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."

Comments

US is the problem

[CmdrPony]

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.

Re:US is the problem

[meist3r]

What I don't really understand about this is that apparently the US companies who make their money off these immaterial rights tend to oppose the new lucrative markets and obstruct availability in fear off losses whereas that is what causes the losses. I am a big fan of a few select American TV Shows. I have absolutely no legal means within reason to access these programs. I would happily pay a monthly subscription to my favorite shows (Community, Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, Mythbusters, Justified, Breaking Bad, Grimm, Adventure Time, Justified, Game of Thrones and a few more) all platforms that I know of (Hulu, Netflix) are not available in my home country of Germany. iTunes is out of the question (probably geo-restrictions apply to this as well). So I would gladly pay a good deal of money to get quality access to these shows but the "copyright" prevents me from giving these people my money. I could spend money on the DVD box sets if they are eventually released but usually I will watch the episodes once and that's it so I'm not really in the market for plastic discs. I am the threat these people always refer to but I am precisely part of the solution only they refuse to cater to the markets available.

Re:US is the problem

[martin-boundary]

I am the threat these people always refer to but I am precisely part of the solution only they refuse to cater to the markets available.

You are not part of the solution. The beancounters estimate the profit of entering new markets before a decision to do so gets made. In many cases, it isn't worth it for those companies. 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. The fact that you have money to spend is irrelevant if the inconvenience factor is too high. There's a sweet spot at any moment in time, and you're not part of it.

Get over it, and do what you have to do, just like they do what they have to do.

Re:US is the problem

[hairyfeet]

Yet TPB works everywhere, isn't that nice? the problem i have is they will NOT sell you want you want. all I want is to buy an .avi file, that's all. my dad has a nice little Nbox to watch his movies on so he doesn't have to hunt for DVDs and if they would sell .avi I would be gifting them to dad, and dad would be buying every movie and TV show he'd ever liked. but instead you have to go get a DVD, rip the DVD, transcode the DVD, all just to get the .avi...or you can go to TPB and skip all the bullshit.

As much as I hated his character on TNG I have to say Wil Wheaton was right, he said "make it simple, make it easy, give people what they want and they'll buy" and then gave as an example him buying a bunch of Dr Who episodes and then crossing the border into Canada and now he can't watch what he has already paid for and he said 'If I would have just downloaded it they would have worked". And that is the problem, their shit just don't cut it. I'm supposed to go buy a portable DVD burner just so i can legally watch movies that I have bought on my netbook? Fuck off media companies, Keep your damned DRMed shit or hoop jumping and just sell me a damned .avi already!

Re:US is the problem

[neokushan]

Maybe he's not really trolling, maybe he's just expressing his opinion?
Now I could be completely wrong here, with a name like "CmdrPony", he's obviously playing on CmdrTaco and the whole slashdot infatuation with Ponies which does vaguely indicate that he might be trying to get a rise out of people, or it could just be a "fun" name. From reading his recent posts today, most of them seem straight up and clear, certainly with very little trolling (There is a "U mad Bro?" comment in there, however that's very obvious and not subtle).

While I'm not directly defending him, I have noticed that Slashdot lately seems to be very quick to judge people as "trolling" simply because they have an opinion that contradicts with what some people believe. I've been labelled a troll myself on more than one occasion, usually because I disagreed with the topic at hand - a good example of this is the recent debacle with Windows Secure boot, whereby many are convinced that it's simply a ploy to sell more copies of windows and block Linux, whereas I don't believe it. I might be wrong, nobody actually knows for sure the real agenda at hand and we wont until devices start shipping with Windows 8 on them, but still I got labelled a troll when personally I thought I was being reasonable.

This post, to me, does seem anything other than perhaps a bit controversial. He clearly doesn't like the US, but does that necessarily make him a troll? The US does certainly seem to be behind all the pushes for copyright enforcement and then there's things like SOPA - which most people utterly disagree with, so is his opinion really that unfounded?

Re:US is the problem

[TheLink]

Yeah someone I know had the same problem: he bought legit DVDs that he couldn't use on his laptop due to region control bullshit. There are many DVDs which are released for ONLY one region.

And there was another guy who bought a Bluray player when he came round to visit just because they pulled the same sort of shit for Blurays and he can't watch his expensive legit import anime Blurays on the bluray players available in his country.

He is the sort who has collections of DVDs, wine, whisky, CDs, fancy expensive Japanese dolls, anime cels (yes the sort they used to draw on to make the movies). And they make it hard for him to give them his money. I told him he should just "give them the finger" keep his money and wait till there are bluray region-free players. He also had similar probs with DVDs before.

Yes Mr Collector downloads as well (coz the fansubs are faster and sometimes better), but he often buys the mucho expensive collector edition box sets when they _finally_ come out.

Yes he's the sort who will still jump through hoops to buy and use the DRM'ed stuff, and buy extra bluray players. But how many legit customers have they lost due to such crap? I don't think that many people would do what he does, buy extra bluray players etc. Once you "force" them to use downloads they might not even buy a single DRM player or media again.

As for me, yes I download, but I don't even have a pirate collection a hundredth as large as his legit collection. If they succeed in blocking those off completely they're not going to get $$$ from me, because I'd just play more _free_ computer games, read more free stuff, etc. I'm not really a customer, and hence not really a lost customer.

Re:US is the problem

[gomiam]

You aren't right. I think you aren't even wrong.

Just because it is called copy-right it doesn't become a right, as shown by the fact that it was originally a royal prerrogative to hold the monopoly on printed production. When the crown dropped that privilege, the organizations charged with managing that monopoly lobbied to keep copyright alive so they would still be able to exist.

So no, copyright is a privilege given to a person or a group and it diminishes the human right of access to culture for "the free development of his personality".

And you DO have the ability to see them. Move to the counties where they are broadcast. The fact that you are not willing to pay that price is very understandable. However you do not have any RIGHT to see them if they are not willing to show them.

If you make a movie of your kid during a holiday sitting on a swing, I also do not have the RIGHT to see that movie. Not even if you show it to all your friends and family.

Two completely different points: "they" have already waived their right to privacy when they made copies and distributed them. If I make a movie of my kid _and_ give a copy of it to someone else I also have. I may not like it, I may shun the person that shared it, I may even sue them if they agreed to some privacy contract, but that's it.

If you want to keep your works secret, that's fine and dandy. If you publish, you publish knowing it is now public. If you didn't want it to be public you should have thought about it first.

Re:US is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the Germans point was that the media companies need to stop thinking about each country as a market and start thinking about the world as a market.

We should all be able to go to single site for a given content producer (I will use Fox media as an example here) and from there be able to open an account and pay to watch a single episode or an entire series. Perhaps run them 1-8 days after the show airs in the land of origin. Being a week behind won't matter since they have not other way to view(legally).

There is only 300M people in the USA and 6.7B other people in the world. That is a 22 fold increase in market that they are pissing on. There is a LOT of money to be made there. There is enough money there for the most expensive Sci-Fi show ever produced to make a profit. Even if you only make the show in English, which a lot of people can understand.

Say you make a show that 5% of a given population might enjoy. In the USA that would be 15M people. If they were willing to pay $1 per show that would be $15M per show. With no commercials, I would pay that for good sci-fi. Now take that show to the World via web only and you get 350M viewers (5% of 7B) or $350M per show. I think you can make a pretty good show for that much money. You could even cut it down to $0.10 a show and be pulling in $35M a show, a single FUCKING show.

Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes

[G3ckoG33k]

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.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes

[Daniel Phillips]

She's the one who fined Microsoft billions to the point where Microsoft finally said "uncle" and gave the Samba team the specs they were looking for.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes

[houghi]

I remember when she got the job, I thought she would be allowing companies all that they wanted to be allowed. Luckily I was wrong.

If all politicians had at least 10% of her common sense, the world would not be in the shit hole we are now.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes

[Bert64]

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.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes

[TheRaven64]

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.'

Rewards

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rewards

[Nursie]

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.

You can tell when you're wrong

[The Master Control P]

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.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong

[tsa]

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.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong

[airfoobar]

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!

Re:You can tell when you're wrong

[MachDelta]

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."

Copyrights and patents...

[blahplusplus]

... 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.

Re:But copyright IS working

[Froggie]

Stallman himself would make the case himself that the GPL is an attempt to turn copyright against itself. It's not an argument for copyright but a means to subvert it.

Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch

[91degrees]

Copyright was always a practical mechanism.. The basic principle still makes some degree of sense. We share the income from copyrighted works with the creator. This encourages creators, and most* people accept it as reasonably fair.

Here's where things go a bit wrong.

• Most people online give stuff away. They've been doing so since public had access to photocopiers but now internet distribution offers genuine competition for the traditional model.
• People see things as a zero sum game. If they're not making a profit, then nobody is making a loss. Whether this is right or not is beside the point. It's how humanity sees things. For this reason we use bittorrent without any moral qualms.
• We keep trying to apply concepts of relatively expensive typesetting and printing to digital distribution. It was a model that worked well for records, CDs, videos, DVDs and other physical media because the basic principle is the same. Author; set-up; print; distribute. Digital distribution is different. It's a case of author; distribute. The main point being that minimal print runs of a single copy are viable and the perceived cost is essentially zero.

• 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"

Rent-seeking

[srussia]

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

Re:But copyright IS working

[Froggie]

I think the 'supporting the established players' argument has merits.

As a young country, the US was notorious for ignoring copyrights and patents held in older, countries during its early development. Japan had the same reputation; China is arguably just leaving this phase itself, as they've tightened their IP rules for WIPO purposes in order to more easily access other markets with their products.

It would seem that, for countries and businesses both, there's a threshold they cross where they realise the value of their ideas, if copyrighted, is worth more to them than the cost of paying for the ideas of others.

Re:Copyright works,piracy=theft,stop the hypocricy

[Haedrian]

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.

it's a global problem

[khipu]

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.

So does much of Europe's industry.

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.

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.