Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EU About To Vote On Copyright Extension

Posted by samzenpus on from the cutting-the-cord dept.

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."

4 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Hummm... What? by Tei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Hummm... What? by mentil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I imagine it's less 'corruption' and more 'indoctrination'.
      Imagine a conversation going something like this: "When music goes into public domain, its potential for economic use is wasted. In order to maximize economic activity the copyright term on music needs to be lengthened."
      Throw in some statistics about the number of people employed in the music industry who remaster old music, and dollar amounts of how much is made from old music. Add some emotional pleas saying how poor old ladies like Yoko Ono etc. won't make any money from their relatives' legacy.
      Basically they argue that economic purposes always trump public good, because economy is more important than anything. They probably even believe it, too.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    2. Re:Hummm... What? by metacell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Real economists, on the other hand, realise that private use is also economic activity.If x people listen to a song, it produces the same amount of good regardless of whether they do it for free or have to pay for the pleasure. If all other things are equal, listening for free is preferable, since it cuts out the middle mean and reduces economic waste.

      This is where I believe the pragmatic politician and the economist start to differ. The pragmatic politician says, "What about all those people who are employed in the recording industry? Won't they be out of a job?"
      The economist answers, "Yes, but that's actually a good thing. That means labour is freed up to do something more useful. Selling and distributing music is not needed any more."
      And the politician answers, "Sorry, but I have to think of people's jobs. I won't get re-elected if I make a few thousand people unemployed - especially not if they're people with strong lobbying groups and good connections to journalists and intellectuals."

      The only time copyright is good for the economy, is when it provides a strong incentive to produce more artistic and literary works. Providing employment for artists and all the middle-men is not an end in itself.

  2. Re:Make it permanent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think they need to attach a yearly property tax on all items copyrighted if it's extended.

    You want a perpetual copyright? then you get a property tax attached to it. So if each song is worth millions as you claim in the courts, we TAX you at that value. Plus you pay taxes on it for every day it's not released to the public domain.

    If they want to screw the people, then at least give us tax money out of it.