The Cost Of Copyright Extension In Europe: 1 Billion Euros Paid By The Public

from the what-a-disaster dept

Wed, Sep 14th 2011 12:54pm — Mike Masnick

Martin Kretschmer has a post up at the 1709 blog discussing the recent wholesale seizure of the public domain in Europe, and how it not only won't help most musicians (which is the basis for passing it), but will cost the public over 1 billion euros, based on the EU Commission's own figures:

It is not surprising that many performers� organisations and collecting societies support the Directive. They do not have to carry the costs � which will exceed EURO 1 billion to the general public (based on the Commission�s own figures � see calculations in Joint Academic Statement issued by Centre for Intellectual Property Policy & Management (CIPPM, Bournemouth University), the Centre for Intellectual Property & Information Law (CIPIL, Cambridge University), the Institute the Institute for Information Law (IViR, University of Amsterdam), and the Max Planck Competition and Tax Law (Munich)

72 percent of the financial benefits from term extension will accrue to record labels. Of the 28 percent that will go to artists, most of the money will go to superstar acts, with only 4 percent benefiting those musicians mentioned in the European Council press release as facing an "income gap at the end of their life times". Many performers also do not appear to understand that the proposal would lead to a redistribution of income from living to dead artists.

In an interview with the NY Times yesterday, I said: "This is a dreadful day for musicians and consumers. Policymakers are schizophrenic, speaking a language of change and innovation, but then respond to lobbying by extending the right which gave rise to the problem in the first place. This only entrenches a cynical attitude toward copyright law and brings it into further disrepute."

It's really amazing what a disaster this is. It doesn't help most artists. The ones it does help don't need it. And the real beneficiaries are the major record labels who have failed to adapt. And the public loses out in a big, bad way.

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

71 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:01pm

What is amazing is that losses for piracy cannot be calculated, but losses due to a copyright extension can be.

Welcome to the wacko world of Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- surfer, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:09pm
  
  Re:
  so the MAFIAA's projected revenue loss is now only 57 billion?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gordon (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re:
  "They do not have to carry the costs � which will exceed EURO 1 billion to the general public (based on the Commission�s own figures..."
  
  See, that one sentence right there tells you that it wasn't Mike or Techdirt as a blog came up with the numbers. Try reading the article again, practice your reading comp skills and kindly go away.
  
  My 2 cents.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Gordon, I can't imagine that you fall for this double talk.
    
    "based on the commissions own figures" is a nice phrase. Figures can't lie, but liars can figure, and anyone who wants to take a bunch of numbers and play can. This is exactly the type of play that the MPAA does and Mike gets all in a tizzy about. Instead here is is doing the old QFT thing on what are clearly bogus numbers, worse than anything that the MPAA comes up with.
    
    What are those figured based on? SALES. Financial benefits exist only if there is paid consumption. Just like piracy, works with extended copyright that are not purchased, rented, or otherwise used generate no income.
    
    If sales are "potential" on one side, then they are "potential" on the other.
    
    Mike (and whoever he is quoting) is trying to have it both ways. It's a horrible sham on Techdirt readers to even run this story. If you buy it, you are no better than anyone agreeing with the MPAA numbers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Berenerd (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      MPAA uses it's own figures where Mike was using someone else's figures...
      
      Just sayin.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cowardly Anon, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Figures can't lie, but liars can figure, and anyone who wants to take a bunch of numbers and play can."
      
      I agree with you there.
      
      BUT.....
      
      In my experience, when someone in the government says something will cost x to implement, it normally costs y. Where y > x.
      
      On the other side of that when someone says they lost x dollars b/c of something, they normally lost y....where y < x.
      
      People try to minimize costs to maximize profits. People tend to exaggerate loss when there is a possibility of being compensated for it. This also maximizes their profits.
      
      So the only thing we can be 100% sure of is that the record labels are out to maximize their profits, and they will lie with figures to do it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cc (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Thanks for pointing out that the Commission's numbers, which were used to pass this copyright extension, were complete and utter bullshit. There's a good reason those numbers were being qualified as the Commission's own, which is because lawmakers were taking those numbers for granted even though they are "potential sales" bullshit.
      
      The argument of the original paper, which you obviously haven't read, is that given that that money (however much it is) is just distributed by and large to foreign labels, we have a direct LOSS for the consumer who would access the same stuff for free if copyright were allowed to expire (And of course, sales price is what the consumer pays, which is why it makes sense to look at the sales price in this case). In other words, if the copyrights were allowed to expire, it would result in savings for the public and the money being wasted in paying the four majors could be used elsewhere in the European economy in places where it could actually improve people's lives (like food and clothes).
      
      Moreover, it's pointed out that in coming up with those numbers, the Commission pretended that the extension wouldn't have other extraneous costs for the consumer, such as for example enforcement costs, which again is clearly bullshit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What I am pointing out only is that it is incredibly dishonest to shit all over the MPAA reports, and then to push something like this as if it is truth.
        
        This is a perfect indication of why Techdirt is so full of it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't see Mike pushing anything. Mike even copied the original article's qualification that this is "based on the EU Commission's own figures", which is factually correct, and actually is the entire point.
        
        Those figures have already been accepted as truth by the politicians who passed this extension. Therefore, a reinterpretation of those same figures should be equally true... right?
        
        Either you accept that the Commission's numbers are true, which also makes the 1 billion figure true and accept that the copyright extension was a mistake as it will have a negative impact, or you accept that the Commission's numbers are false, which also makes the 1 billion figure false, and also accept that the copyright extension was a mistake as it was based on flawed evidence.
        
        You can't have it both ways, but either way Techdirt is correct in pointing out that the copyright extension was a mistake.
        
        This is categorically NOT the same as taking a random report by the MPAA and accepting it as truth. That's not good science. This is the same as taking an MPAA report and predicating your conclusions on its findings in order to disprove the original report.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What I am pointing out only is that it is incredibly dishonest to shit all over the MPAA reports, and then to push something like this as if it is truth.
        
        No it isn't because the MPAA reports ARE rubbish designed to push their selfish ends - whereas these figures were produced by people who were arguing FOR extension.
        
        You can't expect us to be even handed between truth and falsehood!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's being pointed out here is not that the numbers are 'the truth' but that MPAA reports are used routinely to argue for stronger copyright laws. Yet when similar reports show massive harm being done to the public on the same order, 'billions of dollars,' they go completely ignored by those passing the laws.
        
        What's being pointed out is the sheer hypocrisy of the political bodies that are kowtowing to the Big Content agenda no matter what 'the figures,' accurate or not, say.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Another AC, 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As usual you missed the point. The point is not that the figures are accurate or not. The point is that the EU Commission arrived at those figures then completely ignored them anyway when passing the extension.
      
      It the same situation if the MPPA commissioned a study saying that 'piracy' can actually help them rather than hurt them, and then they continue to try and 'kill piracy'.
      
      Oh wait, that actually happened:
      
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110721/04092915191/industry-suppressed-report-showin g-users-shuttered-pirate-site-probably-helped-movie-industry.shtml
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Both ways? Maybe you're missing something here but it's the content industry that wants it 'both ways.' They use their figures to say 'we need stronger copyright protections' or 'we need tougher enforcement measures' and when asked why they point to these astronomical figures that only really make sense to them. Yet when the figures are actually against them they still think the legislation should go their way and the politicians agree with them no matter which way the figures go it is. It's almost like the figures are irrelevant and are used only when they provide a convenient smoke screen to hide the agenda underneath...
      
      So which is it if the figures are the same kind of animal, are both these figures and the Big Content figures false and we don't need stronger copyright laws or are both figures true and this copyright extension never should have gone through? Or do you want it both ways?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - FUDpacker, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Straw, meet man.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:11pm
  
  Re:
  Welcome to reality. It's easy to calculate how much legislation costs because there are budgetary allotments and such.
  
  It's impossible, on the other hand, to calculate if anyone might have actually purchased content they downloaded instead.
  
  The first requires mathematics. The second requires omniscience.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:54pm
  
  Re:
  You've given up on facts and logic altogether now, right? If not, this is stupid even by your standards.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- antimatter3009 (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:07pm
  
  Re:
  People don't disagree with the MPAA numbers simply because they're the MPAA's numbers, they disagree because they think the "1 download = 1 lost sale" is a poor way to measure the impact of piracy. Unless you find a similar problem with the method used here, I don't see what your point is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:41pm
  
  Re:
  What is amazing is that you would make this obvious conflation as if you were pointing out some profound truth and expect anyone to actually fall for it.
  
  Welcome to the wacko world of trolls.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lord Binky, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:16pm

But think of the ..erm.. corpses.....
Saying dead people don't need money is like saying your car doesn't need oil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:16pm

And so what?
Culture costs money and copyright is one way we pay for it. While I know that it has limitations, it also does a reasonable job of putting the costs on the backs of those who use the product. It's far from perfect, but it's better than many other schemes.

After all, the EU bureaucracy is spending 411 thousand euros on a dog fitness center in Hungary. The MEP will spend more than 5 million euros on their limosines in Strasborg alone! Why not spend something on artists, writers, musicians, playwrites and others?

http://www.europeanbusiness.gr/page.asp?pid=862

Oh I forget. You seem to think that letting the artists make a living is some how anti-consumer and anti-small guy. What horse manure. The main benefactors of this anti-copyright flogging are Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. I don't know why you astroturf for such billionaires.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  > Oh I forget. You seem to think that letting
  > the artists make a living is some how anti-consumer
  > and anti-small guy. What horse manure.
  
  Funny how the majority of actual artists say they don't need and don't want this crap.
  
  But you just ignore them-- or worse condescendingly pat them on the head like children who don't know what's good for themselves-- and proceed apace.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:42pm
    
    Re: Re: And so what?
    Oh come on, no one knows what the majority thinks. And I bet it all depends upon how you ask it. I bet 99+% of the artists are all for rewarding artists monetarily for their creations. If you talk about "free culture", I'm sure 99% are all in favor of that too.
    
    Consider this story about Nick Lowe:
    
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/arts/music/nick-lowe-back-with-a-new-album-that-old-magic .html
    
    I'm sure almost every artist will say that the system was working correctly when it rewarded Lowe for writing that song about Peace Love and Understanding. I know that it's commonly believed that the record companies screw people left and right, but they also reward them.
    
    Now personally I have no problem with Lowe getting a few more quid for his songs. Who else should get it? Apple and iTunes? Barnes and Noble makes a pretty penny reprinting books out of copyright. Why not reward the artists a bit more?
    
    Yogi Berra once said of the big rise in baseball salaries, "The players don't deserve the millions, but the owners don't deserve it even more." So why should Big Search, Big Publishing, Big Hardware and Big Piracy make their millions without giving a bit more to the artists?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      Dichotomoy in thought
      "Oh come on, no one knows what the majority thinks. And I bet it all depends upon how you ask it. I bet 99+% of the artists are all for rewarding artists monetarily for their creations. If you talk about "free culture", I'm sure 99% are all in favor of that too"
      
      If no-one knows what the majority thinks, how can you then bet that 99% of artists are for anything?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        People bet in Las Vegas all of the time on purely random events. I've been around artists long enough to know that almost all of them believe that artists should be better rewarded by society. It all depends upon how you frame it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        "You're wrong and my anecdotal evidence proves it!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      That is why markets should decide and not laws, you don't mandate someone to be paid you make them work for the very thing they want and that is money at the moment if they can't cope with the demands of the market they don't deserve it, if they can't compete with copycats they don't deserve it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        No one is making anyone give money to the artists. The market is at work. It just means that if someone wants to buy a copy of something old, they'll have to negotiate with the artist (or estate). And while giving someone money for an old creation may not make sense, I don't think that Big Search should be the only one who makes money on out of copyright material. As Yogi Berra said, the artists may not deserve the money, but Big Search deserves it even less.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        The market should be the one to decide who deserves what not you, not me, but the whole.
        
        That is why pirates are winning, because nobody agrees with you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 5:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        It's sad that you think "making money out of copyright material" is some sort of zero sum game where only your "Big Search" boogeyman will make money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gordon (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 5:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        And can someone PLEASE tell me why an "estate" (that had NO hand in making any of the content) should get one red cent?
        
        Just asking
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 3:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        So that market is at work, right up until the point that it isn't in favour of Big Media.
        
        That's like saying that vampires are wonderful creatures right up until the point when they bite your throat out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      Fallacy is Big Piracy isn't making any money, at least the Pirate Bay types (torrents). They just share. It appears the issue really is they aren't spending any money. Or, are so accused. Would they, or do they spend money? Mike argues yes, for scarcity. Facts of the reality are not provable, only infered. However, digital goods are not scarce. Wherefore art thou scarcity for digital goods?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Brendan (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:32pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  And they already have their terms. This extends their benefits without offering the public anything in return. Why should we accept this "deal"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- V Max, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  Culture costs money? Culture grows from a community, money is not required.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:47pm
    
    Re: Re: And so what?
    Sure. Those pigments just jump out of the ground and into suspension all on their own. That canvas just stretches itself. That platter of food just appears at the recording session. That editor just fixes everything without any need for ego gratification. And when that doesn't happen, magic elves appear each night to do all of the work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      "The British artist Damien Hirst plans to tread water and earn up to �24 million doing it."
      http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/03/damien-hirsts-new-shark.htm
      
      What $24 millions are not enough for the starving artist today?
      
      Too much money can make bad art.
      http://www.artnewsblog.com/2006/04/rich-artists-bad-art.htm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      Yes, unless they are working for money none of these things ever happen. No, not ever.
      
      You live in a sad sad little world bob.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:38pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  It's not the artists' livings we object to, but the middle-men that extract money without adding value.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  "Culture costs money and copyright is one way we pay for it."
  
  So, what's the justification for extending copyright 50 years after it was already made?
  
  "After all, the EU bureaucracy is spending 411 thousand euros on a dog fitness center in Hungary."
  
  What does that have to do with anything? Can't Hungarians spend money on what they want now? Are your opinions more important than theirs?
  
  "Why not spend something on artists, writers, musicians, playwrites and others?"
  
  Why not spend the money on nurses, IT project managers who don't waste billions (serious, look at the NHS) and roads instead?
  
  "You seem to think that letting the artists make a living is some how anti-consumer and anti-small guy. What horse manure."
  
  Ah, I see now. You make a wild assumption then attack people as though they believe that fiction. Come back when you've learned to deal with adult conversation.
  
  "I don't know why you astroturf for such billionaires."
  
  Like the RIAA, MPAA, BPI, etc? i don't know, why don't you tell us?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  You seem to think that letting the artists make a living is some how anti-consumer and anti-small guy.
  
  Um. No. Not at all. I'm all for artists making a living. It's why I spend so much time showing them business models that work and talking to artists and helping them.
  
  But this extension doesn't help artists at all. Why do you lie?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:05pm
    
    Re: Re: And so what?
    What do you mean it doesn't help artists? Do you believe that all of the artists are just screwed over by all of the companies? Get real. While Big Content does take advantage of its power, it does write real checks many, many times. That's more than the loopy "sharing" folks can say.
    
    Ask Paul McCartney if he's happy about the extension. He's an artist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      You believe it helps artists when people start to dislike them?
      
      Go ahead, God knows I will not pay for any entertainment for the rest of my life coming from those crazy people.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      The MAFIAA writes little checks, who pay them?
      
      Oh that is right the same people you call thieves, funny how things work, you want to call the very people who give you the money thieves and force them to pay for things they didn't have to pay before and think it is all ok.
      
      Well friend I hate to break it to you, but it is not ok and you and your kind can just lie down and die for all I care, no story about how sad your life would be will have the desired emotional effect you are gunning for.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Knob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      Ask 30 Seconds from Mars how much money the made off of their platinum album...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 11:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      Wow. Paul McCartney hasn't been pro-artists since the early 80s.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:45pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  "Culture costs money and copyright is one way we pay for it. While I know that it has limitations, it also does a reasonable job of putting the costs on the backs of those who use the product."
  
  We might pay, and if they're lucky artists might get paid. By far and away the biggest beneficiaries are the middlemen who are responsible for these ridiculous laws. Not culture, not the public, not artists.
  
  "You seem to think that letting the artists make a living is some how anti-consumer and anti-small guy."
  
  Nice strawman, except for decades the artists have been ripped off just as badly as consumers. In the old way of doing things a tiny fraction of the purchase price makes it back to the artist, if any. A few got very lucky, the vast majority got shafted.
  
  "The main benefactors of this anti-copyright flogging are Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy. I don't know why you astroturf for such billionaires."
  
  Big Search: Your anti-Google paranoia is an ongoing source of amusement for Techdirt commenters. They got rich providing people what they wanted. The recording and movie industries could learn a thing or two from this radical idea.
  
  Big Hardware: Again, they got rich providing hardware people want. If people didn't want what they make, they wouldn't make money.
  
  Big Piracy: WTF is that? Where are these billionaire "pirates"? You've written some crazy shit but that takes the cake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bob, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:02pm
    
    Re: Re: And so what?
    Let's start at the bottom. Where do you think the money goes when you pay for USENET access, ISOHUNT or places like RapidShare? I call these places Big Piracy.
    
    Big Hardware knows that the consumer only has so many disposable dollars and they scared that someone who buys an MP3 player that holds 5000 songs will have to pay $5000 to fill it up. That's why Big Hardware likes to look the other way. The more people "share", the more they need bigger hard drives.
    
    And Big Search hates the idea of sharing their ad revenue. In the old days, the print and tv worlds would share their ad revenue with the artists. Is it any surprise that Google talks about how wonderful it is for people to just share free culture? It makes it easier to sell search ads.
    
    Do you really believe that Big Search is innocent because they gave people what they wanted? If people wanted pirated material and Big Search showed them how to find it, it's not Big Search's fault, right? If the teens wanted heroin, it's not the drug dealer's fault, right?
    
    And finally your point about unscrupulous middlemen doesn't excuse modern infringers screwing the artists too. Make up your mind. If it's bad for the middleman to screw the artists, then it's bad for the "sharing" public too.
    
    And as someone who's been around enough artists, I would like to invoke your market theory. If the middlemen didn't give the artists and the customers what they wanted, they would be out of business. It's a pain to sell things. That's why artists make deals with big corporations and it's why they let the big corporations keep the lion's share of the proceeds. It's still a better deal than trying to sell the stuff yourself.
    
    Get a clue. Big Search, Big Hardware and Big Piracy are multi-billion dollar businesses. They hate sharing anything with the creative people. Copyright is the one tool that protects the artists and gives them some chance at negotiating some return.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      It goes where people want it to go, not where think it should go, that is the whole purpose of a free market to let the people decide how the money should flow because the people now better what their needs are than any manager will ever do.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      Do you really believe you can force people to give money to you and only you by mandating them to do so?
      
      LoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL
      
      Fock that I'm pirating everything I can from here now on till kingdom come.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      It all sounds good, but where's your proof? Lay it out, my man. Show your cards, or admit your bluff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        Has he ever backed up his Dead Man's Hand when someone's holding a Straight Flush?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 3:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        I keep winning with 8-High hands. Does that make me a pirate?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      "Let's start at the bottom. Where do you think the money goes when you pay for USENET access, ISOHUNT or places like RapidShare? I call these places Big Piracy."
      
      That doesn't answer the question. Name one 'big piracy' billionaire. Put up or shut up. Later you call it a 'multi-billion dollar business' so lets see some figures on that to. Stop dogging. Put up or shut up.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: And so what?
      They way you talk about it you'd think no art or culture was ever created before 1709...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 3:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: And so what?
        Well, in 1709 God created MAN(chester).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  Because Europe and others can't afford to do it?
  
  Emerging markets to the rescue.
  http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/14/markets/thebuzz/index.htm
  
  IP laws are hindering not piracy, but the creation of markets and the movement of money inside societies and it is giving the tools to exactly the people who don't care about you the means to stop you from making money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:42pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  Even if this was going to benefit the artists (which it isn't) it wouldn't justify theft of rights.
  
  As for the feckless artists who were losing their rights (something they have had 50 years warning of) why can't they invest in a regular pension plan like everyone else has to?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:54pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  Big Piracy billionaires? Certainly you can name at least one person that made a billion dollars off of 'piracy' then. Go ahead. I'll wait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 3:21am
    
    Re: Re: And so what?
    Rupert Murdoch, of course.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 1:23pm
    
    Re: Re: And so what?
    Big Piracy billionaires? Certainly you can name at least one person that made a billion dollars off of 'piracy' then. Go ahead. I'll wait.
    Not quite a Billion but...
    
    http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_gross_worldwide_earnings_for_the_movie_%27Pirates_o f_the_Caribbean%27
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Samuel Abram (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 8:07pm
  
  Re: And so what?
  I'm an artist. Go to my website and see.
  
  Copyright extensions don't benefit me after death. Because after death, I can't make any more art, remember? Also, by re-copyrighting old works, I would have to ask for permission (which likely won't be granted) for works that were previously under the public domain, or works that possibly never will be!
  
  You're about as pro-artist as Col. Sanders is pro-chicken.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
MM_Dandy (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:17pm

The Children?
But at least the children will be safe...right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:25pm

All the anti-tax increase political activists should pay attention to this, because this shows how many of the very politicians they vote for keep on effectively raising their taxes without voting to raise their taxes. It's as if the politicians just passed another bailout, only without the nasty word 'bailout' attached to the bailout they passed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:37pm

"beneficiaries are the major record labels who have failed to adapt"
Mike, you keep going further wrong by labeling the er, record labels as "dinosaurs" with attached notion that they're doomed. -- THIS IS THE ADAPTATION! Darn it, they're not sitting idle while their income drops from piracy. You may not approve of their new business model -- and I'm weary of the disclaimer that I don't, either -- but buzzwords, preconceptions, and ideology don't blind me to reality.

Also, AC #1 clarified a good point. My view is that exact figures for either are hokum, BUT some costs/losses are genuine because of obvious causes, and lend weight to either argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:02pm
  
  Re: "beneficiaries are the major record labels who have failed to adapt"
  More of the same is not adaptation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:37pm
  
  Re: "beneficiaries are the major record labels who have failed to adapt"
  You don't believe obsolete businesses will go extinct? Please point me to your local buggy whip manufacturer and the buggy repair shop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 3:22am
    
    Re: Re: "beneficiaries are the major record labels who have failed to adapt"
    They're in the town over from me, and they're awesome. They even have a cart to test the whips with.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 15 Sep 2011 @ 6:29am
  
  Re: "beneficiaries are the major record labels who have failed to adapt"
  Buying legislation is not a business model.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous, 14 Sep 2011 @ 2:54pm

as long as those in government get their share, none of them care how much the entertainment industry bosses get or how much the artists lose. as long as the public are paying the bill, no one in either cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
darryl, 15 Sep 2011 @ 5:39am

A whole Billion !!
That would provide the US enough money to run their 'war' in the middle east for almost 3 days !!!!!!..

bargin......... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Sep 2011 @ 6:08am

This is why we have elections. So the stupid public (lead around by the nose) can elect stupid politicians to do stupid things to ourselves. Politics sucks and all politicians should die and please leave us alone. Since only rich people can afford to be politicians then they (rich politicians) should be required to deposit at no interest a minimum of 5 million US dollars before they are allowed to run for office. This deposit is only refundable for good work. Maybe we could offset some of the damage these fools do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]