (in fact, will not be able to make) a sufficient effort to combat the problem, as the politicians probably don't think they will have to keep their promises to the industry in the long-term. There may also be a backlash from the judicial system and the public about the appropriateness of the effort and money spent on copyright infringers vs. other priorities.
The result will be, more or less, the mess we currently have.
There is an extremely small chance that there will be a small number of content providers who get it and realize that a new business model is required that is not based on trying to to maintain a legal lock on content. If they get enough of a foothold in the market, which will require overpowering the powerful Hollywood cartels (e.g. TV, movie and music distribution), this could a massive shift in the way content is marketed. This is more likely to happen in the book industry, as there less of a lock on the distribution channels, and we are seeming a gradual increase in self-publishing.
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
that population doesn't actually care about copyright law. Probability of getting hit by lawsuit (especially in Europe) is still very low
That's not the issue at all. It's about the lack of cultural re-use of works in the public domain because there won't be any public domain. Cultural, scientific and technical progress are at stake, not whether or not you can download Scott Joplin's recordings for free. If a composer re-uses copyrighted music, you'll bet he/she will be sued, even in Europe.
What about setting it to 1000 years, so there is no need to discuss this again for a while.
If you really want to make a difference, collect funds and lobby.
Then, for once, you'll be on the initiating side of laws in your favour, rather than defending against laws which are aimed only for corporate interests. Because the people always lose when a system is designed, Wikipedia-style, such that the representatives of interests with the most influence and most time/money to waste get the lasting say.
Either that or reform the system of democracy (or lack of democracy) in the EU so it is either more direct or more representative. In particular, no new laws without a democratic drafting process - so unless the people want an extension of copyright length, the idea is not even entertained.
"Writing to your MEP" = closing barn door too late: the guy already has his constituents' support, and letters from even a significant minority of whingers won't change that.
I know. I just point out that population doesn't care about this angle because they have never thought about it. All they care - can this law - extension of postmortem copyright term - can land me in shit *right* now or can't? If can't, I don't care.
More or less, they don't care about the future. It is reason of full blown survivalism going around in capitalism world. Everyone wants to *survive*. Copyright simply doesn't come into their picture. They don't grasp long term implications of this. And probably never will.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
I can think of at least another whole round of warfare which you've forgotten. Once the media groups have a large computerized database of music which is effectively under permanent copyright, they can easily take any independent musician's music and run automated matching. Chances are that they will find a match good enough to take said musician to court, even if their chances of winning are small. Result? Said independent musician either folds and signs, or quits making music. I find it unlikely that, at least for the first 15-20 years of this strategy, that the courts would catch on to what was going on, and start to sanction the media groups for abusing the court system. Even with the strategy of spam-suing the consumer infringers (where there are orders of magnitude more of them than successful, creative, independent musicians), it's taking ages for the the US courts to figure out what is going on.
It's a "copy restriction", not a "copy protection".
True. You can't even use ten seconds of a copyrighted song on a TV turned on in the background in a scene in a film. Low-budget independent films have been sued for that.
It's only fair a person should profit from the art s/he created for the duration of his/her life. There's some sense in allowing some extra time, e.g. to support husband/wife, underage kids, etc.
Anything beyond that is senseless. 95 years means whomever inherits the copyrights will profit from them for a longer time than the original owner lived to begin with.
Sorry, you fail. Ron Jeremy copyrighted that line of script.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Since when was it legal to make retroactive changes to the law in the UK? Fine extend it for new works, but I have audio book recordings of works that are out of copyright (think classics like Dickens, Austen etc.), and in the not to distant future the recording would have been out of copyright as well. That is they would be totally free. When I spent considerable sums of money on these audiobooks down the years that was a consideration in my purchase.
Now they are proposing to retroactively change this so that these recordings will not become totally free in my lifetime. As such I want my money back.
How much new work will the Author make after they are dead ... none
Should there be an incentive or no incentive for the heirs to clean up and publish a recently deceased author's unpublished work?
Unless you calculate a extremely big income or a absurdly low interest
As I understand the model, the desire to keep the exclusive rights to adaptations in media developed after the work was first published does make the interest absurdly low. For example, even if a book was written before video games existed, an author('s estate) might still expect exclusive rights to video game adaptations. See Dr. Seuss Enterprises' pro-Bono amicus brief.
With my colleagues from Irish Free Software Organisation:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2011-April/002981.html
===========
Dear Mr. Crowley,
Irish Free Software Organisation (IFSO) opposes the extension of copyright
which may be put to a vote in JURI today or tomorrow, and we ask that you do
the same. Further, we ask for your support in requesting a new first
reading for this proposed directive.
Software companies with dominant market positions are increasingly using the
copyright of cultural works as a barrier to block other software developers.
Due to Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), music lovers can be required
to use the software of a small group of "approved" large software companies,
or be blocked from listening to DRM'd music.
A few large companies are protected from competition, and the majority of
software developers are locked out - including all the "small artists" of
the software field.
For people who object to DRM, or who don't find any acceptable software
among the "approved" group, there is still public domain works. Extending
copyright impoverishes the public domain and our cultural heritage.
Below is a selection of links to independent studies highlighting the harms
of copyright extension.
Yours sincerely,
CiarÃn O'Riordan, +32 487 64 17 54
Irish Free Software Organisation
http://ifso.ie/
1. 8 Universities and policy centres issued this 2-page
statement about how the proposal would harm Europe's culture
and economy:
http://www.cippm.org.uk/downloads/Press%20Release%20Copyright%20Extension.pdf
2. UK government's "Gower's review", which concluded that:
"The European Commission should retain the length of
protection on sound recordings and performersâ(TM) rights at 50
years." (page "56" - which is the 60th page of the PDF document)
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf
3. Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam:
"Never Forever: Why Extending the Term of Protection for Sound
Recordings is a Bad Idea"
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/helberger/EIPR_2008_5.pdf
===========
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Every time I think, I want to pay 20$ to someone.
Don't forget that we, the people, are the ones who gave you your €1/4m wages and easy life. And while you're at it, you know the anthem that you stand up for at the start of meetings?
From Europa.eu:
"The melody comes from the Ninth Symphony composed in 1823 by Ludwig Van Beethoven.
For the final movement of this symphony, Beethoven set to music the "Ode to Joy" written in 1785 by Friedrich von Schiller. This poem expresses Schiller's idealistic vision of the human race becoming brothers - a vision Beethoven shared.
In 1972, the Council of Europe (the same body that designed the European flag) adopted Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" theme as its own anthem."
Imagine how many fewer meetings (and less wages) you'd have if you extended copyright.
Anyone in the EU want to run for office on the platform of reducing the current copyright term to something sane (10-20 years perhaps), making it retroactive and permanent (ie can't be reinstated on things deemed out of copyright at any point)?