Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
Yes, it has to be in the public domain.
As long as it is not in the public domain you normally have a big deadweight loss. If there is a great number of people for whom the mental/economical transaction cost of licensing is too high in the individual case then you will have a great number of cases where works of art are never used although they would have been had said works just been in the public domain.
Imagine you have a painter who has to ask for permission every time he wants to use a new color on his palette. Surely he wouldn't work very well under such circumstances.
It seems that the decision has now been made to extend the term, but that the formalities will be completed on next Monday. Run this Swedish article through google translate for more info.
Copyright is essentially a legislative way of trying to internalize an externality so it's natural to compare it to other similar efforts. Increased availability of different kinds of works is a positive externality. Let's consider a negative externality - pollution. Some societies have tried to internalize the effect by introducing a system of emissions trading.
If we translate retroactive copyright term extension to that field what would it look like? Well, it would mean that the state could suddenly force a company to pay up the billion dollars it "owes" for its pollution in the 1960s, even though emissions trading had not yet been introduced at that point.
In most countries it would probably be illegal for the parliament to pass such retroactive laws. So how come there are not more people who question the legitimacy of passing such laws in the field of copyright?
Let's say that we were talking about a public subsidy and not copyright protection (actually they are quite similar, since actively keeping works away from the public domain is a cost for society just like paying tax money is). If this subsidy is handed out, not in order to promote a future public good, but in order to reward certain people and companies for what they have already done, can it then even be called a subsidy? Would not "present from the taxpayers" be a better name? And what criteria would one use to distribute it? Would a retired celebrity "deserve" it more than a hard working single mother with a low income?
"If I didn't have a copyright for my music it would void the CC license meaning whoever the hell wants can make money off my hard work and not even tell people who created it."
One doesn't necessarily need to do away with copyright. Just changing the default to public domain or some liberal CC license and making it possible for creators to *actively* request more protection (eg. only allowing noncommerical use like in your case) and requiring people who receive such protection to state it explicitly when publishing their work would be a big improvement.
"But, of course, if it's legal, then that probably means the work was already paid for. Why should the person who paid for it have to pay again?"
In Sweden it's legal to make a limited amount of copies of a work and give to people in ones inner circle (eg. family members and close friends). I guess the levy is supposed to "compensate" for that among other things. The exemption does not apply to whole books and computer programs btw.
I tend to think that the fix isn't to carve out software patents, but to fix the whole system itself.
I think that carving out software patents would be different than carving out things like governmental or military use of inventions (which makes it easier for politicians to ignore the problems). It would mean that politicians would be exposed to a field of innovation that flourishes despite/thanks to the lack of patents. It's easier to start where the problems are most severe.
Maybe you could compare this to how many copyright maximalists are strongly opposed to of all kinds of exceptions (even for people with disabilities) - not because they necessarily leads to less profit but because it makes it harder for them to politically argue that some principles of theirs are absolute, i.e. because it shifts the view from personal rights to societal progress.
"and shows how such little most in the software industry"
What we're currently seeing is a repeat of the cold war being played out in the field of software. Your argument seems to be that the fact that a super power heavily invests in arms means that guns and military resources are inherently good and useful to society and promotes progress. To me that's extremely narrow-minded. Instead of ending the arms race you suggest that we actively engage in it.
That makes me think of the discussion about Frederic Bastiat and the broken window analogy. Of course an arms race can seem productive if you selectively look at the production of guns. But if you consider what alternative things that same money bought it suddenly doesn't seem as wise an investment any more.
And if we continue with the cold war analogy, it's difficult to see how small peaceful nations would benefit from the development of aggressive and expansionistic super powers. If all countries have to increase their defense budgets it's difficult to see how that could possibly promote progress.
Political leaders of today generally understand that peaceful coexistence and mutual trade is better than engaging in military aggression and ever increasing threats. Now if this insight could only be applied to software patents too...
"The idea that I have to accept as a filmmaker that a certain percentage of the people who see my stuff are never going to pay me for it... in film school, I never thought I'd have to live with that. What other business would it be okay to lose 50% of your product and not receive income for it?"
Many TV viewers skip over commercials. Since the viewers generally pay by paying attention the ads, this group of viewers see films that they don't pay for. This concept of not profiting from every single use of your product can hardly be new...
Relating copyright term to life span of the author
A copyright period that extends beyond the life of the author is clearly not an incentive to create – whatever rewards you offer
This is not true. If people can pass on something of value to their children, then that's clearly an incentive. One could perhaps phrase it like this: why should an old person who may not have as many years left to live as a young person be given less incentive (through copyright) to create?
I think it's a strategic mistake to argue that copyright should end when the author dies, because once you have bought in to the idea that there is a connection between coypright term and the author's lifespan it gets more difficult to argue that the copyright term should be shorter than an average life span.
Just let the copyright term be short and of fixed duration.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't understand the exact meaning of "ordinance" in this context. Is this a law that was preceded by a parliamentary vote or just some kind of regulation? (this can make a big difference when determining whether this is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights)
Surely "all data" cannot be logged, so I assume that you are talking about traffic data. It would be interesting to see this aspect being compared to the EU data retention directive.
"The Review should have correctly addressed the failing at the UKIPO to modernise and get up to date, a failing that stifles UK growth. Instead it suggests in 2.18 that there is a requirement for ‘firm economic evidence’ before any further changes to the unusual UKIPO policy on software is made. An economic effect is not a requirement for a patent application to be considered. Nevertheless, and most ironically, the Prime Minister promoted the need for the Review by referring to economic evidence of US software industry success which he said cannot occur in the UK because of differences in our IP laws. In fact, the main difference is with the US and UK patent systems which rewards US companies in the US but the UKIPO does not reward any UK software industry for its inventions. As a result, the US is the source of most large software organisations who the UK has to turn to and spend large sums of monies on as there is no real alternative. Britain meantime no longer has any major software industry players which is firm evidence that the UKIPO policy is highly damaging to Britain’s software businesses."
I often liken the software patent situation to the cold war since it's a kind of terror balance where the big parties are stuck, the small parties suffer and the only real winners are the arms dealers (law firms in this case). What SMEIA is saying is essentially that the only way for the UK to get better off is by joining and intensifying the arms race.
Btw. for an organization founded in september 2009 I think one would expect to see more than 3 posts on their member forum. I find it very hard to believe that small tech firms would support this (unless they have been seriously misled).
I'm quite sure any law along those lines would violate the European Convention on Human Rights (restrictions on human rights must according to case law be necessary in a democratic society, respond to a pressing social need, be foreseeable and be clearly defined in the law - none of which seems to be the case here), but it's still worrying to see high politicians contribute to the potential normalization of such authoritarian methods.
It's interesting to compare this to the situation in EU. Due to the data retention directive the governments here plan to (or have already begun to) essentially geotrack the entire population.
In most cases (at least for now) I don't think the data is real-time accessible, but still...
On the post: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright
Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution
As long as it is not in the public domain you normally have a big deadweight loss. If there is a great number of people for whom the mental/economical transaction cost of licensing is too high in the individual case then you will have a great number of cases where works of art are never used although they would have been had said works just been in the public domain.
Imagine you have a painter who has to ask for permission every time he wants to use a new color on his palette. Surely he wouldn't work very well under such circumstances.
On the post: Seizing The Public Domain: Europe Trying To Extend Copyright Term Retroactively [Updated]
Re: It's not Spain, it's the EU Council
It seems that the decision has now been made to extend the term, but that the formalities will be completed on next Monday. Run this Swedish article through google translate for more info.
On the post: Seizing The Public Domain: Europe Trying To Extend Copyright Term Retroactively [Updated]
Term extension - a couple of analogies
If we translate retroactive copyright term extension to that field what would it look like? Well, it would mean that the state could suddenly force a company to pay up the billion dollars it "owes" for its pollution in the 1960s, even though emissions trading had not yet been introduced at that point.
In most countries it would probably be illegal for the parliament to pass such retroactive laws. So how come there are not more people who question the legitimacy of passing such laws in the field of copyright?
Let's say that we were talking about a public subsidy and not copyright protection (actually they are quite similar, since actively keeping works away from the public domain is a cost for society just like paying tax money is). If this subsidy is handed out, not in order to promote a future public good, but in order to reward certain people and companies for what they have already done, can it then even be called a subsidy? Would not "present from the taxpayers" be a better name? And what criteria would one use to distribute it? Would a retired celebrity "deserve" it more than a hard working single mother with a low income?
On the post: If You Don't Plan To Enforce Your 'Rights,' Why Are You 'Reserving' Them?
Re: Get Real
One doesn't necessarily need to do away with copyright. Just changing the default to public domain or some liberal CC license and making it possible for creators to *actively* request more protection (eg. only allowing noncommerical use like in your case) and requiring people who receive such protection to state it explicitly when publishing their work would be a big improvement.
On the post: Dear Sweden: Will You Tax Hard Drives And Give Me A Cut Every Time Someone Visits Techdirt?
Legal copying
In Sweden it's legal to make a limited amount of copies of a work and give to people in ones inner circle (eg. family members and close friends). I guess the levy is supposed to "compensate" for that among other things. The exemption does not apply to whole books and computer programs btw.
On the post: Court Slams Righthaven (Again); Refuses To Let It Back Into Democratic Underground Case
Minor typo
On the post: The Myth That Software Startups Need Or Want Patents
Carving out software patents
I think that carving out software patents would be different than carving out things like governmental or military use of inventions (which makes it easier for politicians to ignore the problems). It would mean that politicians would be exposed to a field of innovation that flourishes despite/thanks to the lack of patents. It's easier to start where the problems are most severe.
Maybe you could compare this to how many copyright maximalists are strongly opposed to of all kinds of exceptions (even for people with disabilities) - not because they necessarily leads to less profit but because it makes it harder for them to politically argue that some principles of theirs are absolute, i.e. because it shifts the view from personal rights to societal progress.
Mike, I think there's an error in that sentence.
On the post: The Myth That Software Startups Need Or Want Patents
Re: Tell that to Google !!!!! what a JOKE !!!
That makes me think of the discussion about Frederic Bastiat and the broken window analogy. Of course an arms race can seem productive if you selectively look at the production of guns. But if you consider what alternative things that same money bought it suddenly doesn't seem as wise an investment any more.
And if we continue with the cold war analogy, it's difficult to see how small peaceful nations would benefit from the development of aggressive and expansionistic super powers. If all countries have to increase their defense budgets it's difficult to see how that could possibly promote progress.
Political leaders of today generally understand that peaceful coexistence and mutual trade is better than engaging in military aggression and ever increasing threats. Now if this insight could only be applied to software patents too...
On the post: CoC's 'Victims Of Internet Piracy' Look More Like 'Victims Of Propagandist Exploitation'
Many TV viewers skip over commercials. Since the viewers generally pay by paying attention the ads, this group of viewers see films that they don't pay for. This concept of not profiting from every single use of your product can hardly be new...
On the post: El_Segfaulto's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Why Didn't UK Deal With Ridiculous Copyright Term Lengths?
Relating copyright term to life span of the author
This is not true. If people can pass on something of value to their children, then that's clearly an incentive. One could perhaps phrase it like this: why should an old person who may not have as many years left to live as a young person be given less incentive (through copyright) to create?
I think it's a strategic mistake to argue that copyright should end when the author dies, because once you have bought in to the idea that there is a connection between coypright term and the author's lifespan it gets more difficult to argue that the copyright term should be shorter than an average life span.
Just let the copyright term be short and of fixed duration.
On the post: Swiss Justice Minister Decides That ISPs Should Have To Retain Data Despite No Legal Basis
Re:
Surely "all data" cannot be logged, so I assume that you are talking about traffic data. It would be interesting to see this aspect being compared to the EU data retention directive.
On the post: Swiss Justice Minister Decides That ISPs Should Have To Retain Data Despite No Legal Basis
On the post: UK Lobbyists Claim UK Software Industry In Trouble Because It Doesn't Have Software Patents
I often liken the software patent situation to the cold war since it's a kind of terror balance where the big parties are stuck, the small parties suffer and the only real winners are the arms dealers (law firms in this case). What SMEIA is saying is essentially that the only way for the UK to get better off is by joining and intensifying the arms race.
Btw. for an organization founded in september 2009 I think one would expect to see more than 3 posts on their member forum. I find it very hard to believe that small tech firms would support this (unless they have been seriously misled).
On the post: French Government Looks To Create Great Firewall Of France
On the post: Official Geolocation Privacy Bill Introduced: Say No To Unauthorized GPS Tracking
Geotracking in the EU
In most cases (at least for now) I don't think the data is real-time accessible, but still...
On the post: How Long Until Phone Numbers Are A Historical Relic?
In countries with more adequate regulation they are not and you can keep the number when switching to another provider.
On the post: Did The Recording Industry Really Step Back From Three Strikes? Or Is It Playing Word Games?
Re:
Maybe you'd be interested in this Wired article: U.N. Report Declares Internet Access a Human Right.
On the post: Copyright Czar Agrees That The Gov't Should Let Business Models Decide Winners, Rather Than Legislation
On the post: Australian Tax Office To Use Keystroke Logger On Employees... But Just To Stop Repetitive Stress Injuries
Next >>