Copyright Extension Goes Into Effect In The UK: More Works Stolen From The Public Domain

from the they-don't-have-them dept

Mon, Nov 11th 2013 3:20am — Mike Masnick

Even as there have been indications around the globe that perhaps we've had enough copyright term extension and it's time to move back in the other direction, over in the UK, they just put in place a big new copyright extension which increases the term from 50 years to 70 years for sound recordings and performers' rights. We had discussed the EU decision two years ago to seize the public domain by retroactively pulling works out of the public domain, and now it's officially gone into effect.

While we've pointed out for years that when people claim that infringing works are "stolen," they're using the wrong word, since nothing is missing, that is not the case here. Here, things are absolutely missing. The entire purpose of copyright law is to provide the incentives to have the work created in the first place. As such, it's a deal, where the public grants the creators an exclusive right for a number of years, in return for getting the work (in a limited fashion) for a period of time and then having that work become public domain at the end. Retroactive copyright extension is a unilateral change in that deal -- directly taking the work away from the public domain without any recompense to the public the work has been stolen from. This makes absolutely no sense. Clearly, since the work was created, the incentive was good enough at the time of creation. Adding on more years that the public doesn't get it at the end does nothing to incentivize the work that was already created fifty years ago.

There is simply no reason to have done this, and to have taken these works out of the public domain. Scholars have pointed out that there is no legitimate reason to do this, no evidence that it does anything useful at all. Instead, there's plenty of evidence that the cost to the public is tremendous -- somewhere around a billion euros. The cost to culture in general is even worse, because the longer copyright terms are, the more works disappear entirely, and the more it harms the dissemination of knowledge. It's basically a disaster all the way around -- except for some old record labels that still have the copyrights.

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, public domain, term extension, uk

150 Comments

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

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

'Respect' for copyright, right...

Stuff like this is why the more people learn about copyright law, and it's history, the more they ignore it or hold it in contempt.

Retroactive copyright term extensions? The entire premise of copyright is the creator has X number of years of exclusive use of the copyright, and then it passes to the public. That's the 'deal' as it were, between the public and the creators.

To then have the deal changed, after the fact and entirely in the favor of corporations(because the second copyright duration was extended past 'life of the creator', it became crystal clear and irrefutable that the law was being written for companies, not creators), means the 'deal' was broken, and the promise of 'the creator owns it now, but after a set amount of time passes ownership moves to the public' was shown to be nothing but a lie, and broken deals, and promises based on lies, are two things that most don't care for, and certainly don't respect.

—That One Guy

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 3:48am

While we've pointed out for years that when people claim that infringing works are "stolen," they're using the wrong word, since nothing is missing, that is not the case here. Here, things are absolutely missing.

"Stolen"? They're not missing. You just have to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 3:55am
  
  Re:
  We had the rights to do whatever we want with a large number of public domain works affected by this change. We no longer have those rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 3:55am
  
  Re:
  ok, think of it this way. your parents leave you their house in their will. it was fully paid for (no outstanding payments etc). Now just after you move in a man in a suit comes round and claims that the house is his and takes the deeds before you can react. he then says that in order to keep living in the house you have to pay a stupidly high amount of rent. wouldn't you be saying the house was stolen from you?
  
  Flawed example, but still
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 3:55am
  
  Re:
  ok, think of it this way. your parents leave you their house in their will. it was fully paid for (no outstanding payments etc). Now just after you move in a man in a suit comes round and claims that the house is his and takes the deeds before you can react. he then says that in order to keep living in the house you have to pay a stupidly high amount of rent. wouldn't you be saying the house was stolen from you?
  
  Flawed example, but still
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    I did not know a entire family could be kicked out of their house for downloading a $20 cd.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Keroberos (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      At $150,000 per song, you could lose more that your house for that $20 CD.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2013 @ 8:46am
    
    Re: Re:
    A slight adjustment...
    
    If after inheriting the mortgage free house the bank comes back and says "Oh wait we want to extend the mortgage another 20 years. You have to pay because we decided you did not pay enough interest into our coffers and therefore deprived us of raising our already insane bonuses. So shut up and pay up!"
    
    Sounds like grifting to me which last I heard is illegal in most democratic countries... Or has the law been retroactively changed?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 3:56am
  
  Re:
  That is literally the terminology the copyright cartels use. Whenever they talk about copyright infringement, it's always in terms of theft or loss.
  Also, I'd like to actually discuss the idea of "you have to pay". Why? Why is selling the infinite good like a scarce resource automatically the best AND the only way to monetise creative works? Why is it you just flat out refuse to even consider alternatives?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    the works we're talking about here are so old as to be largely outside the digital realm. Some of them are only on sheet music, some on wax cylinders, some on brittle bakelite 78's. None of these things are an infinite resource.
    
    As long as music can still be released on physical media it is not, by default, an infinite resource.
    For example, a band in my town just made a CD - they only made 300 copies.
    It has 18 tracks. Their sound cloud page has 6 tracks on it, so 6 of their tracks are maybe "infinite", but 12 are very finite. (it is very unlikely that there will ever be a torrent of their cd).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Brazenly Anonymous, 11 Nov 2013 @ 9:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That you have chosen to encapsulate a pattern in a finite resource does not make the ability to repeat that pattern inherently finite.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - art guerrilla (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        not to mention -duh- that if those media are readable one way or the other (either with original equipment, or analyzing the media and recasting it), then not only SHOULD they be transferred to digital form for posterity, they MUST be, or they will be effectively lost forever, REGARDLESS of what the idiotic copyright terms are...
        
        further, it is by no means a certainty that these works will be transferred/translated to a digital format under their 'enhanced' copyright; BUT, IF they were in the public domain, available to all, i bet dollars to donut holes that there would be a contingent of fans and/or nerds who would effect such a digitization themselves at some point...
        
        now? no such luck...
        
        art guerrilla
        aka ann archy
        eof
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 2:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      the works we're talking about here are so old as to be largely outside the digital realm
      
      Nothing is outside the digital realm. I think you're confusing the medium with the message.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:00am
  
  Re:
  Where before they were free for the public to use, so yeah, they were very much taken from the public, and since the public didn't receive anything for what was taken, and now cannot use or access what they could before without paying, it was indeed stolen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:19am
  
  Re:
  ""Stolen"? They're not missing. You just have to pay"
  
  You're missing half of the point of the public domain if you think that free access to the end product is the only right that's being removed from the public here.
  
  Besides, it can certainly be argued that charging for services that were promised free of charge is a type of services theft and/or fraud. But it's OK if some corporations stand to make a profit, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:21am
  
  Re:
  Not always. You can pay if the copyright holder sells a copy. Here you have 20 years of works. How many of these will be actually released by their new copyright holders? I'd bet just the most popular few. For the rest, they will say there is "not enough interest", while a part of our collective culture rots away.
  
  Media is not permanent. Even the most resilient formats degrade. Even if the media does not degrade directly, you will have things like the owner of a collection of LPs dying, and his children just throwing it all in the trash. The longer people are not allowed to copy, the greater the chance that there will not be anything left to copy from.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:30am
  
  Re:
  Tell that to the pirates around the world that saved Dr. Who from being lost forever.
  
  We should make artists have to pay tens of thousands of dollars so they could keep their body of work, that is how much it costs for the average dude on the streets to keep any large collection of anything these days.
  
  Paying is good right, so copyright owners should have to pay it too is only fair that they gain privileges only after having paid for it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    An idea similar to that has been kicked around a bit, where if they want to call it 'property' and get all the rights attributed to property, like control and exclusive use of it, it would only be fair to tax it as property as well, and when they no longer care to do so it passes into the public domain.
    
    I mean you pay taxes on your house, your land, your car, your company and profits from it, if they want to say their copyrights are so insanely valuable that thousand, hundred-thousand or even million dollar fines in lawsuits should be considered reasonable for downloading a song/CD, then it would only make sense to tax them on what is, according to them, such extremely valuable property.
    
    Government would love it, because it's always looking for more tax money, and it would be good in another way too, if they tried to decrease how much taxes they paid by saying the IP wasn't in fact as valuable as they'd been claiming, then obviously the statutory damages, and amount they could reasonably try and get from lawsuits over infringed copyrights, would also take a steep dive.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:49am
  
  Re:
  "You just have to pay"
  
  Really?
  I have to pay even though I do not want whatever you are selling? That seems a bit over the top.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:57am
  
  Re:
  "Pirated"? They're not missing. You just have to miss out on the thirty-second extension to your mansion so you can house your seventeenth private yacht.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pragmatic, 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:01am
  
  Re:
  So if someone swipes your wallet and demands money to get it back, that's not extortion? Thank you for enlightening us, Copyright Sensei-san.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:36am
  
  Re:
  They're not missing. You just have to pay.
  
  If those works go out of print, then they absolutely are missing.
  
  If some derivative work is not allowed by the copyright holder, then that work absolutely is missing.
  
  If orchestras can't afford to perform that music now, their performances absolutely are missing.
  
  Yes, it is "stealing." At least, closer to "stealing" than infringement is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:40am
  
  Re:
  Perhaps someday it will occur to the legal eagles here that one cannot steal something that no one owns. There is no bucket called the public domain. It is no more and no less than the a legal doctrine that represents the absence of ownership.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    Except when talking about the public domain, it's not so much a matter of 'no one' owns it, so much as 'everyone' owns it, it's just no one controls it, and if you lock up something that everyone used to own, without any compensation, then suddenly try and charge them for it, then yes, you have indeed stolen it from them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I wonder how many times one must say "No one owns it" before the import of the phrase is understood?
      
      BTW, Eldred v. Ashcroft is instructive, even though what is being talked about here involves the UK.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 9:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        when talking about the public domain it's not so much a matter of 'no one' owns it, so much as 'everyone' owns it, it's just no one controls it,
        
        I wonder how many times one must say "No one owns it" before the import of the phrase is understood?
        I see you've chosen to argue a nitpicking semantic point rather than the actual meaning. How unusual.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Perhaps someday it will occur to the legal eagles here that one cannot steal something that no one owns.
    
    But we do own works in the public domain. That is because we own our own property (our copies), and our own labor (to create copies, performances, or derivative works). We also "own" our own speech and our own participation in culture.
    
    These are the things that copyright removes from the public, and grants to copyright holders exclusively.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:11am
  
  Re:
  By that token, you have no problem with the government extending copyright all the way back to the baroque period of music and claiming practically all classical music as their sole "intellectual property" to be monetized and controlled with an iron fist, right?
  
  For that matter, why not just go ahead and extend copyright all the way back to the beginning of recorded history and completely deprive the public of any and all ownership rights? May as well go ahead and concede everything to the corporations because apparently their rights take precedence over the public's.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually something like that could be good, lawmakers have already stated that 'infinity minus a day' counts as 'limited', so they'd obviously see no problem with such a change, but if the public were to have it made so blatantly clear just how the suits see the 'deal' between creators and the public, then copyright as a whole would likely die, as all respect for the law would disappear over-night.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Ah, I see the strategy. Implement copyright to its most extreme ends and the public backlash would be so severe that it would basically disintegrate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty much. I'm probably butchering the wording, but I believe there's a saying something along the lines of 'The best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it completely'.
        
        Make people see just how insane copyright law has gotten, make it so it's impossible for them not to be affected by it, and then you'd have a real push to deal with it, whereas currently most people don't even think about it, and automatically assume that you'd have to go out of your way to break copyright law(if nothing else the life+70 years duration would probably blow most away).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's a rather excellent proposition. Question is, how to go about pushing it through? You realize that the very act of making such a bold proposition would create tremendous backlash and scorn that it would be DOA.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well 'For the artists!' always seems to work, as long as it's bundled with nice, hefty 'campaign contributions'...
        
        However, even were it dead in the water, the backlash would still serve to bring attention to the problems of the current system, as when people researched what the current duration and scope was, in order to defend it, they'd find out that 'everything for all time' was really just an extension of where copyright has been going this whole time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Forget about the public, think how much Disney would owe the heirs of the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen etc.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Sunhawk (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Actually something like that could be good, lawmakers have already stated that 'infinity minus a day' counts as 'limited'
      
      The really silly thing is that it's not. (Infinity - 1) days is still uncountable, and is thus infinite.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're thinking rationally and logically, which is very much not the way a politician thinks, especially when their goal requires ignoring logic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jupiterkansas (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  No, you have to ask permission.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anon, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:25am
  
  Re:
  That is somewhat flawed:
  
  "Oh that TV you had? It's not stolen, you can have it back for a fee."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 3:56am

Laws against gravity
I'm sorry, but I can't take such laws seriously anymore. It's as if a legislator was issuing laws that require apples to float to the ground instead of falling off a tree - apples just won't follow such a law, not because they don't want to. Because they can't.

Sure, you could place ventilators below every apple-tree in the world and sensors detecting apples being about to fall down (thus activating the ventilators below the apple). But the costs for this would be... mindblowing at best.

The web in general and the way we share information over it in particular are more akin to a natural phenomenon (like gravity) than to man-made procedures. Trying to regulate it "by decree" seems like a waste of taxpayers money to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:50am
  
  Re: Laws against gravity
  Gravity is just a theory
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:54am
    
    Re: Re: Laws against gravity
    Please tell me you're not a religious nutjob who doesn't know what exactly a theory is in scientific parlance and that was just sarcasm...please!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
      Strictly speaking he is correct, there are many, many clues that suggest the current "Theory of Gravity" is not complete or that it could completely wrong, at the moment we don't understand it enough to get an answer.
      
      On the other hand the effects of gravity are not theory you can observe those and as the first post was about the very real effects of gravity not the theories behind it of how it works, I must conclude that this was a tongue in the cheek response, target at funny not serious.
      
      Vox Populi:
      
      You got trolled.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
      Hahaha - yes, sarcasm.
      
      "Intelligent Falling", very funny stuff.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        IP: Intellectual Plummeting!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:31am
    
    Re: Re: Laws against gravity
    Theories either aren't proven or can't be proven (like evolution, you can't test it in a lab, it would take decades or centuries). Gravity is a law, it can be tested, and has been proven.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
      Yes, do go on
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
      That... is not even close to the scientific definitions of 'law' and 'theory', as well as being wrong in several other ways.
      
      Next time do a little more research before commenting.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
      Theory is the epitome of science. Theories do no "graduate" into laws. Laws are simply summations of theories. Gravity is an observed phenomenon. The Theory of Gravity is a testable explanation for it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
      Get a sample of bacteria, introduce antibiotics to them, kill off most of the population, obverse over the course of a few days or weeks as the bacteria eventually evolve a resistance to your antibiotic. Want to know how that's possible?
      The average bacteria reproduces every 20 MINUTES. There, proven, verifiable, observable evolution.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Prajo Etach, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Correction: observable microevolution. Which does occur. Macroevolution is another matter entirely, however.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        That's what the fossil record is for.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Sorry but taking fossils and fabricating stories about evolution out of thin air around them isn't science. Science is testable, observable and falsifiable. Evolution fails miserably in every respect.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Fabricating stories out of thin air? Isn't that the domain of religion?
        Evolution as a theory has been proven by decades of research. Care to tell us exactly how using fossil records to support evolution is wrong? Go on. How is looking at the bones of dead members of a species over a long range of time, and cataloguing differences in members over time, somehow not indicative of evolution?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Dude, whether or not you believe in God/religion is up to you. I'm not the one going around fabricating stories which cannot be proven and calling it 'science.' You claim evolution to be true yet cannot demonstrate it. You cannot even get past the first step necessary for it: abiogenesis. And don't try and deflect away from this because it's the truth -- life has never been observed coming about from non-life and random chance. Never. It's self-defeating logic on its face.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        I remember another article from a while back where you had the exact same hangup. I'll repeat the lesson here but I just know that you'll ignore it.
        Evolution DOES NOT care at all where, how and why life first began. It only describes the changes in a species over time and why and how that occurs. The beginning of life HAS NOTHING TO DO with it, it does not come into play at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Well I suppose you're right in that evolution doesn't care, because it isn't sentinent -- it doesn't even exist, at least not as far as speciation is concerned.
        
        Abiogenesis is essential in order for evolution to even get off the ground, because you must have a life-form which can reproduce, let alone increase in complexity (which, again, defeats all logic; everything naturally breaks down with time).
        
        Funny how you lodge your little swipe at religion as being a fabrication yet when asked to demonstrate your own "scientific theory" you cannot do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Yes, an explanation for the beginning of life is essential in order for evolution to even get off the ground. But here's the thing - that explanation for the beginning of life can BE ANYTHING, and it wouldn't change evolution one bit.
        God could have waved his hands and animals just sprang into existence, but that wouldn't affect how and why there are observed differences in traits between members of a species according to the fossil record.
        
        As for my swipe at religion...that's how religions work. They make a bunch of claims, but tell you that none of it can be tested or verified, you have to take it on faith...just because. Thus, to me, they are the exact same thing as a fairy tail: a fabricated story made up out of thin air.
        
        Yes, I know evolution isn't aware. I meant that the theory of evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis in the same way that the theory of gravity has nothing to do with and doesn't really on tectonic plate theory.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Finding similar traits across species does not prove that evolution occurred, just as finding similar lines of coding in seperate computer software does not prove a common descent. If anything, the similarities between species all point to a singular cause, in effect proving, alebit indirectly, that the same hand (i.e. God) was responsible for all things.
        
        Religion does not require scientific proof in order to validate itself. It is a belief system predicated on faith. You cannot prove non-material things such as consciousness and emotions exist in a lab, yet they still exist regardless. Science is not the be-all, end-all explanation for all things.
        
        And finally, yes, evolution absolutely requires abiogenesis in order for it to work, otherwise the entire theory is aimless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        When a religion is telling me that a figure created something that it didn't like, allowed it to happen very easily (almost as if it were using reverse psychology), then said that to get rid of it, that figure would cause itself to be born and then die, sacrificing itself to itself to get rid of something that it itself created under a series of rules it itself put forth...one doesn't need scientific evidence to disprove it. One just needs common fucking sense to realise that that claim makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Ok, so you don't believe in God (nor seem to understand Christianity), so be it. In much the same way, common sense tells me that a functional universe causing itself into being is an intellectual absurdity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        And finally, yes, evolution absolutely requires abiogenesis in order for it to work, otherwise the entire theory is aimless.
        
        In what way? Why exactly can't a person believe that the world was created by an intelligence, but not also believe that organisms evolve over time?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Do we not possess freedom of thought? People can believe whatever they want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Says the guy who just said that belief in evolution "requires" a belief in abiogenesis? You're contradicting yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 12 Nov 2013 @ 6:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        How else could that miraculous theory of evolution get up and running without the original life-form? Therefore, abiogenesis would be prerequisite, otherwise you've got nothing to work with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2013 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Abiogenesis is prerequisite for all theories, even in the funny "intelligent design" one which needs a superior being(an Alien?), to have designed and created life, but that superior being must have come from somewhere right? because if it didn't it just poped up out of nowhere meaning Abiogenesis happened, if not he is somebody else creation too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Prajo Etach, 12 Nov 2013 @ 3:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Normally, you would be correct. However, you're only thinking in four dimensions. The Creator exists beyond them, as they are parts of the universe, of the creation. That is, God is beyond our three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. That's the meaning of transcendant. He has no beginning or end, no past or future. He always IS. Always NOW. It's been scientifically and mathematically proven that more than our four dimensions of space-time exist, and he touches likely an infinite number of them in both space and time.
        
        Think of our universe as a line segment with both a finite beginning and a finite end. God exists outside of that line segment and touches every part of it and every moment of it at the same time. He isn't like us at all. Abiogenesis does not apply to him, because he has no beginning. He's always been, always is, and always will be. He is always in the present. Nothing made him because he never began. He always exists. He isn't a limited four-dimensional being like us at all. As I said before, he always IS.
        
        All time, matter, space, and energy in our universe have a finite beginning in the big bang, a single point of origin for the universe's creation. Essentially, the big bang was an explosion, and like any explosion, what caused cannot have come from within it. A bomb or missile, for example, only explode when an outside factor causes them to (such as impact, chemical reaction, etc.). In the case of the big bang, the outside Factor had to have come from outside the universe in order for the universe to explode into existence. Unmistakably, this indicates that the universe was created, because of its origin and because of its continual expansion, which fits the behavior of an explosion. And a creation must have a Creator, because a creation cannot create itself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sunhawk (profile), 12 Nov 2013 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        How else could that miraculous theory of evolution get up and running without the original life-form? Therefore, abiogenesis would be prerequisite, otherwise you've got nothing to work with.
        
        ... didn't I just mention some of the scientific research into the formation of an original life-form?
        
        But you're incorrect on another level - abiogenesis and evolution are both distinct theories, and evolution does not require abiogenesis.
        
        For example, let's conceive of God creating that first life-form and letting it go to reproduce and change. There you go, evolution without abiogenesis in a single sentence.
        
        Evolution concerns itself with an existing population changing over time, including to the extent that the genetic codes cannot be recombined (ie, differing species). Anything else (fossil record, genetic profiles, etc) are observations used to validate or disprove the theory; the theory only applies once there is a living organism that can reproduce.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sunhawk (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 12:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        > Dude, whether or not you believe in God/religion is up to you. I'm not the one going around fabricating stories which cannot be proven and calling it 'science.' You claim evolution to be true yet cannot demonstrate it. You cannot even get past the first step necessary for it: abiogenesis. And don't try and deflect away from this because it's the truth -- life has never been observed coming about from non-life and random chance. Never. It's self-defeating logic on its face.
        
        Actually, there's been some interesting work on the formation of environments that can generate amino acids - Miller's work in the 50s, which had some sealed samples examined a few years back, demonstrated the formation of a couple dozen different kinds of amino acids. And that's with a mixture of water, ammonia, methane and hydrogen.
        
        And amino acids are the very basic building blocks of organic matter; they make proteins, which make up most parts of a cell.
        
        Other work has demonstrated the ability of amino acids to form protobionts, which exhibit quite a few characteristics of primitive cells (such as asexual reproduction).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        I've said it before and I'll say it again: Just because you don't like the evidence, doesn't mean it ceases to exists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Right. Why don't I take a bunch of data, fabricate a theory and then fit it all to my own conclusions and call it science?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        You mean like 'Intelligent Design', that attempt to pretend religion is scientific and should be taught, and treated, as such?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        I didn't say anything about teaching intelligent design as science, so this is a moot point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Fair enough, just pointing out how it matches what you said above about 'take a bunch of data, fabricate a theory and then fit it all to my own conclusions and call it science'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sunhawk (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        > Sorry but taking fossils and fabricating stories about evolution out of thin air around them isn't science. Science is testable, observable and falsifiable. Evolution fails miserably in every respect.
        
        Actually, it *is* verifiable.
        
        You make predictions based upon the theory, and then you look for new instances of the phenomenon under question and see if they match the predictions. That's generally what verification means - "do new observations fit existing models".
        
        Let's take a study I myself am doing - I am having participants do two sets of variant actions; one is used for informing my models, and the other is reserved for testing their accuracy.
        
        Models can be validated against an existing data set - and are all the time. The most common way is to split data points between a training set and a validation set.
        
        I suppose you've not studied statistical or hard science methodology though, so I can't blame you for being ignorant.
        
        > Don't conflate natural selection and random mutation, something creationists originally came up with, with universal common descent.
        
        Considering we've been discovering fossil remains of those "common descent" predicted species for the past few decades... ummm...
        
        (An easy watch on the topic is David Attenborough's "First Life" documentary; he discusses the origins of common features quite nicely).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Unfortunately the fossil record doesn't support universal common descent either. Darwin attributed this to the incomplete nature of the fossil record but the evidence suggests otherwise. We see records of species staying the same for long periods of time (if the fossil record were incomplete we would not expect this) with huge discontinuous variations among different species. Punctuated equilibrium was speculated to account for this fact, the claim that organisms stay the same for prolonged periods of time and abruptly make huge changes in such a small period of time that the fossil record has no records of this, but without evidence such is just a faith based belief. Indeed, the evidence and the fossil record seem to be the exact opposite of what we should expect to see if UCD is true and attempts to come up with theories to explain this away doesn't change the fact that the evidence does not support UCD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        " We see records of species staying the same for long periods of time"
        
        which evolution explains is because the environment didn't change much for those species, thus there was no need or impetus for that species to evolve new traits in order to better survive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Which misses the point, you're the one claiming UCD. The burden is on you to provide evidence. Not an explanation to account for the lack of evidence but actual evidence for your hypothesis.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RadialSkid (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        There's no such thing as "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Those are bullshit creationist terms.
        
        The actual terms are "evolution" and "speciation," respectively. And, if you understand how taxonomy works, the former always eventually leads to the latter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Brazenly Anonymous, 11 Nov 2013 @ 10:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        There are speciation level differences between Simian Immunodeficiency Virus, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus and two different species of Human Immunodeficiency Virus. This combined with the known origin of HIV virtually satisfies observation of speciation (your macroevolution).
        
        Note that even if abiogenises could be observed, proof of origin still could be not obtained. After all, with suitable initial conditions, the Universe could have started Yesterday.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Don't conflate natural selection and random mutation, something creationists originally came up with, with universal common descent.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Sorry, but Institute for Creation Research? I immediately am very sceptical of any of their claims. Their name alone implies that they start out with the conclusion (creationism is true) then find evidence to support, ignoring any evidence to the contrary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Fair enough. I'm Christian by faith. God creating the heavens and the earth is not something that can be scientifically verified and neither is it intended to be. But if you would like to claim that UCD is true you need evidence as well. Without evidence your beliefs are based on faith, the very thing that you criticize me of basing my beliefs on.
        
        I've looked at the evidence and it does not support UCD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        "I immediately am very sceptical of any of their claims."
        
        The fact is that a creationist came up with the idea of natural selection as a force for evolution (not universal common descent) before Darwin did. He wrote a book about it dated before Darwin. That's history. Darwin dishonestly stole the idea and gave no credit to the creationist. You can close your ears and deny this fact all day long but it will only make you look foolish which will make it more difficult for anyone to take you seriously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Having gone through the Institute link, I find my scepticism only growing. There are quotes from the apostle Paul for some reason and claims that "most assuredly were read by Charles Darwin". Where is the proof? If you're going to accuse someone of plagiarism, then provide some proof that they did indeed read the works in question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Charles Darwin was an 'expert' in the field. He did, or at least should have done, his homework and prior research searches. If not then he really shouldn't be taken seriously.
        
        Darwin was well aware of Blyth and his works.
        
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blyth
        
        Unless he completely had his head in the sand which, as a (proclaimed) expert in the field, is very very unlikely. Even Eiseley, who is not a creationist, acknowledged that Darwin stole the idea and gave credit to others but not Blyth (at least not directly), the originator of the idea. Darwin was well awarey of Blyth as was any expert in the field at the time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        well aware *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        From the very link you provide
        "There can be no doubt of Darwin's regard for Edward Blyth: in the first chapter of On the Origin of Species he wrote "Mr. Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one, ..."[12]"
        
        Sounds to me then, that Darwin actually was aware of Blyth, read his works, was in contact with him at one point, and even gave credit to him in the opening chapter of his book!
        
        So far all your evidence shows is that, at worst, Darwin built upon the research of an earlier scientist and was lauded for it (the link says that Darwin explained about natural selection, where Blyth taught elimination, a maintaining of perfection).
        
        So try again. Show me some direct evidence of Darwin plagiarising his work, of lifting wholesale research done by others and not giving credit. So far, you have failed to do so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        "Sounds to me then, that Darwin actually was aware of Blyth, read his works, was in contact with him at one point, and even gave credit to him in the opening chapter of his book!"
        
        I stand corrected.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 9:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Thank you then for admitting it. I apologize to you for sounding like an asshole in my replies to you.
        At least you're able to admit when you've been proven wrong...unlike other notable readers of Techdirt I could name.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sunhawk (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        From the very link you provided:
        
        In a 1959 paper, Loren Eiseley claimed that "the leading tenets of Darwin's work � the struggle for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection � are all fully expressed in Blyth's paper of 1835".[13][14] He also cited a number of rare words, similarities of phrasing, and the use of similar examples, which he regarded as evidence of Darwin's debt to Blyth. However, the subsequent discovery of Darwin's notebooks has "permitted the refutation of Eiseley's claims".
        
        Perhaps you should read the wikipedia article you offered up?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
      Evolution is a lie and will never be observed, whereas we can readily observe the effects of gravity.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        This is why I don't believe anything that people like you spout. Just like Out of the Blue, you don't know what you're talking about before your mouth opens.
        
        Gravity has not been observed. What you're thinking about is where apples fall from trees. The theory of gravity is a hell of a lot more complex (it's about space and time bending). Apples falling from trees is just a vary small part of the theory of gravity. But that's where most arguments fall apart. You want a simple answer where none can exist.
        
        It's the same exact problem with copyright. Copyright seems to be a simple answer, the owner owns all of it. But the world is not simple enough for a simple answer. To fit with the real world we must have fair use and limited time frames. Even then we end up with infringement and abuses.
        
        Simple answers are great, but only for simple problems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        Well now, you're conflating the theory of gravity with copyright (which for the record I'm totally against expanding). If gravity does not in fact exist then what precisely do you consider the force that is keeping us firmly planted down on earth to be?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
        See, again you're talking without understanding. The theory of gravity is a hell of a lot more complex then apples falling from trees. It involves things like how we're pulled to the ground, why light bends around gravity wells, and time bends as well. It's far, far more complicated then when Newton started it.
        
        Remember, a scientific theory is as close to fact as science can get without being able to reproduce it on demand. We have the math, we have the evidence, we just can't show in a lab that time slows down in a gravity well.
        
        Same with evolution, the math is there, the evidence is there, we just can't repeat it in a lab.
        
        You're trying to take an easy to understand concept (things fall) and apply it to everything. But everything is far too complicated. You're looking for a simple, universal answer.
        
        And that's where I tried to turn this conversation back on topic by pointing out that what is going on with copyright is the same way of thinking. Trying to take a simple, easy to understand concept and apply it to something far, far more complicated. It ain't going to work. (wasn't saying anything about you and copyright, just trying to turn back on track)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:31am
      
      Obvious derail is obvious
      Guys? I can't believe you all fell for such an obvious attempt at derailing the discussion.
      
      This thread should be about copyright and other forms of intellectual monopoly, not about evolution or religion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:07am

Does that mean
we cant download those early Beatles songs anymore for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:23am
  
  Re: Does that mean
  It also means that you're not able to access any music by other artists of the same era, even if they're orphaned works that cannot be legally offered due to their copyright holders being unknown or unable to give permission. Among many other problems that the public domain would solve.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Duke (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:00am
  
  Re: Does that mean
  You couldn't before. This is an extension only to the copyright in the sound recordings, not in the songs.
  
  The distinction is important because, by default, usually the record labels own the former, and the composers etc. own the latter.
  
  This extension gives the record labels and extra 20 years of monopoly over their works against composers and authors, so even if the composers want to use the sound recordings in any way (such as publishing them themselves) they still need the labels' permission.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:07am

one of the arguments always used by governments is that they are losing gazillions in revenue due to copyright infringement. isn't it strange when this sort of situation jumps up, no one from government complains about the gazillions lost then! talk about flawed arguments in favour of copyright and the losses to a countries economy! nothing but total bull shit! just excuses to screw the people in favour of companies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  +1
  
  Copyright is an artificial tool to deprive the public of inheriting creative works. Its lock & key mechanism is entirely artificial. People would respect copyright far more if it worked according to the original conditions set, but it has since been expanded to the point of absurdity.
  
  First it was something like 28 years for published works, then it kept increasing and expanding in scope. Now it's 50, 70, 100 years + option for renewal for another 50 or something. It's such a mess that I've lost track.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:18am

Legalized crime that is wonderful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:20am

the more works disappear entirely

That is what the industry wants, reduced competition for eyes and ears so that they can sell more of the few works that they publish. They seem to think that free/public domain reduces their profits, whereas making works too expensive and with a limited range gets people out of the habit of reading or listening, except to the modern fall-back mindless television and musack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:28am

'Respect' for copyright, right...
Stuff like this is why the more people learn about copyright law, and it's history, the more they ignore it or hold it in contempt.

Retroactive copyright term extensions? The entire premise of copyright is the creator has X number of years of exclusive use of the copyright, and then it passes to the public. That's the 'deal' as it were, between the public and the creators.

To then have the deal changed, after the fact and entirely in the favor of corporations(because the second copyright duration was extended past 'life of the creator', it became crystal clear and irrefutable that the law was being written for companies, not creators), means the 'deal' was broken, and the promise of 'the creator owns it now, but after a set amount of time passes ownership moves to the public' was shown to be nothing but a lie, and broken deals, and promises based on lies, are two things that most don't care for, and certainly don't respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:42am
  
  We have altered the deal...
  ...pray we won't alter it further.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ambrellite (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:43am

An Idea I had
Maybe an effective measure to curtail this sort of madness is to tax companies slightly less (whether by creating a tax penalty or a tax break) in exchange for applying sane copyright limits (less than 15 years until expiration, for one) to their IP. The point being that they'd have to weigh the dubious gains of copyright ownership against the certain benefit of the tax break. Most would probably prefer the latter.

Companies would still argue for maximizing copyright, but many would simultaneously argue that the enormous economic benefits of more limited copyright deserves a larger tax incentive. It would be a lot harder for copyright maximalists to set the terms of the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:56am
  
  Re: An Idea I had
  That seems like a very bad idea, as even if the changed copyright duration in the incentive started reasonable, it would only be a matter of time before they claimed that it really should be longer, all the while they still enjoyed the financial incentives.
  
  Remember, copyright started in the US at a simple 14 years, then 14+14, then 28... history shows that even if the duration starts out sane, they'll always demand that it be increased.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymouse, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:05am

Nothing has actually changed!!!!
I will still get my content the way i want, but the statement i made is Wrong. Not only is that content now locked down for 70 years but sampling and using it to create something better is going to end up with the new creator having to pay licences to some defunct business where it is used to buy cocaine or whores or a new Bentley.

Seriously this i such a stupid thing to do, if the governemetn had any sense they would be cutting the copyright to a max of 5 years and encouraging the creation of new content. But then again there is so much new content, both video and music, created and shared freely with no copyright restrictions or very few restrictions it is just the old content that is being thrown away and that is just sad.
YouTube is the saviour of content creation, where there is content of such a high quality the legacy players are lost and just do not know what to do to compete. When a girl of 17 sitting in her bedroom can create on her laptop a song better than anything in the charts the legacy players are dead, when video sites that people pay a very small subscription to create movies and tv series's and include that in an �8 streaming package the old legacy players are lost they have no way to compete and they are slowly sinking as more and more video and music sites are creating excellent content.
Youtube was the first great success but there are a myriad of sites now that have so much content i dont ever have to turn my tv on to watch broadcast media, i can browse so many sites and watch so many shows it is unbelievable.

This extension of copyright is a farce, it will be ignored by everyone but those that support it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  out_of_the_blue, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:26am
  
  Re: Nothing has actually changed!!!!
  That's what I said just after you.
  
  BUT this is to point out that your idealism of small content makers doesn't at all take into account that overwhelming numbers of people still pretty much only want the big expensive productions that only Hollywood makes*, and that's where the main money is. I don't see that changing, so neither will the basic situation in which masses of dolts await the next cartoon to mega-movie, or Star Wars 7, or whatever.
  
  [ * Note to some AC: this is a fact even though it's still true that no one ever goes to a movie theater and explicitly demands a $100 million movie. It just costs lots to make explosions and have "stars" in big splashy crap.]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:51am
    
    Re: Re: Nothing has actually changed!!!!
    "that's where the main money is."
    
    Full of crap, as ever. Some of the most profitable movies of all time cost far, far less that the figure you fantasise about being necessary. Not to mention that many "blockbusters" fail miserably despite containing the expensive elements you claim are needed.
    
    But hey, why deal with reality? That's your motto, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:27am
    
    Re: Re: Nothing has actually changed!!!!
    LoL
    
    Do you pay any attention?
    
    With each increase in price, a larger number of people stay away from the big expensive productions that only Hollywood makes and their distribution channels.
    
    People may like it, but there is only so much they will pay for it before they find another way.
    
    About the high salaries, well everything that goes up eventually has to come down my furry friend.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:17am

You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
What have you lost? Nothing! -- If the works are available online, then nothing has changed with regard to you pirates, only to law-abiding people.

Most likely, none of you ever heard of or wanted these hoary old works before told that you can't have them.

3rd point: ever notice that copyright "law" keeps going more limiting and draconian? Your current notions simply aren't working in practice. That's cause to re-examine at least your tactics and what passes for your philosopy. -- I'm pretty sure it's your thefts of current content which drives the trend: telling productive industries that you're free to take their products without paying just causes angry reaction.

4th: NO, I don't approve of this retroactive change. But even less do I approve of stealing current content, and that's your real goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:26am
  
  Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
  Currently options are this:
  
  - Go legal. Works get retroactively added to public domain. Get screwed over.
  - Pirate. Not affected by changes at all.
  
  Why would I want to go legal? What advantages have I gained from going legal? A headpat from the RIAA, and a "fuck you, that's why"?
  
  out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:28am
  
  Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
  Why should I pay for stuff that should be in the public for free?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:35am
  
  Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
  The outright lies in the subject line alone, and you even built a handy strawman to attack at the same time (the argument isn't that everything should be free of charge - the public domain grants much more than that).
  
  Who says creativity is dead? Now, if you can just step out of the fiction section and move into the real world...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- drew (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 5:56am
  
  Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
  Wow. I haven't been on this site for ages and it's almost like I never went away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:10am
    
    Re: Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
    Stick around, he's added rants against politicians, corporations and paranoid conspiracy theories to provide material for stories that don't allow for the usual schtick. In fact it's almost refreshing to get an old-fashioned "you guys are pirates" and "movies that cost less than $100 million don't count" from him...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:05am
  
  Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
  What have you lost? Nothing! -- If the works are available online, then nothing has changed with regard to you pirates, only to law-abiding people.
  
  Except that's not true, 'pirates' weren't breaking the law before, but what the retroactive extension does is turn legal use into illegal, creating pirates from previously honest, law abiding people.
  
  Most likely, none of you ever heard of or wanted these hoary old works before told that you can't have them.
  
  1) How 'good' a work is is not a valid determination of how it should be treated by the law. Just as 'valuable' or 'good' works don't get preferential treatment, 'worthless' or 'bad' works don't get treated worse(and a good thing for hollywood too, otherwise a large number of their films would already be in the public domain, given so many of them are apparently 'bad' enough to never make a profit).
  
  A work can even be considered terrible, but still have historical value of some sort, and with extensions like this a great many works will disappear entirely, as they get pulled from the public domain, and then languish, as the copyright holder(assuming one can be found), doesn't consider them 'valuable' enough to preserve, and when, or if the works enter the public domain again, it's likely to be only due to the actions of pirates that enough of them will still exist to save them at all.
  
  2) If the works are really that inconsequential, then why the extension? Obviously the affected works are considered important, otherwise the duration would have remained as it was.
  
  ever notice that copyright "law" keeps going more limiting and draconian? Your current notions simply aren't working in practice. That's cause to re-examine at least your tactics and what passes for your philosopy.
  
  The irony here is all but blinding, as your statement would be much better aimed at the copyright maximalists. Increasingly harsh copyright infringement penalties have been proven to be useless, and in fact just drive people to lose any respect they might have had for the law, as they see how insane it's gotten.
  
  When people see that the law treats downloading a CD's worth of songs as even more financially damaging than grand theft auto, or any other actual theft where the owner is deprived of their property, they don't nod and agree that copyright is indeed fair and reasonable, they realize just how insane it is, and lose any respect they might have had for it.
  
  I'm pretty sure it's your thefts of current content which drives the trend: telling productive industries that you're free to take their products without paying just causes angry reaction.
  
  Your 'pro-corporation' bias is showing again.
  
  So stealing is only bad when non-companies do it? People were viewing, building off of, and making derivative works based upon what used to be free and in the public domain, and now they no longer can, with no compensation or payment for what was taken from them.
  
  How is it you decry pirates 'stealing' things owned by companies, but see no problem when companies steal from the public? Well, unless you're using double standards anyway...
  
  Those points aside, assume you're right, and that is the reason for the change in the laws, how is that anything less than an incredibly petty move, like something a kid would do?
  
  'They're taking my stuff, so I'll take theirs in return, that'll show them!'
  
  That's the logic of a child, and even worse, it will inevitably backfire horribly, as those that were obeying the law will suddenly find themselves being threatened for doing what was perfectly legal before, and while some may obey the changes, even more are likely to see the changes as ridiculous, and will quite likely now go out of their way to pirate what they wouldn't have before.
  
  NO, I don't approve of this retroactive change.
  
  Please, your entire comment consisted of nothing more than justifications, defenses and excuses for it, to now say that despite all that you don't agree with it is laughable.
  
  But even less do I approve of stealing current content, and that's your real goal.
  
  The retroactive duration extension had nothing to do with 'stealing current content', and everything to do with stealing older content from the public. Funny how you don't seem to mind that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PirateSEAL, 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:22am
  
  Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
  You are right I didn't lose anything, my dear Dogus Ignoramus.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sunhawk (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: You pirates aren't paying and won't pay!
  > What have you lost? Nothing! -- If the works are available online, then nothing has changed with regard to you pirates, only to law-abiding people.
  
  That's kind of the *point*, silly boy. Law-abiding people aren't going to be able to get the lesser-known works (not enough market for the jackass company) and, even more critically, law-abiding people won't be able to use those works to create new ones (like we've done for... just about all of human history).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:54am

The hue and cry here is "rivalrous "stuff" cannot be stolen (something about tapir-to-tapir)". Funny how that economic argument flies out the window since while in the public domain the "stuff" is still rivalrous.

Yes, "steal" is being used here to make a general point, one that is not a definitive statement of law, but since every instance here of "steal" associated with infringement is jumped upon as fast a hungry flea on a passing dog, turnabout seems to be fair play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  No.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:31am
  
  Re:
  You're missing the point where context matters. Nothing is stolen when a file is copied - the original is still available and ownership of that remains intact. The only thing that might have been lost is a potential sale, but that's neither quantifiable nor in any way analogous to stealing, except for a handy appeal to emotion in the minds of the less aware.
  
  However, what we're dealing with here is a situation where something has been quantifiably removed. The ownership of the works has been changed. Culture has been taken from the people who it was promised to under the agrreement under which it was created. People who stood to profit or create with the material that's been removed can no longer do so. Works that were orphaned or deemed unprofitable by rightholders that stood to be able to be released legally are now removed from the market. "Stealing" might not be the most accurate description for this, but it's one hell of a lot more accurate than the previous example.
  
  Perhaps if you tried listening to the arguments rather than waiting for a chance for "turnabout", you'd understand this better.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  A UK music teacher two weeks ago used a musical score sheet for free to teach her class. The music on that sheet was in the public domain, she was under no onus to pay for it.
  Now, she is no longer at liberty to use it. She is now told to pay for it. If she continues to do so, she potentially faces a very costly legal battle.
  
  Her ability to freely use culture without the threat of legal action has been taken from her. The usage of the word theft is used here correctly, in my opinion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not only must she pay, but she must ask permission to perform the work - permission which may be impossible to get if the composer is dead and the work is out-of-print and not owned by some major publisher.
    
    For example, there is a book that I wanted to adapt into a stageplay. It was published in 1936. The author is dead. In order to write my play, I have to ask permission - from whom? After a long search, I finally tracked down the author's son. I asked permission to write my play. I was told that it depended on if he liked my play or not. It wasn't about money - I would have gladly paid for rights (within reason).
    
    So in order to get permission, I had to do all the work of writing the play first, only to leave all my works to the whims of someone who isn't even the author. All this for a book written 77 years ago.
    
    As a result, there is no play. Instead I'm adapting older, public domain work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 1:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Instead I'm adapting older, public domain work."
      
      You'd better hurry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:20am
  
  Re:
  The hue and cry here is "rivalrous "stuff" cannot be stolen (something about tapir-to-tapir)". Funny how that economic argument flies out the window since while in the public domain the "stuff" is still rivalrous.
  
  Rivalrous stuff can absolutely be stolen. Non-rivalrous stuff is what can't be stolen.
  
  But here we're not talking about the content, but the singular concept of the public domain itself. This is the major difference. When you maximalists claim infringement is "theft" you say things like "he stole that song." We're not saying that the content was stolen here, because it's not. It's the public domain itself that was stolen, in that the public had a clearly granted RIGHT to make use of that content, and that RIGHT has been taken away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    Should have checked my dictionary before using "rivalrous". Thank you for the clarification.
    
    Re using "clearly granted right" in association with public domain misapprehends what is meant by the expiration of a copyright (yes, I agree, under current law the term before expiration is in my view much more than a bit excessive).
    
    I am growing a bit weary of being called a "maximalist" about a body of law of which I do not recall having expressed a personal opinion as to its "goodness" or "badness", other than to say I much prefer the concept underlying the 1909 Act and its formalities. I agree that there are some for whom perpetuity, stronger affirmative rights, the weakening of fair use, etc. are is an ideal for which they strive. I am not one of them. Never have been and never will be.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 10:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I am growing a bit weary of being called a "maximalist"
      
      Quacks, waddles, swims, and repels water...
      
      You're a duck!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 10:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nice segue in a substantively irrelevant direction, all the while avoiding any substantive comment(s) to what comprises the "public domain".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? You need Mike to explain the concept of public domain to you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Anonymous Coward just hates it when due process is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 10:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why don't you use that dictionary you wanted to look up 'rivalrous' in anyway?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Typical. Avoids the substantive question with a meaningless distraction. You'll never change, Mike.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2013 @ 12:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You'll never change, Barnyard Noise Joe.
        
        average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 13 Nov 2013 @ 10:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We can all see that Mike's avoiding the question.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2013 @ 7:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The coherence of any statement coming from you is rightly called into question since you decided that spending months mimicking a chicken and cow was the best way to put your point across.
        
        Get over it, you jackass; you're not David Feiss.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guardian, 11 Nov 2013 @ 6:57am

No worries
No worries folks i tmight take a decade more but we already see the clamdowns effects on quality of stuff has degraded to point i dont even watch tv no more.

there jsut isnt anyhting id pay for on it. MOVIES well same crap...might be one a year and hten ya might as well pirate that too....it might suck and you wasted how much?

ya and slowly the funds for all this will dry up and people will just keep watching the old stuff for decades they already bought....and the industry wont get new influx...

its already starting to happen and ten more years its gonna collapse as there wont be the funds to pay the royalties cause they are not allowing new derivative art to be created.

ENJOY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 7:22am

Derivative works
Does this mean that once legal derivative works are now infringing? If so this could prevent someone publishing what used to be a legal work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 11 Nov 2013 @ 8:47am

WOW. Fanboys are against nothing so much as "on topic"!
I see they've strayed from copyright into religion, and yet my associating SPY AGENCY Google with SPY AGENCY NSA always draws some yapping from the ankle-biters. Hmm. -- It's why I seldom read comments, but actually it's FINE with me: so long as I stay on message, I make progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: WOW. Fanboys are against nothing so much as "on topic"!
  It's why I seldom read comments...
  
  No, you seldom read comments because it's your childish way of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "Nah Nah I can't hear you!" whenever anyone counters your silly arguments.
  
  ...so long as I stay on message, I make progress.
  
  What progress? If you really think you are changing the minds of the intelligent people here with your repeated shouting of completely debunked statements you are seriously delusional.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What message? Never mind making progress; he's got absolutely nothing that can stand in for an on-topic message.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 11:40am

Great so can we the public go and pick some current works of these companies and just declare them public domain and strip them of copyright?

Yea its amazing how one sided this all is. This is why no one respects the copyright monopoly. There's no "Deal" its a self written, self-granted thieving from creative people and from the public. Middle men are total parasites that do not deserve your money. Never forget it folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Nov 2013 @ 11:47am
  
  Re:
  As a matter of fact, the answer is "yes", but with some qualifications. First, the "taking" must be by a governmental entity having eminent domain power, and must be exercised within the scope of that power. Second, at the very least "just compensation" under the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution must be paid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jameshogg (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 11:54am

Retroactive extensions yet again.

The thought of applying a present law to the past should make anyone sick. You would not punish someone under a law coming into force today that, for example, banned gambling, for a bet he made a few years ago when gambling was legal.

Why on Earth do copyright advocates think they are the exception to this essential democratic principle? Do they not know how many artists were making a living, and preparing to make a living, from releasing derivative works of public domain content for commercial flourishing and meeting the rights of their audiences, too? Have they no shame?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 11 Nov 2013 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re:
  Unless those artists were under contract to, and therefor paying them, they could not care less. To the people who keep pushing the 'copyright for eternity' crap, the only profits they care about are theirs, and if it requires screwing over the public, they couldn't care less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prajo Etach, 12 Nov 2013 @ 3:02pm

"
Parameter/Probability that feature will fall in the required range for physical life

"Dependency factors estimate ≈ 10^39
longevity requirements estimate ≈ 10^13

Probability for occurrence of all 200 parameters ≈ 10^237
Maximum possible number of planets in universe ≈ 10^22

Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^215 (one hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles."

See the full list of parameters for life to be possible here and full references for each one at http://www.reasons.org/articles/probabilities-for-life-on-earth-june-2002.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter, 13 Nov 2013 @ 5:13am

Not retroactive
143 comments, and not one of them points out that Mr. Masnick is wrong in his post. The UK change does not pull anything from the public domain; it instead prevents material from entering the public domain.

From the IPO's web site on the extension (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/pro-types/pro-copy/c-policy/c-policy-copyterm.htm):

"The extension of the term of protection applies only to those sound recordings that were in copyright on 1 November 2013 and to any sound recordings made after that date. The Regulations do not have the effect of bringing back into copyright those sound recordings where copyright has expired."

In spite of what Mr. Masnick says, no works were "pulled out of the public domain." The law does have the effect of delaying when works may enter the public domain, which is unfortunate. And Mr. Masnick's argument that it makes no sense to retroactively change the copyright agreement makes sense. But the public domain is the same size today that it was prior to the passage of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 13 Nov 2013 @ 5:34am
  
  Re: Not retroactive
  "Not retroactive"
  
  Incorrect. the new rules are applying not just to new works, but to older works regardless of the rules in place at the time of their creation. That's retroactively applying the new rules, even if they don't reverse the status of any works currently in the public domain. By your own assertion, any work that should have been in the public domain on 2nd November 2013 is now not in the public domain because the new rules were retroactively applied.
  
  "143 comments, and not one of them points out that Mr. Masnick is wrong in his post."
  
  Probably because he's not. Works that were meant to be entering the public domain are now not entering the public domain. It's a matter of spin and semantics as to whether these were "pulled" from the public domain or not. You can say they were blocked, they were retained, the copyright was extended, whatever. But nothing you've said negates the fact that there are less works in the public domain today than there would have been had the law not been changed.
  
  "But the public domain is the same size today that it was prior to the passage of the law."
  
  ...and that is exactly the problem. The public domain is smaller than it should have been today, under the rules in place when these works were created.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Peter, 14 Nov 2013 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re: Not retroactive
    Words do matter. Masnick wrote that the UK law will be "retroactively pulling works out of the public domain." It may retroactively change the copyright incentive bargain in a way that delays the entry of works into the public domain. And it may prevent works from entering the public domain. But nothing that was already in the public domain has been retroactively pulled out of the public domain.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Nov 2013 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not retroactive
      The regulations do speak of "revived" works that have their copyrights given back. I think the IPO's website is not accurate on that point. Read the regulations to see what I mean.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 15 Nov 2013 @ 12:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not retroactive
      However pedantic you wish to be, works that should have been in the public domain are not there. If your biggest problem with this is that you're not happy with how a blog worded the report of this happening, you're missing the real issues.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]