U.S. Copyright Lobby Out of Touch 293
Ontheright writes "The BBC is featuring a story on
how the U.S. copyright lobby is increasingly out of touch with the rest of the world. The article focuses on a recent report designed to highlight the inadequacies of IP protection around the world by arguing for a global expansion of the DMCA and elimination of copyright exceptions. Michael Geist penned the article, which specifically calls out the United States for expecting the world at large to adopt its non-standard standards for copyright law."
Non-Standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's ironic that a country built by entrepreneurs escaping the guild systems is now the central figure in locking down the one product and resource which could be shared at virtually no cost.
Typical of Americans (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Non-Standard? (Score:4, Insightful)
For me, yes, I like getting paid to write software, but if the software is shite or say anti-civil rights I'd just walk. I have only one life to live and I can't afford to spend it doing shite work even if the pay is right.
A lot of people, not just in the states mind you, have wholesale departed from any sense of honour and character, and been attracted to the bright lights of the easy buck. Wear that suit, speak the lingo, lie and hope not to get caught. Apparently the paycheque is all that matters!
With people like this is it any wonder that the monopoly lobby groups are disconnected from reality?
Tom
Not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem arises if the US government, as the article suggests, simply uses this document as a blueprint when passing legislation or when making trade agreements with other countries.
I would again expect the US government to attempt to gouge the best deals for it's own industries in the international community but unlike private companies I would also expect that the US as a democratically controlled country would also take into account more factors than simply their financial bottom line, but if this what the people want then the US is in an excellent position to force there opinions on the rest of the world.
It's clear that what is suggested for other countries is also desired, and presumably being worked towards, in the US its self so I think it is in the interests of the US citizens to stand up and prevent the undiluted dreams of their entertainment industry to be dictated to the rest of the world because once the rest of world falls into line with their dreams then it will be harder for the US citizens to resist these changes being rolled back into their own country.
Ideally the rest of the world needs to stop allowing the US to dictate their commercial policies and decide these things for themselves without being threatened by the US.
Re:Shameless pimping (Score:3, Insightful)
Yay for the free market
Uh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They aren't out of touch, they're out of time.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright doesn't guarantee income to anyone -- after all, your intellectual works could be garbage. But a lot of people think that it does not help to generate income for the artists, since "the big evil record companies take it all". But this is common misconception. How much would the record companies pay the artists if they couldn't own the intellectual property at all?
Remember, artists already have the right not to claim copyright and try to make money without selling the rights to a record company. If you think you can make more money this way, go for it! But light a match before griping about the darkness.
Re:They aren't out of touch, they're out of time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's exactly what I was trying to get across with this post in another article [slashdot.org]. It's not about money per se, it's always been about control. As long as the **AA and the TV media companies have control of the means of distribution, there's an unending supply of disproportionate profit that never goes into the hands of artists, it goes into the hands of the distribution channel.
The Internet provides a way for artists to directly connect to end-users. It gives them the means to find an audience, no matter how niche their work might me.
If people gain control of how they connect with the artists, then who needs the RIAA, MPAA, the TV networks, or radio companies like ClearChannel? Money can flow from consumers to artists directly, completely bypassing all the middlemen, who today make the bulk of the money.
It's like Cisco says in their TV spots: Anyone can be famous. Welcome to the human network.
Re:They aren't out of touch, they're out of time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They would do work for hire, and get payed for the amount of work they did. This would in fact work out better for the large majority of artists.
They would also have to actually do life performances or exhibitions or whatever is proper for their works, and get some income that way.
What this will do is remove some of the lottery aspect of creating art.
Remember, artists already have the right not to claim copyright and try to make money without selling the rights to a record company. If you think you can make more money this way, go for it! But light a match before griping about the darkness.
I happen to create works for which I can claim copyright, and I happen to not assert those rights in the large majority of cases. Where I do assert those rights, it is for a very limited time.
Oh, and I do actually make some money with that as well.
Does it make me rich? definitely not, but then, when averaging the income of artists "within the system", you may find that they earn very little typically. There are some exceptions, which are just that, exceptions.
The only ones typically making quite a bit of money on copyright are distributors, and not those who actually create works of art.
Re:Typical of Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
If I asked you "What's a gallon of water measured in cubic feet" you'd probably have a problem. That's not to say many europeans would draw a blank if you asked them how much a liter of water in cubic decimeters is, but the answer is quite easy. Same with things like a Newton and all other sorts of conversions where you don't end up with some absurdly wierd conversion factors. Yes, you could make just as coherent a system with feet - but you haven't.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
I would also expect that the US as a democratically controlled country would also take into account more factors than simply their financial bottom line
Why does everyone think the U.S. is democratic? We're a multiple-choice oligarchy.
Re:Non-Standard? (Score:5, Insightful)
People of every generation say this. They latch onto the idea of some pristine, moral past that is being corrupted by their sleazy peers, as though we're all headed toward some apocalypse of immorality. Then they get old and a new generation comes, and these same critics reincarnate to repeat themselves.
Re:They aren't out of touch, they're out of time.. (Score:5, Insightful)
2) Most artists are relentlessly and ruthlessly ripped off by large corporations. It's not uncommon to see a wildly popular creation deemed "unprofitable" after "promotional and accounting" expenses are accounted for. Even such stupid thinks as "breakage" from the vinyl area are still applied. Despite this outright fraud, they STILL outright LIE and state lower numbers of sales than they know occured-- they get caught at it all the time.
3) Copyright isn't about a lifelong income stream. It's explicit purpose is to induce artists to create work which will enter the public domain. The original period was 28 years. That's entirely reasonable. The author's life plus 70 years is completely rediculous. "Forever and one day" (Jack Valenti) is the ultimate goal.
4) I guess the "Star Wreck" movie didn't actually get made and I didn't laugh and enjoy it and I didn't spend 4 hours watching it (twice!) instead of consuming purchased products. Oh wait... it did and I did.
5) Entire swaths of music wouldn't exist now if copyright rules in effect now were enforced as they started. Blues for example reuses a lot of common riffs. As a result- the FIRST song would have locked up that sequence of notes and it would have been 100+ years before another song using that riff would be made- so no blues. (You see it in rock & roll now- very stifling).
6) "Happy Birthday" is still copyrighted and will be until 2030. The authors are LONG dead and don't receive a penny. Some corporation owns the "rights" (same thing with a lot of other dead people).
7) Every time micky mouse comes up for public domain they pay a lot of money and get the period extended. For who? Again- the creator is dead.
Re:Wasn't it the other way around? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it's an interesting situation.
I got elected to the Board of Directors of my homeowner's association last Fall, and a few BOD meetings later, I've discovered that such organizations have an interesting problem: Supposedly the employees answer to the Board, but sometimes that relationship ends up getting reversed.
There are very good reasons why this happens. Most Board members cannot afford to spend time monitoring day-to-day activities. They also usually lack knowledge in building maintenance and landscaping that the property manager should have. And last, there's no continuity; there are term limits for board members, so the property manager is required to put things in a historical context. So to some extent, some deference to the property manager's knowledge is essential. However, if it gets to the point where the BOD is unable to hold the Property Manager accountable, something's gone wrong.
And this can happen without a single bribe, without a single dime changing hands; it happens simply because the people in power not only expect someone to be more knowledgable, but also because they naively assume he has the same best interests in benefitting the whole as they do. Worse, once circumstances like these occur, it is very difficult to reverse, as the "expert" is even looked to to recommend replacements for committee members.
Why do I bring this up? It was this line from TFA:
That line right there is what should be throwing up all kinds of red flags if you're a US citizen Not only have our elected representatives assumed that their chosen expert has the interests of the entire country in mind as they do, but they've deferred enough power to the expert to the point where they no longer have any authority on the issue. This may have happened years before anyone currently on the right committee got elected and without a single bribe or "campaign contribution" -- none of that is necessary for this to occur.
What needs to happen is for those committee members involved to get prodded by their constituents: "Hey you, you need to take the reins of this horse instead of letting it munch on the thistle all the time." In order to do that, they need a vision and a direction.
What direction should copyright be going in? Show Congressmen/women how our current IP legislation prevents research into cures for diseases due to fears over patent lawsuits or how the DMCA has been used to prevent publication of academic research. Show them how DRM has failed to have any effect on piracy, and yet how it's been used to force people to buy the same songs twice. And then show them how things ought to be, with you being able to buy music and use it anywhere, with researchers able to publish their results, with drug companies able to work on any medication they deem appropriate without the fear of a lawsuit.
Re:copyright++ = publicdomain-- = creativecommons+ (Score:1, Insightful)
Tell that to someone looking for royalty-free clip-art or sound clips for a new work.
Tell that to people that used old-Napster or old-mp3.com.
Why is there a demand for P2P? Are people hungry to commit sometimes questionably legal acts?
Or is there a natural demand and expectation of freely available information?
Do you look up the current owner of "Happy Birthday" to pay royalties when you sing it?
Or do you just "expect that it is or should be free to use"?
Sure, "most people" don't choose media based on how it is encumbered,..., at first.
But if the FBI came and arrested your cousin for making DJ mixes, or you sister's computer was taken as part of a RIAA raid, or your purchased music files stop working when you try to play different them somehow, or Vista goes into stupid mode when you upgrade your CPU, (or Time-Warner interrupts or concludes your birthday party to demand payment,...),
then you become more aware of media encumberment.
Re:They aren't out of touch, they're out of time.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, it is impossible to prove that something that does not exist would exist under some other conditions. I'll even say that the opposite, the claim that a given copyrighted work would not exist except for copyright, is just as unprovable.
However, consider that Walt Disney built his empire largely upon works (Snow White and Cinderella as the most obvious examples) that were public domain at that time, but under today's more restrictive (and effectively unlimited as long as ex post facto extensions are allowable) copyright laws, these public domain works would not have been available for Disney to create his profitable derivative works.
Re:Wasn't it the other way around? (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it looks to me as if the US has decided that, first having turned into a resource-consumer, then having farmed out its manufacturing, currently farming out its development and even research, it's going to make its economic mark as an IP shark. If you're going to be an IP shark, you've got to be aggressive and go after IP in every way in every place. Unfortunately in that light, my silly comment starts to look disgustingly serious.
Re:They aren't out of touch, they're out of time.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, they're given a choice between two extremes there. The extreme of no protection, or the extreme of copyright law as it exists today. That doesn't really prove much of anything. What if copyrights lasted only 30 years? Would artists still create? History tells us that they would. Would companies be able to own these works forever and prohibit anyone from creating anything new based on those works? No. But I fail to see how that is a bad thing.
Re:They aren't out of touch, they're out of time.. (Score:3, Insightful)