Photographs Are Mechanical Representations Of Facts, And Thus Should Have Only Thin Copyright Protection

EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright

from the stealing-from-the-public dept

Thu, Sep 8th 2011 7:59pm — Mike Masnick

As was unfortunately expected, despite no evidence that this made any economic sense at all, the member states of the EU have agreed to retroactively extend copyright another 20 years, at which point you can expect it to be extended again (thanks to jtdeboe for sending this over). This is nothing short of governments and the entertainment industry seizing works from the public domain. As we've said before, the purpose of copyright law is to incent the creation of new works. If existing copyright law was enough to incentivize the creation at the time, then there's simply no reason to retroactively extend the law.

This proposal, which various studies have shown will do little to help content creators, has been pushed for a long time by the record labels. It had been blocked in Europe for a while, but for reasons unknown, Denmark recently changed its mind, thereby enabling this effort to flat out seize material from the public.

It's especially sad that this comes just a few months after the Hargreaves report, which explicitly points out that so much policy is made without evidence -- and copyright extension is a perfect example of that. Citizens of the EU: your politicians just sold you out to the record labels, taking away content that was legally yours and no longer will be.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, copyright extension, eu

120 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

out_of_the_blue, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:18pm

Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?
When your views don't include corruption, you've no grasp on reality. When The Rich are allowed total freedom, they always go crazy and ruin civilization. This is only a small part of their total takeover, this time using computerized policing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 6:38am
  
  Re: Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?
  Maybe there's a typo in your post or something but this critique of the above, "When your views don't include corruption, you've no grasp on reality." completely ignores this portions of the text, "Citizens of the EU: your politicians just sold you out to the record labels." Does 'sold you out' need to be spelled out more clearly for you to see that it means 'corruption?'
  
  The centralization of power in a 'government' is what allows 'The Rich,' really anyone with significant political influence rich or not, some 'rich' are even excluded, the freedom to go crazy. They are not really taking over so much as they're consolidating their power and they're not using 'computerized policing' as much as they're just using the same tool they've always used: powerful central governments.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 7:21am
  
  Re: Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?
  I agree, Mike, you're so busy speaking out and pointing out corruption that you've blinded yourself to all the corruption around you!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 7:54am
  
  Re: Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?
  "When your views don't include corruption"
  
  You know how I know you didn't read the article before your usual moronic attack...?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Ahlquist, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:20pm

They will spend millions on enforcement
They will try to protect all that orphaned work because the record labels bribed them into it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:31pm

EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain
meanwhile, the public seizes ALL works and makes then public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:59pm
  
  Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain
  So you're saying the citizens of the countries to whom these government officials are supposedly answerable ignore the laws that said government officials pass while ignoring the interests of the public in favor of monied interests? Sounds appropriate to me.
  
  If the people who pass the laws are not answerable to the public, then the public is not answerable to their laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 11:20pm
  
  Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain
  I fucking hope. These idiots couldn't innovate their way into a paper bag, and are greedier tan the Hungry Caterpillar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Still an anonymous coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 11:54pm
  
  Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain
  I have to admit you put a smile on my face after reading something upsetting.
  
  The purpose of laws and rules is to make you think about them before you break them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zot-Sindi, 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:21am
  
  Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain
  i wish it where that easy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:36pm

For reasons unknown I will start pirating more stuff although I don't even like that crap that much.

This is one of those moments that I have no regrets for not having respect for copyright at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 8:44pm

The EU is not subject to the US constitution
the purpose of copyright law is to incent the creation of new works

Unfortunately only the US constitution says that. I don't believe many (any?) EU countries have constitutions that limit what their legislative bodies can do in quite the same way as the US does, so they can make the purpose of their copyright laws be whatever they want them to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:09pm
  
  Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
  "The purpose of copyright and related rights is twofold: to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."
  http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:42pm
    
    Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
    " and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public"
    
    If copyright permits companies to license the content, and make it available at a reasonable price, does that not fit the bill? Does something have to be in the public domain to get widespread, affordable access?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
      If you ignore the first point (in fact, take it out back and shoot it), yeah, permanent copyright fulfills the second part... until the copyright owners abuse their power and over-charge for their works. Or limit access to them such that people can only get them in formats which the copyright holders prefer. Which we know will never, ever happen.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
      With today's technologies there would be cheap, widespread, affordable access without the current middle men trying to maximize their own revenues and profits.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
      It does if it is out of print and it doesn't have enough economic value perceived.
      
      Why copyright needs to be so long, why can it last just 10 years.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Zot-Sindi, 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
        ten years is far too long for today's fast paced world
        
        about 1-2 year(s) sounds about right
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
        Hell most of us would me happy if you knocked it back to 25 years. (Less would be better of course.) but even that would have us shouting "Huzzah!" and dancing in the streets!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Samuel Abram (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
        Personally, I think 50 years maximum is adequate. In the US, we have 95 years, which is WAAAAY too long.
        Permanently extending copyright does more harm to copyright than 1,000,000 pirates. Why should we respect copyright if it lasts forever and never expires?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tor (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
      Yes, it has to be in the public domain.
      As long as it is not in the public domain you normally have a big deadweight loss. If there is a great number of people for whom the mental/economical transaction cost of licensing is too high in the individual case then you will have a great number of cases where works of art are never used although they would have been had said works just been in the public domain.
      
      Imagine you have a painter who has to ask for permission every time he wants to use a new color on his palette. Surely he wouldn't work very well under such circumstances.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Zot-Sindi, 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
        or a cook that must ask for permission to use each and every ingredient
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
      "Does something have to be in the public domain to get widespread, affordable access?"
      
      Yes. Only a handful of works get made commercially available after their initial releases. Others literally rot away in warehouses because there's no commercial incentive to release them in a new edition.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2012 @ 7:56am
    
    Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
    Wrong, it's for censorship and gate keeping. Always has been, always will be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- timmaguire42 (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 6:45pm
  
  Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
  You beat me to it. Promoting the arts and sciences is an American concept. In Europe, IP rights are moral rights--the creator owns it because he created it. "Limited time" and "public good" are not part of their IP culture.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jnm, 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:16pm
  
  Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
  So much for the protection of the US constitution. The US was 13 years faster than the EU at extending the lifetime.
  
  The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.[1] Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Samuel Abram (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:36pm
    
    Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
    Well, this was a loophole. The US constitution explicitly says that copyright is limited. It doesn't say for how long. So legislators just extend and extend copyright thus creating a perpetual copyright cycle.
    
    Eric Eldred and Larry Lessig (a hero of mine, BTW) challenged the pernicious CTEA 11 years ago in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case. Unfortunately, they lost in a 7-2 Supreme Court decision.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
      I would like to think that a 7-2 decision would be a motivation to actually read it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve Withers, 10 Sep 2011 @ 1:55am
  
  Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
  AJ: The US Constitution doesn't limit what US legislators can do. They just appoint an Attorney-General willing to say that whatever violation of the Constitution they wish to enact isn't really a violation at all....and proceed. This is how the US Patriot Act has made a joke of the 4th Amendment. This is how the US President can claim to have a right to ignore the Constitution in Guantanamo...despite that very same Constitution being the source of 100% of his powers. Only the US House of Representative can declare....yet the US has been involved in over 50 wars since the last time the House declared war. I could go on and on....but please don't persist in thinking the US Constitution is a living document. It's stone, cold dead. Killed by corrupt political actors and a complacent, ignorant citizenry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:18pm

Public who?
"Denmark recently changed its mind, thereby enabling this effort to flat out seize material from the public. "

Who is this "Public" and why should they be enabled anyway?"

I'm certain "Public" hasn't donated lately, so why should they be considered?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Public who?
  LET THEM EAT CAKE!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yoyo, 11 Sep 2011 @ 8:15pm
  
  Re: Public who?
  Public domain. Dumb a**.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Shore, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:23pm

Copyright vs Reality
Does anyone really care at all about copyright anymore? If I want to listen to a song, I will find it and listen to it. Copyright will not affect my decision to pay for it or not. This is simply keeping alive the lawyers and the entertainment middlemen who are dead but simply do not realize it yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:35pm
  
  Re: Copyright vs Reality
  The more copyright is extended, perverted, abused, and forced upon populations who are never permitted any say in the matter, the more people who would never give copyright a second thought will be affected negatively somehow.
  
  Since copyright only exists by consent of the public, don't be surprised when the public decides that copyright no longer serves them and they declare it null and void.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- kyle clements (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:51pm
  
  Re: Copyright vs Reality
  It's not about consuming works in the public domain. It's about re-using them. Sure, I can listen to any song or watch any movie for free. But I can't include music from the 1950's in my own videos. I can't have old AM radio classics in the background of a scene. A character or poster in the background might lead to a legal headache if the estate is packed with douches.
  
  My view: If they can steal from the public domain, we can steal from copyright owners guilt-free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Zot-Sindi, 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:25am
    
    Re: Re: Copyright vs Reality
    sure you can include them, just be ready to pay out the friggin ass for a single song that will cost you about as much as making the whole damn movie itself
    
    now if the cost was something like ... 5-10 dollars per song/character .etc, that would actually be sane, i'd pay that
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zot-Sindi, 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:24am
  
  Re: Copyright vs Reality
  i don't give a damn about copyright except for the part where the supporters of it will go out of their way to make people who don't care about it's life as hard as possible as much as possible
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ttyp00, 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:42am
  
  Re: Copyright vs Reality
  huzzah!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:37pm

Why isn't there any mainstream media coverage of this? Why doesn't this get broadcasted on public airwaves and over cableco infrastructure?

Oh, that's right, the govt grants monopoly privileges over those communication channels and the privileged monopolists won't criticize laws that unfairly favor them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:43pm

Mike, I have to say that your pure dejected tone of the post is powerful. It also reveals you to be a rather sore loser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- blaktron (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:48pm
  
  Re:
  Maybe he believes in the public domain? And when something you believe in gets stomped on, it sucks. Now you don't even understand basic humanity? Weird...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:54pm
  
  Re:
  Add "sore loser" to TAM's list of "words and phrases I have no understand of."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    understanding*
    
    Ironic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:57pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh look, a techdirt staff member posting anonymously.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And the sour grapes continue to pop up LoL
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 11:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You sound like a broken recording industry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Says the person who's deathly afraid of making himself known, without actual proof.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 3:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Trolling: 2
      Reasoning: 0
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 4:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh look, a paranoid idiot who's purpose is to poison the discussion with idiotic one-liners.
      
      A.K.A., TAM.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh look, a moron posting anonymously, who's so paranoid he can even believe that ordinary people think he's an idiot without some kind of agenda.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        can't believe, even
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:15pm
  
  Re:
  Says the shilltard who weirdly believe that cheating the public yet again won't backfire. LOL.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:24pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Suggestion use "shillturd" instead of "shilltard".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - uh (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 7:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That's gay.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 6:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Outside of one of two works that are discussed in the story, can you name anything else that is suddenly "reclaimed" that was going to be in the public domain?
    
    I bet most people here could not, which indicates how much you really care about the public domain. It's all about tearing down copyright, not the actual content.
    
    You guys are freaking amazing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 7:02am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "It's all about tearing down copyright, not the actual content."
      
      When this is the best you can do, you might as well just quit and join our cause.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Outside of one of two works that are discussed in the story, can you name anything else that is suddenly "reclaimed" that was going to be in the public domain?"
      
      Everything else released in the same years that were going to be PD before this extension? That would be thousands of works, so I won't list them here just because you're too stupid to consider them, or apparently believe that only 2 works were released in that 20 year period.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2011 @ 7:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Paul, without looking hard, tell me:
        
        WHAT WORKS?
        
        See, my problem isn't that works are or are not going to be in the PD, it's that a bunch of people are here getting all upset about it, yet they have absolutely no idea what works are involved, likely wouldn't care, and probably have never considered to even enjoy those works.
        
        Please tell us, in your own words, of an exact example that has happened in your personal life that this copyright extension would have harmed, where you would not have been able to do something. Please make sure to include the name of the work involved.
        
        My guess? You can't name one.
        
        So what I am wondering is, since this copyright extension clearly doesn't appear to cause you any problems one way or the other, why are you so upset about it?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They're upset about it because they want to download everything for free!!
        
        "Me! Me! Me!" is the battle cry of Mike's Army of Soulless Sycophants.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 6:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey, you're agreeing with the other Anonymous Coward.
        
        Therefore, you must be the same person!
        
        ...Makes about as much sense as thinking another A.C. is a "a techdirt staff member posting anonymously."
        
        To give an answer to the original A.C.'s question:
        http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/international/02CND_COPY.html
        
        This year, it would have included "the earliest records of the rock era, including those of artists like Cliff Richard," according to this "quick quip" from VVM.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 11 Sep 2011 @ 2:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *waves*
        
        Hey, I'm over here, concerned about orphaned works and restrictions that prevent rather than encourage new works. I'm concerned about art literally disappearing because some corporation wants to carry on making money from people who died, but they want to continue profiting from their corpse.
        
        You can keep attacking that flaky looking pirate strawman you set up over there in the corner, but it's not going to help you look like you have a real argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 11 Sep 2011 @ 3:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "My guess? You can't name one."
        
        Ah, this old argument, huh? "I can't think of any answer that's acceptable to me, so nobody can". You're not only wrong, you're in your usual position, facing exactly 180 degrees from the truth, but have deluded yourself into thinking you're right.
        
        Let's take this slowly, because it's apparently too complicated for you. The extension covers EVERYTHING produced between 50 and 70 years ago. Assuming it's immediately effective, that means that everything produced between 1941 and 1961 is affected. I'm not going sit here and list them all just because you don't have the mental capacity to work out why this is a problem.
        
        To put it bluntly, works including the early recordings of famous artists like Elvis and the entire back catalogue of someone like Buddy Holly has been snatched from the public domain. The reason for this is simply to protect some corporate interests, and profits for people who were almost certainly not alive at the time the work was created. In the meantime, works from artists who didn't get to be as famous as those people? No commercial incentive to re-release them, and thus they are ultimately erased from history. Unacceptable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:22pm
  
  Re:
  You do realise that stuff that has been legally in the public domain for up to 19 years will suddenly be covered by copyright again.
  
  A number of creators will have their artworks ruined by this, or be forced to jump through countless legal hoops and fork out licencing fees for something that was legally free to use just a few days ago.
  
  So yeah, getting raped up the ass does make you a bit sore.
  
  So you are a anal rape apologist? Well, AC, are you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    oh their not an apologist, just a masochist, who else likes getting anally raped?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Nah, he clearly likes to receive more money in the ass than to give.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:29pm
  
  Re:
  It's not Mike that's lost, it's the whole public. We have every right to be sore when anything is ripped from the public domain at the behest of a bunch of money-grubbing obsolete middlemen. (Is that you perhaps?)
  
  Any time you and your ilk claim "it's for the artists", we remember shit like this and add it to the list of reasons to look for ways to avoid giving Big Content money whenever possible. That leaves us with either unauthorized content or anything that sends money directly to artists. Is that the end result you were hoping for?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 9:45pm

I see no evil here and Europe can pass all the legislation they want because I'm copyright-blind, so I don't see it and consequently don't fallow it, meaning I will continue to copy anything I want, when I want and I doubt it will change anything in my life.

Here let me advocate for legal piracy now:

http://librivox.org/
http://www.jamendo.com/
http://vodo.net/
http://www.guttenbergnj.org /
http://mimiandeunice.com/
http://www.archive.org/

You should really, really stop watching TV, movies or listening to radio that plays the MAFIAA content.

The laws don't matter what matters is what you do, if you consume that crap you are a supporter of that system and you deserve those laws, if you don't consume it and it is able to use liberal licenses then those laws don't matter either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 5:01pm
  
  Re:
  "Legal Piracy" is a contradiction. If fire-sharing is legally free, by definition, it is not piracy.
  
  It was absurd when the Nashville Songwriters Association used it and it is equally absurd when you use it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:14pm

Melancholy Elephants
http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Sep 2011 @ 10:23pm

We need to hack the operating system of countries.

I want a Git repository for the laws of the land.
I want a text editor.
and finally I want a diff to produce patches for the laws in that country.

Since politicians are incompetent it is time for the people to take matters into their own hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- zub, 9 Sep 2011 @ 12:10am
  
  Re:
  In fact I've been dreaming about this. It would be so cool!
  
  Revision control systems (which is something used daily by programmers, in fact not only them) would be so useful for keeping the laws.
  
  Too bad nobody of the politicans even know what a revision control system is. (And why would they want it, it's not like they'd want the public to easily see the changes made over time.)
  
  Of course somebody could replicate what they are doing in an own repo, but keeping it up to date would require some work...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:19am
  
  Re:
  As long as there is strong policing on changes, otherwise it might devolve into a shouting match with trolls. But it's a nice idea for sure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AW (profile), 8 Sep 2011 @ 11:06pm

Let logic dictate
It would seem logical that if the current governance believes that retroactive copyright is promoting the goals of progress, should they not abandon public domain altogether? Why would they take steps that seem to only act as a step towards creating a complacent culture. Giving false hope of a logical and reasonable expectation of a creative work benefiting the public seems damaging to morale and at best dishonest at worst negligent. I would suggest that the goals of stagnation, job loss and creative vacuum could be far faster achieved and should be considered. Please extend this to the logical conclusion EU, abandon public domain and increase taxation of goods on your society, this is the most opportune time to do so, with the high unemployment, they will have to choose between creative signs and wooden stakes and pitchforks. Obviously signs are more a value to them except, of course, if they write a previously used slogan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daddy Warbucks, 8 Sep 2011 @ 11:43pm

Brazil is Next to Grab
Brazil Looks to Crimialize Ripping a CD
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110826/00352915694/brazil-looks-to-criminalize-ripping-cd.sht ml

Centralized Govt will ALWAYS destroy the rights of the people to enhance power.

Looks like the broken down model will hold us down for now, but the future holds freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Common sense, 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:21am
  
  Re: Brazil is Next to Grab
  It is *not* your right to steal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 7:38am
    
    Re: Re: Brazil is Next to Grab
    "It is *not* your right to steal."
    
    Funnily enough, he never said it was. He's talking about something you can do with the objects you've paid for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Daddy Warbucks, 21 Sep 2011 @ 1:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Brazil is Next to Grab
    Steal what?
    Please explain what is being stolen by me ripping a copy of my purchased CD?
    
    Common sense is *not* your strong point.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zub, 9 Sep 2011 @ 12:14am

What are the implications?
Just to be clear here - does that really mean that there are works that were all legal, using things in the public domain, that have become illegal overnight?

That's seriously wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BearGriz72 (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:57am
  
  Re: What are the implications?
  Basically... YES
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:22am
  
  Re: What are the implications?
  Yes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel Popescu (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:23am

Citizens of the EU: your politicians just sold you out

And this is news how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 1:45am

Once again the public fails to compete and it's representatives whine and whine.

If post-copyright business models are really the norm, and you can really make more money with them, then you have the resources and the numbers to outcompete the companies (which you so often call incompetent in every respect) that want to lock up content.

You love competition and the market. This is a competition and market for power, influence, and control. Stop whining. Start competing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:18am
  
  Re:
  You will be sorry for those words one day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:22am
  
  Re:
  Does murder count as competing? Because, short of that, I don't see a way out of this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:25am
  
  Re:
  The public fails to compete? Compete with what?
  What are you suggesting?
  How can the public compete with Mr Moneybags the lobbyist and Mr Corrupt Politician?
  
  There are also no business models to support the locked-up content. In fact an enormous amount of our intellectual culture are now going to waste, all because of the greed of a few stupid-as-fuck MAFIAA-scumbags.
  
  Old music, books and movies that are now left rotting on shelves, because the Big Content companies feel that there's no money in restoring them, and getting a license to make a legal backup for preservation's sake are prohibitively expensive. And why? So that Disney Co can still keep the copyright on their stolen Mouse icon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 10:17am
  
  Real Economists (like Milton Friedman) are and were against extending copyright terms.
  
  Hell, Milton Friedman himself only said he would sign onto a brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft (a US supreme court case challenging the Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of copyright by 20 years) on the side of Eldred (i.e. the side opposing the CTEA) if the words "No Brainer" were used.
  
  How does it feel to be to the right of Milton freaking Friedman?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 11 Sep 2011 @ 8:51pm
  
  Re:
  It's a good thing the soul can't be copyrighted, otherwise Satan would have to pay royalties for yours.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 2:06am

If anyone was looking for proof of corruption in the EU
it's right here. There wasn't so much as a debate on it. They just rubberstamped this.

And they loudly complain and wonder why so few people trust the politicians in Brussels (and Strasbourg).
Gee, do ya think maybe because you put corporate interests before the public's?

They waste our tax-money, make up ridiculous laws that make very little sense on a national scale, they never listen to the interest of the people (apart from very few notable exceptions).

If it were up to me, we'd disband this whole European Government thing, and give the reigns back to national governments. (Not that they are much better, but at least we have a more direct influence on them, Europe is abstracted away from the people.)
I know that's very right-wing of me, even though I'm normally quite left-wing socialistic. But in the European Governments' case, it's worse than the disease it was supposed to battle.

Oh, and give me back my guilder!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xenobyte (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 4:04am

Fail
One thing is to extend copyright on works still under copyright, another thing entirely is to take works already progressed into public domain and return them to a copyrighted state. The first is semantics, the second completely unacceptable.

I for one have almost completely stopped paying for music (own 5000+ CDs) and video (own 2500+ DVDs and Blu-rays) and turned to illegal downloads. Yes, I used to be a happy customer but this obscene quest by the copyright holders to squeeze more money out of their 'property' and to control distribution against all logic and common sense has made me say stop. They've moved beyond fairness and reasonable and into the domain of pure greed and megalomania.

No more. This ends now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 4:27am
  
  Re: Fail
  I too own way too many (Hundreds!) shiny bits of plastic.
  I'm getting a VPN account and getting the content I want.
  Not once have the copyright shills offered to find a way to make the public happy. Extending copyright is stealing from the public for something they paid for already. Paid for many times over I might sadly add.
  Why is the people of the EU allowing this to happen? Why don't they vote the bastards out of office?
  Then again, Obama promised less rules and more transparency and we Americans fell for that load of crap too.
  I have always felt that the content creators deserved their due compensation. But this and past actions just smacks of greed and a willingness to imprison their fan base. If we don't vote the obviously bribed officials out of office, then we deserve to be ass raped over and over again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 9 Sep 2011 @ 5:08am

Hmmm, this has me thinking
I don't pirate anything, but maybe somebody should start a list of all of the works that would have their original copyright expire by now. Then maybe I would consider pirating those works since they were stolen from me first.

I might be on to something here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:00am

Please correct me if I am mistaken because I am not intimately familiar with the details of this legislation, but it is my understanding that it does not confer copyright on works whose copyright terms have already expired, but only reaches works that are still within their copyright terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 9:53am

@66 AC retroactive question?
Here's a quote from the official Dossier translated into English from German. http://irights.info/userfiles/Schutzfrist_A5_engl_final(1).pdf

"This dossier aims at providing an overview of the presently escalating discussion taking place in Europe since 2005, about a term extension for related rights in sound recordings. Start- ing in the UK, music industry lobbyists have been pushing for years to have the term for all existing and future recordings extended by at least 20, better even by 45 years. Below fol- lows a short description of the rights in question, of the points made for and against a term extension and of the chain of events that lead to the situation where this extension might, notwithstanding a strong opposition, be actually made into EU law in September 2011."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 3:29pm
  
  Re: @66 AC retroactive question?
  This does not really answer the question. It does talk about term "extensions", but not about granting "terms" to works whose terms have already expired.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 12:42pm

The internet is to the MAFIAA what Waterloo was to Napoleon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 12:55pm

Hippie Crap
The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work". The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work.

That's it. That's all. This "social justification" idea is a steaming pool of rancid bullshit.

There is no "public domain" from which the government has "seized" anything. Step out of the drum circle, take off your magic RFD wizard cape, and rejoin us in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 5:29pm
  
  Re: Hippie Crap
  The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work". The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work.
  
  Not in the US, at least. The stated purpose is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". That's it. That's all. Not to "protect intellectual property". Not even "to earn money for authors". It's to promote progress.
  
  The EU could be different, though.
  
  There is no "public domain" from which the government has "seized" anything. Step out of the drum circle, take off your magic RFD wizard cape, and rejoin us in reality.
  
  Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even extending past copyrights delay their expiration thereof and concurrent entrance into the public domain. It's making sure that the public domain is retarded by 20 years and nothing enters it. That's a significant burden to society.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 2:54am
  
  Re: Hippie Crap
  "The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work"."
  
  Not its stated purpose, and even then only for a limited time.
  
  " The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work."
  
  If you think authors, rather than corporations who did nothing to create the work, are the ones being protected, you might need to read more.
  
  "There is no "public domain" from which the government has "seized" anything."
  
  If you really believe this and don't have a paycheck invested in saying this, you're rather clueless.
  
  "Step out of the drum circle"
  
  Also, is it just me or has the "hippy" accusation been cropping a lot of late? It's not the '60s, so such accusations do come across as rather stupid anyway, but I do find it interesting that this seems to be the troll accusation of late for those who actually dare to oppose the corporate gods they worship.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 6:52pm
  
  Re: Hippie Crap
  The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work". The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work.
  
  This is 100% factually wrong.
  
  Don't believe me? Ask Congress:
  
  The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings... but on the grounds that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted... Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given.
  
  ...Or the Supreme court:
  
  It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme."... It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ... and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."
  
  ...Or Thomas Jefferson, the founding father (and patent worker) who helped write that clause:
  
  Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.
  
  It is pretty much the same in Britain (which is where the U.S. got the idea for copyright in the first place).
  
  However, it is different in the European Union. The harmonizing of copyright law is the Berne Convention - which is utterly silent on the ultimate purpose of copyright law, but does include sections akin to Fair Use laws here in the States.
  
  A couple of the member states have "moral rights," or droit d'auteur. Created in France, these are considered inalienable; they could not be transferred to others, e.g. publishers, even if the authors wanted to. They are limited to what we would call CC-BY: right of attribution. (That's why CC0 isn't a legal option worldwide; artists simply are not allowed by law to put their own works into the public domain.) They are also granted the right to object to derogatory treatment of their works; in the U.S., this is covered by libel and defamation laws, and are unrelated to copyright.
  
  Economic rights - the rights granted to publishers - are separate rights, which are not "moral rights," and those are the ones that were extended.
  
  And even in France, home of droit d'auteur, economic rights were enacted for the same purpose as U.S. and British copyrights. To quote Peter K. Yu:
  
  However... the author's right was also conditioned on the deposit of copies with the Bibliotheque Nationale, and nineteenth-century commentators characterized the 1793 law as utilitarian and "a charitable grant from society," rather than a full recognition of the perpetual right of an author's heirs to the fruits of his labor.
  
  So, you're pretty much wrong no matter how you look at it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 3:34pm

to the states enforcing their legislation
fuck you. fuck everything you claim to stand for. you don't represent me. you don't represent anyone i have ever met. how could you? how could something so tyrannical and absolute, like a state, represent or meaningfully amalgamate the beliefs of a group of individuals.
this is all about their insatiable thirst for MORE power. i say fuck them. fuck their ideas, and intentions. the more of us who openly say FUCK YOU to those 'ruling' us, the closer we get to murdering those fuckers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Sep 2011 @ 5:34pm

Copyright is for losers.
Smart artists know that filesharing is the best "try before you buy" marketing method out there. Stupid ones think the world owes them a living for writing a fucking song or a book. Pirates consistently consume more LEGAL content than non-pirates.

In the end, it doesn't matter, because with proper precautions in place, the shilltards will never even know their "rights" (I use the term loosely) are being "violated". The scene has always been faster to adapt and change than the corporate world, and it always will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry Voter, 9 Sep 2011 @ 5:36pm

It's not a government - it's just organized crime working for the plutocrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Squall, 9 Sep 2011 @ 5:38pm

Awesome. Another 20 years of only hearing the last line of "Happy Birthday" on TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
misterdoug (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 7:19pm

Content? Aww, please
Since everybody else is thoroughly hashing over the copyright stuff I just want to object to the word, "content."

What we're talking about is human culture -- art, music, literature, all of which got along fine for thousands of years without IP laws or record companies. What is at stake is people having possession of their own culture instead of renting it, and without giving anyone the power to take it away because of a business decision.

Art is more than something to fill up web pages. Calling it "content" just perpetuates the IP industry's own mindset of treating culture like a commodity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 9 Sep 2011 @ 8:10pm
  
  Re: Content? Aww, please
  So what else are we supposed to call it? All art is content, but not all content is art. For instance: newspapers/blogs, shitty slash/fiction, productivity software, etc.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve Withers, 10 Sep 2011 @ 1:50am

If they show no respect, they get none.
This more or less kills any respect I had for their property rights.

They clearly have no respect at all for ours as they are very happy to steal from the public domain...and all of us.

These laws are killing any remaining respect for copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 11 Sep 2011 @ 11:04am
  
  Exactly
  This was exactly my point. Retroactively extending copyrights does more damage to respect for the law than anything Shawn Fanning ever did.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2011 @ 9:47am

This doesn't even matter. The day I actually have to pay for movies and music is the day I'll start believing they're actually making a difference. I could care less if I have a "right" to download something so long as I have the ability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A. Good Name, 10 Sep 2011 @ 12:10pm

real purpose of copyright law
The real purpose of copyright law is a legislative framework for moving privately owned ideas into the public domain.

It's all how you paint the picture: copyright extenders will tell you it's to "protect" works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wvhillbilly (profile), 12 Sep 2011 @ 8:17pm
  
  Re: real purpose of copyright law
  Right on. If legislators keep extending the term of copyright to infinity no more works will ever enter the public domain unless explicitly donated, the media they are recorded on will rot to dust, the works will be lost forever and all others will be denied the opportunity to build on them. (One of the ways which culture is shaped is by building on the works of others once they are in the public domain.)
  
  Thus all culture will ultimately become whatever the labels/authors dictate it will be, and the rest will be lost forever.
  
  (Oh, we still have Edison cylinder records, if anyone can find them and something to play them on. They've been donated to the public domain. Not much else has.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vancedecker (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:27pm

Never heard of publicdomain, but...
...I just checked piratebay, kickasstorrents, and demonoid, and at least from my initial survey, it appears that all the content is still there...

Perhaps publicdomain should consider some sort of partnership with one of these larger content providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vancedecker (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:39pm

Never heard of publicdomain, but...
...I just checked piratebay, kickasstorrents, and demonoid, and at least from my initial survey, it appears that all the content is still there...

Perhaps publicdomain should consider some sort of partnership with one of these larger content providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vancedecker (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:39pm

Never heard of publicdomain, but...
...I just checked piratebay, kickasstorrents, and demonoid, and at least from my initial survey, it appears that all the content is still there...

Perhaps publicdomain should consider some sort of partnership with one of these larger content providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vancedecker (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:55pm
  
  Re: Never heard of publicdomain, but...
  woops! How the hell did that happen?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vancedecker (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:55pm
  
  Re: Never heard of publicdomain, but...
  woops! How the hell did that happen?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- vancedecker (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 5:55pm
  
  Re: Never heard of publicdomain, but...
  woops! How the hell did that happen?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Sep 2011 @ 6:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Never heard of publicdomain, but...
    it seems you're posting in triplets everywhere on this site. You should probably stop clicking the submit button more then once
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - vancedecker (profile), 10 Sep 2011 @ 6:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Never heard of publicdomain, but...
      Rly? I never thought of that. Where is the submit menu located?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wvhillbilly (profile), 12 Sep 2011 @ 7:54pm

Extending copyright
Can the labels or anyone else seize and put their copyright on stuff that has been explicitly donated to the public domain? I'm sure they would if they could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2012 @ 7:58am

Silly rabbits, copyright is for censorship and gate keeping. Always has been, always will be. Ask queen Ann.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]