Copyright Cutback Proposed As RIAA Solution

An anonymous reader writes "InfoWeek blogger Alex Wolfe proposes a novel solution to the ongoing spate of RIAA lawsuits over alleged music copying. He suggests legislation which cuts back corporate copyrights from 120 years to 5 years. 'We should do what we do to children who misbehave,' he writes. 'Take away their privileges.' Wolfe says this is regardless of the misunderstanding surrounding the latest case, which apparently isn't about ripping CDs to one's own computer. As to those who say copyrights are a right: "That's simply a misunderstanding of their purpose. Copyrights, like patents, weren't implemented to protect their owners in perpetuity. They are part of a dance which attempts to balance off societal benefits against incentives for writers and inventors. You want to incentivize people to push the state of the creative and technical arts, but you don't want give those folks such overbearing protections that future advances by other innovators are stifled." What do you think; is it time to cut off the record industry?"

Preaching to the choir

[jon787 (512497)]

What do you think; is it time to cut off the record industry?

This is /., do you really have to ask that?

Re:Preaching to the choir

[fifedrum (611338)]

i'm afraid to ask the voting public what they think on the issue, most of them (think boomers) would vote to extend it because that's what Sony Bono would have wanted us to do.

Re:Preaching to the choir

[rnturn (11092)]

"Sony Bono"?

I think you meant to type "Sonny Bono" but, then again, maybe you really weren't that far from being right.

Re:Preaching to the choir

[conlaw (983784)]

As one of the early boomers, I respectfully disagree with your analysis. If Sonny Bono--or Elvis or all of the Bobby's--didn't provide for their heirs while they were making the money, too bad, so sad. And, IMHO, calling it the "Sonny Bono Law" was just a way to keep everyone from realizing that the point was really to extend the Disney Corporation's copyrights. In other words, the Congress-critters didn't really care about Chastity, they wanted to protect Mickey Mouse (f/k/a Steamboat Willie).

Re:Preaching to the choir

[Gorshkov (932507)]

most of them (think boomers) would vote to extend it because that's what Sony Bono would have wanted us to do.

Us "boomers" are old enough to remember hearing him sing. That was NOT music that should be protected ..... trust me on this.

Re:Preaching to the choir

[fastest fascist (1086001)]

No no, it SHOULD be protected. Strongly. So strongly that you need to obtain a separate license for each time you play any of his "music", and failure to do so would be a capital offense.

Re:Preaching to the choir

[cthulu_mt (1124113)]

If the RIAA could figure out how to tie perpetual Copyright to Social Securities most of you Baby Boomers would line up to cut my generations collective throats.

Mod me down in-case I just gave some shill a bright idea.

Flaming to get hits.

[LWATCDR (28044)]

This is just a dumb idea.
1. It really couldn't happen because it would violate more than a few international agreements.
2. corporate vs personal copyrights? A lot of artists when they start make money incorperate. Where do there works fit in?

It is a non solution to a real problem. But lots of people will click on the blog and read the ads and they will make money off it.
Thank you for playing and paying.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[mrchaotica (681592)]

It really couldn't happen because it would violate more than a few international agreements.

So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?

corporate vs personal copyrights? A lot of artists when they start make money incorperate. Where do there works fit in?

Obviously, once you eliminate fuzzy measures like "life of the author," corporate and personal copyrights can be exactly the same 5 years.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[Sancho (17056)]

There's a pretty good reason to let individuals have longer copyrights--they're less able to make money quickly from their work. Any given production studio probably makes 95% of their profits from a film within the first 5 years of its release (theatrical runs, initial DVD release, special edition DVD release.) An individual who is trying to market it without the help of a corporation will likely need to rely heavily on word-of-mouth advertising, which will be slower than a nationwide advertising campaign.

I'd be pretty happy with 5 years for corporations, 10 years for individuals, each with the option to renew for one more term. If you can't recoup your investment within this time frame, you don't need to be in this business.

Of course, I'd also like to see perpetual copyrights for free-as-in-speech works, but that's probably too much to ask.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[aztektum (170569)]

If an individual can't recoup their investment within 5 years, especially with the Internet, they should probably apply at McDonald's. Just because you're a starving artist doesn't mean you should get a guaranteed advantage. That's your choice.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[pembo13 (770295)]

It really couldn't happen because it would violate more than a few international agreements.

So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?

Well first of all international agreements have less to do with 'foreigners' and more to do with one's own government since they had to agree to it (hence the word agreements).

Secondly, in my experience, in America the cooperations have all the power but allow the citizens to think they have power.

And Americans have very little right to talk about sovereignty since they have little to no respect for the sovereignty of others.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[eclectic4 (665330)]

"So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?"

Neither, large multi-national corporations do. And they like the 120 year stance, so let's all get used to it... there are too many "critical thought impaired" citizens with voting cards in the country. Sorry.

TRIPS

[Scrameustache (459504)]

It really couldn't happen because it would violate more than a few international agreements.

So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?

Who the hell do you think wrote those agreements in the first place!?

The Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that sets down minimum standards for many forms of intellectual property (IP) regulation. It was negotiated at the end of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1994. Its inclusion was the culmination of a program of intense lobbying by the United States [wikipedia.org].
The United States strategy of linking trade policy to intellectual property standards can be traced back to the entrepreneurship of senior management at Pfizer in the early 1980s, who mobilized corporations in the United States and made maximizing intellectual property privileges the number one priority of trade policy in the United States (Braithwaite and Drahos, 2000, Chapter 7).

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[Total_Wimp (564548)]

So what? Answer me this: In America, who has sovereignty? We the actual citizens, or foreigners?

I keep hearing this "sovereignty" thing bandied about by (usually conservative) people. They usually say it in the context of "we'll be giving up our sovereignty" with this treaty or that or "we should do [insert treaty-breaking thing we just feel like doing] because we have sovereignty!"

Here's the thing; Abiding by your agreements IS NOT some sort of weakness where you're somehow giving up your right of self-determination. It's simply keeping your end of a bargain. It's, you know, that honesty thing, where you make a contract, and then do the thing you said you were going to do in the contract.

But it gets better. We usually get something we want when we make these deals. You got that? It's not just give, give, give, give, give. We actually get something in return. I don't know about you, but it doesn't seem very nice to me when someone takes something from me, then doesn't give me the thing they promised in return. I try to avoid doing business with that guy in the future.

Sure, I understand that treaties sometimes need to be dissolved. It happens. But it gives me the willys when you sovereignty folks act like it should be done at the drop of a hat. It's serious damn business and should be treated as such. doing it simply "because we can" is not good enough. If it comes to exercising our sovereignty whenever we feel like it or being a good honest neighbor and only breaking treaties unilaterally when there's a very serious reason, well, I value good and honest a hell of a lot more. It just seems like the American way to do things. At least I hope so.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[Hatta (162192)]

This is just a dumb idea.
1. It really couldn't happen because it would violate more than a few international agreements.

Wrong, this is a brilliant idea. It's the international agreements that are dumb.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[Raisey-raison (850922)]

This idea is great. Here are some more:

1. I think a general copyright of 14 years is the optimum from the time of publication. This study previously appeared on slashdot.
http://www.rufuspollock.org/economics/papers/optimal_copyright.pdf [rufuspollock.org]

2. Solve the problem of people using copyright to prevent reproduction especially in small independent films.
If companies use copyright to deny reproduction at any price or at a price that is so high its absurd, enable people to pay some fixed fee and ignore the wishes of the copyright holder. Copyright shouldn't be a tool to prevent reproduction just a tool to make some money from artistic creativity.

3. If companies abuse the position by engaging in fraud or anti trust behavior to manipulate prices they lose their copyright.
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/PrRel/prfeb192004.htm [utah.gov]
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-cd-settlement.htm [about.com]

4. Expand fair use. If I want to use a small portion of a book eg 1000 words from a 50,000 word book its ok even if its for profit. I just can't reproduce lots of 1000 word bit to reproduce the book. If its educational I get to use it unless it literally causes major loss to the company. Eg in a classroom I can make 200 copies of a newspaper article for all the students. I just can't do that for a whole textbook. But I can use it for a figure from a textbook.

5. No automatic copyright for photos. There has to be some artistic quality to them.

6. In the U.S., buildings built on or after December 1, 1990 are also eligible for copyright. This is pathetic. Given that creativity was not stifled beforehand this is totally unnecessary. No copyright on buildings.

7. No frivolous copyright either like on restaurants. Yes someone was sued and lost because one restaurant was too similar to another.

8. No copyright on 'happy birthday'. If you sing happy birthday in a restaurant you gotta pay a fee to the so called rights holder. The movie 'The Corporation' claims that Warner/Chappell charge up to US$10,000 for the song to appear in a film.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You [wikipedia.org]

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

1. Most (if not all) of those international agreements are at the US's behest, seeing as they're by FAR the biggest exporter of copyrighted material. Besides, when has the US ever cared about international agreements?

2. You can incorporate and then license your personal copyright to your company. Same with patents. Corporate patents should be shorter than personal patents. If a company owns a patent then it should be capable of developing it quite quickly. An individual who owns a patent likely needs a longer term to develop it.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

Sure could. But they've got to be awfully nice to those animators or they'll walk and take their copyright with them.

Photojournalists won themselves a similar deal through labor action. They own all their photos. News agencies are not allowed to purchase the copyright, only license the use of the photo. The photojournalist benefits because he controls his photo and there's competition. We benefit because he can sell to many organizations. That's how those top 100 pictures of the year/decade/century books get published?

Rather than legislating it, artists could form a proper union or professional society I guess.

Re:Flaming to get hits.

[mmeister (862972)]

I disagree. While I think the length is a little on the low side (I'd argue that a 10 year copyright is more reasonable because it offers enough incentive for someone to reap benefits but not so long as to keep it out of the public domain for an entire lifetime -- as in 120 years). But the truth is we have FOUR major record labels and a handful of Movie Studios that are dictating the copyright terms to the people. Copyright in the U.S. Constitution was intended to be very limiting, but Corporatism has taken over -- which is why a Mickey will remain protected in perpetuity. The losers are the people.

As for violating international agreements. So? Facts change over time and some treaties aren't meant to last forever (esp regarding things like trade). We are not living under the same treaties that governed trade in the 1700s.

I believe the UK copyrights are(were?) for a much smaller timeframe such that the Beatles will go in the public domain (in the UK) in a few short years. That's not true in the US. The Beatles works are protected here for long, long after I'm dead and that doesn't assume it wouldn't get extended AGAIN.

Right now the ONLY people benefiting from current copyright laws (and their lengths) are mega corporations. Again, Corporatism in action.

Re:International Agreements

[Pharmboy (216950)]

I don't think so. Most people are mad at the US, not because we break treaties (which has traditionally been done in compliance with the actual treaty) but they are instead mad because we won't SIGN treaties that we know we can't live up to, like Kyoto.

Then again, the US was the first to ban aerosols, has significantly cleaned up our lakes since 1970s, just recently upped the CAFE standards for gas mileage in cars, and subsidizes alternative fuels. Far from perfect, granted, but we have still done more without a treaty than most with one.

Re:International Agreements

[BlueParrot (965239)]

just recently upped the CAFE standards for gas mileage in cars

With the new targets being significantly more modest than the European equivalents.

Also, most people are not too upset about the US finding it difficult to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We can understand that. What we are REALLY pissed about is that your government has decided to launch a corrupt attack on the scientific process rather than admitting they have a problem and that it is hurting the entire globe. The disinformation they are promoting in order to save their own face is making it difficult for countries that DO try to make a difference to explain it to their population.

In short, the Bush administrations anti-scientific propaganda is causing Europeans who don't know better to reject their local governments attempts at curtailing emissions. Thus while they may just be doing it to save their own face, their lies are causing major trouble across the globe, and it is pissing of a lot of people.

Ideas don't have to be free...

[Baron_Yam (643147)]

120 years is INSANE.

Everything should go into the public domain after a period long enough to have allowed the creator to profit under most circumstances.
Copyright should also last at least long enough that it discourages companies from just waiting it out.

I figure 10-15 years for most things.

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[ByOhTek (1181381)]

For corporate copyrights, 5 years is fine. Maybe a fee to continue the copyright for 5 year increments beyond that (to encourage continue publication of the media as long as it is copyrighted, and public-domaining as soon as it isn't profitable). Corporations are too abusive to give long copyrights too.

Individual copyrights for 10-20 years are fine, IMO. It forces the corporations to answer to the artists if they want to save on copyright fees, and the artists will probably be more considerate to the consumers.

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[Cheerio Boy (82178)]

For corporate copyrights, 5 years is fine. Maybe a fee to continue the copyright for 5 year increments beyond that (to encourage continue publication of the media as long as it is copyrighted, and public-domaining as soon as it isn't profitable). Corporations are too abusive to give long copyrights too.

Individual copyrights for 10-20 years are fine, IMO. It forces the corporations to answer to the artists if they want to save on copyright fees, and the artists will probably be more considerate to the consumers.

I'm all for an extension fee but make it non-trivial in cost for corporations AND make it geometrically progressive so that they can't just keep paying the fee forever.

Because you know as long as they can pay a small amount to retain their stranglehold they will do so.

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[Hierarch (466609)]

Even without the increasing fees, it would be an invaluable change. Remember, we aren't just dealing with the *AA and Disney, we also have the problem of abandoned works. Tons of IP are sitting around with no known owner. We can't touch a single one of them, because if someone does, and starts to make money, 30 different people or corporations will all swoop in claiming ownership through some weird line of descent from the original (bankrupt) owner.

No, if nobody claims to own the work, it should go into the public domain. Even a $5 filing fee would be enough for this.

ISTR an article where Disney's mouthpiece admitted that they'd heard about this concept and weren't entirely opposed to it... Anybody remember? Was this one of Lessig's brainchildren?

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[coolGuyZak (844482)]

My idea is slightly more complex, but (IMHO) more reasonable logistically:

1. Everything is automatically copyrighted for X years (my choice for X would be between 10 and 20 years).
2. Copyright can be extended to Y years (say, 2X or 3X years) by registering the copyright with the copyright office. Registration requires the full text of any copyrighted work to be submitted with the application. Registration may incur a reasonable filing fee.
3. Registering a copyright grants government institutions the following mandatory licenses to the work:
   • All government institutions (e.g. libraries, schools, public parks) may stock the complete text, royalty free.
   • The government may make an indefinite number of copies for archival and preservation.
   • If the entity that holds a registered copyright ceases distribution of the work, the government may (at its option) distribute the work for the price of reproduction, plus a reasonable and compulsory license fee (paid to the copyright owner).
   • Any trademarks, patents, or other intellectual property rights required to distribute the work are licensed to the government. The terms of this license should be narrow--only those required to enable distribution under the terms previously enumerated.
4. Additional extension of copyright is not possible. Retroactive extension is explicitly denied.
5. After the copyright expires, the work passes into the public domain.
6. Refinements of an existing work may enable additional property rights. However, refinements are treated as derivative of but separate from the original work. Creating a derivative or refined work does not extend the rights or terms granted to previous work.

Protecting images...

[tjwhaynes (114792)]

I actually think there needs to be a new kind of IP for stuff like Mickey Mouse. The Disney Corporation is *actively* using the character. No matter how old it is. Something which would protect the image of Mickey Mouse even if Steamboat Mickey fell into the public domain could make things a bit sane.

Mickey Mouse(TM) is already well protected by trademark law. If you are suggesting that "Look and Feel" or heavens-forbid "Image" should be protected under Intellectual Property laws, then just take ten seconds to think how quickly everything would be "ImageMarked" by the scammers and locked up by "ImageMark" trolls who make nothing but sue everyone around for near-misses and co-incidence.

/me shudders...

If I remember correctly, the whole point of IP laws is to foster innovation. If Disney does something new with Mickey, then that is protected. Protecting the old images forever does not serve to foster new creativity.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[jcaldwel (935913)]

For corporate copyrights, 5 years is fine. Maybe a fee to continue the copyright for 5 year increments beyond that (to encourage continue publication of the media as long as it is copyrighted, and public-domaining as soon as it isn't profitable). Corporations are too abusive to give long copyrights too. Individual copyrights for 10-20 years are fine, IMO. It forces the corporations to answer to the artists if they want to save on copyright fees, and the artists will probably be more considerate to the consumers.

The distinction between corporate and individuals wouldn't be effective. Some company exec will just hold the copyright personally, and license it exclusively to the corporation for the full 20 years.

Re:Ideas don't have to be free...

[Mr. Slippery (47854)]

Some company exec will just hold the copyright personally

That's the heart of the problem. Congress is authorized only to secure copyrights to creators ("Authors and Inventors") - not to employers, assignees, or heirs.

Recognizing that any copyright claim by someone who didn't create the work is bogus would go a long way to fixing the problem. (And would align copyright law with the Constitution as a bonus.)

What about the artists?

[JCSoRocks (1142053)]

Anyone know how this would affect the artists? I mean, I know that most of them make their money off of merch and concerts anyway - but I'm just trying to understand who this would really end up hurting. Obviously older bands that still have reasonably good record sales (Led Zeppelin) aren't going on a lot of tours. I'm all for giving RIAA a good gut punch, I just don't want to screw over the musicians I love in the process. I'm no IP / copyright lawyer so I'm looking for some insight here!

What's the point?

[goldspider (445116)]

It's not as if anyone in Congress is inclined to reign in one of their most prolific lobbyists. What is the point of such musings?

This guy obviously doesn't write his own music

[Goldenhawk (242867)]

... but I do write music. Sorry, I have a real problem with Congress taking away my own rights to my own music after just five years. That's a flash in the pan, in terms of my life; for crying out loud, I don't even get some of my own music finished in that short a time. I don't sell my music (or at least, nobody's bothered to buy it yet), but I have a problem with someone saying they can appropriate my own creative works that quickly.

There are other solutions than this that have NOT been tried yet, because the lobby is too big for Congress to act. And this would suffer the same fate.

Re:This guy obviously doesn't write his own music

[maroberts (15852)]

I agree with your statement about 5 years being too short, but your argument is wrong.

If Congress cut back copyright, it wouldn't be removing your rights, it would be reducing rights that it had granted to you in the first place. It's entirely up to you whether you agree to distribute your music or video based on those rights.

Even for corporate copyright, I agree 5 years is much too short, but equally the current US period (70 years + life?) is much too long. Some figure around 15-20 years, as for example in patents, would be a much more reasonable balance between making it worth your while to produce and not overly restricting the rights of the general public to enjoy and reuse your concepts after a reasonable time.

Re:This guy obviously doesn't write his own music

[jesdynf (42915)]

Yeah, well -- there isn't a really polite way to put this -- suck it up.

Really, that's all I can tell you. Nobody keeps paying ME for the creative work I did a month ago in my job. Far as I'm concerned, this notion that I should be prevented from saying words because another person owns them is repugnant on its face -- five years is the compromise position, not the extreme.

There's an outer limit at which copyright becomes a law I'll agree to obey instead of a moral and ethical irrelevancy backed by nothing but powerful men with guns. "Life plus 70" isn't on the map. I seem to recall that the first act of Congress establishing copyright covered it from 17 years; that still seems awful long to me, but it's in the ballpark where we can start trying to cut a deal. Much past 17, though... and it's back to men with guns.

Correct me if I'm wrong

[Kelbear (870538)]

But are they actually suggesting that they reduce an artist's ownership to just 5 years?

I'm no fan of the RIAA, but there are plenty of other ways to nail them to the wall with less collateral damage. It's the method of enforcing copyright that's been so despicable, not the duration of the copyright(for music that is).

Does Congress think the RIAA is behaving badly?

[dpbsmith (263124)]

In order for Congress to pass such a law, they'd have to be angry at the RIAA for behaving badly.

In order for them to perceive the RIAA as behaving badly, they'd have to have the same sort of world view as I, Lawrence Lessig, probably most Slashdot readers, and probably most Americans who have any awareness of what's going on with (so-called) intellectual property.

But if they had that sort of world view, they would never have passed the DMCA and the various copyright extensions in the first place.

So, what's the point here? Unless it's a tongue-in-cheek Swiftian "modest proposal."

As a serious proposal, it makes about as much sense as suggesting that Congress pass a law allowing unrestricted legal immigration in order to increase the numbers of young workers and thus solve the demographic problems of Medicare and Social Security.

Copyrights Are Insane

[Nom du Keyboard (633989)]

I agree that copyright terms are insane. One of the things the Founding Fathers specifically put into the Constitution was a ban on perpetual copyrights. They'd seen them in Europe, and weren't going to have them here. Secure for a limited time... is what it says.

What I would put into law are 2 specific reforms:

1: Copyright cannot be extended beyond its original term. The reason for this is simple. Copyright exists to encourage creation and publication of the arts. Once that art is created under the copyright terms of the time, copyright has served its entire purpose. Anything beyond that is just giving more unnecessary rewards to a few at the expense of the many.

2: Copyright is lost to any item not available for new sale in a 3 year period at a fair price. If you're no longer selling it, then you have no right to prevent other people from duplicating it and keeping it available.

Change on any issue starts when people start talking about it. Let copyright change begin here now!

The Mickey Mouse Rule

[russbutton (675993)]

It's never going to happen because of the "Mickey Mouse" rule. Music copyright in this country goes back to 1925 because the Disney corporation has copyright to Mickey Mouse, who dates back to 1925. If you were to limit copyright to anything any of us considers reasonable, Disney would lose ownership of Mickey Mouse, which would be huge for them. They've been paying Congress for decades to keep moving the copyright window so they could continue to hold Mickey Mouse. We have the best government that money can buy and Disney has been keeping up on their payments.

Killing off copyright, or at least reducing it to anything less than 80 years isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Re:The Mickey Mouse Rule

[Todd Knarr (15451)]

Disney wouldn't lose ownership of Mickey Mouse. Mickey's distinctive likeness is under trademark, completely different area of law. What they'd lose is copyright on a single very old cartoon "Steamboat Willy" which was the first appearance of a rat that'd eventually morph into Mickey years later. And Disney knows this. Their use of the "We'd lost ownership of Mickey." argument is a smokescreen. What they really want is simple: a one-way door. They want to be able to use older works (Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Treasure Island, etc.) as the basis for their works without any strings attached, but they don't want anybody using their works the same way without paying them handsomely for the privilege. That, after all, maximizes profits (for them, at least).

Re:I do agree with a time limitation...

[Millennium (2451)]

Twenty is too long, but I agree that five is way too short. I'd go to seven with an optional seven-year extension (for a total of fourteen) much like the original copyright scheme used in the US.

Re:I do agree with a time limitation...

[secPM_MS (1081961)]

Traditionally, copyright was for the life of the author + some reasonably large number. The optimal lifetime has been studied under economic maximization theory. The result was ~ 14 years, which is rather closer to the 20 year patent life time than the proposed 5 years. The link is: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070712-research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.html [arstechnica.com]

Re:Corporate Copyrights - Not Just Entertainment

[maz2331 (1104901)]

The lifespan of software is pretty short anyway. A 5-year protection cycle is a huge motivator to get a new product out the door on a regular basis and keep the programmers employed.

Re:Corporate Copyrights - Not Just Entertainment

[jedidiah (1196)]

A 30 year old cobol program running on a mainframe is the ABSOLUTE LAST thing that should be entangled in copyright shenanigans. This is THE perfect example of something for which the owner of the copy should have the ability to fix and maintain the program. Quite likely, the individual or company that original wrote or sold the program is gone, LONG GONE.

Re:Corporate Copyrights - Not Just Entertainment

[Xiaran (836924)]

Yes but software like that is generally business software that is held internally by some business and hence not copied at all(commercial in confidence protect it etc). The only bits of the industry that would have to worry would be things like games and other shrink wrapped software. Personally Id feel fine is say MS office feel out of copyright every five years as I dont think it would really affect anyone... MS would simply release a new version(Is office 95 really worth anything to anyone these days)?

Games could be a problem as they seem to like to release platinum editions of older games and I honest have no idea how much that brings in for the games industry... its probably a nice little earner they wouldnt like to lose. But on the other hand it could solve the problem of abandonware... games Id still like to play but cant because I cant physically purchase it anywhere.

For other sectors like niche vertical market sector software developers(Ive worked in such and industry) they are generally doing pretty bespoke stuff and being used as a service provider to their clients.

Id be honestly interested if anyone has any examples of really bad things happening in any sector of the software development world. Settop boxes for sat and cable TV perhaps? If you argue that the software on the sim code falls out of copyright every five years then whats to stop you duping a bunch for your friends.

Independent musicians cry "foul!"

[Nerdposeur (910128)]

And if independent artists are also limited to 5 years' copyright, what's to prevent a label from discovering them, liking their songs, but leaving them in obscurity for 5 years until they can take their songs and get some pretty boy band to record them?

Sounds to me like you'd be handing the industry a gold mine of free songs and screwing the little guy. After all, which one has the marketing and payola to make sure something is an instant hit? Which one has to struggle for a decade to become an "overnight" success?

Re:Yes

[sm62704 (957197)]

Cut back corporate copyrights from 120 to 5 years makes complete sense

That's one of the many reasons it won't happen.

Re:Rainbows and Unicorns for everyone!

[by Anonymous Coward]

I just thought I'd attack the first cynical apologist for no good reason other than I don't like people like you.

Those who whine and mumble "It will never happen" think they are being 'realists', but they are just dragging everyone
down with their own depressive lack of vision. Neil, you are as much a part of the problem as the RIAA and other criminals.
What do you possibly feel you have added to the discussion, other than what we all already know?

Want to add something other than vague accusations?
Want to print the names of those you accuse of corruption?
Want to cite some examples of their criminal behaviour?

Your hand waving dismissal just insults us all.

Re:One little problem ...

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

Lessing argued EXACTLY that before the Supreme Court. That unrestricted additions to copyright length for free, constituted "takings" from the pubic interest. The Supreme Court ruled the public had no case as the Constitution granted the term limits to Congress to do with as they pleased.

So taking back copyright is perfectly legal, and the argument has ALREADY been argued in court!!! We just have to get Congress to vote to change it!!

Re:Short periods = more draconian RIAA

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

copyright is an absolute monopoly.. that's the point. At 5-10 years it makes sense to let a company aggressively protect its profit because it's SHORT. Does anybody really care about sharing Beatles on P2P as half the band is DEAD 50 years later? But in legal terms a pre-release leak and sharing 50 year-old songs on P2P is the same thing! That's why nobody respects it. Make the law reasonable and more people will respect it.. strange but it might work.