Uruguay Politicians Give Unanimous Preliminary Approval To Copyright Reform, Publishers Fight It Anyway
from the well,-of-course-they-do dept
All around the world, people are pushing to get copyright updated to reflect the digital world we live in. And all around the world, copyright industries are fighting tooth and nail to stop them. Here's an example from Uruguay, where something good could be about to happen on the copyright front, as a post on the Creative Commons blog explains:
Uruguay is in the process of updating its copyright law, and in April a bill was preliminarily approved in the Senate. The law introduces changes that would benefit students, librarians, researchers, and the general public by legalizing commonplace digital practices, adding orphan works exceptions, and removing criminal penalties for minor copyright infringements. University students were the original proponents of the limitations and exceptions bill.
Of course, all that was totally unacceptable to the local publishing industry, which got together and wrote a document outlining what it would like to see instead. By an amazing coincidence, its suggestions would neuter most of the changes that might benefit the public by:
Eliminating the exception that permits copying for personal use
The Creative Commons post has the details, and summarizes:
Retaining the possibility for criminal penalties for minor infringements
Drastically limiting the scope of exceptions and limitations for education
Adding severe restrictions on libraries
Enacting restrictions on freedom of panoramaTheir document recommends scaling back most of the user-friendly provisions in the bill, cuts other items that were drafted by the Council of Copyright in the Ministry of Education and Culture -- and which already received unanimous political support by all parties in the Senate.
That last point about the unanimous cross-party political support shows that the copyright maximalists care as little about democracy as they do about the public. All they want is to retain the privileges they have enjoyed for hundreds of years, and to hell with anyone else.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, copyright reform, uruguay
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"... and have we mentioned the luxurious 'retirement' offer we have open for former politicians?"
Mind, I'd love to be proven wrong and see some actual care for the public from them, but past experience elsewhere doesn't put the odds very high of them sticking to their guns here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, what do you expect?
Uh, what do you expect from publishers? Of course they speak for themselves. And of course they are running a business, and if it is cost-effective to pay off politicians, why shouldn't they be doing that?
I have one correction for Glyn now that I look closer:
No, copyright maximalism took off only last century. With the U.S. taking the lead with its "Sonny Bono" copyright extension act and then staying ahead of the game. Corporate copyright maximalism including massive systematic political bribery has not been around for hundreds of years. It's a "post-war" phenomenon (I am aware that "post-war" is not a state the U.S. is interested in achieving but you know what I mean).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Being self-centered is one thing, companies especially tend to focus first and foremost about making more money, but what really irks me is their practice of not only lying, but lying so terribly.
A group or collection of companies does not get to claim that they are only concerned about the public and creators when they're pushing for laws that directly harm both. If they were at least honest about their complete indifference to the public and anyone that wasn't a large company I'd still not care for them, but I'd hold them in a lot less contempt because at least they'd be upfront about their actual motives, rather than constantly lying about them in a way that makes it clear that they see everyone else as morons willing to buy whatever lie they come up with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Uh, no? They gift-wrap their lies in banknotes and hand them solemnly to politicians who equally solemnly take them. It's then the job of the politicians to unwrap the lies and pass them on to morons eating them up because "that is what they voted for", and it is hard to argue that they are reasonably successful with that.
Nobody to despise here but the constituents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Exactly. And if they're a publicly traded company then the law (if it's the same as in the US) even requires them to do everything (legally) possible to maximize profits. Some people don't seem to understand capitalism at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
which is to say, a morally bankrupt, in-human, inhumane, anti-community, ultimately cruel system of stripping 99% of the people of their 'value', and transferring that to the obviously deserving 1% of psychopaths who don't care about the 99%...
so, other than abandoning any pretense of aspiring to be a better people, a better community, a better state, a better civilization, a better planet; our HIGHEST aspiration, our GREATEST 'value', is to strip everything and everyone of the most 'worth' i can, grinding them all into a poverty of existence (NO MATTER your income) so i can amass a vast fortune to no good end...
*THAT* is our 'goal' in life ? ? ?
*THAT* is the sick, perverted game we play ? ? ?
really ?
well, you sick fucks keep chasing that 'dream'; but include me out, as yogi would say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Unless humans evolve, and learn to cast off selfishness and greed, we probably won't ever find a balance. Hasn't happened in 200,000 years, but I still hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Sure, that's why one needs to evolve political systems where there is no disproportional payout to be expected from putting your interests above those of others.
We have laws and a system of justice for similar reasons: controlling the consequences of selfish/antisocial desires and instincts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
That would indeed be a game changer. Unfortunately, even if you manage to start off a political system this way, human nature will not allow it to stay that way.... not for long anyway. Again, with over 200,000 years in existence, we've not managed to figure it out. But again, I have hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
That's pretty sad and kind of makes you wonder why we should even try...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Middle-out is basically capitalism for self-aware grownups. We don't have to choose between Capitalism Or Socialism, see or saw any more; we can cherry-pick the best ideas of both and base policy on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Most humans are not selfish and greedy, but the few that are are the ones that rise to positions of power. What humans have yet to develop is a system that keeps such people in check. Representative democracies are meant to be a solution to that problem, but the also attract the power seekers, which leads to their failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
All evidence to the contrary.
"Representative democracies are meant to be a solution to that problem, but the also attract the power seekers, which leads to their failure."
Name a system of Government that doesn't attract the power seekers thats in use today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Have a look around the Internet, including the social media sites, and you will find groups of people in the same or similar businesses helping each other to solve the problems that come up in the day to day running of a business. A few selfish self aggrandising people can easily dominate the news, but they are not representative of most people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
I don't deny it. You will find "groups" of people that are able to suppress the urge to be greedy or self serving or I guess it's even possible that some have even "transcended" greed... but you can't deny the fact that those groups do not represent the majority, and in the history of mankind, never have.
"A few selfish self aggrandising people can easily dominate the news, but they are not representative of most people."
Look at the Governments we form.
Capitalism is built on greed. It requires it to function correctly. Without it, this form fails immediately.
Socialism always starts out with the best of intentions, but always ends up in failure because of corruption, corruption caused almost always by greed.
Dictatorship is self defining. The word itself almost defines greed.
I could go on and on.
All humans have some level of greed. Our existence somewhat relies on it. We've formed entire civilizations based on it. Some are more "greedy" than others, and yes a few have made greed an obsession. In most cases, its very predictable. IMO that predictability is why capitalism works for now. If the time ever comes that basic resources are infinite, capitalism will fail immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Culture, education, skills, knowledge are replicable at marginal cost.
Capitalism has no problem with that: it just renormalizes the infinite resources to finite and carries on.
That's what all the "intellectual property" constructs are about: reducing the infinite potential of civilization and cooperation and culture to finite measures that can be converted to cash and given a limited life span.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Not always successfully. Look at the very construct you use as an example. Yes; they have created, or tried to create an artificial scarcity and they have been partially successful. But then you have a portion of the populace that doesn't recognize that artificial scarcity, and has rendered it obsolete with technology. So it is possible to defeat Capitalism through technology. It may come to pass one day where ALL resources can be replicated. And like intellectual property, the powers that be will try and stuff that cat back into the bag. I bet they get the same results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
You don't declare hunger defeated because of people stealing food that "rightfully" should have been destroyed.
Nothing is rendered "obsolete" until the laws agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Couldn't disagree more. You could pass a law saying the sun can't come up tomorrow, doesn't mean it wont.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
We've actually got the tools, we're just too lazy and complacent to do the job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
The whole point of democracy is that greed will always overpower the best intentions, so there is no point in having a "ruling class" specialized and trained for wielding power since it will always get corrupted.
Democracy doesn't fare better in that respect but it has somewhat more exchange and everybody "is free" to become a politician as well.
It makes revolutions more pointless since "this is what the people want" is harder to argue away.
Now the U.S. political system has been designed in a manner to confine the harmful influence of uneducated backwater hicks on politics by channeling their influence through electives and representatives intended to be better educated than average, in order to avoid mob rule.
It needs serious reform, and nobody profiting from it wants reform. Nominally it's still "this is what the people want". But if you are asking the people, few are particularly enthused with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
The companies I've been involved with who followed the "maximize profits above all" line all tended to get in trouble at their shareholder meetings, have the charter rewritten, and the board voted out. The ones I've been involved with that had a long term plan and actually stuck to it have had years go by where ROI was minimal, as the plan was already in place for those to be reinvestment years (profits go back into building the company).
Look at most of the multi-billion dollar tech companies -- many are yet to turn a profit after years, but nobody is dragging them before the courts for it, as everyone understands that you spend more to make more (in the long term).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
More that a few shareholders have disagreed with you and successfully sued over failure to meet fiduciary obligations. Egregious cases have resulted in criminal prosecutions. Check with the US SEC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
Charters are required for incorporation and it sounds like you're talking about non-profit corporations. However, corporations do not have to be publicly traded. Can you provide some examples of publicly traded non-profit corporations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
(sound of crickets)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously, what do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casual spoken words, interviews, buildings, hey, even stuff made by monkeys will be added to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who-da-thunk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fear
Now this is Uruguay. Politicians might not be up the big media corporations' intestines as deeply as in the U.S. but then they may be more affordable to pay off.
They just need to get notified that there is money in it for them changing their mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't Uruguay doing it backwards?
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is the AUTHORS who need to revolt.
All the "middlemen" are the same - giving all creators as little as possible (nothing is the preferred amount), giving themselves incredible salaries, and buying off politicians to screw the public with more draconian laws.
"Collection" (s/b "shakedown") Societies are supposed to exist to ensure that creators are paid - so it should be illegal for them to spend anything on lobbying - they get an operational budget - and the rest must go to the artists.
Until the Authors/Artists/Creators start demanding that the publishers start paying THEM instead of POLITICIANS nothing will change.
Hmm... I seem to be dreaming. Time to wake up and go to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is the AUTHORS who need to revolt.
But it does. Where "the artists" are basically two groups: superstars who knows which side their bread is buttered on, and small fry. All of this is democratically controlled, however: the small fry participate in choosing which officials will be screwing them over.
It's trickle-down economics: if you take money from the poor and hand it to the rich, in the end the poor will be richer than if you had left them alone since now they at least have a rich elite to be proud of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, what?
All your pretty views are belong to us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait, what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Capitalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Capitalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]