Since current attitudes to copyright enforcement are failing artists and alienating the public, “we need to stop obsessing” about it, according to European Commission VP for the Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes. In a speech given to the Forum D’Avignon on Saturday November 19, Kroes looked underneath the high-profile rich artists …
" If you do not like the law, either get it changed or go and live somewhere different."
Could you please tell me where I can get the law changed, is there a telephone number I can ring up or something?
As for "somewhere different", please point me in the direction of a large continuous land-mass that doesn't require a passport or registration documents and not controlled by some authoritarian regime I will happily leave you and your masters to get on with it and choose to live in freedom.
Alternatively, if you could find someplace else for you and all the other people of your ilk to and live together and compete to enslave and make the most profit out of each other, then perhaps we can make alternative arragements for you to leave instead.
I have already disregarded copyright law for media that is over 15 years old. Call me a freetard, a thief, whatever... I don't care. The fact is that our culture is being locked away from us and held ransom. The contract has already been broken.
Stupid woman is stupid.
This woman is as stupid as she can be.
She says: "In that context, 'copyright as it now stands is failing to deliver the economic rewards that are supposed to be its aim'". Well yeah, it *is* going to fail to deliver economic the economic rewards it is supposed to be its aim if copyright is not being enforced and Google and similar entities are raking in hundreds of millions by either encouraging or directly engaging in copyright infringement. Don't be so fucking thick, okay?
At the same time, “citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it..”
How do YOU know what citizens think about *anything*? I haven't exactly heard about the general public clamoring for relaxed copyright laws - except perhaps on certain websites that offer their visitors the opportunity to leave comments. There is no reason to think that they are representative of the general public. If it was hot topic, why hasn't *any* major political party attempted to capitalize on it, eh?
Since there have been studies done that show that most people do in fact feel that copyright should be enforced, we have to suspect that the truth might be exactly contrary to what Kroes says.
"Many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognize and reward." Maybe kind of like how the legal requirement to pay for merchandise before you leave the store is also a "tool to punish and withhold, and not a tool to recognize and reward"?
One can hardly be more half-witted than this stupid woman.
"One can hardly be more half-witted than this stupid woman."
Oh I don't know... you seemed to manage it.
It might not of been the most articulate clump of words to ever come out of a politicians mouth, but it seemed pretty reasonable.
I'm not sure exactly what google and co are doing to earn your ire but if its to do with them trying to document and index everything then I don't see why it ties you in knots, indexing is fair use, without indexes how do you find things?
I think the context she was referring to was artists getting paid, as opposed to middle men.
You might not of heard anyone clamoring for anything, but why would you have? She's a minister dealing with these issues, and I'm sure 'the public' can make their voices heard by say emailing or posting her office. I'm sorry 'the public' aren't beating a path to your door with their copyright complaints or compliments, but you chose not to be a public representative, and that doesn't give you a strong position to talk about 'the public'.
I don't know what studies you are referring to, but as you say, people do feel that copyright should be enforced, and quite possibly they are referring to the clause stating that after a period of 28 years works become public domain, shocking no? That or they support the consistent extension of copyright beyond its original purpose and believe no individual should be allowed to own their works based on the fact that the middle men need more money, again shocking, no?
Without the study there isn't a chance I can agree or disagree with you. All I can say is I haven't read a single study that supports criminal punishments for individuals breaching copyright laws for personal use, something that your post gives me the impression you support.
Your complete rework of the punish and withhold vs recognise and reward bit is daft. So there's a legal requirement to pay for merchandise before you leave the store. Punish and withhold in that sense would be increase punishment for non payment and restrict use of goods to scenarios approved by the merchant - ie you need milk? Buy it or shoplift it and face 30 years jail and/or $1,000 per mL fine, oh and to use the milk you need a merchant milk pouring system that meters milk out at 250ml per hour and requires the milk you purchase to come from an approved list of regions for the pouring system.
A recognise and reward system may possibly work as a farmers market where the farmer is offered a far more reasonable return per liter and the punters get to buy the milk in any arrangement of quantities they can sort with the stall owner.
Funnily enough I was going to say I was being hyperbolic with the punishment and restrictions side of it, but it turns out that was based on the system for dvd's, where you're forced through screens of bullshit in order to watch a movie, all region'ised for no good reason. The fines too are a leaf out of the music industries book.
And hey the milk scenario is actual theft, where merchants are being physically deprived of goods without payment, vs a dvd, where even modifying your own equipment to skip their bullshit on a disc you supposedly own is illegal.
While I believe copyright should exist as a mechanism to ensure an artist is rewarded, I believe the middlemen shouldn't be rewarded for the work of others. Compensated yes, but only based on the risk they took with the artist and not particularly further. In all instances copyright should only for a general release period, 14 years even seems rather long in this consumer culture but that would be fine. You can renew it if its still a valuable work. This should apply to patents too, for good measure. If you only have one idea in your life you'll get at best 28 years from it, sounds more than reasonable.
Oh and lastly, thanks to this copyright idea, there exists a duty on all CD/DVD media I can buy in Australia. Essentially I'm being called a copyright non conformist every time I buy media, and this duty is supposed to reward the artists who are having their works unjustly copied. So why do I need to pay them via any other means? Of course its the middle men pocketing the loot and using that to pay their way to get more agreements to further protect their business.
studies?? what studies??
Quote your sources or be exposed as an astroturfer.
While looking for the link you may like to consider the sentance....
'I haven't exactly heard about the general public clamoring for relaxed copyright laws - except perhaps on certain websites that offer their visitors the opportunity to leave comments'
Which as I read it says in effect - you havent heard people complain about copyright anywhere, except the places where they were able to complain about it.
So with no opportunity to complain, people dont complain (you didnt work for the bush administration by any chance?) - brilliant.
Sure compared to the wars, AIDS, poverty, the middle east, climate change and such like it's not a big deal, true, but it is a deal nonetheless
Oh! and another thing;
Neelie Kroes was an elected representative for 18 years - i know nothing about her beliefs, and very little about the political system used in the netherlands, but i very strongly suspect that she would have had to win a few elections at least to manage to serve for 18 years.
how many elections have you won? what is your mandate?
I thought so.
Kroes is not elected to her post. The OP is correct and you're trying to change the subject.
Get your facts straight mate.
I did, now it's your turn
She served as a Member of the House of Representatives from 3 August 1971 until 28 December 1977 when she became State Secretary for Transport, Public Works and Water Management from 28 December 1977 until 11 September 1981, in the Cabinet Van Agt I. And again a Member of the House of Representatives from 27 August 1981 until 4 November 1982, when she became Minister of Transport, Public Works and Water Management from 4 November 1982 until 7 November 1989, in the Cabinets Lubbers I and II.
since then not so much
but for that 18 years, she was elected - as i correctly stated and you kinda failed to understand.
Oh here's one!
Oh here's one right here - and you don't even have to leave this site to read about it:
And note particularly please that this survey was commissioned by Google, who make many many millions of dollars by copyright infringement.
There are other similar surveys asking respondents whether, for example, loss of internet connectivity is a suitable penalty for copyright infringement, and you should be able to find them without too much effort.
@AC, you're wrong, Goat Jam is not "whining" because they want stuff for free. They are pointing out that the point of copyright is, as the US Constitution puts it "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Some corporation continuing to continue to pull in money decades after the artist has died, does not promote progress in any way whatsoever. A specific part of copyright is supposed to be a robust public domain, so people can build upon the work of those who came before them; this is essentially non-existant now.
And these royalty collecting groups -- it's remarkable on how they can find every trick in the book to pull in money, but when it comes time to pay it out to the artists, they mysteriously "can't find" them.
Finally, there's no "stealing" being discussed here, stealing takes something away from somebody and deprives them of the use of it. Making a copy is (perhaps) copyright infringement, or perhaps fair use.
As for the actual article -- I found it rather interesting. The fact of the matter is, a workable system could certainly be come up that
1) Acknowledge that quite a few people are going to copy this stuff. Increasingly draconian digital rights restrictions just piss off the legitimate customers, making them less likely to buy in the future.
2) Does take advantage of modern technology. For instance, if the royalty collection agencies a) quit "not finding" their artists... if you really can't, make it easier for the artists to give you contact info. b) Attempted to implement an attractive micropayment option -- they would turn currently non-paying people into paying customers, and by sheer get more money to the artists than they do now. I for one would not mind at all tallying up how many music or video files I have from each artist, paying a few cents apiece, sending the tenner or whatever to the royalty agency in the knowledge it'll be properly distributed to those artists. Cory Doctorow makes considerably more money now, from people who don't pay a cent for his paper or electronic book, but download it for free then donate him money, than he ever did as a conventional publisher.
Well the obvious answer is that if they cant find the artist to pass on the royalties then they should stop collecting them for that artist. Call it part of the auditing process.
If you are taking money to be passed on to another person despite knowing that you cannot complete that part then it is taking money under false pretenses ie Fraud.
Would have one of two outcomes, either the artist is magically found or they get the law changed to specifically allow them to retain 'orphan' royalties, perhaps Google could advise them on that.
How to get the dogsbody artists and workers paid?
Perhaps the biggest problem is how to get decent pay into the hands of the hard working lesser known majority of 'artist workers' - particulary in the case of movies, but also for the authors, composers, lyricists, etc, whose work is more easily digitized.
I know that many people hate the large corporations who make money at those artists' expense, hell, I'm one of them, and we need to limit copyright protection periods so that back catalogue cannot be the only stuff on offer, if only to encourage the creation of new material.
But I also realize that somewhere in the 'system' the artists need to be professionals, that is, making a living from their work. Without copyright, how do they protect their work? If it's given away for free, how do they make a living and so continue to produce their work? Advertising isn't cutting it, and I'm loathe to see a return to a time where the only money around is from rich people and corporations deigning to give grants to a chosen few. Also, what works in software such as a piece of software being 'free' for personal use but effectively subsidized by the corporate version, doesn't work in general media.
So how do the artists get paid?
Re: So how do the artists get paid?
How about by performing their works LIVE to paying punters...
Don't know why no-one else has thought of it.
So how do the artists get paid?
By accepting that private copying comes under higher law (human rights - the right to privacy of communications) than copyright and accepting a sales commission from the commerce legitimised by acknowledging this fact.
That would work a bit like the way musicians get a slice from commercial radio or when music is played in a public place like a clothes shop or restaurant. But these mechanisms don't give musicians any right to know when I listen to or record from the radio, or where I buy my clothes or eat out. If they can get a couple of pennies from the cost of a meal or garment, I don't see why they shouldn't get a commission from the sale of a high speed network connection already openly advertised as capable of downloading X songs and Y movies.
Happy to respect their rights to a cut of what I pay for the service once they start respecting my right to privacy of communications.
We don't need no steekin' copyright!
People copy because
The cost of the commercially sold product is too high and is encumbered with unreasonable restrictions on what a user may do with it. This is in part because of DRM and proprietary formats & encryption that restrict your ability to do what you like with your content. But also because it's not your content - you only own a licence to the content, not the content itself. So you can't sell content second hand to offset the cost of new purchases, or lend it, or simply give it away.
I suggest if the EU wants to do something useful here, they should produce a legal definition of digital property and oblige vendors to conform to the definition. And crackdown on content providers / vendors colluding on price fixing which is why the price of digital content is virtually uniform (and uniformly expensive) from one store to the next right now. Once vendors find themselves having to compete with each other and a second hand market, sales would come down. And in turn, piracy would be too.
People hate copyright?
I don't agree. People may not *care* - but they don't hate it.
Most amatuer software devs would soon get pissed off if their pet project that they were trying to sell online through their website got copied and TARd on a torrent site. The irony of the fact that they have a hard drive full of ripped off music would be lost on them, however.
Let's face it - most of us are hypocrites.
Well, if you value anything that little...
Always amazes me. Each time "copyright" is mentioned, a mass of hissing and boo-ing reverberates the hallowed walls of El Reg, et al.
Responses from other AC's such as "Mostly, I just torrent the DVD rip, then buy the DVD if it's any good..." typify the general sense that "it exists, so it's MY RIGHT to hear/watch/possess it". Why is it your right? Nobody forces anybody to have to listen to or watch any particular music or film. Tempted by it? Heard snippets of it? Vying towards actually liking it? BUY IT.
And if you don't feel that an album is worth £6.99 (or whatever is asked - NOT demanded), DON'T buy it. But DON'T rip it off either.
It's a basic bit of logic that us techie people should understand.
Yes - some laws are an ass, but they are generally there for good reasons. I would love to have an Aston Martin on the drive. But have strangely never felt the need to smash and grab one from the local show room.
And you are probably wrong about the thought that just popped into your head - ripping digital goods does ultimately harm artists and businesses. I know from experience of having to look at the "till receipts" when another crack has been developed for our software.
Sadly the mentality is now that the majority of humans act like spoilt brats where "WANT" and "ME" are words rehearsed with vulgar regularity.
Aimed at the previously highlighted fellow AC: Until you've been in the situation of trying to make an honest living from digital goods having spent too many hours in the day creating, you'd probably never understand. Perhaps I'll help myself to the contents of your house one day. As a practising thief, you probably stole the silverware anyway ;-)
I approach it from the 'It exists and I'm interested in it but I don't want to part with my hard earned cash buying something that it may be difficult to get a refund on' mentality. Especially with the amount of bullshit you get about refunds on sealed items from many places.
You can test drive that aston martin and get a proper idea for how it handles on the road, fuel consumption, comfort etc before parting with your cash and buying one. However I can't remember finding anywhere online (apart from the rather wonderful Magnatune) that sells CD's or MP3 downloads that would allow me to listen to the entire album before buying it rather than mere 30 second clips which aren't enough to judge an entire song by.
So I torrent albums, then I buy or delete them and also go to gigs and make sure that the bands I like actually get a decent payment for their music rather than the shafting and the 0.001 pence per CD deal that they've usually been locked into by the record company scum.
@ AC 16:22
Thanks for saving me from typing the same retort to AC 10:35, although mine was going to be longer. I was half way through composing it when the cat decided to walk across my keyboard and somehow managed to delete everything. Bless her!
I am not anonymous, I am anomalous, and you can see all my posts by clicking my handle. You? Not so much...
The UKIP of tech sites publishes an article dissing copyright
What the hell happened.
After how many years, you are actually publicizing a criticism of copyright.
My world is crumbling around me..
Could you at least reassure me that Psion made the best handhelds ever.
"Why? Why should the children and grand children of these people continue to live the easy life based on works by their parents?"
It's called inheritence!
Tell you what, when your parents die*, we'll just give all their estate to the state, shall we? I mean, *why* should *you* get it?
* God forbid, and no offence intended. Just illustrating a point.
"It's called inheritence!"
No it's not, inheritance is receiving somebody's estate. Are you expecting to receive a payout from your parent's employer?
Then again, if you're the type of person that expects inheritance, it's always possible. As far as I'm concerned, inheritance is a "bonus" and should never be relied upon. It's money your parents have earned, and it's up to them what they do with it - just don't plan your life around it.
I think we should just start using the proper English term for pirates: Thieves.
If you 'pirate' copyrighted works, you're just a thief. Simple as that.
The self-righteous attitude on this forum has really really shocked me. People on here genuinely think they can just help themselves to other people's works. Absoultely astonishing.
You're a bunch of thieves. Simple as that.
Sorry wrong - had an interested conversation with a respected barrister who said the legal definition of theft would not include copyright infringement. You have not deprived anyone of any property so its not theft - so enough with the daft hyperbole already. That does not make it right and I would not want to shock you with my self righteous attitude too much.
An example - I used to download music and listen to it and if I liked it - buy the album. I found lots of new artists I really liked and undoubtedly bought a lot more music as I really hate it when I buy an album and it turns out to be rubbish. Absolutely wrong! I am an evil thief according to you... But now I don't need to do that, the music industry progressed and I can stream music from a number of places, listen to tracks legally and decide if I like the music and buy it with no 'thieving' download needed. Who was hurt by my immoral actions I wonder? Was it therefore immoral? Hard to answer without a philosophy degree.
There are always going to be people who download stuff for free and never pay - but they are vanishingly small compared to those that download and buy. So why do the MPAA etc punish those that buy legitimately to supposedly stop a small majority that probably would not buy the item in the first place if there was no free version? And by punish I mean make it impossible to flick past FBI warning / adverts on your DVD/bluray and add crappy DRM? I always rip mine to HDD to get rid of the crap -- or I download a pirated copy where someone has kindly done that for me - when I actually own the disc so I'll be on the next set of stats for all the 'billions' lost to piracy when I did buy the disc!
I'm not the only one - of all my friends those who buy the most digital media are also the most prolific downloaders. The industry will catch up eventually once they work out they are losing money on this daft witch hunt on their own customers.
"There are always going to be people who download stuff for free and never pay - but they are vanishingly small compared to those that download and buy."
Nearly coughed to death on that one! Are you referring to the residents of Milton Keynes (or some such middle class conurbation) or the wider world including, but not exclusively, China, India, Russia, etc.?
But yep - illegally downloading makes you a thief. Sorry to prick your - and your lawyer friends - bubble on that one. Taking what isn't yours - about sums up the definition of being a thief.
I don't buy recorded music/film/stuff. I suppose that makes me a thief?
I don't care, _I don't assign any value to recorded time_.
Sing me a song and I will pay to hear it, sing the same song to a recording device and sell me a copy of that, I _may_ pay the cost of reproduction of the digital bits or download them from the cheapest source, I certainly won't pay you what you spent to record it.
I'm an artist or was an artist or maybe still am. (is an artist always an artist, like a doctor/general is always a doctor/general even when retired)
If someone copies my work, is it my work or theirs? If some one registers a domain name that is the same as mine but with a hyphen, then copies my work for their site, is it mine or theirs, do I give a damn? (no is the answer to that, just check it and they've changed most but not all of it.)
Do I make a fortune, no, but do I enjoy making things, yes.
Do I enrich the world? I don't know, you'd have to ask others and maybe you could work part of that out by how much someone pays, if they don't pay maybe they don't assign it any value and that is why a 'pirate/thief' downloaded it, therefore I have lost nothing if the only value they assign to it is a moment of their time.
If they assign _that_ type of value, maybe I should be paying them, I think it's normal in our society to pay for someone's employment.
Maybe we should all send our employers a video of us doing work and then relax at home, why not get out your camera phone now.
"Taking what isn't yours - about sums up the definition of being a thief."
yeah - but it's copying, not taking.
Talking bollocks on an internet web site - about sums up the definition of being an idiot.
Google failure - how hard is it to look it up?
"The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use."
What property has a pirate taken so depriving the owner of their rightful possession of that property or its use? So no while wrong copyright infringement is not theft... I don't really need to prove it as no copyright organisation has prosecuted anyone for anything other than copyright infringement - not theft - not genocide - just copyright infringement!
How do you square your black and white world with my music download example? No one was hurt - no one lost money - but it was illegal and I'm forever branded a thief in your bizarre world. The law is there for our benefit, if it punishes where there is no harm then it will be made an ass of (Look how many millions in the UK alone download) then it will be repealed - that's to come and will take a while given the vested interests of powerful media companies.
So there are lots of nasty un-middle class people in the world who should not be allowed access to the media you and I can afford and who would not be able to enjoy it if DRM actually worked. I already said those who download for free should be of no interest to these companies as (Apart from a vanishingly small minority - sorry that was not clear) they would not buy it in the first place - but why do the media companies therefore punish you and I with DRM and ads on our legally bought media? Cutting own nose off to spite face seems a good analogy.
I beleive ForthIsnotdead needs to read up on the definition of the word theft.
I'm aware of the legal definition of theft.
For sure, you're not a bunch of thieves under the definition of the *law*. But you all know exactly what I mean, and you all know what I'm talking about.
It would be different if you were struggling musicians, and instead of looking down from the stage at the smiles of a happy, engaged audience, all you can see is a field of mobile phones, their owners faces bathed in the light from the screens, only to find 1000 videos uploaded on YouTube the very next day. Everyone makes money (YouTube, the advertisers, sometimes even the uploaders) except the poor sap that struggled to make the music in the first place.
Going back to the 14 years copyright expiriation: Imagine if you wrote a best-selling hit song. Perhaps a number one. 14 years elapse, and you no longer own the rights to the song. The latest Justin Beiber comes along with a cover version, and sells it via iTunes, Amazon, blah blah blah... Everyone in the chain makes money. Everyone that is, except the original author!
How is that fair?
I don't even know why I'm bothering to ask/post! Clearly, you're thieves and simply don't care.
"I don't even know why I'm bothering to ask/post! Clearly, you're thieves and simply don't care."
Sadly the same conclusion I came to.
If they all got to this stage in their lives and can't tell the difference between right and wrong, then we're wasting our time. The only glimmer of hope is that their nonsense on here at least stops them for a few minutes from stealing even more stuff.
Ironic, though. The same people that attempt to break down the foundations of copyright as being morally unlawful turn straight to legal definitions in the vain hope of relinquishing themselves from the burden of being titled "thieves". Which is still what they are in every sane sense of the word.
"If they all got to this stage in their lives and can't tell the difference between right and wrong, then we're wasting our time."
I can think of two words appropriate for you and the overly moralising ForthIsNotDead. Not everyone who refuses to advocate expansive copyright and the "presumed guilty" attitude towards the customer as potential infringer wants copyright to go away or downloads everything whilst paying for nothing. Many people just want a fair price for the things they watch or listen to, and they don't want to be dicked around and made to pay over and over for those things, just because Disney's figures didn't impress Wall Street last quarter.
But, no, you had to try and climb onto the moral high horse, even though it's a midget pony and you don't have the technique to pull it off.
cute example, but what intrinsic right do you have to be forever rewarded for one action you do?
Seriously now, you write a song, a movie script, a goddamn 14 hour play, and then you want to say, well yep, if anyone wants any part of it (and that is factual, copyright is for all or part) i deserve to be compensated, and the government should enforce this.
so the first problem, you want to work once, get compensated forever. So if I build a building, I should get compensated for as long as it stands? Elsewhere we haven't even entertained the idea of perpetual compensation, but with copyright we decided that works that could be relatively easily copied should be afforded some protection to give the creators a reason to publish and make money. Without protection a published work may quickly be copied by the unscrupulous for their profit, depriving the artisan. This isn't perpetual compensation, but to encourage the creative to publish in an otherwise hostile environment. Why is it that 14 years is not enough for this? It seems excessively long in this consumer culture, actually. You get a few years to make sales on your work, maybe copyright should exist for only as long as it took you to generate the work? Would be far more inline with say the builder who erected your house.
Now secondly, ok you have this protection, the government are supplying it. What are you paying for it, eh? Oh yes, the agreement was to benefit the people, (far more relevant when then government worked for the people) as the government said they would protect your works and enforce this protection in exchange for your works being released into the public domain. You know, the Government offering to do something for you so you do something for them, sounds reasonable to expect something in return for some effort, no?
So now you should see it. The oh-snap moment. I'll point it out anyway... complaining about people freeloading copyright material while bemoaning your own freeloading of the back of the copyright system 'coz you don't want to hold up your end of the deal... What, do you expect the government to enforce your perpetual right to a work for nothing? oh right of course you do, you're one of those government is my sock puppet types, only working for corporate interests because hey people are pathetic thieving scum that are holding you down, amirite?
So yea, whining about the length of copyright while calling people freetards is ironic.
And I don't care how you want to twist it, wanting longer and longer copyright is just 'I want my idea to be completely mine forever, all the while getting paid for it', which sounds familiar to 'I want to hear/see everything, and not pay for it ever'. Both are bullshit over-entitlements and can be neatly solved by; a) keeping your damn ideas to yourself, noone can take it and you can't get paid. And b) only hearing/seeing whatever you produce, then you don't have to pay yourself, obviously.
If you don't like playing with yourself, then learn to share, and since we're in a capitalist society that involves a level of paying. The creator pays the system with giving their works away at some point, and consumers pay to enjoy anything relevant to the times.
The problem, consumers are currently getting hit multiple times for their enjoyment payments, while artists are getting less in return. The middlemen have their business savvy and are now working hard to ensure everyone gets screwed to maintain their status quo. Seems like a recurring theme.
All y'all need to go read these two pages ...
I think a recording artist with more tenure in the recording industry than I have in IT probably has better perspective on the subject than most.
Sorry if I swamp your web site again, buddy ;-)
Is the law any good if most are ignoring it?
If the amount of copyright abuse is so high, is it a valid law any more? A law is only any good if there is decent amount of compliance with it. If a majority of society choose not to comply with the law, surely society have voted that that particular law is not valid.
This comes down to corporate interests vs the interests of the people in general. As per usual corporate interest always seems to take precedence over the interests of the general public. The general public have voted, but of course corporations have more of a vote on things...
Why are there laws?
"If the amount of copyright abuse is so high, is it a valid law any more?" Seriously? Seriously?
When the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were burning down the barns of Quebec separatists, the prime minister responded that, "if people were so bothered by illegal barn burning by the Mounties, perhaps he would make it legal". A contemporary writer (Jonas somebody) pointed out that "burning barns isn’t wrong because it’s illegal, it’s illegal because it’s wrong."
Regardless of the amount of thefts (or burglaries, car jacking, muggings, or public urination)... it doesn't make it right.
What determines right and wrong is governed by consent. If a majority of people think something is wrong, then a law making it illegal is valid as only a few don't comply with said law. A law that says something is wrong that most do not believe is wrong and has very low compliance to me is not a good and valid law. I admit I am not law scholar though. I would love one to weigh in on this.
In the example you used, it was a minority (RCMP and governing elites) that were breaking the law that a majority believed was wrong. This is why making it legal would not have worked.
This is the opposite to what I posted about where content companies and their brought and paid for politicians have push for laws that have, if you believe the stories they put out, very low compliance. As in a majority of society do not believe the action is wrong as they are doing it. This to me brings the laws invalidity into question.
This would also work for any of the other crimes you quoted "thefts (or burglaries, car jacking, muggings, or public urination)" if the amount being committed was so high that nearly everyone was doing it. Laws only work and are valid if there is a general consent to comply with them. This seems to be less and less the case with copyright laws and maybe the people who are our representatives in government should be taking notice of that fact, rather than getting their ideas about morality and what is good law from corporations...
Copyright / DRM et al
Way back in the dim distant past, there was a clause in the copyright laws that allowed for "fair use" copying, such as taking an LP you owned (sorry had purchased in a shop and had the legal right to listen to) and "copy" it to another medium such as a cassette to listen to in a car or a walkman. Much as many of todays music listeners have a large collection of CDs, many of them ripped to MP3 on a hard drive, and then copied to an MP3 player etc etc.
As far as I undersand all the recent changes this is now not the case, and "format shifting" is now no longer acceptable. . . . Herein lies the problem, if I pay for a CD, and have the licenced right to listen to the content therein, where on the case, which I can read BEFORE I decide to purchase it are the terms of this licence, stating what I may or may not do with it ? If that is inside the case, then I have to open the plastic wrapper making the product unreturnable to read the terms of the agreement.
To me it's simple. If I have paid to have the content in one form or another, why should I not have it in a more convenient format ? I've already paid for the right to listen to it. Do I download music etc from the web without paying, yeah sometimes, IF I have the CD on the shelf, it's sometimes simpler and quicker to download it than rip it myself.
You'll be lectured in a future Register article that format-shifting is apparently legal. The deception as always is that the author in question will actually mean "tolerated".
I still remember the bad old days before the corporations owned everything and music didn't exist.
We should be giving them more power to restrict and control, not less. It's the only way to ensure music doesn't die out altogether.
There maybe downsides to the European Union, but there are also some genuinely benevolent decisions made that would not have carried any weight without it.
I'm also reminded of the arse-kicking Intel got for their abusive business practices against AMD and roaming mobile charges.
It really is time that megacorps in the Union are shown that they have taken the piss a little too far and rational thinking by MEP's goes a long way towards that.
Oh and yeah, ForthIsNotDead, usually I would be dead against Inheritance Tax, but in your case...
Anyone know how Ms Kroes' commission looking into whether wild Ursidae defecate in arboreal areas or not is going?
The problem with copyright is who holds the rights, not how long they hold them for. In the words of Noddy Holder, "for you it's a Xmas song. For me, it's my pension". I've seen many people on here mention 14 years as acceptable, well I guess Noddy would disagree as that would mean that annual Slade classic would no longer be generating any income for him. So that gets us back to copyright for life. But then what about those copyrighted works that get published after the author's death? Is it right that someone writes a best selling book and then his family get no benefit from it because it's published after he dies? You only have to look at the success of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo to see that copyright must be transferable, or the publisher gains the right to appropraite orphaned works for themselves. So there has to be some transference of rights after the original creator's death. Also, many artists are more successful after they die than while they live, Michael Jackson, Buddy Holly, Elvis Presley to name just a few. Should every penny earned after their death go to the publisher? No, the rights must transfer to the estate of the artist. They wrote that music not just for themselves, but also as a source of income for their family. The real issue then is who holds the rights. In many cases the rights are not held by the artist, but by the publisher. Often the publisher will enforce draconian contracts on the artist, not to protect the artist, but to protect their income stream. It was Prince who famously wrote "slave" on his own face in protest of the contracts musicians were forced to sign in order to have their music produced. The singer songwriter Poe was restricted in what she could do for 7 years, not even allowed to perform her own music live, because she walked away from her record label when they refused to allow her music to be re-released. Aimee Allen wrote a hit album that was never released, because Electra Records kept putting off the release date, until it was too late, and Electra was bought by Atlantic and Aimee Allen was dropped by the record label. In the end the album was leaked onto the internet and became one of the most downloaded albums at the time, with Aimee's own blessing as the rights were now held by a company that would never release the album. We don't need changes to how long copyright is held for, we need changes to ensure that copyright belongs to the creator and not the publisher.
@Sean Baggaley - Epic Fail!
' this whole business of making parts of DVD/BRs "unstoppable"' — oh boo fucking hoo. Poor widdle you with your middle-class Western "problems" of having a minuscule amount of minor inconvenience while CHILDREN ARE FUCKING DYING OF HUNGER.
I mean, seriously, sense of perspective, much?'
I chuckled a lot when I read that. To use your vernacular "I mean, seriously", you tell someone else to get perspective then launch into a detailed missive about your opinion on copyright and why it matters. DO YOU THINK THE STARVING CHILDREN CARE ABOUT COPYRIGHT?!!!!
That is the best example of how to shoot down the rest of your arguments I have seen for a long time.
I'm amused by the chap up thread who listens to pirated music because "I don't assign any value to recorded time". Obviously he values it enough to spend his time listening to it.
Artists aren't paid for the time taken to produce a particular product, but for the time invested in being able to produce that product, with a premium for the risk.
How many hours must a wannabe invest in learning to play a guitar before they have a chance of selling anything?
It typically takes ten years to get good at anything.
I didn't say I only listen to downloaded music, Actually, I rarely listen apart from that shoved in my ears by every corporate speaker on the planet. I prefer to listen to silence, which is much harder to come by. Please read my post rather than read what you think I typed.
There have been and will always be artists who make art because they are creative, where do you find your rules that say you have to make a living out of it. The vast majority didn't used to and don't presently don't, pure and simple. Does that diminish their art? The worship of vast amounts of (fake) money is so now...
But from your point of view, I question whether the tracks that people download stop an artist making a living or just stop them being richer than their neighbour is hard to glean from guesses of the amount and types of track downloaded, but as the big Corporates seem to be making a lot of fuss and as it's never been easier to get your art in to the ears/eyes/hands of art lovers, I would guess the latter.
The rest of your post is a regurgitation/excuse for business, not art. Why do I owe an artist a living any more than a nurse or educator? It takes many hours for a nurse to learn their craft, should we pay their heirs for the care they have given us?
Learn your languages
Steelie Neelie doesn't rhyme, morons. Her name is pronounced Naylee.
This is a UK site. If they want to pronounce "Neelie" with a long "e" sound, they're welcome to do so, just like they pronounce "pasta" with a short "a," "pass" to rhyme with "arse," and "Hermione" to vaguely rhyme with "calliope," they're welcome to do so. The British have been butchering the interpretation of others' languages for years (see also: Rangoon, Peking, etc.).
Don't worry, you'll get over it.
Funny how nobody mentions the one group of people who get shafted the most. That being the recording engineers - the people who really do have the creative ability to polish a turd, and do so on a daily basis. Unless they are 'names' they are paid a not-very-good flat rate. No 70 year royalties for them. They are hurt by copyright infringement to some degree, but by far their worst enemy is the industry that writes contracts excluding them from any even tiny copyright, underpays them, and, by refusing to give the public what it wants, artificially limits their future prospects.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging