Taiwan Rejects US Copyright Extension Demands 310
An anonymous reader writes "Taiwan has rejected the US's demand to extend copyrights from 50 years to 70 years. Here's the news article on the Mercury News."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Taiwan Rejects US Copyright Extension Demands
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.
Knowledge can't be monopolised. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised. (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds0 to me that you are somehow against posthumous copyright. There is a good reason for there to be some posthumous copyright -- it enables authors to enjoy some of the future value their work will generate within their lifetime.
However, once the copyright has been effectively relinquished by the author, either by actual sale of the copyright or by granting of exclusive licenses to a corporation, there is little rational reason for a copyright term more than ten years, at least if you think the purpose of copyright is to reward authors. Events more than ten years out simply don't factor into any corporate decisions, and therefore do not contribute to the price authors receive from their works.
The position of creative people with respect to copyright is different from corporate entities -- it is more balanced. While the ability to claim exclusive benefits from their own works are good for them, they are restricted from working with other author's materials. It follows that copyright terms over ten years (except for material that remains within the full control of the author), are a pure evil for authors, since its restricts their ability to create on one hand, and compensates them with nothing on the other.
Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised. (Score:2)
ie: companies/individuals of a country have very valuable assets, which they have been enjoying for 45 years, why not want to keep the revenue for 25 more years? If they lose it, then your country loses that copyright to the "world". So hence, trying to push foreing countries to accept US mandated laws.
All in all, I think much of the problems in the the world economy is each country has to protect their own assets, who cares if it is right or wrong to have a company that bough the copyright from a now dead guy, and that didn't pay a dime for next 20 years of revenue (which 10 years ago would have been priced near $0 as you say), actually profits or not exclusively from it?
The only solution i can foresee is to have the copyright extended to the goverment, and use the copyright in the best way possible. But we also know the goverment can't handle things. Maybe attach some general public copyright with certain restrictions (ie: using it, you are bound to the terms of a license which benefits the entire American population)?
If there where no countries, you'd see regions pushing the World Goverment, to accept these licenses. And the regions pushing it would be the ones having the most valuable copyright assets (and it wouldn't matter to them if those are fair, the author is dead or they have already profited more than they have paid for).
Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised. (Score:2)
That would be the bottom line of the why. If this wantn't the case, it would be 100% lobby to go against the entire population desires, and to put a burden to the global economic efficiency.
Re:Knowledge can't be monopolised. (Score:2)
Marge: "Well, Homer, maybe you can get some consolation in the fact that something you created is making so many people happy."
Homer: [sickly sweet] "Oh, look at me! I'm making people happy! I'm the Magical Man from Happy-Land, in a gumdrop house on Lollipop Lane!"
[leaves the room, slamming the door]
[pokes his head back in]
Homer: "Oh, by the way, I was being sarcastic."
[closes the door]
Marge: "Well, DUH!"
-- The Simpsons, episode 8F08: "Flaming Moe's" [snpp.com]
I rejected the extension first (Score:2, Funny)
They Can (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They Can (Score:2, Interesting)
America could say "Listen... Our way or the Mainland way!" These are the advantages of being a super-empire.
Re:They Can (Score:2)
In unrelated news, the RIAA has produced "evidence" (resembling a large brown bag with '$' emblazoned on the side) that Osama Bin Laden has fled Iraq and is currently residing in Taiwan.
Dubya has been quoted as saying "well jeest ta be sher we shoord nookum both"
ROC's copyright was only 10 years long (Score:5, Interesting)
Now the US wants 70 years.
Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long (Score:2)
Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ROC's copyright was only 10 years long (Score:3, Informative)
The principal argument in the US Congress for passing the Sonny Bono copyright extension (in 1998) was to achieve parity with this.
If you read article 7 of the EU directive, you will see that this question of parity was, and is, a real concern. In Europe, copyrights would last 20 years longer on European works in comparison to US works, unless the US extended copyright terms as well.
Personally, I feel that this is not reason enough to justify a copyright extension in the US. But I am still seriously pissed off at the EU bureaucrats for being one of the instigators of this.
Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps they'll serve as inspiration to other countries.
There are a whole lot places that lose out on this - places that don't have giant entertainment industries with 100-year back catalogs to recycle endlessly.
Can anyone explain further how the harmonization treaties work, and whether everyone is for some reason actually bound to follow the US' lead?
Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you read in the story that "Billions of dollars of entertainment-industry profits are at stake.". I mean - geez! Do they expect to have laws mandating their profitability forever or something??
Re:Wow, nice to see someone showing some backbone (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, like maybe the U.S.
IN RELATED NEWS! (Score:2)
No, really this could happen, i lived in Taiwan for 5 years and it got really scarry when PRC did those missle tests... Though i doubt that US would let leading mobo manufacturers fall under China's rule
Piracy == ++Popularity (Score:4, Insightful)
But pirating music and software is what makes Bill Gates and Brittany Spears "Super-Stars Number One !!!! {:>" in those countries minds.
Damage... Yes... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's that you say? The movie industry is enjoying record profits? How is this possible, when in addition to Taiwan's criminal 50-year copyright protection, Jack Valenti assures me that 50 TB of pirated movies in DivX flows through the Internet each day?
Right....
Dammit! (Score:3, Funny)
Well it didn't yesterday - I was out. How does Jack Valenti know what I'm doing anyway?! Have the RIAA been haxoring my box?!
Re:Damage... Yes... (Score:2)
So now Taiwan is a threat to capitalism, the US's way of life and government. Therefore, it's an enemy of the US. I wonder if the US will respond with armed forces?
Y'know, a couple years ago that would have sounded a lot less plausable..
Odd Move (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, if I were in their situation, I wouldn't want to piss off anyone in the US. Especially not people in large industries.
The legitimacy of the copyright extension still remains a question. But it's in their best interest to play along with whatever the US wants. They might tick some politician off (Senator Disney??), and then our carriers might not be in the waters between China and Taiwan the next time China decides to run "Routine Training Missions".
Re:Odd Move (Score:2)
I mean where would carnivals and fairs get their stuffed bannanas and funny bendy pens?
Re:Odd Move (Score:2)
Re:Odd Move (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Odd Move (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Odd Move (Score:5, Interesting)
a few moons back the taiwanese president got carried away when vid-conferencing with some activists in the states and was (caught on tape) saything stuff like "yeah you know taiwan is really its own country from the start"...
china got pissed and issued statements about "taiwan is disrupting the stability of the straits". taiwan't stock market dropped like 20% the following monday, and the taiwan president's office apologized profusely - along the lines of "yeah he didn't know what he was saying at the time / he does not represent our ideals / he was on acid" etc... all the mean while, the US basically said: "hey listen, if you piss off china and they come after you, you (as in taiwan) are on your own, and don't expect jack shit from us."
which is, really, kinda sad. granted US has a good reason for this: china is a BIG market and there are tons of US money poured there(*1). point being: (1) I think after the US realized that the communist(*2) government are not impeding the free-trade capitalism taking root, they stopped being so rough on it; and to sacrifice a 386B "country" to a 4.5T market (with unbelieveable potential to grow)? yeah, of course. (2) it's kinda sad that the US would go and abandon one of its storgest (as in, most faithful) allies / followers / groupies for $$, as I personally believe this is what it boiled down to; but hey... this is capitalism -- and a wise man (don't flame me now
note(*1): China is the second most economically powerful country in the world, you know -- no joke -- not japan, not taiwan, not germany; (US GDP: 9.963T; China GDP: 4.5T; Japan (3rd) GDP: 3.15T; taiwan is at a measly 386B -- all figures are 2000 estimates from maps.com atlas
note (*2) communist / communism is a misnomer since they (PRC) don't even call *themselves* communists! the first thing they teach in school's policital science classes is that perfect communism is unachieveable (i went through the class) so the (PRC) settles on socialism instead...
Re:Odd Move (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree. It almost sounds like they have some principles or something, what's with that?
Further reading (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem, as Lessig sees it, is that continual extensions of copyright prevent anything new from entering the public domain. This is most ironic, notes Lessig, since Disney dredged the public domain for its most lucrative properties... Because of the Bono Act, Lessig asserts, "no one can do to Disney as Disney did to the Brothers Grimm."
Re:Further reading (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the Brothers Grimm didn't create all those stories, either. They went around and collected from the oral tradition. So it's not theirs either.
Re:Further reading (Score:3, Insightful)
When the Grimm brothers take something from the public domain and remake it, "it's not theirs".
But when Disney does it, it is not only theirs it also should be protected for decades and decades?
Re:Further reading (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a real bad example even though I agree with Lessig. The Grimm Bothers didn't invent or created the stories as such. They collected and wrote up old German folk tales and made them available so they could be read and cherished.
A much better example is H.C. Andersen. He created the story about the Little Mermaid, The Little Tin soldier, etc.
No sure what Disney stole other than the Mermaid.
By the way. Steamboat Willie aka Mickey was lifted from a Buster Keaton film.
Re:Further reading (Score:5, Interesting)
That's exactly the point. They took something in the public domain and remade it, and when that entered the public domain, Disney remade it. Except that now, Disney's remade versions aren't passing into the public domain to allow the next generation of interpretation.
Re:Further reading (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what people have done since prehistory.
Except that now, Disney's remade versions aren't passing into the public domain to allow the next generation of interpretation.
Copyright is fairly new idea. It was invented when the printing press originally as a way for the state to control who could use that then new invention. This was later revised into copyright V2 which gave rights to the author, rather than the publisher. This is the version the writers of the US constitution used as a model.
Since then copyright has grown both in length and scope, such that it is completly out of step with "the next generation of interpretation". Not a problem for the big corporate publishers though, since they can easily cross licence with each other, but a big issue for those outside that cartel.
Re:Further reading (Score:5, Informative)
Jungle Book from Rudyard Kipling.
Alice in Wonderland from Lewis Carroll.
Peter Pan from J.M. Barrie
That is just the animated features. Most of the "classic" Disney films are based on works with expired copyrights. (Black Beauty, 20000 Leagues Under the Sea, Heidi, etc.) Have a look at this list of books [pdimages.com] that have lost copyright and passed into the public domain. Then count how may are Disney flicks.
Disney had a rich culture of stories to draw from and reinterpret. They are trying to prevent the next generation of storytellers and media producers from doing to them what they did to earlier content creators.
More (Score:3, Informative)
Lion King - based on "Kimba the White Lion", an anime series from the '60s (do you see the resemblance? "Simba" - "Kimba").
Atlantis - based on "Nadia and the Secret of Blue Water", made by Studio Gainax (which was based on books by Jules Verne, but at least Gainax give credit).
Peter Pan was licensed (Score:2)
Peter Pan from J.M. Barrie
No, Peter Pan was probably licensed. GOSH [gosh.org], a hospital in London, holds a statutory perpetual copyright [wikipedia.org] on Peter Pan throughout the UK (I'm not sure about the EU). Either Disney licenses Peter Pan, or Disney can't sell Peter Pan in DVD region 2.
Re:Further reading (Score:4, Informative)
Or for another example look at the case of the Gone with the Wind Estate (note the author is dead) vs. the author of The Wind Done Gone, a parody of the Gone with the Wind book. Even though its very different and a parody as well it was found to infringe the copyright of Gone with the Wind, and although the ban on publishing was lifted a monetary settlement had to be made to the copyright holder of Gone with the Wind.
Re:Further reading (Score:2)
In the case of Disney, copyright does.
Just try to publish a comic with a talking duck or mouse even remotely resembling Disney characters and count the days until Disney's lawers knock on your door.
Exactly that's the reason Disney wants perpetual protection of their early Micky Mouse stuff. Do you really think they are afraid of people warezing Steamboat-willie?
Re:Further reading (Score:5, Informative)
The complete list of Disney films that were adaptations of works in the public domain.
20,000 Leagues Under The Sea
Alice In Wonderland
Beauty and the Beast
Cindarella
Hunchback of NotreDame
Jonny Appleseed
Jungle Book
Kidnapped
The Little Mermaid
Mulan
Paul Bunyon
Pinocchio
Sleeping Beauty
Sleepy Hollow
The Buster Keaton movie, Steamboat Bill, was not in the public domain. However Steamboat Willie was a parody of the film, which constitutes fair use of the copyrighted work.
Re:Further reading (Score:2)
Re:Further reading (Score:2)
The copyright duration at the time of Steamboat Bill (1928) was 56 years. This period was set in 1909 [cni.org].
Steamboat Bill was published in 1928 [imdb.com]. Steamboat Willie was published in the same year [imdb.com].
Wise decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Its bad enough Taiwan's copyright duration was increased so much...10 years does seem a little short, but 50 seems too much, its still better than 70 or 99 though. It's good to see a country not give in to what was most likely pressure from the media.
Re:Wise decision (Score:2)
As long as corporations are allowed to own copyrights (and otherwise enjoy rights of ownership), then copyright (and domain name) extension will be indefinite (or at least as long as the lifetime of the company, any of its subsidiaries, or to whomever its assets are sold in Chapter 7 liquidation).
I'm not complaining, I'm just saying it like it is: once something is owned by a corporation, it will most likely be owned as long as possible.
"Life of the author" for a corporate work (Score:2)
As long as corporations are allowed to own copyrights (and otherwise enjoy rights of ownership), then copyright (and domain name) extension will be indefinite
Not exactly. Copyright laws will either apply a fixed term of say 25 years plus whatever instead of life of the author plus whatever to corporate works (US law), or they will compute the life of the last surviving author based on (e.g. for films) the director, the screenwriter, and a couple other specified people (EU law).
Re:Wise decision (Score:2)
Originally copyright was designed to give the state control over who could use the newly invented printing press. The version in the US constitution is the revised version. Note that profiting from the work isn't the intended end that is that the author continue to produce. Too long a copyright will have the opposite effect and they certainly can't produce anything after they are dead. (Ghosts and vampires more often are characters than authors...)
Its bad enough Taiwan's copyright duration was increased so much...10 years does seem a little short, but 50 seems too much, its still better than 70 or 99 though.
10 years is probably actually plenty. There can't be many works which having failed to make back their costs in 10 years would magically do so if they had an extra 40-80 years to do so. Indeed in many lines of publishing (movie and music industries) if something isn't making a profit in something around 10 months (or even 10 weeks) it's considered a "flop".
Meanwhile, back in the US... (Score:4, Funny)
Underling: Drat! Those fools have thwarted our plans!!! What will we do now?
Evil Overlord: Our choices are few. I decree that the only film we shall make avaliable to that country is Ishtar [imdb.com].
Underling: Good plans, Evil Overlord Valentius! What will we do if that fails?
Evil Overlord: Then we will unleash Scientology [slashdot.org] on them.
Underling: Wait Evil Overlord! They're more evil than we are!
Evil Overlord: Good point. We will force them to watch Grease non-stop over and over again instead. And we will replace the soundtrack with a soundtrack from one of those Anime movies.
Underling: Now you're talking, boss!
Re:Meanwhile, back in the US... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Meanwhile, back in the US... (Score:2, Funny)
Probably Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup, folks, this is a battle that has to be fought and won here, by us. If we don't, no one will. What's that old saying? "If not us, who, if not now, when?"
Harmonization (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmmmm......
-
Knowledge? Mickey Mouse? (Score:2, Funny)
...
``Why should we be blamed for pursuing knowledge?'' a student protester said on television.
Mickey Mouse is knowledge? Let me guess, he teaches people how to wildly swerve a steamboat and whistle....?
Disney are hypocrits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disney are hypocrits (Score:5, Insightful)
The Little Mermaid (Anderson)
The Lion King (Kimba the White Lion)
Atlantis (bears a STRIKING resemblance to Dinotopia)
Alice in Wonderland (Carroll)
Probably many more that I can't name right now. But so far, Disney has made most its money off titles based on or too similar to others' works.
And they want control over their derivative works for as long as possible to ensure no one can profit off them.
Too bad people are crying for them about this who don't know WHY the CTEA truly is bad.
Re:Disney are hypocrits (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Disney are hypocrits (Score:3, Informative)
The Beauty and The Beast
The sword in the Stone
Tarzan
The Emperor's New Groove
Hercules (heh, this dates WAY back
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Pinocchio
Re:Disney are hypocrits (Score:2)
The movie came out in 1951, 53 years after the death of the author, so the book was in the public domain at the time. Why do you think Disney would have paid to use a public domain work?
OK, Fine (Score:2, Funny)
(overheard in deepest, darkest bowels of the White House and/or the Skull and Bones fraternity house) OK, Fine. We were looking for an excuse to let the ChiComs have it anyway. Now we can maintain our short position in semiconductor fabs and get that foosball table we've been wanting. Just make sure to withdraw military support after the election.
I'm not really that cynical. I actually agree with GWB more than half the time. It's just that making GWB jokes in irresistable. I don't really believe there are any such evil conspiracies in the
NO CARRIER
Some info... (Score:5, Insightful)
This excerpt of a previous post of mine explains some of the reasons why Chinese peoples (in China and Taiwan) have resisted or have not accepted the idea of intellectual property. I believe this quote is the most important:
"Confucius's concept of the transmission of culture and Marx's views on the social nature of language and invention arose from very different ideological foundations. Nonetheless, because each school of thought in its own way saw intellectual creation as fundamentally a product of the larger society from which it emerged, neither elaborated a strong rationale for treating it as establishing private ownership interests.[15] Deeply influenced by these two ideologies, China falls behind all developed countries and many developing countries in the field of intellectual property protection. It is also not difficult to understand why most of Chinese did not know what were IPRs in 1980s."
Read about more of those reasons here. [slashdot.org]
Just like Australia (Score:5, Interesting)
Way to go, Taiwan!
Copyright reform (Score:3, Informative)
* Standard copyright is 35 years. Everything falls into this.
* If something is still being produced. IE: Mickey Mouse, Superman comics, etc... by the original company/owner (Disney, DC Comics), copyrights for those works/characters can be extended up to 100 years.>BR> * There should be different copyrights for different mediums: litterature, movies, music would all have different lenghts of time for a copyright. Just a few ideas. I'm sure the lot of you have other ones that may be better than this.
Re:Copyright reform (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Copyright reform (Score:3, Interesting)
I research Australian World War I history, all the government photographs for that period were no longer protected by the Australian Copyright Act of 1968 in 1969. There are only a couple of Australian World War I veterans left, predominantly the only way the story of Australia's world war I experience can be told is through recorded words and images. Adding one hundred years to that would mean these words and images are should be cultural heritage now would not be cultural heritage until 2018. Far too long, the whole generation will be gone by then.
US Copyright currently protects back to 1922, if another 5 years is added to US Copyright protection, World War I will be engulfed and the words and images of America's history of that conflict will be stifled and suffocated. Like Australia most of the American World War I veterans are gone too.
Copyright disrupts and interferes with cultural heritage. Cultural concerns should always trump mere commercial concerns. As a World War I historian, I also had to fight off a bad intepretation of the Australian Copyright Act by the Australian War Memorial. They were wrong and i was right, I had every right ot use the image in the manner I did. However, that monopoly when mis-intepreted has the ability to stifle cultural story telling and history.
mocom--
How many 51yr. old movies and songs... (Score:2, Insightful)
-dameron
This is a conspiracy... (Score:2)
I want to extend copyright even further (Score:5, Interesting)
Disney thinks so small sometimes...
Re:I want to extend copyright even further (Score:2)
And then the desendents of the Grimm brothers can sue Disney.
Re:I want to extend copyright even further (Score:2)
Um, you can't go around copyrighting other peoples' stuff... the Bible is copyright (c) God, and you know He's gonna be majorly pissed [gospelcom.net] when He catches you swiping His royalty checks.
God not in the copyright equation (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the Bible is (c) a lot of crazy antisocial misfits and (c) some more moderate, less antisocial misfits, although to incorporate them all, including (c) a very social, prince gone bad and done turned revolutionary (Moses) you'd have to extend copyright terms to 6000 years or so.
Of course, the Catholic Church would probably own the copyrights on much of the new testament (and portions of the old) which bear little resemblence to the original gospels and torah, assuming of course there is no estate of the aforementioned Crazy Antisocial Misfits to sue the church for copyright violation in their own right.
And whether Moses was a raving, hallucinating lunatic driven mad by too much sun and too much sand (and lamenting his lost life of privelege), or whether he was in fact spoken to by a superior being (divine or otherwise), the fact is that the books of Genesis et. al. are his writings paraphrasing the alleged words of said being, and not the being itself. Therefor the copyright would belong to Moses as the authoring reporter of the event, not God as merely a participant.
In other words, God wouldn't enter the copyright equation regardless, even if he did have the bad taste to exist.
Re:I want to extend copyright even further (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyrights expiring=good-Patents expiring=excelle (Score:2)
art vs. commerce (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:art vs. commerce (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyright libraries, such as the Library of Congress and the British Library, already have problems with storage. Even then they don't hold works such as films, TV, sound recordings, computer programs, etc. Copyright holders often do not take good care of works they are not activly issuing.
From The China Post (Score:3, Informative)
2002/10/12
The China Post staff
Taiwan yesterday flatly rejected the United States' request that the protection period for copyrights be extended to 70 years from the current 50 years.
Economics Minister Lin Yi-fu said the government has already imposed heavier punishments for violations against, and broadened the scope of, copyright protection. Thus, there was no reason to extend the protection period.
Speaking to reporters after a three-day meeting on intellectual property protection with representatives from Washington, the economics ministry said there is no reason for Taiwan to accede to all of the requests put forth by the United States.
But the government, said Tsai Lien-sheng, who is in charge of intellectual property-related affairs at the ministry, will definitely continue to improve its IP protection in accordance with World Trade Organization rules.
Representatives from Washington urged Taiwan to make 27 IP-related law revisions during the conference, ahead of the U.S. decision next week on whether to sign a free trade agreement with Taiwan.
Chen Chi-mai, a lawmaker from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, said some of the U.S. requests were unreasonable.
Taiwan rejected those it believed had no legal basis or was beyond what was required of a WTO member, said government officials.
In a statement, Joseph S. Papovich, assistant trade representative for services, investment and intellectual property, said Washington had hoped the discussions would lead to real progress towards the lowering of IP piracy and counterfeiting in Taiwan.
"Specifically, we discussed the importance of Taiwan revising some of its laws to conform with international IP obligations," said Papovich.
He added that Taiwan should continue to "increase its enforcement efforts by shutting down and seizing equipment from optical media plants and owners found to be pirating, stepping up its level of prosecutions against IP violators, and working to shorten delays of this process."
Papovich said Taiwan is considered one of the largest makers and exporters of pirated CDs, DVDs and other optical discs in Asia, and is perhaps one of the largest producers of such pirated discs in the world.
Tsai's deputy Lu Wen-hsiang said the U.S. representatives will bring home the proposals both sides have agreed upon for further discussions, before a formal agreement is signed in November.
The U.S. representatives were happy that Taiwan was planning to revise its laws to impose heavier punishments on photocopying for profit purposes, said Lu. According to Lu, Taiwan plans to make photocopying an offense subject to indictment, and offenders will face punishment including imprisonment between six months and five years, on top of a penalty ranging from NT$150,000 to NT$1.5 million.
But Taiwan did not agree to U.S. request that photocopying for non-profit purposes should also be made an offense subject to indictment.
Copyright is a Mickey Mouse game. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Copyright is a Mickey Mouse game. (Score:2)
Oh, I get it... (Score:2, Flamebait)
(goddamned Mongolians!)
Yeah, well why should... (Score:2, Insightful)
...the world give in to all of the US's increasingly insane demands?
After all, they didn't vote for the US president or congress.
How long is that going to last? (Score:2)
In different words: don't expect Taiwanese opposition to last long. They know who they need to defend them and they are probably just using this as a bargaining chip in other negotiations.
I suggest 20 years (Score:3, Insightful)
So? Harmonize already... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that this was an example of "Some pigs being more equal than others", but of course, since the Sonny Bono extension, "Animal Farm" is back to being copywritten...
-- Terry
Re:So? Harmonize already... (Score:3, Interesting)
The American Empire (Score:2)
What is the fundamental motto of the US? - American Values. The American Values where mostly created and fundamented along the wars of Independence against the Brittish crown. Later these values were "exported" all over the world as an ideal of society and living. By doing this, the US didn't ask for much, it gave it mostly shareware or even freeware to everyone. And it didn't care too much to hold up its copyrights -we have clear examples of it on the French Revolution and several other Revolutions that happened all over.
Meanwhile, considering the recent events, we are pretty sure that this thing will not stay permanently for free. As copyright lifespan extends further and further, there will be a moment when the US may claim back its rights for Democracy, Freedom of Speech and Citizens Rigths. Considering the actual rate - that copyrights expand for 20 years more every 5 years, then, in the middle of the XXI century we will see the American values being covered by copyright laws. Then, we probably will see the American President saying "Ok, folks, you had too much fun with American Democracy for Free but that's over... time to pay the fees... Every vote - 1 cent, every word - 2 cents, every right - 1 dollar. And note that we are being cheap..."
Re:This first post (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This first post (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This first post (Score:2)
C//
Re:WTF!! (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is that an issue that is undergoing some debate domesticly is being debated abroad as well. The copy protection in games/music cds/dvds/etc. isn't there as much for script kiddies who want to burn copies for their freinds as it is for the people in "shitty little third world aisian countrys" who are more likely to buy a bootleg copy than a real one.
It's people who think that America is the only place that matters who are make the rest of the world hate us. If you are too stupid to realize that everything you do is affected by the rest of the world, you are too stupid to post on slashdot.
Re:Eggroll? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Eggroll? (Score:2)
Actually this is more true than you realize:
70 years is anywhere from 2 to 10 years shy of the average Taiwan lifespan [taiwanheadlines.gov.tw]. This is significant because the US and Taiwan have pretty similar average lifespans. This rejection is about freedom of knowledge, not picking a magic number for copyrights to outlive most of their holders.
Re:My experiences in Taiwan (Score:2)
Re:My experiences in Taiwan (Score:2)
<ProfessorCollins>I give it a B+</ProfessorCollins>
Re:My experiences in Taiwan (Score:2)
Re:My experiences in Taiwan (Score:2, Funny)
"Anyways, the one redeeming quality were the girls. I paid 1000 NT dollars (about $30 US) for a great fuck, with a 16 year old who seemed quite new and "unblemished" if you get my drift. Boy, was she tight, made all the right noises, sucked and fucked all night long and let me cum all over her."
So did she smell as well? BTW, I overheard some gangly, pimple-faced kid in my algorithms class bitch about how some Asian girl wouldn't go out with him even after using such romantic lines as "Me lub you long time". You wouldn't happen to be him would you? I'm a generous fellow, so I've devised an algorithm for Asiaphiles like you:
#include "asian porno"
while(yellow_fever) {
hit on girl who looks like Lucy Liu
quote Full Metal Jacket ||
say "ni hao ma" as opening line
if(girl says she's not a prostitute || Asian
guy comes to beat the shit out of you) {
print "Shit!"
exit(1)
}
Just shoot you (Score:2, Insightful)
So if you come up with the "next Mickey Mouse", just kill yourself before the copyright expires
Besides, what happens to the whole life plus X years argument when people stop dying? It seems an extreme example, but what if the medical nanotech Pollannas are right?
Certainly life expectancies have increased in the past 200 odd years. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that considered 19 years an upper limit based on the actuarial(sp?) data available at the time. His concern was for limiting the freedom of the living due to the acts of the dead. (like maybe someone with a genetic melanin deficincy wanting to perform Porgy and Bess)
Have you ever bothered to watch all the credits on a movie and then at the very nd see the notice that says "for Bourne Convntion purposes, the copyright owner of this work is
If copyright were for a uniform period of time it would be much easier to handle. Currently, everything written by Stephn King will fall into the public domain in 2070 (he did die last year didn't he?
But if copyright were for a uniform 20 years or so, we would already have his earlier (and arguably better) works already in the public domain. We also would not have silly legal arguments over the allowable name for an Austin Powers movie (as the original Bond novels would all be in the public domain)
Re:Just shoot you (Score:2)
It can make it hard to work out when a copyright expires, especially if X is a long period of time. Also an effectivly imortal corporation can probably wait X years more easily than a person...
Certainly life expectancies have increased in the past 200 odd years. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that considered 19 years an upper limit based on the actuarial(sp?) data available at the time.
Is like expectancy the right metric in the first place? As opposed to some measurment of "generation" either human or related to the type of creative work.
Re:In my lifetime (Score:2)
That doesn't make a great deal of sense. What's so terrible about a work that you've produced entering the public domain?
Copyright hitmen? (Score:2)
When you go, the Copyright Goes.
That'd put a tremendous strain on U.S. states' police to enforce the laws against murder. I advocate a fixed term of x years, not life of the author plus x years.
Re:Is it so much to ask? (Score:2)
versus; well... LOTR is seen 4 monthes before the release date; ATOC is like 2 weeks - again, before - release, Emminem's CD tops charts before release, etc...
so what part of this makes asia worse than the US? as far as the time frame is concerned; US got the trophy hand-down with these pre-emptive (get it straight) copyright infringements...
Re:50 years is plenty. (Score:2)
How long is it before record companies consider a song which dosn't sell well a "miss", how long before movie companies judge a film a "flop", TV companies will cancel a TV series, book publishers will have unsold books destroyed? A lot less than 50 years, typically a lot less than 5, this was probably the case back in 1952 as well.
Gee, good thing Hans Christian Anderson didn't have a country that was adding 20 years of copyright extension every 5 years, or Disney would be losing billions to the very same policy they are pushing.
Actual creators don't tend to be demanding increased copyright protection. It tends to be either publishers, so they can squeeze some additional profits from their back catalogue and the descendants of popular creators (the way things are going great grandchildren) who would rather live off their ancestor than use their own talents. Indeed quite often still living, and youthfull, creators don't hold the copyright on their works.