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.
... 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
I think it's best to not pay for music and films at all and watch that whole industry go belly-up. They deserve it. The only people who benefit from the MAFIAA are the ones in the top of those organisations.
-- Cheers!
Absolutely.
Of course, you could do this in the current rules is simply to stop watching and listening to them, rather than getting copies off the net.
What difference does it make? Even if people boycott them and stop watching their films, they'll still blame piracy and lobby for a law that makes everyone pay them a tax!
How about we leave the problem of making a business profitable to the businesses? It is not the duty nor place of the government to ensure the creation of Avatar. If there is a will, there is a way. The goal now is to end the system that has a stranglehold on every aspect of the internet. Copyright and freedom cannot coexist any longer, something SOPA proves.
Great Intellect...
The logical thing to do would be not to make a single entity, for whom such a situation is a logical impossibility, responsible fpr collecting fees. The current situation is a nonsense.
Too bad the "license" only applies when it suits the record company. Try snapping your favorite CD in half and asking the publisher for a replacement copy (plus S&H), since you've "purchased a license and not a physical object."
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.
Copyright doesn't need to be rebuilt from scratch - we "merely" need to do a clean reinstall of one of the early 20th century versions, with pretty much a couple of tweaks and a single major addition:
Copyright, fourteen years, twenty years if you register your work by filing a copy with the public trustee, the rights of resale and fair use respected, AND the use by a copyright holder of any system that interferes with the public's rights under copyright revokes the protection of copyright for all of their works so encumbered.
I.e. pick one, Copyright or Strong DRM, because as ideals their goals are mutually incompatible.
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.
Movies make most of their money shortly after release, within 7 years chances are the movie has reached the point of being shown on tv and if it hasn't recouped its initial production cost chances are it never will.
Copyright terms should be strictly limited, 7 years as an absolute maximum possibly 5... Noone has the right to continue making money from something they did years ago without doing any additional work.
I would place other restrictions too, either outlaw any form of drm or require that a non encumbered version be available once the copyright expires.
Also with software, have the copyright period extend for 7 years or as long as the software continues to be actively supported, whichever is shorter, and with a requirement to release source code once the term expires.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
I'd even allow more. Movies do have a tendency to be hideously expensive and some companies might feel that seven years is a bit too little to invest a truckload of money into
Really? Movies make the majority of their profits in the first week after release, with another small bump the week after the DVD release. When deciding whether to fund a film, people ask whether it will make back the investment in the opening weekend. Anything after that is expected to be pure profit. The dribble from DVD sales and rental is just a bonus.
Seven years is long enough that most people who want to see it will pay, rather than say 'well, it will enter the public domain in seven years - I'll wait.'
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.