EU Proposes Retroactive Copyright Extension 514
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy has unveiled a plan to retroactively extend musical copyrights by 45 years, which would make EU musical copyrights last 95 years total. Why? They're worried that musicians won't continue to collect royalties when they retire and this will give them an additional 45 years during which they won't have to produce any new music. Perhaps the only good point is that the retroactive extensions won't take effect for any works which aren't marketed in the first year after the extension. Additionally, while there are many non-musical retirees wishing they could get paid for 95 years after they finish working, McCreevy has not announced any new plans to help them."
Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple, Who Sucks Your Balls ?? (Score:2, Insightful)
The journalism community in general-and tech journalists in particular-discourage free enterprise and real competition. They are the worst kind of bandwagon-hoppers and hero-worshippers. No wonder the public does not think highly of the profession.
This thought is triggered by the ridiculous over-coverage of the Apple iPhone in a market full of new phones that get zero coverage from these same people. The Swedish Neonode, for example, brings out a laundry list of incredibly unique features, and it gets only a few mentions. The same goes for little Helio.
While a lot of this can be blamed on the fact that Neonode and Helio don't have the same buzz machine Apple has working for it, that should be beside the point. I say this because all of the hotshot big-market journalists-especially the ones working for large-circulation daily newspapers-brag about how they are not influenced by PR people and they like to do everything themselves. Meanwhile, they all flock to PR-driven Apple. Which of these jokers has written anything in detail about the Samsung iPhone lookalike?
And where are the editors in all this? A few opinion makers, hand-selected by Apple to get phones in advance with the expectation of a glowing review, and the editors think this is just peachy? And they wonder why blogs are so popular. Perhaps it's because you can get a less-corrupted opinion.
The Apple situation is the worst example, though. To me, it's almost a case of "Let's see how far we can go with these bozos." The corporations have already managed to use dubious nondisclosure agreements to get the media to do what they want, when they want. Complaints such as mine usually result in someone saying I'm jealous that I am not handpicked by Apple to do its bidding, of course. I think not. Another reaction will be for people on the handpicked list to criticize the product gratuitously, just to show they are objective. But why are they so preoccupied by Apple in the first place?
This same obsession happened with Microsoft during the heyday of computer magazines. All of a sudden all anyone wrote about was Microsoft. Readers would complain that everyone was on the Microsoft payroll or that the company got so much attention because it "advertised a lot." I'd always laughed at these accusations, since Microsoft hardly advertised at all. Why buy a cow when milk is free? They didn't have to advertise since they were getting it free from the editorial staff.
The irony is that giving too much attention to Microsoft allowed the company to take over the place; there was nobody left to actually advertise, and all the computer magazines shrank in size. Everyone then blamed the Internet. When people do that I hand them a copy of Vogue and ask why it's so thick. It's because there is a lot of competition in the fashion business. One company has never been held above the rest to the detriment of the others.
Enforce it how? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary overlooked the other reason (Score:5, Insightful)
50 years wasn't long enough?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Retirement (Score:3, Insightful)
Dang, I wish I could make money for free after my retirement :(
I should see if my boss wants to consider paying me after I go so I have an extra 45 years I won't have to do any sysadmin work
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously not for the musicians' sake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens when its the Penguins turn? (Score:1, Insightful)
What happens when its the Penguins turn?
Then Tux and Linux reach the end of their copyright term will people be happy that the GPL just stops?
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Difference 2: If you sell me your ranch, the ranch is mine to do with as I please. If you sell me your song, shouldn't the song be mine to do with as I please? After some profitability, songs and other intellectual property should go into the public domain, especially if a large portion of the public have paid for it.
Re:Remind me again . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, copyrights should always be a fixed term. Otherwise, the artists couldn't sell the rights to another entity because there'd always be that lingering risk the artist would die the day after they ink the contract, making the rights just purchased worthless.
Further, artists late in life would not be able to receive the "full" compensation they are entitled to by selling in one-lump sum because actuarial tables would highlight the risk mentioned in the previous paragraph, and that means they probably wouldn't live to collect the full amount, either.
Now, I will agree that record companies should either buy the rights OR sell distribution services, but not both, and in the latter case, the artists should be able to control the price by choosing which services to purchase.
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:5, Insightful)
the difference is, if i take your physical property, you have less.
if i take your intellectual property, you lose nothing.
bytes are not atoms.
Re:Enforce it how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop complaining about the "anti-americanism". Personally I'm not at all against Americans but very much against American politics (black curtain authorian corporatism and fear mongering). Except for a few nutcases I'm pretty sure that applies to most people you call "anti-american". Putting aside the non-stop war mongering, the biggest reason is that USA (the government, not the people) send armies of lobbyists to Europe trying to close down our freedoms to chase ghosts.
This law proposal is an obvious result of heavy American lobbyism, and it's just an example out of thousands. Yes, I blame European politicians just as much (if not more) for falling into the trap.
Thank you for stopping communism, bla bla bla, in the past. Whatever. That doesn't change what is happening right now.
I know a lot of Americans and they are all fantastic persons. It's all about the government and politics, not the people.
No pensions? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they should have invested some of the money while they were making it, instead of spending it on Colombian marching powder, groupies and hotel room repairs.
Everyone else has to save for a pension or end up on income support. Why not musicians?
Re:Retroactive ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it means that it applies to works that are already in existence. So for example I own a number of audio books of classic works. The words spoken by the actors on the CD's are long out of copyright. However the recording itself has a 50 year term. When I purchased that audio book I entered into a contract, part of which was based on the fact that the copyright in the recording would expire within my lifetime.
This proposal would change the existing contract of purchase to make me materially worse off. This makes it retroactive.
This proposal however has to get approval from all 27 member countries, which is a tall order given that some, such as the UK have expressed previously that they saw no reason to extend copyrights on recordings.
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:2, Insightful)
Land is limited natural resource. Art is created.
If we had perpetual copyrights, we would have to pay royalties for anything created centuries ago. Think about Mozart heirs asking to pay for 9th symphony or Dante's super duper grandson still controlling rights of Divine Comedy. All these copyright extensions are moving copyrights to that direction.
Your house is not the same as your great grandfather bought. Every generation invested in that house.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Should this apply to fundamental truths as well, like mathematical theorems? You're insane if you think that.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you create something, you have a choice whether to show somebody else. You have the choice to distribute it, or not to distribute it.
Once you give a copy to somebody else, then, for all intents and purposes, you no longer have any control over it.
Copyright gives you an artificial limited monopoly over distribution - nothing more - simply because this encourages persons to create and distribute works. Once works have been distributed, copyright has done its work. It is then a liability to society.
Copyright's purpose is to increase the amount of works in the public domain. Anything that reduces the flow of works to the public domain (like copyright extensions) is against the purpose of copyright.
(With regard to software - for any protection under copyright, I believe that the source code for the work should have to be released. Otherwise, copyright makes no sense, as the works have very limited use when they hit the public domain.)
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
for as long as people are enjoying them
Why? Chairmakers don't receive compensations for as long as people are enjoying their chairs. Builders don't receive compensation for as long as people enjoy their houses.
How about this; people get paid for working, and the state interfering in the market to create monopolies favouring certain classes of work is a particularly bad idea.
If you want to argue for why certain groups need extra support, be intellectually honest and handle it as an ordinary welfare system. If you think creative work is particularly heavy and dangerous, or particularly valuable to society, perhaps they should get a lower retirement age? Argue the case and fund it through ordinary state budgets, not hidden away in the uncounted taxation of intellectual monopoly rights.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is interesting. If Ms. mathematician produces a novel-length mathematical model that predicts airflow over North America with unprecedented accuracy, I would like for copyright to exist in that mathematical model. It is a useful science, will be very useful to all humanity when it hits the public domain, and she should become rich on it, as thanks for her useful work.
However, there is no real difference between her model and E=mc^2, or G=Mm/r^2 - just complexity - a continuous scale of complexity, as well as accuracy (remember, E=mc^2 tells us that G=Mm/r^2 is wrong!) - who is to say that this deserves a copyright, but that doesn't?
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting point: One of the reasons for copyrights (and patents too) is to reduce reliance on trade secrets. Reveal your secrets and get (limited) government protection for them.
Remembering things like that can make patents and copyrights make sense. Not the current implementations, mind you.....
(I'm commenting a bit much in this discussion)
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I graze my cattle on your ranch, you will not be able to make use of your ranch - but if I sing a song that you wrote, you will still be able to sing that song.
Depends on what you see as the purpose of the property. If the purpose of the ranch is to graze cattle, yes, it's being denied to you but if you just use it as a vacation home where's the damage? If the purpose of the song is that you just want to sing it there's no damage but if the purpose was to make money then someone else sharing free copies of it make you unable to do so.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll note I said nothing about copyright in my post: I suspect we're on the same page there (i.e., I think this proposed plan is insane).
As a scientific realist, I simply don't want art and science to be seen as aiming at the same end. But anyway, the effects of certain notes will always end in unpredicable results, since the goal is to make people react, and nobody knows how anyone will react. If you read the reviews linked in my sig, you'll discover I have no idea how anyone can listen to top 40 music, and yet that music is made precisely to be universally loved. Nevertheless, it's not, and thus it is a good example of the unpredictability of musical effects.
On the other hand, the effects that science strives for do not depend on subjective reaction, and thus, at the level of their aim, are predictable, reproduceable, etc.
So, that is the basis for difference between the two. And thus, whereas the scientist is discovering what is already there (and hence universal), the artist is creating something new - and to that extent offers something novel to the world. Copyright, for better or for worse, is designed to protect and stimulate that use of the notes and scales (etc.) already in the public domain, just as patents are to stimulate and protect commerical applications of scientific discoveries.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. There should be a short period of protection, after which the product of your creativity is put into the public domain. The period should be set based on things like how valuable to the wider public that kind of thing is versus the need to create incentives in the first place.
Pharma for example, does and rightly should, only be protected for a relatively short period, 6 years or so. Beyond that, it's in everybody's interests for medicine to be available at the lowest possible delivery price.
I don't see why music and movies need such an insanely long period of protection. There should be a short period of exclusivity (say 5 to 10 years) after which it is in the public domain. If your music is good enough that people want it and you can't make a profit in a decade then bad luck.
You know what you get when you try to set up a complex set of rules protecting the output of human creativity? Modern copyright and intellectual property laws.
Thieves and Scoundrels (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:5, Insightful)
Even a yearly renewal after a certain point would be nice. The artist (not the record company) would have to fill out some form every year to retain rights.
The Difference Is Psychological (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect the difference is that laws regarding physical property are strongly tied to the human territorial imperative. Like many other creatures on this planet, we have a strong urge to claim territory as our own, and territorial disputes when they do occur are frequently violent and sometime bloody.
Having a legal structure that helps minimise such disputes makes sense, since it means that we spend less time organising blood vendettas against our neighbours, and more time on constructive activities. Of course, that may depend on what you consider a constructive activity.
On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any similar deep root territoriality to ideas. In fact, I would argue that converse seems to be true. Human beings have a strong urge to propagate information in all its forms. From jokes and stories, to music, to software - sharing abstractions seems to be a part of our make up.
Which, in my opinion, is why the record labels and studios and software houses are having such a hard time with this. They've coined the term "intellectual property" to try and make it seem as if the human territorial response should apply to information in the same way as it does to tangible assets. But it doesn't; not at the level of human psychology.
And that, so far as I can see, is the major difference. Property laws for tangible assets work with human psychology, and are respected for that reason. Trying to apply those same principles to information is working against human psychology which is why the practice is so widely opposed. Put another way, the first case has a basis in human behaviour, the second one lacks any such basis, and is more of an attempt at social engineering seeking to change human behaviour to suit a relatively small number of people.
Comercial vs private use (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine by me. It's not the length of the copyright that is the problem, it's how the copyright laws extends into peoples private lives.
In a commercial situation, I support that the artists should have control over their music. But in a private situation, where no one is making a living out of the music, the copyright should not apply.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Musician's right to retirement is pretty much the same as anybody else's :
* Public (state) welfare if existing in country of legal residence (and usually paid for with taxes on Musician's incomes during working years).
* Any sort of private savings.
I'm an IT consultant. When I retire I'll be paid according to the rules above. Why should it be different for other professions ?
Or shall I invoice, 40 years from now, "maintenance fees" for systems I installed in the last years.
Re:50 years wasn't long enough?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't sign up, you don't get the deal, and don't get advertising and distribution. If you do sign up, it's on the large label's terms (they get most, if not all, and sometimes all and more from the artist too, to cover 'production costs').
What the recording industry is good at doing is exploiting the wish of people to be famous, and leading them with promises of fame and fortune (by presenting images of the 'successful' pop idols) to sign on the dotted line. Once they do that, they're more often than not pretty screwed.
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, plagiarism is fraud. That's what's bad about it: taking credit for someone else's work means you're lying to everyone who reads it.
Do they deserve it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do musicians really deserve getting paid for that long? I mean, the idea of copyright is to stimulate innovation and that a creator should be able to collect an income on it. But for how long?
Can we really say that musicians will produce less because they won't get paid for more than 45 years for their hit song?
I personally see copyright of music (not inventions) as something that is given as a reward to an artist for enriching some people's lives, but I don't think they should be able to live 95 years off of it.
My conclusion is: They should be forced to work, like the rest of us. Of course, this is assuming that is was the artist who wanted the extended copyright and not the media companies, which are the real winners.
Reduce copyrights to 20 years (Score:4, Insightful)
Why can someone sit down, drink, take drugs, have groupies and make money for 95 years from a few songs, whilst other people educate themselves, invent something, and only get the right to make money on their invention for 15-20 years afterwards?
Long copyright terms don't encourage the people with the skills to continually create artistic works of benefit to society and culture. Copyright doesn't exist to benefit the creator of a work of art, it exists to benefit society as a whole by giving incentive to create art.
The actual truth of the matter is that people would actually still create music, art, stories, etc if there was no copyright concept. In addition, the creators would still benefit a lot from creating - people still prefer to see Iron Maiden live rather than tribute bands like High On Maiden, for example. Performances are where the money is for full time bands as well.
All of these people who raked in money from when they were big should have put some aside for their retirement, like EVERYBODY ELSE has to.
wrong people get the bulk of the money (Score:3, Insightful)
Songwriters should receive royalties from the use of their songs.
Recording artists should receive royalties from the use of their recordings.
Record companies should receive income when someone buys a record from them.
Problem is, the record companies give the artists such a small cut, which is reduced again by the agents and managers.
50 years is stupid. 95 is idiotic. 30 years would be enough for the recording artists who make a song famous to get a cut from a remake a generation later. I think maybe songwriter copyrights should be for life.
Copyright wasn't meant to allow artists to retire from a single success. It was meant for artists to turn their single success into a means of independent support while they work on the next one. 10 years would be sufficient for this.
Copyrights should not be transferrable. They should not be held by companies. Nor by heirs.
Lex retro non agit (Score:1, Insightful)
that's one of the most basic rules of the European law system
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a right to a retirement then why don't they?
As a developer I don't have the right to retirement any more than you do. I earn my pension by having part of what I make put aside for later use. (Not the code, the money)
If you are anything like me, you do what you do not in order to make the money, but because you have to, because you love it. I don't mind the money I make, but if all I wanted was a lot of money, I would go and do something else. Since I don't want my soul to die, I'm staying with software. I suppose you would still create your music?
It is my understanding that the copyright laws where made, not to help artists make a living, but to advance the arts. In my opinion, the proposed law would only hinder new artists in creating what they need/love to do, and not advance the arts in any way at all.
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:3, Insightful)
but according to the gp, that someone is losing nothing since there is no physical property involved in this case.
Yes, that's correct. Plagiarism is wrong for reasons that have nothing to do with losing anything.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and the rest of the world understands the concept of copyright, especially the creators themselves.
I make a living from copyright as a writer, and a 95 year term seems ludicrous to me. In China, copyright is not respected because, traditionally, taking credit for great works was not considered polite - the greatest honour you a philosopher or poet could receive was having their works distributed anonymously (or pseudonymously). In Europe, attribution is considered more important. The text of copyright law in the UK contains the phrase 'the natural right of the author to be identified with this work' - being able to take credit for your own work is viewed as a natural right. Even when copyright expires, this right typically persists: prints of public domain works are almost always attributed.
But the issue is not whether the world understands copyright, it's whether society will benefit from a 95 year copyright term. Copyright (as a government-enforced monopoly) exists as a bargain between creators and the rest of society. I agree to release my works immediately to the public at large and society agrees to enforce my right to charge for them for a limited time. Society benefits because they have immediate (but limited) access to things I create and long-term total access when copyright expires. I, conversely, benefit from being paid.
I quite like being paid, and I'd like it even more if I could be paid in perpetuity for things I create now. In fact, it would be really great if I just needed to write one thing and could live off it for the rest of my life. Well, maybe not so great for society, because it completely removes the incentive for me to write any more[1]. Ideally, copyright would ensure that I was paid enough to live (comfortably!) while I worked on my next project, and put a little aside for when I eventually retired. I believe something in the seven to fourteen year range would be ample for this, and possibly even shorter. Once a work falls into the public domain, then it can be distributed by anyone to anyone, and as long as the 'natural right' of attribution is preserved then it serves as advertising for my later works. I would, therefore, be in favour of two copyright terms: a short-term monopoly and a longer-term legally-enforced attribution.
[1] I enjoy writing, as you can see from the hundreds of thousands of words I've posted on Slashdot, but without a financial incentive there is very little reason for me to go to the effort of getting things edited and published.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that the window of time currently affected is 1913-1958. Music written between 1913 and 1958 that still has commercial value. Either the copyright is owned by a label rather than the musician or the musician is filthy rich by now.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:2, Insightful)
...this creative process only leads to discoveries, not creations. In other words, something that was already there, waiting to be discovered, a truth as you call it. That's different than artistic creation, which does add something that was not there in the first place.
RSA encryption
Even though I oppose patents on algorithms, the mentioned system was not "just discovered", but an impressive creation / construction. Creating this algoritm took several steps and was a creative and directed effort.
One could argue that any abstract painting was just waiting to be discovered by an artist, discovering what looks good on the canvas. (I know his is not the case and I also know the creativity and heart that goes into each painting.) In my opinion, creation is directed discovery followed by implementation.
This is nothing to do with Ireland (Score:5, Insightful)
The facts that you've bundled together there are about as completely wrong as you could get.
Ireland had a declining population for years (not owing to the Troubles; it was the South that was declining, not the North) due to the endemic corruption, lack of personal freedom, and poor educational opportunities.
The corruption was a symptom of a high tax economy which was in turn a symptom of bad economic management during hard times. As far as educational opportunities were concerned Ireland had, in spite of itself and taking into account its size, one of the best education systems in the world - which is seen as one of the major contributors to its recent success.
I'll give you the Iran thing. It's probably not completely far from the truth - certainly up to late '80s.
The two schemes that you mention have absolutely nothing to do with Ireland's success. If I may, I would suggest that it was caused by (1) Technically educated workforce at the same time as the Internet got big (2) Low corporate tax rate (3) English speaking (4) Heavily committed to EU and Euro (5) Very business friendly politically (6) Zero tolerance of corruption and (7) the Good weather?.
If you doubt this, look at what happened to investigative journalists like Guerin and Taoiseachs like Bertie Ahearn.
The criminal gangs in Ireland existed like in any other country. And like in other countries Veronica Guerin was shot because she was investigating them - nothing special there.
Bertie on the other hand had no criminal connections. His problems came because he divorced his wife and was basically taken to the cleaners. Individual businessmen gave him a ton of cash to help him out - unfortunately at the same time Bertie pontificated in the Dail (parliment) that it was reprehensible that any politician should be beholden to outside interests. And unfortunately he got caught - it was illegal, but not in the 'Criminal gangs' sense.
The upshot is that shills like McCreevy are trying to keep the artists on board by proposing that they get something which no other professional gets, (if 95 years copyright for a writer, why not 95 years for a patent?) hoping that Ireland will benefit in some way from tax collection. Apple is also strongly represented In Ireland and can presumably afford lobbyists.
Charlie McCreevy is just doing his job - as Commissioner for Internal Markets, and most other countries reckon he's doing OK at it. He's applying his own philosophy to it which is very much pro IP rights - which is why he's a darling of Microsoft and the Record Companies. (I'm not saying I agree with him).
As you say in Ireland there is no tax for artists - but that means no revenue for government, so that point is a contradiction. There also aren't any record companies her - so you're 0 for 2 there.
The economic downturn and the gradual ending of EU structural funding (supposedly for building railways and roads but actually diverted to building country houses for the rich Irish) is putting a strain on the Irish economy. They need the money.
The downturn in Ireland is, like everywhere else, caused by a combination of High Oil Prices, Low Consumer Confidence and a Global Credit Crunch. Nothing to do with structural funding, which did make a lot of people rich, as you would expect - but not in the corrupt way you are suggesting.
Ireland needs to pay for a very high public service bill - but that will need to be achieved by cutting the bill, not by getting a few more quid off an aging Bono.
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:1, Insightful)
If you sell me your song, shouldn't the song be mine to do with as I please?
It is. The musician sells his song to the music studio, who gets paid market price (a shame the supply side is so saturated), and it is then the studio's to do as they please, including charging others for the *service* of providing legally authorized media on which to listen to the songs.
I'll note that many slashdotters are against this situation, that "oh no! poor creative artists are free to sell their commercial interest in works to non-natural persons!" The only thing I see wrong with it is that the studios are an illegal cartel, and that (not being a natural right) copyright lasts for far too long.
WTF?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
They shouldn't. No one should be paid for doing nothing. They should save their money for retirement like the rest of us.
Copyright needs to be reduced or abolished, not extended!
Re:What's different from physical property though? (Score:4, Insightful)
yet if that property is intellectual rather than physical, there is huge outcry.
Why the double standard?
Because intellectual "property" isn't. It has none of the elements that make up "property" in physical things. Most importantly, it is not exclusive.
People fend off, fight for and die for land because if you use it, then I can't. That's not true of music, we can both have a copy of the same song and be happy.
That's why the double standard.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
95 years from the copyright date. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your math is as bad as your spelling. Let's be generous and say a musician starts his professional career at the age of 15. If he works for 60 years as you say, then he retires at 75 (possible I guess). The 45 year extension means he can still collect royalties when he's 110 (despite advances in medical science, I can't imagine most hard-living musicians are going to live that long). Of course that's just for the work they did at 15. They can collect royalties on the work they did at age 40 when they're 135, and they can collect on the work they did just before their retirement when they're 170. Tell me again how this makes sense?
Re:Retroactive extension = breaking the deal (Score:3, Insightful)
Now tell me again, why should I respect the deal when the other side doesn't?
bingo. that's what kids today see. they know that the other guys have been dishonest for a long, long time. so why should they follow 'their' rules when its not a fair game from the start?
I stopped buying 'new' music a long time ago. lately, I've rediscovered buying used cd's and ripping them myself. not only does this give me control over the drm and bit-quality, but it also keeps ALL the money away from the entertainment industry. when I buy a used cd from a private individual (amazon, etc) - its true the artists don't get a cut, but AT LEAST neither does the 'official chain' of cash flow; ie the pigs at the media companies. I'm getting new 'content' but I'm also depriving them of their cut. that makes me happy; or, happier.
until the industry changes ITS ACT, I will do all I can to avoid lining your pockets with my money. there are ways to have content and yet avoid the normal channels that they want to force you into. reject the system - rebel and send them a message!
they can buy all the laws they want; but we are not powerless in this. there are ways to fight back.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well they did choose that line of work didn't they. No one forced them into it.
And if an artist is still getting royalties after 95 years they're not likely one of the artists on the bottom end of the pay scale that need protecting. As has been mentioned here by others, this extension is to protect the record labels and copyright holders who are very likely not the original artists.
A 95 year protection would be acceptable to me only if it was to the original artist and not transferable. If you buy the rights maybe you only get 25 years protection.
Ahem. I would like to address Mr. McCreevy. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is all.
Re:Retroactive extension = breaking the deal (Score:4, Insightful)
bingo. that's what kids today see.
I very much doubt that the average kid sees anything other than the chance to get stuff for free with little or no fear of being caught. In fact given that it's so prevalent, I expect they don't even consciously register that they're doing anything wrong (in any sense, morally or legally)
Honestly, in my experience very few people outside of slashdot think about it *at all*. As much as we like to think that most people are sticking it to the man because of industry corruption and deal-breaking, it really isn't like that.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
In general, dishwashers get paid well below other professions (and well below what they contracted for). Work is intermittent (A local used to say dishwashers spend 95% of their time unemployed).
So, sob story aside. Why should musicians get special treatment? They already get to ride one piece of work for 50 years, if that isn't enough then maybe it's time to put the guitar down and get a real job?
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Under the U.S. Constitution, copyright can be granted to authors of works - there is no power for Congress to grant copyright to their heir or employers or anyone else. We'd all be a lot better off if this was held to.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it couldn't, sorry. Explaining why would require a full Philosophy course, so I cannot provide the details here as needed to properly show you why this is so. Suffice it to say that all, rigorously all, devices developed in the ancient world that resemble what in Modernity became productive machines (vapor power, for example), were looked at as interesting natural anomalies, cool to interact with as a hobby but unworthy of serious intellectual pursuit. Why? Because intellectual pursuit proper, back then, was discovering and cataloging general properties.
As for the Enlightenment, it depends on Descartes and Hume, who in turn depended on Occam, who depended on the extreme developments in Logics that happened during the "Dark Ages" and until the end of the Middle Age (notice that the expression "Dark Ages" isn't used anymore among serious scholars of either History of Philosophy or History of Science, there were lots of developments in all intellectual fields in that period). Remove the Middle Age logicians, go back to Aristotelian and Stoic logics, and you won't have any of the advanced intellectual tools used by the 15th century folks to in turn develop the intellectual tools used by the 18th century ones to produce the Enlightenment.
Carl Sagan, not being an Historian of either Philosophy of Sciences, isn't a good reference in this regards. A good reference on this whole subject is actually Ernst Cassirer. He has a HUGE multi-volume book on the development of the modern scientific method (sorry, I don't remember its title right now), covering in minute details all the ground between the natural sciences of the Middle Ages to the physics of the first half of the 20th century. Try to find it. It's worth reading.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:4, Insightful)
Same goes for companies.
If some songwriter/composer can't write something better in 95 years, I don't see why society should encourage such people to continue in their line of work. The economists can tell you that.
It is bad that copyright and patent terms are getting longer and longer instead of getting shorter.
Nowadays communications and distribution is supposed to be so good - so terms should get shorter.
If you assume a faster pace of progress, then terms should be getting shorter.
How about 7 years? Too short? Well I think most people should see that even 50 years is way too long.
95 years is ridiculous.
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who really gets paid? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have everything physical, but you no longer have the opportunity to attempt to profit from your work by charging me for a copy of that work. That's not the same as depriving you access to a physical item, but it is at least a notional, potential loss. (Or rather, loss of potential)
As the other response pointed out, this is treading on pretty shaky ground.
First off, I do still have the opportunity to attempt to sell you a copy. Just because you have a copy doesn't mean you can't buy another -- it only means you won't want another. At least, probably not, but who knows: maybe you'll like it so much that you'll want to reward me by buying copies for all your friends.
Second, if we're going to start considering it a "loss of potential" whenever something happens to make a potential customer not want to buy something from me, then we'll have to start worrying about a lot of other actions.
What if someone reads a bad review, and it convinces them not to buy a copy from me? That's a loss of potential too. So, should we only allow positive reviews from now on?
What if someone spends their money on something else and doesn't have any left to buy my product? Say they had $60 budgeted and they decided to spend it on a few DVDs instead of buying a game from me. Doesn't that mean the existence of those DVDs has caused me to lose that potential revenue?
My point is that this "loss of potential" occurs all the time, and people are generally OK with it, because that potential revenue is really just money you wish you had. And no matter how hard you wish, it isn't yours until someone chooses to give it to you. No one is obligated to make your wish come true, and if it doesn't, you might be disappointed but you haven't really lost anything.