UK Copyright Extension in Exchange for Censorship? 238
Awel writes "The UK opposition leader, David Cameron, says in a speech to the British Phonographic Industry that his party would work to extend the copyright term to 70 years and crack down on piracy. But in return, labels would have to agree to bear more 'social responsibility', which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'. He doesn't spell out how this would be achieved in practice.
This follows the publication in December of a UK government report recommending that the standard copyright term in Europe remain at 50 years (and not be raised to 70 or 95 years)."
Historic precedent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Historic precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you're really saying is, "Government is returning to its roots" and that is correct.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The industry isn't seeking this--it's the government.
Er, no, the government isn't seeking this. The Conservative Party is seeking this. The Conservatives aren't in power, Labour are.
Re:Historic precedent (Score:5, Informative)
The conservatives have always been big businesses bitches and this simply reiterates it.
This is why any self respecting geek should avoid voting conservative (think of them as the republicans, only slightly less insane).. hell, it's pretty hard to tell the conservatives and labour apart nowadays. Lib Dems or the Greens are probably the best parties if you want a slightly (ever so slightly, lets face facts pretty much all parties suck) better government.
Re: (Score:2)
Labor has been kinda annoying lately, but I'd still trade them for the crap we've got. How bizarre to have a semi-moderate party in power...How do you know who you should hate? =P
Re: (Score:2)
They seem pretty damn popular. I mean they've got, what, almost 400 seats? That's almost twice the next largest party. 'Course, I'm not big on non-coalition governments. If you don't have to compromise, all you get is crap law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hth.
So, how 'bout them LibDems? (Score:2)
Liberals are philosophically consistent (Score:2)
Liberals believe in personal liberty, which includes doing what you want with your own money. It seems to confuse people that they believe in reduced government involvement in both business and personal lives. They confuse reduced involvement and taxation as conservatism and assume only reduced involvement in personal lives is the liberal philosophy.
In fact, of the major parties in the UK, the Liberals are the only ones with a consis
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it is copyright returning to its roots. Early copyright has its root in government control of the printing presses.
Re:Historic precedent (Score:5, Informative)
government censorship and copyright go hand in hand.
copyright originally started as a government sponsored censorship program as the excerpt from this article [questioncopyright.org] states:
so, in the UK, the government granting copyright terms in order to censor the works is a return to the roots of copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be prepared to bet:
1. That such a copyright extension would not include clauses that the music industry must be regulated for "unacceptable" output. The music industry would instead "pledge" to do so.
2. The music industry will totally forget about the pledge just as soon as the law is passed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyrighted by Metallica.
ah, yes. . . (Score:2)
Tis a glorious day indeed when the artists are told by the "record labels" that because of "nasty little law" they'll have to choose their lyrics from a small set of "acceptable words." Of course, the record labels get 70 years on the copy right so all is well. Oh yes! All of those "oldies" will (hopefully) be "grandfathered" in so that we can still get our violent antisocial pron music, but only because it already exists. Those new artists will have to conform to the new "standard of acceptable music"
Ooooh Phonographic (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
>at the article I thought it said Pornographic industry?
Yes, that you are person 3748982 that has made such a remark on slashdot and managed to be the first in this thread. I guess it is slightly more creative than posting a "first post" post, but just slightly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What a deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, not free (as in speech) in exchange for not free (as in beer). Excellent.
Re:What a deal. (Score:5, Funny)
How many things are wrong with this idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... because the first thing to do in the fight against piracy is to broaden the definition of piracy to include twenty years worth of extra music. In other news, Cameron announced that as the first step in a crackdown on murder, the definition of "murder" will been expanded to include drunk-driving. He said that government claims that this would increase reported cases of murder by 12000% as "exagerated".
> He argued that extending the term would give an "incentive to the music industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which
> more people can enjoy at no extra cost".
Right... so, extending the copyright term to include works which are currently in the public domain, and thus free and legal to use for any purpose will help people enjoy these works at "no extra cost"? In other news, as part of a campaign to try and get kids to exercise more, Cameron announced plans to put all public playparks into the hands of private companies that will charge for their use.
> Mr Cameron said: "Most people think these are all multimillionaires living in some penthouse flat. The reality is that many of
> these are low-earning session musicians who will be losing a vital pension."...
>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Are the session guys really collecting significant coin from performances they did fifty years ago? (Not to mention the question of whether they should.)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright=pension is a cruel deception (Score:2)
I've already said that copyright is not a pension plan [slashdot.org]. If your music goes out of fashion the royalty cheques stop coming. Suggesting to musicians that they don't have to put part of todays royalties into a pension plan because copyright lasts a long time is a cruel deception. The musician faces not just the ignominy of falling from public regard when musical tastes change and his music is no longer played, his pretend pension gets cancelled.
Re:What a deal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing about Cameron. He's like NFS and Palestinians. Totally stateless.
--Ng
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was how I read it as well.. From the citizen's perspective, this reads: "In exchange for taking some of your public domain rights, we'll take some of your free speech rights, too!"
horrible situation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
in a way you're right, of course. the majors do control the listening of the masses, and govt does enforce decency laws.
but this new proposal would also effect indie labels (and perhaps their artists), who would reap whatever benefits extended copyrights offer. however, i can't see them willfully trading away their voices for these rights. but, if such a nebulous proposal ever became legislation, how could they not, legally speaking?
thus, the extended copyright would go further: it's extension of a taci
Re: (Score:2)
Pointless deal. (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it! The whole thing is ridiculous. The labels decide what the artists sing so it's not really the artists opinion and the labels just make them sing what gives the most money.
If they sing about anarchy then it's no ones opinion? It might just affect the listeners but what if the listeners know it's not the artists opinion?
Nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
What's up with the UK recently? It's bizarre. People complain like hell about the EU imposing laws on the UK, but if it is the UK gov doing it, nobody bats an eyelid.
For example, smoking. I hate smoking, it's horrid. But if people want to do it, they should be able to go to pubs where it's allowed. If people want to listen to music that glorifies "an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny" then they should be able to. And if people want to copy music or books or whatever of an artist that is well dead and buried then they should be able to do that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nanny state (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you *feel* entitled to go out in the world and have it be a warm and fuzzy place that lives up to your every expectation and personal choice, doesn't mean you are.
If a pub owner person wants to allow smoking and attracts those clients, then they shouldn't be legally prohibited. You're more than welcome to use the one across the street that has a no smoking sign in the window.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
New York City passed the law several years ago and it has been AMAZINGLY successful. It has been popular with smokers and non-smokers alike.
Non-smokers don't like sitting in smoke. Smokers don't like sitting in other people's smoke. People don't like coming home from pubs smelling like an ash tray.
Bar owners feared that people would stay away because they co
Re:Nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
They banned smoking in pubs in Ireland, and something like one in three pubs closed down. The same is happening in England, with many semi-rural pubs turning into restaurants. Eventually all there'll be left is trendy inner-city wine bars, and another great tradition will be lost to the politically-correct brigade.
Unfortuanately in modern Britain, all the major parties are control freaks, and the minor parties are all nazis and communists, so there's no-one to vote for. And they wonder why voting turnouts are so low...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any bar owner wants to define themselves by whether or not they allow smokers. Its not customer friendly to specifically exclude a legal activity even if its for the benefit for the overall group. The "free market" doesn't solve all problems.
Pubs in England have been having trouble for a while. I've heard it blamed on tougher drunk driving laws and lower pric
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Except, in practice, there were hardly any pubs that were non-smoking, because none of the bar owners wanted to chance alienating any smokers. I would have drank a lot more beer if I could go out without a few hours later having aching eyeballs and stinking clothes from the clouds of sm
Re: (Score:2)
Right. And you find one of those... where?
Seriously. The commercial pressures are such that it is almost business suicide for a pub to go no smoking, unless there are no alternative smoking pubs in its local area. Saying the market should cater for the requirement is all nice & libertarian, but in practice it has been shown not to work.
Re:Nanny state (Score:4, Interesting)
If local councils were allowed to license, say, 5% of pubs in their area to allow smoking, on condition of having good air conditioning, not allowing children in even with families, and an extra license fee, for example, it's highly unlikely that anyone would go to that pub, or indeed work in that pub, who didn't want to be in a smoky environment.
I think it would be a pretty fair solution. Most pubs remain smoke-free, but smokers willing to sit in a filthy haze of carcinogens are able to, surrounded by other smokers willing to sit in a filthy haze of carcinogens.
It would also allow places like cigar clubs to still exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Pubs have already had this choice but most have chosen to remain smoking which reflects the wishes of the majority of their customers, I don't see why smokers should be forced to bow to the wishes of some vocal minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Quit your whining and take your stinking, toxic, cancer sticks outside.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As more than one pundit has noted, Tony Blair's legacy is now obvious: it is David Cameron. True to form, he started out very promising, saying lots of things we all wanted to hear, but now the spin has started to slip a lot of his policies just sound like bad ideas. (See also "grammar schools".) I wonder how long Gordy will last before falling into the same pit; surely after a decade at the heart of the previous government, he hasn't really suddenly given up o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it took this to put you off David Cameron, you haven't been paying attention to what a knee-jerk-politics empty-headed photo-op publicity-seeker he is.
This isn't the UK government imposing a law, it's a proposal by the leader of the opposition. People in the UK do complain when the government does something they don't like, loudly. Downing Street even has a site where you can create and sign petitions [pm.gov.uk] so
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet the chance of having a car accident after drinking just one pint is hundreds of times higher than the chance of you getting cancer from someone smoking near you. And sometimes people have more than one pint before driving home, don't they? And so we should ban drinking alcohol except at home.
Not too keen on that? Enjoy a drink at the pub, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they've been talking about reducing the legal alcohol limit for drivers quite dramatically for a while now, and it'll probably happen within a year or two.
Re:Nanny state (Score:4, Informative)
Well, the effects of most car accidents are usually not fatal - in fact, most accidents don't involve injury. The effects of lung cancer and heart disease are a damn sight more serious than a smashed headlight.
But if we limit it to fatalities, the overall number of car accident fatalities in the UK in 2006 was 2920 (DoT statistics). The Gloag report in the BMJ estimated that 25% of those fatalities were attributable to alcohol - about 730, but the majority of those involved excess alcohol (2 pints or more). Lets estimate a low majority (55%) - 402. So I'm estimating that we could save 328 deaths a year by banning alcohol except in the home. But this also assumes that no-one drinking at home gets behind the wheel of a car. And this is also assuming that everyone who gets killed is an innocent victim and not the drunk driver. I reckon the figure of lives saveable is probably around 80 a year (50% fewer from lower drink driving, and 50% lower than that because it's not the drunk driver topping himself)
The number of deaths attributable to second hand smoke in the workplace was 517 (Jamroznik, published in the BMJ). That's excluding those who also are exposed to smoke at home. So by banning smoking in public places, we can save the vast majority of those people - about 500 a year.
So I think you'd lose that bet. You're more likely to catch disease from a smoker than get twatted by someone who's drunk a pint of beer and got behind the wheel of a car. Anyway - it doesn't really follow. Alcohol consumption does not render the environment inherently more toxic (it renders it more dangerous in concert with other activities); pumping toxins and carcinogens into the local atmosphere in a poorly ventilated area is obviously more directly dangerous to a persons local environment.
--Ng
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tou managed to whinge for two paragraphs without providing any evidence for your views whatsoever.
Yes, some smokers don't die from smoking. Surprisingly, scientists and epidemiologists are also aware of this. That has no effect on the statistical fact that smoking is the largest preventable cause of death worldwide. Even secondhand smoke is astonishingly dangerous, as the grandparent post showed.
You complain about FUD, but you appear to have swallowed the tobacco industry's FUD completely. Congratu
Re: (Score:2)
Ad hominems aside. You also are a hypocrite that I speak of. You offer no proof (that the stats in the parent post accurately reflect that smoking is a major cause of death), and you use ad hominem attacks against me. Any arguments I use you claim are influenced by the tobacco lobby. It is always the case. My arguments primarily are NOT based on statistics that I personally have at my disposal (but have heard a
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad we don't have laws that restrict the rights of drinkers to put others in danger by (e.g.) drinking and driving... what? we do? what's that you say...? JAIL? Not a £50 fine? Wow!
Drunk driving is a problem - but while most people have at least got the "don't drink and drive - you'll spill most of it" message, smokers are allowe
Dangers to freedom... (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony, of course, is that one of the main problems with effectively-perpetual copyright is the many restrictions it places on open commentary and free speech. Perpetual and rigidly-enforced copyrights essentially produce a chilling effect in the domain of free public discussion. Since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is hard to not label this as censorship.
So we get a double-dose of censorship: copyright extensions limit our ability to freely discuss and produce derivative art of the culture we are a part of... and these same extensions are used as a lever to enforce a government-mandated version of decency. In my mind this seriously calls into question the notion that copyrights are there as a service to society, encouraging distribution of artwork to the people... or have we given up on that interpretation of copyright entirely?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The irony, of course, is that one of the main problems with effectively-perpetual copyright is the many restrictions it places on open commentary and free speech. Perpetual and rigidly-enforced copyrights essentially produce a chilling effect in the domain of free public discussion. Since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is hard to not label this as censorship.
In many ways it's good to see Mr Cameron getting "Back to Basics" [wikipedia.org] here. After all the original purpose of copyright, from before
Knifes? (Score:5, Funny)
I have only one question: What are knifes and why is someone glorifying them?
Re: (Score:2)
The glorification of an anti-learning culture is killing the ability to spell and do basic math.
Re:Knifes? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.sillywalksgenerator.com/ [sillywalksgenerator.com] is where you can see different types of problems that are created by wearing knifes.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=us er.viewprofile&friendID=62925390 [myspace.com] more information on who created knifes.
Probably doing a standard politician thing (Score:3, Interesting)
I hope he's lying to them as usual as per UK ministers' standard operating procedures. If this makes it into the manifesto then I cannot support the party, and if there are enough likeminded people that will cost them more votes than pandering to the racket.
Apologies if I come over as a bit bitter and twisted, but a poll of my peers (8 of us, professional, 40 years old-ish) has indicated that none of us believe either of the two main parties represent our wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he's lying to them. Look - it's an easy option for this tosser. Copyright term is harmonised across the EU. The UK government cannot arbitrarily alter copyright term. So Cameron sends his Europe flunkie to the halls of Brussels to wail for longer copyright terms. Germany (DG) and France (Vivendi) agree, but the other states can't be arsed, so say "no".
So Dave trots back to the BPI and says "Sorry guys, we tried o
Holy crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
by the time it gets in the hands of the kids of these fine legislators, it has been picked up by a label and redistributed. stopping that part of the process won't lead to the death of street music, it will just mean that street music will get distributed by other means
kids are stupid. they listen to stupid things. then they grow up. and become responsible. and become members of the house of commons. i wonder how many of this guys peers, if not himself, were getting stoned in the back of a car listening to "we don't need no education..." and other wonders of pink floyd's "the wall" 25 years ago
you can't stop teenagers from being retarded. that's just what teenage years are all about
hey david cameron: "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!"
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they forgot the next line, too. How unfortunate.
Helmet (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, Brown doesn't exactly make me jump for joy either. Guess I'll carry on doing what I've done for the last 10 years, vote for apathy and stay at home.
If it works that way... (Score:5, Funny)
So many mistakes... (Score:5, Insightful)
This only covers the first 1/4 of the speech. Again, I'm disgusted by the skewed view of the entire debate that is being presented. This results from either paying little to no attention to what is going on, or an intentional misrepresentation in order to garner the favor of a particular industry. In either case, it's not a good place from which to start setting social policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Tit for tat (Score:2)
Written by Gordon Brown's PR firm? (Score:3, Funny)
And here comes this, a gift from heaven pointing out his opponent as a right fool. Coincidence? I think not. A PR firm worth the hefty fees and future House of Lords appointments they will get? That's more like it!
Forfeit copyright for non-compliance? (Score:2)
Wow they really want my vote (Score:2)
BTW the conservatives are the opposition and aren't in government.
I am a writer and I object to 50 years. (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, that generally only pumps up your profit for an additional 5-10 years.
After 20 years on sale, your profit is practically nothing ... UNLESS you wrote a masterpiece.
But if you wrote a masterpiece then:
1. You probably got rich by then anyway.
2. The public wants you to WRITE ANOTHER ONE
3. A sequel/new book would earn a ton more money and also can pump up sales of the first thing.
Net Net, it is in the PUBLIC'S interest that after just 10 years, copyrights run out. AND it does not significantly affect any creator's income.
The real reason why we have copyright laws over 10 years is not for the writer, but instead for the major corporations that can make money lots of tiny sales 15, 20 or 50 years after creation of the author. It is pretty much ONLY them that really benefit, at the expense of society by a LOT.
Now, there is one other factor - derivative work. Movies based on books etc. That kind of thing it is reasonable to allow the original writer to retain. But honestly it should ALWAYS be the original writer, i.e. the right should not be saleable. That prevents them from selling it to a corp for a quick profit and then having the corp. massacre their work. By requirin the original actual author to give always give consent, we can increase the quality of the work.
It's a Beatles thing (Score:2)
Having said that, there's no reason why politicians should feel the need to ask industries if they please, wouldn't mind, curbing some of their more extreme behaviour. If the public voted for them, just pass a law.
Re: (Score:2)
These guys aren't just trying to deal $100 damage to the public interest (by taking a work that might have been popular if it were available for free & legally sharable) to make an extra $1 (by getting that occasional purchase of the restricted work). They would eliminate all sharing of information (with the exception of their advertising) if they could get away with it, because free information might compete with yo
Wait, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Retroactive changes... (Score:3, Interesting)
So the music industry want to retroactively change the terms of the license. Thing is we already have already aggreed a contract. In particular I have a number of spoken word audiobooks, the original text of which is long out of copyright. I had a reasonably expectation when I purchased those audiobooks that the copyright on the recording of the books would lapse 50 years after it was made. I have made special note of the dates, and fully intend when the 50 years is up to release these professionally made recordings by leading performers on the internet (or equivalent) free for all.
What gives them the right to change the terms of that implied contract, and can I demand my money back? Alternatively if they have broken the contract can I just ignore it as well?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But authors are, too. When I publish something and assign the copyright to the publisher (in exchange for whatever terms), it is with the knowledge
Translation: (Score:3, Insightful)
Orwellian Politics (Score:4, Insightful)
The world had it's taste of freedom (Score:2)
Profit for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly backwards (Score:4, Interesting)
The proof of this? Compare the musical offerings of small, independent labels to that of the majors. There is proportionately far less lowest-denominator sexuality, gangsta worship, women-hatred - and there's far more actual aural art as compared to the cheap sonic wallpaper the big labels prefer to sell us. The same differences can be found between the offerings of the small presses and the big publishing houses. And when the small recording labels and presses do release something with sex or violence featured, it's usually of much greater artistic worth, and doesn't trivialize either the sex or the violence the way the big corporations prefer to.
Unfettered capitalism by smaller players is the cure to our cultural failings. But they will not prosper as long as government regulation tilts the field towards the largest corporate interests. Long copyright terms are one brick in the wall preventing the free flourishing of the arts. And it's the lack of better-done art which leaves the public hungry enough to accept the empty calories the large, government-favored firms want to sell. Those empty calories will inevitably be dressed up in sex and violence, because the higher, more mindful forms of expression require levels of art largely incompatible with corporate packaging, and in any case tend to contribute to unwelcome challenges to the dumbed-down public mentality which proves so pliable to our political and corporate masters.
You'd think a Conservative in Britain would realize that this current regime is playing mostly into the hands of New Labor, and that a return to the more conservative form of capitalism, where small players are encouraged to do their entrepreneurial best, and corporations towards the monopolistic end of the spectrum are restrained or even broken up by government, rather than treated as its special partners - which is the very neo-fascism that New Labor has led Britain into.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy how do you keep it as small to medium players? Companies merge. A new industry starts, many small players. Some rise to the top others drop out. Capitalism at its best. However, those now at the top want to stay there and start buying small players. After a while, you are left with one or two huge corps that become abusive of their position and have tons of cash to bribe politicians. Lather, rinse repeat.
so (Score:2)
no brit punk?
The joy of government. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do they think they're enitled to this? (Score:2)
How about "We the people will LET you keep any copyright so long as you quit peddling shit music!"
The government may not get what it wants (Score:2)
Re:BPI name change - no no no no no no no (Score:2)
BPI along with FCUK [sic] are doing very well with the names they have.
Re: (Score:2)