Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Music The Internet Entertainment Your Rights Online

Brazil Considering Legalizing File Sharing 233

Posted by timothy
from the great-buffet-now-free dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Brazil may be the country to watch if you're interested in much more consumer-friendly copyright laws (assuming US diplomatic pressure doesn't interfere). As that country goes through a copyright reform process, among the proposals is one that would create fines not just for infringing, but also for hindering fair use and the public domain. Also, there is a big push underway, with widespread support — even from some artists groups — to legalize file sharing in exchange for a small levy (~$1.74/month) on your broadband connection. Of course, one reason why Brazil may be doing it this way is because of the massive success the Brazilian musical genre technobrega has had by embracing file sharing as a way to promote new works, and making money (often lots of it) through other avenues, like live shows."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Brazil Considering Legalizing File Sharing

Comments Filter:
  • I'd gladly pay a buck seventy-five if it would keep the legals off my back. Just like up here in Canada where we pay extra for CDs and they leave us alone; I'd rather not have to pay at all - seems like extortion - but it's a fair compromise.
    • Sometimes a levy breaks.

      • +1 funny
        another funny thing is, the original version of When The Levee Breaks (Kansas Joe McCoy) is the only Free song I have in my music collection (maybe the 1971 Zeppelin rework should be public domain by now, but a 1929 blues song definitely should be.)

        * I have some songs from artists that speak favorably of torrents (as well as those who speak unfavorably; the music is alright still), but this is the only track that's PD or CC.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Lemmy Caution (8378)

      What is a little weird about this model is that it ultimately creates a quasi-governmental funding basis for the arts: everyone pays a flat fee that gives them unfettered access to all the world's music (film, etc.) - then, who decides how that money is allocated?

      • Nobody? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Cyberax (705495)
        Why not use objective standards, like number of 'registered downloads' or randomized popularity polls?
        • by tsm_sf (545316)
          That's not gonna keep justin beiber's handler in cocaine, now, is it?
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Because it is sooooooo easy to game that system. We'd finally have a good economic incentive for botnets.

      • What is a little weird about this model is that it ultimately creates a quasi-governmental funding basis for the arts: everyone pays a flat fee that gives them unfettered access to all the world's music (film, etc.) - then, who decides how that money is allocated?

        Yes, that's the problem with that solution. It can be shown by the mathematical economists that for goods with certain attributes, a free market is an optimal way to determine how those goods should be produced and distributed. Unfortunately, goods like music lack the necessary attributes, leading to what economists call a "market failure" when you try to use a free market to handle music.

        There are two known viable solutions to this kind of market failure. One is to artificially, by force of law, imbue thin

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by beakerMeep (716990)
      What about artists though? I'd gladly pay money if it actually went to artists.

      Paying companies who may or may not represent the artists I listen to, and may or may not have a oppressive contract with the artists I listen to, seems like a perfect example of rent seeking. IMO, it is extortion. Especially since you are paying it to avoid legal hassle. Maybe we should all incorporate as Music Labels and get a slice of the pie.

      Really though, it comes down to ease of use and lack of DRM -- aka provi
    • Fair compromise? Why in the hell should I be taxed $21/year because you are too cheap to buy music? What if I don't buy/share music on the internet? Why do I have to subsidize you?

  • by billybob2001 (234675) on Friday September 03, 2010 @06:06PM (#33470906)

    This is information retrieval not information dispersal

  • Gee, what a concept (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phrogman (80473) on Friday September 03, 2010 @06:11PM (#33470942) Homepage

    Musicians making money from performing music to live audiences. You know, the way they did for thousands of years (figuratively speaking).

    Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.

    I don't download music at all. I also don't buy it. I barely ever listen to it outside of occasionally turning on a rock station in the car. I don't miss it much either.

    Honestly, since there is no way they are ever going to stop filesharing, its not a bad idea to legalize it IMHO. Its like legalizing marijuana. It wouldn't hurt anyone if they did that in my opinion, but it would let the government tax the sales. Perhaps thats a solution? Let the government tax your time on a P2P network? Nah

    • Is that not everything works like music. Video games would be a good example. Once you have the game, well that's what you wanted. There isn't a "live show" to go see or anything. The whole point is having a game to play. If you declare it legal to just copy games, that'll really hurt sales. Any way I can think of to deal with that just leads to decreased game quality:

      1) Make it legal to share single player but require payment for multi-player. Ok well that'll just kill off single player games, which is wha

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by airfoobar (1853132)

        Create the first few missions and release them. Tell people that if they like what they see, they should pay/donate to you to create more.

        Isn't that much better? We pay artists to create, not to make copies

        • A donation bar for every studio with the option to put it towards a specific game (i want a starcon sequel!). Then they build a game around the budget that they are given (by extrapolating from the first few weeks' donations).

          There are some problems that definitely need to be worked out but it might be a viable option for some groups. Though I must say that it might make starting up even more difficult.
        • A large part of the problem is that for a lot of cool games, it takes a large team working on it. It isn't a guy, it is 20 or 50 or 100 people working together. This means it costs a good deal to do. Also the costs of getting everything together and making part of a game can be a very large part of the cost. So unless you want all games to go down to mid to low end indy quality, that isn't happening. Not saying there's anything wrong with those too, but I like bigger, more polished games as well.

          Then there'

          • Well, my suggestion was:
            1) They create a few missions, release them.
            2) You play them, like them. Donate to create more.
            3) They create a few more missions.
            4) Goto 2

            So, you do get to play before you buy. Also, I don't see why more polished games shouldn't be possible with this system -- the best products will draw more attention and will get more donations.

            Note that what I am suggesting is not "pay what you want". That's an entirely different business model, which is a crap shoot imho. When I say "donate"

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by notknown86 (1190215)
        You make it sound like quality is directly proportional to cost.

        It is not, which is why 90% of commercial movies, bands, software, etc in the mainstream suck so bad.

        To your video game example. How about interlaced advertising as a model? Works for TV.

        My argument against copyright laws is this: if they disappeared overnight, movies would still be shot; musicians would still make music; software would still be written by programmers; and yes, video games would still be created. Because all of these t
        • You know I hear that, but I don't see it. Seems like there aren't a whole lot of game companies willing to work for free. The free games out there are few and far between, and by and large quite pathetic. Everyone seems to assume that people will just create for free forgetting that people also have to eat, pay rent, those kind of things. Plus it is not feasible except extremely rarely to complete a large work by themselves. Takes too much time, too many skill sets. Well when there's no money, no company, t

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        #3 is already what we have. Buy any game for PS3 or 360, toss in it and see how many patches they need. This is for consoles that normally have less patches than the PC versions.

    • by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworldNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday September 03, 2010 @06:40PM (#33471144) Homepage
      Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.

      In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.
      • Are you paying your musicians to perform on stage, or are you paying them so they can keep composing? When an artist you like asks for donations to record his next album, you have a choice: either pay or not pay. If you don't pay, the album won't be created in the first place. The idea is that musicians need to learn to interact with their audience and make them want to give them money, not demand payment from their ivory tower.
      • by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday September 03, 2010 @08:02PM (#33471754)

        Yet, that music would still be played. I make beer, cider, wine, paint and produce lots of other stuff that no one pays me to make. I give most of it away as I could never use it all. I still even have a day job. We would be far better off with more people creating art/music/culture and them making less money at it. You might still have a few big stars, but not everything is done for love of money.

      • by pitchpipe (708843) on Friday September 03, 2010 @08:05PM (#33471774)

        Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.

        In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.

        Yep. Sounds like he's saying that if your music isn't that popular and the musicians can't make a living at it, maybe they should just play anyway because they love it. Music, for many of us, is a hobby - a passion.

      • because as soon as tv came along, all of my favorite radio dramas went off the air

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_drama [wikipedia.org]

        so television obviously means the death of creativity. plus, i want to hold all of technological change hostage because my favorite media is not working the way it worked before new media came along

        you are forcing my favorite form of artistic expression to die, just because you want to watch tv. that is so unfair of you, why should i be out of luck just because your new media came along

      • In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.

        You're twisting the OP's words. He/she didn't say musicians (of this or that kind) shouldn't make a living, or that fans of this or that music shouldn't be able to access it: in fact, the gist of what the OP is saying is that one should be able to listen to any music, for free, as long as it's a recording. Hence nobody is "out of luck".

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by wvmarle (1070040)

        My music money is to go to artists that I like. Plain and simple. That are the artists that I want to continue playing.

        Yes that's egoistic. But I couldn't care less if Britney Spears ran out of money and stopped producing music.

        However my taste is not everyone else's taste. Other people may want to support other artists, which is also fine with me. There are a lot of other people who do like Britney and are happy to support them with their money.

        Nothing wrong with that either.

        And in the end we have a hu

    • While I do hold your point of view, one could also argue that for thousands of years there was no way *to* enjoy someone's works *except* Live. You had to go to a live performance to hear someone's work. While now, you can enjoy their work at home, in the car, wherever...and in fact, a very small portion actually go to watch it live.

      I am in agreement though. I think they should view recordings as advertisement for gigs really. Make money off commercial licensing royalties and performances.

      Not even because o

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Knuckles (8964)

      Musicians making money from performing music to live audiences. You know, the way they did for thousands of years (figuratively speaking).

      Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.

      It was also an artistically very liberating concept. It allowed musicians to create music that is not meant to be reproduced in front of and by live audiences., or which cannot be. It freed music of some of its functional restraints. In this way, it increased the range of the arts and contributed to an extension of our view of the world and the way we experience it. Much of the "serious" music of the 20th century belongs into this category, but also large parts of contemporary electronica.

      At the same time,

  • by loufoque (1400831) on Friday September 03, 2010 @06:12PM (#33470944)

    Please don't confuse file sharing with illegal distribution of copyrighted material on peer-to-peer networks.

    • by Andorin (1624303) on Friday September 03, 2010 @06:24PM (#33471044)

      The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DesScorp (410532)

        The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.

        You can make the argument that piracy is too harsh a word for individual copyright infringment, but you could also make the argument that "file sharing" in the context of infringement is basically a way of legitimizing something illegal... a kind of PR. Calling it file sharing is a bit like calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers". It's a kind of spin.

      • The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.

        What are you talking about? The OP is 100% correct. The protocols (as you label them) are not used for copyright infringement. They are used to share files! I cannot believe that your message is modded informative. Your post is not informative, it's myopic. Next you'll be telling me that the primary purpose of hammers is to knock people's brains out. Which I am tempted to use my hammer on you for this purpose, but that's another story...

        • by Andorin (1624303)

          The protocols (as you label them) are not used for copyright infringement. They are used to share files!

          Fine. I left out a "usually" in my post. As in, what the protocols are usually used for. Cut back on the flamebait a bit.

  • I suddenly feel very Brazilian right now. I wonder if they need Chemists in Brazil...
  • levy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bigdavex (155746) on Friday September 03, 2010 @08:58PM (#33472098)

    Also, there is a big push underway, with widespread support -- even from some artists groups -- to legalize file sharing in exchange for a small levy (~$1.74/month) on your broadband connection.

    Fuck that. I don't infringe copyright. Don't steal my money. No new, undiscovered band is going to see this money. It's no different than taking money from the subscribers and giving it to Microsoft, because someone might download MS Office.

  • This is the country my brother just moved to... and he had to ditch all his LEGAL DVDs because they were the wrong country code, and would be illegal there.

  • by mykos (1627575) on Friday September 03, 2010 @09:30PM (#33472270)
    It's sad that the word "diplomacy" was once associated with peace and understanding. In this country, it's synonymous with bullying and threats.
  • by devent (1627873) on Friday September 03, 2010 @09:40PM (#33472304) Homepage

    Was copyright invented by writers and artists, to protect themselves?
    No. Actually, it was invented by publishers, to preserve an information ownership monopoly based on a government censorship policy.
    Do musicians, writers, and artists depend on copyright to earn a living?
    The vast majority of musicians, writers, and artists will never see a dime of copyright royalties in their lives.
    Is copying a copyrighted work the same as stealing it?
    If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle. If I copy your song, now we both have it.
    Would creativity dry up without copyright?
    If there had been no worthwhile or enduring artistic work produced before copyright, this would be a more plausible argument. But the world before modern copyright was hardly a barren cultural desert: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, Li Bo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo...

    Inform yourself on http://questioncopyright.org/faq [questioncopyright.org], as a bonus you can download a free movie Sita Sings the Blues [questioncopyright.org]

  • "assuming US diplomatic pressure doesn't interfere"

    US Diplomatic Pressure - otherwise known as an M1 Abrams Tank.

Are you having fun yet?

Working...