Copyright Isn't Working, Says EU Technology Chief Neelie Kroes 314
superglaze writes "Against the backdrop of governments and courts around the world ordering ISPs to block file-sharing sites, European commissioner Neelie Kroes has said people have started to see copyright as 'a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward. ... Citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it,' the EU's digital chief said, adding that the copyright system also wasn't rewarding the vast majority of artists."
US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
But lets not forget that back in time, this is how US got its power - they blatantly ignored European copyrights. Now others are doing the same to US, and they're suffering. What goes around.. Comes around.
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You are not part of the solution. The beancounters estimate the profit of entering new markets before a decision to do so gets made. In many cases, it isn't worth it for those companies. Not because they could make a tiny amount of money from you, but because everything else, legal issues, tax issues, capital investments, required company resources, opportunity cost from not doing something else instead, even lower prices through increased competition, etc. Call that the inconvenience factor.
That's the problem with capitalism. It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit. The fact that you have money to spend is irrelevant if the inconvenience factor is too high. There's a sweet spot at any moment in time, and you're not part of it.
Get over it, and do what you have to do, just like they do what they have to do.
Rent-seeking (Score:5, Informative)
Not because they could make a tiny amount of money from you, but because everything else, legal issues, tax issues, capital investments, required company resources, opportunity cost from not doing something else instead, even lower prices through increased competition, etc.Call that the inconvenience factor. That's the problem with capitalism. It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit.
Actually, it's not that they can make less money from certain markets, but rather they can make more in others thanks to rent-seeking [wikipedia.org]
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Physical stores in the USA used to be difficult to buy from too. An international transfer was scary, and filling out a shipping form too hard. That's changed in a big way over the last few years and lots of folks are making money selling things outside the country... you know, exporting... bringing new money into the economy... offsetting debt and stuff...
Hopefully these guys will eventually realise their bean counters estimated wrong and opening their markets to billions of new customers is actually a good idea.
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Not because they could make a tiny amount of money from you, but because everything else, legal issues, tax issues, capital investments, required company resources, opportunity cost from not doing something else instead, even lower prices through increased competition, etc.
Increased competition? Copyright grants an effective monopoly, so please...
Setting up the legal base for global distribution is really something that can easily be done by a simple contract modification. They end up going though those hoops in the end, when they distribute the content to regional broadcasters.
In addition, this has nothing about the possible additional costs of entering a new market vs income, but the idiots at the helm still live with their brains wired to record distribution markets.
PS: And then they cry "Bloody murder!" is I watch my House MD episode off the torrents.
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
The beancounters estimate the profit of entering new markets before a decision to do so gets made. In many cases, it isn't worth it for those companies.
Right, because the beancounters have proven so adept at estimating the size of markets created by new technologies. They created Blue-Ray as streaming shows was becoming the norm. They raised the prices of Macintoshes until they were at the brink of extinction. They refused a simple licensing scheme until their CD sales were at the brink of collapse, only to agree to a manque solution of expensive quality-crippled iTunes. They responded to the digital camera threat with a format that was more expensive than the previous emulsion film.
It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit.
If only that were true. It is about not getting it.
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe the Germans point was that the media companies need to stop thinking about each country as a market and start thinking about the world as a market.
We should all be able to go to single site for a given content producer (I will use Fox media as an example here) and from there be able to open an account and pay to watch a single episode or an entire series. Perhaps run them 1-8 days after the show airs in the land of origin. Being a week behind won't matter since they have not other way to view(legally).
There is only 300M people in the USA and 6.7B other people in the world. That is a 22 fold increase in market that they are pissing on. There is a LOT of money to be made there. There is enough money there for the most expensive Sci-Fi show ever produced to make a profit. Even if you only make the show in English, which a lot of people can understand.
Say you make a show that 5% of a given population might enjoy. In the USA that would be 15M people. If they were willing to pay $1 per show that would be $15M per show. With no commercials, I would pay that for good sci-fi. Now take that show to the World via web only and you get 350M viewers (5% of 7B) or $350M per show. I think you can make a pretty good show for that much money. You could even cut it down to $0.10 a show and be pulling in $35M a show, a single FUCKING show.
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Mexican here, Netflix isn't available for Linux, Hulu is but it isn't available in Mexico. Happy times.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
And there was another guy who bought a Bluray player when he came round to visit just because they pulled the same sort of shit for Blurays and he can't watch his expensive legit import anime Blurays on the bluray players available in his country.
He is the sort who has collections of DVDs, wine, whisky, CDs, fancy expensive Japanese dolls, anime cels (yes the sort they used to draw on to make the movies). And they make it hard for him to give them his money. I told him he should just "give them the finger" keep his money and wait till there are bluray region-free players. He also had similar probs with DVDs before.
Yes Mr Collector downloads as well (coz the fansubs are faster and sometimes better), but he often buys the mucho expensive collector edition box sets when they _finally_ come out.
Yes he's the sort who will still jump through hoops to buy and use the DRM'ed stuff, and buy extra bluray players. But how many legit customers have they lost due to such crap? I don't think that many people would do what he does, buy extra bluray players etc. Once you "force" them to use downloads they might not even buy a single DRM player or media again.
As for me, yes I download, but I don't even have a pirate collection a hundredth as large as his legit collection. If they succeed in blocking those off completely they're not going to get $$$ from me, because I'd just play more _free_ computer games, read more free stuff, etc. I'm not really a customer, and hence not really a lost customer.
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes I was complaining about DRM which was what the OP was complaining about.
You want my complaints about copyright, here you go: copyright does not need to be 120+ years. Just 7 years or so would do. AFAIK the good movies make profit within the 1st year (disregarding "Hollywood accounting").
So do we really want to encourage the making of movies, music that would take 120 years to make a profit? Think about that. If copyright terms were much shorter, Vista would have had to be much better than XP .
The people who came up with "Happy Birthday" and other old songs are long dead and yet a bunch of rich people are still collecting rent off it, people who are just being rewarded for just having the idea and ability to buy the rights to it. Not because they great artists, not because they benefit the world or society as a whole. They are basically parasites.
Over here you could copy a movie easily but for many weeks there were still long queues of people wanting to watch stuff like Titanic, LoTR and Avatar at the cinemas. Make a suitable movie and people will queue to watch it "big screen". People pay for overpriced coffee all the time, go figure. The copying that would hurt the movie creators would be if the cinema operators copied the movies and didn't pay the creators. That'll be suicide in the long term, but I guess the operators would kill themselves if copyright laws didn't stop them :).
What was the last big name movie you saw that came out of China (that wasn't a US/EU movie that was copied there, lol)? Favorite Chinese band? Yeah, there might be some, but they pale in comparison and copyright is the reason.
The reason you haven't heard of the "big names" is most likely you don't know about Chinese movies. And what sells in the Chinese language market may not sell so well outside it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cliff_(film) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ip_Man_(film) [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Assassins [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of right? Legal? Irrelevant. Moral? Debatable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so easy to just move countries... The process is costly and not open to everyone, hence why you have so many illegal immigrants in various places.
Also you could argue that offering something on the internet, and then adding arbitrary restrictions based on the country a user is based in amounts to racism.
And yes, the more ridiculous and draconian copyright laws become the more people will feel justified in ignoring them.
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.
Copyright grants the author the exclusive distribution right to their work in exchange for publication. If they are not publishing their work, then they should lose the exclusive distribution right.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright does not protect copying in exchange for distribution
Yes it does. That is why copyright starts at the date of publication. It was intended to allow works to be widely distributed immediately and then to eventually fall into the public domain, rather than enjoying very limited distribution until someone shared a copy publicly.
Copyright is an absolute right that prevents any copying to permitted by the copyright holder with only fuzzy exceptions for fair use
That's not even English.
Whoever modded the parent up should do a little reading.
The 'preview' button would be a good start...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it does. That is why copyright starts at the date of publication.
You are wrong [cornell.edu].
Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States
Never Published, Never Registered Works
Unpublished works: Life of the author + 70 years
Unpublished anonymous and pseudonymous works, and works made for hire (corporate authorship): 120 years from date of creation
Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known: 120 years from date of creation.
Among many things absurdly wrong with that statement, it would make pirating an about-to-be-published movie/book/software/whatever
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
I have absolutely no legal means within reason to access these programs.
So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.
Who said anything about a "human right to watch TV"? You're creating an absurd straw man.
The OP, like myself, feels there has been no reasonable legal method ot access these shows provided. So I feel no compunction in using methods that are illegal, according to some American companies and their lackeys in government. I know I'm not harming the owners (who aren't the same as the creators) of these shows, despite their absurd claims of untold billions in losses.
Legally, I'm wrong. Morally, I have not a twinge of guilt.
A human *right* to see? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.
Why wouldn't it be? The world is divided in countries. And within countries (or groups of those like EU), people have the right to decide for themselves, what are their rights, and what not.
So suppose I come to the US, and record a TV show for personal use (allowed per US law I assume). Then go to country XYZ, bringing that recording with me (still okay I presume). And then copy that recording million-fold, selling it on streetcorners, IF that's allowed by country XYZ's laws (because people in country XYZ decided for themselves that should be okay). Would that be 'wrong'? Should I feel guilty there for 'ripping profits' from the TV show makers?
The way I see it, the problem is not one country (like the US) having too extreme copyright laws, it's in the US trying to force the same upon the rest of the world (through trade agreements or whatever means available). Sure US people should be allowed to have laws in place that seem ridiculous to other countries, but what right does the US have to prevent people elsewhere from using content they get their hands on, once it lands within that country's borders? IMHO: none. And other countries are really stupid to let this crap get shoveled into their face, acting like sheep in a US-led flock. Note that I'm not trying to bash the US here, it's just that the US seems to be the prime driving force behind 'intellectual property' at the moment. The same would hold true for any country trying to force similar things on other countries.
For example the Chinese seem to have a general lack of respect for 'intellectual property', does that make them 'bad'? I think not, they make their own decisions as a nation - and I'd say copying & reproducing things without 3rd country's permission seems to have worked well for them. Same argument goes for countries that are really poor, ignore patents & copy medicines to help a large swat of their population. Ignoring those patents isn't 'bad' - patent-holding medicine companies squeezing money for live-saving medicines out of those poor folks, is. Especially since that behavior doesn't affect their bottom line anyway - if the people are poor enough, they wouldn't be able to pay up. Even if priced friendly: any more than production-cost still causes people to not spend that money on other bare necessities. But since it might be a numbers game, every step to have that poor country respect the companies' patents, will cause (unnecessary) suffering / lost lives. I can't help to feel disgust towards those folks that have only profit in their mind...
Yes it's good content creators get rewarded if society benefits a lot from their work. But IMHO current copyright regimes simply aren't the way to do that (at least if that would be the primary purpose, it's obviously failing to do as intended). And to lawmakers pushing ever harder punishments because 'that would be good for society' : f**k off, you idiot. Only thing you are supporting is the ??AA mafia.
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because it is called copy-right it doesn't become a right, as shown by the fact that it was originally a royal prerrogative to hold the monopoly on printed production. When the crown dropped that privilege, the organizations charged with managing that monopoly lobbied to keep copyright alive so they would still be able to exist.
So no, copyright is a privilege given to a person or a group and it diminishes the human right of access to culture for "the free development of his personality" [un.org].
And you DO have the ability to see them. Move to the counties where they are broadcast. The fact that you are not willing to pay that price is very understandable. However you do not have any RIGHT to see them if they are not willing to show them.
If you make a movie of your kid during a holiday sitting on a swing, I also do not have the RIGHT to see that movie. Not even if you show it to all your friends and family.
Two completely different points: "they" have already waived their right to privacy when they made copies and distributed them. If I make a movie of my kid _and_ give a copy of it to someone else I also have. I may not like it, I may shun the person that shared it, I may even sue them if they agreed to some privacy contract, but that's it.
If you want to keep your works secret, that's fine and dandy. If you publish, you publish knowing it is now public. If you didn't want it to be public you should have thought about it first.
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is NOT some sort of basic human right. Copyright is an entirely artificial, and temporary, right that limits our basic right to freely share ideas. The reason to limit copying was to give the artist a better chance at making money with his creation, and thus encourage the artist to create more. Commercial copying was rampant when copyright laws were first introduced.
Copyright laws are now completely unreasonable. No artist is going to create anything after he is dead. The current laws only enrich large corporations. Copyright law is broken and needs an overhaul. 20 years limits, DRM that expires with the copyright, banning region coding as a limit on trade, and not allowing copyright to be assigned away from the artist would be a good start.
Re: (Score:3)
The reason to limit copying was to give the artist a better chance at making money with his creation, and thus encourage the artist to create more.
No it wasn't. Here's the title of the first copyright law, "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned".
It did invest the authors with rights that previously were owned by the publishers so helping their chances of making money but originally, as
Re: (Score:2)
Music labels did that for music through iTunes but people was used to consume music by going to the store to buy a CD. Videos are different: they are also consumed by buying DVDs but many people just watch TV, rent a DVD or go to cinema. Plus you need subtitles or dubbers. Do you want to coordinate all of them from the USA or leave it to local enterprises? There are many more intermediaries that won't be happy if you cut them off the business but you still need them to get your shows on TV and your movies i
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Insightful)
There is the problem... Just how the fuck do you "consume" something that isn't physical? Turning ideas and expressions of ideas into a commodity is why this whole concept is failing.
it's a global problem (Score:5, Interesting)
So does much of Europe's industry.
What a brilliant stroke of anti-Americanism: you hold the US responsible first for fighting draconian European copyrights, then for learning its lesson, building businesses around them, and enforcing them.
But in actual fact, the companies advocating copyright are international: companies like Bertelsmann and Sony are a big part of this. Europe just extended its copyright terms to "protect" the Beatles.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/14/european-union-extends-beatles-copyright-still-gonna-have-to-b/ [engadget.com]
Trying to change IP laws by blaming America for everything isn't just factually incorrect, it is ineffective because it misses the source of problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that many of the changes to American copyright laws have been to address "conformity" to European copyright laws (especially the concept of automatic copyright upon publication and the "Life+term" philosophy), I have a hard time shedding a tear when it comes to European copyright being pushed along as well.
The problem isn't America, but the big corporate lobbyists and major media companies that are the problem. Many of the changes in copyright laws over the past 50 years or so really haven't be
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You can make a case for the claim being misleading because it implies most people are at risk of dehydration from a normal diet., but the reason you quote is nonsense. They said that water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration because it reduces dehydration itself rather than reducing the risk of it.
Re: (Score:3)
And it was worded as a medical benefit, something that legally can only be attributed to products that are marketed (and by consequence have been certified!) as.... medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
They said that water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration because it reduces dehydration itself rather than reducing the risk of it.
Wait, what? I mean, I get what they're saying, but are EU's advertising laws so strict that they've basically said no on a matter of semantics?
(If my statement comes across as something else, let me be clear - I am totally okay with this. There's too much BS in advertising as it is.)
Re: (Score:3)
yes it is, and since coming to North America, I have ben shocked time and time again by what advertisers are allowed to claim around here.
You guys need to get your proffessional liers back in line.
Re: (Score:3)
You guys need to get your proffessional liers back in line.
We're working on it, but those politicians sure like to hold onto their power.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Summary : the applicant said that water intake significantly deceases the risk for the disease dehydration : "the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of dehydration."
Causes of dehydration [wikipedia.org] :
"External or stress-related causes
Prolonged physical activity with sweating without consuming adequate water, especially in a hot and/or dry environment
Prolonged exposure to d
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think water hydrates either.
At least not in ALL cases of dehydration. And that's what the "ban" is about. That there are actually cases of dehydration where adding water to a dehydrated body makes the problem worse instead of better.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You cells will explode due to osmosis if you drink pure H2O.
No they won't. I don't know where this absurd myth came from, but it's easy enough to perform the experiment yourself: buy a jug of distilled water at the grocery store, drink it, and the worst that will happen to you is you'll be running back and forth to the toilet for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Not if the jug is at least 1 1/2 gallons and you drink it in a sufficiently short time (like an hour.) But tap water is only slightly less hazardous in that case.
Re: (Score:3)
The parent post is essentially right though...
At the onset of this condition, fluid outside the cells has an excessively low amount of solutes (such as sodium and other electrolytes) in comparison to that inside the cells causing the fluid to shift through ( via osmosis) into the cells to balance its concentration. This causes the cells to swell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication [wikipedia.org]
Yes... drinking water in excess can kill you.
Re:US is the problem (Score:4, Informative)
It has nothing to do with nutrients.
The inbalance of soluted salt between the inside of cells (quite salty) and outside (no salt) causes water to migrate into the cell through the cell membrane until the solution is balanced for both sides of the membrane. Because water can freely pass through it, but salts usually can't, it means a cell that is surrounded by destilled water soaks up water until it bursts.
Obviously your body will try to enrich any water you drink with salts before it gets into your bloodstream. But if that fails, you are in trouble.
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously though, most people's stomachs and stomach linings can cope with a lot more hostile stuff than pure water. It's not going to kill you or blow up your cells - we're talking about _drinking_ pure water, not injecting it. Drinking distilled water will just cause you to pee more. That's assuming your kidneys work and you have enough salts and minerals in your diet.
Re: (Score:3)
It has nothing to do with nutrients.
The inbalance of soluted salt between the inside of cells (quite salty) and outside (no salt) causes water to migrate into the cell through the cell membrane until the solution is balanced for both sides of the membrane. Because water can freely pass through it, but salts usually can't, it means a cell that is surrounded by destilled water soaks up water until it bursts.
Obviously your body will try to enrich any water you drink with salts before it gets into your bloodstream. But if that fails, you are in trouble.
Righto. If you're a single cell organism. For the rest of us, not so much.
Next time stay awake in biology class.
Re:US is the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe he's not really trolling, maybe he's just expressing his opinion?
Now I could be completely wrong here, with a name like "CmdrPony", he's obviously playing on CmdrTaco and the whole slashdot infatuation with Ponies which does vaguely indicate that he might be trying to get a rise out of people, or it could just be a "fun" name. From reading his recent posts today, most of them seem straight up and clear, certainly with very little trolling (There is a "U mad Bro?" comment in there, however that's very obvious and not subtle).
While I'm not directly defending him, I have noticed that Slashdot lately seems to be very quick to judge people as "trolling" simply because they have an opinion that contradicts with what some people believe. I've been labelled a troll myself on more than one occasion, usually because I disagreed with the topic at hand - a good example of this is the recent debacle with Windows Secure boot, whereby many are convinced that it's simply a ploy to sell more copies of windows and block Linux, whereas I don't believe it. I might be wrong, nobody actually knows for sure the real agenda at hand and we wont until devices start shipping with Windows 8 on them, but still I got labelled a troll when personally I thought I was being reasonable.
This post, to me, does seem anything other than perhaps a bit controversial. He clearly doesn't like the US, but does that necessarily make him a troll? The US does certainly seem to be behind all the pushes for copyright enforcement and then there's things like SOPA - which most people utterly disagree with, so is his opinion really that unfounded?
Re: (Score:3)
Well no, that's not the case at all. The fact is that the UEFI secure boot process wasn't designed by Microsoft, it was designed by the UEFI board to which many groups are part of. For some reason, it was detailed as a ploy by Microsoft, when really they're just making use of technology that already exists. The one vaguely official Windows 8 device, that gave out at BUILD, has an option to disable secure boot. It wasn't a "wait and see" approach, but rather a "there's no reason to get upset" approach. It'd
Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (Score:5, Interesting)
European commissioner Neelie Kroes has more brain cells that I had anticipated. That was indeed a Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes. A breath of fresh air.
While it may be good to hear it, there are laws behind the current situation. And that is what we live with. Copyrights, patents, trademarks etc have their use a long as they are not abused from either party.
It is good to hear a Commissioner express and put the facts on the table. But how do we move on? I have no quick answer to that.
Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (Score:5, Interesting)
She's the one who fined Microsoft billions to the point where Microsoft finally said "uncle" and gave the Samba team the specs they were looking for.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Neelie Kroes has been amazing me for years.
She comes from a conservative party that tends to follow the wishes of big corporations.
Yet somehow she left all that baggage behind when she joined the EU and has been fighting for consumers and against corporate greed.
Yes, there is probably just some other industry that is pulling her strings, but so far it all works out great for European consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She's loved by all parties here(The Netherlands) so she always has the full support when its time to get new positions out for the countries(strange system yes).
Re: (Score:2)
We move on by limiting or eliminating copyright itself. A term of 7 years (maximum) would be sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'd still say that fifteen years should be a hard upper limit, reserved for areas like movies where investments of dozens of millions of $CURRENCY are not unusual.
Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (Score:5, Insightful)
Movies make most of their money shortly after release, within 7 years chances are the movie has reached the point of being shown on tv and if it hasn't recouped its initial production cost chances are it never will.
Copyright terms should be strictly limited, 7 years as an absolute maximum possibly 5... Noone has the right to continue making money from something they did years ago without doing any additional work.
I would place other restrictions too, either outlaw any form of drm or require that a non encumbered version be available once the copyright expires.
Also with software, have the copyright period extend for 7 years or as long as the software continues to be actively supported, whichever is shorter, and with a requirement to release source code once the term expires.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd even allow more. Movies do have a tendency to be hideously expensive and some companies might feel that seven years is a bit too little to invest a truckload of money into
Really? Movies make the majority of their profits in the first week after release, with another small bump the week after the DVD release. When deciding whether to fund a film, people ask whether it will make back the investment in the opening weekend. Anything after that is expected to be pure profit. The dribble from DVD sales and rental is just a bonus.
Seven years is long enough that most people who want to see it will pay, rather than say 'well, it will enter the public domain in seven years - I'll wait.'
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> I'd even allow more. Movies do have a tendency to be hideously expensive and
Hideously expensive movies dont have to be made. Just made them cheap enough to be able to turn a profit within 7 years.
> But I'd still say that fifteen years should be a hard upper limit
I'm all for letting everybody vote on it in a referendum. In theory, copyright is supposed to be for the benefit of the people. Let the people decide directly which copyright duration maximizes their benefit. Content producers should not hav
Re: (Score:3)
The original U.S. copyright law, hard-coded into the Constitution, is for a 14 year period of exclusive distribution, with the option of a one-time renewal. This was originally intended for authors, and I think that it's entirely fair. Were this law still in effect, everything in the U.S. made prior to 1984 would be in the public domain.
However, I'd like to point out that when the section on copyright was originally drafted, there was no such thing as free distribution. It cost money to duplicate anything,
Re: (Score:3)
The European commissioners have power (Score:2, Informative)
Wikipedia:
"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the European Union, meaning only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation– legislative proposals cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields, however, Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody" is a strong word, and as it is certainly wrong, undermines the rest of your argument.
Rgds
Damon
Rewards (Score:5, Informative)
One day a friend of mine went to the factory where CDs are made. He asked someone from the OSA (association for authors protection) what would he get, while beeing registered under OSA, if he composed song (music and lyrics) and someone else would play it e.g. at some concert. The guy from OSA replied that nothing because those money from artistic work usage are distributed according the frequency of appearance on radio or TV. This is clearly punishing those who pay, because they would like to give their money to the composer instead to some mainstream shitty composer. Think of this story when buying clean CD's.
Re:Rewards (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Rewards (Score:5, Insightful)
The logical thing to do would be not to make a single entity, for whom such a situation is a logical impossibility, responsible fpr collecting fees. The current situation is a nonsense.
You can tell when you're wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
For the belief that data can be handled/restricted like physical objects, that absurdity became fully apparent with that new "resale your used digital music" service, and the MAFIAA (of course) suing it. Reading such nonsense forces you to ask at what point does it become impossible to deny the obvious: The existence of computers and networks between computers renders duplication of data so easy that the ideas of supply-limited economics can no longer meaningfully be applied to data?
Seriously... read that sentence again: "Resell your used digital music." And try to keep a straight face.
Re:You can tell when you're wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's best to not pay for music and films at all and watch that whole industry go belly-up. They deserve it. The only people who benefit from the MAFIAA are the ones in the top of those organisations.
Re:You can tell when you're wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely.
Of course, you could do this in the current rules is simply to stop watching and listening to them, rather than getting copies off the net.
Re:You can tell when you're wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And they will get that accepted and signed as well.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I want to support the artists and writers and producers and actors and all those people, and want them to know that their product is being viewed by a wide audience so they can at least get income from other means (merchandise, concerts, etc), even if they don't get a check from all the unkempt piracy. If I was to just stop watching the shows, I would be hurting the people I love more than the people I hate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can keep a straight face, as I understand it to be a transfer of license, which is all reselling a cd was anyway.
A license scenario makes some sense so long as it's transferrable.
Re:You can tell when you're wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the "license" only applies when it suits the record company. Try snapping your favorite CD in half and asking the publisher for a replacement copy (plus S&H), since you've "purchased a license and not a physical object."
Re: (Score:3)
Way, way back in the day a music store used to do that. The Wall I think it was. They gave you a sticker to put on the CD when you bought it, and if it was ever damaged they would replace it for free.
Copyrights and patents... (Score:5, Insightful)
... are protectionism and corporate welfare of the 21st century. I think it's best to say that copyright/patents are anti-free market, anti-technology and anti-science IMHO. Not only that human beings just aren't smart enough to judge when something should be or should not be patented. It's a giant clusterfuck.
I think those who argue for them just don't want to find new business models, using the law as a business model has made one hell of a legal mess and created a ethically bankrupt legal system clogged with up with suits. I think someone should really figure out how much inefficiency this is creating and how much all this costs us in terms of the legal system. I imagine that whatever supposed 'gains' we are allegedly getting from these systems are wiped out by lawyers and the lack of free exchange/modification of ideas between products and industries.
Re: (Score:2)
You may think that, but such arguments are not very convincing. People will rightfully point out that all property could be viewed that way, physical or not. The fact that I own a piece of land, or a car, or a computer, and that I can keep you from using it, is ultimately just a construct and agreement protected by the state.
If copyrights a
But copyright IS working (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright doesn't protect the little guy, yes.
Copyright doesn't restrict much the amount of pirated material people swap, yes.
But that's not what the current laws on copyright are designed to prevent, they want to make it hard to compete with established media companies and rights holders in producing and distributing stuff.
The battle is about controlling the distribution channels, to decide what people will like. It is about criminalizing as many people as possible to justify examining every single packet out your network card.
Proof? proof is that you can't put a site which distribute links, while youtube and megaupload can distribute CONTENT.
If there is a bunch of popular sites instead of a world wide web, propaganda operations can easily make some topics hot and popular.
All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Art has always been at the service of power.
Re:But copyright IS working (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright doesn't protect the little guy, yes.
Copyright is a powerful tool in the hands of free software authors, and a force for the public good. Obviously is used for evil as well, and current copyright duration is just offensive.
Re:But copyright IS working (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman himself would make the case himself that the GPL is an attempt to turn copyright against itself. It's not an argument for copyright but a means to subvert it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free software will keep existing without copyright. In fact, if the pro-copyright rhetoric of software co
Re: (Score:2)
a tool needs somebody able to wield it, free software authors have that tool but not the means to enforce copyright by themselves.
Re:But copyright IS working (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the 'supporting the established players' argument has merits.
As a young country, the US was notorious for ignoring copyrights and patents held in older, countries during its early development. Japan had the same reputation; China is arguably just leaving this phase itself, as they've tightened their IP rules for WIPO purposes in order to more easily access other markets with their products.
It would seem that, for countries and businesses both, there's a threshold they cross where they realise the value of their ideas, if copyrighted, is worth more to them than the cost of paying for the ideas of others.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's where things go a bit wrong.
Those who approve of copyright make exactly the same mistake. They want the right to sell, lend and do anything they could with a physical copy. This doesn't make sense!. A digital copy is different. Trying to shoehorn rights that make sense for a physical copy becomes illogical. Why do I no longer have access to the copy that I clearly have? Because I "lent" it to someone. Except I didn't lend it. I still have my copy. It's just been blocked.
So, we need a completely new system. We need a way to reward artists to encourage creativity. People will create without the reward, but nowhere near as much! Nobody is going to make Avatar unless they can get a good return. I liked Avatar! But the system also needs to take into account the inherent rights that digital distribution gives us.
I have no solution. I simply want to point out that we need to understand the problem.
* If you think this is unfair, I should point out you're not "most"
Re:Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people see it as a huge social benefit that they have such a wealth of media at such a small economic cost. You seem to be taking a much more Libertarian position, which is fair enough, but it's not a position that most of the world shares. For a proposal to gain traction, it needs to be at least palatable to the majority, who do see it as the government's job to make sure that Hollywood can make blockbusters.
I should also point out, In the case of
Re:Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright doesn't need to be rebuilt from scratch - we "merely" need to do a clean reinstall of one of the early 20th century versions, with pretty much a couple of tweaks and a single major addition:
Copyright, fourteen years, twenty years if you register your work by filing a copy with the public trustee, the rights of resale and fair use respected, AND the use by a copyright holder of any system that interferes with the public's rights under copyright revokes the protection of copyright for all of their works so encumbered.
I.e. pick one, Copyright or Strong DRM, because as ideals their goals are mutually incompatible.
Re: (Score:2)
And to reply to myself, there's the ideals of copyright - and then there's what we've ended up with instead. The sad fact is, it may well be that any copyright system we create will be corrupted by avarice.
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative-liberal supporting private enterprise (Score:3)
Kroes is member of VVD.
Wikipedia: "The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) (Dutch: Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie) is a conservative-liberal[1][2] political party located in the Netherlands. The VVD supports private enterprise in the Netherlands and is often perceived as an economic liberal party"
Hmmm. That is why she didn't look like a long-haired smelly.
Re: (Score:3)
The VVD supports private enterprise in the Netherlands and is often perceived as an economic liberal party"
Hmmm. That is why she didn't look like a long-haired smelly.
Liberal outside the US typically refers to social and economic freedom, as in traditional liberalism. Less restriction on the market in the case of Kroes, Yanks might call them Libertarian, but they aren't complete whack jobs like US libertarians.
BTW, how does one "look" smelly?
She is right (Score:4, Interesting)
We frequently buy DVDs and there is no chance to skip the copyright information. It's sometimes combined with the "would you steal a car?"-analogy, which suggests we are potential criminals. We frequently bought DVDs just out of curiosity but we lowered our expenses and only buy those we really, really want to have. No spontaneous visits to the DVD area anymore.
Microsoft did a campaign a decade ago, where they asked on every boot-up, if one would properly register and pay for the install. I eventually skipped my investment of several hundred Deutsche Mark (back then I earned less than 600 Deutsche Mark per month) and migrated to Linux. Until today I have a strong rejection against their products.
Yesterday I read an article on how to be successful in your job and to get ahead. By frequent contact others get familiar with you and their attitude against you stabilizes. So if you start with a good impression you win, otherwise you fail. It didn't say anything about changing attitude by repeated unfriendly behaviour, though.
cb
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We frequently buy DVDs and there is no chance to skip the copyright information.
Not much chance to read it either. I remember trying it with a DVD that shows the copyright information in several languages in such a quick succession that you don't have time to read any of it. What prevents you from skipping them also disables the pause function, on my player anyway (Sony). Assuming this is the standard behaviour of DVD players I wonder how DVD publishers can hold you accountable for violating their restrictions if they don't allow you to read them.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, some years back I got a Disney dvd for my kids and was frustrated at the number of ads, copyright notices, etc that had to be viewed before the movie even started. It makes far more sense to pirate the materials so that I can start the show when I want to not having to wait 5+ minutes to get to the point where I can hit play. Seems a shame that pirated works offer more value to the consumer even before you start looking at price.
Democracy at work (Score:5, Insightful)
The recent successes of various pirate parties made it clear that people do not like the current IP system. Now politicians have no other choice than to listen to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Guess politicians wisen up. In the 80s, the green movement was ignored long enough to allow a green party to establish itself in most European countries. Most likely they want to avoid something like that to happen again.
And there are LOTS of other problems too (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, lately, I have been having some issues with HDMI and conflicting implementations. It's really getting under my skin. Every time I see the copyright industry interfere with technology, they screw it up in some way. Macrovision in the old days of VHS and the things they wanted to do with digital TV and the crap they pull with HDMI -- it all pisses me off.
The EU was right about water -- it doesn't prevent the causes of dehydration. And the way copyright is being handled does not support the artists and certainly harms the public interest.
Re:Copyright works,piracy=theft,stop the hypocricy (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright works perfectly. The aim of copyright is to prevent an individual or company from profiting from the works of others, in order to allow the creator to enjoy the profits of their works.
I'm sure Mr Walt Disney is really enjoying the profit he's getting from his 'still-in-copyright' works, even though he died in '66.
I have no trouble with people profiting off their works for a few years. What I have trouble with is:
1. Copyrights being extended long long long past 'a few years' (Mickey Mouse is still under copyright, since 1928).
2. Stupid enforcing of copyrights in regions where its not avaliable anyway.
3. Copyright as a purely money making process. "Happy Birthday to you" (written in the 1800s) still brings money for the copyright holder.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624 [ssrn.com] - who by the way is not the creator.
Yes, you did something clever. Yes enjoy it. But then let the rest of us enjoy it after you're done.
Re:Copyright works,piracy=theft,stop the hypocricy (Score:4, Insightful)
Piracy is theft because piracy deevaluates the value of the digital product being pirated.
Ummmm, what does robbery and violence conducted on the seas have to do with binary digits?
Anyway. You are wrong. Here's why:
By arguing that there is a loss of value, you presume that a person obtaining an unauthorized copy would have spent money to buy the original in the first place. This is not universally true. Some might have bought it, whereas others surely wouldn't.
You cannot steal a digital product. You can make a perfect clone, and the original will still exist unchanged. There is an infinite supply of digital content: you make a music track, and you can make a 100 billion copies for basically no cost. If you price each track at $39.90, and someone buys that track from the store, then copies the track 100 billion times, it does not mean you've lost 3990000000000 dollars in sales. You've not lost anything, since you got paid for the original.
If you don't like the way things are, stop fighting the windmills. Change the way you're getting paid for the digital products. It's not that difficult. Ask the money up front before you release it to the world. After you get the 2 million dollars or whatever, then you release the product without DRM. This way you get paid and "piracy" will have no impact on you. On the contrary, making and releasing a good product would make it possible for you to raise the threshold for the next product, netting you more money. The marketing would be done by the people themselves. On the other hand, if you constantly produce shit, people will not support you anymore.
You can read more by googling up the "Street performer protocol".
That system is logical, obvious and elegant fix to the "piracy problem". It is being opposed because such a system will prevent: 1. distribution channel control (region coding etc.), 2. endless renting of the same content over and over again (selling the same thing to different TV stations, for example), 3. as a summary: it prevents maximizing profits but makes the system "piracy"-free and fair.
How would it make it fair? The creators would get paid the price they think is appropriate and there could not be a problem with unauthorized copying. Humanity as a whole would get access to the culture which belongs to all of them without waiting for 70 years after the original author died. If the price is set too high, no-one will buy but the content would still not be distributed around the world. Thus you could re-price and re-release. Also, the system would actually work by leveraging digital distribution, instead of trying to fight it on a futile way with various silly hacks.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a problem with that solution. It'll work for large companies with a lot of liquidity and a track record.
It won't work for startups or small companies with no track record.
To give a personal example. I have on-and-off for the last 4.5 years been working on a literary work. Assume I want to sell it. How would I do that using this system? I make a request for X thousand up front to release it to the world? Of course it wouldn't work for me. For a start nobody has heard of me. And if I don't get this amo