German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright
from the yet-more-entitlement dept
The German series "Tatort" ("Crime Scene") has been running since 1970, and remains one of the most popular programs on German television. Given this venerable position, it's perhaps not completely surprising that its scriptwriters -- 51 of them -- have written an open letter complaining about the supposedly negative attitudes of some groups to copyright (German original). But what is noteworthy is the tone and content of the letter.
It's addressed to "Dear Greens, dear Pirates, dear Left-wingers, dear Net community" -- as if these share a common position on copyright reform, which indicates just how little the authors of the letter understand their respective policies. The letter itself is framed in terms of what the scriptwriters term "life lies".
The main "life lie" concerns the idea that the term of copyright needs to be shortened to make it fit for the digital age, where huge numbers of people are creators as well as consumers:
Not only does the author suffer expropriation through a reduction in the copyright term and is thus dramatically worse off, no, this proposal doesn't even change the situation of the supposedly innocent end-user one bit: your illegal downloads or streams concern mostly the absolutely latest films, music, books, photos and designs -- and not works that are, say, 20, 40 or 60 years old. A shortening of the copyright term would change nothing for this problem, and would be purely symbolic: look, we have taken something away from the authors....
This shows an extraordinary lack of understanding on the part of the Tatort scriptwriters. Nobody is suggesting that reducing the term of copyright will "solve" the problem of unauthorized downloads: it addresses a completely different question to do with the re-use of copyright materials, something the signatories of the letter seem unable to grasp.
But more remarkable is the sense of entitlement -- the idea that authors have a right to a copyright term that for practical purposes is typically in excess of one hundred years (life plus 70 years in most jurisdictions.) They call any reduction of copyright "expropriation", and seem blissfully unaware that this necessarily implies that the repeated extension of copyright from the original 14 years of the 1710 Statute of Anne was a similar "expropriation" of the public domain.
The point here is that there is no reason why the term of copyright should only increase, or why it should not be reduced back to its original levels, or even beyond -- it's for society to decide how long the state-backed monopoly ought to be, and how much incentive is needed to encourage creativity. The scriptwriters' view, as laid bare in this open letter, reveals an indifference to the public's thoughts that borders on contempt.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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 terms, germany, public domain, scriptwriting, tatort, television
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Shortening lengths
Abolish copyright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shortening lengths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shortening lengths
They have to pay US to watch their content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shortening lengths
No - how about 1 over that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shortening lengths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shortening lengths
Yes abolish it entirely and make a World Wide Call to do so.Then we can settle on something less drastic.Good idea.Now as to how we could accomplish this one ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shortening lengths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Shortening lengths
Of course, they could also adapt as the old guard is pushed out by retirement/hospitalization/age, which would be better than either alternative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Zakida Paul on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:55am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Zakida Paul on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:55am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Zakida Paul on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:55am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
51 people from CCC answer
You're wrong. Immediately 51 people from the CCC published an answer.
Antwort auf den offenen Brief der Tatort-Drehbuchschreiber
Saucy bit translated:
"There are no two opposite sides, at least not producers and consumers, but at most pre-digital ignorants with a rights exploitation fetish on one side, and you and we on the other, the ones that get their oppressive contracts imposed on".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'to everyone that dares to disagrees with us and our views'
people are always complaining about those that 'pirate' files and what gives then the right to do so. i would like to know what gives anyone who has 'innovated' in any way, shape or form the right to be paid forever for that possible one innovation and even worse, pass that right to following generations? i agree that the original person(s) should earn, but not until the 'year dot'. and future generations that actually did nothing shouldn't be allowed to carry on milking from the original. i mean, gimme a break!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What is have a problem with is the distribution companies siphoning money off that should be going to the creators and profiting from other people's work long after they have died.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, they don't. Most of us do a job and get paid once for it at the time. If we want income in retirement we have to save and invest from the money we have. In practice that includes most artists who get deals from major publishers, record labels etc - because the terms and conditions usually assign all the recurrent income to the company. Only established artists who get to re-negotiate their contracts second time around do any better.
Personally I would love a cut of the income of every student I have ever taught - surely on your logic I deserve it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
WoooHooo ! - Gravy Train here I come
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You don't have the "right" to employ state violence against other private parties as a logical extension of property rights.
State enforcement of property rights is only a substitute for having people fending off intruders by physical force.
In the natural state, the only property right you meaningfully possess is the power to fend of intruders by force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're trying to invent your own law.
No. Artists don't have any right to be paid for their work or to exert exclusive control over it. That's a power of the government. That power exists to serve the public good.
This notion of copyright as property is just a distortion of the law to primarily suit large corporate interests.
The permanent "power to exclude" has dire consequences when applied to things that are easily recreated by many people using nothing more than their own intellect and a common pool of intellectual capitol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're trying to invent your own law.
I think he means that the rights that are granted in 17 USC 106 (here in the States) are natural rights, that by default are held by everyone.
They are "property rights," in the sense that without government interference, they are the rights to do whatever you want with your property (a copy of the work). For example, if a work is in the public domain, that doesn't mean nobody has the right to copy it, distribute it, display it publicly, etc.; it means that everyone has the right to do so.
Copyright doesn't grant those rights; it creates the right to prevent others from exercising them. The only "right" created by copyright is the right of exclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or, if by some chance it turns out that isn't true, may I propose:
People do not have the right to be compensated at all for simply creating something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Damn right they do!
That's why...
...when a mechanic fixes your car he gets paid every time you use it after that.
...when someone is on an assembly line and creates a car they get a cut every time it's sold.
...a farmer gets a cut of the sales every time a piece of his produce gets sold(from him, to company, to person going to eat it).
...when someone builds a piece of furniture they get paid every time someone uses it.
...when people build a house they get a cut of every transaction made regarding it, from the original sale, to every monthly payment on it.
...when a painter/sculptor/artist of whatever sort sells one of their pieces they get paid any time someone looks at it.
...when someone is involved in building a road or a bridge they get paid every time someone drives over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People do have a right to be compensated..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People do have a right to be compensated..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your second point is valid.
The first point isn't.
No one has a "right" to be "compensated for as long as they live".
Copyright used to be 28 years plus another 28 (if you did the paperwork) and that's it!
Disney forced changes to the law when Mickey Mouse's first apperances were approaching the 56-year limit.
(Speaking of which, you think Disney's been paying the writers and artists of their movies/books/etc beyond the first use of their material?
The answer is "nope"!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Declaration of Independence of the US (non-binding) states:
At least in the US, the closest natural right to what you are discussing is the pursuit of Happiness (commonly held to mean the pursuit of wealth or land, I personally find this meaning the least fruitful). In other words, I can't prevent you from seeking compensation, but you aren't ever guaranteed to find it.
I can't speak to other countries, as I have enough on my plate trying to navigate the labyrinth of a single legal system in my spare time.
Mind providing an argument in favor of the right for compensation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wrote this post.
Pay me mothafucka.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er...
This is true. Germany's copyright laws (when it eventually wrote them) were based almost entirely on the droit d'auteur, the "moral rights" of authors.
A better point to make is that Germany didn't have copyright laws until the late 19th century, over a hundred years after the Statute of Anne was passed in England.
According to historian Eckhard Hoeffner, that lack of copyright was the driving force behind the "Gruenderzeit" (the wave of economic growth that Germany experienced in the nineteenth century).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In which case, it doesn't matter how long copyright lasts, they still don't own their own work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Europe has "moral rights" clauses in their copyright laws, something that'll never appear in American copyright laws due to corporate interference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's starting to be chipped away in Germany too, with 2007's law that allows "buy-out" contracts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
All you said was "derp".
Try talking to fanfiction writers, fanartists, fansubbers, and people who do translations for free or for a small fee.
They invest in content that takes a great deal of effort. But, you know what? It's a great deal of effort that does not, for the most part, does not require people to pay them.
I'm in that group, BTW.
So, the only one who needs to grow up, as far as I can see...
Is you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: derp
Now ten people can get the same sub and edit it at the same time, instead of taking one hour everybody can do it in 15 minutes :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
While I DO agree on artists getting rewarded for contributions to the arts it should not be done via govt monopolies, and most certainly should not be done in a way to punishes fans for sharing. Specifically fanfiction and remixes as I find they can really add a lot to my enjoyment of a work and the world would be poorer without such works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
Stop making assumptions about people who rad and comment on this site whose views differ from your. Just because your opinions are driven by your own financial interest it doesn't follow that everyone else is venal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
I put a 'great deal of money and effort' into my posts, WHERE IS MAH MONEH!?!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
I've done this. Can I call you an idiot now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: derp
So you're saying I'm not entitled to the files of Public Domain texts for free, even though little effort and no money went into producing them?
AC said: "It's easy to have "different" views on stealing others content, when you've never invested into any content yourself to have it ripped off."
What I described above isn't stealing, and neither is copyright infringement. If they were, copyfraudsters would find themselves in court a lot more often than they do. And before you start, I'm a writer of fanfiction, original fiction, and lyrics, which totally negates what you say about those with less than maximalist views 'not being creators'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"dear net community"...
Oh yes, and a massive 8 comments before we have someone conflating infringement with theft and completely missing the point of the article. Good work there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So even if Microsoft comes out the winner in the lawsuit, Germany still lost already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Collateral Damage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Television
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Television
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, artists can continue to use their "monopoly" as long as they want. The public is simply saying that they won't back said monopoly after x number of years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Define irony...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If that's true then why not just do it? Sounds like a win win to me. If it's just symbolic from your perspective then it's only going to make you look good to those for whom it's not just symbolic. Unless, of course, it's not just symbolic after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My proposed solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My proposed solution
Then I realized that you have stumbled on the an answer that is easier to implement than reducing copyright. And I was quietly ashamed.
After some thought, I really want to agree with you.
Must resist the dark side...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My proposed solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My proposed solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My proposed solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answer to that ridiculous letter by CCC members
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Answer to that ridiculous letter by CCC members
Amusingly enough, when I use Google Translate to read the article in English, the headline is:
"Response to the open letter to the crime scene screenwriter"
Since their opinions are tantamount to a "crime scene," this is unintentionally accurate.
(And, yes, I know enough German to know that "Tatort" literally means "crime scene." Just thought it was funny.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Germanic logic fail.
The copyright on 30 year old works serves no economic purpose.
So you could compromise on the length of copyright and it would not actually do you any harm. It would be a great public relations coup that would make you look reasonable and accommodating without actually losing you anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Germanic logic fail.
It would take some time though. Thanks to the MPAA and RIAA, people's attitudes about copyright are at an all-time low.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Germanic logic fail.
After all, that gives you five years for all your merchandising needs, and even enough time to work on a sequel. After all, copyright is on a specific expression, so you could keep some claim to the material (but not the original work) so long as you are rolling out sequels.
That would serve as a decent incentive to make sure you have a good sequel, which is painfully missing from the current system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they offer something for free or cheap, i have no doubts that they'll make up the numbers for any shortfall in profit, if they actually listen and offer what their customers are 'screaming' at them.........WORLDWIDE, another standard feature of the internet
They have the unique position, of having money to do this, so my question, what is it about the old business model that they are so afraid to loss, its not like they cant run them both simultaneously, unless one negates the other.
Are they afraid of change? Are they so entrenched in doing the same thing the same way, that they wont even consider doing everything and learning everything all over again? Will it be that bad, if foresight and the right experts are consulted? Does the internet offer, a considerable amount of freedom of speech in what ever form that their unwilling to nurture?
its not like a site like imdb can in some cases, make a or break a movie or tv show, say, by stopping a customer from finding out whether they like or not like said movie or tv show by not paying for it ..........its not like ive never paid for something i ended up not liking...........gawhhh, the cheek of me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Felix Schwenzel replied with some life lies these authors seem to suffer from:
- to believe that as a Tatort scriptwriter you are creating "highly creative art and culture"
- the hope to enter constructive talks with calling the other side clueless and hostile
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...your illegal downloads or streams concern mostly the absolutely latest films, music, books, photos and designs...
And all I can hear is:
We aren't making money out of you. We want to make money out of you even after a hundred years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't they recognise with this that they dont need large copyright terms, since only the latest works are pirated, why protect the old ones.
Maybe the copyright protection should be changed by a "pay to be protected" system, once you're work stops generating enough revenue to cover the protection you stop paying and the work passes to the public domain.
I believe it won't even reach 10 years before that happens
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New App
https://apps.facebook.com/the_producer/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]