EU Record Companies Push to Extend Copyright 292
TPIRman writes "European record companies, as represented by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, are pressuring the European Union to extend copyright terms for music producers. Critics like Creative Commons founder Lawrence Lessig are predictably opposed, but the IFPI argues that the move is needed in order to bring the E.U. in sync with U.S. copyright regulations. Ironically, one of the original rationales behind the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was that U.S. copyrights needed to sync up with European standards."
shuffle up and deal. (Score:4, Funny)
Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:3, Insightful)
want a better alternative? Shoot them down!
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:4, Insightful)
I for one am well and truly sick of the shenanigans being pulled by these media conglomerates. They need to be replaced, and rapid. So lets look at the root causes of the problem.
1. People like music.
2. Musicians make music.
3. People will never hear the music unless its advertised to them; they just won't know it exists. Enter your friendly neighbourhood media conglomerate, with all the fun that entails.
Solutions:
1. Music is just information, a stream of bits and bytes. And here we have a whole industry called information technology.
2. The production of music can be done relatively cheaply, especially by applying modern technology.
3. Distribution and advertising, well well, looky here, an internet. Who put that there? And no I'm not talking about itunes.
4. Profit, and the vanishing of the media conglomerates and their tired, wretched little business model.
I mean come on, with all the big brains around here, surely it is possible to come up with a decent technological response to these vermin... the only thing lacking at this point is a concerted effort at marketing the stuff, and poof, no more MTV. Whatever restrictive contracts current artists have signed with said media groups is there own problem; there are always more artists. If ever there was a place google could shine, its right here.
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:5, Insightful)
don't know how your system works :p
Works? What is this "works" of which you speak? ;-)
As far as I can tell our system works like this: the European Commission decide to do something. The European Parliament vote, and decide it's a stupid, stupid idea. The European Commission then ignore the democratic process altogether. I believe that the advantage to this system is that it's easier for lobbyists to get their lobbying done, without getting dirtied by contact with democracy.
Someone with a less cynical view than me may wish to clarify, however...
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:3, Informative)
I think you missed a bit though. The European Council get to be undemocratic too! They are the secretive bunch appointed by national governments who decide whatever they want behind closed doors and when it turns out not to be what anyone actually wants they simply blame all the other ministers from other countries!
not cynical at all (Score:2, Insightful)
It also explains why the new constitution got such bad press, it attempted to fix things and give more power to the elected parliament... what a disgrace. Bring back the good old tyrans instead.
The worst thing was that the people campaigning against the new constitution claimed that european institutions were broken, so let's not fix them!
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if it is? Don't fix it and keep complaining... that will help.
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2)
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I don't think that's right. The new constitution, from what I understood, would actually give _MORE_ power to the non-elected non-democratic bodies like the Commission.
Check with the FFII...
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:3, Informative)
With the parliament actually having teeth rather than being a nod in the general direction of democracy, the national governments complained because they might have some of their more stupid ideas overruled - they're more used to controlling the commission and getting things done that way.
It's this last point which had some of the anti-EU types up in arms... they'd rather an unelected commissi
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2)
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2)
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2)
The only difference being that in the U.S. when the parliment/committee decides it's a stupid idea, the lobbyists then go and have discussions with a few senators regarding campaign funding and the like.
A short time later, the senators go back to re-vote and suddenly just enough of them change their minds to pass the vote.
Both the systems have the exact same effect, its just that in the U.S. it can sometimes cost the lobbyists a little bit more (which is besid
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2)
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2, Funny)
Clearly you don't know how the system works, or you'd not bother suggesting we try to get this stopped merely by talking to people...
Re:Dupe'd agaIn! (Score:2)
Bono Act Protects Sounds from the 1890s (Score:3, Interesting)
The old world aristocracy claimed that it had the
Re:Bono Act Protects Sounds from the 1890s (Score:3, Informative)
That's not entirely correct. The Bono Act didn't return anything to copyright; the URAA, passed at the same time did. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ38b.html [copyright.gov] gives a list of what the URAA did; in particular, it only returned certain foreign works to copyright. Also, on
OK, a dup of my comment there (copyright tax) (Score:3, Interesting)
Since "intellectual property" is being treated by the law more and more as if it were physical property, then perhaps it should be taxed like physical property (real estate tax, etc.) too. An interesting discussion of this can be found at Copyright Term Reform/Taxation [infoanarchy.org]. I doubt the movement to reduce copyright terms will h
Abolishing copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright Holders
- Billions of dollars
- Coordinated world wide organizations of thousands of people working towards making money off of copyrighted material
- Government lobbyists
- Political Action committees
- Campaign Contributions
- 100 years of legal precedent
Copyright OpponentsUmm, I think we have a problem. I'm on the side of restraining copyright, but I'm not sure this fight is fair!
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I just found this interesting page, and I think it is kind of on topic with this discussion:
Some thoughs about piracy [scottmccloud.com]. It is better than I state here, have a look
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:2)
If people are too stupid to aspire to something better, change will never happen. Its unlikely we'll be able to do anything about the media conglomerate's cash flow under the circumstances.
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
You forgot a very important weapon in the opponents arsenal.
And they CAN'T be stopped.
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, "protesting"... That's right, it's a political action... Idiot!
No, it's not a political protest, and that's what makes it really effective.
See, most people don't care enough about such issues to bother with protests. That's why boycotts rarely work. But most file sharers don't do it for political reasons.
File sharing is a natural reaction to the artificial forces supporting high content prices. The forces in question were always artificial, but they had a natural, reasonable motivation in the past when distribution was expensive. Copyright is a reasonable mechanism for funding distribution, but distribution has become dirt cheap at the same time as copyrights have been massively expanded in scope, duration and force. The resulting imbalance means that the common person feels that copyrights have little or no moral force behind them. The result is massive, widespread, copyright infringement. A law that everyone breaks is not a law.
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:2)
Copyright Holders
- ownership of mass media
- direct personal greed
- a complacent population rapidly becoming inured to more and more laws, and less and less freedom
Copyright OpponentsRe:Abolishing copyright (Score:2)
It's funny, that's one thing about political discourse in the US that seems strange to Europeans. Arguments that go along the lines of:
"but the Founding Fathers clearly wanted us to have guns/abortions/prayers in high school.."
Re:Abolishing copyright (Score:2)
The same reason that copyright opponents just don't care if they (laws) exist or not. They aren't going to abide by them unless forced to. It's is becoming more and more like the illegal drug trade; tougher laws will send more people into the "underground" until that takes over all other walks of life.
P2P Anyone?
This is the last thing we need (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is the last thing we need (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not trolling, I fail to see how these laws in Europe or US are going to stop people from downloading stuff from Chinese websites. As long as China is not under
Re:This is the last thing we need (Score:3, Insightful)
By going for copyright protection, they're attempting to secure the rights to go after people who do this in the EU and in the US. They are also trying to establish a precedent that will be seen as "the way the modern industrialized world does these things".
There's a heavy expectation that China is going to change big time in the next generation,
Re:This is the last thing we need (Score:4, Interesting)
But you know it's going to happen, their companies are saying "How can we compete with the Americans when they have copyrights for 95 years and we only have them for 50 years? That's not fair.".
The copyright laws need to be put back to their original terms, 14 years and if they apply, one extension of 14 years.
Here's a radical idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Why don't we (the US) curtail our copyright terms in order to sync up with the EU?
Just a thought...
(I know, this is as silly as exercising more and eating less in order to lose weight.)
Poor Mickey (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not just make it 50 billion years and save Mickey Mouse from exploitation forever?
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2)
Why not just make it [copyright] 50 billion years...?
In the US I believe this wouldn't be possible, due to the foresight of the Founding Fathers. I can't see any reason, however, why this wouldn't work in Europe. Unfortunately.
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2)
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2)
Repeated extention of the term is equivelant to unlimited.
Consider the variable x as time after publishing to check whether a work is still in copyright or not.
Now consider the function f(x) = x+1 as the time after publishing when the work will enter public domain, as a function of the time of questioning.
Obviously, f(x) is "limited"/finite for every x. However, for every x, xf(x) so the work stays in copyright. As x goes to infinity so is f(x). Therefore it's not "
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately or unfortunately, that is indeed a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, too.
-Erwos
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2)
i.e. for every time you check, the work is copyrighted.
So in pratice, the copyright term is unlimited.
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2)
From a strictly literal reading of the Constitution, extending it to a larger finite amount of time is still a limited term, because finite numbers are limited. There is no Constitutional issue with making this number ever larger (again, given a strict reading).
You may not like that - that's fine. But right now, precedent is against you, no matter how unescapable you think your logic is. I'm
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me summarize: "But Mom, he's doing it, so why can't I do it too!!!"
They continue with this line of reasoning:
This is like a 13-year old screaming "this is so unfair".
Nobody is revisiting the underlying arguments for extending copyright protection past its usual lifetime. They see this as a business argument to be settled about competition and profitability.
The EFF need to get in there and make sure that at least some relevant questions are being asked. Like what the purpose of copyright in the first place is, and how a proposed extension either supports or undermines that purpose.
And here's your mom's comeback for the "but he's doing it too" teenager whine:
Hey Europe, if all of your friends were jumping off of a bridge, would you do it too?
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell yes!!! We went to war with you didn't we?
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Poor Mickey (Score:2)
We better not (Score:5, Interesting)
That sound you hear (Score:2, Funny)
No irony....this is how it works (Score:5, Insightful)
syncing up with each other (Score:3, Insightful)
Why... (Score:5, Interesting)
Damn globalization!
Re:Why... (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason people don't want bad laws passed, even in small ways where it seems irrelevant is because it establishes a precedent. In many ways, a precedent is like the thin end of a wedge. Once you've worked in the smallest thing, you can just push from the back and eventually drive it all through.
The laws don't necessarily have to be the same, but if you check the article you'll find that the debate is in terms of competition, not in terms of what copyright is all about. The EU has no desire to fall behind, they really do want to keep up with the US in a lot of different areas. So a precedent in copyright has been established: let's extend the lifetime in the US. Now comes the pressure behind the wedge: the europeans want it too!
Hmm...I think I can see where this is going...
Re:Why... (Score:2)
Re:Why... (Score:2)
So a precedent in copyright has been established: let's extend the lifetime in the US. Now comes the pressure behind the wedge: the europeans want it too!
The Europeans want it as much as the Americans...which is that they don't. The music and movie industries want it. And there's not a whole lot of "US and EU" there, they're all pretty united into screwing the world equally. They just have to get each "nation" to help them out a bit.
Re:Why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why... (Score:2)
Think of it from the point of view of the recording industry - how can it *possibly* be a grave error to extend copyrights indefinitely? The longer they last, the more opportunity to make money from there is.
Make no mistake - companies exist to make money. The only reason a content producing company like those in the recording industry would have any reason in a public domain would be to copy stuff from it f
If anything make the damn things.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like say, authors life time or 50 years wich ever is greater and thats it....
Re:If anything make the damn things.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The current system of profiting off one lucky creation for 3 generations is insane and does no foster creation, innovation or invention. Especially for the children who inherit valuable copyrights.
Re:If anything make the damn things.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Especially when most artists do NOT own the publishing rights to their works.
Forget about an artist's children (or the artist) collecting a dime from any of this business.
The people pushing this are media corporations, and they AREN'T doing it for the artists, nor the artists' children.
They're doing it to be able to reap billions of dollars forever from the work of others and use those billions to buy more politicians in order to pass more laws that criminalize you.
Bottom line; these corporations are big enough already, and I don't see the advantage for the people in changing the laws so corporations become even more powerful only so they can oppress the people further.
Write to your MP now... (Score:5, Interesting)
How they can say that with a straight face is beyond me. I guess the record industry makes it easier for them?
I wrote to my MP on Tuesday, and got a response the next day thanking me for my concerns, stating that he has read up on, and now understands the issue, and that they will discuss it with the Labour MP that is proposing the bill.
It might be mere platitudes to keep me oppressed, but it might just work. We are supposed to be in a democracy, although with the EU constitution "no" votes from France and the Netherlands, one does wonder if the hierarchy will merely push it through no matter what the public says.
No doubt someone will point out that this is EU policy which will need to be enacted in UK law, but all the same, make yourself heard. I did, and boy do I feel good about it
Re:Write to your MP now... (Score:2)
Also, out of interest who is your MP?
Re:Write to your MP now... (Score:2)
Re:Write to your MP now... (Score:2, Insightful)
They won't dare. The no has been so overwhelming in France, and even more so in the Netherlands that they won't dare to pull this off. It will have to be renegotiated, no matter how difficult that will be.
The Dutch government
Make it forever (Score:2, Funny)
Write to them (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Write to them (Score:2)
My MP responded the next day... I am impressed.
Re:Write to them (Score:3, Informative)
Purnells voting record
Ba
What's wrong being different? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a pretty poor reason to change a law - just to be the same as someone else. There are lots of things that are good about European laws compared to the named countries, and we should fight to keep the good things the way they are, rather than giving in to greedy corporations.
Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, you were probably just looking for a reason to take your daily swipe at "greedy" corporations.
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:5, Insightful)
What's special about copyright? By your argument, all the laws around the world should be the same, and we could just elect one government to write them.
Of course, that ignores cultural differences and assumes everyone shares exactly the same view of what's right. And it's only a small step between believing that other people "should" follow your laws, and starting a war to enforce that view. Not exactly a democratic view to hold.
"With inconsistent laws, the enforcement of copyrights from country to country would be chaotic at best."
And that's bad how? Too confusing for policemen? Many people already deal with different laws, taxes, etc. in every state, and even laws that apply to particular places within a state.
If courts can already deal with complex financial crimes across many locations (which they can) where the laws are different in virtually every state, country, and region, then what's so difficult about copyright that requires the imposition of a "world government"?
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:2)
Or you don't believe that writers, musicians, actors, or programmers should be compensated for their work?
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:2)
Copyright is only necessary for the copyright
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:2)
Sorry, copyrights are a good thing, but the problem is that they are being extended beyond all reason. Fifty years seems reasonable to me.
Re:Inconsistent = Chaos (Score:3, Informative)
It is understandable and wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
That having been said....
Imagine for a moment that you are a patent holder in the US. You put out a product that does well in the US. Now imagine another patent holder from the EU. His product does well in the EU. Assuming both do well in their respective markets, the US patent holder garners revenue for use of the patent long after the EU patent holder does. What are EU innovators to do?
Leave the EU, that's what.
Aside from the right or wrong of IP, the EU seemingly wishes to address this long-term market value of a work and adjust to losing innovators overseas to the US. How to properly deal with that is another matter, but we must be careful to acknowledge all aspects of the issue.
Re:It is understandable and wrong. (Score:2)
Leave the EU, that's what.
Aside from the right or wrong of IP, the EU seemingly wishes to address this long-term market value of a work and adjust to losing innovators overseas to the US. How to properly deal with that is another matter, but we must be careful to acknowledge all aspects of the issue.
However, that's all completely
Re:It is understandable and wrong. (Score:2)
Was I wrong to say move? Yes.
Is it wrong to say this revenue is NOT being made in the EU? I don't think so. That is the point I was shooting for....
Re:It is understandable and wrong. (Score:2)
But what's your point? There's nothing bad about revenues differing in different markets.
Re:It is understandable and wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
First, they're not losing money, they're not making money. There is a difference.
Second, the purpose of copyright is not so that authors can make money. That's just a means to an end. The purpose of copyright is to benefit the public, and part of that means having copyrights terminate after a period of time, ideally as soon as possible whilst providing the greatest public benefit overall.
Re:It is understandable and wrong. (Score:2)
Consider patenting and marketing their product in the US as well. They don't have to leave the EU in order to do this.
Re:It is understandable and wrong. (Score:2)
For a second, let's think about it a bit, what is leaving exactly? It is certainly not practical, because noone knows what product will be a success when it's conceived, or in a case of a well established brand, you can call a band that, noone knows what the effect would be to change the country. You can name a lot of tv shows in the UK being huge successes but failures in the USA, just because the differen
Darren SMASH! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wrote to my MP about this (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Later I will be lobbying for an extension to that extension... in about 40 years from now.
No surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
In the EU, performers get 50 years copyright. 2005 minus fifty years is 1955, the dawn of the modern era of rock and pop. The late Elvis is the first big goose scheduled to stop laying golden eggs, but other huge ones loom over the next decade - the Beatles in particular.
No wonder the corps are pressing for extensions; why wouldn't they want indefinite copyrights? It's certainly in their interests, but it's most definitely not in the wider interestes of society at large. This proposal will do nothing to pomote the useful arts and sciences.
Heres the deal (Score:3, Interesting)
I say this because allot of US people are hopeing that other countries will fight the copyright battle for them. I say the opposite is true, we need to get rid of copyrights here first and the rest of the world will take care of itself in due time.
Re:Heres the deal (Score:2)
Why don't you start by setting a TRUE democratic system, i.e. get rid of that "electoral votes" bull?
Summary (Score:2, Informative)
[1]
There needs to be more of a balance when considering changes to copyright terms, said Rufus Pollock, director of Friends of the Creative Domain
[2]
Cunningham said that because the copyright term is longer in countries like the United States, Australia and Singapore, the European countries' copyright terms should be extended.
WIKIPEDIA
[1]
Proponents of the Bono Act argue that it is necessary given that the life expectancy of humans has risen dramatically since Congress passed the original Copyr
Great Tactics! (Score:3, Interesting)
Original US copyright term length (Score:4, Informative)
1790: Copyright Act of 1790
The First Congress implemented the copyright provision of the U.S. Constitution in 1790. The Copyright Act of 1790, An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Securing the Copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and Proprietors of Such Copies, was modeled on the Statute of Anne (1710). It granted American authors the right to print, re-print, or publish their work for a period of fourteen years and to renew for another fourteen. The law was meant to provide an incentive to authors, artists, and scientists to create original works by providing creators with a monopoly. At the same time, the monopoly was limited in order to stimulate creativity and the advancement of "science and the useful arts" through wide public access to works in the "public domain." Major revisions to the act were implemented in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976.
from A History of Copyright in the United States [cni.org]
If I were the RIAA.... (Score:2)
If I were the MPAA I'd have police checkpoints surrounding outdoor movie theatres to make sure anyone driving by while the movie is playing pays their fair share.
And if were the Association of American Publishers I'd burn every library to the ground.
Copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with copyright is that its becoming a commodity. How long until artists can float copyright on an open market? That seems to be the end game for media corporations who consider copyrighted works stock.
But thats not what copyright was for. Copyright was designed to protect artists from having their works exploited without fair remuneration i.e. stop this kind of thing happening. It seems to me that this current legislation will do nothing but further enslave the creative - as their works become the property of someone else for longer, instead of being free to inspire more arts in the public domain.
Why would a company employ an artist in these situations? Supply and demand. If you are producing a work for someone you are doing them a favor, not the other way around. If they could do it themselves, they would - such is the nature of a free market. Why people who pay for the works think they own it, is beyond me. You commision a painting you own the painting. You copy the painting, no harm is done. You sell the copy, you owe the artist an agreed percentage/lump sum.
Who cares, the musicians deserve it (Score:2, Insightful)
Elvis Presley forever (Score:2)
I wanted to freeze time so that when music reached its peak in the 60's everyone after that would be made to listen to nothing but cover version of these classic songs.
Now finally the UK and EU have found a solution! Extend copyright, keep the record companies selling the same old excellent shit over and over and over and over and over and over again!
That way that new annoyi
BS (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, so I didn't RTFA, an' I'm gonna rant, so I'll burn in hell, but here goes anyway
BULLSHIT! All this "get the copyright laws in sync" is bullshit. Isn't it obvious? There's no irony here, just sadness personified--great big lobby groups on both sides of the pond steamrollering over as much public domain / creative commons stuff as they possibly can and using really, really weak "rationals" to pretend to justify it.
The "get the laws in sync" thing carries no weight. Suppose I support law A. But my country doesn't have law A, my country has A-lite--well then I'm definitely gonna be arguing to "get the laws in sync" duh. OTOH, suppose my country has law A, the other country has law A-lite, and I like A-lite better--well then I can make the exact same, damn argument.
Now suppose I hate law A-lite, and my country's the one with law A--then instead I'll be arguing, "woah! Let's not change things! That country's got law A and it's all full of vermin and lice and bad stuff 'cause of it! One of the great things about our nation is we have law A instead of A-lite.
I'm probably not explaining myself very clearly, but I hope I'm making at least an A-lite level of sense.
well, well, well.... (Score:2)
(looks at Europe)
(looks at the US)
Who are the Real Pirates? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now who are the Real Pirates?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is a spam/repeat post... (Score:2, Informative)
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=152166&ci
Thank you...
Re:This could have an upside (Score:3, Insightful)
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple.
Brilliant.
Now, please come back when the music and movie industry have stopped stealing from society.
WHat do I mean by that?
The recording industry has for a long time pr
Re:This could have an upside (Score:3, Interesting)