20-Year Copyright Extensions Coming To Europe 268
unlametheweak points out a story at Ars Technica which begins:
"After a UK government-led commission said that the current 50-year term for musical copyrights was fine, and the government last year publicly agreed that there was no need to extend the term, culture minister Andy Burnham yesterday made the logical follow-up announcement that yes, the government would now push for a 20-year extension on copyright. Turns out, it's the moral thing to do. Actually, by framing the issue as a 'moral case,' Burnham gets to sidestep the entire issue of logic. Critics have already begun to charge that he is ignoring actual evidence and the well-regarded conclusions of the Gowers Report (PDF), not to mention previous government policy. But when the issue becomes a moral one and the livelihood of aging performers is at stake, it's suddenly easier to avoid cost/benefit analysis."
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, It's called Cliff Richard
It's not like this is anything new... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only that, but using intangible ideals such as morality or religion to further an illogical goal isn't exactly groundbreaking in the realm of politics either.
Now, when I get news that a government is actually thinking through something logically, then we can start treating it as groundbreaking news.
~EI
Re:I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does Europe have their own version of Steamboat Willy?
The thing I don't get is reference to Europe in the summary and the headline.
Yes, UK is part of Europe (though most of us on the continent think them as barely Europeans and as far as I have understood they think the same way) but in this world situation saying that something is coming to Europe would imply that EU is now doing something.
And well, there has been all kinds of suggestions (that haven't passed) about extending copyright in EU too (such as extending it to 95 years) but as far as I understood from TFA this has nothing to do with them...
Re:How sad (Score:5, Insightful)
You are exactly right, your time would have been better put towards something you enjoy or benefit from in some way. To be sure, no government in history -- democracy or otherwise -- has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced its level of power or revenue. Governments only get bigger, more powerful, and more expensive over their lifetimes, and if history is any indication, this will always be the case. The only things which can cause a government to reduce its level of power are (1) war, or (2) economic collapse -- neither of which are desirable from either perspective (the ruled or the ruler).
So what's in that for those of us who would prefer a government strictly limited in power and revenue? Absolutely nothing. Personally, I have come to the conclusion that life is too short to get hung up on something that will never happen. That's why I simply don't play the game -- after all, THEY are the ones who want to control me, not the other way around. I don't want to control anybody, so why would I participate in a game where the prize is control (the special "right" to employ coercion as your means) over others?
All we can do is keep a low profile and try to enjoy the limited time we have on this planet, while the power-hungry fight it out among themselves.
Not the first time morality is used to avoid logic (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to get into details, but I'm sure every single one of you reading this can think of a time where folks losing an argument (or folks who ended up with some more campaign donations) realized that this issue they are dealing with is a moral issue that must be addressed.
Re:What is happening with the world? (Score:5, Insightful)
NOT BENEFICIAL OF CITIZENS AT ALL.
This is the thing that really annoys me. The statement from Burnham is quite open that his priority is supporting the artists no matter what. When do the other 60 million of the population get their go?
Rip off (Score:5, Insightful)
What other industry do you get paid for for writing something, then sitting on your backside for the next 70 years watching the money come in? I wish I had such an employer willing to throw money at me for 70 years for writing code I wrote in my 20's.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
And it works great for any group of people! All animal right activists are violent, all germans are nazis, all russians are alcoholics, everyone who votes on bush are stupid, americans are fat, muslims are terrorists and so on so on, it's great because that way you don't have to learn to know anyone!
I want guaranteed 'easy life', too! (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in software and my company is about to be RIF'd by 15%.
so, not only do I _NOT_ get any royalties from the lines of code I wrote, but I get my job outsourced and then I get fired.
cobra runs out and if I can't afford healthcare, I could go broke and be homeless.
is society taking care of ME at all?
hardly!
why the fuck should society take care of aging musicians, then?
it aint right and we all know it.
I put as much sweat and talent into my code as any damned musician does, these days. why do THEY have lobbies to grant them legal powers to harass customers and sue them but us programmers can't do squat?
it aint right. kids today see that and so they rebel. more power to you, kids; the future lies with you and not the old guys..
Re:What is happening with the world? (Score:3, Insightful)
The 'supporting the artist' line is pure spin. This is about corrupt politicians getting into bed with corporations. This really is the new fascism, but instead of an army of brown-shirts we've got an industry of insidiously slick advertising and 'brand' aware reptiles that slowly but surely have been influencing the values of the majority of the population inline with what corporate power wants us to believe.
From the article (Score:5, Insightful)
So glad to hear you say that, Mr. Burnham. I have a few letters here for you. Here's the royalty bill from the farmer who grew the corn that you consumed on March 17, 1983 (after all, he created something of real value to you -- without it and other food like it, you would have starved.) Here's the bill from the guy you hired to paint your house on June 23, 1996. The other seventy-three bags of bills like them are waiting just outside your front door -- your prompt payment will be appreciated.
Re:Melancholy Elephants (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people actually like Sci-fi - they just don't know it's really sci-fi, or they don't even think abut it. Whether it's ET or the last Indiana Jones stinker (or Keanu Reeve's latest one, for that matter) or Ironman, it's sci-fi.
Then again, much of our life today is sci-fi to the previous generation. Cell phones a lot smaller than Kirk's communicator, that have global reach. And can make videos. And contain computers more powerful, and with more memory, than the ones that went to the moon. Refrigierators with no moving parts, no compressor to break down. Microwave ovens as "throw them out if they break", instead of $900 "Radar Ranges". 19" colour TVs? Heck, 35" color TVs are obsolete - welcome to the flat panel display. Laser printers ("laser WHAT? You can't print with a laser. The paper would burn up!" they'd say). The patch. CDs, which didn't even exist then, obsolete! Microfiber clothing. Water-based paints that you can actually scrub! Free software. Businesses whose whole modus operandi, their economic model, is based on enabling the free sharing of software and information. Memory foam. Memory wire. Data cards smaller, and more densely packed with information, than the ones on Star Trek. MRI and CT scanners. Electric cars. Cars that don't need an oil change and grease job every 3,000 miles, and spark plugs, rotor, cap, wires and points every 10,000.
We've gone from videophones being "pie in the sky" to "webcam free with every laptop sold - see and talk to anyone, anywhere." Try to find a laptop that doesn't have a webcam. Satellite reception - gone from theory to huge base stations with antennas that look like radio astronomers' kit to a pizza-sized dish, 50' of cable, and a small box - buy from the store around the corner, next to all the other stuff that didn't even exist 50 years ago.
Science fiction? We're living it, to the point where we don't even recognize sci-fi on the big screen.
Re:How sad (Score:4, Insightful)
To be sure, no government in history -- democracy or otherwise -- has ever significantly, permanently, and willingly reduced its level of power or revenue.
Nice fantasy world you have depicted there AC. I guess in that world the decision to ratify the woman's suffrage amendment wasn't a government run by men giving up power? You believe it was forced at gunpoint by the women?
But I've already paid the artists for their work (Score:1, Insightful)
I realise you're being sarcastic with respect to publishing companies getting all the benefits anyway (at least I think you are), but I still don't think copyright terms should be extended under any circumstances.
I've already paid those performers for their work by giving them the copyright term they've already had. If their work was any good, they've already had all that time to make money from it. The only reason I offered to do this (through my government) was so there would be an incentive for them to create it, and now it's created. Why on earth should copyright be extended on existing works?
If artists can't afford to live on the existing copyright monopolies offered by society, they should find another source of income. If society decides that the quality or quantity of new creative works isn't good enough in a way that extending copyright terms might help, then perhaps governments should consider extending copyright.
Re:How sad (Score:3, Insightful)
So... when King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, once the absolute ruler of Bhutan, unilaterally and voluntarily decided to set up a democratic system of government, and then abdicated ... that somehow didn't count as a government significantly, permanently, and willingly reducing its level of power?
Re:How sad (Score:3, Insightful)
The only things which can cause a government to reduce its level of power are (1) war, or (2) economic collapse
A little thought shows this to be false. You have the example of a whole bunch of countries in Eastern Europe which gave up enormous amounts of power without either a war or an economic collapse to drive it.
Re:How sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you, especially as an American, stop the right-wing scaremongering over the politics of a country which you have no more intimate an understanding of than your daily newspaper? Instead you could work on grass-roots campaigns, perhaps get involved in politics, or a number of other constructive things you could do if you stopped assuming that all government is bad and unfixable.
Re:What aging musicians? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is performance copyright, which is 50 years from date of publishing, and is separate
The thing that gauls me is that the audio books that I purchased where the actual book is out of copyright (for example Great Expectations), but the recording of the book is not. However when I purchased the book I had an expectation that during my lifetime the copyright in the recording would expire, and I would be free to do whatever I wanted with the audiobook. This is a factor when I purchase audiobooks.
A change to the law to extend that copyright, is retrospectively changing the value of the purchase to me. That is morally wrong.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2, Insightful)
While you can find an exception to every generalization, generalization exist because, for the most part, they are true. Now you've picked some that are obviously not correct, but pretending that generalizations such as those are always wrong is as retarded as voting for Bush.
Blacks are muggers (Score:2, Insightful)
Here's an example to highlight the problem
Here in London UK the vast majority of muggings are committed by black people. Nothing wrong in pointing that out so far as I am concerned. But you would be going a whole lot further if you thought it reasonable to make the unqualified statement that "black people are muggers", solely because there is 'truth' in that generalisation.
The problem is that despite the huge disparity in representation within the mugger community... the vast majority of black people aren't muggers. By generalising you are casually damning the innocent, and stirring up tension in the process.
Someone more famous than me once said that a generalisation reveals nothing but the prejudice of its author. They were right.