UK Copyright Extension in Exchange for Censorship? 238
Awel writes "The UK opposition leader, David Cameron, says in a speech to the British Phonographic Industry that his party would work to extend the copyright term to 70 years and crack down on piracy. But in return, labels would have to agree to bear more 'social responsibility', which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'. He doesn't spell out how this would be achieved in practice.
This follows the publication in December of a UK government report recommending that the standard copyright term in Europe remain at 50 years (and not be raised to 70 or 95 years)."
Historic precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
What a deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
horrible situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
What's up with the UK recently? It's bizarre. People complain like hell about the EU imposing laws on the UK, but if it is the UK gov doing it, nobody bats an eyelid.
For example, smoking. I hate smoking, it's horrid. But if people want to do it, they should be able to go to pubs where it's allowed. If people want to listen to music that glorifies "an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny" then they should be able to. And if people want to copy music or books or whatever of an artist that is well dead and buried then they should be able to do that too.
Re:Historic precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're really saying is, "Government is returning to its roots" and that is correct.
Re:What a deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, not free (as in speech) in exchange for not free (as in beer). Excellent.
Dangers to freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony, of course, is that one of the main problems with effectively-perpetual copyright is the many restrictions it places on open commentary and free speech. Perpetual and rigidly-enforced copyrights essentially produce a chilling effect in the domain of free public discussion. Since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is hard to not label this as censorship.
So we get a double-dose of censorship: copyright extensions limit our ability to freely discuss and produce derivative art of the culture we are a part of... and these same extensions are used as a lever to enforce a government-mandated version of decency. In my mind this seriously calls into question the notion that copyrights are there as a service to society, encouraging distribution of artwork to the people... or have we given up on that interpretation of copyright entirely?
Re:horrible situation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nanny state (Score:1, Insightful)
For example, smoking. I hate smoking, it's horrid. But if people want to do it, they should be able to go to pubs where it's allowed. [emphasis mine]
Not any more it's not. No, if people want to do it, they should be able to do it in the privacy of their own home, where it won't endanger the lives of others. Ok, the law in question actually extends that to "outside the pub" too (probably a reasonable compromise as, even though it still stinks, the smoke will disperse more effectively).
Holy crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
by the time it gets in the hands of the kids of these fine legislators, it has been picked up by a label and redistributed. stopping that part of the process won't lead to the death of street music, it will just mean that street music will get distributed by other means
kids are stupid. they listen to stupid things. then they grow up. and become responsible. and become members of the house of commons. i wonder how many of this guys peers, if not himself, were getting stoned in the back of a car listening to "we don't need no education..." and other wonders of pink floyd's "the wall" 25 years ago
you can't stop teenagers from being retarded. that's just what teenage years are all about
hey david cameron: "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!"
Helmet (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, Brown doesn't exactly make me jump for joy either. Guess I'll carry on doing what I've done for the last 10 years, vote for apathy and stay at home.
So many mistakes... (Score:5, Insightful)
This only covers the first 1/4 of the speech. Again, I'm disgusted by the skewed view of the entire debate that is being presented. This results from either paying little to no attention to what is going on, or an intentional misrepresentation in order to garner the favor of a particular industry. In either case, it's not a good place from which to start setting social policy.
Re:Nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet the chance of having a car accident after drinking just one pint is hundreds of times higher than the chance of you getting cancer from someone smoking near you. And sometimes people have more than one pint before driving home, don't they? And so we should ban drinking alcohol except at home.
Not too keen on that? Enjoy a drink at the pub, do you?
Re:What a deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a writer and I object to 50 years. (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, that generally only pumps up your profit for an additional 5-10 years.
After 20 years on sale, your profit is practically nothing ... UNLESS you wrote a masterpiece.
But if you wrote a masterpiece then:
1. You probably got rich by then anyway.
2. The public wants you to WRITE ANOTHER ONE
3. A sequel/new book would earn a ton more money and also can pump up sales of the first thing.
Net Net, it is in the PUBLIC'S interest that after just 10 years, copyrights run out. AND it does not significantly affect any creator's income.
The real reason why we have copyright laws over 10 years is not for the writer, but instead for the major corporations that can make money lots of tiny sales 15, 20 or 50 years after creation of the author. It is pretty much ONLY them that really benefit, at the expense of society by a LOT.
Now, there is one other factor - derivative work. Movies based on books etc. That kind of thing it is reasonable to allow the original writer to retain. But honestly it should ALWAYS be the original writer, i.e. the right should not be saleable. That prevents them from selling it to a corp for a quick profit and then having the corp. massacre their work. By requirin the original actual author to give always give consent, we can increase the quality of the work.
Re:Nanny state (Score:3, Insightful)
As more than one pundit has noted, Tony Blair's legacy is now obvious: it is David Cameron. True to form, he started out very promising, saying lots of things we all wanted to hear, but now the spin has started to slip a lot of his policies just sound like bad ideas. (See also "grammar schools".) I wonder how long Gordy will last before falling into the same pit; surely after a decade at the heart of the previous government, he hasn't really suddenly given up on all the bad ideas he's supported over those ten years?
Incidentally, while I am in general opposed to government intervention in people's daily lives, I find the smoking ban to be something of a special case. For one thing, it is a health issue that affects those who do not choose to smoke as well. Secondly, and much less importantly but still in its favour, market forces have not produced the opportunities that non-smokers want more because of (non-)competition concerns and management short-sightedness than any economic reason, and the smoking ban will break this deadlock.
Incidentally, the pre-budget report mentioned comes from the independent Gowers Review, and the government basically just accepted almost all of the review's recommendations. If you're bothered by the influence Europe has on our country, you should really read the full Gowers report (including the parts between the lines), and note how often the review proposes one thing but implies fairly transparently that the reason they don't propose going further is that under European law we can't. For example, it sounds a lot like the Review couldn't recommend generic, US-style fair use exemptions — even though it advocates more specific changes such as a format-shifting exemption explicitly without an accompanying levy on blank media — because EU law basically prevents doing anything that broad without imposing some sort of additional charge to pay off Big Media.
How many things are wrong with this idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... because the first thing to do in the fight against piracy is to broaden the definition of piracy to include twenty years worth of extra music. In other news, Cameron announced that as the first step in a crackdown on murder, the definition of "murder" will been expanded to include drunk-driving. He said that government claims that this would increase reported cases of murder by 12000% as "exagerated".
> He argued that extending the term would give an "incentive to the music industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which
> more people can enjoy at no extra cost".
Right... so, extending the copyright term to include works which are currently in the public domain, and thus free and legal to use for any purpose will help people enjoy these works at "no extra cost"? In other news, as part of a campaign to try and get kids to exercise more, Cameron announced plans to put all public playparks into the hands of private companies that will charge for their use.
> Mr Cameron said: "Most people think these are all multimillionaires living in some penthouse flat. The reality is that many of
> these are low-earning session musicians who will be losing a vital pension."...
>
Wait, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you *feel* entitled to go out in the world and have it be a warm and fuzzy place that lives up to your every expectation and personal choice, doesn't mean you are.
If a pub owner person wants to allow smoking and attracts those clients, then they shouldn't be legally prohibited. You're more than welcome to use the one across the street that has a no smoking sign in the window.
Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Retroactive changes... (Score:3, Insightful)
But authors are, too. When I publish something and assign the copyright to the publisher (in exchange for whatever terms), it is with the knowledge that the work will enter the public domain on a given date. However if the laws are suddenly altered, then my contract has been changed without me agreeing to anything! If an additional 20 years of protection are afforded, how can those extra 20 years be included in a contract retroactively? What if I wanted the work to enter the public domain on a particular date? The original contract guaranteed that, and now the government imposes a law that invalidates the assumptions of my previous contract!
I think a consumer arguing that an implicit contract had been violated would be interesting... but I think if an author, who had assigned the copyright to another party, vocally said that they would sue to regain control of the "extended time" of any copyright extension... that might draw some much-needed publicity to this debate.
Imagine what would happen if *all* authors said they would reclaim the "extended time" from copyright extension. I bet the publishers wouldn't be so keen to support extensions in that case. Rights of the authors indeed.
Orwellian Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
Profit for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Historic precedent (Score:3, Insightful)
The joy of government. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
They banned smoking in pubs in Ireland, and something like one in three pubs closed down. The same is happening in England, with many semi-rural pubs turning into restaurants. Eventually all there'll be left is trendy inner-city wine bars, and another great tradition will be lost to the politically-correct brigade.
Unfortuanately in modern Britain, all the major parties are control freaks, and the minor parties are all nazis and communists, so there's no-one to vote for. And they wonder why voting turnouts are so low...