I want to do something; I'm just not sure what. In fact, I am doing something by referring people to losingnemo.com, which now links to your essay.
I would agree-- I think you are doing something. I found your site to be very well composed and insightful. I've included a link to you in my essay, as well.
... just as fundamentalist Christians have Chick tracts to explain their views conveniently.
You know-- that's actually a pretty interesting idea. It would be really interesting to pick a scenario describing how some "everyday life" type activity is going to be changed by new "protections" afforded to "intellectual property owners", storyboard it out, and get a comic out of it. Perhaps something "broadcast flag"-related. I've always felt like, once analogue VCR's start becoming uncommon, and people start realizing that their DVD-recorder-based recordings of telvision shows aren't going to be "lendable" or, potentially, even playable after a set period of time, that some people might begin waking up-- albeit much too late.
'm deep in student loan debt from my BSCS. How can I afford to go back to college and learn enough management and political science to know what the heck I'm doing should I get elected? In addition, by the time I'm constitutionally old enough to run, how can I know that the situation won't be 10 times worse than it is now? But yes, I do give to the EFF, and when I do get a job, I plan to give to the LP.
Do nothing. Complain. Compare me to somebody reprehensible, like Jack Chick. Fuck... yeesh! Find as many excuses as you can to do nothing... *sigh*
Such other people have repeatedly told me that they don't give two droppings. Would you please link to a page describing how to unbrainwash friends and relatives who have been reeducated by Hollywood through propaganda?
You're right-- most people don't care. Most people believe things that I think are strange, like the idea that someone who creates "intellectual property" is somehow entitled to compensation for it-- or that someone can "own" "intellectual property". I find it both maddening and confusing.
I wish it was easy. Those of us who aren't "brainwashed" need to do what we can. That's all we can do. I've tried to write what I can-- but I've never written anything particularly oriented at "joe sixpack".
I voted for every Libertarian I could (and Republican where I couldn't); what should I do differently next time?
Maybe run for an office-- or participate in supporting the campaign of someone you agree with. Get the word out. Find like-minded people and band together. It's the best we've got.
I have done so, and I get form letters back explaining the alleged importance of expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright.
Make intellectual property a campaign issue in the next campaign. Tell other people. Endorse a Senatorial candidate that has views more like your own. Get other people fired up about it. Talk to everybody about it. Make an issue of it.
Badnarik lost.
If the only election you care about is the presidential election, then you can expect to be disappointed. Change starts locally and builds momentum.
I have no love of our Republicrat system, but meaningful election of third parties will only happen when third parties are taken seriously by a larger part of the electorate, and that will only happen when third party candidates are elected and allowed to serve. If we want third parties to be taken seriously, we need to electing third party mayors, council members, trustees, state representatives-- and someday U.S. representatives, governors, and *then* we can talk about a presidency.
...so I can't expect anybody actually went and read the fucking article. Here's the Gooogle cache for the article at Public Knowledge. Take a minute and read it.
Once again, the intellectual property cartels are lobbying thru legislation that seeks to further limit and erode the rights of consumers. We all seem to be laboring under the idiotic assumption that the current system is "just how things are". Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract. This contract is supposed to benefit both parties-- the creators of intellectual property and the People.
Write your Senator. Vote. Make intellectual property a campaign issue for future elections. Tell other people about how their rights are being taken away and encourage them to do the same.
The article is talking about a business-model, and Free Software is only a component of that model. The idea of using free software to bootstrap a service business by leveraging the (a) low cost of implementation, the (b) support via remote access technologies, and (c) utilizing commodity hardware, sounds like a great idea, but then the author moves into less sensible territory. The author says things like "A central company should supply the hardware, software, and behind-the-scenes tech support...", and talks about franchising, etc.
I find this "central company" model flawed. Free software opens the door for small companies to compete on a level "playing field" with larger companies, on the basis of their familiarity with the software and their skills. PC hardware is already commodity.
To me, the door is wide open for thousands of small companies to compete deploying, servicing, maintaining, and administering computer networks for businesses who are too small to have a full-time IT staff (or employee). Why bring a "central company" into the mix, when all a "central company" brings into the picture is additional overhead, lack of agility, and administrative burden?
I'm biased, perhaps, as a member of a small employee-owned IT services firm. My firm is quite small, but provides exceptional service to our Customers through our extremely high skill levels, intelligent decisions made in deployments to enable "scaling" of our human resources and emergency response component, and clearly documented contractual arrangements with Customers. We recognized that "loss leader" work, such as selling physical goods, performing "break / fix" services, and playing "lowest bidder" games for RFP's from large corporations were bad business models. Instead, we've focused on businesses that lack and IT staff, and provide these Customers with a level of support far better than they could receive if they attempted to hire-in a worker themselves (and for a fraction of the annual cost of such a worker).
I think our model works very well, and our use of Free Software complements the model nicely. Instead of grovelling thru a "knowledge base" and telling the Customer "well-- that's a <insert Closed Source "manufacturer" name here> problem", we "Use The Source" and can identify causes of issues and correct them. We provide a much higher level of customization to the Customer than could be achieved with most Closed Source software applications, and our labor costs are still lower than the licensing costs for Closed Source alternatives. The Customer ends up with a solution that they are free to use for as long as they like, without getting stuck on the traditional Closed Source "upgrade treadmill" of recurring licensing fees.
The key to success in this marketplace, to me, is beng skilled, intelligent, and well managed. The "Ma 'n Pa Computer Shop", building PC's, selling hardware, and staffed by low-knowledge PC technicians, "paper MCSE's", and oft-shady sole proprietors is a dying breed, and I'm ecstatic to see it go. The "big" consulting firms are priced much too far out of the market for these smaller types of Customers. The market for small, agile, well-managed professional services firms who provide IT support, planning, and administration services to these "too small for an IT staff" firms is healthy, active, and growing. Having an intelligent business model, highly skilled staff, and spot-on management is key to succeeding in this market. Using Free Software to complement and extend your offerings only makes business sense.
Finding your email address is difficult. Drop me a line, if you have the time and it is convenient. The address is my slashdot "name" at the domain specified in my "home page" URL, sans the "www".
I'm a self-employed consultant and partial owner of an LLC (with two other members), providing IT services and consultation to businesses in a local market. I don't know if I have anything valuable to add to the conversation or not, but I'd certainly like to hear your perspective re: your prior message.
Odd way to try and reach you, I know-- hopefully you'll see this.
Today's status quo is not good for consumers. Copyright terms are far too long.
I'd personally like to see a differentiation between corporate copyrights (short) to personal copyrights (longer, but shorter than present).
Copyright takes ideas and works away from general use and duplication by society for the good of the copyright holder-- presumably to the ultimate benefit of society. If we're going to have long terms for copyright, the copyright holder needs to give back to society throughout the term.
Lots of ideas have been floated-- copyright renewal fees (potentially increasing as the term grows), automatic return to the public domain if works are no longer sold or "maintained", shorter terms for specific types of work, etc. I don't know what the "answer" is, but I think that it's vitally important that these proposals for "revision" to copyright become the fodder of discussion with lawmakers, not just between concerned citizens / geeks on Slashdot.
Its a sad day when just keeping the current unfavorable copyright laws are considered a "win" by the voters.
The public needs to be more involved, and better informed. If we, the concerned few, can figure out how to get the strength of public ire behind us-- e.g. if we can really make the public see how evil the copyright cartels are, we might just get somewhere. We need to work to teach the public the truth-- that copyright infringement is not "piracy", that the public's opinion of what copyright should be should define what copyright is, and that there are business models we haven't even thought of yet that can work for compensation content creators w/o requiring the leeches that are the "publishing industry" to exert their "tax" on the system.
What, you think Congress was done passing copyright-related legislation? If this recommendation prevents the Hollings bill, the INDUCE Act, Congressional endorsement of the broadcast flag, or any of the other proposals on the table now/recently, it will still be useful.
I'd love to see the DMCA and the CTEA (the Sonny Bono act) repealed, but stopping future copyright madness is still better than nothing.
I agree that "stopping madness" is a Good Thing, but we shouldn't be content to "stop madness". We shouldn't settle for anything less than reform of the system, and renegotiation of the social contract.
So the report says do nothing. Ignore the fact that the public domain is slowly drying up as Corporate America constantly lengthens copyrights. Ignore the fact that we have college students getting sued by giant mega-corporations for swapping a song with some friends. Ignore the issues of concern and don't make any major decisions, right?
And that's where we need to come in. If these things really are important to you, talk to other people about them, organize an effort to communicate with your lawmakers, and try to affect some change.
I speak with anyone who will listen, IRL, about issues of "intellectual property" and copyright. I think we need "Joe Sixpack" to understand that the things he does today, w/ his VCR, aren't going to be possible in just a few years. Cases like the Wisconsin high school 'prom' that gave out burned CD's tell me that the public is really under-informed, and there are opportunities for education.
The RIAA / MPAA / copyright cartels are using this ignorance to brainwash the public into believing that the system as it is today-- the one that force-feeds consumers crap, strips them of their fair use and first sale rights, and defauds artists and creators of their negotiated compensation-- is the only one that can exist. We need to be informing people that current system of copyright isn't "just how it is", and that they have a say in changing it.
I haven't read the entire paper-- but I did skip right to Section 4, to see the "conclusions", and read that in some detail. I love this bit (below), from section 4, describing the "Effects on Equity" in revising copyright law in favor of the copyright holder:
In the near term, copyright owners would benefit at the expense of consumers. However, if the additional revenues to copyright owners enabled creators to undertake more projects, consumers could also benefit from the greater availability of creative works in the long term.
Yes-- I'm sure the copyright holders would "undertake more projects". Oh-- and, certainly, those works are going to available in the "long term"-- or at least until they're not so profitable as to be sold anymore, at which time they'll be allowed to "fall out of print", will become unavailable to anyone, and will be "protected" for another 100 years (at which time the media they're stored on, and the compression and encryption algorithms used to encode and encrypt them will probably be vastly outdated and outmodded).
The public grants copyright as a social contract to the creators of content. It is a CONTRACT, and it "goes both ways"-- or rather, it did, in the United States, under the original terms of copyright set forth in the Constitution. The amalgamation of shit we have today bears little to no resemblence to the "founder's copyright", and is skewed heavily in favor of the copyright holders.
Copyright is granted BY THE PEOPLE. If we don't like the current copyright system-- if we want to "trade music files", or download movies "P2P"-- if the public really belives that's the right thing, we need to CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.
Personally, I believe it's time for the contract to be renegotiated. Public outcry is a good start. Tell your friends, tell your coworkers. Talk to them about the DMCA and the abuses we've all seen. Talk to them about the efforts, past and present, to outlaw digital versions of technologies that are "protected uses" of analog technologies. Talk about "broadcast flags", and "fair use".
Laws can be ignored. The RIAA may try to "educate" all they way, but they can not undo what is already an established fact: People accept minor violations of copyright law. Laws can nor change what is socially acceptable.
It has not one thing to do with what is socially acceptable. Smoking pot is socially acceptable-- go open a pot-based business. Relegating the changes that need to be made to "intellectual property" law to shady back-alley dealings eliminates legitimate business opportunities. Using illegal drugs as an example again, the violence that exists in the illegal drug "business" is due, in large part, to the "businesspeople" being unable to settle their differences in civil discourse because their business is fundamentally illegal.
This attitude of "Oh, well, everybody does it" doesn't help legitimate business and law-abiding citizens. The answer is to CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW to rebalance the scale of benefit for society and the content creators / "owners".
It clearly is not a nice thing to do by the record company, therefore they are bastards.
Companies don't do "nice" things-- companies return revenue for shareholders. That is their function. I don't know about you, but I like the idea of companies focusing on their return to shareholders. It means that I know what their priorities and agenda are-- versus companies that do irrational things based on shadowy internal agendas.
Again-- people who make bad business decisions have no room to bitch. That's life, in business.
...crap about friends in bands getting "screwed" by record company the signed with...
The record companies are bastards.
How do your "friends" making poor business decisions and signing a contract that made them unable to work turn into the record company being a "bastard". I have no sympathy for idiots who make bad business decisions.
The record companies have a dying business model, and I despise their attempts to legislate away competing business models, but I have no sympathy for anyone who says that the system "screws" artists. Fucking DUH! If you're dumb enough to sign away your rights, you deserve whatever happens to you.
Disney also suggests copyright be extended to an indefinite amount of time.
It's this kind of stuff that should make all of us look up and see what's going on. We are facing a serious cultural dilemma, as a people. Our "intellectual property" system is creating a climate that allows works to disappear forever, and creates no legal alternative.
Corporations "own" the works, and the works remain "protected" by copyright. Meanwhile, works that are not economically viable to be "sold" by the "owners" simply become unavailable, however the "protection" of copyright makes it illegal for individuals to simply reproduce these works themselves. Today it's acetate films rotting in vaults, and books that have "fallen out of print" on acidic paper. Tomorrow it will be video and audio "locked up" in encryption algorithms that may well be trivilly easy to break, but are legally protected.
Corporations are doing what corporations are supposed to do-- returning value for shareholders. We can debate globaliation and corporatization and the like all day long-- but not here. The change needs to come by way of changes to "intellectual property" law. Laws are made for the good of society, not for the good of corporations, per se. As a society, we all need to become informed about these issues and work to address them. It may not be glamorous, but it's necessary.
I know there are people who agreewithme, but I have no idea how to get the idea out to the public, where the real changes can happen.
Licensing your own work with trendy licenses like Creative Commons or GPL isn't the answer. Violating current "intellectual property" law to show "civil disobedience" isn't the answer. Doing nothing most certainly isn't the answer. The answer is to get the average person involved.
I fear that most people are already too far gone. Most poor bastards don't have enough independent thought left to even think that it's possible to question a notion like "A creator should receive economic compensation every time their work is copied". People simply think that the current system is "just the way it is", and their hobbled minds aren't flexible enough to even comprehend that things could be different.
The message I'd love to get out to the street is this: When you download an MP3 or a movie, you're not hurting the artists or creators-- you're hurting their PUBLISHER. When you buy a CD or software, you're not helping the artists or creators, you're helping the PUBLISHER. Publishers are a scourge upon us-- a plague of leeches. If we can get the public behind new models of economic compensation (or old ones-- live music has been around for millenia), we can break the publisher's grip on our "intellectual property" system, and start to have a reasonable hope of preserving a record of our culture.
That being said, I'm not surprised that it's Disney who made the official proposal. I give it 10 years before DRM violation arrests are second behind drug possession arrests.
How the fuck is this Funny? Prison populations for DRM-related and "intellectual property" related offenses aren't going to reach the proportions the poster indicates in 10 years, but they are going to be a serious component of the prison population. You're fucking deluding yourself if you think that, 10 years from now, you're going to be able to "circumvent" DRM technologies w/o consequences. The Copyright Police State is coming, fucktards.
All these posts saying "If it can be heard, it can be copied" and the ilk are missing the point. The publishing industry's agenda for perpetuating their needless existance is something like:
Get DRM legally mandated in all new analog and digital recording devices
Make it illegal, punishible by heavy fines or prison, to tamper with DRM technolgoies (think Stallman's "Right to Read")
Make it illegal to own or use non-DRM-equipped devices. Or better still, wait for a new standard (digital television, higher-density formats, etc) to usher in the new wave of DRM-only devices
"Educate" the public about the necessity for "intellectual property" law to stay the way it is (e.g. "this is how it's always been") and discouragement self-publishing ("All MP3's are illegal...", etc)
Use their lobby to help in the effort to "harmonize" intellectual property law around the world
It's not going to matter if it can be copied-- simply the act of having the capability to copy will be illegal. If you don't have all DRM-compliant devices, or if you tamper with your DRM-compliant devices, you'll be charged and trucked off to prison.
We need a revolution in "intellectual propery", and we need it quickly. Too many people already fail to understand that the system is a social contract, and the terms of that contract are negotiable by the people-- not dictated by the corporations.
It is no stretch to think that, if they could get it, the DRM helmet is their ultimate goal.
...and they're going to use their lobby to do incredibly stupid shit like this. They see the writing on the wall, and they know that they only way that can stave off the death of their industry is thru legislation.
This is yet another sign that the publishing industry is running scared, and grasping at straws. They are utterly afraid of the public discovering that publishers aren't really needed anymore, and that they are simply useless middlemen.
Sooo, explain how the artists get compensated when you download a MP3 from a P2P network.
They don't. Perhaps they should play some live gigs. Maybe hock some merch.
Get over the idea that's been planted in your head that artists are entitled to royalties. This is a construction of only the recent past. There were artists long before there were royalties.
Short version: if we're going to find time and money to educate our children on music copyright, how much more important is it to include music in our children's educations?
Because the real agenda is to teach children that the publishing industry is the only way that artists can be "legitimate", and that the creations must be owned by corporations and "protected" by "intellectual property" laws. It has nothing to do with teaching why-- rather, the point is to teach the kids not to ask why.
Our educational system? Sure copyright is an issue that is controversial, and piracy is a problem...
Violations of "intellectual property" law (please don't call it "piracy") are a problem IF SOCIETY SAYS THEY ARE. "Intellectual property" law is a SOCIAL CONTRACT where society grants the creators of works of "intellectual property" a monopoly on their use, distribution, derivation, and/or duplication for a limited time. Of course, in the United States the contract has been so perverted by the lobby of the publishing industry that it bears no resemblence to what was originally specified by the Constitution.
What we need to be teaching is the history of "intellectual property" law, and teaching our children that it's right to question the law, and to ask "Why does this have to be this way?" Anyone who believes that law is static and unchanging, based on the collective opinion of society, needs to recall "blue laws" and other such antiquities.
Will you bother to tell him that the victims of illegal sharing are the artists and creators themselves?
The victims of the existance of the "publishing industry" are the artists and creators themselves. The advance of new models of compensation for artists and creators is hindered, to the point of non-existance, by the "publishing industry".
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like you might be talking about Community Memory. Now, for some shameless whoring:
Steven Levy's Hackers has a chapter about the Community Memory project.
I want to do something; I'm just not sure what. In fact, I am doing something by referring people to losingnemo.com, which now links to your essay.
I would agree-- I think you are doing something. I found your site to be very well composed and insightful. I've included a link to you in my essay, as well.
Apparently the American Library Association is planning to do something. It's going to be interesting to see what comes of it.
Heck no, I didn't mean that that.
Fair enough-- no offense taken.
You know-- that's actually a pretty interesting idea. It would be really interesting to pick a scenario describing how some "everyday life" type activity is going to be changed by new "protections" afforded to "intellectual property owners", storyboard it out, and get a comic out of it. Perhaps something "broadcast flag"-related. I've always felt like, once analogue VCR's start becoming uncommon, and people start realizing that their DVD-recorder-based recordings of telvision shows aren't going to be "lendable" or, potentially, even playable after a set period of time, that some people might begin waking up-- albeit much too late.
'm deep in student loan debt from my BSCS. How can I afford to go back to college and learn enough management and political science to know what the heck I'm doing should I get elected? In addition, by the time I'm constitutionally old enough to run, how can I know that the situation won't be 10 times worse than it is now? But yes, I do give to the EFF, and when I do get a job, I plan to give to the LP.
Do nothing. Complain. Compare me to somebody reprehensible, like Jack Chick. Fuck... yeesh! Find as many excuses as you can to do nothing... *sigh*
Such other people have repeatedly told me that they don't give two droppings. Would you please link to a page describing how to unbrainwash friends and relatives who have been reeducated by Hollywood through propaganda?
You're right-- most people don't care. Most people believe things that I think are strange, like the idea that someone who creates "intellectual property" is somehow entitled to compensation for it-- or that someone can "own" "intellectual property". I find it both maddening and confusing.
I wish it was easy. Those of us who aren't "brainwashed" need to do what we can. That's all we can do. I've tried to write what I can-- but I've never written anything particularly oriented at "joe sixpack".
I voted for every Libertarian I could (and Republican where I couldn't); what should I do differently next time?
Maybe run for an office-- or participate in supporting the campaign of someone you agree with. Get the word out. Find like-minded people and band together. It's the best we've got.
I have done so, and I get form letters back explaining the alleged importance of expansion of the scope of restriction under copyright.
Make intellectual property a campaign issue in the next campaign. Tell other people. Endorse a Senatorial candidate that has views more like your own. Get other people fired up about it. Talk to everybody about it. Make an issue of it.
Badnarik lost.
If the only election you care about is the presidential election, then you can expect to be disappointed. Change starts locally and builds momentum.
I have no love of our Republicrat system, but meaningful election of third parties will only happen when third parties are taken seriously by a larger part of the electorate, and that will only happen when third party candidates are elected and allowed to serve. If we want third parties to be taken seriously, we need to electing third party mayors, council members, trustees, state representatives-- and someday U.S. representatives, governors, and *then* we can talk about a presidency.
...so I can't expect anybody actually went and read the fucking article. Here's the Gooogle cache for the article at Public Knowledge. Take a minute and read it.
Once again, the intellectual property cartels are lobbying thru legislation that seeks to further limit and erode the rights of consumers. We all seem to be laboring under the idiotic assumption that the current system is "just how things are". Copyright and patent protection comes from the People, and is a social contract. This contract is supposed to benefit both parties-- the creators of intellectual property and the People.
Write your Senator. Vote. Make intellectual property a campaign issue for future elections. Tell other people about how their rights are being taken away and encourage them to do the same.
The article is talking about a business-model, and Free Software is only a component of that model. The idea of using free software to bootstrap a service business by leveraging the (a) low cost of implementation, the (b) support via remote access technologies, and (c) utilizing commodity hardware, sounds like a great idea, but then the author moves into less sensible territory. The author says things like "A central company should supply the hardware, software, and behind-the-scenes tech support...", and talks about franchising, etc.
I find this "central company" model flawed. Free software opens the door for small companies to compete on a level "playing field" with larger companies, on the basis of their familiarity with the software and their skills. PC hardware is already commodity.
To me, the door is wide open for thousands of small companies to compete deploying, servicing, maintaining, and administering computer networks for businesses who are too small to have a full-time IT staff (or employee). Why bring a "central company" into the mix, when all a "central company" brings into the picture is additional overhead, lack of agility, and administrative burden?
I'm biased, perhaps, as a member of a small employee-owned IT services firm. My firm is quite small, but provides exceptional service to our Customers through our extremely high skill levels, intelligent decisions made in deployments to enable "scaling" of our human resources and emergency response component, and clearly documented contractual arrangements with Customers. We recognized that "loss leader" work, such as selling physical goods, performing "break / fix" services, and playing "lowest bidder" games for RFP's from large corporations were bad business models. Instead, we've focused on businesses that lack and IT staff, and provide these Customers with a level of support far better than they could receive if they attempted to hire-in a worker themselves (and for a fraction of the annual cost of such a worker).
I think our model works very well, and our use of Free Software complements the model nicely. Instead of grovelling thru a "knowledge base" and telling the Customer "well-- that's a <insert Closed Source "manufacturer" name here> problem", we "Use The Source" and can identify causes of issues and correct them. We provide a much higher level of customization to the Customer than could be achieved with most Closed Source software applications, and our labor costs are still lower than the licensing costs for Closed Source alternatives. The Customer ends up with a solution that they are free to use for as long as they like, without getting stuck on the traditional Closed Source "upgrade treadmill" of recurring licensing fees.
The key to success in this marketplace, to me, is beng skilled, intelligent, and well managed. The "Ma 'n Pa Computer Shop", building PC's, selling hardware, and staffed by low-knowledge PC technicians, "paper MCSE's", and oft-shady sole proprietors is a dying breed, and I'm ecstatic to see it go. The "big" consulting firms are priced much too far out of the market for these smaller types of Customers. The market for small, agile, well-managed professional services firms who provide IT support, planning, and administration services to these "too small for an IT staff" firms is healthy, active, and growing. Having an intelligent business model, highly skilled staff, and spot-on management is key to succeeding in this market. Using Free Software to complement and extend your offerings only makes business sense.
Finding your email address is difficult. Drop me a line, if you have the time and it is convenient. The address is my slashdot "name" at the domain specified in my "home page" URL, sans the "www". I'm a self-employed consultant and partial owner of an LLC (with two other members), providing IT services and consultation to businesses in a local market. I don't know if I have anything valuable to add to the conversation or not, but I'd certainly like to hear your perspective re: your prior message. Odd way to try and reach you, I know-- hopefully you'll see this.
Hell, if anything, overly-long copyrights would *discourage* creators from creating.
That's what I said. It's called sarcasm... can't you smell it?
Today's status quo is not good for consumers. Copyright terms are far too long.
I'd personally like to see a differentiation between corporate copyrights (short) to personal copyrights (longer, but shorter than present).
Copyright takes ideas and works away from general use and duplication by society for the good of the copyright holder-- presumably to the ultimate benefit of society. If we're going to have long terms for copyright, the copyright holder needs to give back to society throughout the term.
Lots of ideas have been floated-- copyright renewal fees (potentially increasing as the term grows), automatic return to the public domain if works are no longer sold or "maintained", shorter terms for specific types of work, etc. I don't know what the "answer" is, but I think that it's vitally important that these proposals for "revision" to copyright become the fodder of discussion with lawmakers, not just between concerned citizens / geeks on Slashdot .
Its a sad day when just keeping the current unfavorable copyright laws are considered a "win" by the voters.
The public needs to be more involved, and better informed. If we, the concerned few, can figure out how to get the strength of public ire behind us-- e.g. if we can really make the public see how evil the copyright cartels are, we might just get somewhere. We need to work to teach the public the truth-- that copyright infringement is not "piracy", that the public's opinion of what copyright should be should define what copyright is, and that there are business models we haven't even thought of yet that can work for compensation content creators w/o requiring the leeches that are the "publishing industry" to exert their "tax" on the system.
What, you think Congress was done passing copyright-related legislation? If this recommendation prevents the Hollings bill, the INDUCE Act, Congressional endorsement of the broadcast flag, or any of the other proposals on the table now/recently, it will still be useful. I'd love to see the DMCA and the CTEA (the Sonny Bono act) repealed, but stopping future copyright madness is still better than nothing.
I agree that "stopping madness" is a Good Thing, but we shouldn't be content to "stop madness". We shouldn't settle for anything less than reform of the system, and renegotiation of the social contract.
So the report says do nothing. Ignore the fact that the public domain is slowly drying up as Corporate America constantly lengthens copyrights. Ignore the fact that we have college students getting sued by giant mega-corporations for swapping a song with some friends. Ignore the issues of concern and don't make any major decisions, right?
And that's where we need to come in. If these things really are important to you, talk to other people about them, organize an effort to communicate with your lawmakers, and try to affect some change.
I speak with anyone who will listen, IRL, about issues of "intellectual property" and copyright. I think we need "Joe Sixpack" to understand that the things he does today, w/ his VCR, aren't going to be possible in just a few years. Cases like the Wisconsin high school 'prom' that gave out burned CD's tell me that the public is really under-informed, and there are opportunities for education.
The RIAA / MPAA / copyright cartels are using this ignorance to brainwash the public into believing that the system as it is today-- the one that force-feeds consumers crap, strips them of their fair use and first sale rights, and defauds artists and creators of their negotiated compensation-- is the only one that can exist. We need to be informing people that current system of copyright isn't "just how it is", and that they have a say in changing it.
I haven't read the entire paper-- but I did skip right to Section 4, to see the "conclusions", and read that in some detail. I love this bit (below), from section 4, describing the "Effects on Equity" in revising copyright law in favor of the copyright holder:
In the near term, copyright owners would benefit at the expense of consumers. However, if the additional revenues to copyright owners enabled creators to undertake more projects, consumers could also benefit from the greater availability of creative works in the long term.
Yes-- I'm sure the copyright holders would "undertake more projects". Oh-- and, certainly, those works are going to available in the "long term"-- or at least until they're not so profitable as to be sold anymore, at which time they'll be allowed to "fall out of print", will become unavailable to anyone, and will be "protected" for another 100 years (at which time the media they're stored on, and the compression and encryption algorithms used to encode and encrypt them will probably be vastly outdated and outmodded).
The public grants copyright as a social contract to the creators of content. It is a CONTRACT, and it "goes both ways"-- or rather, it did, in the United States, under the original terms of copyright set forth in the Constitution. The amalgamation of shit we have today bears little to no resemblence to the "founder's copyright", and is skewed heavily in favor of the copyright holders.
Copyright is granted BY THE PEOPLE. If we don't like the current copyright system-- if we want to "trade music files", or download movies "P2P"-- if the public really belives that's the right thing, we need to CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW.
Personally, I believe it's time for the contract to be renegotiated. Public outcry is a good start. Tell your friends, tell your coworkers. Talk to them about the DMCA and the abuses we've all seen. Talk to them about the efforts, past and present, to outlaw digital versions of technologies that are "protected uses" of analog technologies. Talk about "broadcast flags", and "fair use".
Laws can be ignored. The RIAA may try to "educate" all they way, but they can not undo what is already an established fact: People accept minor violations of copyright law. Laws can nor change what is socially acceptable.
It has not one thing to do with what is socially acceptable. Smoking pot is socially acceptable-- go open a pot-based business. Relegating the changes that need to be made to "intellectual property" law to shady back-alley dealings eliminates legitimate business opportunities. Using illegal drugs as an example again, the violence that exists in the illegal drug "business" is due, in large part, to the "businesspeople" being unable to settle their differences in civil discourse because their business is fundamentally illegal.
This attitude of "Oh, well, everybody does it" doesn't help legitimate business and law-abiding citizens. The answer is to CHANGE THE FUCKING LAW to rebalance the scale of benefit for society and the content creators / "owners".
It clearly is not a nice thing to do by the record company, therefore they are bastards.
Companies don't do "nice" things-- companies return revenue for shareholders. That is their function. I don't know about you, but I like the idea of companies focusing on their return to shareholders. It means that I know what their priorities and agenda are-- versus companies that do irrational things based on shadowy internal agendas.
Again-- people who make bad business decisions have no room to bitch. That's life, in business.
...crap about friends in bands getting "screwed" by record company the signed with...
The record companies are bastards.
How do your "friends" making poor business decisions and signing a contract that made them unable to work turn into the record company being a "bastard". I have no sympathy for idiots who make bad business decisions.
The record companies have a dying business model, and I despise their attempts to legislate away competing business models, but I have no sympathy for anyone who says that the system "screws" artists. Fucking DUH! If you're dumb enough to sign away your rights, you deserve whatever happens to you.
Disney also suggests copyright be extended to an indefinite amount of time.
It's this kind of stuff that should make all of us look up and see what's going on. We are facing a serious cultural dilemma, as a people. Our "intellectual property" system is creating a climate that allows works to disappear forever, and creates no legal alternative.
Corporations "own" the works, and the works remain "protected" by copyright. Meanwhile, works that are not economically viable to be "sold" by the "owners" simply become unavailable, however the "protection" of copyright makes it illegal for individuals to simply reproduce these works themselves. Today it's acetate films rotting in vaults, and books that have "fallen out of print" on acidic paper. Tomorrow it will be video and audio "locked up" in encryption algorithms that may well be trivilly easy to break, but are legally protected.
Corporations are doing what corporations are supposed to do-- returning value for shareholders. We can debate globaliation and corporatization and the like all day long-- but not here. The change needs to come by way of changes to "intellectual property" law. Laws are made for the good of society, not for the good of corporations, per se. As a society, we all need to become informed about these issues and work to address them. It may not be glamorous, but it's necessary.
I know there are people who agree with me, but I have no idea how to get the idea out to the public, where the real changes can happen.
Licensing your own work with trendy licenses like Creative Commons or GPL isn't the answer. Violating current "intellectual property" law to show "civil disobedience" isn't the answer. Doing nothing most certainly isn't the answer. The answer is to get the average person involved.
I fear that most people are already too far gone. Most poor bastards don't have enough independent thought left to even think that it's possible to question a notion like "A creator should receive economic compensation every time their work is copied". People simply think that the current system is "just the way it is", and their hobbled minds aren't flexible enough to even comprehend that things could be different.
The message I'd love to get out to the street is this: When you download an MP3 or a movie, you're not hurting the artists or creators-- you're hurting their PUBLISHER. When you buy a CD or software, you're not helping the artists or creators, you're helping the PUBLISHER. Publishers are a scourge upon us-- a plague of leeches. If we can get the public behind new models of economic compensation (or old ones-- live music has been around for millenia), we can break the publisher's grip on our "intellectual property" system, and start to have a reasonable hope of preserving a record of our culture.
That being said, I'm not surprised that it's Disney who made the official proposal. I give it 10 years before DRM violation arrests are second behind drug possession arrests.
How the fuck is this Funny? Prison populations for DRM-related and "intellectual property" related offenses aren't going to reach the proportions the poster indicates in 10 years, but they are going to be a serious component of the prison population. You're fucking deluding yourself if you think that, 10 years from now, you're going to be able to "circumvent" DRM technologies w/o consequences. The Copyright Police State is coming, fucktards.
All these posts saying "If it can be heard, it can be copied" and the ilk are missing the point. The publishing industry's agenda for perpetuating their needless existance is something like:
It's not going to matter if it can be copied-- simply the act of having the capability to copy will be illegal. If you don't have all DRM-compliant devices, or if you tamper with your DRM-compliant devices, you'll be charged and trucked off to prison.
We need a revolution in "intellectual propery", and we need it quickly. Too many people already fail to understand that the system is a social contract, and the terms of that contract are negotiable by the people-- not dictated by the corporations.
It is no stretch to think that, if they could get it, the DRM helmet is their ultimate goal.
...and they're going to use their lobby to do incredibly stupid shit like this. They see the writing on the wall, and they know that they only way that can stave off the death of their industry is thru legislation.
This is yet another sign that the publishing industry is running scared, and grasping at straws. They are utterly afraid of the public discovering that publishers aren't really needed anymore, and that they are simply useless middlemen.
Same thing is true for physical property.
I call bullshit. Physical property has scarcity.
Sooo, explain how the artists get compensated when you download a MP3 from a P2P network.
They don't. Perhaps they should play some live gigs. Maybe hock some merch.
Get over the idea that's been planted in your head that artists are entitled to royalties. This is a construction of only the recent past. There were artists long before there were royalties.
Short version: if we're going to find time and money to educate our children on music copyright, how much more important is it to include music in our children's educations?
Because the real agenda is to teach children that the publishing industry is the only way that artists can be "legitimate", and that the creations must be owned by corporations and "protected" by "intellectual property" laws. It has nothing to do with teaching why-- rather, the point is to teach the kids not to ask why.
Our educational system? Sure copyright is an issue that is controversial, and piracy is a problem...
Violations of "intellectual property" law (please don't call it "piracy") are a problem IF SOCIETY SAYS THEY ARE. "Intellectual property" law is a SOCIAL CONTRACT where society grants the creators of works of "intellectual property" a monopoly on their use, distribution, derivation, and/or duplication for a limited time. Of course, in the United States the contract has been so perverted by the lobby of the publishing industry that it bears no resemblence to what was originally specified by the Constitution.
What we need to be teaching is the history of "intellectual property" law, and teaching our children that it's right to question the law, and to ask "Why does this have to be this way?" Anyone who believes that law is static and unchanging, based on the collective opinion of society, needs to recall "blue laws" and other such antiquities.
Will you bother to tell him that the victims of illegal sharing are the artists and creators themselves?
The victims of the existance of the "publishing industry" are the artists and creators themselves. The advance of new models of compensation for artists and creators is hindered, to the point of non-existance, by the "publishing industry".