Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government News Your Rights Online

ISP Filters & Copyright Extension Defeated In EU 211

Posted by kdawson from the spine-bat dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Last November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking at how culture affects the economy and recommended a 'balance between the opportunities for access to cultural events and content and intellectual property' saying that 'criminalizing consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution.' Industry lobbyists, of course, immediately sprang into action to try to turn that around, writing amendments that would set up mandatory ISP copyright filters and extend EU copyrights to match the USA's life-plus-70 term. Thankfully, the committee rejected all of those amendments: 'Clearly, they're not going to let the ITRE or the European recording industry push them around, which is great news for Europeans. Now if we could only get the US Congress to show as much spine as the French (ouch).'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISP Filters & Copyright Extension Defeated In EU More

ISP Filters & Copyright Extension Defeated In EU

Comments Filter:

  • Life+70 is just obscene (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Finallyjoined!!! ( 1158431 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:14PM (#22147582)
    Disney have a lot to answer for. Veto all Disney products :-)

    • Human lifespans will soon double. (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And technology will eventually allow for immortality. Governments should be praised for planning for the near-future.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fm6 ( 162816 )
      Actually, it's not the lengthy term that's obscene. That's just irritating. The real problem is that every time some valuable copyrights threaten to expire, congress extends the term. And here's what's obscene: the Supereme Court's inability to grasp that endless extensions abrogate the Constitution's requirement that copyrights be "for limited times".

      But here's some good news: more and more old books and music will go public-domain in Europe, and will be available for order at a reasonable cost — or

      • Re:Life+70 is just obscene (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ajehals ( 947354 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:51PM (#22147982) Journal
        I wonder what current/future legal/technical restrictions will prevent the movement of material that is public-domain in one jurisdiction but under copyright in another will appear. There are already issues surrounding Australia (which IIRC at least up until recently had a more limited copyright term).

        My greatest fear however is still that an effective DRM mechanism will add massively to the usual problems involved in the long term accessibility of culturally relevant material. After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects.
        • Just to give a taste of the potential confusion etc. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_Wendy#Copyright_status [wikipedia.org]

          It can only get worse.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by webmaster404 ( 1148909 )
          DRM can be broken quite simply. DRM isn't the real evil, software patents and DMCA-style laws that prevent you from breaking it is the problem. I can see documents stored in digital form being unreadable in 75-100 years due to a lack of standards used and DMCA-style laws though, just think about all those floppy disks with all those documents from '95 made on some application and today are just about unreadable, also data from obsolete storage formats are heading the same way.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Ajehals ( 947354 )
            DRM is a part of that evil, it is an arbitrary and generally pointless (as you said it can be broken) method of preventing access. I would suggest that an archivist having to maintain not only data reliably, but also DRM circumvention for a long period would be an added burden (that is if there is a requirement to store things in their original format, i.e. with the DRM). In cases where an archive breaks the DRM and stores DRM free copies, well that adds a whole additional process before storage.

            Now for a n

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by fm6 ( 162816 )

          After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects.
          True. But if a work is copyrighted in country A and public domain in country B, what's to prevent a citizen of A going to a B web site and downloading it? To prevent that, you'd have to have mandatory copyright enforcement on every computer sold. There are those who'd like to impose just such a restriction, but I don't think it's either technically or socially feasible.

        • Re:Life+70 is just obscene (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Winckle ( 870180 ) <`ku.oc.elkcniw' `ta' `kram'> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @03:13AM (#22150316) Homepage
          It doesn't have to be an effective mechanism to annoy the end user. Nor in fact do you have to wait to see this effect, some games run perfectly in emulation or a WINE style implementation except for code governing DRM.

          For example I recently tried to play red alert 2 under crossover on OS X, but every time I play, my units blow up 30 seconds in. Apparently this is a form of copy protection, one which I have no idea how to fix. I have paid for this game, admittedly, it was a few years ago, but I the only thing stopping me play this game is short sighted DRM.

      • The real problem is that every time some valuable copyrights threaten to expire, congress extends the term. And here's what's obscene: the Supereme Court's inability to grasp that endless extensions abrogate the Constitution's requirement that copyrights be "for limited times".

        The opinion of that court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stated that a pattern of extension, enacted with intent to make copyright perpetual, is not constitutional. The court upheld the Bono Act because it and the Copyright Act of 1976 were not enough evidence of an intentional pattern. But as I read it, the court left itself room to overturn a subsequent extension that would more clearly establish such a pattern, such as a Chastity Bono Act of 2018.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by fm6 ( 162816 )
          Of course SCOTUS admitted that perpetual copyright is unconstitutional. The enumerated powers clause is quite specific about that. They way they rationalize that a last-minute retroactive extension of copyright ownership is not "perpetual" is kind of beside the point. If doing it twice is constitutional, why isn't doing it three times, or four?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by chthon ( 580889 )

      Especially since I discovered this week what MacroVision means. One does then have a collection of Disney videos.

      Oh, and it is not as if these videos are of high quality. It is just this year that I set up Peter Pan for my daughter (a video that I owned already a couple of years, but never played before). I think I must have played maybe 20 to 30 times. Two weeks ago, the tape broke, luckily at the beginning. We have repaired it with the goal of recording it on DVD : no go due to Macrovision. Well, I let i

      • Re:Life+70 is just obscene (Score:5, Informative)

        by Gideon Fubar ( 833343 ) on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @04:13AM (#22150612) Journal
        According to this [wikipedia.org], the white dots you're seeing are likely an artifact of the way your TV renders the image.

        If you're really interested in preserving those tapes, i'd suggest using a TV tuner/video capture card.. an old SD card will do fine.. you just have to be able to make sure that you can manually configure (or disable) the gain control. Of course, i imagine some cards will just ignore the macrovision system..

        unfortunately, YMMV Wildly... I recommend reading this [biline.ca].. should help a bit.

  • show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Funny)

    by sconeu ( 64226 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:15PM (#22147590) Homepage Journal
    <SARCASM>
    You don't understand. Those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys CAVED IN to the Evil Terrorist Content Pirates[tm].

    Clearly we must support our patriotic "content producers" to defeat the evildoers.
    </SARCASM>

    • Re:show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Amorymeltzer ( 1213818 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:31PM (#22147756)

      ...the fact that criminalising consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution.
      (emphasis mine)

      When was the last time anyone aside from the consumer expressed that view so blatantly? When was the last time anyone in government expressed that view? The two together is just about as close to Christmas in January as you can get - and I'm not just saying that 'cause I'm a Jew...

      • Re:show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ajehals ( 947354 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:47PM (#22147938) Journal
        I would suggest that (parts) of the EU, or rather elements of the apparatus that make up the Frankenstein-esque quasi-federal EU 'government' are considerably more pro-consumer and anti-monopolist than most other similar bodies. I am not surprised that this has come from the EU, it is in line with many of their better idea's (although there still appear to be quite a few stinkers hanging around in the system.)

        My worry is that once the EU settles down and ceases to be about member nations haggling for power and influence, that the lobbyists and other 'usual suspects' of corporate power achieve some level of patronage and influence. The only really surprising thing is that given how unaccountable the whole EU system seems at present, that it hasn't happened already.

        But then I am a pessimist, happy Hanukkah.

        • Re:show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Informative)

          by ppanon ( 16583 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @11:13PM (#22148698) Homepage Journal
          The unaccountable segments of the EU, the EU commissioners, are the ones that keep putting forward the motions to "harmonize' copyrights with the USA entertainment lobbies' demands. The accountable MPs are the ones who, so far, have been shooting the law proposals down.

          Up until now, the xIAA thought to save money by just lobbying the commission. I expect that during the next EU parliamentary elections, the entertainment lobbies will try to shift the power balance in the elected parliament to get their way. It remains to be seen if they will succeed.

          The local European movie industries aren't as interested in DMCA restrictions: the DMCA is about controlling distribution and the MPAA member corporations' grip on US and European theatre and distribution channels has smothered local production in many countries. The MPAA don't do enough European filming to have the associated fiscal/employment clout they do in North America. Let's face it, the US Dollar doesn't go as far as it used to either, so that's not going to help either situation. The music business has similar issues outside of England.

          Because there isn't as much justifiable financial European interest in copyright changes as there is in the US, MPs who support those changes will be vulnerable to charges of corruption by US interests. The US is currently perceived quite disfavourably by many in Europe, so that's likely to limit change for quite a few years even if a Democrat gets elected President and starts undoing the damage done by the Bush Administration to the USA's overseas reputation.

          On the other hand, there's always hope that, before the European political landscape can shift, the financial clout of the RIAA and MPAA will be much diminished.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by init100 ( 915886 )

            The unaccountable segments of the EU, the EU commissioners, are the ones that keep putting forward the motions to "harmonize' copyrights with the USA entertainment lobbies' demands.

            I agree, although the commission also does a few good things. After all, they are the ones usually involved in complaints about Microsoft abusing its monopoly powers.

  • As a US citizen I find our government lacking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Whuffo ( 1043790 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:21PM (#22147646) Homepage Journal
    I've contacted my representatives regarding the attempts by the media companies to make their continued existence and profitability a legal requirement. The responses I've received are less than useless.

    The worst response reward goes to Barbara Boxer. When I contacted her regarding proposed legislation that was intended to further erode fair use and hand more of the public rights to the media companies I got a form letter in reply. That form letter thanked me for my letter and let me know that Barbara Boxer was listening and fully intended to support the legislation that I was writing about (and against).

    I don't expect any representative to do what I wish - but it would be nice if they took a few moments to actually READ and maybe THINK a little about what the people they supposedly represent are thinking. Ms. Boxer has clearly identified herself as being on the side of further abuses by the media companies - I don't know about other "representatives" but this one clearly does NOT represent the people who elected her.

    • Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mr_matticus ( 928346 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @10:04PM (#22148124)
      Really. Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for? Seriously, I want to know.

      If you think that you put people in office to do what you would do, then you're sorely missing the point of a republic. They're in place because we (theoretically) value their (hypothetical) decisionmaking abilities and they best reflect the () values of those electing said representative. We send people to Washington as trustees, not as mouthpieces, because the people rarely speak with one voice and the Framers were deathly afraid of the masses.

      If you don't like the values of the representative, get a different representative. Don't whine about media control or interest groups or the "myth of two different parties"--if the people wanted something else, they'd have it. The fact that they don't generally give a crap is just part of the reality of our society, and in true democratic fashion, they get an equal voice for their apathy, pound for pound.
      • 37 million constituents. Hundreds of thousands of letters. You do the math.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by webmaster404 ( 1148909 )
        Next time I see a senator wanting copyright reform I will be sure to vote for them. However almost none will state their stance on the issue. Writing to them doesn't ever seem to get a clear answer and most are swayed by what the **AA says. So far no congressman has really ever been a solid freedom supporter.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by tknn ( 675865 )
          If they said it, the media would crucify them, being interested parties. So they don't dare say it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mr_matticus ( 928346 )
          You're still missing the point.

          The only representative that shares your policy positions on all the issues is yourself. The chances of finding an "ideal" candidate are slim to none. Candidates will seek the broadest base of support they can find, both to maximize fundraising and to seek an electoral mandate. As a result, the issues candidates take positions on are the ones most important to the electorate mixed with those most important to the nation (insert your own conspiracy theory about what guides g

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Wylfing ( 144940 )

          I don't know about that. This is a hair off-topic, but I contacted my Senator (Herb Kohl) regarding the telecom immunity and he responded promptly, politely, and on-point. He told me he also did not think the telecoms needed immunity (i.e., they've said they did no wrong, so clearly they need no immunity from not doing wrong).

          My point is that it does influence your representatives if you call their office and/or mail them. You won't talk to El Jefe, but you will talk to someone who will help shape El Jefe'

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Lost Engineer ( 459920 )

        Which one of the 670,000 people she represents is she supposed to dance for?
        Apparently the one who's funding her next campaign. I mean all of 5 people must have contacted her supporting forever-copyright.

        Moreover, having a lot of constituents does not justify sending them form letters. Ignore them quietly if you wish, but sending them a load of propaganda only works on... the kind of people that voted her into office. Ok, point made, but it's still insulting.

    • For anybody who has been living under a rock, there is a US presidential election underway. There may be no better opportunity to bring these things to the forefront and make the candidates publicly show their hand as to where they stand on these issues. We have to know who is isn't owned by the copyright cartels. Given her husband signed the DMCA into law, I wouldn't put much faith in Hillary. (And don't say he had to - the president has something called a VETO which can be overridden, but requires a l
  • When it comes to (gagh) "intellectual property" our Congress is either on the take, or just doesn't care.

  • Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:24PM (#22147684) Homepage Journal
    Stopping the already insane copyright system from becoming more insane is a good thing, but it is not the same as actually trying to make it less insane.

    1. The copyright must be registered
    2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
    3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
    4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
    5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
    6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.
    7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.
    8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.

    And that's about the bare minimum needed to make copyright fit for the intended purpose of encouraging the science and the useful arts. It still doesn't make copyright just but it would at least make it something people would be willing to respect.

    • Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rakishi ( 759894 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:32PM (#22147764)
      Congratulation you just killed open source.

      • Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:57PM (#22148040)

        If you think any of that kills open source, then I suspect you are confusing open source with copyleft. Even if you abolished copyright altogether, open source software would remain. It is copyleft licenses like the GPL that depend upon copyright to operate.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rakishi ( 759894 )
          I realize the difference and I should have said something else, I need more sleep so sorry.
          Also even the BSD takes advantage of copyrights for both keeping the original authors listed and removing liability. People don't often make their work public domain or with truly no strings attached. It would kill what people nowadays consider to be open source software in most regards and not replace it with anything equivalent.
      • GPL uses copyright law to give it teeth. BSD is effectively anti-copyright and would survive fine without any copyright law.
      • If some old GPL'ed code falls into the public domain, is that really that bad? It won't affect code that is still currently GPL'ed, and why not let anyone (even "greedy" corporations) use the old code? If someone wrote something a decade ago, and then dies tomorrow, is there any harm in releasing that old code to the entire population? Isn't that the point of copyright? That the entire population gets to benefit after a while?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Rakishi ( 759894 )
          No you're missing the point. The GP wants it so that every single time you want to release ANY code (no matter how small in size) as GPL you would need to pay ~$50 to the government and fill out a copyright registration form. Note that this form needs to currently be sent in physically with a print out of the source code (of up to 50 pages). That's not even counting whatever hell would happen if you tried to register additions to an existing GPL work by another author. Can't be anonymous either so everyone

    • Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ajehals ( 947354 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:42PM (#22147884) Journal
      I wontget into a lengthy discussion of your points, mainly because I generally agree with the direction (if not the specifics). However there is one glaring problem:

      3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
      Firstly I don't think that copyright should be about terms of life + X years, it should be about a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more), but short enough that material is still culturally relevant when it becomes public domain (IMHO this would be far shorter for software due to the pace of change, especially when compared to other arts, probably longest for books as they seem to endure). It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection :) .

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )

        a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more),

        And therefore, by your own justification for the duration of the term, it should expire when the person dies - or, for that matter becomes unable to produce more works of the same type, by say:

        1. they lose their mind
        2. are imprisoned
        3. go missing

        or even, that they are so damn rich that a profit motive is unlikely to be effective anymore.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ajehals ( 947354 )
          No, quite simply a 5 - 10 - 15 year term would be just that, if the creator dies the copyright stands, any royalties could be paid to the heirs or a foundation for promoting whatever arts were being produced by the creator, or they could go to a charity nominated at the time the copyright was registered, hell for all I care they could be used to fund copyright enforcement, the point at which something becomes or ceases to be culturally significant will not be impacted significantly by the creators death (al

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by QuantumG ( 50515 )
            Why? What's the point? I think the point is to promote the sciences and the useful arts. That's what a lot of people think. How does collecting royalties for heirs or some foundation encourage a dead person to make more works? It can't. Does it promote the sciences and useful arts in some other way? How exactly?
            • The idea is that it discourages a large corporation from having a small author whacked so that the author's work becomes public domain (and therefore exploitable).

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by QuantumG ( 50515 )
                Don't we have some laws already to prevent that? I think they start with 'm'.

                Idiot.

                • Don't we have some laws already to prevent that? I think they start with 'm'.
                  No, we have laws that punish that behavior. Big difference. If it truly prevented it, nobody would ever be murdered.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by grumbel ( 592662 )

              Does it promote the sciences and useful arts in some other way? How exactly?
              Most people care about their family and if they know that all their work will do nothing do help their family after their death, they simply might stop what they are doing and getting a normal job instead with a more regular pay check. It of course also wouldn't exactly encourage the heirs to publish anything that the author didn't publish before his death, when they couldn't make money with it.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by QuantumG ( 50515 )
                How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die? Did you even think about that before you wrote it?

                Here, I'll make your argument for you: if working on science and the arts will most likely result in a revenue stream for your heirs then people who care greatly for their heirs future riches will stop working 'normal jobs' and take up working on science and the arts, therefore promoting it, which is the goal of copyright.

                To which I have to ask, will the number of people switc

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by grumbel ( 592662 )

                  How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die?

                  The point here is that the author or his family gets money for the work that was done. A normal job gives you a regular pay check each month, if you die, your heir will get what is left. Writing a book on the other side might not give you a penny until after it is finished and published, if you die before that, your family would never get to see any money from that work, all the work would become worthless.

                  And also lets not forget that death isn't always random, some people are old, some are ill and some o

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by QuantumG ( 50515 )
                    There are already solutions to this "problem". They're called "advances" and frankly, this is clutching at straws.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by OECD ( 639690 )

        It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection :) .

        Plus it just complicates figuring out if the content is in or out of the public domain. You have to determine if the creator is still alive, after all. Dates are much more reliable.

        Also, if there must be additional registration periods (bad idea, see above) the fee should increase exponentially each time, to discourage sq

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by trawg ( 308495 )
        .. that said, encouraging such a system would be the effective equivalent of putting out a bounty on the RIAA and MPAA

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mouko ( 1187491 )

      3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
      Yeah? What about Tupac?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        What about him? You and Rakishi should get together and have some training on making an argument.

    • As much as I agree with the fact that current copyright-laws are too restrictive and ridiculously long, the fact is that we do not live forever and achieve immortality through our children. If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death.

      One thing I believe about the law is that is should follow nature, and it is natural to extend copyright beyond a lifetime (though not necessarily longer than a few generations (ca. 30 yea
      • This might change once I have kids, but I'd rather my children to become wealthy or not based on their own merits, instead of being spoiled with wealth that I've earned. I'm serious--aside from the costs of raising them properly and sending them to college, my kids ain't getting shit from me. Any money that's left over after I die is gonna go towards the Phil Welch Memorial Library, in memory of my dedication to learning, naming things after myself, and meritocracy. If I die before they're properly raised a

      • Re:You obviously have no children (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TheDugong ( 701481 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @10:54PM (#22148528)
        "If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death."
        Then, like most people, you can invest some of the money you make during your lifetime, from copyrighted works or otherwise, and leave that as part of your estate. Life insurance helps as well.

      • If I create a copyright, I sure as hell want my children to at least be able to profit from it, even if I suffer an untimely death.
        Why should this not also be the case for patents, which currently expire 20 years after filing, with no consideration given to the life of the inventor? If you want life insurance, buy life insurance, possibly with the royalties you derive from an invention under a 20-year patent or from a work under a copyright with a fixed term after publication.

    • 6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.

      I see problems with this. First, a multi-platinum artist would get paid the same for a limited number of plays as some artist that never went gold. OK, maybe you think that's a good idea. The second part takes away control from the artist. Their song could be used to promote Nazism (everyone hates Nazis) and legally they have no recourse. You could sabotag

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        These are exactly the reasons why I suggested it, yes. Giving "recording artists" control over how society can use their works is just retarded.. it's like giving the presidency to an imbecile or something. Oh, I see.

    • So as long as you don't claim a copyright, someone else can take your work that you've not claimed as yours - those that can afford to become copyright holders - and copyright what is essentially your work? And then make money off it?

      I'm not sure what the objection to implicit copyright is in the first place. Perhaps it's to stop people from being able to sign their copyrights over to holders (like a movie studio), but that kills the concept of work-for-hire. Most Hollywood writers don't work-for-hire anyw
    • You're probably going to have to make sure that the CEO's 1-year-old daughter isn't named as the copyright holder for everything.

    • Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SQL Error ( 16383 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @10:44PM (#22148442)

      1. The copyright must be registered
      At present, every blog post, every comment on Slashdot, every image I use in my site design, receives copyright protection automatically. You've just destroyed that. Oh, and Creative Commons with it.

      2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
      Just destroyed any right to privacy.

      3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
      So if I work hard building - let's say - boats, and one day I drop dead of a heart attack, my children inherit the boats and can sell them. But if I work hard designing boats, my kids starve?

      4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
      Since copyright is currently extended to millions of creations every single day, this is completely untenable.

      5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
      And this too.

      6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.
      And let's do the same for cars! Okay, Ferrari, Rolls Royce, Mercedes: All your cars now cost $20,000.

      7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.
      Levied by whom, and payable to whom? Currently, copyright infringement is in miost cases a civil matter, requiring the rights holder to bring suit. If you are legislating penalties, are you saying that this is now a criminal offense? Who will police it, and how?

      8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.
      I'm not sure what "indoctrinated fair use" is even supposed to mean.

      As far as I can see, your proposal is worse than the status quo in every way imaginable.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by zoltamatron ( 841204 )
        Yeah....I don't know why everyone on this thread is so concerned with the length and registration of copyright. That's not the problem. The problem comes from the transferral of copyright to corporations who then exploit the creators and give them nothing in return. If it wasn't legal to sign away all your rights to a creation then it would vastly change the creative landscape. You might say "Well, people shouldn't be so stupid to sign away all their rights" but when your only options from the companies

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by oojimaflib ( 1077261 )

        1. The copyright must be registered

        At present, every blog post, every comment on Slashdot, every image I use in my site design, receives copyright protection automatically. You've just destroyed that. Oh, and Creative Commons with it.

        And made the public domain a much larger space, thereby removing the problem that CC was supposed to solve.

        2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)

        Just destroyed any right to privacy.

        I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if someone wants to make money from, say, a copyright, they should be identifiable (or have an identifiable agent) as the author of that work.

        3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

        So if I work hard building - let's say - boats, and one day I drop dead of a heart attack, my children inherit the boats and can sell them. But if I work hard designing boats, my kids starve?

        No. Because you worked hard designing boats, you earned money which you can now pass on to your children. Equally, the boat-builder earned boats which he can pass on to his children. Whether you invest in boats or

      • You response to point 1, 4 and 5 just shows a different opinion. You think it is good that millions of trivial "works" are removed from the public domain every day. The GP (and I disagree).

        Point 2 demonstrates a frighteningly narrow view of privacy. The "right" of a worker in a big corporation not to get credit for his work is equated with "all of privacy". Scary stuff.

        Point 3 is fairy tale, both the person who build boats, and the person who design boats for a living, sell the boats/designs. There is

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumbel ( 592662 )
      Your reform would be great in giving the small guy nothing (most of his work would fall into public domain since he fails to register) and the big cooperations even more control (registration don't bother them, since their legal department handles them). So, very bad idea.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rtb61 ( 674572 )
      Don't forget just one more

      9. The work to be copyrighted must actually further the arts and the sciences as per the constitution.

      Now that one really does scare the crap out of the pigopolists. Don't play nice and we will get the christian right to decide what work should have the protection of copyright and what work should not have any protection at all.

    • 3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

      This, ironically, makes it more difficult for a living artist to receive compensation for his work. For one thing, it reduces the utility to anyone he might transfer the copyright to in exchange for a bunch of money right now. Which many artists might like to do that have few resources and no desire to market their work themselves.

      Not to mention that as artists age,

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by QuantumG ( 50515 )
        If this really is a problem then it would be tolerable to not cease registered copyright terms when the creator of the work dies.. but seeing as we have fixed terms under this new system, and these terms are reasonable then "waiting them out" is still the strategy most publishers and distributors will take if the timeliness of the work is not relevant.

        BTW - why do you continue to use terms like "artist" when we're talking about copyright? Copyright covers a hell of a lot more works than those created by so
        • Artists, because they create works of wordcraft, imagery, sound, and cinema. As opposed to inventors and engineers, who create useful devices. And who, you'll note, are attributed less of the spoils of their work under the current system. Or scientists, who not only don't get residuals or royalties, but actually have to pay for the privilege of publication.

          It seems that those who contribute the most to society are afforded the fewest benefits under the 'promote the useful arts and sciences' clause.

          Still,
    • Amusingly, US copyright law used to be much closer to your suggestions, but it was changed in order to make it fit better with Europe, so the US could join the Berne Convention. We used to have registration requirements, and a fixed term with one renewal available only to the author.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
      3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

      However, while I broadly agree with your other proposals, this one has some problems. For instance, an elderly, or ill, author, or one involved in dangerous sports like mountain climbing, would have a hard time finding a publisher, as they would be afraid that their investment in advances and publishing costs would not have time to pay off before the copyright went

    • 3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)

      Do you hear that? It's the sound of hired goons stroking their weapons. What creative person in their right mind would want to provide a motive for their own murder? BTW, I didn't write any of this. I left my laptop for a few minutes in the coffee shop and some homeless guy came up and used it.

  • This past November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking in earnest at Europe's cultural products and heritage as an engine for economic growth.

    I came acrossthis video [google.com] the other day. It talks about the economics of culture. I found it thought provoking and figure it will add to the discussion.

    Disclaimer: the lecturer is an Austrian School follower and the talk was held by the von Mises Insitution, so most people, including myself, will disagree wi

  • Good news (Score:3, Informative)

    by Husgaard ( 858362 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @09:50PM (#22147966)

    Although this is far from as important as a vote on a EU directive, I think this is good news.

    Unfortunately there is no information on exactly which amendments were rejected. In particular I was worried about amendment 80 (which TFA implies is rejected), amendment 82 (extension of protection time for related rights), and amendments 81 and 83 that looks like a requirement that educational institutions should proliferate the propaganda of MAFIAA.

    As for the extension of copyright protection time: This is the same in Europe as in the USA. But in the EU the protection of recording artists and whoever makes the recording is limited to 50 years. There has been big pressure in particular in the UK to extend this, but this has been rejected as not being helpful to cultural development. I am glad that this first attempt by the copyright lobby to force EU member countries to adopt legislation they do not want has failed.

    Oh, BTW here is a link [europa.eu] to the prosed amendments voted on tuesday.

  • Politicians in the USA are not stupid, just uneducated and inexperienced.

    EU politicians serve the national interest, US politicians serve private interest.

    The public/citizens hope that the national/private interest will provide some trickle-down benefits.

    So, US citizens get neither national/personal security, nor economic/infrastructure stability.

    Dogma4US is a sacrificial religious cult, much like Catholic ...to... Islamic clergy death goDma.

    As long as you (citizen) suffer/sacrifice and not me (politician/plutocrat) ... it is not a problem for US.
    • I think there's been a fairly significant number of exceptions.
    • Politicians in the USA are not stupid, just uneducated and inexperienced.

      The US politicians are incredibly smart. They work in an incredibly complex ever changing system in a melting pot of a country to get elected in a crazy election system, and make and pass incredibly complex and sophisticated laws.

      The problem with the american system is not their intelligence, it's morals and their motivation. They write laws for the corporation, not for the people. They haven't written a real law for the people in a

  • technical problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RichMan ( 8097 ) on Tuesday January 22, 2008 @11:00PM (#22148592)
    I still don't see how ISP filtering for copyright information would work at a technical level. Every piece of data transmitted would have to be collected, reassembled, and compared against a huge data base then cross referenced against a valid supplier list. The required computing power at all network nodes is just laughable.

  • tagging (Score:4, Funny)

    by gaderael ( 1081429 ) <gaderael@NoSPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 23, 2008 @02:17AM (#22150022)
    tagsalmostaslongassummary

  • IIRC, the standard excuse for life+70 was that it was the Berne convention. The phrase "harmonization with Europe" was used to defend it. So what's all this about the US being the one driving life+70? Yes, it was Bono, Valenti et. al., who drove it; but life+70 wasn't their original creation, was it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close