100 Years of Copyright Hysteria 280
Nate Anderson pens a fine historical retrospective for Ars Technica: a look at 100 years of Big Content's fearmongering, in their own words. There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?"). There was the photocopier after World War II. There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business. He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler — in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone. Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV. Anderson concludes with a quote from copyright expert William Patry in his book Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars: "I cannot think of a single significant innovation in either the creation or distribution of works of authorship that owes its origins to the copyright industries."
Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten (Score:5, Interesting)
As Elizabeth Cady Stanton said, "To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt."
I think copyright, and IP law in general has a legitimate and defensible purpose. That said, IP policy is essentially made without any regard to facts (you could argue that about a lot of policy, but in IP it's particularly bad). The fact that one can violate copyright law so easily, without intending it, and the fact that so much stuff of so little value is copyrighted, as well as really old stuff, breeds contempt of copyright law altogether.
The legitimacy of copyright law might be salvaged by cutting down the length of terms drastically, or otherwise changing the policy so that it is actually sensible. Barring that, though, as long as some written works from 1924 are still copyrighted, can you really blame people for thinking the whole thing is ridiculous?
Re:The have fought and lost (Score:5, Interesting)
Good thing we have sheetmusictorrent.
Actually it looks like John Philip Sousa's prediction was correct. We Don't sit-around home pianos in our parlors listening to somebody music, but I don't cry about it anymore than I cry that the horsewhip or candlestick makers no longer exist. Some forms of technology are obsolete and have been replaced by better forms, like direct recordings from far-off places.
Re:The have fought and lost (Score:4, Interesting)
Sheet music is possibly the most *highly* guarded copyright work that I've ever had to deal with. It's unbelievable, the licensing behind it.
Ya, but that may be due to the fact that it's so easily reproducible. You can actually copy it with pencil and paper. I remember that days of "unlicensed" fake books. Sure they were a violation of copyright, you couldn't be considered a "real" musician without a few.
Systematic copyright indoctrination (Score:4, Interesting)
I just placed an order for the "Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars" book. I am looking forward to reading it.
I think that we've discussed it before, but there has also been 100 years of systematic indoctrination about copyright in our schools. In grad school I listened to an outside speaker come in and say that the institution of copyright was created to make sure that companies make money. She believed that, too, as that is what "common knowledge" now says copyright is.
The hysteria is very, very deep. Now when you try to explain the Constitutional reasoning behind copyright you only get blank stares and laughs.
What's being ignored (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of those things did significantly change entertainment. Even things like VHS tapes had a major impact on revenues. The studios managed to adapt but the independents took a hit. Now that things started to get better cheap equipment flooded the market with cheap crappy films so they took their hardest hit yet. All of those innovations put together haven't impacted the industries like the internet. With near unlimited bandwidth and an army of people able to crack most any security measures the dam has quite literally broke. People complain about how expensive things are but if you factor in inflation album prices are flat whiles sales numbers drop. Music was overpriced for years but inflation did finally catch up. Movie ticket prices were around $3 in the 70s but you could also buy a nice car for $5,000. A Corvette may have set you back 7K or 8K. The point is some things have gone up far more than entertainment. A bounced check would have run you a $1 back in the 70s where as now it's $35 to $45. A hospital room was around $150, just for the room, now it's $1,500 or more. In many ways entertainment is a bargain. Greed isn't the factor everyone claims it's changing attitudes of consumers. They want more stuff and their incomes have been flat for a decade or more. If you take an iPod you want everyone accepts that as stealing but if you download a movie or song you want hey it's just 1s and 0s. No harm no foul. It's this perception that has changed. Unfortunately content takes money to produce just like iPods so it will affect what's out there. You can have government funding but that means higher taxes and the government decides what you see and listen to. There's the free market but that's what most are rebelling against. Take away the money and you are left with what fans make in their garages. I keep hearing fans can do it better but virtually everything I've seen is poorly written, silly acting and poor production values. Digital effects have improved some of them but a lot of those are pros doing it in their spare time and often with access to studio equipment. If it takes 50K or 100K in equipment how many films will get made when people are doing them in their spare time with a normal day job? As people want more and more expensive toys with their incomes stagnant they will keep cutting corners to buy the toys and the easiest corner they see to cut is downloading rather than buying content. Unfortunately that new iPod may not be as bright and shiny if there's no content to load on it.
Money for nothing and your chicks for free (Score:4, Interesting)
I know this comment (http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1402013&cid=29730503) was an angry troll, but he voices the fear of the copyright industry perfectly just the same.
Copyright is a secondary aspect of art. It is the performance and the original art that people want to see. I can get a copy of a Van Gough at WalMart for $9.99, but the original is priceless. I can download Jethro Tull's entire music collection off the internet for free and I would still pay more than $100 a ticket to go to a concert lasting between 1 and 2 hours. Some movies I will want to see at the theater, others on DVD, others on TV and still others not at all.
The point I'm trying to get at is this -- people who will pay, will pay and it doesn't matter how much or how little protection there is. Should there be some? Yeah -- because there are people out there who will try to make a business out of copying things for sale and that's not fair either. (I speak of REAL pirates... the bootleggers who sell copies as though they were real) But these copyright industrialists have taken things too far. Their industry is based on the creative works of others and have indeed resulted in the suppression and ruination of creative works.
And people will ALWAYS want to create music and perform the arts whether there is much if any money in it at all. It is a natural drive in we humans. These practices weren't initially driven as a for-profit activity. They did it as a form of self expression and as a means of entertaining those around them. It is the greedy copyright industrialists who are trying to bottle up the hearts and souls of the creative and expressive to make money. What's worse is that the greed is a disease that people quite often catch for themselves turning creatives into greedy creatives.
I liken the difference to people who become doctors and nurses. Some do it because they feel they have a need to help people. Some do it because a lot of people in the medical industry live in really big houses and own a lot of things. Unfortunately, it's a lot more difficult to tell the difference between the real doctors and nurses and the ones who are just in it for the money, but I dare you to make an argument for going to a doctor who is in it for the money instead of the one who is in it for the good of humanity.
The only business that is ever threatened by improved technologies are those that need to be left behind. This article puts it out nicely and shows how long this game has been going on. DAT was an excellent technology and really would have been nice but the copyright industrialists pretty much ruined it. HDMI is a nice interface for media playback devices, but it too is a bit buggered in the name of the "money for nothing" industrialists. The average joe on the streets may never fully appreciate the damage and harm caused by the copyright industrialists, but stories like these are important when trying to show it to them and showing how incredibly bad the copyright industrialists are.
The copyright industrialists don't even KNOW they are bad. The greedy don't even know they are greedy. They simply want what they want and will do a great deal to get it. The difference is that they are willing to harm others to get what they want while the average joe is willing to work for his pay. I think when you boil it down to the question of whether or not someone is willing to harm others for profit, that is probably the best way to determine if someone is "bad" or not. (There are tow truck drivers who will respond in an emergency to assist. There are tow truck drivers who are set up to tow the vehicles and hold vehicles for usurious ransom. The difference is pretty clear.)
Copyright is not about innovation (Score:1, Interesting)
By definition, a "copyright industry" would be an industry that produces copyrighted works. Such industries would not necessarily be creating "innovation in either the creation or distribution of works" and to suggest so is disingenuous.
It also leaves out conglomerates, such as Sony, parent of Sony Music, who happens to be responsible for BluRay technology. He also neglects the DVD, which was developed by a consortium of companies including Sony and TimeWarner. Maybe he has never heard of the Sony Music division, but how could he not have heard of TimeWarner?
Is the author of that quote lying or just ignorant? If the former, nothing he says can be considered reliable. If the latter, his opinion is worthless.
Re:The have fought and lost (Score:2, Interesting)
It is enjoyable to listen to the music I like the most, but it is totally passive and selfish. Singing in a group, or beside the woman I loved at the piano, is by far the more cherished experience. If I had to choose, I'd choose the latter. It makes memories, while the former does not.
Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't need movies - it's all mindless drivel. Totally mindless. Hollywood pumps out the sludge by the score, but they can't make more than one movie per year that's actually worth watching. I'm not sure that they can even make that one.
We could do with less music, but music will not die. There will always be little bands playing in bars, weddings, you name it. If people really want music, they'll pay for someone to perform. Meanwhile, millions of people play music just because they love music. We DO_NOT_NEED_THE_LATEST_OVERHYPED_WHINEY_BITCH that some label wants to sell to us. Music will actually improve without the whiney little bitch.
Games? Gimme a break. There are already so many thousands of hours of gaming available. Do we really need more games? If so - well, there is open source. People who really love games, and see a need to create new games can and will get together on the internet, and make what they want.
Ditto with software.
Open source, copyleft, and an OPEN MARKET will ensure that things move forward. Copyright and monopoly will ensure that we struggle to move forward through a maze of restrictive laws that benefit no one - except the people who control the monopolies.
If people like yourself are so worried about the future of the arts, and you are really convinced that the arts cannot survive without copyright, then you had BETTER get busy overhauling the copyright system. People might actually respect a copyright that is rooted in reality, justice, and sensibility. 5 year software, movies, and game copyright, no more than 15 years for books, and we can move forward from there.
The idea that a corporation should be ensured a steady income forever for buying up some copyrights is preposterous. The record labels should have been bankrupted 30 years ago, at least. The movie industry might make a better argument for slightly longer copyrights - but they are out of control.
When an industry no longer SERVES it's customers, they need to die. Period.
Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten (Score:5, Interesting)
There is still "80s" sounding music being created now. In fact, I am listening to my Modern 80s playlist on iTunes now. There are a lot of bands out there today that are doing a very good job of writing songs that would have been right at home in 1983. Music is constantly changing and reinventing itself (although you would never know it from listing to most of the RIAA pablum), so there is alway new and interesting music to discover, even if you are primarily interested in nostalgia, like the music of the 80s.
Summary is ignorant FUD - not copyright related. (Score:1, Interesting)
None of the examples mentioned are related to copyright in the Slashdot sense of the word. There is ZERO support in the examples for doing away with copyright.
"There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ("What of the national throat? Will it not weaken? What of the national chest? Will it not shrink?"). There was the photocopier after World War II. There was the VCR in the 1970s, which a movie lobbyist predicted would result in tidal waves, avalanches, and bleeding and hemorrhaging by the music business. He compared the VCR to the Boston Strangler — in this scenario the US public was a woman home alone. Then home taping of music, digital audio tape, MP3 players, and Napster, each of which was predicted to lay waste to entire industries; and so on up to date with DVRs, HD radio, and HDTV."
With the exception of Napster, that was shut down, and recording media, which in many nations carry a levy paid to the music industry, these are examples of luddites and those who fear new technology - not in any way related to the advantages or disadvantages of copyrights. You cannot read these examples and say "AHA, those are some good examples of why copyright is a bad thing".
The only possible justification for the title "Copyright Hysteria" is that "Some of the companies that have warned against new inventions have also had business models which depends on copyright" - which is a deceitful herring, because by far MOST companies rely in some way on copyrights. This is similar to saying "Copyright Bribes", and pointing to companies that have bribed developing nations WHILE AT THE SAME TIME depended on copyrights for their business model. WTF is up with the editor?
Re:What's being ignored (Score:2, Interesting)
So? (Score:2, Interesting)
> Performing is not "creating music".
Good, so if I would illegally copy music, I only am infringing on the rights of the songwriter, and so only need to pay ASCAP/BMI. Interesting philosophical take on copyright in music, but not connected with the legal reality of our times.
> We're just no longer in the practice of making our own mediocre performances
> at home based off of works that are sufficiently dumbed down.
And for the same reason, I should tell my children not to bother to attempt to do any sports, since their performances will be mediocre compared with professional athletes. And I shouldn't bother to submit my patches for Random_OSS_Project, because they are for sure not as good as they would be if SuperDuperInvolvedProgrammer did them.
Somehow I feel your reaction is a reaction to some bad life experiences. Did some family member try to learn to play bagpipes while you were growing up?
Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point. The original "14 years" was derived by looking at actuarial tables, and determining how long the average artist lives after his creation. In 1790 the average was 13 years, 8 months..... today it would probably be longer..... still it was tied to the original creator's lifespan, not perpetual.
So that means Mickey Mouse, which was created in 1928, should now be public domain.
Re:The have fought and lost (Score:3, Interesting)
If it was up to the **AAs, we would be copying sheet music for our spinets with sharpened quill pens.
No... We wouldn't...
Quill pens would be deemed illegal as a circumvention device under the DMCA.
Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten (Score:1, Interesting)
I like music from the 80's. How about showing your Modern 80s playlist so everyone can see what current bands are out there.
Re:Five or ten years copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
For software, I can see legit reasons to want to keep source under wraps for the duration of the copyright. So how about a compromise? If you want copyright protection, a full copy of the source code must be provided to the Library of Congress to be released after the copyright period expires. Combined with a reasonable copyright term, say, 10 years, this sort of thing should work fine. I still have install media that works for 10 year old OSes and computers that can run them. I agree about music/movies though, DRM should be banned so that the user can migrate the recordings to the latest technology. If you are going to sell the rights to use the works, the user has the right to use it however they want to so long as they don't distribute.
Re:The have fought and lost (Score:1, Interesting)
You have completely missed the point. It didn't replace the piano, it has replaced music culture, replaced singing, it has replaced community. ipods are not a music technology, it is an information distribution technology. Saying that recording technology is music technology is like saying that television is a dance technology because we can watch people dance on tv.
Dancing and watching people dance are totally different things. Copyright, in the name of protecting television, has effectively outlawed dancing and singing. They would outlaw parents reading to their kids to promote Educational television, and sadly I think it is only for difficulty of enforcement and privacy law that protects us, not because people know it is GOOD to read to their children (if there is anyone out there that still does that)
Re:Copyrights are going to be forgotten (Score:3, Interesting)
I would also be interested. So many awesome bands seem to perpetually languish in obscurity.
Re:The have fought and lost (Score:3, Interesting)
Performance and creation were always tied together whenever people got together to perform music. Families would invent new verses for songs, making games out of it.
This tradition was alive in the Boy Scouts when I was a kid. Constant exposure to music is the same as constant exposure to a language - you're going to pick it up and begin to express yourself in it whether you're trying to or not. Having strong roots in performance of other people's music can only encourage creating your own. It won't necessarily be good, but it will be your own.