Exactly! Now could somebody please explain this to the idiots who keep extending copyright and, worse still, the idiot who said in that quote that extending copyright law "will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain"
I passed maths at school with flying colours and even somebody with poor math skills can work out that it doesn't add up: Public Domain Material *minus* Public Domain Material *equals* Zero, yet according to that quote, Public Domain Material *minus* Public Domain Material *equals* More Public Domain Material. Sorry, but one minus one does not equal two.
Ha! I think I just provided the best way of explaining how the music industry is so bad at accounting!
"As the behavior of the 'light users' is changing, paying for the width of the pipe becomes a very unfair option."
Which is exactly the point a LOT of people have missed! Between YouTube, iTunes, STEAM and various similar services, "light" users became "heavy" users over the last few years without even realising it!
I also notice that when the "Web Two Point Oh" slogan became trendy is when many of these companies started adding caps in America or Canada. Here in Australia ISP's (Telstra and Optus NOT included in this) who had previously only counted downloads, suddenly all switched to plans that count uploads. So in my opinion they did it to cash in on the "Web 2.0" bandwagon (incidentally, it should be Two Point Zero, or technically, just TWO, not "Two Point Oh")
Unfortunately, as I was typing this reply, I realised how it would probably play out. Big content companies would simply pass the cost to the consumer who would not wish to pay the increase in copyright fees, so something like on old movie on DVD would cost the same as a new movie on DVD and the price of all of them would go up until nobody could afford to buy anything.
But I still think it'd be an idea worth researching if we could only get the politicians to actually listen to the PEOPLE for a change!
Mike Masnick: "Multiple economic studies have shown that such extensions do not benefit society. In fact, they rarely benefit the content creators who are paraded out as the reason for such extensions. Instead, the majority of the money goes to a few gatekeeper companies who hold a bunch of old copyrights. It's pretty sad that the EU would so blatantly take content out of the public domain and give it to a few legacy companies."
Senate report on the US Copyright Extension Act of 1998: "The purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade in the exploitation of copyrighted works. The bill accomplishes these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide significant trade benefits by substantially harmonizing U.S. copyright law to that of the European Union while ensuring fair compensation for American creators who deserve to benefit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing enhanced economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain." ~~ source http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp104&sid=cp104wMGKl&refer=&r_n=sr315 .104&item=&&&sel=TOC_8954&
This is one of the reasons Mike is against data caps. Games are a HUGE thing in the computing world and just the demos often take 2GB (4GB for a game demo sounds like heaps but is not outside of the realm of possibility) - Yet maybe they should have just bought the whole game? Ha! The game sucked so they saved their money, so that's great. Oh, wait, there goes almost 10% of your monthly data!
One way around this would be for ISP's to set up mirrors (copies) of content, such as game demos, free software, legal videos, etc, on local servers that are not counted towards your usage. Some Australian ISP's have done this and their users appreciate it greatly! Maybe the ISP's up in Canada could look into doing something like this too?
I'm gonna comment on this BEFORE reading it. Why? Because I live in Australia where broadband caps have been in effect since we got broadband. All ISP's bar one now count uploads here. Now as much as I would LOVE unlimited data on my internet connection (and, you know, I agree with you about not being able to fully exploit the benefits of the internet when you gotta worry about your usage) I don't think it's going to happen. Ever. Full stop.
On that note, I have been told that composer Edvard Grieg is my grandmother's grandfather. So if copyright becomes perpetual, I would have a stake in his music composed over 120 years ago. So would my younger brother. And my Dad. And his sister and two brothers. And my cousins. And my grandmother. And to be honest I don't know how many brothers or sisters she had. And her grandfather, Edvard Grieg, might have had more than one child, I don't know. And then, if so, their kids (my grandmother's cousins) and their kids (my grandmother's cousin's kids) and their kids (the children of the children of my grandmother's cousins) would also have a stake in the royalties.
Quite frankly, I would rather it stay in the public domain where it belongs because I can go to any music store or public library and have a nice selection of recordings of those works to choose from.
FYI, the post above by "Anonymous Coward" on Apr 8th, 2011 @ 12:33pm was by ME! I just didn't notice my browser had logged me out. Guess it must have deleted the cookie.
One of the things they hope to ban is "parallel imports of copyrighted goods" - As an Australian, I'll be damned if some /b/tard politician in America is gonna tell me that I can't import a CD or DVD from there to here for my own personal use if I want to! And I'll be doubly damned if some /b/tard politician here in Australia AGREES to that rule! It's bad enough Amazon isn't sending a lot of DVD's overseas anymore.
Blue Note records streamed the last albums released by Norah Jones and Amos Lee prior to them being released. The full album in great quality. I have bought the Amos Lee album. I still might buy the Norah Jones but, after almost three years so far, I have not. Need I say more?
Reminds me of the days when any advertising of VCR's here in Australia would contain the phrase "Subject to copyright" in small print somewhere in the ad, regardless of if the ad was on TV or in print
"25 years sounds pretty arbitrary to me, though, I guess life plus 70/90/whatever years is pretty arbitrary as well. Rather than pick numbers out of a hat, I really wish we'd start looking at the actual data in terms of what creates the most incentives, but that seems unlikely."
plus what Vivaelamour said above....
Actually, I agree wholeheartedly! The tricky part is trying to convince those who stand to benefit the most from perpetual copyrights. So, while 25 years might have seemed like I'd picked a number at random, I did actually try to think of a number low enough so that we're (mostly) all still alive when copyright expires but high enough to keep the current maximalists somewhat happy.
I would LOVE to see a discussion on copyright length based on resulting creativity rather than financial expectations, although we do need to take into account that with some things, like movies or TV, people have spent a lot of money (often too much money in the case of the "majors") and they would like to get it back.
On a side note: That's the problem (for me) with being a fence sitter trying to keep everybody happy. My "agenda" (if you wish to call it one) is availability (I want the option to legally acquire a copy of something I like, such as a book, album or movie)
I understand where you are coming from but down here it is only one of two songs by Met At Work that still gets regular airplay, the other being "Who Can It Be Now?" which, personally, I like better anyway.
Serial works: Now that is a very good point which, I will admit, I had not considered. In fact, by the 25 year standard, I think the first few Discworld books would be in the public domain. Now, bear in mind two things before I start: I am a consumer, not a creator, as well as I don't know your books at all but I am familiar with Terry Pratchett's works.
Now, creative control is a double-edged sword wehereby I do not want to deprive someone like Terry Pratchett control of what happens on the Discworld but, on the same token, I wouldn't mind it if somebody else wrote a Discworld novel, mainly because I think it would be interesting to see where somebody else could take it. In other words, I'm taking a "sitting on the fence" approach as I can see both sides of the argument.
On the other hand, if somebody was to take the Wizard Rincewind (the lead character in the first two Discworld novels) and turn him into a violent madman who went on a killing spree, I could certainly see a good reason for Terry Pratchett to be up in arms about it! Mind you, I think 99% of Discworld fans would also be up in arms about it. That might seem like an extreme example but it is not entirely out of the question that somebody could write such a story if they wanted to and could publish it if there were no restrictions on the characters or setting involved.
Likewise, I can see how somebody such as an author would like lifetime copyright and even "Life+20" ~ which, I'll be honest, I would have no problem with. And artists too. It's the large corporations going for perpetual copyright that I take issue with.
Please correct me if I am wrong here: Authors generally (but not always) have one thing in their favour as almost every non-PD book I have ever had has been copyrighted to the author. I would guess that, subject to any deals you have with your publisher, you have more control over how your works are used. For example, if I was to make a movie from your first book, would I be dealing with either yourself or your agent? Or would I be able to only deal with your publisher to negotiate movie rights?
These are things that I don't know but I would like to know and would rather hear it from somebody involved (such as an author) than from someone who might just read it on Wikipedia.
As I said at the start of this reply, I am a consumer and not a creator. Personally, my main incentive for shorter copyrights is, actually, availability. I have no desire myself to create derivative works from anybody's creations, although, as mentioned, I wouldn't mind the chance to read/view/hear other people's derivative works. I have no desire to make money from other people's works either, although if I could release certain movies and TV shows on DVD and albums on CD where none currently exist, I certainly would. So I have no solution at the moment. But we all have ideas, hence this discussion. So thank you for raising the points you raised. Hopefully one day everybody can work it out so that everybody benefits, if not financially, at least in other ways.
On the post: So Much Potential
Thank you!
On the post: EU Getting Ready To Vote On Unnecessary Copyright Extension
Re: Re: You can have it both ways?
I passed maths at school with flying colours and even somebody with poor math skills can work out that it doesn't add up: Public Domain Material *minus* Public Domain Material *equals* Zero, yet according to that quote, Public Domain Material *minus* Public Domain Material *equals* More Public Domain Material. Sorry, but one minus one does not equal two.
Ha! I think I just provided the best way of explaining how the music industry is so bad at accounting!
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re: How to keep track?
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re:
Which is exactly the point a LOT of people have missed! Between YouTube, iTunes, STEAM and various similar services, "light" users became "heavy" users over the last few years without even realising it!
I also notice that when the "Web Two Point Oh" slogan became trendy is when many of these companies started adding caps in America or Canada. Here in Australia ISP's (Telstra and Optus NOT included in this) who had previously only counted downloads, suddenly all switched to plans that count uploads. So in my opinion they did it to cash in on the "Web 2.0" bandwagon (incidentally, it should be Two Point Zero, or technically, just TWO, not "Two Point Oh")
On the post: EU Getting Ready To Vote On Unnecessary Copyright Extension
Re: We need a new system for old works
Unfortunately, as I was typing this reply, I realised how it would probably play out. Big content companies would simply pass the cost to the consumer who would not wish to pay the increase in copyright fees, so something like on old movie on DVD would cost the same as a new movie on DVD and the price of all of them would go up until nobody could afford to buy anything.
But I still think it'd be an idea worth researching if we could only get the politicians to actually listen to the PEOPLE for a change!
On the post: EU Getting Ready To Vote On Unnecessary Copyright Extension
You can have it both ways?
Senate report on the US Copyright Extension Act of 1998: "The purpose of the bill is to ensure adequate copyright protection for American works in foreign nations and the continued economic benefits of a healthy surplus balance of trade in the exploitation of copyrighted works. The bill accomplishes these goals by extending the current U.S. copyright term for an additional 20 years. Such an extension will provide significant trade benefits by substantially harmonizing U.S. copyright law to that of the European Union while ensuring fair compensation for American creators who deserve to benefit fully from the exploitation of their works. Moreover, by stimulating the creation of new works and providing enhanced economic incentives to preserve existing works, such an extension will enhance the long-term volume, vitality and accessibility of the public domain." ~~ source http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp104&sid=cp104wMGKl&refer=&r_n=sr315 .104&item=&&&sel=TOC_8954&
Who do you agree with?
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
Re: same here
One way around this would be for ISP's to set up mirrors (copies) of content, such as game demos, free software, legal videos, etc, on local servers that are not counted towards your usage. Some Australian ISP's have done this and their users appreciate it greatly! Maybe the ISP's up in Canada could look into doing something like this too?
On the post: Bandwidth Caps Forcing Users To Police Their Own Household Internet Usage
On the post: Denmark Reverses Position On Copyright Extension, May Impact All Of Europe
Re: Re: The Cultural Harm of Extending Copyrights
On the post: Denmark Reverses Position On Copyright Extension, May Impact All Of Europe
Re:
Quite frankly, I would rather it stay in the public domain where it belongs because I can go to any music store or public library and have a nice selection of recordings of those works to choose from.
On the post: Denmark Reverses Position On Copyright Extension, May Impact All Of Europe
Re: Re:
On the post: Australian Trade Minister Says That Releasing IP Enforcement TPP Treaty Text Would Be 'Problematic'
On the post: Foo Fighters Album Leaked; Band Relieved
On the post: UK Advertising Board Says CD Jukebox With Hard Drive Can't Advertise That It Copies Music, Since That's Infringement
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Incentives
plus what Vivaelamour said above....
Actually, I agree wholeheartedly! The tricky part is trying to convince those who stand to benefit the most from perpetual copyrights. So, while 25 years might have seemed like I'd picked a number at random, I did actually try to think of a number low enough so that we're (mostly) all still alive when copyright expires but high enough to keep the current maximalists somewhat happy.
I would LOVE to see a discussion on copyright length based on resulting creativity rather than financial expectations, although we do need to take into account that with some things, like movies or TV, people have spent a lot of money (often too much money in the case of the "majors") and they would like to get it back.
On a side note: That's the problem (for me) with being a fence sitter trying to keep everybody happy. My "agenda" (if you wish to call it one) is availability (I want the option to legally acquire a copy of something I like, such as a book, album or movie)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Still Says 'Down Under' Infringes On Decades Old Folk Song
Re:
Unless you are in Germany. If you are, you're out of luck
On the post: Appeals Court Still Says 'Down Under' Infringes On Decades Old Folk Song
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Still Says 'Down Under' Infringes On Decades Old Folk Song
A case like this will make you chunder*
Can you hear all the lawyers plunder
I'm gonna run, I'm gonna take cover
This flute riff has been deleted due to a copyright claim by Larrakin Music. Sorry about that :\
(*chunder = vomit)
On the post: Debunking The Claim That Bad Things Happen When Works Fall Into The Public Domain
Re: Re: Re: I Say 25 Years
Now, creative control is a double-edged sword wehereby I do not want to deprive someone like Terry Pratchett control of what happens on the Discworld but, on the same token, I wouldn't mind it if somebody else wrote a Discworld novel, mainly because I think it would be interesting to see where somebody else could take it. In other words, I'm taking a "sitting on the fence" approach as I can see both sides of the argument.
On the other hand, if somebody was to take the Wizard Rincewind (the lead character in the first two Discworld novels) and turn him into a violent madman who went on a killing spree, I could certainly see a good reason for Terry Pratchett to be up in arms about it! Mind you, I think 99% of Discworld fans would also be up in arms about it. That might seem like an extreme example but it is not entirely out of the question that somebody could write such a story if they wanted to and could publish it if there were no restrictions on the characters or setting involved.
Likewise, I can see how somebody such as an author would like lifetime copyright and even "Life+20" ~ which, I'll be honest, I would have no problem with. And artists too. It's the large corporations going for perpetual copyright that I take issue with.
Please correct me if I am wrong here: Authors generally (but not always) have one thing in their favour as almost every non-PD book I have ever had has been copyrighted to the author. I would guess that, subject to any deals you have with your publisher, you have more control over how your works are used. For example, if I was to make a movie from your first book, would I be dealing with either yourself or your agent? Or would I be able to only deal with your publisher to negotiate movie rights?
These are things that I don't know but I would like to know and would rather hear it from somebody involved (such as an author) than from someone who might just read it on Wikipedia.
As I said at the start of this reply, I am a consumer and not a creator. Personally, my main incentive for shorter copyrights is, actually, availability. I have no desire myself to create derivative works from anybody's creations, although, as mentioned, I wouldn't mind the chance to read/view/hear other people's derivative works. I have no desire to make money from other people's works either, although if I could release certain movies and TV shows on DVD and albums on CD where none currently exist, I certainly would. So I have no solution at the moment. But we all have ideas, hence this discussion. So thank you for raising the points you raised. Hopefully one day everybody can work it out so that everybody benefits, if not financially, at least in other ways.
Next >>