Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Argues Works Entering Public Domain Are Not In Public Interest
An anonymous reader writes: With news that Canada intends to extend
the term of copyright for sound recordings and performers, the
recording industry is now pushing the change by arguing that works
entering the public domain is not in the public interest. It is hard to see how anyone can credibly claim that
works are "lost" to the public domain and that the public interest
in not served by increased public access, but if anyone would make
the claim, it would be the recording industry.
I don't know the details of what Canada is doing, but often when it comes to IP enforcement changes around the world, the United States IP lobbies are somewhere in the shadows. Doesn't take much arm-twisting, just a 'gentle' reminder that future trade negotiations will look unfavorably on those who don't uphold IP similarly to the US.
Now can someone please publish the counter-argument, that Copyright is not in the Public Interest.
Shall we compare them side by side?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
each time I read about the recording industry pulling another fast one, it only encourages me to be bolder and download even MORE 'content'.
I now refuse to buy movies or music. and I can well afford it, but I simply refuse. because I can - the same reason they keep breaking their promises and agreements with us, the consumers.
they can, and we can. they don't care, so why should we?
just give up buying and paying. the bastards are just not worth supporting. too bad about the artists, but they never got all that much, anyway; its the rare performer that really gets rich. most are stiffed by the industry.
seriously - why should anyone follow laws when the big guys always ALWAYS get off scot-free and break rules without the slightest bit of care?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Look how bad things went with Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven works. Shouldda let Disney own their notes.
Table-ized A.I.
...create anything. Just 'cos the 'net makes it easy to copy and distribute creative works does not make it OK. People who just don't want to pay for stuff should admit it instead of pretending they have some kind of real philosophy or that is is for the creators' good (I mean, it might be, but it should be up to them to decide, not some guy in a basement who really just wants free stuff). The problem is the middle level. I want creators to get well paid and consumers to get well priced access. That does not need a record company, say, in the traditional sense.
Copyright needs to (I reckon) end with the death of the creator; simple. And the creator has to be a human not a corporation. Probably legally difficult, but makes sense to me. I guess we need ways for copyright to be signed over to a corporation; or do we? Leased instead, until the 'death' of either party or until some agreed time prior. That way a corp can 'own' the copyright but only till the creator dies or the contract is up, whichever comes first.
This argument I keep hearing that free distribution of, for example, music benefits the musician because they 'make more money in live shows anyway' is moronic in the extreme. Like every musician has the same business model? Sure, for some it might work that way: http://gizmodo.com/5903937/six-reasons-why-recorded-music-should-be-free but not everybody can keep touring. They get older -- do they suddenly lose the right to make any money off their life's work because they can't tour behind it? Musician thinks: "Gee, I've got kids, a wife who works, I can't spend 10 months a year on the road like when I was 25 -- and double whammy, I don't get royalties either 'cos apparently I 'benefit' from all the exposure I get from my music being free." One size never fits all and ideology is often a cover for greed.
Ideally, creators get to say what happens. That's bound to encourage people to create. They can release their songs into the wild if they want, or not. But it's not up to 'us' to decide.
By retaining copyrights, the recording industry can limit availability to older works. By limiting availability, they can drive consumer interest perpetually towards newer works. This ensures that there is consistent demand for new music from new artists, which further ensures that new music is continually created, which is good for everyone.
The fact that most of this new music is just rehashed variants of the old music which is no longer on the shelves is irrelevant. The fact that the money going to new artists, in this scenario, represents money that is NOT going to old artists that are still alive, is also irrelevant. The fact that the limits on availability often results in the permanent loss of important cultural artifacts is also irrelevant. The fact that people want the old music is also not relevant. And, lastly, the fact that all of this drives people to illegal file sharing networks is the least relevant bit of all.
Is there any work that is over 50 years old that still brings in big money? The proper solution is to charge an annual fee per work for continued protection of, say $1000/year after 50 years. I'll bet they won't want to pay that.
How about the core of the problem. Copyright is an artificial construct, people want to make stuff, sell it and keep it, the ultimate have your cake and eat falsity. We owe you nothing, not one thing for making it, you make it's your choice. What you do with it is your choice. Keep it secret, destroy it, release it, make a hard copy and stick it up your arse, all your choice. Nothing what so ever to do with the rest of us, not our choice and most definitely not our responsibility, you made it your choice, so don't want to released, keep it secret, nothing what so ever to do with the rest of us. So why the bullshit of forcing us to protect it like we own it, we don't it yours, do with it what you will.
The reality of copyright kind of stops there, sure the token thing of ensuring a person who didn't create it can not claim they did but it pretty much stops there. Now you release it, your problem, nothing to do with the rest of us. People copy it with their equipment and their materials, again nothing to do with the rest of us, as such, so what. For the famous car analogy, you make a self replicating car and complain when people us it to make copies and for some reason expect the rest of us to stop them, even when they supply all the equipment and hardware to make those copies.
Now taking that into account, do you understand why copyright was meant to be limited. OK we will humour you and give you limited protection, like a decade. Then the creative artists cease to be the concerned parties and publishers take over and not one scrap of creativity in them and demand that we enable them to basically print money and pretend it's real because they have enough money to corrupt government. So copyright a token limited right, whoops, privilege not a right at all, as you are attempt to claim ownership of something someone else produced, something some one else paid for and some things some one else has a right to, the copy.
So copyprivilege is the legal illusion of allowing some to steal other peoples copies that they have created and not only steal those copies but make them pay for creating them after they already paid to create them. That copy is actual property, it used actual materials and equipment and those people who made it paid to make it have a right to it. So seriously what gives anyone the right mind you the 'RIGHT' to steal it. Yes copyright is theft, the right to steal copies legally made by others (they were made with legally owned material, labour and equipment) and pretend they were not legally made because, hmm, 'GREED'. That is the only reason in the majority of instances, as that content in the majority of instance has no public value and in fact quite a large portion of it is damaging too society and in reality as such is of negative value to society.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
First, file sharing networks is THE goddam most relevant bit of all. THAT's what all this is about. The digitization of IP blew up the revenue stream, and it will continue to do so.
What happened is, all IP looks the same in binary form. That means the tools that manipulate one, manipulates all.
You have those tools. I have those tools. The government has those tools. The IP industries have those tools. Every country on the planet has those tools.
Essentially overnight, IP is in the public domain, not by law, but by lack of friction. Digital IP is slicker'n mockingbird shit on a sycamore limb. To rephrase for Texans: It's slicker'n deer guts on a door knob.
File sharing networks have no problem dragging copies from here to there, to everywhere.
That's all we need to know. This is not your father's IP world.
The entertainment business has been making way too much for way too long. Those days are over and there's no going back.
What we're hearing from IP interests is their last breaths.
People are going to have to produce entertainment for time and material and a realistic margin of profit.
It will be good.
People will be producing IP because, by golly, by gum, it's fun.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
If you still have any respect for this forum within Slashdot, would you kindly cut out your political crap, please?
As this is a thread discussing the action of GREEDY ASSHOLES of the Music Industry, can you please stick to the context?
Subservience to the vested elite is not limited to the Conservatives - the critters on the other side of the isle, the Liberals, have also proven to be doing the same thing
It is thus an utter disgust for you kind to pollute this conversation by astroturfing the 'conservative vs liberal' debate
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Your same pathetic argument can be made by every working person on the planet. Except no one else gets to work a few days and then collect the revenue from that brief labour (sorry, "life's work") forever either.
Frank Capra's classic "It's a Wonderful Life" was largely forgotten in its time. In 1974, possibly due to an error, its copyright lapsed. TV networks, eager for low cost holiday fare, basically had this film running on a loop during certain times of the year. Then, Paramount managed to pull the movie back into copyright. And low and behold, the showings of this great movie slowed to a trickle once again. Public interest indeed. These media industry slime-balls are evil. Literally evil.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Unless you talk to an audience of cows, you want to say "lo and behold".