Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Isn't Working, Says EU Technology Chief Neelie Kroes
superglaze writes "Against the backdrop of governments and courts around the world ordering ISPs to block file-sharing sites, European commissioner Neelie Kroes has said people have started to see copyright as 'a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward. ... Citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it,' the EU's digital chief said, adding that the copyright system also wasn't rewarding the vast majority of artists."
Every other country has noticed the same thing. What is now holding back is US. In fact, even the Russian Deputy Minister of Economic Development said it's impossible to police copyright and noted US's hypocrisy in the issue as US itself doesn't do anything about the blatant piracy of Russian films and music. However, I doubt US will change their views about it and if I were them, I would be worried too. Much of the US industry comes from immaterial things like copyrights, patents and artificial restrictions. This is true for both entertainment industry and things like drugs and medication.
But lets not forget that back in time, this is how US got its power - they blatantly ignored European copyrights. Now others are doing the same to US, and they're suffering. What goes around.. Comes around.
Probebly because that is what is has become?
European commissioner Neelie Kroes has more brain cells that I had anticipated. That was indeed a Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes. A breath of fresh air.
While it may be good to hear it, there are laws behind the current situation. And that is what we live with. Copyrights, patents, trademarks etc have their use a long as they are not abused from either party.
It is good to hear a Commissioner express and put the facts on the table. But how do we move on? I have no quick answer to that.
One day a friend of mine went to the factory where CDs are made. He asked someone from the OSA (association for authors protection) what would he get, while beeing registered under OSA, if he composed song (music and lyrics) and someone else would play it e.g. at some concert. The guy from OSA replied that nothing because those money from artistic work usage are distributed according the frequency of appearance on radio or TV. This is clearly punishing those who pay, because they would like to give their money to the composer instead to some mainstream shitty composer. Think of this story when buying clean CD's.
You can tell you're wrong when attempts to follow a belief lead to obviously absurd/insane outcomes.
For the belief that data can be handled/restricted like physical objects, that absurdity became fully apparent with that new "resale your used digital music" service, and the MAFIAA (of course) suing it. Reading such nonsense forces you to ask at what point does it become impossible to deny the obvious: The existence of computers and networks between computers renders duplication of data so easy that the ideas of supply-limited economics can no longer meaningfully be applied to data?
Seriously... read that sentence again: "Resell your used digital music." And try to keep a straight face.
... are protectionism and corporate welfare of the 21st century. I think it's best to say that copyright/patents are anti-free market, anti-technology and anti-science IMHO. Not only that human beings just aren't smart enough to judge when something should be or should not be patented. It's a giant clusterfuck.
I think those who argue for them just don't want to find new business models, using the law as a business model has made one hell of a legal mess and created a ethically bankrupt legal system clogged with up with suits. I think someone should really figure out how much inefficiency this is creating and how much all this costs us in terms of the legal system. I imagine that whatever supposed 'gains' we are allegedly getting from these systems are wiped out by lawyers and the lack of free exchange/modification of ideas between products and industries.
Copyright doesn't protect the little guy, yes.
Copyright doesn't restrict much the amount of pirated material people swap, yes.
But that's not what the current laws on copyright are designed to prevent, they want to make it hard to compete with established media companies and rights holders in producing and distributing stuff.
The battle is about controlling the distribution channels, to decide what people will like. It is about criminalizing as many people as possible to justify examining every single packet out your network card.
Proof? proof is that you can't put a site which distribute links, while youtube and megaupload can distribute CONTENT.
If there is a bunch of popular sites instead of a world wide web, propaganda operations can easily make some topics hot and popular.
All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Art has always been at the service of power.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Here's where things go a bit wrong.
Those who approve of copyright make exactly the same mistake. They want the right to sell, lend and do anything they could with a physical copy. This doesn't make sense!. A digital copy is different. Trying to shoehorn rights that make sense for a physical copy becomes illogical. Why do I no longer have access to the copy that I clearly have? Because I "lent" it to someone. Except I didn't lend it. I still have my copy. It's just been blocked.
So, we need a completely new system. We need a way to reward artists to encourage creativity. People will create without the reward, but nowhere near as much! Nobody is going to make Avatar unless they can get a good return. I liked Avatar! But the system also needs to take into account the inherent rights that digital distribution gives us.
I have no solution. I simply want to point out that we need to understand the problem.
* If you think this is unfair, I should point out you're not "most"
wonder why
what ohter business does someone get to create one thing then sit on there butt for more then a century sucking ( taxing) us all
LIKE YA suing people for enjoying culture, what a great ( NOT) idea.
if people that made doors had DOORRIGHT wed all be in trouble . ITS supposed to give you just enough to live on to do the next thing not for your great grand kids to sit around and get fat, nor was i think it meant for large conglomerates to buy them all up and lobby for taxation aka new copyright laws. I think if labels and large entities that hold more rights that they did not create were banned we'd see things ( terms especially) come down and the system reset it self properly as ARTISTS and CREATORS would be able to make a buck and even create off older works....
an apparently sane and reasoned response.
Not because they could make a tiny amount of money from you, but because everything else, legal issues, tax issues, capital investments, required company resources, opportunity cost from not doing something else instead, even lower prices through increased competition, etc.Call that the inconvenience factor. That's the problem with capitalism. It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit.
Actually, it's not that they can make less money from certain markets, but rather they can make more in others thanks to rent-seeking
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Kroes is member of VVD.
Wikipedia: "The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) (Dutch: Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie) is a conservative-liberal[1][2] political party located in the Netherlands. The VVD supports private enterprise in the Netherlands and is often perceived as an economic liberal party"
Hmmm. That is why she didn't look like a long-haired smelly.
European commission is important. Wikipedia:
"The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union."
The politicians cannot propose legislations. Thanks for that!
Wikipedia:
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the European Union, meaning only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation– legislative proposals cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields, however, Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals, this monopoly is designed to ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of Union law. This monopoly has been challenged by some who claim the Parliament should also have the right, with most national parliaments holding the right in some respects. However, the Council and Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so as it did in 2008 over transnational collective conventions. Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU citizens are also able to request the Commission to legislate in an area via a petition carrying one million signatures, but this is not binding."
That is serious power.
We frequently buy DVDs and there is no chance to skip the copyright information. It's sometimes combined with the "would you steal a car?"-analogy, which suggests we are potential criminals. We frequently bought DVDs just out of curiosity but we lowered our expenses and only buy those we really, really want to have. No spontaneous visits to the DVD area anymore.
Microsoft did a campaign a decade ago, where they asked on every boot-up, if one would properly register and pay for the install. I eventually skipped my investment of several hundred Deutsche Mark (back then I earned less than 600 Deutsche Mark per month) and migrated to Linux. Until today I have a strong rejection against their products.
Yesterday I read an article on how to be successful in your job and to get ahead. By frequent contact others get familiar with you and their attitude against you stabilizes. So if you start with a good impression you win, otherwise you fail. It didn't say anything about changing attitude by repeated unfriendly behaviour, though.
cb
Copyright works perfectly. The aim of copyright is to prevent an individual or company from profiting from the works of others, in order to allow the creator to enjoy the profits of their works.
I'm sure Mr Walt Disney is really enjoying the profit he's getting from his 'still-in-copyright' works, even though he died in '66.
I have no trouble with people profiting off their works for a few years. What I have trouble with is:
1. Copyrights being extended long long long past 'a few years' (Mickey Mouse is still under copyright, since 1928).
2. Stupid enforcing of copyrights in regions where its not avaliable anyway.
3. Copyright as a purely money making process. "Happy Birthday to you" (written in the 1800s) still brings money for the copyright holder.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624 - who by the way is not the creator.
Yes, you did something clever. Yes enjoy it. But then let the rest of us enjoy it after you're done.
The recent successes of various pirate parties made it clear that people do not like the current IP system. Now politicians have no other choice than to listen to them.
Piracy is theft because piracy deevaluates the value of the digital product being pirated.
Ummmm, what does robbery and violence conducted on the seas have to do with binary digits?
Anyway. You are wrong. Here's why:
By arguing that there is a loss of value, you presume that a person obtaining an unauthorized copy would have spent money to buy the original in the first place. This is not universally true. Some might have bought it, whereas others surely wouldn't.
You cannot steal a digital product. You can make a perfect clone, and the original will still exist unchanged. There is an infinite supply of digital content: you make a music track, and you can make a 100 billion copies for basically no cost. If you price each track at $39.90, and someone buys that track from the store, then copies the track 100 billion times, it does not mean you've lost 3990000000000 dollars in sales. You've not lost anything, since you got paid for the original.
If you don't like the way things are, stop fighting the windmills. Change the way you're getting paid for the digital products. It's not that difficult. Ask the money up front before you release it to the world. After you get the 2 million dollars or whatever, then you release the product without DRM. This way you get paid and "piracy" will have no impact on you. On the contrary, making and releasing a good product would make it possible for you to raise the threshold for the next product, netting you more money. The marketing would be done by the people themselves. On the other hand, if you constantly produce shit, people will not support you anymore.
You can read more by googling up the "Street performer protocol".
That system is logical, obvious and elegant fix to the "piracy problem". It is being opposed because such a system will prevent: 1. distribution channel control (region coding etc.), 2. endless renting of the same content over and over again (selling the same thing to different TV stations, for example), 3. as a summary: it prevents maximizing profits but makes the system "piracy"-free and fair.
How would it make it fair? The creators would get paid the price they think is appropriate and there could not be a problem with unauthorized copying. Humanity as a whole would get access to the culture which belongs to all of them without waiting for 70 years after the original author died. If the price is set too high, no-one will buy but the content would still not be distributed around the world. Thus you could re-price and re-release. Also, the system would actually work by leveraging digital distribution, instead of trying to fight it on a futile way with various silly hacks.
I have a problem with that solution. It'll work for large companies with a lot of liquidity and a track record.
It won't work for startups or small companies with no track record.
To give a personal example. I have on-and-off for the last 4.5 years been working on a literary work. Assume I want to sell it. How would I do that using this system? I make a request for X thousand up front to release it to the world? Of course it wouldn't work for me. For a start nobody has heard of me. And if I don't get this amount, am I supposed to just destroy all this work or keep it permanently to myself? That's senseless.
In an ideal world where everyone knew everything about everyone it'd work. In this world it won't. Not for the small guy.
So does much of Europe's industry.
What a brilliant stroke of anti-Americanism: you hold the US responsible first for fighting draconian European copyrights, then for learning its lesson, building businesses around them, and enforcing them.
But in actual fact, the companies advocating copyright are international: companies like Bertelsmann and Sony are a big part of this. Europe just extended its copyright terms to "protect" the Beatles.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/14/european-union-extends-beatles-copyright-still-gonna-have-to-b/
Trying to change IP laws by blaming America for everything isn't just factually incorrect, it is ineffective because it misses the source of problem.
So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.
Why wouldn't it be? The world is divided in countries. And within countries (or groups of those like EU), people have the right to decide for themselves, what are their rights, and what not.
So suppose I come to the US, and record a TV show for personal use (allowed per US law I assume). Then go to country XYZ, bringing that recording with me (still okay I presume). And then copy that recording million-fold, selling it on streetcorners, IF that's allowed by country XYZ's laws (because people in country XYZ decided for themselves that should be okay). Would that be 'wrong'? Should I feel guilty there for 'ripping profits' from the TV show makers?
The way I see it, the problem is not one country (like the US) having too extreme copyright laws, it's in the US trying to force the same upon the rest of the world (through trade agreements or whatever means available). Sure US people should be allowed to have laws in place that seem ridiculous to other countries, but what right does the US have to prevent people elsewhere from using content they get their hands on, once it lands within that country's borders? IMHO: none. And other countries are really stupid to let this crap get shoveled into their face, acting like sheep in a US-led flock. Note that I'm not trying to bash the US here, it's just that the US seems to be the prime driving force behind 'intellectual property' at the moment. The same would hold true for any country trying to force similar things on other countries.
For example the Chinese seem to have a general lack of respect for 'intellectual property', does that make them 'bad'? I think not, they make their own decisions as a nation - and I'd say copying & reproducing things without 3rd country's permission seems to have worked well for them. Same argument goes for countries that are really poor, ignore patents & copy medicines to help a large swat of their population. Ignoring those patents isn't 'bad' - patent-holding medicine companies squeezing money for live-saving medicines out of those poor folks, is. Especially since that behavior doesn't affect their bottom line anyway - if the people are poor enough, they wouldn't be able to pay up. Even if priced friendly: any more than production-cost still causes people to not spend that money on other bare necessities. But since it might be a numbers game, every step to have that poor country respect the companies' patents, will cause (unnecessary) suffering / lost lives. I can't help to feel disgust towards those folks that have only profit in their mind...
Yes it's good content creators get rewarded if society benefits a lot from their work. But IMHO current copyright regimes simply aren't the way to do that (at least if that would be the primary purpose, it's obviously failing to do as intended). And to lawmakers pushing ever harder punishments because 'that would be good for society' : f**k off, you idiot. Only thing you are supporting is the ??AA mafia.
You know, lately, I have been having some issues with HDMI and conflicting implementations. It's really getting under my skin. Every time I see the copyright industry interfere with technology, they screw it up in some way. Macrovision in the old days of VHS and the things they wanted to do with digital TV and the crap they pull with HDMI -- it all pisses me off.
The EU was right about water -- it doesn't prevent the causes of dehydration. And the way copyright is being handled does not support the artists and certainly harms the public interest.
The original intent was a good thing, but today its purpose is for nothing else than to give jobs and money for lawyers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpTPTQ3e0Jg
No one gave a damn about it [the artists] in relation to copyright, until ironically the media companies told us that we should care about the poor musician, unfortunatly when people looked they realised the media company screws musicians over far more than an artists fans, who when they love a recording typically will be interested in seeing the live gig which the artist normally gets more from anyway. Unfortunatly much of the "pirated" music was written, compsed and performed by dead people, I do appreciate that the current spin would suggest this to mean that im robbing miles davis of his two bits every time I listen to bitches brew, frankly I dont think he'd give a damn.
Making the argument that people only care about copyright issues now though because they can be traced by using BT is truly an argument worthy of the MAFIAA, as the more unfortunate reality for big media is that due to these distribution methods becoming available, their own traditional methods have failed to compete in any serious way for almost a decade, other than on the big screen, but thats more a relation to the general quality of home entertainment systems, rather than a comendation of quality of watching a movie in a theatre where you know some kid got a gobby in the previous session.
Copyright infringement, is simply that, infringement, pretending that its theft is pure hyperbole, and frankly detracts from any value that the argument "Protections are needed for creators and inventors as buisness has never shown itself to in any way benifit creators unless they own the buisness" actually has, and frankly its an important aspect as frankly the people that copyright needs to protect creators from is buisness, whether its media/ad companies ripping off tracks, or big tech companies stealing work from inventors.
Why Copyright is now being considered to have failed it seems though is mostly due to the actions of big buisness, especially the MAFIAA, in attempting to policing copyright especially seeing its been targeted mostly at people who are not interested in making any form of profit [ie "the punters"]. Its been a spectacular failure of image management and frankly it seems based in hubris, so I feel no sympathy for them as they are now made to take a deep whiff of humanities smelly jockstrap.
Piracy is not theft. Theft means I deprive the owner of the use of an item completely. Copying a file means the owner still has the original file.
Artists are screwed by predatory recording contracts, not by pirates.
In any event, both recording companies and artists can find another industry to work in if they don't like it. Why continue to work in a failing industry? Why should the government have to artificially prop up a failing industry, especially one that has no impact on the survival of anyone?
Sorry, but without the music industry, without the music industry making money, my life would not be affected one bit. Seriously, MTV is dead, who really listens to the radio, who CARES? These people can go work at McDonalds, Walmart, and other shitty jobs like many others.
The OP, like myself, feels there has been no reasonable legal method ot access these shows provided.
Copyright does not require reasonability. The cost of using a work, as determined by the owner of copyright in that work, is the cost of immigrating to the country where the work is published or exhibited. There exist ways to protest unreasonable copyright owners without breaking the law. I just thought of one: start a movie review web site, gain enough respect to get on Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, and then give a rotten review for any film not released in your country within a year of its release in its home country.
You lowball your first project to make a name for yourself. You ain't a beautiful and unique snowflake, you need to grow your rep.
Pretend that the public isn't willing to pay one red cent for a movie less beautiful than James Cameron's Avatar. How does one both lowball one's first project and afford the production values that the market demands?
Sure, theft is ok if it's not immediate. Brilliant. How long have you lived at the same place? A few years? Well then, you've enjoyed your stuff long enough. Now the rest of us can take it from you, since it's time for us to enjoy it. See you later.
You see, when the liberals of Europe became more pragmatic in their policy and ideology and moved to social-liberalism, they weren't shouted down for being commies.
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
There's a difference between "ability" and "means" in this context. While the ability to move is there, they may not have the means due to insufficient funds or other issues holding them back.
It seems to be working for David Wellington and Cory Doctorow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wellington_%28author%29
Private enterprise in Netherlands is not private enterprise anywhere else. In addition, why would she spearhead roaming charges "fix"?
Politicians are attempting to ride this anti-copyright wave in order to get more publicity and more votes.
Kroes not a politician.
What the Anonymous Coward described sounds like Kickstarter's business model to me, which appears to be working reasonably well for a lot of rather unknown artists (but NB, how you present your work can make or break your call for funding!).
To answer your question, you'll probably want to give your potential readers a glimpse of what you are trying to sell them before they buy, for instance by releasing the first few chapters of your book so they can evaluate your writing ability and get a taste of the storyline/characters (which is more than they'd normally get, as in the traditional model they'd pay up front only to find out later if what they bought was just abysmal, over-marketed drivel). Of course, if it doesn't work out at first, you'll just need to persist! Don't lose heart and throw your book out; if your book is good, you'll get there eventually.
Also, I highly recommend Joe Konrath's blog, who is a very intelligent and successful self-published writer using such business models.
But perpetual copyright actually does benefit creators, because it increases the market value of their copyrights even before they die. I suppose I could even say, "if you pay me $X now, I will sign a contract that copyright of my works transfers to you upon my death."
They look at it from the point of view that you deprived them from a legitimate sale.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I thought the copyright was owned by the company, not the individual - If that is still the case, I don't see your point as valid. The company is not dead.
I don't see anything wrong with this. Nothing ethically or morally wrong with it at all.
It's the copyright holder's choice to produce copies and if they don't want to produce copies somewhere, I see that as perfectly fine.
That looks to me like that the copyright office had a hard time verifying things and that should be corrected.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
There are 27 commissioners. How many can you name off-hand?
I could name 2 before, with Neelie Kroes I can now name 3.
Sure, if you can create a copy of all my items without me losing them, you are more than welcome to do so.
Copyright works perfectly. The aim of copyright is to prevent an individual or company from profiting from the works of others, in order to allow the creator to enjoy the profits of their works.
You really capture the state of mind perfectly there.
The aim of copyright is to prevent an individual or company from profiting from the works of others, in order to allow the creator to enjoy the profits of their works.
That presentation is outstanding. It perfectly captures the sociopathic misperception by the advocates of expanding intellectual property enforcement.
The aim of copyright is not to prevent anything.
The aim of copyright is for the creator to profit from their works.
You have stated it as though the prevention of profit is a primary objective of copyright. As though "you can't use my stuff without my permission" is a primary objective.
Preventing others from profiting is in no way whatsoever an economically valid objective of copyright. It is a regrettable necessity of the current best known means to enable the creator to profit. Profit by the creator is the proximate objective, and "...progress of..." is the sole principle objective.
"Others profiting" is a good thing in a capitalist society. Profit is one of the most tangible side effects of creating wealth, and creating wealth (the ability to satisfy wants, in its official economic definition) is the only economic objective. Let me repeat that. The creation of wealth is the only economic objective, therefore others creating wealth is a good thing. That statement is both official and mathematical truth, like sunrise.
We want others within our society to create wealth as early and often as possible. We want individuals to do it in their own homes, we want groups of friends to get together and do it, and we want organized entities, large and small, public and private to do it. Rules which inhibit others from creating wealth are only economically acceptable when the direct consequence is more wealth being created. And in those cases, the inhibition on others creating wealth -- no matter what it is or what the moral justification -- is a regrettable negative side-effect in the economic sense. It is a harm to the objectives of capitalism and the free market, which can only be justified in those contexts by greater wealth creation outcomes as a direct consequence.
The objective of copyright is not to prevent others from creating wealth. That perception is sociopathic in the sense of being hostile to the benevolent goals of capitalism. And it is exactly what is wrong with many of the recent actions of the RIAA, MPAA, and their kind. It is exactly why the studies they present to Congress are inherently flawed -- they present a measure of the amount of profit made by others as though it is an accurate measure of cost to society, a primary bad to be inhibited in its own right. That is false. It is a primary good that must regrettably be inhibited because one side effect of the inhibition is the best path we have, at present, to enable the creator to profit -- thereby to advance "...the progress of...".
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
The market for most works is practically 0 outside of say, 10 years. The long duration of copyright only benefits a very small minority, pretty much all of whom have received plenty of money already. However, it's probably a bigger side effect that in many fields, such as movies, the licensing of other works (and lack of material to freely license) greatly increases the cost of producing a competitive product. This higher barrier to entry means that major studios are subject to far less competition, allowing them to attain greater profits.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I agree with the sentiment, but have issues with most of your points.
Copyright doesn't work. It's unenforcible as is. The only way to deter people from file sharing seems to be heavily disproportionate punishments, which by their nature are inherently unfair.
Piracy is theft has the problem of being entirely an emotive argument. Piracy may or may not be wrong but it;s a different crime and parallels with theft distract from the argument.
Media is already distributed across the internet with or without DRM.
The thing is, people will pirate stuff if they don't think there's anything wrong with it, and if they're not making money, they don't see how anyone loses. We're hard-wired into a zero-sum way of thinking. You'll never convince the majority they're wrong. You need to do something else here.
It works for some authors and programmers. Examples: the web comic Goblins regularly raises funds with Thunt's Tempts Fate sub-comic. The Humble Indy Bundles and the continuing progress of Wolffire Games' not quite a game yet Overgrowth Alpha. Todie1 continues to raise fund for continuing development of Dwarf Fortress. David Wellington managed to get his books published with the Monster Island series and the Vampire Series. Then there’s the web series Pioneer One.
It's not even the extensions I have a problem with. I have a problem with them being retroactive and applied to works that were created under terms and conditions that apparently were perfectly fine at the time to create said works.
A copyright is a declaration (or registration, etc) of ownership of an entity (or design, process, etc), while a patent is the authorized implementation of a copyright for profit.
So unauthorized copying (or implementations) is an issue regarding patents and not copyrights!
When this economic crisis reaches such a point that millions are crying out for the EU to save them at any price (very soon now), I think you will realise that things have worked out very nicely for the unelected European Commission, thank you very much. They are already using the crisis as an excuse to begin replacing democratically elected Prime Ministers with their own appointed stooges, and hinting that the only solution to this desperate problem is firm, centralised control of all the nations' affairs by their unaccountable selves.
However, while certainly unaccountable to the people, they are perhaps not so to others; ask yourself who is paying the piper. Ask yourself whether you believe that the economic experts of the EU, particularly in the German financial powerhouse, did not know full well that this would be the result of uniting hugely disparate national economies that the EU then encouraged to be profligate with endless handouts and cheap, easy loans. And they let it reach crisis point? Ask yourself who is now, as a direct result of the crisis, being permitted to govern Greece and Italy with no mandate from the people; and doubtless other countries will follow.
At the very moment that huge numbers of people in the Middle East are spilling blood in pursuit of the right to elect their leaders, the EU is cynically and systematically removing that right from the 500 million who live in Europe - without having to fire a shot. It is a serious mistake to think that 21st Century dictatorships need bombs and bullets to subdue the people: bureaucracy and bullshit are far more efficient, and they do not damage the infrastructure.
However, if those people in Europe ever wake up to what the self-anointed political elite running the EU has done to them they just could get as pissed off as the Arabs. And then there might be some damage.
But it should.
And people should stop going to war, but they don't. So how do we go from "should" to "change"? The only way I can see is for the U.S. Pirate Party to somehow out-fundraise the GOP and the DNC combined.
if the copyright owner is refusing to sell someone a copy, then they are not losing anything by that person making a copy
Unless the work competes with the other works that the copyright owner is selling at the moment. This is the idea behind the Disney "vault" practice: re-release classic animated films for a limited time every seven to ten years so that they don't cannibalize sales of new releases.
distribution agreements are restraint of trade.
A restraint of trade that national constitutions have authorized for centuries.
From what I have learned, one can find an off-shore website or ISP where copyrights are not enforced, and one can download from there. I am not promoting that idea, but for example, USA laws require domestic Linux software vendors to not include certain codecs, so, to get full enjoyment of same, I know that people go to offshore sites to retrieve them. The example is MP3, and some others.
USA, RIAA, please note, you cannot milk a dry cow.
The VVD supports private enterprise in the Netherlands and is often perceived as an economic liberal party"
Hmmm. That is why she didn't look like a long-haired smelly.
Liberal outside the US typically refers to social and economic freedom, as in traditional liberalism. Less restriction on the market in the case of Kroes, Yanks might call them Libertarian, but they aren't complete whack jobs like US libertarians.
BTW, how does one "look" smelly?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The main problem is the hell-spawned Digital Millenium ACT (or whatever it was called). It has redefined what copyright is. For example:
1) if I go to a store and borrow a book and use copious amounts of it in my thesis without proper attributation, that's a copyright issue (also known as plagiarism).
Similarly, 1a) if I get a hold of a music track and sample the drum track and don't ask permission, pay licence fees etc, that's also a copyright issue.
2) if I go to a store and the delivery truck out back with copies of a book in it, and I steal a copy rather than pay for it, that's NOT a copyright issue. That's a case of theft.
3) the issue of technology like p2p software doesn't really change this. It never actually appropaches a copyright issue. At best it's a criminal case of theft and/or distribution.
Copyright was never about obtaining and/or controlling illegal copies of works, art etc. It was about protecting the artists, ie: that they would be recognised as the creator of an artwork, and should be renumerated for uses of that. The _sale_ of an artwork, or copies thereof, is NOT a copyright issue.
I support actual copyright, and as a separate issue, I'm happy to pay a reasonable price for things I like. However, when I got an iPod, I immediately went and flogged all the music I had on CD because I've already paid for it (I've also since bought some items from iTunes). I'm not paying $20 for a new copy on a different medium. I don't share my copies with anyone, and only use them for personal pleasure. I have no respect for the current "copyright" laws.
It's always an endless discussion pro and contra copyright, whether it's working or not, and whether it's fair and bla-di-bla.
Let's try a different angle: the Public Domain. The Public Domain is where all works go to for which the copyright expired. It's easy to see if copyright works - just examine the influx of new works into the Public Domain. And there's the problem right away. Aside from some old literary works, there *is* no Public Domain (with the exception of a few works that became public domain due to missing copyright notice, etc.).
I've posted before about the Great Wall of Copyright; a huge wall built around all the sound recordings ever released. But is Kroes attacking that archaic 1880s system that continues on until present day? No. She's perfectly fine with a 1935 recording still being copyrighted in 2011, almost three-quarters of a century after the fact. She's just about licensing deals and music-cloud business models. Hello, Neelie: as long as all works created after our fathers' birth are behind that Great Wall of Copyright and stay locked up there until most of us are dead, the copyright is a tool to punish and withhold!
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
"long-haired smelly" is a pejorative term for people with, good ideas! But poor hygiene...
www.google.com/search?q="long-haired+smelly"
I'd agree that copyright should exist, but in two halves instead of one. This is probably not practical but it would be the right thing...
(1) The right to control the commercial exploitation of the work should vest with the _author_ for life. In particular the right to charge for the work, the right to produce sequels, and generally the right to keep a commercial entity from reaping all the "follow on" rewards for free. The main reason I would want this is because I would like to be able to block, say Disney, from coming in and turning my gritty life lesson into pablum (see "The Little Mermaid" etc) without at least having to buy off my integrity. Once I am dead, who cares...
(2) The "right to be paid" for first-sale of literal copies of the original work, which should peter off at seven years or seven years worth of "good income" for the author.
Non-paid transfers of copies and non-paid non-commercial copying is simply not covered at all.
The rule here is thus: The author gets a cut, if there is a cut to be had, of any new issue of the work. The author retains the right to say "no you cannot use my work for that commercial purpose", the right of _all_ _parties_ to charge for each/any new commercial distribution expires at seven years from that distribution or once the author has been reasonably paid (e.g. no one production of a work entitles anyone to a lifetime of income, else-wise we should still be paying a monthly salary to every layer of any brick in any building ever built); Yes mister big movie production company, you can make a movie of my work, but it will go non-profit at a known point in time, so plan accordingly.
Basically if I am still alive at ninety and you want to make a movie of the book I wrote at thirty, I still deserve both the right to say "you may not debase my creation for cash" and/or "you must pay me." Once I am dead its kind of out of my control. (No my kids/estate don't "deserve" to profit from my corpse any more than the estate of the guys who built the Golden Gate deserve a cut of the toll; that way lies eternal madness.)
Also, I deserve the right to control Cannon for my characters and work, at least in the commercial sphere. (Nobody can stop slash-fic etc). My great opus may be a sequel that I have been working on for years, and as such it could be destroyed if the original gets Disney(d) into alternate cannon by a big production company with broad distribution.
Individual scale copying and copying non-commercially is just below the legal and moral noise floor. Too bad, so sad. Selling unauthorized copies is restricted for until that seven years or I've been paid threshold, but then the gates are opened.
No DRM period. Ever. DRM is the way technology is used to illegally restrict (forever) something that enjoys no legal restriction, in the name of "trying" to stop a corner-case that would be illegal but rarely happens and never matters.
This is how I think it _ought_ to be.
No I don't know how I would express this moral code as a legal statute.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
I don't see why the descendants of Disney cannot enjoy the profit of their ancestor works. Since there is demand, why shouldn't there be a price?
The loss of money is not due to not buying the said product in the first place. It is because the perceived value of the product is lowered.
The term 'steal' does not have to refer to a physical product. It's not only physical products that have value. Stealing is the act of devaluing something. Physical products can be devalued by removing them from their owner, digital products can be devalued by copying them and not paying the price.
You obviously are not aware of what the value of a product represents. Each product, abstract or not, has a perceived value, and it is that perceived value that defines its price. That is why certain products are sold in a very high price, and other products are not. For example, items of prestige, like an old painting, are sold for a big price because of their perceived value. By copying a digital product, its perceived value is lowered, causing financial harm to the creator.
From whom would a creator ask for 2 million dollars, as you say? you are making an illogical proposal.
Finally, you are wrong in saying that something one creates belongs to all humanity. It does not. It belongs to the author, who made the hard effort to create it.
She is in the European Commission, so she is a politician.
Yes, the aim of copyright is to prevent others from exploiting the works of a man or enterprise. Without copyright, there wouldn't be economic progress. Once something was out there, it would be used and enjoyed without the original creator being compensated for it.
Wealth cannot be created if something one produces is not profitable. And without copyright, it cannot be profitable.
Without copyright, neither the author nor the users of the author's works would be able to create wealth, because the material will be free to use and enjoy.
The only harm to the objectives of capitalism and free market is piracy itself.
I never said that copyright is to prevent others from making wealth. I said that it is to prevent others from exploiting others' works. If you want to make wealth on copyrighted material, you can always come into agreement with the author, negotiate a price and create as much wealth as you wish.
Copyright has not prevented copyrighted works to be displayed and enjoyed worldwide, by various distribution channels.
While I am against corporatism like RIAA and MPAA does, and I am certainly against the humongous sentences pirates have received, I cannot close my eyes and go 'lalalalalala' to what is essentially an effort by the average Joe to justify his/her illegal actions.
Any law is unenforceable in a large scale. For example, if 90% of people start stealing from other people, there will be not enough policemen to stop the thieves. Laws work as long as the large majority of people is willing to obey them.
No, piracy is theft because it devalues the perceived price of a product. Each product has a perceived price that is not related to its cost or physical value (for example, an old painting).
That people that pirate stuff do not see how anyone loses is a matter of culture: our culture is egocentric and so we don't take time to sit down and think of what we are doing and its consequences. As long as we get our movie, songs and games fix, we are ok.
I am not trying to convince anyone. I am stating my opinion, backed up with arguments. If people don't agree, then so be it.
Oh rubbish. The author made HIS copy, not all copies. Only copies exist. Only copies are physical things. If you don't want something copied further, don't fucking release it. Copyight monopoly is a market-destroying privilege, not a right.
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm
Your understanding of value is also primitive. Things don't have one value, value is subjective.
http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp
What? Not all officials are politicians.
A long time ago, I proposed a solution, but no one listens to me. My take is that there are three problems: 1) copyright term is so long that the intended benefit to the commons is rendered moot 2) different types of work (such as software and books) and even different works within a single medium have radically different periods over which they reap the rewards for their creators 3) copyright holders aren't artists and artists are largely screwed over by the copyright holders.
Any plan that solves for those three problems will bring a world of benefit.
Since she is suggesting a policy, she is.
They created Blue-Ray as streaming shows was becoming the norm.
There is a large and profitable market for media delivered on Blu-Ray. If you are looking for examples of product failures you're picking bad examples.
They raised the prices of Macintoshes until they were at the brink of extinction.
Nice bit of revisionist history. Actually it was LOWERING the prices on Macs combined with a lack of differentiated products that nearly killed Apple. Apple tried to compete on price for a while there and almost killed the company. There was no margin and without fat margins they don't have the money to develop new and interesting products they can charge for. Apple simply cannot compete in low margin commodity hardware/software. They tried and failed.
The reason to limit copying was to give the artist a better chance at making money with his creation, and thus encourage the artist to create more.
Specifically copyright (and patents) are an attempt to get around the free rider problem.
Commercial copying was rampant when copyright laws were first introduced.
Travel to certain parts of the world and you'll find it still is rampant. Even in countries that have copyright laws.
Copyright is a force for the public good?
Yes it is. It is the best answer anyone has come up with so far to the free rider problem. Thanks to copyright we have industries that have generated Trillions of dollars of economic good, including software, music, books, art and much more. It is very easy to make a compelling case that FAR less of that economic development would have occurred without copyright.
Free software will keep existing without copyright.
That does not mean that it will maximize good to society at large. Nor does that fact make for a compelling argument against copyright. If you want to argue against copyright you'll need to come up with a compelling argument for how you will solve the free rider problem.
Sure you can take the source and make a closed product - but how are you going to complete with the continued development of the open branch? After all, BSD is still around.
And virtually no one uses BSD EXCEPT for cases like Apple where they have taken bits of it proprietary and made it de-facto no longer free. It contributes to society in the same way that a university research lab does. Creative works that are later made truly useful to society by someone else with a profit motive.
There is absolutely no justification for copyright in the modern world.
Really? You've solved the free rider problem? We should alert the Nobel committee so you can collect your prize.