Consumers vs. IP Owners: The Future of Copyright 415
conJunk writes "The BBC has a thoughtful article about new challenges in copyright. The problem: The rights to the audio recordings of the Beatles first album will expire in 2013. While consumers stand to benefit from competing releases of the materials, the copyright owners are of course terrified. And the artists? This one doesn't even seem to affect them."
Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's not an incentive to produce. Prior to copyright law content creators had to keep creating to feed themselves, whereas the system we have now says, "Create a winner, milk it for the rest of your life."
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I could freely get any song or movie (and you can be sure that people would post online mirrors of DVDs and CDs) in just 3 years, I don't know if I'd every buy another one during the time of protection.
The situation with software is different because there are (sometimes) actual productivity gains from newer versions. But you can bet that I wouldn't buy the latest copy of Visual Studio unless I was doing something in C# that needed generics (2003 works well enough), wouldn't buy Office, wouldn't buy Photoshop (not that I have it now), etc. With a 2-3 year span, that's barely the release cycle. You think you see compatibility problems now? Wait until software companies REALLY have to force you to upgrade.
I *really* don't think I'm in the minority here. I'm perhaps a bit more patient than some would be with regards to the movies and music, but stuff that's more than 3 years old are still big movers in stores.
The original copyright term was 14 yr, renewable once. I personally think that this is about as short as you should get, and I like the idea of protection for the life of the author or an equivalent term for companies.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Rediculously, as opposed to Greendiculously or Bluediculously.
Let's face it, some films don't even make it to the screen but are marketed straight to DVD. Most popular music is going to see it's highest percentage of payoff in the first year, declining over time with only spurts when it comes back to public conciousness, as an old song in a movie (i.e. Satchmo's It's a Beautiful World, revived in Good Morning Viet Nam)
Films are in the theater and t
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, you are in the minority. Look how many people see movies in theatres and pay $25+ for 2 people to get a single viewing. They can wait 3 months and buy the DVD for $15 or rent it for $3 (a savings of 88%). Yet millions of people still go to the theatre for most movies, and 10's of millions
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most creative works have no copyright-related economic value at all. Slashdot posts fall into this category; no one is publishing compilations of their best posts and selling them because they'd never make money at it.
Of the small fraction of works that have such value, the value usually is front-loaded. That is, the vast majority of all the value the work will ever have is realizable right away. For example, a movie makes most of the money it will ever make from theatrical releases on opening weekend. When it hits pay-per-view, it again makes most of its money on the first weekend. Ditto for when it becomes available to rent or buy. The amount of money that can be extracted later on typically declines, and is pretty small compared to the initial amount. We're talking about 70-90% up front, you see.
Of course there are exceptions, but remember that they are tremendously rare. It is foolish to design copyright policy around aberrations. For an author to make a work like that is on par with winning the lottery. They would make a lot of money even with short terms. We don't need to help them. Rather, help should be tailored around the needs of more common artists. After all, copyright is a subsidy in the form of a monopoly on commodity goods and it's just dumb to give subsidies to the people that need them the least.
Some studies have been done as to the economic life expectancy of works. IIRC, the number tends to be 10-20 years. For some works, such as software, I can easily imagine the number being a lot shorter.
Life terms are totally unacceptable. They make the system unpredictable: author A could have a copyright that lasts fifty years, and author B could have a copyright that lasts one. Adding yet more time doesn't help. And as already noted, the economic worth to authors is usually minimal. The CTEA extension was valued on average at about a nickel, IIRC, and that was 20 years more. Better to have a fixed length term (or better still, to make it granular with many short terms that need to be renewed) so that artists know that there is a time limit, and the public can anticipate the regular release of works into the public domain and act accordingly. (E.g. you can run a business when you know that you can reprint a book in 20 years, but you can't when it could be any damn time in the future)
Long copyrights do not help provide for artists in their old age, or for their families, except in the rare cases mentioned above (in which case it is almost certain that the author already got a lot of money). This is because old copyrights are usually not valuable. If artists want to be secure in the future, they should rely on the same things everyone else relies on: savings, investments, pensions, social security, life insurance, etc. Not only is it more fair, but artists have far, far better odds of being better off with these things than betting that their book will still sell very well decades in the future and against all odds.
Long copyrights as a widows and orphans fund is as irresponsible as giving them scratch off lottery tickets would be. The only people who do tend to come out well are the ones that got rich right at the beginning, and they don't really need our help to become much more rich, do they? They're not going to be struggling in their old age, unless they're crazy irresponsible, right? Why are we treating them specially then?
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that copyright should be recognized internationally, and it should be bestowed upon creation of a work, but I also think that the life + 50 was a completely unnecessary unilateral money grab (even then), unopposed by anyone, because no one knew how important this would all become.
If anybody could give some cited insight into the history of copyright pre-Berne, or even point us to something peer-reviewed, that would be very helpful.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is poorly organized, but there are copies of prior US federal copyright laws (and colonial laws, and the Statute of Anne), here [ipmall.info].
As for vesting, I think that it should be more like patents. Upon creating a work, you can get a copyright, but that window of opportunity swiftly expires. Thus, authors that don't care (such as most of us here vis-a-vis our posts) can take no action and no copyright will ensue, but authors that do care can engage in a token action so that they are identi
Are you sure about that? (Score:3, Informative)
I seem to recall Jon Katz doing just that several years ago, with everyone's posts. I doubt the book sold many copies, but still....
Katz (Score:3)
Powerball (Score:2, Interesting)
And some people can win the lottery too. The vast majority of us, however do not. Most of the authors in that store will do well if they're able to make their car payments. Even when one does hit, such arguments ALWAYS seem to ignore the amount
Nice Exaggeration (Score:2, Informative)
More like there are a few hundred to each big success. I don't see too many Foyles [foyles.co.uk]-sized book shops around the cities I visit most, to accomodate the millions of starving authors to go with Clancy, King, Rowling, Pratchett, Crichton, et al.
What you rather shamefully overlooked is fo
Copyright laws no longer have a moral base (Score:2)
No one can tell exactly how much time is it, and it may depend of the kind of work are you doing and how you can profit from it. But one thing is sure, with the great improvment of the communication and logistics, that time is much lower than it was when those "50/70 year" laws were created.
But the law makers still don't want to realize that.
The problem is that copyrigh
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which amounts to an incentive to create a winner
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
Put a sane limit on it and you get an incentive to create *lots* of winners.
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Propaganda. Prior to copyright law? You mean, before the Statute of Anne [wikipedia.org] in 1710, when the government was so unable to control the publishing industry that they had to pass a law giving the rights to the authors? At that time, the authors had no real rights. Or do you mean before the monopoly granted to the Stationer's Company [wikipedia.org] in 1556, when older authors could remember a time before the printing press? Before that, the church o
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2)
Haven't they already extended the limits on copyright to satisfy Disney's desire to retain control over a certain cartoon mouse?
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just freaking ridiculous. When will it end if copyright just keeps being extended? It quite frankly never will. It's ludicris to think that the creator of something _needs_ to be able to make profits on that something for over 40 years, even 20 years is pushing it. 40 years is
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2)
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
- Use all the billions of dollars left in the estate to buy the rights to as much music as possible
- Re-release all that music under a Creative Commons licence, allowing full use (essentially setting it FREE!!!)
- Set up a P2P sharing network to allow those CC hits to be shared, and request donations per track (suggesting 5c per song), Also have Google ads embedded in the app (just tiny ones)
- Use the donations and ad-funds to generate more $$$ to buy the rights to more music
- Repeat from step 2
BTW. The above is patent pending...
Re:Whats the problem? (Score:2)
US copyright will be extended by then (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't even need the US congress! (Score:4, Funny)
You don't even need the US congress! I got an email just today:
That gives them seven years... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That gives them seven years... (Score:2, Insightful)
Who owns the song? (Score:4, Informative)
Naturally - they still hold the copyright on the lyrics and music. So the performance moves into the public domain, but that doesn't mean nearly as much as the copyright status of the lyrics and music. Nobody will be performing songs from "Please Please Me" for free. But royalty payments for the album itself will dry up.
Of course, a lot can happen in seven years.
-h-
Re:Who owns the song? (Score:2)
Well, actually, Michael Jackson and Sony [snopes.com] own the copyrights on most of the Beatles' music.
So, when the copyright extension issue comes up, ask this: "Do you want to put more money in the pockets of a man who sleeps with little boys?"
Re:Who owns the song? (Score:2)
They own the copyrights of the performances, not of the lyrics and music.
And, for what it's worth, it looks like Sony will own MJ's half of the catalog soon.
-h-
Re:Who owns the song? (Score:2)
They think no one will like the Beatles (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait. The Bottled Head of Paul McCartney's gonna be pissed!
Not "owners" (Score:5, Insightful)
What copyright *is* is a time-limited monopoly granted by the state, with the expectation that you will use this incentive to create stuff that society as a whole benefits from; it's not and never was supposed to be a never-ending money making machine.
Using words like "property" and "own" to describe copyright just reinforces the (wrong) idea that copyrights should not ever run out in the minds of the general, uninformed public.
Re:Not "owners" (Score:2)
From "I don't own this apple" I can deduce "I don't have the right to give this apple to my friend"
Similarly from "I don't own this music" I can deduce "I don't have the right to give this music to my friend"
There is a wide range of analogous statements where ordinary intuitions about your taboo words carry over and give reliable intuitions about IP. Admittedly we have problem cases like:
"I took th
Re:Not "owners" (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong. From "I don't own this music, but I do own this copy of the music" I can deduce "I have the right to give this copy of the music to my friend, but I do not have the right to copy it and keep a copy when I give it to my friend. I also have the right to let my friend listen to my copy of this music. I also have the right to let my friend borrow my copy of this music. I also have the right to sell my copy of this music for whatever price I set if I can find someone willing to pay that price."
Re:Not "owners" (Score:2)
Congress calls them "copyright owners" (Score:5, Informative)
Please, stop using the words "owner", owns" etc. when you're talking about copyright and similar things.
Precise discussion about law uses words defined in the letter of the law. The statute in question, 17 USC 101 [copyright.gov] et seq., defines and uses the phrase "copyright owner".
Re:Congress calls them "copyright owners" (Score:5, Insightful)
This important distinction bolsters the grand-parent's point (well regarding the term intellectual property at least). One may own the copyright to a piece of creative work, but one does not own the idea. (Of course one may own any expression fixed in a tangible medium, because then we are talking about property.)
There is no property in expressions and ideas. The term "intellectual property" is loaded in terms of public debate.
I'm not debating your valid point that copyrights can be owned and have owners in the same sense that any monopoly may be owned and traded.
Anyhow, if we're going to go with the language of the statute we're all going to stop saying "IP holders", "IP owners" and "music owners" and start saying "copyright holders" or "monopolists" (or "exclusive, time-limited rights holders"). Well that will never happen, because the moderators of public debate are the monopolists (i.e., corporate media). YAY!
Congress is not so disrepectful yet. (Score:5, Informative)
They own the copy right, not the work. The right is the exclusive ability to duplicate the work. A right is never property, even when it's artificially created by the state and may be traded for real property. People get confused about that, which lends to the disgusting coporate welfare known as perpetual copyright. If you can own a song, like a bag of marbles the ownership should never end. Your government is not yet so asinine as to say a song can be owned.
Indeed, Congress does not even believe in "Intellectual Property". While the terms occurs some nine times in the definitions and scope you cited mostly referencing a 2002 law which is named that way. There is no definition and, hopefully, never will be.
Re:Congress calls them "copyright owners" (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is a limitted monopoly, granted by the public. If you are given one, you get to hold it for a number of years, after which, the monopoly is disolved, and the work becomes part of the public domain.
At least, that is how I remember how things used to be. I am sure whoever sponsored changing the language from "holder" to "owner" was intentionally slanting the language in this war of perception, much like the push to stop calling things "infringement" and instead "theft".
Re:Not "owners" (Score:3, Interesting)
Point in fact, copyright does state that one owns the rights to that work. So yes, owned and owns are perfectly valid.
"with the expectation that you will use this incentive to create stuff that society as a whole benefits from;"
incorrect.
It is a way for the creater to make money for a limited time. Releasing it back to the public domain is what enhances t
Re:Not "owners" (Score:3, Interesting)
While I think you were being sarcastic, you make a valid point here. Are copyrights/trademarks/patents considered property to the IRS? If not, why not? Why would a company who profits directly from these assets not have to claim them as property when doing their taxes?
While I realize the implementation of such a system would be difficult at best, how is it that these companies have managed to avoid paying taxes on their "property"?
Re:Not "owners" (Score:2)
It's amazing how we went from 'holder' to the ivory tower of 'owner'.
Copyright is not enumerated by the constitution as a permanent property right, though others would like to create one in their minds.
The other posts above are tools for those who want to endlessly extend copyrights. The public needs to demand that they receive something in return for granting of the *temporary* monopoly, rather than giving a free handout to people who are not even the original artists.
No matter how m
"Intelectual Work" is a better word (Score:2)
Someone may have exclusive rights over a IW, but they don't own it because that rights have, or at least should have, a specific time duration.
Calling it a property expose (or impose, just depends of how much times you repeate it) and idea that right never expires.
Re:Not "owners" (Score:4, Insightful)
Tom Jefferson, who was also instrumental in developing our copyright and patent system, had no problem pointing out that the only natural right to property was the right to own whatever you could personally grab and defend. Everything else has to arise out of common agreement: I'll respect your right to own plot A, but only because I want you to respect my right to own plot B. Not for some ideological reason that happens to favor you over others. Better to just put land to maximally productive uses (n.b. that even fallow land can be productive -- pave over too much stuff and it's bad for the environment that supports everyone's lives) and have a system such that people don't fight too much and can get things done. God talk, whether it's 'God gave the land to the king who parcels it out to his vassals and so on down the chain' or 'God gave me a right to own stuff I can't actually defend unless other, equally self-interested people help me to do it' often tends to muddle things.
Duration (Score:4, Informative)
Which is one of the reasons Disney was among those who fought tooth and nail to get copyrights extended to 70 years after the creator's death. Now they've re-acquired the rights to the first character Walt created and lost to someone else, back when he was paying his own dues.
Of course it's rarely the dead guy who cares about making more money, it's those who feel some eternal sense of entitlement.
Just imagine where we'd be if Mozart's works were still held by his heirs. Back in his day after the initial performance works fell to the public domain, which was to encourage the creator to be more productive. Now we have a system where the same tired crap gets dragged out for years and years and someone build theme parks around it.
When was the last time Mickey Mouse actually appeared in an original cartoon or film?
Re:Duration (Score:2)
Took them long enough. Throughout my entire childhood they made zilch and I was trying to figure out for the longest time what the association was between the company and the mouse.
I grew up with Bugs and Daffy, which eventually saw later life through tiny-toons or something like that.
It's essential that this happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
Limited copyright is an essential element to maintaining a consistent creative human spirit. By allowing works to be protected for a limited amount of time, the artist can comfortably turn some profit on their creation. But by allowing that protection to lapse, another creator can pick up the work of the original artist and manipulate it, turning it into something different. The whole of human creativity depends on building upon the works of others.
It's pretty frightening to think about the incredible lengths that IP holders are going to these days to increase the length of copyright ever further, all in the name of limited, short-term profits. They represent an immeasurable threat. Think about it: if copyright never expired, where would the motivation to innovate come from? There would be none, if you could indefinitely profit from one or two ideas.
Free Culture [amazon.com] by Lawrence Lessig has some very enlightened analysis on this subject.i agree (Score:2)
irrationally long terms of copyright extension creates a situation where a company gets a few more bucks, and our entire culture suffers for the sake of that
common sense copyright periods is a balance between the need to reward innovators, and the need to provide future innovators with material to work with
the current ip environment is shortsighted in that it destr
Re:It's essential that this happen. (Score:2)
i semi-agree (Score:2)
That may be true to an extent, but I don't necessarily see that it has anything to do with copyright.
If I wrote a story about two young lovers whose families were feuding and they ended up killing themselves, anybody would recognize that as a take on Shakespeare. The question is: If "Romeo and Juliet" were copyrighted right now, would I be infringing on its copyright?
Seems to me that a copyright protects a specific expression,
Melancholy Elephants (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it yet, but Spider Robinson's excellent short story Melancholy Elephants [onthecommons.org] discusses that exact idea. Its point is that, if copyrights are extended indefinitely, we eventually smother our own creativity.
It's already begun (Score:2, Interesting)
Try 2057 in the States (Score:2, Interesting)
OTOH, the point is likely moot anyway, as copyright will be retroactively extended as soon as Mickey Mouse starts getting near entering the public domain again. Damn you Sonny Bono!!! Oh...
Probably the most logical POV on the subject yet (Score:3, Interesting)
50 years still seems like a lot to me. I don't see how it would need to extend past maybe 25-30 years. There are very few bands that are still active at that point and even if they are, they make money from concerts still, reguardless of CD sales. If the record label hasn't sucked enough money out of the general public in 30 years, the band wasn't good enough to begin with.
Copyrights won't expire in the U.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Copyrights won't expire in the U.S. (Score:2)
Re:Copyrights won't expire in the U.S. (Score:3, Funny)
Wow, that makes me feel really, really old! I just barely remember getting a then-current Beatles album as a present as a small child -- Magical Mystery Tour, I think it was. Now, we have Slashdotters who don't even know that the Beatles were British.
That generation gap is a devil bitch, eh?
Re:Copyrights Never Die in America (Score:2)
Re:Copyrights Never Die in America (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it means that in 2013, you can go to an EU country and make a legal copy of the Beatles song, and not pay royalties.
But if you make it or sell it in the USA, you'll be liable for royalties.
Not to worry, I'll have patented your g
the summary says it all .. (Score:2, Insightful)
wait ... i'm not a citizen, i'm a consumer/taxpayer
i exist to provide revenue streams for corporations and governments ... which no longer exist to fulfill social needs like useful goods or services, but to perpetuate their own power
Damn you Marx !! How could you let us down like this ??!!
/rant
long week in the cubicle forest. i'll shut up and go home now ... and
Compromise (Score:5, Interesting)
But I would like to suggest one further refinement that would make it fair, any application for extension would automatically make ownership revert to the original creator or their heirs. Forty or fifty years ago when the rights were signed away it was under a framework that the rights were of limited duration. If they are going to continue in perpetuity, then fair selling price needs to be renegotiated.
Re:Compromise (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree, but where do we place the price point? Even if it's a million dollars a year, giant corporations like Disney will gladly pony up.
I propose that once the copyrights expire (no more than 35 years after initial publication), the fee to renew for one year is $1.00. Then the fee doubles for every year after that.
So if Disney wanted to extend copyrights an additional 35 years, they would be paying $2^33, or $8.5 billion, for the 35th year. That doesn't even count the $4.3 billion they paid for the 34th year, or the $2.2 billion they paid for the 33rd year, or...
Nothing like exponential math to "promote productivity." Hey, we might even reduce the national debt!
I think a better idea (Score:2)
You create a work, it's automatically copyrighted to you for 10 years. You get complete exclusivity and control as you do now. After 10 years it falls in to public domain unless you register and renew. When you do that you've two choices: Extend it for 10 more years, with the same exclusive control but then no more extensions after that ever. Extend it 25 years with manditory licensing, with another 25 year extension perm
Re:Compromise (Score:2)
50% of all revenue made from the work during its copyright to date. And that extends it for 10 years or so, then you have to pay it again, updated for the revenues of the previous ten years, of course.
It becomes a gamble, then... Can I make more than 50% of what I did in the last 28 years in the next ten years? If not, there is no reason for a company to hoarde what should be considered the pubic's right.
It gives a financial reason to a
Re:Compromise (Score:2)
First, as others have noted, copyright is the compromise, if you can call it that. The default situation is for copyright to not exist at all. Ideally, copyright should be totally one-sided, favoring the public. Artists will tend to benefit as well but that's not the goal (much like a working dairy farm exists to produce milk, and as a secondary benefit the cows get to not get eaten).
Second,
Compromises are two-sided (Score:2)
Blockquoth the AC:
Somewhere along the line, a lot of people in these discussions got convinced that having access to good material was actually a right and not something that absolutely required the creator to let them have it, and that such good material appears by magic and does not requ
Why is copyright assignable? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of copyright problems would obviated if this were enforced as written. The Beatles' works for instance would be controlled by Sir Paul and Ringo. Mickey Mouse would be in the public domain because his inventor and author is dead. Bands, not labels, would control their music. Inventors, not IP holding corporations, would control their inventions.
You cannot sign away your inherent legal rights--no matter how many contracts I sign with you, it does not allow you to act fraudulently or negligently toward. Imagine if copyright worked the same way--if it were illegal to sign away your copyright. A lot of bullshit would be avoided IMO.
Imagine if copyright worked the same way (Score:2)
Re:Why is copyright assignable? (Score:2)
Re:Why is copyright assignable? (Score:3)
Consumers vs. IP holders my foot! (Score:5, Insightful)
This about those who would treat copyright as a pure property right vs. those who don't. Almost everybody who wants copyright treated as a pure property right doesn't create anything. They are a publisher or corporation who aggregates the copyrights of all its employees, or some other entity concerned with the accumulation of coprights.
Accumulating an asset that has a built in time when it becomes utterly worthless is a very unpleasant proposition. It is much nicer and more convenient to treat the asset as some sort of durable good like a box of bolts or something. In fact, copyright has the potential for being the perfect asset since it doesn't decay at all!
But, the people who do create know that being able to create relies on a rich environment of ideas to draw from. Treating copyrights as a pure asset destroys that environment and creates an environment where the only things that get created are those the primary holders of copyrights are willing to allow to be created.
It really irritates me when I see the word 'consumer' when I hear talk about copyrights. There are no 'consumers', there are people. Everybody writes things and says stuff, and many people sing or dance or make up silly lyrics or any number of things.
This isn't about 'consumers', those incredibly dumb entities that eat products and shit cash. Casting it as that kind of a fight is inane.
Drowning in media (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, the current world is drowning in media and choice. In many ways, media consumption is a zero-sum game. I can only listen for so many hours per day. Current iPods hold upwards of 1,000 hours of music -- you can listen for 8 hours a day and only hear the same song 3 times a year if you want. This massive supply of music makes each track less valuable.
Think of it this way. When my iPod has 15,000 songs, is the 15,001st song worth that much? For the most part that 15,001st song must be worth far less than $0.99 and maybe less than a penny. Sure, I may have a few hot favs that command a premium but, by and large, an iPod's worth of music provides all the fresh (or relatively fresh to me, that is) music that I could ever hope to listen to.
Short copyright terms help flood the market with large volumes of cheap music and current recording artists will find themselves competing against inexpensive copies of old, great songs.
As a consumer, I want music to be plentiful and cheap. In contrast, an artist wants music (including music created by others) to be rare and expensive.
Re:Drowning in media (Score:3, Interesting)
There's what, 6 billion people on this planet now? Nobody will ever write a song that all 6 billion people love. There will always be a market for good music of multiple genres, because people are different and have different tastes. The fact that contemporary music today hits Platinum sales records is an extreme anomaly, directly resulting from
Re:Drowning in media (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is a list of bestsellers in the 20th century. I doubt that you'll recognize many works or names that aren't pretty recent. This is because the main thing authors compete with are not old books, they're new books. Everyone wants to read the new Harry Potter, rather than the old Tom Brown. Novelty tends to drive sales. And old works which were quite popular for a time tend to fade not only in the face of newer works but also because they may not have been all that great anyhow.
I mean hones
Re:Drowning in media (Score:3, Informative)
Legitimate points (Score:5, Funny)
Please think of the children.
So what do the beatles have to say about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
He got monkey finger he shoot coca-cola
He say I know you, you know me
One thing I can tell you is you got to be free
Come together right now over me
michael jackson (Score:2, Informative)
Re:michael jackson (Score:2)
Lifetime copyrights, or equivalent (Score:2)
The Corruption of Copyright Law (Score:4, Informative)
In 1790 Congress passed the Copyright Act, which set the period of a copyright at 14 years, with the opportunity for the original author to renew for a second 14 years if he was still alive. This law existed unchanged for the next 100 years. The feeling of the original lawmakers, who were, incidentally, the same people who wrote the Constitution for the most part, was that copyrights and patents encourage authorship, science, and industry by providing a limited monopoly to authors and inventors. This monopoly was required to expire after a short time so that the public could then reap the benefits of these new works in their turn. There was, therefore, a balance between the good of encouraging authorship and invention with a limited monopoly, and the good of public ownership after a short period of time.
Since 1890 Congress has seen fit to extend the term of a copyright eleven times. It has gone from a maximum of 28 years in 1790 to the life of the author plus 70 years currently, or 95 years if the ownership is corporate. The issue that prompted congress to enact all of these extensions had nothing at all to do with encouraging invention, art, or science, and everything to do with the fact that valuable corporate properties such as the copyright for Micky Mouse were due to expire. The clear and unequivocal result of this Congressional effort is that the public suffers by not being able to freely access and use works that would have long since become public property under the intent of the constitutional framers . . . and the corporate copyright owners maintain their lucrative legal monopolies. There is no question at all of public benefit here, only corporate subsidies at public expense.
http://breakthelink.org/Costs.php [breakthelink.org]
Re:The Corruption of Copyright Law (Score:2)
Public Geo Data (Score:3, Informative)
Waive copyright (Score:2)
As a content producer, I am free to waive copyright on anything I produce. As a content consumer, I am free to avoid copyrighted material. Nobody is being compelled to do anything they do not want to do.
Yestarday (Score:4, Funny)
Now* it looks as though they're here to stay
Oh, I belive in royalty pay
*thanks to Evil Mega Corp (c) lobbying agency
BEATLES COPYRIGHT LAST FOREVER IN THE US! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:BEATLES COPYRIGHT LAST FOREVER IN THE US! (Score:3, Informative)
First, this lawsuit only has application in the state of New York. Naxos can continue to sell these discs in every other state. Second, Naxos's claim was that because the discs were PD in England, so to were they in the US, which isn't quite correct.
I understand they found their own, truly PD masters in England, but the performance in the recording is still copyrighted in the US.
The reason this is even an issue is because congress got a little lazy with copyright rewrites
But we had a DEAL! (Score:2, Insightful)
Once that time expires, it is time for the artist/vendor to pay up on their half of the bargain: the work passes into the public domain.
You should not be able to rene
Creation in the digital age (Score:3, Interesting)
As copying becomes easier and digital processing becomes more of a commodity, creation of new materials becomes easier, thus requiring less of an incentive.
So as the years pass by, you would expect copyright terms to shorten and perhaps even disappear (Who knows? Maybe we have already reached a state where an artifical incentive to create is no longer necessary). But for some odd reason, copyright terms get longer and longer. The camel's back is already breaking, and in many countries, copyright lost society's respect entirely.
Currently, the difficulty in enforcing copyright is a huge release on the stress copyright is forming on the society, but if the new DRM technologies are successful, this release will also be blocked - and I anticipate an explosion. Perhaps a positive one, because it will almost surely result in the abolishment of copyright.
Re:Creation in the digital age (Score:3, Funny)
get real, the ease of copying creative works means that copyright is MORE important now than before.
I guess you dont work in a job where you create anything digital or easily copied, because your plan makes you a homeless tramp...
Explain this to me then (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyrights on songs by the Beatles are about to run out but Robert Jonhsnon's lyrics [deltahaze.com] are still copyrighted? Robert Johnson died during the 1930s and his works should be public domain but apparenlty aren't. And who owns the copyright anyhow? It damn well can't be his heirs because he didn't have any (legitimately that is... you know how bluesmen are). Is Robert Johnson's work relevant now? Ask Eric Clapton [ericclapton.com]. And since they aren't RJ's heirs why should they have the copyrights anyway? I mean, I can understand Janie Hendrix having the copyright to Jimi's work but someone unrelated to him decades from now?
As to the Beatles copyright holder being terrified... too bad. Want to make money? Do something! I haven't been living comfortably off something someone else did for decades, why should you? Why should anyone be able to do something like write a song or a book and live off it their whole lives when the rest of us can't live off a few months of work our whole lives? That's why the entire system is completely screwed. I don't know how many times every day it's pounded into our heads "think of the artists" but if they've made plenty of money off of something already why should I care? Not only that but some corporation can apparently just take the copyright to a dead man's work and keep it out of the public domain decades after it should've passed into that as well. The original 14 years is plenty of time and no one but the heirs of someone should be able to have the copyright after their death. It may be legal but as far as I'm concerned this is just copyright theft.
Think about that the next time someone calls file-sharers thieves. Legally, a corporation can own the copyright long after the person who made the work is dead. They can legally steal from us, the people, but we can't legally steal anything back.
It doesn't matter (Score:3, Funny)
Who submitted this? (Score:3, Funny)
The Horror! (Score:3, Interesting)
Why, yes. And I'm terrified that my subscription to Motorcyclist is going to expire. And I'm terrified that my insurance policy will expire. Don't they realize that now I'm going to have to spend more money to get new magazines and spend more money to get renewed coverage? Shouldn't I just be able to buy some terminal product once and continue to benefit from it forever, even if I know going in that it will expire? The evil insurance company is just trying to get out of their responsibility to cover me forever once I pay them once.
Evil lying bastards, twisting the soft, smooth brains of our politicians. You know what spurs innovation in music? I mean beyond experience, suffering, love, anger, pain, joy, and a burning need to create that won't let actual musicians not make music? Short-term copyrights that require entertainers and labels to make an ongoing effort in order to earn a living. A couple million dollars for "Oops I Did It Again"? When the money comes that easy, I wouldn't put any more effort into it than she does.
You want musicians to put blood, sweat, and tears into their music on an ongoing basis? You want them to put the same dedication into their jobs that we do? Make them work for a living. Cut copyright to five years.
Re:The Horror! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not yours. You don't want me to copy it? Don't publish it. Copyright is not a natural right. It's a fiat monopoly granted as part of an exchange. We grant you the right to forbid me to sing a song in exchange for something. It's a trade. You don't want to negotiate? Don't enter the market.
The moment any of them write a song thats good enough to be a hit, we should punish them as much as we can and ensure they dont make any cash.
Straw man
Re:What is the Problem Here? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is the Problem Here? (Score:2)
If this idea takes off, all the studio groomed 'pop' performers are screwed. (Yay!)
Not so hard a question . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyrig