It's a lot like PRS, or re:Sound in Canada then... except for pictures?
Photographers, illustrators and authors will be amongst those to lose their digital rights under radical new proposals published by the Government today. New legislation is proposed that would effectively introduce a compulsory purchase order, but without compensation, across an unlimited range of creative works, for commercial …
It's a lot like PRS, or re:Sound in Canada then... except for pictures?
No, nothing like a collection society and nothing like PRS
More like a bunch of government sanctioned thieves stealing individuals work and flogging it for profit.
#fail? Seriously? Is the mid-life crisis upon you?
Elucidate. How is it not like that? Your propagandist analysis doesn't make this part very clear - certainly not so crystal clear that a commenter raising the comparison deserves to be tagged "#fail" (although hash tags only work on Twitter, Andrew).
We have a requirement for organizations to be "significantly representative of rights holders affected by the scheme". Such organizations are hardly likely to be either fly-by-night, nor very numerous within a specific media segment. One might assume there would be no more than one per sector, after any initial competition died down. So ... just like the PRS then, really. A photographer would register his opt-out at one location. (If he wanted to. Except, he might find that his works are passed over for usage since they're not part of the one-stop shop for photographs, and then decide to join after all. Which is surely the *actual* problem with this idea - it's a sort of price-fixing cartel scheme, which you will in practice be forced to join. So, effectively, still a lot like the PRS.)
It also seems rather unlikely that an organization could become "significantly representative of rights holders affected by the scheme" if they weren't volunteering to actually pay people. Although if they can't be found then we're into the orphan works section which looks eminently reasonable and upon which you make no comment here. Users of orphan works will be required to set aside payment in case the author is later found. I guess you skimmed that part.
So what's wrong with this analysis and why are these collection societies SO different to the PRS?
This is just establishing collecting societies for other things, except they will have actual authority to do the stuff they do.
But you know about the UK Gov's love of collection societies, after all they had a consultation on the topic of collection societies earlier this year (although it was stricter than the sham one run to support the DEA, since this one required evidence; SOURCED evidence, with methodologies etc, rather than the usual anecdotal 'we lose a lot and need extra laws really badly' sort of thing) or didn't you contribute? I certainly did (Norton P2P Research). Nope, just checked the Annex of contributors, no Register, Orlowski, or Situation Publishing (which is odd, since you CLEARLY have strong views.
If you want to talk about 'massive copyright land snatch', then it's all the 'land snatches' of work from the public domain, by extending copyright terms, snatching it from the public trust. Funnily enough, I believe extended terms and this collection society bullwhah are being snuck in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill.
Bend over baby cos you getting it even if you don like it!
Its basically like how google books operates.
To all those saying "oh it's just another collection society" please remember that copyright really is the only thing that stands between small content producers and financial oblivion. When raging against copyright remember that it's these giant collecting agencies / cartels that go around suing grannies and kids whilst simultaneously screwing over the content producers.
Copyright isn't broken but the content industry has amassed a huge number of parasitic middlemen that make it seem that way.
"Its basically like how google books operates."
Yeah, strange coincidence that? Or maybe not, since it was obviously dictated by someone at Google.
"More like a bunch of government sanctioned thieves stealing individuals work and flogging it for profit."
Copyright is not a nnatural right but only a state monopoly. If the government can create copyright law and make copyright expire after a limited time, it must logically have the power to scale down enforcement.
Once upon a time that was true. In practice there's Berne Convention, WIPO (x2), the European Copyright Directive etc.
And creators rights are human rights, so courts can agree to hear unfair assaults on creators rights by politicians and officials.
You're on safe ground calling it a "synthetic property right", and keeping the argument to the real world.
Quoting "El Presidente"
"No, nothing like a collection society and nothing like PRS
More like a bunch of government sanctioned thieves stealing individuals work and flogging it for profit."
Not had much experience with Collection Societies then, have you. Or have you, since your second sentence described them so perfectly
...we might as well say the concept of copyright is dead.
It just cannot work in any rational way when commerical outfits "protect" their copyrights by enforced levies on media, threats of extortion, disconnection, fines equal to the national debt of Greece, harrassing children, etc etc (delete according to country/sanity level); while at the same time saying "fuck you, your rights, and the horses you both rode in on".
With such a total lack of respect to our rights in our creations, why should we care about copyright at all?
Spot on. What this means is, if you're a big copyright-holding company like Disney etc, you have the resources to police your own work and make sure nothing gets stolen. If you're a small photographer, composer etc, it's quite likely that someone else will end up profiting from your work without you getting a penny... and in some cases, without you even knowing about it.
And on the other hand, if you're a big publisher like Google (Youtube, books etc), you get to make advertising money by stealing stuff from the small producers and giving it away for free, while if you're a small publisher, you can't even make money if you're ripping off your artists, let alone if you treat your artists fairly.
The Kleptocratic Plutocracy - (Neo-Aristocracy, if you like) - at its finest - stealing from the poor, the masses and giving to the powered, and the moneyed; stuffing their faces at everyone elses' expense.
It's the only thing they know: greed and personal enrichment, regardless of the cost to others, in every respect and endeavour they engage in.
Alive and well in the UK.
Any amateur or pro photographers who feel they will be affected by this don't forget to find your local MP then follow them with an appropriate lense from a public area.
Feel free to then distribute without charge the resultant photos to the press and internet.
WTF ? First up, why would photographers "distribute without charge the resultant photos to the press and internet" ? The idea is to sell images to the press, to make a living, not give them away.
You know, like a job only for less pay with fewer safeguards.
Secondly, there's no e on the end of lens.
lense if perfectly cromulent word. Sayed so in my dick shun ree.
You'd think HM Govt would try to hide just how much Big Corp controls them, but there's no hiding from it in this case.
1 - If Joe Public "steals" a piece of music, and shares it with others (note, not even selling), he's a criminal and will have his internet cut off.
2 - If Big Corp "steals" a photograph, and sells it to others, NADA!
I'll either be emptying my Flickr account, or adding a huge watermark diagonally across all the images.
Any hint at what the huge diagonal watermark would be a picture of?
But its not theft....
The humungus internet corp is obligated to pay you fair market value for your work, right?
Of course they get to decide what is fair market...
And of course they have to know where to find you to send you the check.
And if they can't find you... then its your fault.
But its not theft because its allowable under the proposed law.
BTW, you know you're off the grid if the likes of Google or FB can't find you. Here's a free clue. They could if they wanted to, but its not their responsibility now is it? You still have to let them know that its your work and that you want to get paid whatever that amount is...
And here I thought those of us who live in Chicago, IL had all of the corrupt politicians. Looks like those in the UK make our politicians look like rank amateurs.
Do those fucking idiots in 'power' have ANY idea what they're doing (other than screwing the general populace over and over until we finally cave in)? Don't they realise that SNAFU is NOT supposed the way things should be? AAARGH!
The only person who entered Westminster with the right idea was a certain Guido Fawkes!
More fuckity fucks...
Unfortunately even he did not have the right idea, he wanted to blow it because he disagreed with their religion not what they were doing in governing the country (except the control of Catholics). He might of focused the attention of this lot of wankers a bit better though.
They must be smoking, injecting, and rubbing on the same contraband they sieze at Customs.... Can't allow it (or sheer stupidity and assholery) go to waste....
It now is time to ensure all kids learn to use watermarks and steganography. They also need to learn to put copyright nitices on all papers demanded or assigned by their schools so that they earn royalties or compensation from orgs like TurnItIn.....
But, that just means a new fleeing to a newly-discovered land mass. But, instead of fleeing, jail the oppressors and wholesale IP thieves, even if the hide behind big money.
To big publishing company - "Mate, its cool, just use whatever pictures you find on flickr in your newspaper or book, those pussiehole general public get no protection from us any-more man, you get me!"
To member of the public - "Oi... you, you're taking liberties man, downloading that Justin Bieber song - we're guna fuck you up over this bro!"
The government are running a protection racket. I know Goventards were suspected of banging one of the Kray twins in the 60s but that don't mean you gotta act like them. Blatantly ignoring various copyright treaties is rather gangster-ish if you ask me. And yeah, looks like the publishing industry ha been paying their "rates" for some protection against the public nicking their shit!
It's a reminder that the state has more power than any industry lobby when it comes to nicking your rights.
They've got guns, too.
'They've got guns, too.'
Yeah but they were built by BAE so we're probably okay.
"It's a reminder that the state has more power than any industry lobby when it comes to nicking your rights."
Surely the whole point of industry lobbying is that it *is* a means to gain power by influencing the thinking of government (and hence ultimately policy and lawmaking) in their favour?
That's not to say that governments aren't quite capable of passing crap and/or unfair laws for other reasons, but it's definitely true that the whole point of *lobbying* is to co-opt government for lobbyists benefit.
In this particular case, the decision blatantly smacks of Google's behind-the-scenes influence.
Isn't this what the RIAA do? get the cash for radio and TV play of songs then try to get in touch with the copyright owner, claim they did call but couldn't get in touch, then pocket the cash.
IPO/WMD (Delete as appropriate.)
The frog boiling excercise notches up another degree.
This sounds like bad news. I'll write to my mp from the 'amateur photographer snaps of school trip used inappropriately in an advert 5 years later' angle.
Will the new legislation make it legal to rip a cd and play it on your phone (at last)?
On any topic whatsoever. However this is a travesty.
It's hard to understand why anyone would think this is a good idea, unless it's the likes of Spotify who have a business interest in being able to pay a flat fee to some or other official body and then stream what they like.
Legislators clearly just have no bloody idea.
I agree that this proposal is a travesty.
But I thought that this sort of proposal was supposed to apply to actually orphaned work, not work hoovered up deliberately and having any identifiers deliberately ignored. I.e., that it was supposed to manage stuff X decades old where finding an owner was actually near impossible, not where that situation had been maliciously engineered.
So what period of grace do you feel should be enforced before such orphan management becomes (arguably) reasonable? "Forever" seems a bit restrictive. 50 years?
"It's hard to understand why anyone would think this is a good idea"
The key is the phrase Andrew mentions once but doesn't expand on: 'orphan works'. The justification for these kinds of plans is the Google Books one - it was Google which first pushed for this kind of arrangement, when they got going on their Google Books plan and found, to their SHOCK and AMAZEMENT, that they couldn't just go and scan seven billion books, put them on the internet, send a cheque to Macmillan, and call it good. They'd actually have to, oh bother, find the people/organizations/estates who actually owned the copyright to all those books, where it wasn't a publisher, and pay them. Copyright ownership can become extremely complicated to track over time and with all the various arrangements different authors may have with agents and publishers and so on.
So Google decided to try and sell governments on the idea they could pay those big companies that it's nice and easy to identify and pay - your Macmillans and so forth - and screw over everyone else, by declaring that their books were 'orphan works'. In this definition, the word 'orphan' means 'we couldn't be arsed finding the parents'. The idea is to set up a series of inventive hurdles that you have to leap in order to be really considered to own your own works - register with some agency, be sure to keep them up to date with your name, address and all conceivable forms of communication, then hole up in your office with all your cellphones, landlines, pagers and fax machines turned on 24x7 so that the agency can't call you on a number you gave them fifteen years ago, at 3am in the middle of June when you're on holiday, let it ring once, then declare that you weren't contactable and take your money.
In any case where the requirements aren't met, your Google or whoever just has to pay the agency - or no-one at all, depending on the circumstances - and it can go ahead and sell your stuff on to someone else.
It's fine and dandy if what you want is for giant organizations to be able to hoover up vast piles of 'content' wherever they like, bundle it together, and sell it on. For the user, such schemes are convenient, of course. If you phrase the question in terms like 'wouldn't it be great if there was one big site where you could go to read every book ever published?' it's pretty easy to get the answer you want.
Indeed, shocked at being in agreement with Count And/Or...
If it drives Andrew into a fit, I usually assume it's something I might like. If Andrew says it's great, I usually go over it with a fine tooth comb to see where the catch is. Just kidding, it's all light entertainment ;)
So doing something to copyright to ease access to orphan works is just like invading Iraq. That's "analysis" for you! Some kind of Godwin's law for the 21st century? Thanks for that 8-D
"The idea is to set up a series of inventive hurdles that you have to leap in order to be really considered to own your own works - register with some agency, be sure to keep them up to date with your name, address and all conceivable forms of communication, then hole up in your office with all your cellphones, landlines, pagers and fax machines turned on 24x7 so that the agency can't call you on a number you gave them fifteen years ago, at 3am in the middle of June when you're on holiday, let it ring once, then declare that you weren't contactable and take your money."
It's not your money until you have earned it. Imagine having to contact everyone who has ever owned land in a village before you can walk through it on footpaths without risk of a massive trespass civil suit. Land law doesn't work that way, I hear you say. It doesn't and can't, and IP law shouldn't work that way either, but currently for many purposes for those researching and presenting recent history it does. What's proposed seems inherently sensible, to limit the damages accessible for owners who have not erected boundaries or signs, which means the walker can estimate the cost of their walk in the countryside when neighbouring rights owners are effectively unidentifiable and uncontactable. What happens currently is that the rights owners in the area when contacted won't define the boundaries of their intellectual property for your convenience. What they will do is ask for a blanket fee so you can walk over however much land they may or may not have in the neighbourhood wherever that may be on the day you intend - whether you need to walk over their land or not.
Try writing and publishing a local history from postcards of the area where you live published 60 - 70 years ago. Some of the publishers will be traceable, others not. Some of this work will be by photographers still alive, some by photographers long deceased. For some of it the photographers will have retained rights, in other cases the rights may have been sold on many times over. The fact you pay the danegeld asked by those contactable who bother to respond to enquiries, if you can afford to do so, doesn't prevent you from being sued by those who are not contactable or who did not respond to your enquiries but will check recent local history publications and take you to court anyway if they can establish a claim, and settle expensively out of court for slightly less than your estimated costs if you fight them. That's a description of a legal minefield, and who wants to start an enterprise on such risky grounds ?
Legislators clearly just have no bloody idea.
A prerequisite for entering politics in Britain it seems.
"So what period of grace do you feel should be enforced before such orphan management becomes (arguably) reasonable? "Forever" seems a bit restrictive. 50 years?"
As the copyright agencies (RIAA et al) want copyright to extend to 70-100 years I think that would be a good place to start. Plus maybe another 50 years just to screw with them.
why should land law and ip law be similar?
It isn't solely a matter of creators copyright but also the privacy of people that may be in the images. Over the years the odd client has requested limits on how I use images taken of them, including not using them in my portfolio. I respect this and discussing model releases, copyright and print relases are a part of the presales process.
Those clients trust me to abide by their requests. It should not be the case that this can be overridden within their lifetimes.
I have yet to hear of any compelling instance where there was a lack of stock photography but an abundance of orphaned works which was causing the mass drowning of puppies.
My grandfather passed away recently and I produced a book based on his memiors including stock photography. I found everything I needed via agencies at very reasonable prices. Sure I could have bought some postcards off fleabay and scanned them then whined about it being hard to track down the rights owners but frankly, if you don't have permission you cannot do it. You will survive.
I guess then the States could tax the shite out of Google. Except that they aren't in the UK but in Ireland reaping the benefits of their tax laws.
Or what you could do is essentially remove the market from Google. Pass a law that any orphaned works that had been scanned couldn't be sold and had to be given away for free since they neither created the work, nor compensated the author or their estate. This way the public wins.
Your analogy doesn't work.
You have the current land owners. Not those who owned the land prior to the current owners and there's a record in the town hall of the property owners. They fail to pay tax then the land becomes part of the city unless they confiscate it and resell it.
Sorry but the rest of your argument makes no sense.
PyLETs argument only makes sense if we all agree to misunderstand copyright in the same, unique way that PyLETs misunderstands it.
The same applies to the PyLETS currency
To be fair to Richard, he's never angry or abusive on here (or by email), but at the end of the day, ideas that are based on a rejection of reality are as much use as a chocolate teapot. And some people prefer making chocolate teapots to systems that ordinary people can use and benefit from.
why should land law and ip law be similar?
Both are rent-seeking monopolies with economic implications affecting society as a whole not just for owners, tenants and leaseholders. For some purposes IP and land are competitive, e.g. I may be able to take as good a photo of the Eiffel Tower as you, or there may be other development plots I can buy in the area if yours isn't for sale.
For other purposes these monopolies are economically restrictive, e.g. there are only so many postcards or photos researchable for my locality covering local history in the 1930ies, for an intended local history publication, or the reuse rights on a TV documentary series made 5 years ago were only obtained from the hundreds of other rightsholders for a single showing of the series to cut costs, so repeats can't be shown again based on likely advertising revenues for another 100 years by which time all rights needed will have lapsed, without expensive renegotiation which can only occur if the historical significance of the series is major. That's a similarly chilling economc effect to having just one or a few landowners for the region as a whole, similar to how economic progress was suppressed in the middle ages. If the owners of the Eiffel Tower are able to claim that design rights transfer to all photographs taken, this also chills the market for photos of the Eiffel Tower.
The Internet and reference software which implements this set of standards only became possible due to an open source approach to IP as other approaches were made uncompetitive due to IP transaction costs.
Land transactions have become more efficient over time due to the existence of a land registry. Occasionally a purchase of land not yet registered occurs in the UK, but these are now few and far between and establishing ownership credentials for unregistered property is more expensive. Having something similar for IP could be economically effective if designed and operated well, or an expensive disaster if parties which have something to gain from current market inefficiency and high transaction costs able to influence the design and operation were in a position to sabotage it.
"ideas that are based on a rejection of reality are as much use as a chocolate teapot"
While the potentially rejectable reality concerned is mostly human construct, for most ideas I'd agree with that (including some or all of my own - and only time can tell), but we'd be rejecting some potentially quite useful ones if we applied the exclusion universally, including:
Controlled use of fire, democracy, the wheel, electricity, nuclear power, semiconductors.
The best ideas change the nature of perceived reality through willingness to reject current perceptions, and we don't really know which ideas are the game changers until we've tried them . Democracy was tried amongst a very small group (citizens of Athens, not slaves) a couple of thousand years ago, only worked to a very limited extent then, and wasn't tried again seriously for quite a long time afterwards. For some reason, some uncommonly stubborn and persistent buggers didn't learn from the Athenians mistakes.
"Both are rent-seeking monopolies"
The individual musician photographer, songwriter or poet or has a monopoly for a fixed period of time. They can choose who brings their creativity to market, and can decide to renounce it altogether.
Once again, Richard, we can see how your argument requires confusion and deception. The truth is that creators are the end of the food chain and you support making the shitty deal they have today even shittier. This doesn't look cool, it's a very reactionary position.
Hence the reality bending, misdirection, and verbosity.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017