Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Morosoph's Journal: Email to my MP regarding copyright 16

Journal by Morosoph

Dear David,

        This is not an issue that affects me as much as software patents do (by
a long way), but I feel that the same fundamentalist propertarian stance
underlies it; it might affect me a good deal more were I a musician.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1641428,00.html

        There are two things here of note. First, the government, like all
extremists, has failed to perform a cost-benefit analysis on the
proposal to extend copyright on existing work, so as to raise further
revenue for the existing music industry "so that the record companies
can plough money back into unearthing new talent". The cost of such
copyright was clearly shown by the mass campaign of civil disobedience
that constituted Grey Tuesday.

http://www.greytuesday.org/
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_10/howard/

        Once more, the language of "incentives" ,"investment", etcetera is
blinding us all to what wealth really is: creativity on the ground
rendered into real goods. Wealth is not synonymous with profit, but I
am sure that I am teaching you how to suck eggs here. Besides, there's
a good chance that greater wealth will create the opportunities for
greater profit in as yet unforeseen ways.

        Quite simply, government policy appears to be to create artificial
scarcity, so that a few future acts can be picked for us on our behalf
by the music companies, where they could instead be allowing songs to
fall out of copyright, and thereby encouraging reuse and
reinterpretation of the underlying ideas, and surely thereby creating
new wealth, especially since it is now a good deal easier for a band to
market itself with the advent of the internet.

        My motive for writing this is really that of frustration with the
Establishment's economic incompetence, confusing, as ever, the interests
of incumbents with future creativity, whether in software, or (as is the
case here) in the case of music. I would have hoped that by now,
government would have matured to the point where making such an error
would be evidence of serious corruption, but I fear that it is economic
incompetence, instead.

        Yours sincerely,
--
I forgot to write the second "thing of note", or rather, I decided not to put it in. Sadly, it remains referred to in the text of my letter. I decided not to put it in, for I wished to come across as a moderate, rather than as the radical that I am.

It was simply to ask whether the government should be putting taxpayer's money into an industry problem that isn't an economic problem.
--
Follow-on email...

Hello again, David,

        Further to my previous email, I though that I would send you a further
link. Vivendi's behavior in the takeover and selling on of mp3.com
reveal that far from wishing to promote new acts, the large music
companies will do what they can to inhibit the development of
independent music. Further cash being funneled to these companies is
as likely to be spent inhibiting creativity as funding it. It is not a way
to develop new talent.

http://www.dubroom.org/articles/0009.htm

        Yours etc.,
--
Footnote: it appears that MP3.com's president was a bit of a plonker.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Email to my MP regarding copyright More

Email to my MP regarding copyright

Comments Filter:
  • When I was a very little kid, maybe 10 years old, I heard about the copyright which lasts 50 years. I remember I amazed how short compared to the supposedly enormous effort the writer made.

    50 years is very short. I published my first novel in 1978, just 1350 copies and loyalty is almost nil. Now 27 years has already passed. It is absurd for copyrighted materials to cease their right still whereas the ones who made are alive.

    I think '50 years' is decided from a life expectancy a century year ago. It is

    • You should have created more work since then!

      I agree that it's nice to receive money for things that you created in the past, but this is not free: it comes at a cost. In particular, you cannot use what is in the culture freely to remix, or sometimes, to inspire. The creation of artificial scarcity in this way is not the creation, but is rather the theft of wealth, for although you get to receive a proportion of the wealth generated by your creation, further wealth, that would have been made possible b

      • Ok, I think I understand something, which might be directly related to your problem too.

        I'm afraid you need to understand a little bit about the spirit of law.

        Let me give you one apparent example. In Japan prostitution is prohibited by law, but of course prostitution is everywhere. Strangely enough, no no but 50 years ago prostitution was lawfully held in a red-light-district, at that time prostitution was completely legal act within a limited district- but because we were unable to find sex shop everyw

        • Turn to a copyright law. In times when the number of printed copies were the same as the number of the copyrighted materials, 50 years patent/loyalty was long enough to protect original deviser's right. Because for 50 years the property right of the deviser was well being kept, but because now is the time you can almost freely get access to the originals for almost nothing, their property right has to be kept much more than ever, for those reasons, the patent period in the US has already extended to 90 ye

          • Alright! Let me give you one another example.

            In urban area where maximum speed is limited only 60km/h, I ususally drive slightly less than 60km/h, like 57 to 8, someone who don't like to follow a guy like me who follows speed limit strictly goes over me with more than 60. I don't care, I just don't want to be subject to police matter. But they who exceed speed limit are liable to get caught by police.Then your statement Anyone playing by the rules will be harmed;is questionable. Being harmed, because I cann

            • In urban area where maximum speed is limited only 60km/h, I ususally drive slightly less than 60km/h, like 57 to 8, someone who don't like to follow a guy like me who follows speed limit strictly goes over me with more than 60. I don't care, I just don't want to be subject to police matter. But they who exceed speed limit are liable to get caught by police.Then your statement Anyone playing by the rules will be harmed;is questionable. Being harmed, because I cannot reach my destination earlier than the gu

              • Copyright must be a young right that started to be admitted in the wake of early capitalism. Of course after Gutenberg, but it is dubious whether authors of some important works like 'Paradise Lost' or 'The Wealth of Nations' fully excersied this right, indeed copyright -the right to allow someone to copy was ambiguous, weak, meek, and invisible...easily hurt and it was not easy to be established as a form of property right, as you succinctly pointed out the property right is a positive right, unless given

                • Copyright must be a young right that started to be admitted in the wake of early capitalism. Of course after Gutenberg, but it is dubious whether authors of some important works like 'Paradise Lost' or 'The Wealth of Nations' fully exercised this right, indeed copyright -the right to allow someone to copy was ambiguous, weak, meek, and invisible...easily hurt and it was not easy to be established as a form of property right, as you succinctly pointed out the property right is a positive right, unless give

                  • They make a demand upon others, rather than being merely defensive. That makes them worse than negative rights, not better, and far from being a natural part of capitalism,

                    We cannot assert whether property right is better or worse than the right to bear arms. Because the point of view from we see differs, the evaluation also differs, but from my point of view, positive right e.g. property right is better than the negative right e.g. the right to bear arms. In peace time, the right to bear arms is unnecessa

                    • Overly extending copyright and harming the ability of ordinary people to be creative...these two have nothing to do with one another.

                      Copyright restricts not only a given work but also those works that are "substantially similar" to that work. If the term of copyright is extended arbitrarily as works continue to be created, then eventually, people will run out of the possible distinct combinations that are possible within a given medium. There are twelve notes in a scale; how many combinations of those n

                    • We cannot assert whether property right is better or worse than the right to bear arms. Because the point of view from we see differs, the evaluation also differs, but from my point of view, positive right e.g. property right is better than the negative right e.g. the right to bear arms. In peace time, the right to bear arms is unnecessary, useless, and of course harmful, still less unlawful, and first of all itself is criminal offence. Nothing preferable, but only in time of war or social unrest, in the

                    • Creation needs guts.

                      It takes several years to create truly creative works. In my case before writing 'The Eve', I wrote 200 poems and 1 novel, only after countless number of etudes, one work is made. After I wrote The Eve, for two years I was just unable to write any meaningful writings anymore, to make matters worse, I fell into apathy- not willing to write, read, study etc. anything, but only I had been concentrating on shaping senses more and more acute..I had been trying to transcend the state then I

                    • In my case before writing 'The Eve', I wrote 200 poems and 1 novel, only after countless number of etudes, one work is made.

                      Difference is that the federal courts have shown themselves to interpret the line between idea and expression a lot more reasonably with respect to literary works such as 'The Eve' than with musical works. It's possible for precedent to be OK for one class of works and fcuked up for another.

                      so many times similarity and difference. Because only twelve notes we can combine, QED, t

  • fundamentalist propertarian

    Since our perception is different, it is inevitable for us to see things very different from one another, you tend to focus on individual's right to copy while I am only concentrating on individual's right to property. We both agree in many parts as to how to protect copyrights but the degrees we have in stance with copyright differs a little, when you say 'fundamental propertatian' I think you are exaggerating the role of copyright too much.

    First, the government, like all ext

    • That's not an artificial scarcity but an appropriate portion that government intend to regulate the total copy flow the society can afford to circulate.

      The definition of the term "afford" involves the concept of scarcity. Things cannot be "afforded" or "not afforded" unless they are scarce. And what makes you think a reward greater than a human life span is "an appropriate portion"?

      It is uncertain whether he is opposing to the extension of the copyright because it is direcly against his benefit, mayb

    • Since our perception is different, it is inevitable for us to see things very different from one another, you tend to focus on individual's right to copy while I am only concentrating on individual's right to property. We both agree in many parts as to how to protect copyrights but the degrees we have in stance with copyright differs a little, when you say 'fundamental propertarian' I think you are exaggerating the role of copyright too much.

      This JE is not aimed at you, but at those in industry and go

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close