Slashdot Log In
Copyright Rumblings
Posted by
michael
on Sun Jan 26, 2003 12:42 PM
from the digital-landgrab-still-in-progress dept.
from the digital-landgrab-still-in-progress dept.
dcunning writes "The Economist has a short opinion piece entitled Copyrights: A radical rethink that suggests (horror of horrors!) going so far as reverting back to the original copyright term of 14 years, renewable once. The article suggests that, in exchange for this, the 'content industries' be given 'much of the legal backing which they are seeking for copy-protection technologies.' A worthwhile and fair tradeoff?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
And this is relevant because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And this is relevant because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And this is relevant because? (Score:5, Interesting)
My $5 goes towards the latter.
Sadly enough, I have learned to never underestimate the ability of a lobby to legally bribe their way to the outcome they want. Politicians will continue to do what the money dictates they do.
Parent
Re:And this is relevant because? (Score:5, Informative)
The European agreement you're probably thinking of is the Berne Convention, which sets a minimum copyright term for signatory countries of 50 years after the author's death. That is the term that much of the world (including Canada and Australia) still use. The US is actually in the minority, having increased copyright terms past this.
Parent
Re:And this is relevant because? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Informative)
I hate having to debate people who use static scoring to argue against things. If the copyrights on modern living authors started expiring one-by-one, their public domain works are more likely to be taught in schools, where presently they're not because a 30 year old copyrighted book is just so expensive to buy, compaired to a fully public domain author such as Mark Twain or Charles Dickens, who has seen most of the use of his work occur long long long after their death.
Kazza might actually have something legal to do if some of the early MTV music videos were in the public domain...
Parent
Re:Just wondering... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait. You said semi-intelligent band....my bad.
--K.
Parent
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but if we give them everything they want, that means literal enforcement of the DMCA. Which means its illegal to break, attempt to break, or describe possible methods to break Digital Rights Infringement technologies. Which, in turn, effectively gives them indefinite-term copyrights.
No thanks. We need to return to original terms and laws and reconsider what copyright should cover (for example, should it really cover software distributed without source?). No negotiation should be considered. These companies have made it clear that they want an eternal monopoly on our culture and our minds.
Parent
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's correct. The DMCA, while nominally a copyright act, has a lot of (hopefully) unintended consequences. Because a DRM scheme might be used on many, many works -- and because those works would pass into public domain at different times -- work on breaking any DRM scheme is prohibited. Consider: Books A, B, and C are all protected by Frobozco Magic Digital Rights Management Technology. Book A goes into public domain in, say, 2077, but B and C enter public domain in 2082. If you're allowed to crack FMDRMT in order to read Book A, you'd also possess the technology to read B and C, even though that would be infringement.
Now, you might wonder, shouldn't it be the actual infringement that is illegal, and not the mere potential to infringe? Old school, yes. But not in the brave new world of intellectual "property".
Of course, this encourages the Content Cartel to lock up everything behind the same DRM, and to continue using it for many many years. That way, even the "public domain" works cannot be legally accessed without paying a fee. That's the way we're going to get perpetual copyright. The Sony Bono Act was -- pardon the pun -- strictly Mickey Mouse in comparison.
Parent
It'll never happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It'll never happen (Score:5, Insightful)
Passing a law like this is the equivalent of abolishing speed limits in exchange for forcing auto-makers to put anti-speeding technology in cars.
There are legitimate reasons to speed (medical emergencies, accident evasion, etc...) and there are legitimate reasons to copy of copyrighted material. Exchanging one for the other simply isn't workable.
Parent
Absolutely not!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The proposed copy protections are extremely unfair and unreasonable. Why should we allow ourselves to be bribed to permit such a thing?
The question of whether copyright limits should be shorter (I sure think so!) should be independent.
Personally I think eventually we consumers will win all of these battles. There's no reason to even think of accepting bribes from a corrupt industry.
Re:Absolutely not!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Absolutely not!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well said. Even 14 years (really 28 years if renewed) is too long if in exchange we must forfeit all reasonable uses of the material. And if consumers have the ability to make a copy for the office, they have the ability to make any number of copies for any reason, using the sound-out jack if nothing else. No: in general, circumvention for fair-use purposes is absolutely required.
My proposal (which I heard from someone else, but I've forgotten who, so forgive me for failing to provide a credit, and pray don't sue me for copyright infringement):
If you put your copyrighted material in the marketplace with no copy protection mechanisms, then you will receive one 20-year term of copyright protection, non-renewable. Consumers will receive a number of legitimate fair uses of the work, including quoting small sections, time-shifting, space-shifting, backups, playing for family and close friends, even sharing with close friends (like I make a compilation tape and give it to my wife). However, any non-fair-use of the material is a crime, and all copyright crimes will be aggressively punished by authorities. That means sharing a copyrighted work on Kazaa could mean a hefty fine, and enough violations could mean jail time. Kinda like getting a nasty speeding ticket. In other words: create reasonable copyright laws and then do everything within the state's power to enforce them. BTW, I am referring here to casual or non-commercial copyright infringement; for-pay infringement is a different kettle of fish and would probably involve jail time by default.
On the other hand, if the copyright holder uses any form of copy protection, including schemes to lock consumers into approved players or any other nastiness of that kind, that's fine; but the copyright work loses all protection of the laws. In other words, you can rely on copy protection if you wish, but then if the consumer circumvents your protection you are shit out of luck. Attempts to circumvent your protections would be 100 percent legal, and it would also be legal to pass around the cracked work all you liked.
In short: make copyright law reasonable; make fair-use mandatory (at least if you want legal protection for your copyrighted work); and then enforce the reasonable copyright laws aggressively.
Parent
exactly! Enforcement hasn't even been tried yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
People learned long ago in the real world that for a free society to function properly, many things must be possible, but actual crimes need to be policed and criminals punished to have law and order. How long do you think it'll take them to realize that even in the digital world crime can not be coded out of the system?
The two questions of copyright:
1) Is it a crime to take some things apart and understand how they work? Yes! Even worse if you share that knowledge!
2) Is it a crime to knowingly aquire copyrighted works illegally and use them? Not at all!
Parent
No. Thanks for playing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. Thanks for playing. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No. Thanks for playing. (Score:5, Insightful)
The big studios have the money to change the rules of the game at will. If they agree to something like this, don't be surprised to see them lobbying, 28 years from now, to change the law and extend the copyright period. Then they would have both draconian technical copyright enforcement measures, backed by the full force of law, and infinitely renewable copyrights.
Of course, some would argue that we already have both.
Parent
It's fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
-Mark
Does copyleft expire? (Score:5, Insightful)
Faced with two bad choices.... (Score:5, Interesting)
First: present the consumer first with a horrible way of doing things.
Second: the consumer will take almost *anything* else, and even something else bad seems good.
This is a regular management tactic in some places. You should be able to sniff this one a mile away.
Re:Faced with two bad choices.... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like the way we go about electing our President every 4 years here in the US... .. .
Parent
Not a fair tradeoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, the problems related to fair use remain. I have an affirmative right to use short segments of copyrighted material in other works. For example, if I wanted to preach a sermon demonstrating how media culture affects us, I might want to use a short clip from the truman show. I have that right under fair use - but I can't do it from a DVD legally right now because of the DMCA which prevents me from legally owning the technology that would enable it. The chilling effect is a scary thing.
Re:Not a fair tradeoff (Score:5, Insightful)
Two points:
- Let the price reflect what the
market will bear. If I can buy a CD with only the songs I
want, on demand, with no DRM, for something like US$0.25-$0.50 per
song, I'd probably never download a copious amount. Yes, I'd
probably get some stuff to see if I really wanted it, but if I
liked it I'd eventually buy it. Charging me US$16-$20 (or more)
for one or two songs I want is ludicrous.
- Take a page from
the bottled water market. Somehow bottled water manages to eke
out comfortable
sales [perrier.com] despite the availability of free water in every
home.
The old, broken-down business model that the media conglomerates enjoy today will either have to adapt to what people want, or the purchasing public will go somewhere else to get it.Parent
The 2 year copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Though I think a 7 year once renewable copyright on books might still fly on books. Not that public opinion matters on such an issue. They don't buy the votes. The monopolists do.
My passport comes back in 3 weeks... where to....
The Eric Eldred Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Larry Lessig has proposed a tiny tax 50 years after a work is first copyrighted. If the tax is unpaid, the work goes into the public domain. The tax represents some positive move to show the work has commercial value.
Maybe 50 years is too long. But if we are to lobby for such an act we need to make compromises with the strong copyright interests such as Hollywood.
It might seem immodest to have an act named after me, but I have grown accustomed to the loss of my name after the case Eldred v. Ashcroft. I think it nicely opposes the Sonny Bono Act.
For more on the Eric Eldred Act, see
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/arc
What do you think?
Let me get this straight (Score:5, Funny)
An Exercise In Futility (Score:5, Insightful)
The genie is out of the bottle, and no law, technology, or ad campaign is ever going to put it back in. Copyrights have been violated since the first artist in history signed their name (or stamped their mark) on their work.
(and as a descendent of one of the artists in Altamira, I would like my cut of the souvenir profits)
Why the recording industry (and others) now feel threatened enough to start raising a fuss, is because it's just become much easier. Although, overall, I don't see how it can really hurt their bottom line. They are making many times the profit on their product than they did in the 70's, 80's, and 90's (am I the only one who's noticed how $1 and $2 paperbacks are now selling for $9 - $12. Was there a sudden paper shortage that I never heard about?). Don't even get me started on CD's, do you really expect me to believe that the bottom line cost of a CD is twice as much as a cassette tape (considering the markup).
If the industry would get smart and offer their products at a decent price, it would help to insure that the run-of-the mill consumer is not tempted to use other means to acquire the product. But if they expect that a few words in a lawbook is going to stop what has already started, they are dreaming.
Dr. Wu
PS: If the music industry is so perfect themselves, then why are they settling the lawsuits against them for illegal price fixing.
Music CD Settlement [musiccdsettlement.com]
Re:An Exercise In Futility (Score:5, Funny)
This reminds me of the cave drawing P2P network fiasco of 24,845 BC. Trading was so rampant cave wall artists just stopped producing new art because they could not feed themselves. Whole communities of cave-wall artists were forced into becoming hunter-gatherers.
Parent
Another grand idea... wasted. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the content industries feel they "deserve" the original copyright term, and that the digital age is simply infringing on their "rights." And, quite short-sightedly, that all they need to do is get "better" laws and the next generation of technology will put it right.
Hundreds of people proposed very reasonable, in fact still too expensive, methods to make music available online. The problem with these systems was that they were reasonable. The current system of paying $15 for CD with 3 good songs 2 mediocre, and the remainder, crap is extremely profitable. No self-centered individual would endanger such a system for one that would allow a user to pay $3 each for their two favorite songs and ignore the rest. It just won't happen.
These people will fight tooth and claw to retain total control of our culture until we wrest it from their grasping hands.
The next generation of crypto-verifying players, and per user-agreement encrypted, signed music downloads, will be a telling test. They will lower the prices enough that many people won't care. They will then usher in laws that make any tool that plays digital music a "tool of piracy." Large proprietary software corporations will step right into the meal line with their ticket in hand, and the FOSS community will be all that stands in their way. Should be exciting to watch.
Re:Another grand idea... wasted. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you're being to kind to the content industry in your assessment. As far as I can tell, the content industry couldn't care less about deserts--they're simply framing the issue as a case of "desert", and "rights", because that's the strongest and most sympathetic presentation of the issue for them. In reality, they simply want as much money as they can possibly get.
Clothing their naked greed in "rights" rhetoric is misleading, and cheapens the whole idea of rights. We've got a whole society who now believes that "greed" and "rights" are morally and ethically equivalent, and that the proper way to defend one's rights is through political and legal manipulation--in short, that "rights" are whatever you can pay for.
Personally, I don't see why corporations should have rights at all. Rights are for individuals--for people. Corporations have become my peers, and my masters. Aren't they supposed to be my servants, and my tools?
Parent
Legal backing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright extension should be halted because it drains the public domain of material. Period. We shouldn't have to bargain for that one. 75 years was plenty of time, we had settled into that time frame, and we had plenty of older literature and materials flowing into the public domain. Then along came the DMCA - reverse engineering, making compatible devices and software, using your own media (that you legally purchased) in other devices of your choosing - all these basic property rights and common law understandings of what people can do with things they own flew out the goddamned window.
I'm not willing to cut a deal with the devil, or the so-called content industry in this scenario, to bring back reduced timespans for copyrights. Cut copyrights back, abolish the DMCA (perhaps some parts are not unreasonable, but as I see it, everything in there is either not needed because it was covered by existing jurisprudence, or is flat out morally wrong), and THEN we can have an intelligent debate and discussion as a society about what kind of legislation should be in place to help protect content producers from unreasonable amounts of piracy, IF in fact existing laws don't provide them that protection already.
If in fact the problem is an economic one (people are pirating because it is economically sensible for them to do so) why not try modifying your business model to one that doesn't so strongly encourage such illegal copying? You're never going to eliminate it entirely. Sorry, but we don't want and won't take crippled devices. If the content industry hasn't figured that out yet, then fuck them. I'd rather have a crippled, less profitable, re-organized content industry with my rights intact, than have mandated, legally enforced DRM embedded in my hardware, and have Disney's profits secured so they keep pushing their schwag out on audiences. Oh yeah, and what do we get out of it? Copyright terms are only 14 years. Of course, that doesn't apply retroactively, it only applies to new content. Oh, so sorry about that. And in 14 years what happens? Copyrights get extended again, without public debate, once the sheep have gotten used to ubiquitous DRM.
Sorry, but I'll go down with guns blazing before I accept this "compromise". Right now, we are getting the strength of momentum behind us. The popular press is buying into it. Copyright term extensions are going down, though it may take a while. As for the DMCA - it's not going away just yet, but the debate in the public forum is just starting, and we'll get there eventually too. Once the content industry realizes how shaky the ground they are walking on is, perhaps we will hear a real compromise deal out of them, hrrmmm?
Better solution (Score:5, Interesting)
You get copyright protection for only as long as you use it. Mickey Mouse gets used today, then Steamboat Willie and the MM icon used by Disney gets protected.
Sony doesn't sell N'sync CDs anymore to retailers? Fine, their music is now public domain.
On the plus side, it allows vendors with known icons (the Mouse) to retain the legal proection they need, while allowing 'abandonware' to go where it rightfully belongs - the public.
Don't forget this would cover games too, solving that nasty question of older games that aren't being made anymore.
Better idea. (Score:4, Interesting)
OR
you are entitled to technological protctions. not both.
If you want to restrict sometihng by technology, you are free to, but you have no protection of the actual work under law.
Maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I might be willing to make that trade, if you add in one more piece: as per the Constitution, only the original author can hold a copyright. And that author must be a human, not any kind of corporation or publishing house.
Whatever promotes progress (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone argues about how long the "limited times" should last. And all the arguments have totally missed the point. They all come from the standpoint of "I want to do something with this old work-- it should be public domain so I can," or "I want to keep making money off of this old work-- it should stay copyrighted so I can."
The phrase we need to be concerned with is "promote the progress of science and useful arts." The government should appoint a team of unbiased experts to study the benefits and downfalls of differing lengths and mechanisms of copyright, come to a final conclusion about what would most "promote the progress of science and useful arts," and go with that.
My proposal (Score:5, Interesting)
Reduce the term of copyrights to somewhere between 20 and 40 years. (Basically, the working lifetime of an author.)
More importantly, I believe that copy protection clashes with the Constitutional purpose of copyright. I propose to not allow materials which are copy protected to be copyrighted. Make the author choose between the two. I think this is important since the purpose of copyright (at least under the US Constitution) is to produce art & science which eventual enter the public domain. Since copy protected materials are designed to impede reproduction, propogating those materials will often be difficult once copyright expires. Since they can't easily enter the public domain, they should not be copyrightable.
(You might also be able to convince me to make the penalties for violating copyright more severe if this is done, to help convince people to not copyprotect materials.)
I am for strong copyrights. I don't think Gone With the Wind, the Three Stooges, and maybe even Elvis should be under copyright any more, though, and I don't think any copyrighted materials should be copy protected.
John
Why does it have to be a tradeoff? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only copy-protection I'll settle for will consist of a Supreme Court justice in every box that tells me that what I'm doing is or isn't fair use. Unfortunately, unless the content industry and the Raelians team up, that tends to limit sales.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
0) Corporate copyrights are set to 14-year terms, renewable once. Copyrights held by natural persons remain in force for the lifetime of the author or 28 years (nonrenewable), whichever is greater.
1) After the original period of 14 years, a copyright may be renewed once, unless no editions of the work have been released for sale in the past three years and plans have not been formally announced to release it within the following year. In other words, if you haven't been actually making money off the copyright then you shouldn't be able to hold it "defensively".
2) Copyrights apply to specific versions or editions of works, rather than the work in general. To give an example, Version 2.0 of a piece of software is protected by a different copyright than Version 1.0 was.
3) All copyright-protection mechanisms must stop working when the copyright expires. While this need not necessarily be automatic, if it isn't then the mechanism to disable the protection must be made available to the public, free of charge, at that time.
4) All copyright-protection mechanisms must allow for the fair-use rights of all users. To aid in this, a minimal, non-exhaustive list of fair use rights may be drawn up; at the absolute least this must include both time-shifting and space-shifting rights.
5) Content creators may not specify how a product may be used (also known as End-User License Agreements). Standard copyright law will forbid illegal redistribution, public performance without permission, etc. and this may not be modified by content creators except to grant permission there the law dows not automatically do so.
6) Computer code is to be considered a written work, protected by copyright but not patent. Copyrights will, as noted in Point 2 above, apply to specific versions of the software, rather than the software in general. When copyright on a specific version expires, the source code for that version is to be released into the public domain.
7) When and if this goes into effect, all corporate copyrights still in force will be set to expire in 14 years. Some old copyrights will be extended by this, and some will be truncated. Oh well; we can't pick and choose. This will be the last time copyrights can retroactively extended or shortened; see Point 8 below.
8) Congress may, at its option, pass laws extending these terms, by no more than five years at a time. Further, these laws may apply only to copyrights on works created after said extension was put into force.
OK. Build these into the law -thus putting binding restrictions on content creators to make their copy-protection mechanisms fair- and I'll let them have their little legal restrictions on DRM-circumvention (modified to take these into account, of course). If they want this, fine, but only if they agree to restore the balance between creator and user first.
Copyright is dead, Jim (Score:4, Insightful)
The first is that content can be replicated with perfect fidelity for little or no cost.
The second is that copyright simply is not needed. The intent was to encourage people to produce works of science and useful arts, but history has shown that that is simply not necessary. People produce such works even without the promise that the state will use violence to ensure their compensation.
Just look at the open source revolution. Compare the quality of open source software with that of its copyrighted commercial equivalent.
Or compare the quality of literature and art before today's abuse of copyright with the pure shit that saturates our existance today.
Copyright is as archaic as slavery. It is as absurd to give ownership of a sequence of bits to an individual as it is to give ownership of an individual to another individual. And ironically, the very same Constitution originally gave sanction to both.
Oh, yes, I see it from here. (Score:5, Insightful)
25 Years later. Oh let us rise the period to 37 years. Retroactive. After all the copyright holder financed the work and has to get a return !
10 years later (35 years after the 1st work has been done under this law) Ho 37 is not enough, let us rise with a new law to say, 56. This is fair isn't it ? Oh, and it is retroactive.
10 years again later... We are abck to 74/98 years of copyright. With prolongation if the holder pay a small symbolic sum. Retroactively.
I certainly would not want such law as a consummer.
Disappointed in The Economist (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrights are like tariffs. They distort the true value of goods and thereby make trade inefficient. The end result is that they decrease the amount of wealth in the world. Reducing copyright terms is like lowering tariffs. Even though some industries and segments of society will be injured, in the short term by such an action, overall, it results in greater wealth for the nation and for its trading partners.
That's speaking in terms that the businessmen who read The Economist can understand. They can relate to the benefit of lower prices for textiles and hardware, so they ought to be similarly receptive to lower prices for textbooks and software.
Rights should go with responsibilities (Score:5, Interesting)
When material is "available" the cost of getting things that are rare like classical music is such that it cannot only be described as in money terms but also in effort. I live in a 200.000 person town and my personal collection is bigger that what can be found in the record shops. The function of a recordshop is to allow me a listen befor a sale. Without an infrastructure for the sale of material how can the punters be held responsible for not buying or for copying copyrighted material?
When I need a book for study and I cannot have it because of it being out of print, is it not criminal that I cannot get it? That I cannot have a digital copy and print it myself because of this "copyright" joke ?
When the Economist argues for a short period where an artist is to be protected, where does the publishing company come into play when they DO NOT provide the service that they ARE named for; publishing?
In my opinion, any period I can live with as long as there is an equal weight on the other side of the balance. That weight must be service.
Thanks,
Gerard
Re:28 Years (Score:5, Interesting)
It'd be a boon for musicians starting out, because they'd no longer have to secure rights to play those classic songs, they could just perform them. And it would ALSO spell an end to those stupid bad substitutes for Happy Birthday you hear at resturants.
Parent
Re:28 Years (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:28 Years (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, positive copyright reform is unlikely to ever happen, as the public domain has no billionaires to bribe legislators on its behalf.
"Piracy" is a paper tiger. Home taping never killed the recording industry. The photocopier did not kill the publishing industry. The VCR did not kill Hollywood. Content providers are running scared from file trading because it is a new technology. They have done the same every time a new medium has been invented. Each new medium they claimed would be the death of them actually turned out to be a boon.
Outrageous copyright lengths should be taken away from copyright holders, but they deserve nothing in return. They have robbed the public domain far too long.
Parent
Ah, the sweet ignorance of youth... (Score:5, Informative)
Um, dude, this year the Stones are celebrating their 40th anniversary as a band. They've released a 40-track double-CD collection called "40 Licks" in honour of the occasion.
Parent
Re:Copyrights ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire notion of copyright has been utterly bastardized. The philosophy behind the US Constitution's Copyright Clause is that Copyright is a grant BY THE PUBLIC to the creator to allow the creator to make a bit of cash before reverting the material -back- to the public.
There is not truly "original" content. In fact, there's only 7 basic stories, or plotlines. Unless the creator has -no- contact with anything outside of their own closed mine, the public has a direct impact on the creators, and on the content they produce.
For a -much- better explanation of this, please read Justice Stevens' dissension in the Eldred case (Ginsberg's is excellent as well).
The gist, though, is that -without- works falling into the public domain, creativity and the production of new works -SUFFERS-. Why the hell do you think we're getting sequels to all of the Classic Disney films (I mean, do we -really- need 4 101 Dalmations sequels/retakes?)
Parent
Or ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent