Copyright Maximalists Just Won't Quit: Pushing New Monopoly Rights For Performers Through Sneaky Treaty Agreement
from the they-never,-ever-stop dept
One thing that is important to understand about IP maximalists and their strategy for continually expanding monopoly powers against the public's fundamental rights is just what a comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy it is. It's not like they just try to pass a law like SOPA and are done. They're constantly working a comprehensive global strategy. Part of that means trying to get similar laws passed around the globe. But, at the same time, they're often working on a whole slew of international agreements as well. And while we're now all aware of the big treaties -- like ACTA and TPP -- there are all sorts of other things going on all the time.For example, it appears that some folks have been pushing -- somewhat below the radar -- another treaty agreement to create a new form of intellectual monopoly: performers' rights (pdf and embedded below). There's a meeting planned for June in China to try to push this through.
As you hopefully know, in the US copyright is affixed to new and creative works as soon as they're put into a fixed form. But the copyright goes to whoever does that "fixing" or, on large productions, generally whoever is considered the "producer." The specific actors in, say, a TV show, don't get any specific rights in their performance. This makes sense. They're paid to do a job, which they do. However, some countries grant performers a copyright in their performances, and this new treaty is an attempt to push such rights for "audiovisual performers". As far as I can tell, this gives the performers in a work special new rights to stop how others use it. So, imagine a situation where someone wants to create a mashup video -- and they even get permission from the copyright holder to use it. Under this treaty, they'd then also need to get permission from everyone who appears in the video too, or they'll be violating that person's "audiovisual performance rights".
There are a variety of serious problems within the specifics, but just in general, why is this needed? It seems to serve no legitimate economic interest. All it does is create yet another category of monopoly rights that will certainly be abused to limit people's abilities to express themselves. It also almost guarantees that more new audiovisual works will be locked up and lost to culture. Already we have a serious problem with orphan works where the copyright holder can't be found. Imagine what happens when you need to find not just the copyright holder, but every single performer in the work and then secure a license from each of them. Yeah, basically every video will quickly become too expensive to ever use for anything, and thus it will be locked up.
Beyond that, there are some significant concerns in the details. Article 5 establishes "moral rights" in association with the economic rights. In the US, we've more or less (quite thankfully) ignored the requirement of the Berne Convention rules that say we need to recognize moral rights (to get around this, the US gives "moral rights" to a very, very tiny subset of artists). Moral rights, of course, are an idea built off of copyright, but rather than being about the economic incentives, they're about letting people stop the use of something because they don't like how it's used. We see people try to misuse copyright law all the time today because they don't like how a work is being used. The proper response is to let people know that's not allowed -- not to create new moral rights instead.
The agreement specifically states (in a footnote) that it shall apply to digital content online, including the requirement that performers have "the exclusive right of authorizing the direct or indirect reproduction of their performances." In other words, forget making videos that include performances with anyone who hasn't "licensed" you their performance right. How can the folks behind this not realize what kind of ridiculous problems this will cause? Take a video at a party of some people dancing -- and unless you've "licensed" the work from every dancer, you may be in trouble.
And, like pretty much every IP-related treaty these days, this one includes a stupid, technologically-illogical clause demanding anti-circumvention laws -- with no additional requirement that the only circumventions that apply are those that actually violate the other rights in the agreement. Instead, it's the same overly broad anti-circumvention clause that takes away your fundamental rights.
The whole thing is quite ridiculous, and just shows the nature of maximalist thinking. All they look to do is to create more and more monopolies that limit free speech and communication. It's really all about making the lawyers happier by creating more and more regulations for the kinds of things people do every day. Hopefully countries are smart enough to reject such a totally ridiculous concept, but from what we've heard, US officials are all for this garbage.
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: acta, china, maximalist, moral rights, performance, sopa, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
lazy bastards
Example is most good tv shows now aren't 26 episodes a year ...no no they are 13 or 10 episodes a year....
What would that translate into for the actual work and pay is insane while the rest of us toil and slave away....
see last topic about used games its no different. BITE ME applies again....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lazy bastards
ASSHOLES !!!
The Best thing to do is to constantly remind people to Boycott All MAFIAA Products by never giving them a dime of your income in any way.Buy & definitely support INDIE Non-MAFIAA Products and tell your friends and family to join in.These Copyright Laws will hopefully go a long way towards the full demise of their greedy bloated lying Industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they behave in this way then they deserve to be hated. Having said that, I don't think performers are calling for this - the real culprits are elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Marine Creatures...
Sea squirts, or MAFIAA shills being good examples.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just earn a SAG card.
There are already old shows, movies, and documentary footage that are are being held hostage by the garden variety copyrights we already have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just earn a SAG card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but once again thats likely the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See what I did there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
back on topic.
why do people keep thinking some guy who wants to put a video on the net has a million dollers and the time or knowlege to find god knows how many people involved?
your not helping yourselves at all. although thats more then likely the point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it
This would be mind-blowingly bad for the networks selling TV shows. How many shows have had actors quit on bad terms? Now this gives them the power to stop the distribution of the show in other formats?
Big Media would be monumentally stupid to allow this to go through, it is orders of magnitude more dangerous to them than this is to the regular consumer of the content, or even to people who mash up and remix the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
So the effect, presumably, would be to leave the big legacy producers unaffected, while creating a whole new way for anyone trying to reuse that material (both illicitly and under what has been fair use) to get sued.
Just my own quick impression, I'm nowhere near an expert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights for *everybody*, not just on screen tallent!!!
Let's see, a camera operator's performance right, focus assistant's performance right, spot light operator's performance rights, video switcher performance rights (switcher solo!!!!), sound mixer's performance rights. And not just for video, for blog's two. Typist's performing rights.
:-p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more time
But I guess in your warped world, the folks on the P2P networks aren't just "sharing", they're "expressing themselves as artists" or "commenting upon the human condition" or something even worse.
The next thing you know, you'll want the Arts Agencies to give your P2P chums a big grant for creating so much art by uploading someone else's work to the Internet.
I wouldn't be surprised if you come up with some argument that schools should put the P2P network users on the same level as the original artist. You'll insist that the art textbooks laud FatKevin44, the P2P uploader, in the same paragraph with Mozart or Michaelangelo. Only a copyright maximalist would deny the sheer genius of the fat slob who pushed that P2P button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more time
But jokers and sophists always try to come up with religions that endorse things like killing people, taking drugs and having multiple wives. The courts have sent these folks to jail and not wasted much time on the so-called First Amendment rules.
But why don't you test it out. I suggest you go for a home run and not bother with piddling copyright. Create a religion that compells you to rape and murder. See how far you get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
He brought up "jokers."
He brought up "rape."
He brought up "murder."
Oh, and he's using the name "Bob."
It doesn't take the "World's Greatest Detective" to deduce that he wants you to worship the "Goddamn Batman" instead.
"I'm gonna need a moment or two alone, boys."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
There are a lot of laws and some overlap. In many cases different laws can be violated at once: Some by both sides in a court case. In such cases the judge has to look at the significance of the different laws and determine which are the most important.
I do not know how it works in the uniteds but in my country there is an order of what laws are most important. As far as I know, the religious laws are about as low in the eyes of the court as they come. That is why Copymism will never trump copyright-laws in the court. The best you can hope for is a milder penalty in that case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
2) In my country, freedom of religion is, roughly phrased, in the foundational law (constitution), and should, but probably would not, trump copyright, given the current administration and judicial interpretations.
3) This is a bad thing, but hardly the worst thing about maximizing copyright protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
You know bob, I'm beginning to suspect you're actually a brilliant, if somewhat confused, satirist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
I have heard though, while all the big G wants is to be credited as the creator of all things there are those who dispute his right to specific acts of creation, claiming for instance that human beings came about through evolution and not through a specific act of God, despite the stories.
Some judges are leaning towards granting his claim to have created the evolutionary process while others state that unless he can demonstrate that he did in fact create what others claim to be a natural process that no credit should be given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more time
I don't know of any copyright scholar who thinks that a copyright on a building applies to the individual bricks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
And mister Kirk Christiansen will sue you to hell as the local copyright maximalists once said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
But to back up, your use of "exact" is wrong: copyright reserves not only the making of exact copies to the holder, but also to the making of "derivative works"--in other words, works that incorporate the original in some way. Do you know the "Air Pirates" case? Check it out. I actually think you know this stuff, but are playing dumb--that you're trying to paint a happier face on your side of things than it deserves.
And to go with your building/bricks analogy: when your "building" is a song, and your "bricks" are, let's say, short sequences of notes--unavoidable in the making of a song, usually--then do you still rely on your imaginary copyright scholar to say you're safe using those "bricks?" How many notes equals a brick?
Please don't try to oversimplify to make kids pet the bear. It's a bear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
False premise, followed by slippery slope, and then veiled ad hom with a little more slippery slope thrown in for good measure.
Well spoken, includes correct punctuation... yes, very good indeed.
Nice apples to squid comparison there. Let me fix that up for you:
Copyright gives me a temporary monopoly on what I create. It does this by reducing the rights of other people, namely their innate propensity to copy--which is a trait of all successful humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One more time
So every single law reduces what you call "rights". This is why legal scholars don't use that word for anything we feel like doing. They apply the word very narrowly and if you look carefully in the constitution you'll find that nowhere does it use the word "right" for your "innate propensity to copy".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
If you were drowning in a pool due to your inability to swim and somebody was trying to save you I'll bet you'd tell "no, thanks. I'm fine."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
Sheesh! As if he'd say thanks!
He'd be far more likely to try to tell you that it's all your fault that he is drowning and throw in some dodgy claims about big search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
Don't save him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One more time
Surely you are not a republican that want less laws LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
It shouldn't be legal to be this stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
That was the entire point of the post going right over your head.
Nothing to see here, moving along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
By stopping others from collecting that shit you first pollute the world with useless creations that you yourself da man with the shitty touch can only turn into crap reducing the chances that the one with the Midas touch can turn it into gold from which you would benefit if you fallowed his directions, without those directions you are just another crapper and that is all you will ever be. The guy who craps and turns everything to shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One more time
As it's root, you're correct. However in implementation copyright laws certain reduce the rights -- not just free speech rights, but property & other rights as well -- of people who are not engaged in piracy.
Of course not. that's not what the argument is about at all.
However, there is a tangentially related one: the P2P networks themselves. There is a strong effort to essentially render these services and software themselves illegal, despite the fact that they are widely used for completely legitimate purposes. That is, indeed, suppressing free speech rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It isn't just the copyright maximalists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It isn't just the copyright maximalists...
greed may take much but it gets heavy and unstable.
i just hope i live to see it fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bet you are the life of parties!
(However, you do need to work on your originality a bit. Your remix of another AC's poorly thought out comment is lacking.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In practice, it doesn't matter at all whether the creator is alive or dead. The copyright forces you to either do your own work or pay for a copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As someone who simultaneously does NOT want to abolish copyright completely and who also has a keen interest in learning about the thoughts of the insane, exactly how long do you think copyright on a work should last?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Please try to stop me than I dare you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Did you just effectively attempt to support copyright that lasts forever as a reasonable thing, given that it applies regardless of whether the author is alive or not?
Oh, wait, but coming from you it's no surprise. How's the negotiations with John Steele coming along, bobby?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hopeless...
When you put it that way, it makes the whole trying to fight back completely pointless. IP maximialists push against human rights advocates and vice versa. This whole conflict feels like an unstoppable meeting the immovable. There's obviously no compromise because both sides believe they're right, so collateral damage will keep piling up. Although there are claims that certain industries are dying, it's only a matter of time before society adapts and there will be a new "greater threat to the public" to fight against.
The usual "trolls and shills" prove that this conflict will go on forever no matter how many victories and losses are tallied.
Do I have a point? Maybe, maybe not. I just find it interesting that in this far corner of the internet, a single blog sparking open debate about clashing ideals displays another example of human nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hopeless...
-Monsignor, The Boondock Saints
No matter how insurmountable the odds may seem, those who do nothing are just as much to blame as those who would steal away our rights and freedoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is depressing, just seems like one thing after another. it's never ending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nobody pirates more than you artists, right Mike? [Remixed]
I paid for that Pirate Mike, Mr. Green!!!! [Reagan riff]
Hey this is fun!
Copyright isn't depressing, it's corrosive to individuals and societies alike. It gives an expectation of entitlement to untalented hacks, and enables middlemen to assume an importance completely out of line with reality. Jesus, now I'm depressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Nobody hates artists' rights more than you, Pirate Mike"
Lemme try:
Nobody hates Pirates' rights more than you, artist Mike
Nobody hates Mike's rights more than you, Pirate Artist
Nobody hates Mike's pirates more than you, artist rights
~Trying so hard not to giggle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually I reckon "Pirate Mike" is a pretty cool nickname. How many folks would have loved to have that as a nickname at school?
Instead I was called Captain Pugwash :�(
I realise now that I should simply have sued the name-callers for copyright infringement...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're reducing the number of fans knowing them.
And if they go in a world tour.
The biggest question that will hurt those performers are:
Who IS/ARE S/HE/They?
Oh thank you dumbasses...
You just made your stars less famous for the future generation with the exception of words of mouth, although there's no audio or visual proof of your stars being good at something from it.
Congratulation!
What next? Ban Seminars/Training classes/season?
Go to hell!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You got to wonder is they got business consultant, the one that KNOWS how the present market works....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This keeps happening...
Until we advance legislation of our own that rolls back the abusive foundations laid by the DMCA, and affirms an ironclad foundation of due process for all infringement issues, the copyright industry will continue to erode our rights a little at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so is anyone actually surprised at this? tell me something of a similar nature that the dopey US officials are not 'all for'. if brains was dynamite, they couldn't part their freakin hair!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No more cops videos
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not sure your read of this proposal is right.
What do concern me, though, is the idea that one of the very few absolute requirements for a work to be protectible by copyright is being eaten by this proposal--fixation. The paradigmatic examples of works not covered by copyright for lack of fixation--improvisational dance, a speech not written down--these things would now be covered by this proposal and exclusive rights given to and regarding unfixed expressions. Coming next--no need for expression:
"The haver of an idea shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing, as regards the idea: (i) the broadcasting and communication to the public of the idea, except where the idea has already been fixed in a tangible medium of expression; and (ii) the fixation of that idea in a tangible medium of expression."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not sure your read of this proposal is right.
I initially thought that the law would be good in general if it removed the possibility for banning non-commercial use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Goddamnit, DO IT!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, they realise. It's called 'culture jamming'. If they could turn off sharing culture they would. Tying it up in liability is the next best thing. Just remember: all the technologies they are breaking? They never wanted those technologies in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]