European Copyrights Expire; RIAA Nervous 640
colmore writes "This article in today's New York Times (free reg. req.) discusses the expiration of European copyrights for recordings made in the 1950s. Now "bootleg" labels can legitimately print a lot of still-popular early rock, country, jazz, and classical albums. The good folks at the RIAA are trying to establish stricter customs controls. So does this mean cheap Elvis or a diluted pool of products?"
Is this the same in the US? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, it's the same. (Score:4, Informative)
However, the RIAA & MPAA and other organizations have government backing, and have extended United States copyright laws well beyond the European 50 or so. I believe the current law is 95 years in America, and it can only be made longer by our wonderfully corrupt politicians.
Can I have like, +5 for calling politicians corrupt? Everybody else gets points for just spouting crap, and as long as they say something against the "system" they get hella points. Oh well.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:4, Funny)
Isn' t that discriminatory? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the law that defines the copyright term as a function of the life of the author discriminatory?
Here's my logic:
Person A is 10 years old, and is a prodigy. There's no history of major disease (like cancer) in his family, and everybody in his family lives for an average of 100 years - for the sake of argument, he lives until he's 100. He writes his first symphony at the age of 10 years, and (as he lives to be 100 years old) his copyright lasts 160 years (100 - 10 + 70)
Person B is 46 years old, but has a family history of cancer and diabetes. She writes her first symphony at 46, lives to 50, and so her copyright only lasts 110 years.
So if all people are equal under the law, why does Person A get 160 years of protection, but the same law grants Person B only 2/3rds the same amount?
It's quite clear that the current copyright law discriminates against the elderly, as well as terminally ill, and people who have a genetic predisposition to cancer or other life-shortening diseases.
I'm not an American, so can someone tell me if there are laws against discrimination?
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
What this means is that someone created some content, at year 0, with full knowledge that the copyright would expire in X years. At year (X - 1), Congress extends copyrights to (X + Y) years. Now, said content is still under copyright until year (X + Y), even though it's creator had accepted the fact that it would fall into the public domain at year X.
This is what Lessig was in front of the Supreme Court for. Congress can arbitrarily apply a copyright extension every time a chunk of media (eg. "Steamboat Willie", owned by Disney - the first appearance of Mickey Mouse) is about to fall into the public domain.
Clearly, Walt was okay with the idea of Mickey becoming public domain in X years, but Eisner sees things a bit differently...
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:3, Interesting)
It's really a contract with the public... (Score:4, Interesting)
The root of the problem is that when Walt created Mickey, and published his film, he essentially entered into a contract with the public. He agreed that he had a specific number of years from which to profit off of his creation (and he clearly took great advantage of this). Now, the Disney corporation (standing in for Walt himself) has not held up their end of the bargain.
The public agreed, in exchange for not using the intellectual property of Disney for some period of time, that they would gain the possesion of that property for the good of society at large. We held up our end of that bargain (sure some people didn't, but Disney was allowed to sick their lawyers on those folks, as well as use our legal infrastructure for that purpose), so where's the part that benefits us??
Yes, it's certainly in Eisner's interests to extend copyrights (including doing it retroactively). I do not fault him for endorsing such a policy. What I do have a problem with is the way he endorses it, and the fact that Congress doesn't understand or care about the public's side of things. The RIAA/MPAA have made quite a few shady deals (Hollings isn't called "senator Disney" for nothing) in order to get legislation to swing their way. This is really what's wrong with copyright law as it stands (and how it seems to be progressing).
Re:It's really a contract with the public... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem that they're taking what is intended for us, hijacking it as it's on it's way to us, and keeping it for themselves.
That sounds closer to the original definition of piracy, than copying a mate's cd.
Hilary Rosen and Senator Hollins are supporters of piracy.
Doesn't that just sound right ?
Re:It's really a contract with the public... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's really a contract with the public... (Score:5, Informative)
Because "intellectual property" is not the same as physical property. An idea, once published, becomes known to everyone.
The copyright law was created to encourage creation of new ideas that would eventually benefit all of us. The public promised to give the creator certain rights, in exchange for making their ideas public.
If you have some precious "intellectual property" that you don't want to share, then do not publish it.
Of course, anything Disney does is worthless, unless they do publish it and let people see it...
Re:It's really a contract with the public... (Score:4, Insightful)
In case you haven't been reading this thread, the copyright holders did not create the content. The content creators (like Walt Disney) are dead and buried, or at least frozen [grimsociety.com]. Our original deal with Walt calls for the content to go into the public domain. Why hasn't it?
I think the house-building analogy you use doesn't fit. To me, it is more like the copyright holders are a neighbor borrowing your lawn mower "for just a week". (The lawn mower is the exclusive right to use that art.) A week later, they come back and say "I need it one week more." This goes on all summer, and you haven't gotten your lawnmower back. Next summer doesn't look so good either.
Re:It's really a contract with the public... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's really a contract with the public... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, because their so called "intellectual property", if you insist upon the term, is built out of our intellectual property. If you believe in intellectual property, you have to face up to a commonly ignored fact: the public owns most of the world's "intellectual property" rights! Words, language, drawing techniques, characterization, folklore: all these count as "intellectual property". Everything ever created is, by overwhelming evidence, an derivative work of some work in the public domain. Hence, under the standard "intellectual property" rules, the public gets to dictate the terms under which our "intellectual property" can be used. In the US, (and many other countries), copyright law is those set of terms.
Disney owes the public: they were allowed to use our intellectual property, granted a decades long monopoly on their derived work, and now they want to back out of the agreement that says they have to return the results to the public's domain. That's not fair.
A honest businessman, (if such a mythical creature existed), wouldn't try to get the courts or the law changed to back out of a contract when it came payment time. Eisner is, and that's why people are upset.
It's like building a house and after 95 years of owning your house suddenly becomes a historical landmark and you're evicted by the county
No, it's like building a house on public lands with public funds, with the express understanding that after those 95 years pass, you have to give the house back to the public. Then, when you've enjoyed the benefits of the agreement, and it comes time to pay, you then cry "Foul!", and try to get the law changed so that you don't have to live up to your side of the bargain.
Even if you accept the notion of "intellectual property" (and I don't), this reasoning is still flawed. It ignores the rights of the public; the silent majority stakeholders.
I wouldn't be suprised if in the future copyright expiration in the USA is abolished entirely.
I don't think anyone in the general public today thinks copyrights are important enough to ammend the US constitution. Many people don't pay much attention to politics, much less "intellectual property" disputes, but most people in the USA get very upset when you mention changing their constitution.
Don't get me wrong, I don't support this by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate.
Your points are both well argued, and insightful. I just don't agree with them.
--
Ytrew
Intellectual property is a flawed notion. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sound fair? It's how intellectual "property", if it really were property, would have to work. Good thing it's not. The idea of intellectual "property" just doesn't jive, for a variety of reasons:
- The "creation" involved is not creation ex nihilo; all authors and composers draw on previous work for inspiration and source material. Granting an exclusive property right to the last one to contribute to what is essentially historically a group effort is akin to only giving the beer to the last guy who helped lift; it makes the system morally unjust.
- If copyright were a property right it would be unable to expire; as you pointed out, owning something now means you'll own it 96 years from now. Yet this would cause copyright to quickly be in violation of many property-rights theories. For example, John Locke says that an appropriation of property to oneself is just if and only if one leaves "enough and as good for others". But if copyright is a property right and thus perpetual, we would very quickly run out of things left for others; as previously mentioned, "creation" of property in this sense involves drawing upon the work of others, and to do so would be illegal. There might be the occasional truly new idea, but copyright would fast reach a point where we were not leaving "enough and as good".
- The notion of copyright as property grants an exclusive property right in something which is non-exclusive. In the case of physical property, the right makes sense because physical items can generally only be possessed by one person at a time and the stability of society demands that some form of ownership be instituted in order to prevent constant strife over such possession; this principle is the basis of several major theories of property (e.g., Thomas Hobbes' and David Hume's). However, with something which can be possessed non-exclusively, applying such a rule makes little sense; if all can enjoy and benefit from possession of a thing simltaneously with no strife and no harm, would it not be an evil to deny such enjoyment and possession?
And that's just the tip of the iceberg; I've been researching the philosophy of copyright for a damned long time and while there are certainly some fuzzy areas, I can sy with absolute certainty that copyright cannot be "property" in the sense in which you have used the term.Re:It's really a contract with the public... (Score:3, Informative)
Take Snow White or Sleeping Beauty. They didn't create either of them, and made huge financial gains by re-telling the story in animated form.
Why should we be prevented from using THEIR works the same way?
Big companies abuse copyrights for all they're worth. IMHO, they should expire 50 years after the creator's death. And that should not be able to be changed.
N.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
Will having "Steamboat Willie" (or any other equally old work) in the public domain really hurt the copyright holder? Is there really so much demand for Steamboat Willie tapes, DVDs, T-shirts, cereal, and whatnot that if it was freely available it would really affect their bottom line? Ok, I'm exaggerating slightly, but my point is some media company's (like Disney's) whole operation is not going to come crashing down if some near-100 year old work is in the public domain.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:4, Interesting)
While copies of Steamboat Willie leagally floating around does not directly scare Disney that much, it is the character of Mickey Mouse that does.
Today you cant use the Mouse's image without being hounded (and loosing to) disney's Lawyers. When the copyright expires, you will be able to use the image of Mickey Mouse (as he appears in Steamboat Willy) since that image is now in the public domain.
The potential loss of control of the Mickey Mouse Image is what gives Disney the Willies.
You should not that this is an extreme case, it is not just a story or song that is loosing it's copyright, but a Image that is close to, if not, a Trademark. I can understand why Disney wants to protect it, but extension of copyrights is not the right answer.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's at least two instances where Mad Magazine have parodied Mickey Mouse (Mickey Rodent) using exact copies of his, and Donald's, Goofy's and Pluto's image, for the purposes of parody, which isn't allowed under Trademark Law, I believe.
The cartoons went unchallenged, and were created in the early 50's, so their Trademark could be argued to have lapsed. [IANAL etc.]
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:3, Informative)
"Mickey Mouse" as a trademark? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, Walt Disney would argue that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, so no, not anyone could use Mickey Mouse to market their product.
Several years ago, I bought a VHS tape with "Bugs Bunny" and the likeness of Bugs on the front and language to the effect of "This videotape contains public domain audiovisual works and is not endorsed by Warner Communications" on the back. Less than a week ago, I saw several similar tapes for sale at my local Walgreens store. If what you're saying is true, that trademark law gives Disney a monopoly on the early Mickey Mouse cartoons even after their copyrights have expired, then I'd expect Time Warner to have prevailed in legal action against these sellers of "Bugs Bunny" tapes years ago.
Or you could just follow the example of the maintainers of the GPL version of Star Control 2 [sourceforge.net], who call their product "The Ur-Quan Masters" instead of "Star Control 2".
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:4, Interesting)
Disney has always made many classic fairytells incredibly well like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. Others have made the same movies in animated form, only disney's are still popular. Let's look at the anime Dragon Ball and DBZ. Both were based on the manga and made by the same guy, they were incredibly entertaining. DBZ quite probably was/is the most popular anime series ever(as said by a number of source, but probably unsubstantiated). Dragon Ball GT was a sequel to Dragon Ball Z not based on the manga. It sucked bad.
The point? Disney is crazy, even if they lost the copyright on Mickey Mouse, in all likelyhood no one else would be able to make a decent Mickey Mouse cartoon. Disney has always been a big force in the entertainment industry, as is shown by most of the other animated fairytails not being as well known as the Disney ones. And even if someone managed to revive mickey mouse and make a fortune, Mickey isn't really making disney a whole lot with his cartoons today. The brand name recognition with Mickey is fixed for disney as well. When people see Mickey, they will automatically think Disney. So if other studios did manage to make cartoons it would be an advertisement for Disney.
In short, Eisner is a moron. Instead of paying for lawyers and buying off politicians, he should invest his money into making a better product. Overall Disney's movies have been going downhill. Admittedly some of them are good such as Monster Inc, but for the most part the majority of Disney movies are starting to suck lately. He should spend less time worrying about nothing and more time worrying about Disney's future.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:3, Interesting)
Go read John Kennedy Toole's [levity.com] novel A Confederacy of Dunces as an example. Toole couldn't find a publisher and committed suicide. His mom enlisted the help of a prof at Loyola who found a publisher. The book was reasonably successful (and BTW, is well worth the read). Should it go into the public domain because the author is dead?
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:5, Funny)
If Pro is the opposite of Con, what is the opposite of Progress?
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:3, Interesting)
I find it strange that the supreme court can enforce a law that will be applied backwards in time so to speak. Basically you are never sure if whatever you do is not going to be affected by some law in the future and you may even be sued in the future for something that was legal when you did it in the past, but now (in the future) is illegal. That doesn't make sense to me.
Ok, extend the copyright laws, but only for new work created AFTER the law was passed. Work created earlier, will expire as said law regulated when the work was created.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act basically allows corporations to apply for extensions, lobbied for by worried Disney execs approaching the 20th year anniversary of Walt's cryogenic freezing. So they can apply for extensions so long as they have the money to keep filing.
The constitution doesn't say anything about indefinitely held copyrights.
See, indefinite != unlimited, so this crap apparently isnt unconstitutional, even if this is the exact situation the constitution set out to prevent (that is, large corporations owning virtually all the copyright and using that power to fleece the public).
In short, we will never see PD Beatles tunes.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:5, Informative)
it stood for 14 years with a one time extention of 14 years period. no life of author crap.
Re:Yes, it's the same. (Score:4, Interesting)
IIRC it's much longer than that now. If you really want to know more detail about the US involvement with copyright munging through RIAA and MPAA I strongly recommend Lessigs lecture on Free Culture [randomfoo.net] that was presented in July 2002.
I've shown it to a few who have been very impressed with it. I think it was very well done and quite representative of what we are seeing here and will be seeing with these Media organizations in the coming years.
Re:Is this the same in the US? (Score:5, Informative)
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date
These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.
Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978
Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.
Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.
Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required in order to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue from making a renewal registration during the 28th year of the original term.
For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, "Renewal of Copyright"; Circular 15a, "Duration of Copyright"; and Circular 15t, "Extension of Copyright Terms."
International copyright (Score:5, Informative)
Many countries have signed on the Berne Convention, which requires life+50. That could change.
Bootleg is bootleg, though, and to bring these legal foreign recordings into the states would be illegal. When in Rome, do as Romans do. The arbitrary copyright term is a question of degree. It is hard to see a bright line between life+50 and life+70; what is really out of line in the Sonny Bono Act is the retroactive extension of copyright that was the immediate payback to supporters like Disney.
Re:International copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that the only way to make this work is to make it categorically illegal for Americans to possess, play, or redistribute public domain works that originate outside U.S. borders, and then put up a firewall between the U.S. Internet segment and the rest of the Internet.
This is so obviously stupid that the ??AA and Congress will no doubt make it a reality within the next two years.
Re:International copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, one of the countries listed, the UAE, lists life+25 years as of 1996. My how things change. When I was there in 1990 (Desert Storm) you could find shops of all kinds selling cassettes, video tapes, and Nintendo Famicon games. All of these were in generic cases by Thompsun, with the exception of the Famicon titles which were XXX-in-1 cartridges. These weren't tents or street vendors, but actual storefronts. This was in both Dubai and Bahrain.
Finding legitimate originals was completely impossible.
-sarcasm on-
I'm glad this country has seen the light regarding IP rights.
-sarcasm off-
This just in.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This just in.. (Score:4, Funny)
Pierre: Soon it will be time, Hans
Hans: Shut up
Pierre: I surrender
Hans: Don't you ever get sick of saying that?
Re:This just in.. (Score:3, Insightful)
excellent hardware - the best in the world at time...
The English, French, even the Polish had better tanks, and the Anglo-French had more in theatre than the Germans, whose best tanks in the early stages were Czech tanks with a new paint job. The Germans had better doctrine- they understood the concept of mobile warfare, which the Allies had to learn from the receiving end.
Applying mobile warfare properly, an offensive force can easily defeat a much larger force. On the defensive, modern weaponry (WWI and newer) gives incredible resisting power. In a straight offensive operation, you want a 3x numerical advantage to ensure success. In a beach landing, even that may not be enough.
In short, the German military machine was the most potent in the world at that time, by far.
Yes, but they were smaller and poorly equipped. Their potency rating was helped by the fact that everyone around them were idiots.
So You're Saying... (Score:2, Interesting)
The reproduction will be near flawless; in fact, wouldn't they be able to reproduce the new Elvis Greatest Hits thing? Or by re-mastering it, do they create a new copyright on said recordings?
I can see the customs agent now.. (Score:4, Funny)
RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Insightful)
It came along later. It was called the "Stationer's Guild".
Here's a little story:
Once upon a time there were these entrenched powers that effectively controlled the creation and dissemination of information because it was so difficult to copy in large quantities. Then, this new technology came along and made it much easier for people to create and distribute information. This threatened the entrenched powers so they went to the government and made it illegal to use the technology except for a select few.
Now, the beauty of this little story is that you can replace "Technology" with "printing press" or "Internet and Computers" and come up with a true story. Or maybe it will be a true story. It isn't quite true for the Internet and Computers, but that's what they're trying to do. Remember that this isn't about piracy (although you shouldn't steal musing using P2P). It's about control and this battle has been fought before and the result before in this nation was the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and the press. It's interesting that they didn't stop at freedom of speech. Why did they mention a technological method of creating and distributing information? My guess is that they understood that a government can make speech pointless if they restrict you to only being able to actually speak. You have to be able to use the technology that's available or else your freedom of speech is pointless. Nobody will ever hear you. I believe this principle will win in the end since politicians once people explain to them that this is the same battle that was fought over printing presses 400 yaers ago and was settled in the Constitution in the First Amendment.
Re:RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Next time you need something nitpicked to death, you know who to call. ;)
I thought 95 years was to match the european ... (Score:2)
I thought that the 95 years was to match the European Copyright system.
Where the heck did I get that idea?
Re:I thought 95 years was to match the european .. (Score:3, Insightful)
As for me, I'm so damned happy about this: I love Callas, and the great jazz and blues bands/songs. They also make great 'film' music, very atmospheric/moody. Now I can put them under my homemade 3d movies totaly without fear of being asked uncomfortable questions about payment whenever or wherever I show them of.
And what to think of actual good filmmakers, who couldn't secure the rights to that piece they wanted to have under that certain scene in their movie...now they have a few more options. This is a good thing
Nobody will buy them... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nobody will buy them... (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it could arguably be an improvement.
Ah, you've never really heard Elvis until you've heard him in the original Klingon.
Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Well. I've been invited to move to the U.S. at least half a dozen times this year. No way am I doing that, I value my freedom, I value free expression of ideas.
Kind of funny it's come to that, huh?
Delute or Elvis? (Score:2)
Well, both actually. There will be junk albums with 1950 hits & lot's of junk to fill up, but also there'll be good cheap Elvis albums too.
But it said Europian rights were expiaring...Does this mean that you can only sell this music in Europe? Or only music recorded in Europe? Anyone know how this works?
Re:Delute or Elvis? (Score:5, Funny)
RIAA? (Score:2)
Reason they care.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Piratical (Score:5, Funny)
"The import of those products would be an act of piracy," said Neil Turkewitz, the executive vice president international for the Recording Industry Association of America, which has strongly advocated for copyright protections. "The industry is regretful that these absolutely piratical products are being released."
I'm quite regretful that such stupidical comments can make the NYT
RIAA's Everything-is-mine Mentality (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Neil firmly believes what he is saying, and that Jack Valenti firmly believes watching tv without watching the commercials is "theft of programming." These people live in a COMPLETELY unreal world, which is why we have to make them shut the hell up and go away, instead of letting them write our laws for us. This is why you should not buy RIAA music. Pay to listen to local bands, support musicians that distribute their own music online, ignore the RIAA-created fantasy world of big-time music and let the RIAA shrivel up and die.
Re:RIAA's Everything-is-mine Mentality (Score:5, Informative)
17 USC 602(a) is the applicable statute, IIRC. It has been read to state that copyright holders can control the importation of their works where that importation is a part of their right to control initial distribution under 17 USC 106.
It is inapplicable where the section 106 distribution right is inapplicable, e.g. first sale. That is, if Sony Europe sells a particular CD for a value of $1 in San Marino, they cannot prevent its importation into the US even if it undercuts Sony America's price of $20, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY SOLD IT.
On the other hand, if they were uninvolved, as in the example of a copy made lawfully in Pottsylvania (which has no copyright laws at all), then they can prevent its import since it would thoroughly undermine US copyright laws -- everything would come in from there.
There is an exemption to this if you as an individual import a single copy of any work at any time and intend only to keep them and not redistribute them. (There are some other exemptions too, but that's the most germane here)
Pottsylvania HA! (Score:4, Funny)
Boris: Burning coppies of that Capitalist pig Elvis' first album. Ve vill sell them by bajillions and buy a nuke from Korea for Fearless Leader's Birthday.
Rocky: Stop right there Badinov! Jack Valenti sent us to put the kibosh on your illegal operation.
Bullwinkle: Hey Rocky, watch me pull a customs agent out of my hat!
Boris: Foiled again!
Natasha: Don't worry poopsie, I hear Saddam Husein has some Anthrax he vill sell cheap. That vill make good gift for Fearless Leader's birthday.
Bullwinkle: Kinda makes you wonder if we're going after the wrong people for the wrong reasons don't it?
Customs Agent: (Snapping on latex glove) I'm affraid we're going to have to search you two to make sure there isn't any contraband coming into the country.
Rocky: Not again!
Re:RIAA's Everything-is-mine Mentality (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that saying "this man is a copyright violator" puts people in mind of the little guy vs the corporate giants. Saying "this man is a pirate" makes people understand the God's Honest Truth(tm)... that these are whoring, theiving, pilaging bastards who have thrown their lot in with the devil!
The above is a rhetorical technique is called hyperbole. In my case it's saterical, and I'm honest about it. In the RIAA's case it's an underhanded trick that they defend staunchly, meant to make people think there's someone getting hurt in all of this.
I thought Europe already had long copyrights (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I thought Europe already had long copyrights (Score:5, Informative)
The retrospective extension of copyright is one of the issues that Lawrence Lessig is fighting in the supreme court. I hope for all our sakes that he is victorious.
Re:I thought Europe already had long copyrights (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no completely consistent copyright law in Europe. In Germany, the copyright still expires 70 years after the creator's death (like it's in the US).
AFAIK, the 95 year mark in the US only applies to works which haven't creator, and such works cannot be copyrighted in Europe in the first place (if there's no author, there's no way his rights can be protected).
Obligitory no Reg link (Score:5, Informative)
A wave of creativity perhaps (Score:5, Insightful)
jazz (Score:5, Interesting)
Now a lot of the jazz catalog is public domain in Europe, while in the U.S. we're limited to pre-1922 dreck like Moonlight Bay.
It would be really cool if jazz could start to flourish again in Europe via the internet, with people being able to trade their recordings of songs, broadcast their gigs via internet radio, etc.
Re:jazz (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, only the sheet music copyright has expired; for audio recordings the situation in the US is much worse (and NYT neglects to mention it). From the Public Domain Music [pdinfo.com] site: "Different copyright experts have offered very different complicated explanations, but all agree that all sound recordings essentially are under copyright protection until the year 2067. So here is the one sentence you need to remember: Sound Recording Rule of Thumb: There are NO sound recordings in the Public Domain."
Importing??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are their any existing laws that would prevent me from bringing something back here for personal use?
-- James Dornan
My gut reaction: (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that society will fall apart without the stratifying influence of capitalism, and that the idea of intellectual property is necessary for the continued prosperity of the US, I say that's b.s. and there are other possible viable economic models.
Re:My gut reaction: (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, according to some reports drug companies spend more on marketing existing drugs than on research. See this article [prospect.org] for instance.
It is us, the taxpayers, who still fund large amount of the basic research needed to create new drugs.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:4, Funny)
Please refrain from using the word "Google" in the form of a verb or in any manner that does not directly refer to the noun known as the Google search engine web site (www.Google.com) and its associated services.
We wouldn't want to diminish their trademark, now would we?
Re:IANAL, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the conventinal usage of "Google" seems to refer specifically and exclusively to Google's own services, there's no dilution here.
To "Google" something doesn't mean "to search for it using an arbitrary search engine". It means "to use Google's search engine".
Nobody in their right mind would think of using "Google" to mean "Lycos", or "Alta Vista".
I think the dilution of Xerox and Kleenex came about because the competing products were of similar appearance, quality, function, and availability. Xerox photocopies were conceptually interchangeable with Ricoh's, and Canon's, &c. On the other hand, I don't think anybody's going to confuse Google with Inktomi.
Rather than diluting the brand, the verbing of "Google" indicates increasing mindshare--the more their brand becomes a part of everyday conversation, the better off they are. So long as their product remains distinctly superior to the competition, of course.
Price cuts? Yeah right. (Score:5, Interesting)
The correct response to combat an influx of recordings imported from countries where the copyrights have expired would be to SLASH PRICES on domestic copies of these same 50-year-old recordings. Sell an Elvis CD for $3.99 and there's no incentive for consumers to pay $5.99 (to cover shipping costs) for the identical CD from a European label.
Unfortunately, the RIAA and their constituent member record labels have grown so accustomed to using legislation as a weapon against their own sales base (that's US, yo) that the idea of selling CDs for cheap (it doesn't even have to be at a loss, they could still profit healthily) hasn't even crossed their minds as a way of maintaining their market share.
Elvis is going to have to start flipping burgers. (Score:5, Funny)
For crying out loud... only 50 years?! Poor Elvis, he is going to have to stop collecting European royalties from his music. Luckily, he can still collect money from Americans. I wouldn't want Elvis to have to get another job. What will he do? Start flipping burgers?
Re:Elvis is going to have to start flipping burger (Score:3, Funny)
He already was flipping hamburgers at the Silver Diner on Franconia Road next to Springfield Mall; but before I could tell anybody, he quit and moved on somewhere.
Possible Rescue of Public Domain Concept? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it important for things to go into public domain after a time? The answer is simple:
Have you ever seen Les Miserables?
Have you ever seen Phantom of the Opera?
Have you ever seen a Shakespearean play?
Have you ever heard Beethoven's 9th symphony?
If these things were not in the public domain, you would not be able to see or hear these things. The owner of the copyright would be able to strictly limit their production and charge whatever fee they wanted to someone wishing to perform them. Forget about community theater productions of "The Christmas Carol" as well... they'd be right out.
In the US, however, Disney has led the charge to continually extend the time it would take for things to enter public domain. There is a not-so-strange coincidence between the date at which the law has been extended each time, and the time at which the first Mickey Mouse films would have entered public domain.
This is one of those vital "consumers rights" issues that gets lost in the shuffle with issues of more immediate concern like DVD region coding, HDTV viewing controls, etc. However, this issue IS very important and I wish it would get more press.
The good news here is that if Europe (rightly) is able to resist Hollywood's strong arm tactics, we might finally have a loophole by which the extension of public domain timing can be reversed.
Re:Possible Rescue of Public Domain Concept? (Score:5, Insightful)
[snip]
I think you missed the point. The plays are new; they're still under copyright. The books the plays were written from are in the public domain. That's why it was legal to write the plays in the first place.
If the books were still held copyright by their authors; the plays would be a "derivative work", and hence, illegal to write or perform without the author's (descendant's) permission. If the plays weren't in the public domain, they probably wouldn't have been written.
The playwrights would have to consult a legal department, and get a contract signed, before they would be legally allowed to start writing the play. That's a lot of money for the investors to risk on a play that hasn't even been written yet.
The public domain is a good thing.
--
Ytrew
Here's a direct, but scary quote: (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that quote gives a great insight into RIAA's mindset.
Do DRM systems include copyright expiration? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do DRM systems include copyright expiration? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheap Elvis??? (Score:4, Funny)
All is as it should be in europe (Score:5, Interesting)
When those works were created in the '50s, it was with the understanding that their copyright would only continue for a couple of decades -- not for a couple of centuries. There appeared to be sufficient economic incentives to create them back then. Now that they're legitimitely PD in Europe, I think that that's a good thing.
It's the people who want to keep these recordings out of the public domain that are the real pirates.
Stop bitching about the copyright and help! (Score:3, Informative)
Distributed Proofreading actually contributes to the public domain. Show the politicians that it's important by giving them a thriving public domain that they will want to supply with new works.
golden age of remixes coming (Score:4, Insightful)
lessig is right (Score:5, Insightful)
copyrights should foster innovation. that is the only reason they should exist. they should exist to line corporate pockets. so they should expire with the death of the author. if corporations via sonny bono [wikipedia.org] extend them unnaturally beyond the lifetime of the author, then copyrights instead suppress innovation. 50 years? 95 years? whatever. copyrights should rightly expire when the author is rip.
this expired here but not there bs is just another example of why extending copyrights unnaturally by greedy corporations is a bad idea.
Re:lessig is right (Score:3, Insightful)
Showing our extensive knowledge and refined taste in the arts now, are we, to complement our gentlemanly demeanor? Well...
All through his life, Bach learned by copying out works of other composers, among them Vivaldi, Albinoni, Corelli and Marcello. [hyperion-records.co.uk]
Oh, but your're not done yet...
Michaelaneglo didn't paint by numbers when he painted the Sistine Chapel. He learned the techniques of painting then expressed himself through this medium. While the concepts in teh Sistine Chapel might not be completely original, his work most certtainly was.
Ahem:
The thirteen-year-old Michelangelo joined the studio as an apprentice, and there he learned fresco painting and began to draw compulsively, copying works by Early Renaissance masters Giotto, Masaccio, and Schongauer. [sparknotes.com]
Listen, my friend, it's time to stop spouting and start thinking about just where you and your opinions fit in the grand scheme of things, and how you might go about improving that situation. Bye now.
But doesn't this only cover the songs??? (Score:3, Informative)
Now the mechinacal royalites on records like an Elvis recording itself, I don't know when those actually end. All it would mean is after 50 years you wouldn't have to pay songwriters royalies, but mechanical royalities may still need to be paid.
The situation in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
What expires now, after 50 years, are the rights of the perfoming artists, and the those who made the records and distributed them.
This means that only a piece of music can be copied legally if, (a) the composer, songwriter etc. has been dead for at least 70 years, (b) the original release was 50 years ago, and (c) you make your copy from one of the origianl records. (With subsequent, say CD, releases, the record company gets new rights for 50 years.)
So I doubt that many mass-market compatible music recordings will suddenly become unencumbered by copyright law, at least here in Germany. I suspect the situation is similar in other European countries.
I think you are wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Choice quotes from article, not at all provoking (Score:4, Interesting)
Copyright protection lasts only 50 years in Europe compared to 95 years in the United States
Only 50 years?
"The import of those products would be an act of piracy," said Neil Turkewitz, the executive vice president international for the Recording Industry Association of America
Piracy? When it's perfectly legal, not to mention more than reasonable?
Mr. Turkewitz said, "We will try to get these products blocked," arguing that customs agents "have the authority to seize these European recordings even in the absence of an injunction brought by the copyright owners."
In other words, only abide by the rule of law as long as it's convenient and profitable?
I guess this just goes to show, yet again, who's really in charge [theregister.co.uk].
So what are they going to do ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that copyrights on books, music, plays (any performance or written art) should only be legally held by individuals NOT corporations and the copyright limited in term to the lifetime of that individual. IOW it becomes public domain AFTER the copyright holders death.
Now when it comes to things like movies where there isn't a single person to claim the copyright things do get a little muddy, but since a human lifetime is about 72 years on average and a person might copyright something at anytime during that lifetime set the life of a corporate copyright on
art at something between 50-75 years NO LONGER!!!!
Interesting read about copyright.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Will the US take steps to censor European websites? (Hey! Be like China and censor websites that conflict with the -ISM your country worships even if the content of those websites is perfectly legal within those other countries!)
Heck, if it's legal to import this music, then it's got to be legal to download it...Right? If you can sell records and sell downloadable music, how is downloading any different than making some copies and shipping them here?
I wonder if this also means that all those old Disney movies are no longer under copyright.
It also leads to an interesting question about a possible long term strategy. The **AA's could assert that it's illegal to link to sites legally loaded with content if the content is under copyright anywhere. They could then lobby for perpetual copyright in some other country and still effectively keep control over the Internet distribution of content forever...
This would be horrible (Score:5, Funny)
Its the beginning of the end!
Re:This would be horrible (Score:5, Funny)
I hear Elvis is so angry about this that he's stopped composing new songs and is now busy decomposing instead
Re:This would be horrible (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, no, he's spent the last few decades chilling out with Walt Disney.
This is how it should work... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Article (no registration required) (Score:4, Funny)
When did the copyright expire on the article?
Oh.
You say copyright expired on the words, but the Times still retains copyright on the formatting, so you didn't copy the line breaks?
Good job!
Re:P2P's salvation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Canadian Copyright (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Life plus 50 [justice.gc.ca].
Disney has co-opted the mindshare (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you think Disney makes all their money? The don't own classic greats such as "Pinochio"
Disney owns Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940) [imdb.com]. Every other direct[1] film adaptation of the novel The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi (read an English translation here [everything2.com]) has failed at the box office because the differences from the familiar Disney version are too jarring. Just look at how bad Disney's Pinocchio 2.0 (2002) [imdb.com] is doing, even though it is more faithful to the novel, chapter by chapter, than any previous feature film adaptation of the novel. The obvious conclusion is that Disney has co-opted the common knowledge of Pinocchio so as to create a false impression in the average American's mind that "if it's not Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940), it's not the real Pinocchio."
[1] I don't consider Short Circuit or A.I. a direct adaptation.