ISP Filters & Copyright Extension Defeated In EU 211
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Last November, EU regulators in the European Parliament's Committee on Culture and Education began looking at how culture affects the economy and recommended a 'balance between the opportunities for access to cultural events and content and intellectual property' saying that 'criminalizing consumers so as to combat digital piracy is not the right solution.' Industry lobbyists, of course, immediately sprang into action to try to turn that around, writing amendments that would set up mandatory ISP copyright filters and extend EU copyrights to match the USA's life-plus-70 term. Thankfully, the committee rejected all of those amendments: 'Clearly, they're not going to let the ITRE or the European recording industry push them around, which is great news for Europeans. Now if we could only get the US Congress to show as much spine as the French (ouch).'"
Life+70 is just obscene (Score:5, Insightful)
Human lifespans will soon double. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But here's some good news: more and more old books and music will go public-domain in Europe, and will be available for order at a reasonable cost — or
Re:Life+70 is just obscene (Score:5, Interesting)
My greatest fear however is still that an effective DRM mechanism will add massively to the usual problems involved in the long term accessibility of culturally relevant material. After all DRM doesnt (currently) recognise or pay heed to the copyright status of the work it protects.
Re: (Score:2)
It can only get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the battle over "Winnie the Pooh":
http://iblsjournal.typepad.com/illinois_business_law_soc/2006/03/winnie_the_pooh.html [typepad.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- Author's life + 70 minutes for everyone who isn't Disney
- Author's life + 70 centuries for Disney
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now for a n
Re:Life+70 is just obscene (Score:4, Insightful)
You are right, it is not an evil, it is a potential problem and an inconvenience. I don't know about you but I don't have a single piece of media that I haven't paid for (or been given), primarily because I do think that people who produce things I want to see/listen to deserve to be compensated, also I would find it rather difficult to argue for copyright reform and yet ignore the law as it stands.
What I am guilty of in my previous point (and it is probably clear that this is the case given the fact its currently +4 insightful) is sensationalism, the term evil is there simply for its impact. It is a game played by politicians and in the context of any copyright debate, the media industry. I apologise for its use here, although I will probably use it again in a similar context as it does suit my purposes rather well and is probably the only method of combating the opposition if they are using the same tactics.
Now, as for having every film (or other piece of digital media) in any format you desire, well that is probably an accurate description of what I want. I want to be able to buy a film and format shift it as I see fit, mainly because when I buy a CD or a DVD I am buying a piece of media with data on it and for the first time this means that format shifting and portability are built right into the format. I do not see a problem, nor an valid argument that is persuasive in explaining why I should not be able to use any media I have purchased in any manner I see fit, as long as it is for personal use and I am not re-distributing work that is subject to copyright.
However what is happening is that artificial barriers are being put in place, primarily to encourage repeated repurchases of the same material on different (or even the same) media, these barriers have other consequences, they limit the longevity of the material purchased. sure you could argue that a VHS tape or Vinyl record are also not necessarily long lasting, but this is a problem inherent to the format, something not true of media distributed in a digital manner.
Lastly DRM really will limit the way digital material falls into the public domain. If there were no DRM at all, when $film falls out of copyright in 500 years (given the current trends...
Anyway, I feel that this is potentially quite damaging, I also feel that it sets a trend toward corporate control of things purchased by a consumer, it shows a lack of consumer rights (albeit coupled with current consumer ambivalence and apathy), so I would say its a bad thing for us all, although, as you rightly pointed out it is not evil (The misuse of the term evil and similar terms (disaster springs to mind) probably is to blame for the fact that people are simply not aware of, or interested in current acts that really are evil, things like genocide, misleading propaganda that leads to unjustifiable war, torture and the gradual but systemic erosion of freedoms and civil liberties worldwide. As such I will try not to misuse it if I can avoid it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Life+70 is just obscene (Score:4, Insightful)
For example I recently tried to play red alert 2 under crossover on OS X, but every time I play, my units blow up 30 seconds in. Apparently this is a form of copy protection, one which I have no idea how to fix. I have paid for this game, admittedly, it was a few years ago, but I the only thing stopping me play this game is short sighted DRM.
Chastity Bono? Three strikes. (Score:2)
The real problem is that every time some valuable copyrights threaten to expire, congress extends the term. And here's what's obscene: the Supereme Court's inability to grasp that endless extensions abrogate the Constitution's requirement that copyrights be "for limited times".
The opinion of that court in Eldred v. Ashcroft stated that a pattern of extension, enacted with intent to make copyright perpetual, is not constitutional. The court upheld the Bono Act because it and the Copyright Act of 1976 were not enough evidence of an intentional pattern. But as I read it, the court left itself room to overturn a subsequent extension that would more clearly establish such a pattern, such as a Chastity Bono Act of 2018.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially since I discovered this week what MacroVision means. One does then have a collection of Disney videos.
Oh, and it is not as if these videos are of high quality. It is just this year that I set up Peter Pan for my daughter (a video that I owned already a couple of years, but never played before). I think I must have played maybe 20 to 30 times. Two weeks ago, the tape broke, luckily at the beginning. We have repaired it with the goal of recording it on DVD : no go due to Macrovision. Well, I let i
Re:Life+70 is just obscene (Score:5, Informative)
If you're really interested in preserving those tapes, i'd suggest using a TV tuner/video capture card.. an old SD card will do fine.. you just have to be able to make sure that you can manually configure (or disable) the gain control. Of course, i imagine some cards will just ignore the macrovision system..
unfortunately, YMMV Wildly... I recommend reading this [biline.ca].. should help a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
</dweeb>
show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Funny)
You don't understand. Those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys CAVED IN to the Evil Terrorist Content Pirates[tm].
Clearly we must support our patriotic "content producers" to defeat the evildoers.
</SARCASM>
Re:show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Insightful)
When was the last time anyone aside from the consumer expressed that view so blatantly? When was the last time anyone in government expressed that view? The two together is just about as close to Christmas in January as you can get - and I'm not just saying that 'cause I'm a Jew...
Re:show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Insightful)
My worry is that once the EU settles down and ceases to be about member nations haggling for power and influence, that the lobbyists and other 'usual suspects' of corporate power achieve some level of patronage and influence. The only really surprising thing is that given how unaccountable the whole EU system seems at present, that it hasn't happened already.
But then I am a pessimist, happy Hanukkah.
Re:show as much spine as the French (Score:5, Informative)
Up until now, the xIAA thought to save money by just lobbying the commission. I expect that during the next EU parliamentary elections, the entertainment lobbies will try to shift the power balance in the elected parliament to get their way. It remains to be seen if they will succeed.
The local European movie industries aren't as interested in DMCA restrictions: the DMCA is about controlling distribution and the MPAA member corporations' grip on US and European theatre and distribution channels has smothered local production in many countries. The MPAA don't do enough European filming to have the associated fiscal/employment clout they do in North America. Let's face it, the US Dollar doesn't go as far as it used to either, so that's not going to help either situation. The music business has similar issues outside of England.
Because there isn't as much justifiable financial European interest in copyright changes as there is in the US, MPs who support those changes will be vulnerable to charges of corruption by US interests. The US is currently perceived quite disfavourably by many in Europe, so that's likely to limit change for quite a few years even if a Democrat gets elected President and starts undoing the damage done by the Bush Administration to the USA's overseas reputation.
On the other hand, there's always hope that, before the European political landscape can shift, the financial clout of the RIAA and MPAA will be much diminished.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, although the commission also does a few good things. After all, they are the ones usually involved in complaints about Microsoft abusing its monopoly powers.
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me make a second guess... You don't understand why indie producers make a profit on sites where you can also download their music.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
all for me! scrEW EVERYONE ELSE!
i took some lessons from big business..
STEAL ANYTHING THAT IS NOT NAILED DOWN!
GREED IS GOOD!
I WANT MINE!
HUMAN LIFE IS WORTH NOTHING!
EMPLOYEES ARE NOT WORTH A DAMM!
CONTENT CREATORS ARE FOR BENDING OVER THE TABLE!
ALL THAT MATTERS IS *MY* BOTTOM LINE.
LOOT, PLUNDER, STEAL!
EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH!
HE WHO DIES WITH THE MOST TOYS WINS!
So fuck you. and fuck all the companys who taught me this lesson. I know no loyalty now!
What... that wasnt the lesson i
Re: (Score:2)
As a US citizen I find our government lacking (Score:5, Interesting)
The worst response reward goes to Barbara Boxer. When I contacted her regarding proposed legislation that was intended to further erode fair use and hand more of the public rights to the media companies I got a form letter in reply. That form letter thanked me for my letter and let me know that Barbara Boxer was listening and fully intended to support the legislation that I was writing about (and against).
I don't expect any representative to do what I wish - but it would be nice if they took a few moments to actually READ and maybe THINK a little about what the people they supposedly represent are thinking. Ms. Boxer has clearly identified herself as being on the side of further abuses by the media companies - I don't know about other "representatives" but this one clearly does NOT represent the people who elected her.
Re:As a US citizen I find our government lacking (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think that you put people in office to do what you would do, then you're sorely missing the point of a republic. They're in place because we (theoretically) value their (hypothetical) decisionmaking abilities and they best reflect the () values of those electing said representative. We send people to Washington as trustees, not as mouthpieces, because the people rarely speak with one voice and the Framers were deathly afraid of the masses.
If you don't like the values of the representative, get a different representative. Don't whine about media control or interest groups or the "myth of two different parties"--if the people wanted something else, they'd have it. The fact that they don't generally give a crap is just part of the reality of our society, and in true democratic fashion, they get an equal voice for their apathy, pound for pound.
I'm sorry, I forgot you said Boxer--make that 37M (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only representative that shares your policy positions on all the issues is yourself. The chances of finding an "ideal" candidate are slim to none. Candidates will seek the broadest base of support they can find, both to maximize fundraising and to seek an electoral mandate. As a result, the issues candidates take positions on are the ones most important to the electorate mixed with those most important to the nation (insert your own conspiracy theory about what guides g
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. This is a hair off-topic, but I contacted my Senator (Herb Kohl) regarding the telecom immunity and he responded promptly, politely, and on-point. He told me he also did not think the telecoms needed immunity (i.e., they've said they did no wrong, so clearly they need no immunity from not doing wrong).
My point is that it does influence your representatives if you call their office and/or mail them. You won't talk to El Jefe, but you will talk to someone who will help shape El Jefe'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, having a lot of constituents does not justify sending them form letters. Ignore them quietly if you wish, but sending them a load of propaganda only works on... the kind of people that voted her into office. Ok, point made, but it's still insulting.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
All of them. Every last one. And if she can't meet the standards
Unfortunately, God isn't available. As long as there is a constituency of two, it's impossible to do as you require.
The problem is, your republic is a piece of shit
Actually, it's working exactly as designed.
What you need is a representative democracy.
Yeah, because that is not only (a) realistic and (b) would fix anything...oh, haha, I forgot we lived in the real world for a minute there. It's much simpler than that. What we "need" is informed participation. Without that, no government system is going to make any difference.
You are unspeakably naive.
On the contrary, you're simply a vacuous sophist.
In short, you're [sic] entire way of thinking is part of the very problem we face. Have some ambition.
It's not a questi
Re: (Score:2)
For anybody who has been living under a rock, there is a US presidential election underway. There may be no better opportunity to bring these things to the forefront and make the candidates publicly show their hand as to where they stand on these issues. We have to know who is isn't owned by the copyright cartels. Given her husband signed the DMCA into law, I wouldn't put much faith in Hillary. (And don't say he had to - the president has something called a VETO which can be overridden, but requires a l
Congress? Phooey. (Score:2)
Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The copyright must be registered
2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
4. At time of registration a term can be chosen, and an appropriate fee paid.
5. A reasonable number of extensions (say, three) are permitted, provided a new fee is paid.
6. A set of standard royalties for a common class of work (say, songs) should be decided, and made available to anyone who cares to pay the standard rate.
7. Willful royalty evasion justifies reasonable punitive damages (say, 3 times the standard royalty), nothing else does.
8. Indoctrinated fair use should be ratified by international treaty and be recognized as a means to end a complaint pre-trial.
And that's about the bare minimum needed to make copyright fit for the intended purpose of encouraging the science and the useful arts. It still doesn't make copyright just but it would at least make it something people would be willing to respect.
Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think any of that kills open source, then I suspect you are confusing open source with copyleft. Even if you abolished copyright altogether, open source software would remain. It is copyleft licenses like the GPL that depend upon copyright to operate.
Re: (Score:2)
Also even the BSD takes advantage of copyrights for both keeping the original authors listed and removing liability. People don't often make their work public domain or with truly no strings attached. It would kill what people nowadays consider to be open source software in most regards and not replace it with anything equivalent.
No, just GPL (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
a fixed length, long enough for the creator to have the opportunity to profit (and hence be motivated to create more),
And therefore, by your own justification for the duration of the term, it should expire when the person dies - or, for that matter becomes unable to produce more works of the same type, by say:
1. they lose their mind
2. are imprisoned
3. go missing
or even, that they are so damn rich that a profit motive is unlikely to be effective anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here, I'll make your argument for you: if working on science and the arts will most likely result in a revenue stream for your heirs then people who care greatly for their heirs future riches will stop working 'normal jobs' and take up working on science and the arts, therefore promoting it, which is the goal of copyright.
To which I have to ask, will the number of people switc
Re: (Score:2)
How does a "normal job" result in a revenue stream for your heirs after you die?
The point here is that the author or his family gets money for the work that was done. A normal job gives you a regular pay check each month, if you die, your heir will get what is left. Writing a book on the other side might not give you a penny until after it is finished and published, if you die before that, your family would never get to see any money from that work, all the work would become worthless.
And also lets not forget that death isn't always random, some people are old, some are ill and some o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the creator didn't get it together to publish their creative work during their lifetime
The problem here is that the big publishers probably won't take the work in the authors lifetime if the author is old or sick and thus expected to not life much longer. It is cheaper for them to wait for the death, then to pay for the work now. This is not exactly behavior that I would like to encourage.
A copyright reform should give the small guy, those who actually created the work, more rights, not the big cooperations more reasons to screw them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
mods, cut me some slack and mod other people up instead of modding me down!
Quantum, it's past midnight and you're no less than five (well, I didn't count) posts deep on a single thread! Cut back on the caffeine, man! :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It should definitely not be tied to the life of the creator, after all it may be seen in some quarters as an acceptable risk to kill someone in order to remove copyright protection :) .
Plus it just complicates figuring out if the content is in or out of the public domain. You have to determine if the creator is still alive, after all. Dates are much more reliable.
Also, if there must be additional registration periods (bad idea, see above) the fee should increase exponentially each time, to discourage sq
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You obviously have no children (Score:2)
One thing I believe about the law is that is should follow nature, and it is natural to extend copyright beyond a lifetime (though not necessarily longer than a few generations (ca. 30 yea
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You obviously have no children (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, like most people, you can invest some of the money you make during your lifetime, from copyrighted works or otherwise, and leave that as part of your estate. Life insurance helps as well.
Why must copyrights be life insurance? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I see problems with this. First, a multi-platinum artist would get paid the same for a limited number of plays as some artist that never went gold. OK, maybe you think that's a good idea. The second part takes away control from the artist. Their song could be used to promote Nazism (everyone hates Nazis) and legally they have no recourse. You could sabotag
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what the objection to implicit copyright is in the first place. Perhaps it's to stop people from being able to sign their copyrights over to holders (like a movie studio), but that kills the concept of work-for-hire. Most Hollywood writers don't work-for-hire anyw
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Now is the time for reform (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as I can see, your proposal is worse than the status quo in every way imaginable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The copyright must be registered
At present, every blog post, every comment on Slashdot, every image I use in my site design, receives copyright protection automatically. You've just destroyed that. Oh, and Creative Commons with it.
And made the public domain a much larger space, thereby removing the problem that CC was supposed to solve.
2. An actual person must be named (just like with patents)
Just destroyed any right to privacy.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if someone wants to make money from, say, a copyright, they should be identifiable (or have an identifiable agent) as the author of that work.
3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
So if I work hard building - let's say - boats, and one day I drop dead of a heart attack, my children inherit the boats and can sell them. But if I work hard designing boats, my kids starve?
No. Because you worked hard designing boats, you earned money which you can now pass on to your children. Equally, the boat-builder earned boats which he can pass on to his children. Whether you invest in boats or
Different opinion, plus confusion (Score:2, Insightful)
Point 2 demonstrates a frighteningly narrow view of privacy. The "right" of a worker in a big corporation not to get credit for his work is equated with "all of privacy". Scary stuff.
Point 3 is fairy tale, both the person who build boats, and the person who design boats for a living, sell the boats/designs. There is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
9. The work to be copyrighted must actually further the arts and the sciences as per the constitution.
Now that one really does scare the crap out of the pigopolists. Don't play nice and we will get the christian right to decide what work should have the protection of copyright and what work should not have any protection at all.
Re: (Score:2)
This, ironically, makes it more difficult for a living artist to receive compensation for his work. For one thing, it reduces the utility to anyone he might transfer the copyright to in exchange for a bunch of money right now. Which many artists might like to do that have few resources and no desire to market their work themselves.
Not to mention that as artists age,
Re: (Score:2)
BTW - why do you continue to use terms like "artist" when we're talking about copyright? Copyright covers a hell of a lot more works than those created by so
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that those who contribute the most to society are afforded the fewest benefits under the 'promote the useful arts and sciences' clause.
Still,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, while I broadly agree with your other proposals, this one has some problems. For instance, an elderly, or ill, author, or one involved in dangerous sports like mountain climbing, would have a hard time finding a publisher, as they would be afraid that their investment in advances and publishing costs would not have time to pay off before the copyright went
Re: (Score:2)
3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
Do you hear that? It's the sound of hired goons stroking their weapons. What creative person in their right mind would want to provide a motive for their own murder? BTW, I didn't write any of this. I left my laptop for a few minutes in the coffee shop and some homeless guy came up and used it.
Re:Rather than abuse of Copyright (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain the big difference you see between copyright lasting until the death of the author and copyright lasting 70 years after the death of the author as is currently the case.
Do you expect record companies to hire killers to kill artists to avoid paying? Do you know that in most cases the recording contracts mean that the recording company gets money from the performing artist (to pay "expenses") and not the other way around?
Re: (Score:2)
70 years after the death of the author is basically meaningless. All it means it that nothing of the work created today will be public domain in our lifetime, which is very close to 'never' and the next copyright reform will surely come before the end of those 70 years, so the chance of that 70 years ever getting applied p
Re: (Score:2)
For the US see:
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm [unc.edu]
Provocative Video (Score:2)
I came acrossthis video [google.com] the other day. It talks about the economics of culture. I found it thought provoking and figure it will add to the discussion.
Disclaimer: the lecturer is an Austrian School follower and the talk was held by the von Mises Insitution, so most people, including myself, will disagree wi
Good news (Score:3, Informative)
Although this is far from as important as a vote on a EU directive, I think this is good news.
Unfortunately there is no information on exactly which amendments were rejected. In particular I was worried about amendment 80 (which TFA implies is rejected), amendment 82 (extension of protection time for related rights), and amendments 81 and 83 that looks like a requirement that educational institutions should proliferate the propaganda of MAFIAA.
As for the extension of copyright protection time: This is the same in Europe as in the USA. But in the EU the protection of recording artists and whoever makes the recording is limited to 50 years. There has been big pressure in particular in the UK to extend this, but this has been rejected as not being helpful to cultural development. I am glad that this first attempt by the copyright lobby to force EU member countries to adopt legislation they do not want has failed.
Oh, BTW here is a link [europa.eu] to the prosed amendments voted on tuesday.
USCongress::EUParliment as Kindergarten::College (Score:3, Funny)
EU politicians serve the national interest, US politicians serve private interest.
The public/citizens hope that the national/private interest will provide some trickle-down benefits.
So, US citizens get neither national/personal security, nor economic/infrastructure stability.
Dogma4US is a sacrificial religious cult, much like Catholic
As long as you (citizen) suffer/sacrifice and not me (politician/plutocrat)
About point number 1 ... (Score:2)
Got that backwards (Score:2)
The US politicians are incredibly smart. They work in an incredibly complex ever changing system in a melting pot of a country to get elected in a crazy election system, and make and pass incredibly complex and sophisticated laws.
The problem with the american system is not their intelligence, it's morals and their motivation. They write laws for the corporation, not for the people. They haven't written a real law for the people in a
technical problem (Score:3, Insightful)
tagging (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't life+70 come from Europe? (Score:2)
IIRC, the standard excuse for life+70 was that it was the Berne convention. The phrase "harmonization with Europe" was used to defend it. So what's all this about the US being the one driving life+70? Yes, it was Bono, Valenti et. al., who drove it; but life+70 wasn't their original creation, was it?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, what the fuck is up with this shit? Can't we do something about these 'nigger' trolls OTHER than reading at +1 only?
Believe it or not, but this is what most online forums look like. The only difference is that most other forums have a "report this" button with moderators that'll nuke it. Not editors mind you, usually some kind of recruited user moderators and that brings a whole new level of noise as well. I like the fact that the worst you can do with a comment on slashdot is mod it to -1, which means there's still a chance people will see it. Still, I'm sure there's way to tweak it, maybe differentiating mod points fo