UK Report Suggests Tougher Copyright Laws 229
danpsmith writes "The BBC has an article about a government report which proposes new powers against copyright infringement. Interestingly, however, it also: "says private users should be allowed to copy music from a CD to their MP3 player" and further "recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended," saying, "The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators." While satisfied with most of the report, The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) says, "it would continue to press for the copyright extension.""
Legalize file sharing already. (Score:5, Funny)
Australia was woken up as well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Australia was woken up as well. (Score:4, Informative)
Best of both worlds would be nice, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> sucks and is overly draconian, but I'd rather violate that within my home than endg up in the slammer for having accidentally
> including a snippet of something copyrighted in something I upped to Youtube.
Where did that come from?
From TFA:
"It calls for penalties against people who sell pirate versions of music and films on the internet to be brought in line with those
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Absolute worst case scenario is probably "10 years" becoming 1 year, out in 6 months on good behaviour. Or they could always get out whenever they please if they invoke the Human Rights Act and point out that being imprisoned violates their basic human right to "do whatever the fuck they want".
Re: (Score:2)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/6212684.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could have left the scene. But you delivered a forceful blow to a man who was no threat to you at all.
I think you're confusing manslaughter with "justifiable homicide", which is where there is no choice but to kill (E.g. to save your own life or somebody else's). That clearly is not the case here.
Its manslaughter if there was no intent to kill, which seems like the case here. From the description in the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, because of course the number of criminal prosecutions brought in this country (which doesn't include issuing ASBOs, which are a civil matter) hasn't increased from 1.3 million in 2003-2004 to 1.5 million in 2005-2006, over a timescale during which the number of reported crimes actually fell.
The notion that Britain is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So much time, so many wasted days (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems that stubborn headed ignorance is the rule of the day?
Its a shame... No matter what decision is made, all this time, money, and resource has already been wasted to try to equalize what one industry wants made into law to line their own pockets. Yeah, I know, this is just one industry, but this is the industry that is on topic... its a start if we all, and I mean all, simply stop buying music. See how that suits them. Don't buy any for gifts this year; don't buy any for personal use. They can't possibly prosecute all downloaders, nor could they afford to continue to do so without revenue. We can't all be put in jail...
signed: frustrated
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, in the end, we are wasting untold resources on re-inventing the wheel as regards copyright. Those that want to extend copyright are only trying to l
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have no love for the music industry, but I don't think we should ignore certain forms of illegal activity sim
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As you've mentioned, copyright can last for a century or more. Violating the copyright of someone who's been dead for 50 years is "illegal", would you support enforcing that to the full extent of the law, 10 years jail, etc, etc? When laws are unjust or unreasonable, they invite lack of respect.
Re: (Score:2)
So you propose we all help enforce unjust laws passed by the rich and corrupt politicians just because they happen to be laws? No, that's not going to happen. It's your duty as a good citizen to stand up against this, not to give in and help them do it. Sadly there are few good citizens in the world today willing t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not all crimes are equally worthy of our attention. There's probably more jaywalking in your city than there is copyright infringement - why do copyright laws deserve any more enforcement effort than jaywalking laws?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's an often-used quote but this has actually made it into the report. It says that the UK music & film industries lose up to 20% of annual turnover to piracy.
How can anyone come to that calculation seriously? They add up the value of every known pirate item, then say that every single consumer of prate goods would go out and buy the real thing? Such faulty logic yet there it is in the report. A real
Re:So much time, so many wasted days (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not have to supply an alternate solution to the "problem". The "problem" is the solution. If a small cartel of non-producing corrupt money-grubbers think they can erect a permanent fence around our common freakin' culture and charge us admission, the only solution is to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the fence and knock it down wherever we can.
"but it's against the law!"
moron
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The current situation is pretty analagous. Almost no one had respect for Prohibition, that disrespect for one stupid law led to disrespect for other laws, widespread corruption, powerful criminal organizations, etc. Well, pretty much no one now has respect for copyright law, at least in certain contexts (e.g. P2P
Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:3, Interesting)
While most of us here at
Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Make all downloads legal, and there will be no more illegal downloads.
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you mean better protections, I don't think it is needed, but... However, if you mean harsher penalties, they are already way over the top. I think I know why, but that doesn't excuse things.
As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.
all the best,
drew
Re: (Score:2)
It's all to do with the perceived risk of getting caught and of the seriousness of the crime. "Everyone" agrees that stealing a physical object from a shop is wrong (at least, every right-thinking person does), and the risk of getting caught is much higher. With illegal downloa
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Interesting)
but that destroys the .... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe AOL should give away free unlimited broadband access as a service?
Playing gigs isn't anywhere near as profitable as people think it is. A lot of bands lose money on tour, but they tour anyway to promote album sales. If you want them to tour for nothing, and give their music away for free, they might as well go become plumbers.
Re: (Score:2)
"I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts."
Cue the "we don't owe your friends a living" straw man builders in three, two, one...
"While most of us here at /. buy our music legally, this is not the case for the majority of people with MP3 players and digital music collections."
That doesn't strike me as correct, although I don't have any hard data to ba
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Filter every byte to stop people sharing music. Nothing else will work.
Perhaps your musician friends could try to make what they sell more atractive, eg, nice printed liner notes in the CD case, vouchers for concerts, t-shirts, etc; other extras that
I just have to ask (Score:2)
I suspect that the musicians that do not go through the RIAA but use the internet to push their music, will end up further ahead WRT fans and money. I truely believe that using a label/riaa is a no-win situation for the
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes. I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.
So record sales are down, but concert attendance is up.
Where's the problem here ? Apart from your friends being dismayed that their free ride is drying up
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence are you basing that on? How can you be so sure that the majority of people with digital music collections and MP3 players are pirating music?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you could legally download a movie for free, and watch it on your massive
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, who doesn't? I do too. In fact, I like them enough that I could put a dollar amount on my enjoyment, and I bet you could too. Both of us would be willing to spend some amount of money to keep action films alive, right?
The solution is simple. If we can find a lot of people who all like
Re: (Score:2)
Since we're talking about the movie industry though, the issue there is actor salaries and OMG-VFX!!1!1! Realistically speaking, if
Re: (Score:2)
So even with the current overinflated costs, many existing movies would still be profitable with copyrights as short as 1 or 2 years.
All the 100+ year copyright stuff is just greed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But tons of people still queued up to watch the LoTR at the cinemas - legit. Even a month later if you didn't book tickets there was a high chance you wouldn't get a seat.
So, I daresay people won't skip theaters altogether if there weren't copyrights. And yes, with saner (less evil?) control over costs more films would be profitable, but the way the movi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and yes. If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would. That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?
No, it isn't. See, this isn't a donation, it's payment for a service, which incidentally benefits more than just the people who pay for it.
It's like if ten people live on a dirt road, and eight of them get fed up with the dust, so they pool their money and hire someone to pave the road. They aren't donating money to the paver, or to each other; they're paying for the benefit of living on a paved road. Now, it happens to be the case that the two people who didn't pay, and any of their visitors, will also get to enjoy that benefit, but the reason it got paved in the first place is because those eight people felt strongly enough about it to open their wallets.
If enough people feel strongly enough certain types of movies, those movies will get made. It's just like what we have now, but with a more direct connection between funding and production - studios won't have to drop $100 million on a movie just to find out that it only sells $50 million worth of tickets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
*cough* Sellaband [sellaband.com] *cough*
Musical artists put up some songs and if you like t
Re:Flame away, but I agree to an extent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's supply and demand. If my product is in high demand and people are willing to pay my price, then it doesn't make me a bad person if I become wealthy because of it. However, saying "fuck you" to somebody for doing well for themselves is just sour grapes. Whether you buy a CD or you buy a concert ticket, you get exactly the same thing - the music, and the experience of listening to it. A copy from a friend is no way the same as a copy from a record label.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing fair about the price of music.
Uh...yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's mighty fucking white of them. Next up: Reports from Herefordshire indicate a possible end to meat rationing starting mid February.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's still illegal in New Zealand..
(and the local recording industry is fighting hard against a suggested law change)
Stealing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Copying is NOT stealing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I have no problem with people sh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>appropriate.
How about calling it copyright infringement which would be the correct thing. Copyright infringement also happens to be illegal by the way. No idea why you would insist in calling it something erroeous. What would be the point in using the terminology "stealing" instead of "copyright infringement"? If for no other reason you end up with the wrong conclusions about how it works, like your "if you did not
Re: (Score:2)
*If you are caught in a theater without a ticket, they take whatever change you have in your pocket then you are kicked out, maybe blacklisted and that's all, noone will bother to sue you for that.
*If someone give away for free (or simply less) what you sell, you have the choice to either compete on quality or on price, but whatever your job, yo uhave no F*cking absolute god-given right to make a profit. If your competitor can sustain its offer and you can't compete, your restaurant will cl
Do you get paid for 95 years for today's work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you invest your weekly paycheck. I don't understand why copyrights have to last longer than 20 years. If have a successful song or book, invest the money. If you want to continue making money by making music or writing, create new material. Otherwise, there's always demand for new MacDonald's employees.
Patents expire. Does that mean that no one can make money on patents? Ignore patent trolls and American lawyers for a moment. Think of a company that files a patent and makes the product described by a patent. They have a monopoly for a set period of time, allowing them to sell a product that no one else has. Because the patent will expire, the company needs to continue innovating. Competitors will have access to the patent eventually and will be able to release different (often better) products based on the technology. If the patent system wasn't profitable, no one would file patents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Businesses decide what to do based on "discounted cash flow analysis". Think compound interest in reverse. Only the most predictable of industries will invest money because of a possible income stream 20 years in the future.
In other words, a copyright term of 70 years, 90 years or whatnot is no more of an incentive to a business than a term limited to 28 years after renewals.
An individual might see things differently, which means the current system of longer copyrigh
The ideal copyright system... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Iwould appreciate you comments on what is below at the following link:
http://yro.slashdot.org/~zotz/journal/154538 [slashdot.org]
Here are some thoughts for your consideration:
1. All 'non'marked' works get an automatic copyleft, not an automatic copyright.
2. Copyleft works can be registered for free, copyright works incurr a registration fee.
3. There is a yearly copyright tax imposed on copyright works, copyleft works are exempt.
4. The copyright tax is based on a percentage of the copyright h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically responding to your points:
1. If an author doesn't care about his work enough to comply with applicable formalities, then he should get no rights at all, and the work should be in the public domain. Copyright is meant to serve the public interest in part by providing an artificial economic incentive to authors. An author who doesn't care about his work enough to take simple but significant
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
First, a corporation is a legal entity, ie essentially a person. Why would a corporation be allowed to own any number of other assets, but not this specific intangible one? In addition, how would preventing a corporation from owning copyrights benefit consumers or artists?
Second, if corporations can't own copyrights, who will? For example, if a team of employees in a company creates material FOR the company, who owns the copyrig
Re: (Score:2)
The current copyright system is stupid and in no way encourages anything but corporate exploitation. All copyright is supposed to do is encourage the distribution of works as opposed to covering it up and never releasing it, or not working on it in the first place. Can people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>a condition of employment, achieving exactly the same result as
>assignments or works made for hire,
That is how it works in many countries in the world which has no "for hire" conditions in their copyright laws (software would often be an exception though).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see what good that does.
Personally, I have a simpler definition. The ideal copyright law is the one that best serves the public interest by promoting the progress of science. Whether it should include this exception or that one, or last for a term of so many years, or some other amount, or whatever, should be based on how well it serves the public interest in as quantifiable a way as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
This one I'm not so sure about; who would you have own the copyright to a major motion picture, for example? One person can't possibly produce it on their own, there's far too much work requiring far too great a spread of skills. The only fair solution to that, to my mind, is to allow the copyright to be jointly owned by all involved; but then I fail to see how that's any different in practical terms to a corporation owning it.
I also
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I know the italian copyright system is just like this: authors' rights (the italian version of copyright, in a way) are non-transferrable. Does it make a difference? Of course not, the publisher can just have the author sign a perennial, irrevocable license to administer and receive all compensations for all its author's rights in exchange for an upfront amount of cash or a percentage of the profits, et voila`, authors' rig
Innovation crap - as usual (Score:2)
They just cant say 'the copyright holders need more heaploads of money for longer durations' to the public of course, hence they come up with 'innovation' crap.
You cant innovate nothing if you dont already have huge capital behind your back. There are millions of people trying to 'innovate' under the current system, yet the percentage of those who succeed are comparable to the rates of people winning lotteries.
What's their point? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a drastic difference in the number of copyright laws and the attitude of the country towards licenses.
Europeans take copyright laws much more seriously than u.s., they analyse the licenses exhaustively before they touch any IP even if there's no consequence to them, so they don't have as many laws enforcing the licenses. Because they care about the license, open source software has become much more popular in Europe.
U.s.ahans don't take copyright laws seriously at all, so they've created more laws. U.s.ahans go by whether it's downloadable and what the password is. When the emphasis is on downloadability over licensability, you get less attention to open source in u.s..
Lobbyist newspeak (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is revenue that has been lost to the local and national economy and is affecting British jobs."
SO the supposed £270 million lost suddenly disappeared from the British economy? If you are going to make a case for more copyright protection, at least be honest about it. Stop trying to look like you are working for "the people" cause we all know "the people" want free movies.
Article needed one more comment... (Score:2)
OH! The Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6214512.
When you click the link, as it turns out the recording industry has cheated Olivia Newton John out of royalties related to her Grease movie.
Doesn't that put it all into perspective. Some poor slob gives a copy of a CD to his mother and he's a criminal. The recording industry cheats millions from performers and it's just an accounting practice.
Holy cow.
"Tougher" laws, as if this is a crime (Score:2)
Gowers Report Link (Score:2)
Lawrence Lessig blogged [lessig.org] about one interesting recommendation -- that copyright term not be altered retrospectively. I think that's British for "retroactively".
Copyright is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I feel copyright laws should be abolished and redone from scratch.
My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent??? Ask the 'A' in "RSA" about this sometime. He's not dead but the protection of his property is. Walt disney has been dead for 40 years, yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.
Is a song worth more than a fusion reactor? No. Is a fusion reactor worth more than a song? No. (Well, I think it is but I'm generally considered uncultured.)
My point is that both are intellectual property and both should be treated fairly and equally with regards to each other. Whether your view is "Copyrights should last 20 years after the filing of the copyright" or "Patents should last 70 years beyond death and be renewable", I don't care. But the intellectual effort of all authors should be treated with a measure of equality.
My view point is 20 years after filing for both. That seems to strike the right balance of the author gets to make a huge profit for 20 years while the public can derive a benefit in the foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. I recall watching Mighty Mouse and Tom and Jerry cartoons while growing up. I also recall a british cartoon called Dangermouse. Once again, I have to explain that copyright protects the EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea itself. You can create all the cartoon mice you want as long as they don'te resemble the aforementioned or Mickey Mouse, amongst others. Not to mention that true artists learn by being inspired by others wo
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, You've got me there. There have been other mice. I wonder though if any of them had litigation brought against them.
In fact, Mighty Mouse was "Supermouse" for two years until the name was changed, presumably under threat of lawsuit by DC comics over the Superman trademark. Not exactly Disney but very similar none the less and a good example of Copyright is used as a weapon to stifle the creativity and profit of others rather than being used to promote and encourage growth and public benefit.
I also fi
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not. As you said, "Superman" is a TRADEMARK. Trademark law is not copyright law. You have to pay to file a trademark registration, and while it can last indefintely, if not used and defended, it can lapse. That's why you see the little circled R after all the Star Wars characters in their ads. Patents, trademanrks and c
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's just idiotic.
Why don't we allow people to buy uranium just as easily as we al
It's a lot more than tougher laws (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, since <obligatory moan> for some reason the eds posted a story about a BBC article and not my version straight from the source</obligatory moan>, let's get a few things cleared up.
We're talking about the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property [hm-treasury.gov.uk]. This was a wide-reaching review, covering a lot more than just copyright, though of course copyright is a major component in our IP framework.
In terms of copyright law, here are some of the major recommendations from the review:
Personally, I agree with most of the review's conclusions and recommendations. I was, however, disappointed that they felt the need to limit their recommendation for a personal copying exception so much. The Review acknowledged that some personal uses were perceived, incorrectly, to be legal by many people, and that banning such uses by law damages the credibility of copyright as a whole in the public eye. They also acknowledged that some of these uses do not harm the interests of the copyright holder. They have also stressed throughout their process that their review would be evidence-led. I find it intriguing, therefore, that they have completely failed to address other reasonable personal uses mentioned in several of the submissions, such as backing up, recording broadcasts, and making compilations.
Some submissions gave quite reasonable arguments based on existing law in favour of explicitly legitimising these. For example, under blanket UK consumer protection legislation, any article purchased from a shop must be (a) fit for purpose, and (b) capable of lasting for the expected lifetime of the product. Since the expected lifetime for information is indefinite, abusing copyright and/or DRM so that when someone's CD wears out they have to buy a whole new CD because they couldn't take a back-up should be a violation of UK trading laws. (Bizarrely, under the proposed system, you could take a back-up as long as it's in a different format, and if your original copy wore out you could then shift the information back again as you would still have only a single copy in any given format of material you had legitimately obtained.)
On the whole, I give them 8/10 given the huge scale of what they were attempting. At least pretty much everything I've read of the review so far is a reasonable position, and most of it is a clear improvement on where we are now. My complaint, such as it is, is more that they didn't go far enough in some areas than that they went in the wrong direction. But such is progress, perhaps.
Forgot one... (Score:2)
Sorry, forgot one other significant recommendation from the Review: they opposed software patents.
News to me!! (Score:2, Insightful)
"By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format."
Wha.. huh? Do they really think people have been sitting under a rock all these years and haven't already thought of sharing their music either physically or electronically? Yea, I`m sure there's billions of people just WAITING for this to be legal so they can finally do it!
Nice try but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In these "digital times"... (Score:3, Insightful)
I argue that the current mass of IP is already beyond managable levels and in fact has grown to the point that it impedes new artistic works and inventions which is contrary the original intent of "IP" as a concept and institution. As a means to reduce the present condition and in the interests of preventing the stagnation of technology and human advancement, I propose that a REDUCTION in the term limits of copyright and patents such that they not extend beyond five years for patents and ten years for copyright from the point of such claim is initially granted.
We don't need to extend copyright and patent terms. We shouldn't keep them at their present duration. They should be reduced as it is quite obvious that patent claims are used and traded to the exclusion and extortion of smaller, emerging business. Copyrights serving beyond the death of the original creators are not serving the purpose commonly cited which is to compensate artists for their work. Indeed, it is being harvested by non-creative parties whose interests are not those of the public which represents a complete abuse of both parties intended to benefit from the creation of copyright as a concept and institution. A reduction in copyright terms would restore copyright to better serve the public's interests and those of the creators of copyrighted materials.
not extending copyright != stealing music (Score:3, Insightful)
I love this bit - they don't even try to justify the reason for copyright extension which is they want to continue making money of something old - and they probably can because *some* people will still buy 51 year old stuff if they find it valuable. The point is that the material has passed into collective conciousness if its still wanted after 50 years and it ought to be free (I mean in the public domain not free as in beer). Putting things in the public domain doesn't translate to free as in beer - you still have to get it from someplace and unless its widely available someone can certainly charge you for the convenience of making it available. Ofcourse you can turn around and host it yourself and they can't do anything about that.
What putting things in the public domain does do is allow anyone anywhere to study it freely, edit it, really do whatever they damn well please with it and not have consequences. Yes I'm being a heretic and saying that something that is old but still profitable should be given away to anyone for anything for essentially free because that will encourage creativity. It will also help ensure those works actually get preserved. If something is available freely and openly and anyone can make copies of it (books, music, movies software, whatever) then it stands a much better chance of survival then if its still controlled by one company.
Theres a massive disconnect here - Jamieson is talking about stealing music and copyright extension at the same time but not extending copyright terms is not stealing from the artist or the people who invested in them - its allowing them to make money of older stuff which they wouldn't have otherwise - in a sense its really stealing from the general public who IMHO have a right to work that is part of our common "heritage" (for want of a better term).
This one is od coming from AIM precisely because they are supposed to be independent and I thought the issue of pivate copying was more of an issue for the major labels - I've not had time to follow the money yet. I think they misunderstood something though - Gowers advocated private copying and format shifting yes but they did not say without DRM. This ofcourse begs the $64,000 question - how the heck do you get something under a DRM scheme into the public domain after the copyright term is up. Frankly I'd hope that with 50 years in the interim we could break any DRM there was quite easily by brute force if need be but the question is if the format will remain readable over that period at all. I'd say obligate companies to release material into the public domain after their copyright term is up in a current format without any restriction. Yes this costs money but they did profit of the damn thing for 50 years - its minimum payback and the cost is already pretty damned low.
extending copyright == stealing music (Score:3, Informative)
Very well said. Further extensions of copyright, with the way copyright works these days, is tantamount to stealing music from future generations. If the purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to continue creating more works, then the last thing we should do is allow them to rest on their laurels! The length of the copyright term is actually a disincentive to artists to make new works. It also hinders artists in the future from building on top of those works.
By the way, unbreakable DRM really is
Yeah, sure. (Score:2)
2. Back stab people and extend them with the DMCA 2.0.
3. The RIAA profits (you don't).
silly (Score:3, Insightful)
They already can and do.
and further 'recommends the 50-year copyright protection for recorded music should not be extended,' saying, 'The ideal IP system creates incentives for innovation, without unduly limiting access for consumers and follow-on innovators.'
50 years is not "balanced"; "balanced" copyright, in today's world would be 10-20 years. Furthermore, copyright should go back to applying only when the work has been explicitly registered, so that things actually can fall into the public domain and people can determine ownership.
Re:silly (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the UK it is NOT legal to copy music from a CD to MP3 player or to magnetic tape or any other format full stop.
The only legal way to put MP3's onto an MP3 player is to purchase the MP3's on-line.
oh for goodness sake (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember the "warnings" on record sleeves "Home taping is killing music" - did it?
Precisely.
Copyright was supposed to be to protect the melody and words of a song so that another artist cannot copy large parts of the song/melody without paying royalties. Not to stop the audience getting hold of the song.
It's a greedy, ugly industry trying to scare governments into passing laws to make their income stream bigger and easier to maintain.
Want to know why sales are falling?
Because a lot of mainstream music is bland, boring crap. Where are the protest singers in the charts? Where are the artists? It's all family oriented, safe for the children, shrink wrapped, corporate approved, vaguely pornographic nonsense.
"Musicians sign copyright advert" (Score:4, Interesting)
People *knew* the copyright on recordings was only 50 years when they made them. Tough.