Slashdot Mirror
Fair Use Threatens Innovation, Copyright Holders Warn (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader shares a TorrentFreak report: Various music and movie industry groups have warned that fair use exceptions are a threat. The groups were responding to proposals put forward in Australia by the Government's Productivity Commission. They claim that content creators will be severely disadvantaged if fair use is introduced Down Under
. Several rightsholder groups argue that strong copyright protections are essential for the survival of their businesses. This includes a long copyright term of 70 years, as well as the ability to block access to content based on the location of a consumer. In addition, many believe that fair use exceptions will do more harm than good. For example, music group IFPI warns that fair use will threaten innovation and create legal uncertainty. "Licensing, not exceptions to copyright, drives innovation. Innovation is best achieved through licensing agreements between content owners and users, including technological innovators," IFPI writes.
Why would it be called "fair" in the first place if it wasn't actually fair?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They're so full of it. What about licensing brings about innovation? Are they claiming people will only make new things if there's money to be had? I thought we debunked that myth a long time ago. Money is not the only motivating factor of innovation. I'd say it's the least important one, in fact; many people pursue what they do because they enjoy it and/or believe in it. The money's a damn nice bonus, but ultimately the goal of innovation is to improve the work/art in the field. If laws are passed that allow people to borrow ideas and combine them in ways people didn't anticipate, that's the very definition of innovation. Nothing is created in a vacuum, and holding exclusive rights to something for X amount of time only prevents innovation, *not* foster it.
They're a bunch of artless, lying suits, as we've all come to expect from the recording industry.
There are plenty of business that survive just fine without freeloading on content that was produced almost a century ago. If you are unable to do that, that's a problem with your business and you *deserve* to go under. In fact, we wish you would so that better businesses can be built upon your stinking rotting corpse.
Sincerely,
Everyone.
Copyright extension to 70 years encourages innovation, because of course the original creator expects to still be alive and deriving revenue from their work 70 years later, right? This get one thing straight: Copyright isn't encouraging innovation, it's guaranteeing a revenue stream for the corporation that commissions the work for hire or buys the copyright from the original creator. Oh, and ALL creative works are derivative to begin with, so don't even try to tell me copyright is protecting "original" work.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of everything in this story is true. These "rights holders" can go fuck themselves after they finish spinning this story.
What bullshit. The established music industry has already completely killed innovation. They want a nice zero-risk predictable business model based on marketing not creativity, because anything creative is new and by definition unpredictable so a necessarily higher financial risk.
They've been following exactly the same old image-manufacturing process at least since Bill Haley/Elvis/The Beatles.
We need more works entering the public domain. If creative works enter the public domain sooner, within reason to allow creators to profit for awhile from their works, there will be more derivative works and more innovation.
Which is what we had in the U.S. prior to 1978, when the Copyright Act of 1976 went into effect. I think the terms of the original Copyright Act of 1790 (14 years plus a 14 year extension) were adequate, and further extensions have been a cash grab by creators at the expense of society in general - a very real form of theft. Patents only receive 20 years of protection, so what's so frigging special about copyright? What we have now is an abomination that completely and totally defeats the purpose of the Copyright Clause in the U.S. Constitution, IMO. How exactly does extending protection for works after the creator's death encourage new works by that creator?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
So here is the deal, I will trade you "fair use" for 4-year copyright limits.
However, you can't have 70 year copyright terms and no fair use. That is called unlimited MONOPOLY!
The purpose of Copyright was to give the person who created the work a limited monopoly to earn back their money, not money for their grandchildren.
Imagine if a plumber could charge you per flush for the next 70 years.
Imagine if an electrician could charge you every time you use a light switch for the next 70 years.
It is insane. We need FAIR USE!
We will be so RESTRICTED from artistic and technical INNOVATION that studios will be reduced to producing NOTHING MORE than endless REBOOTS of previously filmed efforts spun-off from ANCIENT COMIC BOOK franchises!
ALL COMMERCIAL MUSIC will be INDISTINGUISHABLE from style and content of hits released circa 2001!
DO YOU WANT TO KILL THIS VIBRANT CULTURE WITH FAIR ACCESS?!!!?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."