Ridiculous: Why Is Any Country Supporting Locking In Life + 70 Copyright Term Protection?
from the pure-insanity dept
One of the key issues raised by the head of the US Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, was that it was time to perhaps rethink our current copyright term of life plus 70 and lower it. There had even been some indications that even the maximalists at the MPAA and RIAA were actually (for the first time) open to the idea in her proposal to officially roll back the term to life plus 50 with the ability to "renew" for that last 20 years. When even the maximalists are making noises about reducing copyright terms, and Congress seems open to exploring the issue, you'd think that the folks over at the USTR wouldn't be out there trying to lock us into international agreements that require life plus 70 as a minimum. But you'd be wrong.The folks over at KEI are putting together a letter to TPP delegates as they go through the latest negotiation, asking them to reject the life plus 70 requirement, noting that many countries that have it today (including the US) have shown indications that they regret such a long copyright term:
There is no benefit to society of extending copyright beyond the 50 years mandated by the WTO. While some TPP countries, like the USA, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Singapore or Australia, already have life + 70 (or longer) copyright terms, there is growing recognition that such terms were a mistake, and should be shortened, or modified by requiring formalities for the extended periods.Unfortunately, it looks like the only one who had been really fighting back against this proposal was Canada, and the indications are that Canadian negotiators are about to fold and agree to the life plus 70 requirement. There's a very important question here, which apparently no one in the USTR is willing to answer: why are they doing this? It makes no sense. All of the evidence suggests that having copyright this long has been bad for just about everyone, except perhaps Disney. The USTR has never even bothered to look at the issue, rather just accepting the idea that if the US currently has life + 70, it must lock that in permanently around the globe. Because.
The primary harm from the life + 70 copyright term is the loss of access to countless books, newspapers, pamphlets, photographs, films, sound recordings and other works that are “owned” but largely not commercialized, forgotten, and lost. The extended terms are also costly to consumers and performers, while benefiting persons and corporate owners that had nothing to do with the creation of the work.
Life+70 is a mistake, and it will be an embarrassment to enshrine this mistake into the largest regional trade agreement ever negotiated.
It's pure insanity in which the USTR continues to push for proposals that hurt American jobs, innovation and the public alike.
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 terms, life + 70, tpp, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
If you can free yourself for ten seconds from the indoctrination that even mention of the class struggle is communism, you'll see that all forms of authoritarianism are simply The Rich waging class war.
07:53:03[i-810-3]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
He's tried some very bizarre methods to counteract this (the "signature" with some random numbers that are apparently meant to "prove" it's the "real" ootb - hint to that idiot, it does no such thing). But, he's declined the very obvious methods to create an actual profile that would prove it's him posting (e.g. creating a profile with a different username, even if he just uses dashes instead of underscores).
As for the "accuracy" of the above comment - even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and he tends to be a little more accurate when he's attacking general conspiracy-minded principles rather than simply attacking Mike, TD or overall business strategies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
That said this does appear to be one of the rare times blue is on the money, he/she's just poisoned their reputation so much that people no longer even listen to them, so it's just a case of reaping what they sow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
if Masnick did not like censorship he would not have made if possible to censor posts, but he did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
If you don't want to be sent to time-out over and over again, stop acting like a child with the ad homs, insults and name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I got this one covered! -- Because The Rich want it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We gotta keep those dead people innovating somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, yes, copyright is not really enforceable on the general population, but the things being done in its name need to be addressed. The best way to do this is to correct the copyright laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as for the term, it's only to benefit, obviously, the immediate relations, of the immediate relations, of the immediate relations and all the label superceders that go along.
as for the USTR, they are after anything that they can get, just to ensure that they instil their dictatorial attitude and that of the USG and entertainment industries heads on to everyone else possible! forcing deals through using threatening behaviour is bad enough, but this? it's disgraceful! they need, like the NSA, masde to pay dearly for what they are doing with no thought whatsoever of the consequences to anyone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can't make a video parody?
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E!
Hey there! You there! Stop there!
You're stealing our IP!
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E!
Mickey Mouse!
Mickey Mouse!
Forever let us hold our copyright!
RIGHT? RIGHT! RIGHT! RIGHT!
Come along and sing a song
For only a modest fee!
M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Math
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Foolishness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate rights
The public has rights to access information until they come under corporate right law.
For the past 50 years, that has been what corpoate rights have been all about. Extending copyright to the benefit of corporations. Fair use has been decimated with knowledge, innovation, and sharing the things most harmed.
What this has been is a way for the legacy studios and industries to control the past. They no longer have to compete with new competitors or new fields and shut down independent artists and writers who work outside of their systems of governance. That's been the way to control the markets. Why can't artists make money on Spotify? The market is controlled.
Why can't people go to the big six publishers for a fair shake or deal? They're too busy trying to collude with Apple to control the markets.
And why can the MPAA spy on people through TWC, force startup companies to shut down for innovative use of technology and basically resist any form of adaptation?
Again. Control.
And that control spreads to the TPP, India, Brazil, China, Australia, Belgium and other places where the individual rights of the public are trampled to give more and more rights to the corporations that have stagnated.
In WWI, we had that very same type of corporate governance that became unbearable on a country. It was called the Treaty of Versailles. Now we call it the corporate sovereingty of the TransPacific Partnership.
It was never about the control of the artists. It's always been about the control of how much money the artists make. The more that goes to the legacy industries, the more stagnant we become.
The question isn't "Why is any country supporting this?"
The question is "Why haven't we stopped this corporate abuse of power?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate rights
I like really liked your comment and (provisionally) plan to plagiarize the hell out of it...
Any objections?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Corporate rights
I tend to play with language a lot so I've been coming up with new digital and analog analogies anyway. It's just how I see the copyright issue which seems the best way to talk about it moving forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corporate rights
'Rights' implies they are for some reason owed such control, that it is their 'right' to have it, and that it would be inherently wrong to take the control the law gives them away from them, whereas 'privilege' describes it as it's supposed to be, a temporary revocation of the public's rights, in order to better serve and enrich the public through the increased creation of more works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SMMFH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SMMFH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SMMFH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]