Slashdot Log In
UK Report Suggests Tougher Copyright Laws
Posted by
samzenpus
on Wed Dec 06, 2006 08:13 PM
from the how-can-you-have-any-pudding-if-you-don't-buy-your-music dept.
from the how-can-you-have-any-pudding-if-you-don't-buy-your-music dept.
danpsmith writes "The BBC has an article about a government report which proposes new powers against copyright infringement. Interestingly, however, it also says that 'private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player' and further 'recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended,' saying, 'The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators.' While satisfied with most of the report, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says it will 'continue to press for the copyright extension.'"
Related Stories
[+]
UK Copyright Under Fire Again 211 comments
stupid_is writes "Following on from the story on the Gower Report in the UK, a host of musicians (over 4,500 of them, including poor, starving stars such as U2, Paul McCartney and Peter Gabriel) have taken out a big ad in the FT to back the call for an extension to copyright in the UK. Allegedly, that's what the British public wants — although the survey seems to be asking a different, rather biased, question." From the article: "A spokesman for the Open Rights Group, which campaigns for greater digital rights, said: 'The big music firms have done a good job of persuading some artists to sign up to this but anyone who reads the Gowers review will see it demolishes the arguments for extension. An awful lot of content creators are not represented by this and recognise an extension will do nothing for creativity and nothing for the public.'"
[+]
Dead Musicians Signing Media Rights Petitions 357 comments
epeus writes "Following from the Gowers coverage and the Musicians' ad in the FT, Larry Lessig admits he was wrong about term extension: 'If you read the list, you'll see that at least some of these artists are apparently dead (e.g. Lonnie Donegan, died 4th November 2002; Freddie Garrity, died 20th May 2006). I take it the ability of these dead authors to sign a petition asking for their copyright terms to be extended can only mean that even after death, term extension continues to inspire. I'm not yet sure how. But I guess I should be a good sport about it, and just confess I was wrong. For if artists can sign petitions after they've died, then why can't they produce new recordings fifty year ago?'"
[+]
Your Rights Online: "Three Strikes" To Go Ahead In Britain 294 comments
David Gerard writes "Lord Peter Mandelson has carefully ignored the Gowers Report and the Carter Report, instead taking the advice of his good friend David Geffen and announcing that 'three strikes and you're out' will become law in Britain. The Open Rights Group has, of course, hit the roof. Oh, and never mind MI5 and the police pointing out that widespread encryption will become normal, hampering their efforts to keep up with little things like impending terrorist atrocities. Still, worth it to stop a few Lily Allen tracks being shared, right?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Legalize file sharing already. (Score:5, Funny)
Australia was woken up as well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Australia was woken up as well. (Score:4, Informative)
Best of both worlds would be nice, though.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> sucks and is overly draconian, but I'd rather violate that within my home than endg up in the slammer for having accidentally
> including a snippet of something copyrighted in something I upped to Youtube.
Where did that come from?
From TFA:
"It calls for penalties against people who sell pirate versions of music and films on the internet to be brought in line with those
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Absolute worst case scenario is probably "10 years" becoming 1 year, out in 6 months on good behaviour. Or they could always get out whenever they please if they invoke the Human Rights Act and point out that being imprisoned violates their basic human right to "do whatever the fuck they want".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, because of course the number of criminal prosecutions brought in this country (which doesn't include issuing ASBOs, which are a civil matter) hasn't increased from 1.3 million in 2003-2004 to 1.5 million in 2005-2006, over a timescale during which the number of reported crimes actually fell.
The notion that Britain is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could have left the scene. But you delivered a forceful blow to a man who was no threat to you at all.
I think you're confusing manslaughter with "justifiable homicide", which is where there is no choice but to kill (E.g. to save your own life or somebody else's). That clearly is not the case here.
Its manslaughter if there was no intent to kill, which seems like the case here. From the description in the
So much time, so many wasted days (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems that stubborn headed ignorance is the rule of the day?
Its a shame... No matter what decision is made, all this time, money, and resource has already been wasted to try to equalize what one industry wants made into law to line their own pockets. Yeah, I know, this is just one industry, but this is the industry that is on topic... its a start if we all, and I mean all, simply stop buying music. See how that suits them. Don't buy any for gifts this year; don't buy any for personal use. They can't possibly prosecute all downloaders, nor could they afford to continue to do so without revenue. We can't all be put in jail...
signed: frustrated
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in the end, we are wasting untold resources on re-inventing the wheel as regards copyright. Those that want to extend copyright are only trying to l
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no love for the music industry, but I don't think we should ignore certain forms of illegal activity sim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As you've mentioned, copyright can last for a century or more. Violating the copyright of someone who's been dead for 50 years is "illegal", would you support enforcing that to the full extent of the law, 10 years jail, etc, etc? When laws are unjust or unreasonable, they invite lack of respect.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all crimes are equally worthy of our attention. There's probably more jaywalking in your city than there is copyright infringement - why do copyright laws deserve any more enforcement effort than jaywalking laws?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's an often-used quote but this has actually made it into the report. It says that the UK music & film industries lose up to 20% of annual turnover to piracy.
How can anyone come to that calculation seriously? They add up the value of every known pirate item, then say that every single consumer of prate goods would go out and buy the real thing? Such faulty logic yet there it is in the report. A real
Re:So much time, so many wasted days (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not have to supply an alternate solution to the "problem". The "problem" is the solution. If a small cartel of non-producing corrupt money-grubbers think they can erect a permanent fence around our common freakin' culture and charge us admission, the only solution is to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the fence and knock it down wherever we can.
"but it's against the law!"
moron
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current situation is pretty analagous. Almost no one had respect for Prohibition, that disrespect for one stupid law led to disrespect for other laws, widespread corruption, powerful criminal organizations, etc. Well, pretty much no one now has respect for copyright law, at least in certain contexts (e.g. P2P
Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:3, Interesting)
While most of us here at
Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Make all downloads legal, and there will be no more illegal downloads.
Parent
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you mean better protections, I don't think it is needed, but... However, if you mean harsher penalties, they are already way over the top. I think I know why, but that doesn't excuse things.
As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.
all the best,
drew
Parent
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and yes. If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would. That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?
No, it isn't. See, this isn't a donation, it's payment for a service, which incidentally benefits more than just the people who pay for it.
It's like if ten people live on a dirt road, and eight of them get fed up with the dust, so they pool their money and hire someone to pave the road. They aren't donating money to the paver, or to each other; they're paying for the benefit of living on a paved road. Now, it happens to be the case that the two people who didn't pay, and any of their visitors, will also get to enjoy that benefit, but the reason it got paved in the first place is because those eight people felt strongly enough about it to open their wallets.
If enough people feel strongly enough certain types of movies, those movies will get made. It's just like what we have now, but with a more direct connection between funding and production - studios won't have to drop $100 million on a movie just to find out that it only sells $50 million worth of tickets.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*cough* Sellaband [sellaband.com] *cough*
Musical artists put up some songs and if you like t
Uh...yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's mighty fucking white of them. Next up: Reports from Herefordshire indicate a possible end to meat rationing starting mid February.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's still illegal in New Zealand..
(and the local recording industry is fighting hard against a suggested law change)
Stealing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Copying is NOT stealing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>appropriate.
How about calling it copyright infringement which would be the correct thing. Copyright infringement also happens to be illegal by the way. No idea why you would insist in calling it something erroeous. What would be the point in using the terminology "stealing" instead of "copyright infringement"? If for no other reason you end up with the wrong conclusions about how it works, like your "if you did not
Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you invest your weekly paycheck. I don't understand why copyrights have to last longer than 20 years. If have a successful song or book, invest the money. If you want to continue making money by making music or writing, create new material. Otherwise, there's always demand for new MacDonald's employees.
Patents expire. Does that mean that no one can make money on patents? Ignore patent trolls and American lawyers for a moment. Think of a company that files a patent and makes the product described by a patent. They have a monopoly for a set period of time, allowing them to sell a product that no one else has. Because the patent will expire, the company needs to continue innovating. Competitors will have access to the patent eventually and will be able to release different (often better) products based on the technology. If the patent system wasn't profitable, no one would file patents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses decide what to do based on "discounted cash flow analysis". Think compound interest in reverse. Only the most predictable of industries will invest money because of a possible income stream 20 years in the future.
In other words, a copyright term of 70 years, 90 years or whatnot is no more of an incentive to a business than a term limited to 28 years after renewals.
An individual might see things differently, which means the current system of longer copyrigh
The ideal copyright system... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Iwould appreciate you comments on what is below at the following link:
http://yro.slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/154538 [slashdot.org]
Here are some thoughts for your consideration:
1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.
2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee.
3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt.
4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright h
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically responding to your points:
1. If an author doesn't care about his work enough to comply with applicable formalities, then he should get no rights at all, and the work should be in the public domain. Copyright is meant to serve the public interest in part by providing an artificial economic incentive to authors. An author who doesn't care about his work enough to take simple but significant
Innovation crap - as usual (Score:2)
They just cant say 'the copyright holders need more heaploads of money for longer durations' to the public of course, hence they come up with 'innovation' crap.
You cant innovate nothing if you dont already have huge capital behind your back. There are millions of people trying to 'innovate' under the current system, yet the percentage of those who succeed are comparable to the rates of people winning lotteries.
What's their point? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a drastic difference in the number of copyright laws and the attitude of the country towards licenses.
Europeans take copyright laws much more seriously than u.s., they analyse the licenses exhaustively before they touch any IP even if there's no consequence to them, so they don't have as many laws enforcing the licenses. Because they care about the license, open source software has become much more popular in Europe.
U.s.ahans don't take copyright laws seriously at all, so they've created more laws. U.s.ahans go by whether it's downloadable and what the password is. When the emphasis is on downloadability over licensability, you get less attention to open source in u.s..
Lobbyist newspeak (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is revenue that has been lost to the local and national economy and is affecting British jobs."
SO the supposed £270 million lost suddenly disappeared from the British economy? If you are going to make a case for more copyright protection, at least be honest about it. Stop trying to look like you are working for "the people" cause we all know "the people" want free movies.
OH! The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214512.
When you click the link, as it turns out the recording industry has cheated Olivia Newton John out of royalties related to her Grease movie.
Doesn't that put it all into perspective. Some poor slob gives a copy of a CD to his mother and he's a criminal. The recording industry cheats millions from performers and it's just an accounting practice.
Holy cow.
Copyright is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I feel copyright laws should be abolished and redone from scratch.
My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent??? Ask the 'A' in "RSA" about this sometime. He's not dead but the protection of his property is. Walt disney has been dead for 40 years, yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.
Is a song worth more than a fusion reactor? No. Is a fusion reactor worth more than a song? No. (Well, I think it is but I'm generally considered uncultured.)
My point is that both are intellectual property and both should be treated fairly and equally with regards to each other. Whether your view is "Copyrights should last 20 years after the filing of the copyright" or "Patents should last 70 years beyond death and be renewable", I don't care. But the intellectual effort of all authors should be treated with a measure of equality.
My view point is 20 years after filing for both. That seems to strike the right balance of the author gets to make a huge profit for 20 years while the public can derive a benefit in the foreseeable future.
It's a lot more than tougher laws (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, since <obligatory moan> for some reason the eds posted a story about a BBC article and not my version straight from the source</obligatory moan>, let's get a few things cleared up.
We're talking about the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property [hm-treasury.gov.uk]. This was a wide-reaching review, covering a lot more than just copyright, though of course copyright is a major component in our IP framework.
In terms of copyright law, here are some of the major recommendations from the review:
Personally, I agree with most of the review's conclusions and recommendations. I was, however, disappointed that they felt the need to limit their recommendation for a personal copying exception so much. The Review acknowledged that some personal uses were perceived, incorrectly, to be legal by many people, and that banning such uses by law damages the credibility of copyright as a whole in the public eye. They also acknowledged that some of these uses do not harm the interests of the copyright holder. They have also stressed throughout their process that their review would be evidence-led. I find it intriguing, therefore, that they have completely failed to address other reasonable personal uses mentioned in several of the submissions, such as backing up, recording broadcasts, and making compilations.
Some submissions gave quite reasonable arguments based on existing law in favour of explicitly legitimising these. For example, under blanket UK consumer protection legislation, any article purchased from a shop must be (a) fit for purpose, and (b) capable of lasting for the expected lifetime of the product. Since the expected lifetime for information is indefinite, abusing copyright and/or DRM so that when someone's CD wears out they have to buy a whole new CD because they couldn't take a back-up should be a violation of UK trading laws. (Bizarrely, under the proposed system, you could take a back-up as long as it's in a different format, and if your original copy wore out you could then shift the information back again as you would still have only a single copy in any given format of material you had legitimately obtained.)
On the whole, I give them 8/10 given the huge scale of what they were attempting. At least pretty much everything I've read of the review so far is a reasonable position, and most of it is a clear improvement on where we are now. My complaint, such as it is, is more that they didn't go far enough in some areas than that they went in the wrong direction. But such is progress, perhaps.
Nice try but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In these "digital times"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I argue that the current mass of IP is already beyond managable levels and in fact has grown to the point that it impedes new artistic works and inventions which is contrary the original intent of "IP" as a concept and institution. As a means to reduce the present condition and in the interests of preventing the stagnation of technology and human advancement, I propose that a REDUCTION in the term limits of copyright and patents such that they not extend beyond five years for patents and ten years for copyright from the point of such claim is initially granted.
We don't need to extend copyright and patent terms. We shouldn't keep them at their present duration. They should be reduced as it is quite obvious that patent claims are used and traded to the exclusion and extortion of smaller, emerging business. Copyrights serving beyond the death of the original creators are not serving the purpose commonly cited which is to compensate artists for their work. Indeed, it is being harvested by non-creative parties whose interests are not those of the public which represents a complete abuse of both parties intended to benefit from the creation of copyright as a concept and institution. A reduction in copyright terms would restore copyright to better serve the public's interests and those of the creators of copyrighted materials.
not extending copyright != stealing music (Score:3, Insightful)
I love this bit - they don't even try to justify the reason for copyright extension which is they want to continue making money of something old - and they probably can because *some* people will still buy 51 year old stuff if they find it valuable. The point is that the material has passed into collective conciousness if its still wanted after 50 years and it ought to be free (I mean in the public domain not free as in beer). Putting things in the public domain doesn't translate to free as in beer - you still have to get it from someplace and unless its widely available someone can certainly charge you for the convenience of making it available. Ofcourse you can turn around and host it yourself and they can't do anything about that.
What putting things in the public domain does do is allow anyone anywhere to study it freely, edit it, really do whatever they damn well please with it and not have consequences. Yes I'm being a heretic and saying that something that is old but still profitable should be given away to anyone for anything for essentially free because that will encourage creativity. It will also help ensure those works actually get preserved. If something is available freely and openly and anyone can make copies of it (books, music, movies software, whatever) then it stands a much better chance of survival then if its still controlled by one company.
Theres a massive disconnect here - Jamieson is talking about stealing music and copyright extension at the same time but not extending copyright terms is not stealing from the artist or the people who invested in them - its allowing them to make money of older stuff which they wouldn't have otherwise - in a sense its really stealing from the general public who IMHO have a right to work that is part of our common "heritage" (for want of a better term).
This one is od coming from AIM precisely because they are supposed to be independent and I thought the issue of pivate copying was more of an issue for the major labels - I've not had time to follow the money yet. I think they misunderstood something though - Gowers advocated private copying and format shifting yes but they did not say without DRM. This ofcourse begs the $64,000 question - how the heck do you get something under a DRM scheme into the public domain after the copyright term is up. Frankly I'd hope that with 50 years in the interim we could break any DRM there was quite easily by brute force if need be but the question is if the format will remain readable over that period at all. I'd say obligate companies to release material into the public domain after their copyright term is up in a current format without any restriction. Yes this costs money but they did profit of the damn thing for 50 years - its minimum payback and the cost is already pretty damned low.
extending copyright == stealing music (Score:3, Informative)
Very well said. Further extensions of copyright, with the way copyright works these days, is tantamount to stealing music from future generations. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to continue creating more works, then the last thing we should do is allow them to rest on their laurels! The length of the copyright term is actually a disincentive to artists to make new works. It also hinders artists in the future from building on top of those works.
By the way, unbreakable DRM really is
silly (Score:3, Insightful)
They already can and do.
and further 'recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended,' saying, 'The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators.'
50 years is not "balanced"; "balanced" copyright, in today's world would be 10-20 years. Furthermore, copyright should go back to applying only when the work has been explicitly registered, so that things actually can fall into the public domain and people can determine ownership.
Re:silly (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the UK it is NOT legal to copy music from a CD to MP3 player or to magnetic tape or any other format full stop.
The only legal way to put MP3's onto an MP3 player is to purchase the MP3's on-line.
oh for goodness sake (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember the "warnings" on record sleeves "Home taping is killing music" - did it?
Precisely.
Copyright was supposed to be to protect the melody and words of a song so that another artist cannot copy large parts of the song/melody without paying royalties. Not to stop the audience getting hold of the song.
It's a greedy, ugly industry trying to scare governments into passing laws to make their income stream bigger and easier to maintain.
Want to know why sales are falling?
Because a lot of mainstream music is bland, boring crap. Where are the protest singers in the charts? Where are the artists? It's all family oriented, safe for the children, shrink wrapped, corporate approved, vaguely pornographic nonsense.
"Musicians sign copyright advert" (Score:4, Interesting)
People *knew* the copyright on recordings was only 50 years when they made them. Tough.