Copyright Issues in the Mainstream 307
dmayle writes "Recently, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled on a momentous topic, the Grokster case (as covered on Slashdot). It turns out, however, it's not just geeks who are taking notice, and we're not the only ones who think things are getting ridiculous. The Economist has a great story on the subject, noting among other things, that if the cost of publishing had come down with the internet, perhaps the amount of protection needed to encourage publishing is less as well." From the article: "Both the entertainment and technology industries have legitimate arguments. Media firms should be able to protect their copyrights. And without any copyright protection of digital content, they may be correct that new high quality content is likely to dry up (along with much of their business). Yet tech and electronics firms are also correct that holding back new technology, merely because it interferes with media firms' established business models, stifles innovation and is an unjustified restraint of commerce."
But.. (Score:1, Interesting)
Insightful article (Score:5, Interesting)
This is perfectly in line with what i've heard from copyright experts and people who _used_ to work for copyright protection groups/organizations.
New Era? (Score:5, Interesting)
Exchanging goods for money is an old and well trusted system. It has worked well for centuries because those doing the selling were generally the only ones who could comfortably produce the product.
However, we are now entering The Information Age. Many businesses no longer sell goods, or services, but rather sets of instructions, plans and ideas. As these are not tangible objects, they are easily reproduced.
Previously it was possible to bind these ideas to tangible objects, thus making them harder to reproduce. Recipes were printed in books. Music was pressed into vinyl. Because of this, businesses could stick to the age old business model, but now that the consumer can also easily reproduce products, cracks are forming in this model.
All well and good, but what's the solution? How can businesses make money on the ideas/information/programs they produced initially? At the moment there seems to be a knee-jerk legal response, but this doesn't seem to me to be a viable solution in the long term (but I am not an economist). One alternative could be to scrap the "sell multiple, low-cost copies" model and go with a "Sell one, high cost copy which will cover expenses and profit". For example, 20th Century Fox makes a new movie costing $100,000,000. They release it to the public for free (and Free) and keep track of how many copies are in circulation. Depending on how popular it is, they are then paid $5,00,000,000, or what ever, by a central organisation. The consumers have to pay this organisation a set amount each year to cover their costs, but are then free to do whatever they want with the movie/music/software.
Will people be happy being forced to fork out a few grand a year for products? They fork it out already voluntarily.
Do people get a say in what's produced? How do we insure the producer is producing a quality product? Through market research and strict auditing of the producers.
A crazy, poorly formed idea, but one which does eliminate the problem sellers we are now facing.
90+ years? We're all dead, except the corporation (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly! In this day and age, most media that is published is *long* forgotten after only a few months. The only reason the conglomorates want this 90+ year protection is so that they can gaurantee that every single person alive when the piece of material was produced will be dead before it can be used somewhere else.
That isn't protecting distribution to make back profit, that's protecting big business to control every facet of their holdings while fucking the public out of what should have been rightfully theirs.
It's really sad that the lawmakers and interpreters are either ignoring this important fact (or color blind -- green).
Eight years is too much, nevermind 28 or 90+!
Re:They've got to feed their families, too. (Score:3, Interesting)
I support Freedom of Information:
1. If I produce an information pattern, it is my right whether to disclose it or not.
2. If I do disclose it, I should have NO right to stop its further dissemination.
So I'd still consider breaking in and taking the copy without permission wrong, but I find any further copyright over information absurd.
The aspect that really grates for me... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, I quite like the idea of sharing mp3s and downloading TV shows, but I realise that the arguments against doing that do have at least some merit. What does annoy me is that it's impossible to get access to a lot of media.
The market for classic video games is small-to non-existant. Occasionally these are relicenced, but mostly people are not making money from these games. The TV Pilot "Global Frequency" would not have been seen by anyone except people downloaded it. This caused complaints from WB. Not for any good reason. They weren't losing any money from it because there was no way to buy a copy, but The WB want to hoard their IP.
Society does better from these when people are breaching copyright. It's better that a show is watched than a show is buried in a vault, but copyright hasn't caught up with this possibility.
This Whole Struggle... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is exactly like the music/movie industry's stance on electronic distribution. For the longest time, they've been opposed to the technology because they felt that it would be detrimental to them (ie. having to fuck the fat balding guy). Then they agreed to let it happen here and there as long as they didn't really have to participate in things that were beyond their control (ie. agreeing to go to the parties, but not really get involved. Retaining control.). The only step the MPAA and RIAA need to take now, is to find out that if they allow some of their music to be released using non DRMed MP3 and other format files on normal P2P networks (eDonkey, Gnutella, etc...) that their sales might go up when people want the rest of the album (ie. finding the one or two cute guys with big scholongs that your wife actually enjoys spending a little time with, but still eschewing the fat balding guys). It'll happen sooner or later or my name isn't secretly Trolling4Dollars!
The trouble with copyright, and a possible solutio (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Artists create in a vacuum. The act of creation is a mystical experience above ordinary humans.
2) Without long copyrights, there would be no incentives for creators to create, leaving us with a dull and lifeless society.
One is at the heart of a lot of publishing group propaganda. Of course, all of us create art. Most of it isn't very good, but we all create, from doodles, to humming, to solid prose and moving music. We are often spurred to create by other art. Art influences art. This doesn't mean just immitations, but also reactions, remixes, rebuttals.
Two is in the head of a lot of artists. At some level, I can't blame them. No one wants their hard work exploited. But I will point out that art was created before copyright legislation. The need to create and share went before the profit. Also, copyright and extensions to copyright have ever been pushed by the publishers, from the Statute of Anne onward. The idea is very mercantilist -- provide a monopoly to encourage production. It isn't terribly modern.
There are modern ways to approach the problem of compensating artists. I think the current roadblock is the publishing industry. They say they serve to both reward good creators and silence bad ones, so as to not choke up the public mide with poor ideas. People are perfectly capable of culling what they like from what they don't, and can use social networking to filter out content they don't want. The internet has made this a solvable problem. As for compensating artists, there are ideas like the Street Busker Protocol, where instead of a publisher, an escrow keeps things honest.
The link I used to have has died, so here's a brief run-down:
For the purpose of this, our artists is a writer, and she has just written a novel. She encrypts the novel and sends it to an escrow. She works out that she wants $200,000 dollars to release the key to the novel so that it can be read. The escrow will take a small cut and will solicit buyers for a set period of time, say 60 days. The writer sets about promoting her new work. She can release teaser chapters, related short stories, go on late night TV, whatever. Meanwhile, the public can offer up contributions online to get the key. The escrow holds all of the money. If, at the end of 60 days, the novel hasn't attracted 200k in contributions, the contributions are returned, and the writer must start again. If the goal is met, the writer is paid as soon as she releases the key.
Re:They've got to feed their families, too. (Score:1, Interesting)
With physical property, if I take it from you, you don't have it anymore.
With information, if I take it from you, now we both have it.
It's a completely different world now, and you need to adapt your conceptual metaphors to suit it.
It's not just movies and dollars, it's lives here (Score:2, Interesting)
I am a lifelong computer programmer and open source author. I have contributed to the Linux kernel. I have also worked at Microsoft for a few months. You can see some of the software I am now writing at
http://complearn.org [complearn.org] which allows you to do advanced data-mining for free.
I am writing this now to address what I consider to be a very serious matter. It is relevant to the moral basis upon which Intellectual Property is founded. As a scientist and programmer, I am a very technical person and tend to get very involved in my own health decisions. It happens that I was born prematurely in 1974, and received a blood transfusion from my mother who was infected with Hepatitis C (HCV). For those that are not aware, this causes a lifelong degenerative liver disease. Both of my parents have already died young due to its effects, and I am HCV+ as well and have been slowly suffering liver degeneration my entire life as a result.
This concerns IP because some years ago I did some research online about my possible treatment options. In the year 2000 the possibilities were "old, normal" interferon or pegylated interferon, taken in both cases in combination with ribavirin. These are chemotherapeutic type drugs, with very harsh side effects, and you must take them for a year in order to have a decent chance of curing yourself of HCV+. The problem is, with my genotype, 1b, the chances of success using the old medicine were only about 30%. The new medicine had about a 60% chance. But the FDA did not approve the new medicine until years after Europe did, for reasons which are not entirely clear, given the solid research findings in its favor. So I flew to Europe, got the new pegylated medicines for about twenty-five thousand dollars of my own carefully saved money, and flew back to USA.
I spent about 3 months treating myself with this medicine that was not yet approved in USA and then checked my viral counts to find great news: I had lowered my viral count to undetectable levels, suggesting that if I just continued with the yearlong course of treatment, I would probably be permanently cured. What great news!
Imagine my dismay, then, when I received a note from the customs office saying they had blocked shipment of the second half of my pegylated interferon + ribavirin. The reason, apparently, was that there was a patent or IP law problem restricting the European branch of the pharmaceutical industry from selling these drugs to Americans, even if I bought them in Europe with my own money for personal use. I figured it would not be a big deal -- I would just explain to the customs officers that this was a life-threatening illness, and they would help me find some way to appeal the block before it was too late.
The big problem is that if you skip your medicine for more than a week or two before the full year, you may as well stop entirely because the virus will almost certainly come back in full force.
So, having explained this to the customs official over the phone, I was shocked to find that it seemed there were no provisions in place to handle the case where an IP restriction is in direct conflict with human life. My life. I am still HCV positive now.
Its now several years later. My parents have since died and my liver has gotten worse. I would enjoy being around to continue to contribute for free (because I love programming) and would enjoy talking more with all of you about many things. But this will not be possible unless we reframe the IP debate in terms of human-centric goals. It should not be the case that a creative scientist and programmer with a lifelong history of giving away his technological creations for free would be denied the resources he needs to satisfy one of the simplest and most basic human needs -- to have his illness treated in the most effective way possible -- because of a mere Intellectual Property dispute. It should not be
Re:Status Quo (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cost of publishing or cost of creation (Score:3, Interesting)
That is obviously true, but what about the mass psychology behind it? Why do people flock to/glom on to entertainment that feature big names? It's certainly usually not for the quality of the performances.
All those "celebrity magazines" in the checkout lines of supermarkets must exist for a reason, the question is whether they actually get bought (I've never seen anyone buying one) or if they're really just loss leader advertising for the star-making factory.
I was going to go see War of the Worlds this weekend with my son (having seen the other versions and listened to the radio play) but now I think I'll wait until it comes out on video. I'll save forty bucks and encourage him to download the broadcast [greatnorthernaudio.com] and rent the older movies rather than supporting Mapother's looney, media-pandering behaviour.
Copyright protection (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyrights don't need to be actively "protected". Protection means preventing destruction, so this is clearly a propaganda word.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Street Performer Protocol (Score:3, Interesting)
For some products (medications, movies, games, music), the cost of the first copy is extremely large relative what any individual would be willing to pay.
Then don't publish the work until you have enough preorders [google.com]. To promote your product, publish freebies. Then amortize the cost of the first copy of the work across all preorders. Besides, you can make money on value-added, hard-to-copy attributes such as good paper in a good binding. Cory Doctorow has taken this approach with his works.
Would those that illegally distribute first-run movies or games be willing to wait 14 years or any number of years to allow content creators to make enough money to pay for the cost of the first copy?
If a work's copyright lasts 14 years, after which the work is available for others to create and publish derivatives [creativecommons.org], you'll see at least a few warez kiddies rejoining the light side [creativecommons.org], taking classic films and classic music and releasing their own reinterpretations on the net.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The trouble with copyright, and a possible solu (Score:2, Interesting)
The simple fact is that few will pay and many will share, and the author/artist will likely not see a return on it.
Thus they'll stop, because they have to eat. And you can eat words, but they won't provide nourishment.
Re:They've got to feed their families, too. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
However, try to consider it from another perspective: The purpose of copyright is to provide an incentive to publish creative work. The means to provide that incentive is protecting that work from being copied for a limited time. From this perspective, the argument falls apart.
When publishing costs are high, creators need a strong economic incentive to overcome the costs risks to publish their work. The protections also need to be strong as the negative impact of each copy is greater. When publishing costs are low, the incentive necessary to convince a creator to publish is less. There is less risk involved in publishing, and less protections are necessary to ensure the creator profits from publishing.
It all comes down to these two incompatible perspectives on the purpose of copyright. Are creative works to be considered individual property, or are creative works to be considered a public good?
Unfortunately, even this distinction becomes muddled when you consider potential economic impact. Public good can be interpreted from an entirely economic perspective. This may, depending on the medium, argue for treating creative work as property. I would personally argue that the public good for creative work should consider only creative work itself, where future creators are free to build upon the work of previous generations. I also happen to believe it is incorrect to assume that guaranteeing greater and longer-term profit to our corporate masters through copyright is actually an economic improvement. Concentration of wealth is not in the public interest.
Re:The trouble with copyright, and a possible solu (Score:3, Interesting)
Certainly a few people at the top of each of their professions have made millions or billions of dollars (i.e. Bill Gates) from strong copyright, but I would argue that the rank and file artist who is trying to be creative and pay the mortgage on their house is generally losing their shirt based on the current system.
Authors have it quite rough, but there are now several alternatives to placing the written word whereever they want to. Earning money from writing is a bit tougher, but it can be done.
Musicians are generally the worst off with the current system. Record lables tend to take just about everything that is made off of a record, and most musicians would be lucky to get a few cents from every CD sold. Quite litterally, if they instead bought their own computer with a CD-R burner and made their own CDs, most new musicians would be money ahead after the first dozen CD sales. I've seen regional bands that do exactly that sort of self-publishing because they don't trust the major labels. Those bands are also much more approachable on a fan level.
As a computer programmer, I certainly hope most of my software doesn't survive the life + 75 current copyright regime. Heck, software I wrote 10 years ago I'm not getting a single penny off of anyway, and neither is the company that I wrote it for. I fail to see the financial incentive for either myself or any company that will employ me to even preserve that copyright rule, and if it went to 14 years it would still be worth while for me to write computer software. It would also mean I could hack an Atari 2600 emulator together and have some fun with some old games that the publishers addresses aren't even known.