back to article 'Oppressive' UK copyright law: More cobblers from IP quangos

A new report by intellectual property campaigners has again put the UK on the naughty step. This year, as last year, activists list the UK alongside Brazil and Thailand as having the most "oppressive" copyright laws in the world. The report was published by an international NGO called Consumer International, but this delegates …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
    1. P. Lee
      Megaphone

      >In Malawi, harmful counterfeit drugs that injure citizens<

      Obviously Orlowski believes the solution is to create a monopoly for the multinationals which naturally brings the prices of drugs down to a level that all Malawians can afford. /sarc

      > we'll have a more-free society if we have fewer individual rights, and that in the long-term, destroying rewards for creators is both desirable and 'sustainable'.

      Yes we will. Mostly because the "creators" (i.e. legal owners) are not usually individuals at all, but the consumers are and out-number the creators, so more people are more free - we have a more free society. Government "for the people" should ring a bell, even with Americans.

      Destroying the extended reward system for creators encourages them to carry on being creative, rather than sitting back on their laurels after one success, snorting crack cocaine.

      The basis for any discussion should be the "no law" state. From a state of having now laws, how far should we go, giving legal monopoly cover before there is detriment to society? It may not be arriving at the corporation from a government bank account, but how much tax-payer money should we give to that corporation? The profit is over and above what the market would support, so yes, it is state-provided taxpayer cash.

      Personally, I feel there would be no great loss if One Direction disappeared into a large hole, pulling Simon Cowell with them. But that's just me. Pharmaceuticals deserve a few years. I probably wouldn't give films more than three years protection and so on. Perhaps there should be a "% of cost" trigger. You get three years if you recover your production costs. This is extended if you haven't recovered production (not marketing) costs.

      Ideas are not property. They bear no resemblance to property. To call them such is intellectually dishonest. I'm not saying that there should be no protection (unlike Orlowski's "if you're not with use, you're with the terrorists" attitude), but the quid pro quo in return for monopoly protection, is public use while they are still useful.

  1. NomNomNom

    There aren't any good movies or games anymore because of copyright infringers, so-called "pirates" (I prefer to call them Data Terrorists)

    1. John H Woods Silver badge

      Time is a quality filter

      I think there *are* good movies, games and music still being created. It just looks like it was better in the old days because we don't re-show, re-broadcast or re-play the dross: the intervening years act as a filter.

      Countless films were made in 1942 - 1358 of them are listed in iMDB. They weren't all as good as Casablanca and most will never be shown again. I still occasionally play Timesplitters 2, but that doesn't mean that I think 2002 was somehow a golden year for videogames in general.

      I certainly don't think there should be an expectation that we should enjoy the works of others for free, nor that the works of those others should provide income for generations of their descendants long after their death. But I don't think we can claim that so-called 'piracy' is responsible for the death of all quality when we haven't really established that such a death has occurred.

    2. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      "There aren't any good movies or games anymore because of copyright infringers, so-called "pirates" (I prefer to call them Data Terrorists)"

      Really? So the production companies insisting on never taking risks and just releasing the same old stuff over and over again has nothing to do with the problem then? If they had the balls or skills to spot what will be good rather than handing this task over to a beancounter first and then making it regardless then they would be more successful. Not that this selection is ever going to be an easy task, but it has been done quite successfully in the past.

      This is aside from the other side of the problem:

      In films there's the abject greed from the "stars" which combined with a braindead celebrity culture where no matter how poor the film is or the actor is at acting, herds will turn out and watch it anyway. As a result a huge chunk of the budget goes to these celebrities regardless of how good the end result is.

      In both films and games there's the over reliance on special effects and the enormous budget that this required, thereby moving the break-even point further into the distance. But how often do these special effects actually add something rather than, in a film, countering the lack of plot, dialog and acting and, in a game, the lack of gameplay and general playability?

      If you want good films and games, then go to the "Indie" (small publisher) scene, you'll be very surprised as the quality of both films and games that you can find is staggering. There's a lot of dross, but there's a lot of dross in the big budget titles as well...

      1. Dire Critic
        Flame

        "moving the break-even point further into the distance"

        Ah, but there's the rub. Hollywood accountants deliberately use creative accounting techniques to make sure the film never does break-even, or even to ideally make a loss. They do this to prevent having to pay taxes based on profits, to reduce monies going to stars who are on a percentage of the profits etc.

        Not only do the Hollywood bean counters rip off us, the public, they even rip off their own.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Data Terrorists"

      Good one. What do you think about 'Copy Molesters', or 'Filthy IPaedophiles'?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Filthy IPaedophiles"

        You may have discovered an ideal epithet for people like A2K to use on their opponents. You realise that if the folk in Whitehall get hold of this our creative industries will be doomed?

        Nice job breaking it, hero.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The art of trolling has sadly declined over the years. The problem is at least partially due to the minimal investment in wit and satire thanks to the freely duplicable and redistributable 'memes' on the internet.

      Perhaps some sort of sub-pontis copyright enforcement mechanism is required?

    5. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      In a trolling mood today, Nom?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        NomNomNom

        You ought to see him Troll CAGW sites, Hey NomNomNom your Mum don't beleieve in CAGW.

        See what I did there ;)

    6. thesykes
      Facepalm

      rubbish

      If "pirates" were the reason for the lack of good movies, it would be because film studios were unwilling to pump money into films they could not get back due to piracy.

      Perhaps you can explain why a studio would pour $200m into Battleship?

      Does all that money indicate a studio who doesn't believe it will get it's money back?

      The reasons for a lack of quality films are many...

      Hollywood's determination to milk every penny out of a franchise (Pirates 4 was terrible)

      Scriptwriters inability to actually write the ending to a film... I've seen far too many films recently where the film just stops, with no actual ending.

      A belief that taking a poor story and script and plastering over it with mega CGI will make a good film

      The lastest fad is to stick 3D onto films from 20 years ago and milk the audience (Titanic, Beauty & The Beast)

      A severe lack of creativity in the gaming and film industries is nothing to do with copyright or it's infringement.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Fashion business

    Tricky topic and interesting point of view. I can't help comparing music, film, publishing and tech businesses with the fashion business where copying is, seemingly, the norm. Enforcement, if there is any IP, impossible and expensive. Fashion moves on faster than a software up-date.

    How many stories are there about great designs of shoes and cloths produced by individuals that are ripped off by large fashion chains. How many commercial fashion trend setters are trolling through vintage clothing stores to bring the old back in fashion without having to design anything new.

    I'd be interested to see the numbers of those employed, the turnover and profits compared to the IP protected industries. Be useful to form an opinion rather than rely on one side or other of an argument and the associated spin.

    1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

      Re: Fashion business

      Fashion is an IP industry. Amazed that anyone could think it isn't.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fashion business

        Up to a point you are right, but, is it not trademarks and logos that are enforced. Quick search to check my point - see wiki here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashion#Intellectual_property

        And, a good piece on Ted by Johanna Blakley: Lessons from fashion's free culture

        http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html

        Fashion seems to offer an alternative to what the music, film, publishing, etc.. business want.

      2. SleepyJohn
        WTF?

        Re: Fashion business

        Please provide us with a link to free software that enables us to copy a Gucci handbag for nothing.

        The whole point of this problem is that digital items, unlike material ones, can be copied and distributed a billion times by almost anybody for virtually nothing. This clearly poses a major problem for those who create them, and also for those who consume them, as the only way to prevent such copying is to herd the whole human race into a global totalitarian state controlled with an iron fist by the MAFIAA and its political enforcers. And we all know who would vote for that. And who wouldn't.

        So, unless we are happy to bequeath such a social structure to our children, we must find a way for creators of digital content to make money without having to sell individual copies of the item. As King Canute might have said to his courtiers: "Don't try to stop the tide coming in, use it to generate power."

        And the more intelligent artists are starting to do precisely that: the author Paolo Coelhas uploads his books to The Pirate Bay and finds that the resultant publicity increases his paperback sales by literally miiions of copies a year; musicians are finding that global distribution of free songs hugely increases sales of Tee-shirts and concert tickets; if my TV station showed a grey logo of Coca-cola in the corner of the screen instead of TV3 they might make quite a few bob out of it; if film-makers put something similar on their films then, like Google, they could use massive free distribution to coerce more money out of the advertiser, and so on.

        Yes, some of these ideas are less than perfect, but perhaps somewhat less imperfect than a dictatorship controlled by the MAFIAA, with the streets clear for their black limos as all the ordinary folk are in prison. So, yes, copyright law IS a social problem, a massive one. And it requires a total rethink of the very concept of copyright, not just fiddling with the edges of it. We should devote our energies to altering the ship's course to avoid the iceberg, not just moving the deckchairs around so the company can charge more rent for them.

        Artists should be exhilaratingly surfing these huge waves of change, not obediently kneeling at the feet of sour-faced 'rights-holders' who sprawl in golden deckchairs screaming at their politician employees to abolish the waves as their feet are getting wet. And there is the nub, isn't it? 'Rights-holders' are the problem, not artists. Get rid of copyright and you will get rid of them. Artists can then engage directly with the public, as described above, to the massive benefit of all.

        The internet market is so mind-numbingly huge that an artist only has to obtain money from an almost unmeasurably miniscule proportion of it in order to make a fortune; he can use the ones who won't pay, to publicise him to the ones who will. Copyright needs to be abolished in its entirety in order that such exciting developments can take place without the hindrance of jack-booted rights-holders standing in the way with their greedy little parasitic hands permanently open and an army of lawyers brooding like vultures in the background.

        1. Andrew Orlowski (Written by Reg staff)

          Re: Re: Fashion business

          Nice one SleepyJohn.

          Really parody of David Icke+style freetard nuttiness.

          1. SleepyJohn
            Stop

            Re: Fashion business

            I'm sure the Amish have a place in the world but I don't think it is the current 21st Century one.

            I wonder if there is any connection between the 12 million extra hits on The Pirate Bay the day after it was censored by the UK government and the 36% increase in sales of media? Perhaps if the government was capable of genuinely censoring this website there would be a further correlatable increase in the purchase of media? Those 12 million must surely have deprived the MAFIAA of three or four times the total world's GDP.

            If one extrapolates this over a year, using MAFIAA accounting methods, the sum total owed by the people of the world to the multi-billion dollar criminal conspiracy masquerading as the American Media Industry must very closely approximate to googolplex, which as we all know is such a large number that there isn't sufficent matter in the Universe on which to write it, even allowing for unused CDs. Perhaps this explains why the MAFIAA has not sued the UK government for allowing such rampant piracy - they don't have enough paper to write the figures on.

            Personally I put more faith in the rational observations of a highly-respected international author than in the hysterical assertions of a bunch of universally loathed international racketeers. And this:

            “Thanks to the High Court and the fact that the news was on the BBC, we had 12 MILLION more visitors yesterday than we had ever had before,” a Pirate Bay insider informed TorrentFreak today. “We should write a thank you note to the BPI,” he added.

            There is a clue here somewhere for those prepared to look. As TorrentFreak said: "t’s not possible to buy advertising “articles” from leading UK publications such as the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph, but yesterday The Pirate Bay news was spread across all of them and dozens beside, for free. The news was repeated around the UK, across Europe and around the world reaching millions of people. The results for the site were dramatic."

            As many have said, artists have more to fear from obscurity than piracy, and from the thieving morons so many of them have been tricked into signing extortionate contracts with (one long established musician described them as "legally close to slavery"). I think Thomas Jefferson is closer to this than David Icke. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939/grand-unified-theory-economics-free.shtml

            PS: Where is the link to my free Gucci handbag? I couldn't find it on The Pirate Bay.

    2. Tom 13

      Re: Fashion business

      Yeah, I'd like to see you try to sell something from Gucci that wasn't made by Gucci in NYC.

      If you make a clear rip-off of a protected design from a manufacturing facility in the US, you'll wind up in the pokey PDQ. Now, how many points of variation you need before it becomes yours is something a well-paid lawyer can spew about for hours.

      Fashion moves so quickly because it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with emotion. One evolves slowly from established facts, the other can change as quickly as you change, well, your clothes.

  3. Timothy Allen

    Right on, brother

    I'm a musician. I write original music, and I produce arrangements of other people's (copyrighted) music. I (unlike many arrangers) always seek permission from the copyright holder before making an arrangement, and so far, it's never been withheld. I get a benefit from the copyright protection on my original compositions (I can charge people for the right to perform them, and would have the law on my side if I decided to pursue someone who performed them without my permission), and I pay a price to other copyright holders in order to benefit from their work. It all seems perfectly equitable to me.

    Then organisations like this want to destroy that model, giving me no incentive to create other than "for the love of it". Well, you know what? I DO love creating, but I also need to eat, pay my mortgage and taxes etc. If there was no economic incentive for me to create and share my work, I'd probably still do some creating, but a hell of a lot less sharing. Why? Because I'd be too busy doing a day job to pay my bills. As it is, the modest income I get from sharing my creative work enables me to go on creating and sharing - and I tend to share pretty widely, so I'm "enriching the commons" by doing so, even though it's private enterprise. I don't understand why people feel that I shouldn't have the right to benefit financially from the work I do - it's a similar situation to the current brouhaha over musicians being asked to perform for free for events connected with the Olympics or the Queen's Jubilee. Just because we enjoy what we do, doesn't stop it being work!

    1. Anonymous Cowerd
      FAIL

      Re: Right on, brother

      If nobody wants to pay you for it, it isn't a job.

      1. Keep Refrigerated
        Pint

        Re: If nobody wants to pay you for it, it isn't a job.

        I agree with this statement. I'm not perpetually being rewarded for the work I do today (which does involve coding) despite the fact my company and clients are going to benefit to the tune of hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

        Perhaps art, music and other creative works need to revert back to the work-for-hire model, where performances are commissioned with a one-time payment, and then simply accepted as public domain from then on.

        mp3 recordings should be treated with the same level of enforcement as photographs of museum pieces and public places, only really enforced on commercial use, not private. Then those in far off lands, who hear you via mp3 and want a public performance can commission you to travel and appear to perform it...

        Now if only popular musicians could take advantage of this business model somehow?!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Right on, brother

      I think most people have nothing against you making a living by selling your creations or doing performances.

      But most people think that having one good idea and re-selling it again and again to benefit 70 years after you're dead it a bit much.

      I for instance am a software engineer, I have written/devised/created many hundreds of items of software, all quite unique. I got paid a salary by the companies I worked for at the time, those companies don't have to keep paying me until I die for those creations.

      Alternatively any artist who creates a painting do not benefit every time someone looks at a apainting, they don't get a cut everytime that painting is re-sold. They have to keep working to make money just like almost everyone else in thw world.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Right on, brother

      I'm not a musician. I do write software and books. Often I'm simply paid for my labour and I no more expect future royalties than if I were the factory worker who made the chair I'm sitting on. In some instances I retain copyright whether to make money or by simply 'enriching the commons'. Like you, I'd be unable to do any of this if I couldn't pay the mortgage.

      Fact is many authors would be perfectly happy with say a 25 year copyright period with fair use provision. Publishers rarely take the very long view either, good luck if you are writing a book that will take 50 years to break even.

      Ever extending terms and scope of copyrights and patents is not about creative and inventive people. Its entirely about the rich getting richer leaving less for those who do the work. You really ought to be in favour of reform.

  4. Arms Control Poser

    Some historical and linguistic perspective

    "As Mincov puts it: "The reason I respect Patry’s position so much is that he understands that the balance model is nonsensical." Copyright is simply an economic incentive, founded on a temporary exclusive property right. It's a business stimulus, designed to create monetary exchanges and rewards. It has nothing to do with consumer rights."

    Don't like the word "balance"? Consider copyright as a bargain, then. You are correct to say that it is an incentive. Your admission that it is "temporary" points to the extraordinary nature of this right - that in UK law it has always been framed as a trade-off within certain fixed limits, ever since the 1709/10 'Act of Anne' or, as it is formally known, and this is important - "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning". [/quote]

    Do you see what they did there? They enshrined a concept of public benefit as the goal of a complex and contested bargain between the interests of producers and consumers. 'Balance' does go a certain way towards explaining this reality. 'Consumer Rights' is certainly an emotive term, but there's no more need to knee-jerk against the interests that they describe than there is to bristle at the term "private", as you claim the report's authors want their readers to. Markets don't assign rights: politics does, and it's always provisional and open to claim and counter-claim. Aspiring towards "a long-term ecology" is wishful, bordering on mystical thinking, if you imagine this could be self-sustaining.

    Lastly, neither Consumer International nor the A2K Network remotely fit the definition of a "quango."

  5. Turtle

    To me, personally...

    To me, a political movement that seeks to expropriate people, such a musicians, songwriters, photographers, independent film makers, &c, and deprive them of their property rights and economic rights for the sake of some of the largest corporations in the world, easily qualifies as "fascism".

    (By the way, isn't that the same "George Soros" who owns 2 million shares of Halliburton? Yes it is. But then he's in good company: Michael Moore also owns Halliburton stock.)

  6. Chris Miller

    Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho

    Qu'est-ce que la propriété ? La propriété c'est le vol ! - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865)

  7. PyLETS
    Pirate

    monopolies generally bad

    And this one taken to extremes especially so.

    Copyright and patents are monopolies granted by law. The justification for copyright was originally to incentivise creation of work which otherwise wouldn't be created. A monopoly of limited duration is granted in exchange. That was the original deal which is still fine by me, but what came next is anything but.

    A vested interest was so created (big media) which became for a while (pre Internet) the only voice in the argument about extending this monopoly. Here the foxes got to decide what's for dinner because the foxes and not the chickens controlled the printing press. Anyone following Levenson and the NI phone hacking scandal may be starting to get the influence those who purchase ink in large volumes have had over politics.

    So those who argue for _limited_ copyright are now being told by the foxes of this world to ignore those impeccable economists' logic making monopolies generally bad, we are called robbers on the high seas, anti-intellectuals, thieves, autistic. And what next ? Heretics who won't worship the "poor starving artists" (get the violins out) whose decendants must be kept too rich ever to have to work forever and the day ?

    So who cares when programmers who exercised what they foolishly thought was their freedom of speech exposing weaknesses of copyright protection schemes get locked up ? Who cares if our network communications get spied upon in the name of cracking down on content infringment ? Copyright, to last forever minus one day is to become the new human right for its owners who must be treated as gods, and all other economic and human rights must be made subservient to this new celebrity worshipping religion and the Fox/MPAA/RIAA priesthood which collects its revenues.

    Research into viewers of Fox News demonstrates these folk know less than those who watch no news at all: http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/ . The Foxes need to make sure at all costs us chicken's don't get wise, or they'll lose control of the henhouse for ever. That's the real threat the Internet creates to Mr Fox's business model.

  8. Bluenose

    And then there is the real story that never gets discussed.

    The world evolves and businesses grow and decline because things change. Kodak is on the verge of death because of all those patents relating to photography that have now lost all their value. Meanwhile patent trolls sit on the sidelines waiting for the best moment to make a quick buck from the company who reinvented the invention independently and then actually went to market with it to try and use it to provide value or utility to the public/business. And of course we have the patenting of blindingly obvious and standard processes which abounds in the US.

    I have no problem with individuals making money from their own creativity nor corporations who invest billions in ideas and research (and funnily enough that even extends to Hollywood and EMI). My objection is when they use those rights to prevent others from coming to market with better goods or try to make excessive profits because they have no competitors (lets be clear here, Apple does not licence its iPad, iPod or iPhone technology to anyone) that way leads to monopoly power which is wrong and does harm economies.

    I also object to people who have not actually sought to exploit a license for their own benefit. Why should they be able to receive compensation for not doing anything (let's be clear someone who invents and is then unable to find a buyer but has taken steps in the right direction does not deserve to be disenfranchised).

    The issue with IP today is not that it needs to be made available to the public or that creators need to give it up their rights. The real problem is that people should stop using it to prevent competition or seek excessive profits. Does Hollywood really incur an extra £4 per blue-ray (would love to see what is worth the additional £4 on some of my blu-ray disks). I would also like to see the prevention of patents being granted for commonsense ideas or approaches (like using the finger to push to one side as opposed to swiping the finger, to unlock my phone). Protect creativity but not commonsense.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Recording a "set" on MTV on your PVR.

    "Taping" music from the radio (as it was)

    Photocopying an article for future ref.

    Ripping a CD onto your PC to so you dont have to keep changing discs.

    ...........

    ...........

    It all happens all of the time, it happened in the past, and now the rest of society have finally figured out what a computer can actually do for them, it'll continue to happen in the future. Where were those whinging people in the 70's/80's when 1,000,000's of kids sat infront of the radio "taping" the chart count down?

    The industry should have found ways to work with the public and stop trying to sue eveyone.

    Like it or not, it's going to happen.

    We should be able to sell/trade our licences. Because essentially or not buying a CD/DVD, your purchasing the right to watch the content. Ultraviolet anyone?

    IP is just bollox, whether you like that, or not!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I still get frustrated when people call piracy a crime,

    Copyright violation in the UK, as in distributing torrents & similar, is only a criminal offence when you "distribute in the course of a business, or to an extent prejudicial to the copyright owner." (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988)

    I.E. it has to harm the copyright owner...

    Where is the proof that copying of films is harmful to the film industry? Would every downloader have gone to watch it at the cinema or buy it on DVD when it comes out?

    Would every person who watched a tv show they downloaded, watch it on tv instead?

    Would every person who downloaded a song, buy it instead? or just listen to the radio?

    I probably spend £10-£20 a week on dvd's, so I am not a freetard, but I think we need the industries to realise people download because they LIKE the product, and want to watch it how they want to watch it, not how their told to watch it...

    Give us cheap DRM free downloads, and you'll see a surge in purchases.

    Give us a good selection of new TV on streaming , and there will be a surge in subscribers...

    But the key thing is availability, while it takes less time for people to torrent than it does to use legal means, and get better quality, they will torrent...

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If the incentives are removed, A2K would insist, people may still create, donating the fruits of their labour to the greater good out of altruism. If property rights are removed, as they advocate, they'll have little choice over the matter anyway.

    Thank you for the above, historical references duly noted?

    p.s. in the bipolar spirit then, better dead than red?

    1. Tom 13

      Re: Historical references

      Well, there is one I'd think most Brit and 'Merkins would be well aware of: The Massachusetts Bay Company. I believe they chartered a colony which required adherence to just the principles being advocated by A2K. Funny thing happen though. Half the colony died in the first year. It only turned prosperous once they ripped up the agreement and turned back to private property rights, fruit of your labor, etc. etc.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Don't get it

    Why is Andrew writing as though content creators are being victimised here?

    Seems to me the argument of A2K targets middle-men that add little value.

    Then there's CI quoted in the references out-law article:

    "The term extension makes little sense except as a measure to bolster the flagging balance sheets of big record companies. Certainly, very little of the benefit will flow to performers, most of whom are paid a fixed fee for their performances, and never see a penny of royalties."

    I have no idea how paying to license 70yr dead guy's music helps creativity, sustains culture, etc.

    All I see is some no talent parasitic asshole middle-man buying a new yacht, and new talent trying to find success without being exploited by same.

    1. P. Lee

      Re: Don't get it

      > Seems to me the argument of A2K targets middle-men that add little value.

      Right... and wrong. Most of the commerce is due to the promotional efforts of the middle men. They just don't participate much in the creative process.

      So Susan Boyle sings at the local choral society. If you really value creativity, do something about it and support your local artists. There we have the creative process without particularly high reward. One Direction sings in a garage somewhere and perhaps posts the results to youtube. Again, not much finance involved, but the creativity continues.

      However, it is Simon Cowell who buys up the advertising time, arranges premium rate SMS systems, organises "judges" for a faux-reality show and arranges time in a recording studio. Now we have massive economic activity. The creativity-that-needs-finance-and-thus-legal-protection is all Mr Cowell's and he is the one that reaps the rewards. The artist is Cowell, Susan Boyle is just the paint.

      The question is, whether we think Mr Cowell's business should be given legal monopoly protection.

  13. Sam Liddicott

    The greater good?

    "Via A2K, his Open Society Institute campaigns for the removal of economic liberties, and the destruction of markets, arguing that this is necessary for the greater good."

    Maybe the greater people don't want his greater good

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why is it black and white.

    The pro people are: Ooo we need copyright for 100 years for so my great grandchildren can benefit and I can sit on my arse for life.

    the anti-people are ooh it's immoral for you to live of one work for your to support your unborn grandkids and live on your arse for life.

    How about a happy medium.

    No restrictions on copyright for reproduction for personal use. Provided you have the original you can make as many copies as you want for yourself. Distribution to 3rd parties is still illegal

    X number years (say 5) for non-commercial use. Distribution restrictions remain.

    50 years free of copyright

    Hows that for an idea.

  15. pip25
    Thumb Up

    Sorry, Andrew

    I think that video was spot-on on the problems faced today, actually.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."

    Welcome to the free market content creators (not that I think any new content has actually been created for some time)

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I gave freely to a "pay what you want" system of purchase on a "DRM free release" of some media today. See that, I paid an artist directly for their work, even when I had the option not to. No law or enforcement required. The artist set out to gain customers, and did just that.

    Why are others looking to gain criminal proceedings when the customers are queuing up to give money!

    1. NomNomNom

      "See that, I paid an artist directly for their work, even when I had the option not to"

      That's just because you feel guilt for your crimes now you'll probably just use this act to justify further data terrorism offences.

      what's the going cost on guilt then? how many hundreds of stolen movies does a $2 guilt downpayment "pay" for?

  18. El Presidente

    The biggest problem facing all creative *individuals*

    Is that every time the issue of copyright arises, the discussion is immediately subverted by freetards in favour of relaxing copyright, to the sole benefit the freetard.

    This in turn plays right into the hands of Big Business in handing ammunition to the quangos and academics who want to be seen to be doing something because they've been told that something needs to be done.

    Nothing needs to be done without the FULL consent of those creating IP

    Nothing should to be done without the FULL consent of those creating IP

    The INDIVIDUAL working in the creative industries WILL suffer financially from collateral damage in the Battle of the Freetards vs the Lobbyists. That's a given.

    The quangos will feel they've done something and the academics will saunter off to the refectory, on the public purse, to dream up another way of justifying their existence whilst coming up with more unrealistic business models they themselves are not subject to.

    Big business will be given a license to hoover up EVERYTHING not nailed down to be re-sold at their rates, under their own terms and conditions (rights grabs aplenty) take it or leave it.

    It's happening now and it's getting worse.

  19. Anon E Mus

    No balance - I agree

    I agree this issue is one where a "balance" view completely fails. The fact is that the law has invented a problem with people who share things that they own. This "problem" is a fiction, at best. Removing from law would be a nice small step forward.

  20. Ben Norris
    Thumb Down

    accessibility is not just as good

    Current copyright laws are killing innovation because hardly anyone can take the risk of building on someone else's work, either that they will allow you to use it at all or not make absurd demands that would render your added value entirely unprofitable.

    Technology has brought down the barriers of invention to everyday people and yet the law has not only not kept up but in fact is getting worse. We used to be world leaders in transport, industry, energy, etc, now all we can export are financial services and coockie cutter boybands.

  21. NomNomNom

    the thing about copyright and intelilectual property is its the law. you should ALWAYS obey the law. If you don't obey the law you are being UNLAWFUL which is a crime. what's next - joyriding? armed robbery? just buy the movie ffs.

  22. Sean Timarco Baggaley

    Hmmm.

    "Fair Use" exists in the UK.

    Actually, no. You're confusing the US legal concept of "Fair Use" with the British one—which is rather more restricted—of "[b]Fair Dealing[/b]" The two are not interchangeable.

    "Current copyright laws are killing innovation." (Ben Norris.)

    Evidence, please? There is more content being produced today than there ever was. Much of it may not be to your taste, but that's true of every generation. I was no great fan of Punk when I was growing up in the 1970s. (I still don't think much of The Beatles either, come to that. I'd much rather listen to The Monkees. I'm well aware that many of the Monkees' songs were written by others, but so what? Good music is good music no matter who writes it.)

    "Why is Andrew writing as though content creators are being victimised here?" (A.C. 18:38).

    Because these debates invariably degenerate into slanging matches between freeloaders and "Old Media"—as if "Old Old" provided a majority of the world's content. Got news for you: most content creators are on work-for-hire contracts and you've probably never even heard of them. Who do you think writes all that incidental music and title music for all the TV shows cranked out every day of every year in every country?

    Yes, "Old Media" do have a habit of re-releasing The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, but that's because the next generation of musicians is having increasing difficulty working out what the hell it is those old dinosaurs can offer them. Increasingly, "Old Media" are relying on their back catalogue. Pretty soon, that back catalogue will be [i]all[/i] they have left. They're just desperately trying to ensure that catalogue will still be there to pay for their directors' pensions.

    "Water is a necessity for living, but so is entertainment in today's society." (DavCrav).

    Seriously? Entertainment is now considered a necessity on a par with [i]water[/i] according to you? Perhaps you should get out more, because I have news for you: it isn't. You can survive for an entire lifetime without entertainment. You can survive for about three days without water. See the difference there?

    Also: if you consider entertainment so important, what's stopping you learning to play the piano, the guitar, or taking singing lessons? The existence of copyrighted works does not prevent the existence of free alternatives. You DO have a choice. You always have. There is no shortage of Public Domain works. The Gutenberg Project wouldn't even be possible without those. Why do people like you ignore all those works and insist on taking copyrighted works instead? Those copyrighted works must have [i]some[/i] value, or you wouldn't be trawling torrent sites to find them would you?

    *

    The original article quotes people as saying that many creatives will simply have to put up with not getting any money from their works. That they'll have to do it for the love of it alone.

    Perhaps the ignorant buggers at A2K might want to look up the etymology of the word "amateur". (Here's a hint: it's a French word.) You'd better get used to hearing that term a lot, because it's going to be describing pretty much every creative work if A2K get their way.

    *

    Finally, know this: without the legal concept of intellectual property, there can be no "Copyleft". Those GNU Public Licenses, and all their merry band? Dead. Gone. Without IP, they have no legal basis as they're built on the exact same assumptions as Copyright.

    There, that's got you worried.

    1. Ben Norris
      Facepalm

      Re: Hmmm.

      "There is more content being produced today than there ever was." Sean Timarco Baggaley

      You seem to be confusing 'content' with innovation which is exactly the problem. Endless dross may be entertaining and make money but it doesn't actually benefit society or move the human race forward.

      The discussion about IP law shouldn't be one about whether musicians or fatcats get paid, it should be about for example why the fax machine could never be updated and how the current laws are holding us back from doing great things (which will also happen to make money as well)

  23. Peter Galbavy
    Pint

    IMHO Most commentards misunderstand copyright vs patents vs any other form of IP protection.

    Again, IMHO and ignoring legalese, copyright is there to give protection to a creator of a work so that they can be rewarded in exchange for the effort creating it. It is a protection for the creator of a work to give them a living. What it shouldn't be is a barrier to others also creating original works and making a living from those. Just like anything else these rights can be bought and sold and that is fair. Having this protection extend WAY beyond the time that the original creators own children could in theory benefit (the original copyright being for 14 years - the length of two apprenticeships) is over the top and is just a protection for the businesses that exist to "farm" copyright.

    Patents on the other hand are almost the OPPOSITE of copyright; The give the "inventor" of something unique and original the right to make money from others using the original idea. Unlike copyright is prevents other from creating their own original works that are similar but should be there to allow for clever new things to make it to market while still earning the inventor a share of his/her genius.

    The consumer right to transform the content of a carrier (CD/DVD/ebook) to something you can actually watch/read the way you want should be enshrined in consumer protection and should not be something that an IP owner should be able to prevent either through the law or through technical protection. Outlaw DRM and many many problems go away.

  24. The BigYin

    Copyright is not wrong

    Nor are trademarks, nor are patents. What is wrong is the ever increasing copyright term. It is far too long and will eventually become a tax on culture in all-but-name unless the rot is reversed. One could also consider patents (especially in the software field) as a tax on innovation, although patents do do their job rather well in other areas.

    Breach of trademarks is basic fraud and I see no issue with dealing with those people harshly.

    But seriously - the copyright rot must be stopped.

  25. Purlieu

    Mickey Mouse

    Disney already have Mickey Mouse trademarked etc so why on earth did they need to extend copyright c.f. Sonny Bono and all that. At least I expect they did, and not just the worthless TM thing (equals "we can't be arsed/can't afford to register this as a trademark) yes worthless even in the US .... look it up

  26. Iggle Piggle

    Where's the incentive to be creative?

    Sure it is a pain in the backside to find your genes are patented and so is any cure. It's also arguably annoying that copying your favourite bands latest track across the internet is illegal if all you want to do is have a copy on your work machine. But why should creative people be penalised for being creative rather than having manual jobs? Once the return on creativity is zero who will bother being creative?

    I'm not against open source, there are clearly merits to that, nor am I opposed to artists releasing material that is copyright free. But it should be the authors decision and not a bunch of people who are clearly cheesed off that their ideas are all patented by people who had those ideas sooner.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like