Slashdot Log In
EU Record Companies Push to Extend Copyright
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 10, 2005 09:52 AM
from the just-a-little-bit-longer dept.
from the just-a-little-bit-longer dept.
TPIRman writes "European record companies, as represented by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, are pressuring the European Union to extend copyright terms for music producers. Critics like Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig are predictably opposed, but the IFPI argues that the move is needed in order to bring the E.U. in sync with U.S. copyright regulations. Ironically, one of the original rationales behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was that U.S. copyrights needed to sync up with European standards."
Related Stories
[+]
UK Copyright Extension Not Happening 391 comments
chiark writes "In a surprising move (surveys said that the public supports extending copyright), the UK will not extend copyright to 95 years following a recent study. Back when this was was covered on slashdot last year, I wrote to my MP and thought no more of it, but recently a UK thinktank has called for fair use to be enshrined in UK Law. Looks like the government is realizing that the public are the ones that vote 'em in or out." From the article: "Sir Cliff Richard and Jethro Tull had been among artists lobbying for copyright to last 95 years, rather than the present 50. The decision means that from 2008 Sir Cliff's earliest recordings will start to come out of copyright. "
This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
shuffle up and deal. (Score:4, Funny)
Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:3, Insightful)
want a better alternative? Shoot them down!
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one am well and truly sick of the shenanigans being pulled by these media conglomerates. They need to be replaced, and rapid. So lets look at the root causes of the problem.
1. People like music.
2. Musicians make music.
3. People will never hear the music unless its advertised to them; they just won't know it exists. Enter your friendly neighbourhood media conglomerate, with all the fun that entails.
Solutions:
1. Music is just information, a stream of bits and bytes. And here we have a whole industry called information technology.
2. The production of music can be done relatively cheaply, especially by applying modern technology.
3. Distribution and advertising, well well, looky here, an internet. Who put that there? And no I'm not talking about itunes.
4. Profit, and the vanishing of the media conglomerates and their tired, wretched little business model.
I mean come on, with all the big brains around here, surely it is possible to come up with a decent technological response to these vermin... the only thing lacking at this point is a concerted effort at marketing the stuff, and poof, no more MTV. Whatever restrictive contracts current artists have signed with said media groups is there own problem; there are always more artists. If ever there was a place google could shine, its right here.
Parent
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:5, Insightful)
don't know how your system works :p
Works? What is this "works" of which you speak? ;-)
As far as I can tell our system works like this: the European Commission decide to do something. The European Parliament vote, and decide it's a stupid, stupid idea. The European Commission then ignore the democratic process altogether. I believe that the advantage to this system is that it's easier for lobbyists to get their lobbying done, without getting dirtied by contact with democracy.
Someone with a less cynical view than me may wish to clarify, however...
Parent
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:3, Informative)
I think you missed a bit though. The European Council get to be undemocratic too! They are the secretive bunch appointed by national governments who decide whatever they want behind closed doors and when it turns out not to be what anyone actually wants they simply blame all the other ministers from other countries!
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:3, Informative)
With the parliament actually having teeth rather than being a nod in the general direction of democracy, the national governments complained because they might have some of their more stupid ideas overruled - they're more used to controlling the commission and getting things done that way.
It's this last point which had some of the anti-EU types up in arms... they'd rather an unelected commissi
Bono Act Protects Sounds from the 1890s (Score:3, Interesting)
The old world aristocracy claimed that it had the
Abolishing copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright Holders
- Billions of dollars
- Coordinated world wide organizations of thousands of people working towards making money off of copyrighted material
- Government lobbyists
- Political Action committees
- Campaign Contributions
- 100 years of legal precedent
Copyright OpponentsUmm, I think we have a problem. I'm on the side of restraining copyright, but I'm not sure this fight is fair!
Parent
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I just found this interesting page, and I think it is kind of on topic with this discussion:
Some thoughs about piracy [scottmccloud.com]. It is better than I state here, have a look
Parent
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
You forgot a very important weapon in the opponents arsenal.
And they CAN'T be stopped.
Parent
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, "protesting"... That's right, it's a political action... Idiot!
No, it's not a political protest, and that's what makes it really effective.
See, most people don't care enough about such issues to bother with protests. That's why boycotts rarely work. But most file sharers don't do it for political reasons.
File sharing is a natural reaction to the artificial forces supporting high content prices. The forces in question were always artificial, but they had a natural, reasonable motivation in the past when distribution was expensive. Copyright is a reasonable mechanism for funding distribution, but distribution has become dirt cheap at the same time as copyrights have been massively expanded in scope, duration and force. The resulting imbalance means that the common person feels that copyrights have little or no moral force behind them. The result is massive, widespread, copyright infringement. A law that everyone breaks is not a law.
Parent
This is the last thing we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is the last thing we need (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not trolling, I fail to see how these laws in Europe or US are going to stop people from downloading stuff from Chinese websites. As long as China is not under
Re:This is the last thing we need (Score:3, Insightful)
By going for copyright protection, they're attempting to secure the rights to go after people who do this in the EU and in the US. They are also trying to establish a precedent that will be seen as "the way the modern industrialized world does these things".
There's a heavy expectation that China is going to change big time in the next generation,
Re:This is the last thing we need (Score:4, Interesting)
But you know it's going to happen, their companies are saying "How can we compete with the Americans when they have copyrights for 95 years and we only have them for 50 years? That's not fair.".
The copyright laws need to be put back to their original terms, 14 years and if they apply, one extension of 14 years.
Parent
Here's a radical idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't we (the US) curtail our copyright terms in order to sync up with the EU?
Just a thought...
(I know, this is as silly as exercising more and eating less in order to lose weight.)
Poor Mickey (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just make it 50 billion years and save Mickey Mouse from exploitation forever?
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me summarize: "But Mom, he's doing it, so why can't I do it too!!!"
They continue with this line of reasoning:
This is like a 13-year old screaming "this is so unfair".
Nobody is revisiting the underlying arguments for extending copyright protection past its usual lifetime. They see this as a business argument to be settled about competition and profitability.
The EFF need to get in there and make sure that at least some relevant questions are being asked. Like what the purpose of copyright in the first place is, and how a proposed extension either supports or undermines that purpose.
And here's your mom's comeback for the "but he's doing it too" teenager whine:
Hey Europe, if all of your friends were jumping off of a bridge, would you do it too?
Parent
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately or unfortunately, that is indeed a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, too.
-Erwos
We better not (Score:5, Interesting)
No irony....this is how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
syncing up with each other (Score:3, Insightful)
Why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Damn globalization!
Re:Why... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason people don't want bad laws passed, even in small ways where it seems irrelevant is because it establishes a precedent. In many ways, a precedent is like the thin end of a wedge. Once you've worked in the smallest thing, you can just push from the back and eventually drive it all through.
The laws don't necessarily have to be the same, but if you check the article you'll find that the debate is in terms of competition, not in terms of what copyright is all about. The EU has no desire to fall behind, they really do want to keep up with the US in a lot of different areas. So a precedent in copyright has been established: let's extend the lifetime in the US. Now comes the pressure behind the wedge: the europeans want it too!
Hmm...I think I can see where this is going...
Parent
If anything make the damn things.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like say, authors life time or 50 years wich ever is greater and thats it....
Re:If anything make the damn things.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The current system of profiting off one lucky creation for 3 generations is insane and does no foster creation, innovation or invention. Especially for the children who inherit valuable copyrights.
Parent
Re:If anything make the damn things.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially when most artists do NOT own the publishing rights to their works.
Forget about an artist's children (or the artist) collecting a dime from any of this business.
The people pushing this are media corporations, and they AREN'T doing it for the artists, nor the artists' children.
They're doing it to be able to reap billions of dollars forever from the work of others and use those billions to buy more politicians in order to pass more laws that criminalize you.
Bottom line; these corporations are big enough already, and I don't see the advantage for the people in changing the laws so corporations become even more powerful only so they can oppress the people further.
Parent
Write to your MP now... (Score:5, Interesting)
How they can say that with a straight face is beyond me. I guess the record industry makes it easier for them?
I wrote to my MP on Tuesday, and got a response the next day thanking me for my concerns, stating that he has read up on, and now understands the issue, and that they will discuss it with the Labour MP that is proposing the bill.
It might be mere platitudes to keep me oppressed, but it might just work. We are supposed to be in a democracy, although with the EU constitution "no" votes from France and the Netherlands, one does wonder if the hierarchy will merely push it through no matter what the public says.
No doubt someone will point out that this is EU policy which will need to be enacted in UK law, but all the same, make yourself heard. I did, and boy do I feel good about it
Write to them (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Write to them (Score:3, Informative)
Purnells voting record
Ba
What's wrong being different? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a pretty poor reason to change a law - just to be the same as someone else. There are lots of things that are good about European laws compared to the named countries, and we should fight to keep the good things the way they are, rather than giving in to greedy corporations.
Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, you were probably just looking for a reason to take your daily swipe at "greedy" corporations.
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:5, Insightful)
What's special about copyright? By your argument, all the laws around the world should be the same, and we could just elect one government to write them.
Of course, that ignores cultural differences and assumes everyone shares exactly the same view of what's right. And it's only a small step between believing that other people "should" follow your laws, and starting a war to enforce that view. Not exactly a democratic view to hold.
"With inconsistent laws, the enforcement of copyrights from country to country would be chaotic at best."
And that's bad how? Too confusing for policemen? Many people already deal with different laws, taxes, etc. in every state, and even laws that apply to particular places within a state.
If courts can already deal with complex financial crimes across many locations (which they can) where the laws are different in virtually every state, country, and region, then what's so difficult about copyright that requires the imposition of a "world government"?
Parent
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:3, Informative)
It is understandable and wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
That having been said....
Imagine for a moment that you are a patent holder in the US. You put out a product that does well in the US. Now imagine another patent holder from the EU. His product does well in the EU. Assuming both do well in their respective markets, the US patent holder garners revenue for use of the patent long after the EU patent holder does. What are EU innovators to do?
Leave the EU, that's what.
Aside from the right or wrong of IP, the EU seemingly wishes to address this long-term market value of a work and adjust to losing innovators overseas to the US. How to properly deal with that is another matter, but we must be careful to acknowledge all aspects of the issue.
Re:It is understandable and wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, they're not losing money, they're not making money. There is a difference.
Second, the purpose of copyright is not so that authors can make money. That's just a means to an end. The purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, and part of that means having copyrights terminate after a period of time, ideally as soon as possible whilst providing the greatest public benefit overall.
Darren SMASH! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Later I will be lobbying for an extension to that extension... in about 40 years from now.
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
In the EU, performers get 50 years copyright. 2005 minus fifty years is 1955, the dawn of the modern era of rock and pop. The late Elvis is the first big goose scheduled to stop laying golden eggs, but other huge ones loom over the next decade - the Beatles in particular.
No wonder the corps are pressing for extensions; why wouldn't they want indefinite copyrights? It's certainly in their interests, but it's most definitely not in the wider interestes of society at large. This proposal will do nothing to pomote the useful arts and sciences.
Heres the deal (Score:3, Interesting)
I say this because allot of US people are hopeing that other countries will fight the copyright battle for them. I say the opposite is true, we need to get rid of copyrights here first and the rest of the world will take care of itself in due time.
Great Tactics! (Score:3, Interesting)
Original US copyright term length (Score:4, Informative)
1790: Copyright Act of 1790
The First Congress implemented the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in 1790. The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies, was modeled on the Statute of Anne (1710). It granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years and to renew for another fourteen. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain." Major revisions to the act were implemented in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976.
from A History of Copyright in the United States [cni.org]
Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with copyright is that its becoming a commodity. How long until artists can float copyright on an open market? That seems to be the end game for media corporations who consider copyrighted works stock.
But thats not what copyright was for. Copyright was designed to protect artists from having their works exploited without fair remuneration i.e. stop this kind of thing happening. It seems to me that this current legislation will do nothing but further enslave the creative - as their works become the property of someone else for longer, instead of being free to inspire more arts in the public domain.
Why would a company employ an artist in these situations? Supply and demand. If you are producing a work for someone you are doing them a favor, not the other way around. If they could do it themselves, they would - such is the nature of a free market. Why people who pay for the works think they own it, is beyond me. You commision a painting you own the painting. You copy the painting, no harm is done. You sell the copy, you owe the artist an agreed percentage/lump sum.
BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, so I didn't RTFA, an' I'm gonna rant, so I'll burn in hell, but here goes anyway
BULLSHIT! All this "get the copyright laws in sync" is bullshit. Isn't it obvious? There's no irony here, just sadness personified--great big lobby groups on both sides of the pond steamrollering over as much public domain / creative commons stuff as they possibly can and using really, really weak "rationals" to pretend to justify it.
The "get the laws in sync" thing carries no weight. Suppose I support law A. But my country doesn't have law A, my country has A-lite--well then I'm definitely gonna be arguing to "get the laws in sync" duh. OTOH, suppose my country has law A, the other country has law A-lite, and I like A-lite better--well then I can make the exact same, damn argument.
Now suppose I hate law A-lite, and my country's the one with law A--then instead I'll be arguing, "woah! Let's not change things! That country's got law A and it's all full of vermin and lice and bad stuff 'cause of it! One of the great things about our nation is we have law A instead of A-lite.
I'm probably not explaining myself very clearly, but I hope I'm making at least an A-lite level of sense.
Who are the Real Pirates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now who are the Real Pirates?
Re:This could have an upside (Score:3, Insightful)
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple.
Brilliant.
Now, please come back when the music and movie industry have stopped stealing from society.
WHat do I mean by that?
The recording industry has for a long time pr
Re:This could have an upside (Score:3, Interesting)