Rumors of a 'Whisper Campaign' Forming Against Fair Use 174
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica reports that a group of companies and organizations it calls 'big content' is currently engaged in a worldwide 'whisper campaign' against Fair Use. 'The counter-reformation in question takes the form of a "whispering campaign" in which ministries in different countries are told that plans to expand fair use rights might well run afoul of the Berne Convention's "three-step test." The Convention, which goes back to the late 1800s, was one of the earliest international copyright treaties and is now administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).'"
Leeches (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Leeches (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not the same AC as this guy, but it's funny he mentions them in the context of a "whisper campaign" against fair use.
Sonny Bono was a Scilon and a Congressman. In 1998, he didn't just argue for copyright extension, he got the Mickey Mouse Protection Act named after him: The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA).
The Scilons, via Bono and via the rest of their Hollywood connections, were strong advocates for the DMCA. Within months of its passage, they were using DMCA threats to out critics and open them up for further harassment. They've used the DMCA as a legal cudgel against everyone from Google (they tried to prevent Google from linking to critics' sites) to Slashdot (the only time in Slashdot history that the Editors have been forced to delete a post).
Using back channels to lobby for the end of fair use would be a major legislative victory for the Scilons; the only reason they don't sue on the basis of the phrase "seventy-five million years ago" is because they'd be laughed out of court. Under cult doctrine, "the purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass", and if fair use (using quotations from cult materials for purposes of parody, expression, or criticism) goes away, they'd have standing to file such suits.
That AC's closer to the truth than he knows. It wouldn't surprise me one damn bit to see the Scilons behind this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how I heard it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's not how I heard it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
By mentioning it, people will talk about, which will lead to wider distribution, etc.
Yes, I love the Irony as well.
Re:That's not how I heard it... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's all part of the new moral and ethical code. It goes like this: "we get to win".
Anything -- no matter how despicable, harmful or dishonest -- that causes "us" to win is holy and justified. Anything else fails some moral and ethical test and further demonstrates why "we get to win" -- because the other side is shown to be monstrously evil by the moral and ethical lapses that we've applied to them.
Don't you know how important "we" are?
Re: (Score:2)
Do not fear, we'll be considering a "stern-glare counter-offensive" sometime this week.
Re:Anyone remember when... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is an example:
Deuteronomy 13:12-16
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in
13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of
Re: (Score:3)
If you're asking me why *I* am a Muslim, I'll answer that it enriches my life in ways that I cannot explain using the blunt tool we call language.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oppression? If by that you mean legal historical social discrimination or segregation, sure but to a much lesser degree than black segregation in the U.S for instance and based on varying interpretations of hadiths, not the Koran. Shame on any muslim who is guilty of lack of love, tolerance and respect for human life, regardless of belief. Hell, shame on any human.
En
The "3 steps" (Score:5, Insightful)
According to Wikipedia, the three steps are:
1) certain special cases
2) do not conflict with normal exploitation of the work
3) do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holder
I'm no lawyer, so I don't have the background to understand that kind of gobbledygook. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe laws written for the sake of the governed should be written in a language they understand.
Re:The "3 steps" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unless, of course, you're saying that these people (mostly eligible to vote in free elections in Mexico) have some inalienable right to cut in line ahead of those poor unfortunate souls playing by the rules while trying to escape genocide in Dafur or totalitarianism in China.
Legal immigration = Good
Criminal border-crossings and lawless subcultures = Bad
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The point you're trying to make here would be all well and good if we were talking about (or, you know, speaking) German. But we're not. And while English has plenty of Germanic roots, it's also got plenty
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The "3 steps" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) not the default, this is for exceptions, (sounds redundant though).
2) Does not cost the owner in lost sales/reduced sale price
3) This reads as a ban on things like fanfic, where the character of the original work can be altered by additional information
The problem with the law is that one person's interpretations of this becomes law for future reference, and it takes years of training to have a moderate understanding of that backgro
Re:The "3 steps" (Score:5, Insightful)
I find your post interesting, primarily because it sounds like a reasonable interpretation of the three steps, yet it's quite different to what I'd come up with (as someone who has been actively involved in the consultations about this topic in the UK recently).
In particular, your version implies that anything that may cost the copyright holder any income cannot be fair use. I would qualify that (and I do think the phrasing of the TRIPS three-step test supports this) by saying that normal exploitation does not mean the same as absolute control. We could argue, for example, that selling a second full-price copy of software to someone because their installation DVD got scratched would be profitable for the copyright holder if making back-ups were illegal, but I think most people would consider this excessive exploitation and the law in most jurisdictions reflects this.
Getting back to the proposals at hand, I think if these rumours are true, the big content guys are going to have a tough time. What's happening right now is that several countries are seeing the balance of copyright tipping toward the copyright holder and finding their laws out of sync with common perceptions of what is reasonable (and done routinely, regardless of legality, by much of the population). We've had a string of investigations over the past two or three years, such as Gowers in the UK, which have proposed changes to redress the balance. The US actually has a pretty good deal with their fair use; while DRM/DMCA issues are screwing things up, the law is otherwise pretty reasonable and the four tests are fairly transparent. In most other countries, the law is not so general, and commonly expected behaviour like making back-up copies and format shifting is actually illegal in several places!
Now, we're seeing governments actively start to implement those proposals. For example, the UK government is consulting on a proposal to legitimise format shifting, which is technically illegal at the moment even though everyone does it and media industry organisations have stated publicly that they will not chase anyone to court for doing so. (The closing date for the consultation is today, so if anyone else thinks the exception should be far more general than just format shifting, get those e-mails in to the consultation response address!)
I suspect this is just making mountains out of mole-hills, though. The whole point of fair use is that there are plenty of things you can reasonably do with content you have legally obtained that are beneficial to you yet cause no unreasonable damage to the copyright holder, and the law should allow you to do these. No-one is talking about, for example, legalising P2P file sharing in breach of copyright or letting someone buy one legal download and then burn it to many CDCs and sell them on separately, which might actually do some real damage to the big media industries. It's hard to see how Big Media can credibly argue that the changes proposed in places like the UK are in violation of the three-step test when US fair use has allowed them since forever, the US is also a TRIPS signatory, yet until now Big Media has not attacked this position.
Re:The "3 steps" (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope that isn't what it means. That definition could be twisted to apply to *all* uses.
Oh, you are using your copy of windows to reinstall on the same PC? That just cost Microsoft a sale they would have made if you instead purchased an additional copy. Oh, you are watching a DVD for the second time? That just cost Sony Pictures a sale of another DVD.
And of course what is consider legitimate fair use now, for example watching a purchased DVD movie with a couple friends- you just cost the movie a couple sales because you let your friends view it for free!
Re:The "3 steps" (Score:4, Insightful)
You could make the same argument for software and users, or science and "the public" and hit the same problem - "plain English" isn't really suited to the required degree of exactness. Often what looks to be straightforward really isn't, and provides too much wiggle room for a skilled arguer. That's worse than having laws that normal people don't understand - it potentially leaves you with laws that simply aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
Cutting down fair use didn't call for 3-step tests (Score:3, Interesting)
It would take an ingenious lawyer to argue that any of the fair use rights that coexisted happily with the Berne Convention for most of a century, are somehow in conflict with it now if there is any movement to revive or r
Re:Cutting down fair use didn't call for 3-step te (Score:2, Interesting)
And this Berne Convention International Copyright Trea
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, Wikipedia is at least halfway impartial, if for no other reason than anyone, no matter what bias, can correct a statement that leans too far to one side or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how multiple biased authors will collectively produce an unbiased final product. There's certainly no reason to presume they will.
As to your first point, naming an unbiased source, I don't claim there is one. Whether there exists an unbiased source or not, is irrelevant to the question of whether Wikipedia is
Re: (Score:2)
Now, know your place, and stop questioning your betters
Berne Convention can go piss up a rope (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair use? How about "expanding" fair use in the US to what the founding fathers envisioned, and "limiting" the endless copyrights that would have appalled them?
I have decided that I will respect no copyright older than ten years old, period. I urge everyone else to join me. I think twenty is reasonable, but damn it THIS IS WAR.
Oh yeah- I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation. Only a writer or painter or other artist should hold a copyright. Disney can go to hell (actually he probably already did).
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood. So sue me.
-mcgrew
PS- I hold copyrights. I have two ISBNs that should have already passed into the public doimain. I'm not against copyright law, only the INSANE copyright laws that are in effect now.
Re:Berne Convention can go piss up a rope (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't that make your mood worse when you're sued?
Also, what kind of conviction can you expect? Sentenced to be in a good mood for 5 years (2 years probation when you show good behavior)?
Re: (Score:2)
Happiness is mandatory. Haven't you heard?
Re:Berne Convention can go piss up a rope (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm in a bad mood. So sue me.
You can sue people in the US for being in a bad mood?
Of course! Our right to sue suffers no restrictions or abridgments. One of the few absolute rights still in full force!
Wouldn't that make your mood worse when you're sued?
Yes, but that doesn't excuse you from a lawsuit any more than being broke does (although it may deter anyone from *wanting* to sue). Being sued when you're broke just makes you ... more broke! Just too bad for the victim of the lawsuit, there, because you can't be held liable for the effects of your lawsuit on the defendant.
Also, what kind of conviction can you expect? Sentenced to be in a good mood for 5 years (2 years probation when you show good behavior)?
Whoa! Slow down, there, cowboy. You don't get to impose c
Some possible issues... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yeah- I refuse to honor ANY copyright held by a corporation.
Bless!
Only a writer or painter or other artist should hold a copyright.
Think about how that might work with, say, an instruction manual.
An instruction manual with, say, 200 contributors (like the service manual for a Boeing 737).
Each of those 200 content creators would have a share of the copyright. To print a new copy of the manual, you'd need to get permission from each of them -- or their descendants.
Of course, you might say you were only re
Re:Some possible issues... (Score:4, Insightful)
This illustrates the problem with the thinking. Corporations are made of people and corporations are set up by people so the people can work together in an organized way. Ever heard of "United Artists". It's one of the big studios now, but it was set up by actors and other "artists" who got tired of the man taking their money. Now they are the man. Is it fair? Should they be able to use the money they made doing the real work to finance the work of other artists? Really what is the difference between a corporation investing in a film and an artist giving a helping hand up to the next generation of artists? Not much, in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Really what is the difference between a corporation investing in a film and an artist giving a helping hand up to the next generation of artists? Not much, in practice.
I'm afraid you're probably being a bit naive there.
Artists helping the next generation are doing so because they love their art. They don't gain except karma / a heightened sense of altruism.
On the other hand a publicly owned corporation is a slave to the desires of the shareholders to make money at all/any other cost. A corporation will choose (or rewrite) a film to enable product placements or to make it the right length in commercial terms, to add in a popular character that will put bums-on-seats, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
One seeks to make a profit; the other seeks to make a difference.
MODS - Not Flamebait (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And the fools are legion.
Re: (Score:2)
An instruction manual with, say, 200 contributors (like the service manual for a Boeing 737).
Each of those 200 content creators would have a share of the copyright. To print a new copy of the manual, you'd need to get permission from each of them -- or their descendants.
That's exactly how the Berne Convention works. But luckily you can derive licenses from the natural right of the author (or Author's right) and sell those. In this case each of the 200 contributors to Boeing's service manual sells Boeing an exclusive right to print copies of the service manual, and another exclusive right to change the contents (so updated versions can be written by other authors and be printed without violating the Author's Right).
But Boeing for instance would not be allowed to hire an au
Re: (Score:2)
> Each of those 200 content creators would have a share of the copyright. To print a new
> copy of the manual, you'd need to get permission from each of them -- or their descendants.
Not their descendants. Them. But why would you need copyright protection on the instruction manual of the 737?
> You're saying that artists should not be able to sell their copyrights. That they
> should only be able to mak
Re: (Score:2)
An instruction manual with, say, 200 contributors (like the service manual for a Boeing 737).
Each contributor would hold copyright to the part he or she wrote. What's so hard about that?
To print a new copy of the manual, you'd need to get permission from each of them
Yes. Copyright is supposed to protect the author from the publisher, not the other way around. It is not supposed to protect the publisher from the public. Copyright is not suppose
Re:Berne Convention can go piss up a rope (Score:5, Insightful)
Support Lawrence Lessig's Change Congress [change-congress.org] movement.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawrence Lessig is a lobbyist too, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
IMO it should be illegal to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race, and illegal to contribute to a candidate you are not eligible to vot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How would you handle group projects like a movie? I mean, at least with a band you generally have only a half dozen or so individuals and they generally hang together better than marriages. With a movie you have potentially hundreds of actors, musicians, makeup artists, scene designers, etc...
Corporate copyright makes sense in many cases.
only the INSANE copyright laws that are in effect now
Actually, I think that they're mostly OK, they simply
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even life is too long. It is supposed to be for a reasonable period in which to make a profit to encourage further writing. There's no more writing if you're dead.
14 was the original, extendable to 28. But we live longer now so I say 20 years extendable to 40 years for everyone but lower fees for personal copyright holders. The initial 20 or any current extension is transferrable to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And thus we get people like you. People who see copyright as unfair, unbalanced, biased and unjust, and thus either ignoring it altogether or making their own rules based on their set of standards and morals.
A law, to be upheld by the general population, has to be understandable and deemed fair. Of course you'll always have people breaking
Re: (Score:2)
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think that in most case the corporations themselves rule the world. In a lot of cases corporations aren't directly controlled by a few people - they move in a direction defined by dozens, hundreds, or thousands of individuals. Unlike a nation, which is generally dedicated at least nominally to serving people, a corporation is dedicated to serving itself.
I think that corpo
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, "should have"? You can release material into the public domain yourself, you don't have to wait for Congress to do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
What counter-revolution?
You look at countries like China and what you see is a second capitalist revolution - a world recast in the mold of entrepreneurs like Bill Gates.
60% of Microsoft's revenues come from outside the U.S. and it is seeing 30% growth in emergent markets like China - each quarter.
Wunderman scoops 10 Dubai Lynx awards at 1st Dubai Advertising Festival [albawaba.com] [Dubai based a
That's just BS... (Score:2)
Right, I've got to call "ignorant bullshit" on this one...
There is so much wrong with this statement, it isn't funny:
1. The copyright holder can place something they own into the public domain at any time. So, if you own a copyright, the only thing keeping it out of the public domain is you.
2. I know what an ISBN (http://en.w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, corporations shouldn't be granted rights because only PEOPLE should have rights. Corporations shield the people who own the corporations from responsibility, which is just plain WRONG.
If you buy a restaraunt and someone dies of food poisoning because of your gross negligence, his heirs can sue you and take your business, your cars, your home, your artwork, everything else of value you own. But if you incorporate tha
Re: (Score:2)
In USSA, all those rich bastards that own the corporations screw YOU!
Re: (Score:2)
I see you've never been married!
Counter-Reformation? (Score:2)
A counter-reformation [wikipedia.org] would surely be an attempt to reform, improve and streamline the existing establishment -- partly in response to defections in favor of newer and more effective establishments.
What we have here seems to be more of an anti-reformation. Unlike the actual counter-reformation it seems unlikely to lead to any advances in painting, music or astronomy. Quite the reverse really.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixed that for ya. And it does not need to be a "group" to be doing that. They do it anyway as this is what their interests call for.
Only the US has fair use anyway... (Score:2, Interesting)
Oh wait... just one tiny little problem with the usual Slashdot conspiracy theory. There is exactly 1 country in the world that has fair use: The US. In the history of the world there has been exactly 1 country that has EVER recognized fair use: The US. No country except for the US has ever recognized fair use as a legal theory. In some common-law countries
Re: (Score:2)
It is in the Network's (and to a lesser degree, the Discordians' and the Sons of Atlantis') interests to keep Fair Use in play, because it is
Re:Only the US has fair use anyway... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Only the US has fair use anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
Other countries don't use the same term, and the exceptions aren't all the same, but "fair use" is a very common concept.
Few countries make the use of snippets for review, criticism or quotation illegal, for example. The details vary, but the basic principles are pretty global.
Some countries go considerably further than the US. Over here in Germany, for example, I can legally copy a CD for a friend. That's called the "Privatkopie" ("private copy") and is the law's acceptance that people will do these kinds of things anyway, so within some limits (very few copies, and for personal friends only), it's allowed. (and yes, it's under attack from the copyright lobby)
Copyright laws are slightly different in every country, and with so much variety, every claim that something is a world-only is almost guaranteed to be a lie.
The definition of USA: #1!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Germany is a common law country with a highly detailed civil code in place to cover a very narrow and exact situation that you just defined.
I don't only live in Germany, my job also means I have a bit of knowledge of the court system and I make regular appearances in court as well. While Germany is a common law country, a lot of the actual meaning of the law is subject to case law. The main difference is that prior cases aren't binding, but they do serve as guidelines all the time, and decisions of the high courts (there are a few, for different areas of the law) carry almost the same weight as laws.
also charges taxes on all copying media
That's correct, but besides the point. Ther
fighting FUD with facts (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh the horror, the evil illuminati and the tri-lateral commission are going to take away Fair Use all over the world! This is all America's Fault!!
Oh wait... just one tiny little problem with the usual Slashdot conspiracy theory. There is exactly 1 country in the world that has fair use: The US. In the history of the world there has been exactly 1 country that has EVER recognized fair use: The US. No country except for the US has ever recognized fair use as a legal theory. In some common-law countries like the UK and Australia there is a parallel concept of "fair dealing", but it tends to be given a much narrower interpretation than the broad equitable doctrine of Fair Use that is employed in the US. When it comes to common law countries like those in the EU, there are enumerated lists of exceptions from copyright protection that are extremely strict and inflexible compared to Fair Use rights. This is how it has been for well over 100 years, but it's fun to see Slashdot promote FUD and ignorance instead of any type of rational discussion (again).
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include [wikipedia.org]:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relat
Re: (Score:2)
SCOTUS Stacked Against Berne Convention (Score:3, Interesting)
They already can't enforce the laws on the books, because they are PR disasters, that only constantly serve to diminish the credibility of the law. The big media content owners are starting to run scared, as well they should be. Look at the comments regarding yesterday's study that 95% of 18-24 year olds copy content illegally. Nothing but solid contempt for these insane copyright laws. The tide is shifting, and politicians voting to screw consumers will be assuming ever higher political liability for doing so.
This is all good. These people are the evil cousins to the ultimate evil international bankers without any country loyalty or concern for consumers who confiscated real money world-wide and instituted fiat paper money debt control. They finance wars, they could care less who is at war as long as there is war somewhere from which to profit through the issuance of debt and confiscation through bankruptcy. And ultimately, the war on copyright is just the warm up battle to the war on fiat paper money. They are just printing control and printing taxation at will, at the expense of disparate international citizens. It's nothing put pure theft of the wealth which is the property of culture, of all, just like free speech and free trade.
Perhaps other countries will now better understand American disdain for the United Nations when they see other international institutions like the IMF, WB, and now the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). They are there to finance themselves by legalized theft against your rights.
In politics, it's not a "whispering campaign" (Score:5, Interesting)
Politics does not select for politicians who are deep thinkers -- although possibly there may be a few odd examples. Politics favors the gregarious, the people pleasers, the networkers.
So, suppose you are such a person, who makes his way in the world by being popular. You aren't stupid by any means, and let's stipulate for the purposes of argument you are not corrupt, but well intentioned. Still it's a fair bet you probably aren't the kind of person who likes to hike to a lonely spot in the mountains, to spend a pleasant afternoon contemplating the role of the unrestricted flow of information in maintaining a vibrant and free society.
But this is exactly the most important kind of issue that comes in front of you as an elected official. And in all probably, you don't have a deep reservoir of accumulated thought to draw upon when this comes up. You have deeply held convictions but you haven't worked out how they all apply in cases like these.
So, being a gregarious person, you draw upon the thoughts of others who had the foresight to propose the connections in advance. Furthermore, being a people pleaser by nature, your first inclination when they did this was to receive their argument favorably. You certainly did not tear it down and throw it in their face as a load of rubbish.
Having received the argument favorably, and since the argument connects the question to some of your values, like "private enterprise", you're primed to take it up as your own.
That's why buying access is such a huge win for special interests and a huge loss for democracy. It's not that there isn't corruption, of course there is. But a politician doesn't have to be personally corrupt for you to corrupt his opinions.
It's an odd thing, but being the kind of person who likes to spend quiet afternoons contemplating big questions, I have found vigorous "men of action" remarkably easy to steer. They're always up to do something and they think of themselves as "far sighted", but that usually means they don't have a clear view of how the ground in front of their feet is connected to the goals they see on the horizon. And they tend to be completely unaware that they are acting without a road map, so when you slip one under their nose, they internalize it. You can see that this is just one of many possible alternatives, but they have a way of seeing it as the one true path that they have been following all along.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think, however, that the personality you describe by definition is one of stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
I can walk into a room of people who aren't sure of some issue, and if its an issue that I know something about I can probably convince a lot of them, probably even a majority, to view the issue my way.
On the other hand, I'd fail utterly in convincing them to trust me to handle issues like that on their behalf -- in other words to vote for me. And it would boil down to things that I said and did which wou
"vibrant and free society" Where? (Score:2)
Go to a McDonald's at lunch time and look for your vibrant and free
it's interesting they are digging this deep (Score:5, Insightful)
it is simply that at one time, the means of production and distribution of media was confined to a few players. this meant that agreeing on rules, and compliance and enforcement was relatively simple and straightforward. as recently as the 1980s, if someone was counterfeiting vhs tapes, for example, the operation was ponderous, slow, required a heavy initial investment, and was relatively easy to trace and shut down those few random players. this limited piracy to a few hardy organizations
but today, the power of global distribution that was once confined to the likes of bertelsman and sony is in the hands of every college kid. enforcement? ha! compliance and agreement on the rules? ha!
the assumptions about distribution that created copyright law as we know it is so fundamentally altered as to be so alien a landscape that copyright law is simply completely and utterly destroyed. for those of you doubting this, you are simply in denial. you can't make a law that is impossible to enforce. well, you can, legislative bodies do it every day. but it simply doesn't mean anything, it's hollow, it's a joke. that's what our copyright law has become
the last ten years has simply been a slow process of awakening the world to this fact. the next ten years will simply be more awakening to this fact, everyone getting on the same page: copyright law is broken. utterly
this is what they mean by disruptive technology. the internet destroyed copyright law by making every single individual in 2000 have the same distribution power that was confined in 1990 to sony and bertelsman
obviously, rights and morality and ownership in the realm of media are issues that are still valid. these issues still need to be addressed legally. but the legal and compliance framework around these issues will need to be built almost from scratch, and copyright law as we know it must be thrown out almost in its entirety: all the basic assumptions it is founded upon are completely reordered
personally, i think some form of copyleft a la "free" software will be the basis for our new legal framework about all media and distribution: music, books, movies, etc
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think we both can agree that the reason for copyright is to encourage creators to create. There will always be creators who want no money for their works, but we would lose out on some potentially powerful creations of content.
What would you propose to do to "give thanks" to the creators?
excellent question (Score:3, Interesting)
#1: that current copyright law rewards content creators. it actually rewards content distributors
#2: that current copyright law is the maximum benefit for creators in terms of reward and protection. no copyright law at all provides equal benefit
how the heck can i think that?
say i give away a copyrighted song for free on the internet. under the old way of understanding, this is hurting the content creator. in actuality, this is giving the content creator free publicity
3 Tests (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Well this means only one thing.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It will probably turn into.. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is NOT a counter-reformation! (Score:3, Interesting)
What I mean is that the counter-reformation led to change within the Roman Catholic church. It led to less greed (or at least less display thereof), less concern with "worldly" matters and a refocus on their original purpose, the leading of a spiritual group.
I doubt this "counter-reformation" in the music biz will lead to a refocus on the original intent of the copyright.
Nice.... (Score:2)
Sorry, have to go now. There are some nice men in black suits wearing dark glasses here for me.
Re:If they win, it'll be the average person's faul (Score:2)
I can download any audio recording (movies, books, etc.) that was fixed prior to... 1912, I believe. WWII hasn't yet entered the public domain, culturally. Not the Vietnam conflict, Not the racial marches. Not the moon landing.
It's all under copyright; nothing is public domain.
Give it all up. Go wear a straw hat, or, if you are female, do the "flapper" thing. Until its pushed back further. I'm ok with this (personally). But then, I think Beethoven's 9th is the best piece of m