Copyright Maximalists Just Won't Quit: Pushing New Monopoly Rights For Performers Through Sneaky Treaty Agreement

from the they-never,-ever-stop dept

Tue, Apr 24th 2012 12:24pm — Mike Masnick

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

89 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:34pm

lazy bastards
nuff said subject says it all, they want something for ever and ever and ever and want to be as lazy at doing it as they can.

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

Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:34pm

Nobody hates artists' rights more than you, Pirate Mike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BreadGod (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:35pm

It looks like the copyright maximalists are following Scientology's philosophy when it comes to dealing with perceived "threats": always attack, never defend.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uh huh...., 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:36pm

you know whats funny? even cops ignore this crap.

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:43pm

Re:
Nobody hates artists' rights more than you, Pirate Mike.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:45pm

Re:
Bullshit. If artists can't see what a total clusterspank this will be (not might, will), then would seem they are too stupid to live.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason, 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:49pm

I don't get it
Why would the studios and networks want this. Conceivably, this would allow an actor in a movie or TV show to halt the release of the show in other formats like DVD or digital download.

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 thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re: Re: Marine Creatures...
There are actually lots of mindless things which not only survive, but prosper.

Sea squirts, or MAFIAA shills being good examples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:54pm

Re:
Do you honestly believe that these companies give a damn about artists' rights? You are delusional if you do. This whole thing is about controlling what we watch, and how and when we watch it. Oh, and charging us through the nose for the privilege while screwing authors, song writers, film makers etc over at every opportunity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TobeL (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:56pm

WIPO seems to have a need to justify its existence by creating yet more monopoly rights. Instead of dealing with just one rights holder, does this mean that every performer in an audiovisual production is now also a rights holder?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:56pm

Rights for *everybody*, not just on screen tallent!!!
We shouldn't limit this fuster cluck to just on screen talent, everybody should get rights!

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 thread ]
JEDIDIAH, 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:57pm

Just earn a SAG card.
Artists already have unions that have successfully negotiated these rights. That are a standard contract item. New laws don't need to be created that will only serve to complicate the creation of new works and the distribution of old ones.

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

bob, 24 Apr 2012 @ 12:59pm

One more time
Copyright gives me a monopoly on what I create. It does not in any way reduce the speech rights of anyone else. It just prevents everyone else from copying me-- and that's not exercising a right to free speech. Free speech is when you express yourself, not copy someone else.

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 thread ]
uh huh..., 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:00pm

Re:
of course when you say artist you really mean industry. anyone who has seen or read what they do to them knows your full of it.

but once again thats likely the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keii (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:00pm

Re:
You're wrong. Mike doesn't profit off the lack of artists' rights. You know who does? The gatekeepers. Nobody hates artists' rights more than the gatekeepers, because the more rights the artists have, the less money the gatekeepers make off them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:06pm

It isn't just the copyright maximalists...
This is how the entire world works now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:07pm

Re: One more time
So it should be no problem to start a religion where Superman is my personal savior and I hand out religious pamphlets with his image on them? No trademark violations? No copyright violations? My freedom of religious speech won't be curtailed by Warner Bros.?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lorpius Prime (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:08pm

Re: I don't get it
At a guess: any actor in a movie or TV show will only get that job after signing a contract allowing the studios and networks to use their performance in whatever ways they want (and only those ways).

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 thread ]
jjmsan (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:08pm

Re: One more time
If you actually create something, no it does not. Since generally most copyrighted works are building off what others in society have created the attempt to lock up all materials used for your creation is like builders trying to patent wood used in buildings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uh huh..., 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:09pm

Re: It isn't just the copyright maximalists...
it will destroy them in the end.

greed may take much but it gets heavy and unstable.

i just hope i live to see it fall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:09pm

Re: One more time
What are you ranting about? Your argument doesn't make any sense to what Mike is talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:09pm

Nobody hates artists' rights more than you, Pirate Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BreadGod (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:10pm

Re: One more time
Strawman much?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:10pm

Re: One more time
I am interested in your ideas and would like to have a pamphlet. However, I am disappointed that you neglected to inform what role Big Search plays in this dreadful abrogation of Artists Rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:11pm

Re: One more time
As always, bob, you are flat-out wrong. Do some Big Searching please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:13pm

Re: One more time
8/10. Very good!

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.

"Copyright gives me a monopoly on what I create. It does not in any way reduce the speech rights of anyone else."
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 thread ]
uh huh..., 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:13pm

Re:
your working from a VERY limited phrase book my freind.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:16pm

Re:
Awesome contribution to the conversation!
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 thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:18pm

Re: I don't get it
Sounds like more work for middlemen to me, tracking down talent and getting permissions. Easy, lucrative work - why wouldn't the studios and networks want this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:18pm

Re:
The rights of artists, especially dead artists, should be greater than those that are alive. I'm sure that won't cause any problems whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[citation needed or GTFO], 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:21pm

Hopeless...
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.

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

bob, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:24pm

Re: Re: One more time
Most people have no trouble getting copyright and religion to work together because they make a distinction between the work of God and the work of human. The former is held in the commonweal and the later is eligible for copyright.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:25pm

"You pirates artists' hates nobody right, more Mike then." Remixed. Was trolling.

Copyright is depressing, just seems like one thing after another. it's never ending.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:27pm

Re: Re: One more time
Every law abridges our innate propensity to do something. That's why we bothered to pass them. There aren't laws forbidding you from holding your breath for a month because we don't need them.

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 thread ]
bob, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:30pm

Re: Re: One more time
Society doesn't lock up all of the materials. It just locks up exact copies. If I build something out of Lego blocks, I can copyright it. But I don't get a copyright on the blocks and I have no control over how someone else uses Lego blocks.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:31pm

goodbye youtube!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
I find it interesting that you take the time to defend an obviously invalid argument.

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 thread ]
bob, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:33pm

Re: Re:
An artist's ability to breath has no effect on the strength of the copyright.

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 thread ]
Mega1987 (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:33pm

Those guys don't want they performance of well known persons to be video and shared?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:38pm

Re: One more time
It does not in any way reduce the speech rights of anyone else. It just prevents everyone else from copying me-- and that's not exercising a right to free speech.

It shouldn't be legal to be this stupid...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uh huh..., 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:42pm

Re:
the industry never thinks of anything in the long term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:42pm

Re: lazy bastards
Being a guy who has played in rock bands since I was 16 years old in 1972 I am more than pissed at the stuff I keep reading again and again since the 1970's.Always Big Studios taking advantage of guy's like me in any way they can.Singing a Contract for an LP with a Major and then a few years later they drop you.So you still gig out only to find out in the small print you can not either use your band name nor can you sign with another label for many years afterwards.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
So.. this comment is using words that you stole from someone else, right? you didn't make up a single word in this, therefore you are a freetard pirate too. Use your own words next time to make your point please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mason Wheeler, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:49pm

This keeps happening...
...and it will keep happening until we push back. Right now we're organizing and saying "no" and basically playing whack-a-mole, but that will only get us so far.

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 thread ]
Mega1987 (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re:
Nope... They just thing the QUICKEST way and solution to stop piracy/counterfeit/infringement and gain money all at the same time.

You got to wonder is they got business consultant, the one that KNOWS how the present market works....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:50pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
What? I don't understand what you're saying. What does rape and murder have to do with worshiping Superman?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re:
Nobody hates artists' rights more than you, Pirate Mike.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:53pm

Re: Re: Re:
Forces me? Yeah, I'm sure it does just that. Right. Sure does. Totally forces me. You've got me there.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 1:58pm

Re: One more time
Whoooosh!

That was the entire point of the post going right over your head.

Nothing to see here, moving along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:02pm

'US officials are all for this garbage'

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 thread ]
[citation needed or GTFO], 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:03pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
Let's see...

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
While Bobs sarcasm is dripping and he is a douche for using it in the first place, he has a point.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:24pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
Lego-blocks are copyrighted and trademarked to oblivion. Using them to create something original and sell it you are on your way to court since you are creating derivative works.

And mister Kirk Christiansen will sue you to hell as the local copyright maximalists once said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Baldaur Regis (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:25pm

Re: 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.
So, what's the downside?

You know bob, I'm beginning to suspect you're actually a brilliant, if somewhat confused, satirist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
Bob....what do you think of the public domain, then? You seem to continuously leave the "temporary" part out of the monopoly and have thus far failed to recognize how much further copyright has been pushed since it's inception.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:48pm

Re: I don't get it
It increases massively the cost of production, which only they can afford it, meaning only them will be able to produce anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:54pm

Re: One more time
Dear Bob, in the real world just thinking of something and putting that crap on display doesn't turn it into gold, you need to work the shit so it becomes gold that takes hard work which you are unwilling to undergo in order to reach a reward.

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 thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 2:54pm

Re: One more time
Copyright gives me a monopoly on what I create. It does not in any way reduce the speech rights of anyone else.

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.

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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:04pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
Surely if having no copyright is good enough for the supreme being, creator of all space and time, then it should be good enough for even bob.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:07pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:09pm

No more cops videos
This could also be used to stop the public recording of police performing their duties. I'm sure they support this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:24pm

Re: Re: Re:
I useldom comment here but Bob you are truly an idiot do yourself and all a favor and shut the fuck up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:28pm

Re: Hopeless...
"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

-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 thread ]
dwg (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:41pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
Utter fail. And, in fact, check out any litigation with the name "Lego" in it and you'll see your failure. Lego has won 300 of 301 UDRP proceedings against URLs using the word "Lego," despite many of those being accurate descriptions of hose sites' contents and not infringing trademark uses. But I digress into trademark. Only fair, since you folded in patents without saying so.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:42pm

Re:
You be wrong, labels and studios have an core hatred for those things beyond your wildest dreams.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:44pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
Depends on the views of the day, the inquisition allowed people to murder others just because they could to this day in certain parts of the world people die because of such beliefs and you are saying it couldn't happen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:46pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
Because the constitution is man made and falable, but make no mistake the US constitution grants the people the power to defend their beliefs in any way deemed necessary, that is why you need to build consensus so you don't find yourself in the bob's position of whining loser minority trying to impose monopolies on the rest of society
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:46pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
Society in fact doesn't lock up anything you idiots believers the monopoly altar do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
Copyright forces me to do nothing, because it simply can't, doubt?

Please try to stop me than I dare you try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dwg (profile), 24 Apr 2012 @ 3:59pm

Not sure your read of this proposal is right.
I know that, on its face, this thing looks like it's giving rights to every performer in everything that could be argued a performance. And I know that there's no precedent for things like this being implemented in a restrained fashion. But I'm going out on a limb here and am going to argue that the rights this thing is concerned with are live music, with perhaps a nod to live theater just to keep this all heady. I mean, right, though? Isn't this whole thing to stop (1) concert-goers from using their phones to record concert footage of Katy Perry and (2) then send it to their friends? That seems like the root and really the whole of it to me. I'm way less worried about some chick from a party suing me because she's dancing in the corner of a video I post. There are things that concern me and things that don't--and that one don't.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 4:35pm

Re: Not sure your read of this proposal is right.
If those are the things they want to hit it should never see the face of earth in its current shape.

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 thread ]
The Moondoggie, 24 Apr 2012 @ 5:41pm

Re:
"Nobody hates artists' rights more than you, Mike"
"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 6:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
>An artist's ability to breath has no effect on the strength of the copyright.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 7:13pm

So it should be no problem to start a religion where Superman is my personal savior and I hand out religious pamphlets with his image on them? No trademark violations? No copyright violations? My freedom of religious speech won't be curtailed by Warner Bros.?

Goddamnit, DO IT!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 7:54pm

Re: Re:
Nobody hates Mike's rights more than you, artist pirates.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Moondoggie, 24 Apr 2012 @ 7:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
I'd predict he'll sue you for violating his rights to drown.

Don't save him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 8:07pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
bob you are a filthy democrat aren't you?
Surely you are not a republican that want less laws LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2012 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Re: One more time
How about you trip and fall into a wood chipper? Seriously, you're not even funny, anymore. You're just sad and twisted. Why do you have the world so, bob?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DC, 24 Apr 2012 @ 9:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One more time
1) I don't think bob uses sarcasm.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:17am

Re: Re: Re:
Mike hates nobody, pirate more than artists' rights you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 12:19am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody pirates more than artists' rights. Mike hates you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
drew (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pirate Mike hates nobody more than you artists, right?

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 thread ]
The Moondoggie, 25 Apr 2012 @ 1:53am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody pirates more than artists' rights. Mike hates you.

LOL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 4:27am

Re:
Nobody hates the truth like you, or reading comprehension, Cowardly Anonymous.

See what I did there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 4:42am

Re: Re: Re:
And what if I want to save the work in a museum? That apparently opens me up to copyright infringement in your world, even though I would be preserving the work for the future. And in what world is that even remotely sensible?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Niall (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 4:53am

Re:
Stand by for a slew of one-man shows. Ripe for cartoons employing a single talented voice artist...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laroquod (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 5:31am

"How can the folks behind this not realize what kind of ridiculous problems this will cause?"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 5:53am

FIA, FIAPF, And so e of otherfilm and video associations,including the US, Mexico, Nigeria, and even Kenyan Govts pushed for this. They worked very hard behind the scenes while a small group of other developed and developing countries pushed for this. Complicit on this was the WIPO Director General Francis Gurry. His main goal is to show he has the power to coerce Govts and industry in to a Treaty. He aims for a Broadcastingtreat next year. The lobbyists, I clouding MPAA are very visible at WIPO and you can be sure that they are the rig leaders in all of this. The Chinese invited the SCCR members to China to show that they too can have a treaty and are committed to copyright reform. Counties are hypocritical - on the one hand they decry the prac in the outer and on the other spend over a million dollars to hold a diplomatic conference there. Worse, it is the same organization that defends giving equipment to North Korea knowin full well of their human rights violations - gulags of over 150 to 200 thousand men, women and children imprissoned. To make matters worse no one (except Fox news ( and don't decry the source)) speaks about the travesty of breaking UN sanctions. And worse still, this Gurry person now heads the UN chief managers Board. It is time that the is accountability of UN personnel, lobbyists, and goats I. How they shape laws that more often than not, reduce the public commons. Please do all re-ACT to his Treaty as should it be supported will entail that performers, including musicians, may have to transfer their performance right to producers - who in turn would hold exclusivity in the use of their performances. ..... Read the draft text carefully ....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
An Anonymous Nerd, 10 May 2012 @ 4:20pm

Re: Just earn a SAG card.
And that means....? No laws are being changed? But seriously its going to be like the TPP, its so damn close, but then stirs attention, then BAM!
[ link to this | view in thread ]