Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Eric Baptiste Weighs In On Copyright Summit Issues

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the worldwide-control-bodies dept.

News 75

With the upcoming biennial summit of authors and composers in Washington DC, The Register has an interview with Eric Baptiste, head of the International Confederation of Authors and Composers Societies (CISAC), that touches on some of the hot issues. "There's no one-stop shopping anymore. We were working to put that in place in the Santiago Agreement [2000] which got struck down by the European Commission [in 2004]. It would put together all the world's repertory and enable one society to grant a worldwide license. That was a very bold move. It's a pity it was not appreciated at the time by the European Commission."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A one-stop shop? Sounds great! (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226339)

We can bring together music, text, video, news, everything, to one agency, simplify things, save the economy a billion a year probably! I want 10%.

Re:A one-stop shop? Sounds great! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227023)

Already have a one stop shop [thepiratebay.org]

Dead Abortion Doctor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28226411)

8==J=U=S=T=I=C=E==D

FREE Lesbian Strapon porno UPDATE! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28226447)

Hello everybahhdy!

I have an update on a break-through video featuring two lesbians on a bed, and one stuffing a romp dildo hard into a doggy-styled woman with her vagina high into the air. In my entire life of looking for Lesbian Strapon videos have I ever found 1 video any more complete than this. [tube8.com] I am deleting all my collection because this 1 video, and maybe this too [redtube.com] simply overshadow anything else I've ever cum across. All the amateurs have finally exceeded the pro's. Have a Nice day, everyone.

Sincerily,

Dr. Dean aDildo, MS, BSH, WD40, DDS

Problem solved (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28226599)

"Put together all the world's repertory and enable one society to grant a worldwide license..."

He's talking about torrents, right? ;)

Transparency. You keep using that word. (5, Insightful)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226641)

When you move from this to nothing, to "everything is free", that's not a real economy. And nobody knows how to make the world spin with those rules.

No, you don't know how to make your world spin with those rules. They seem to be working fine for software developers, for instance. And last I checked, Trent Reznor wasn't exactly living in grinding poverty.

And it should be transparent. If you're a member of the public and you just want watch a movie or listen to a song, you shouldn't need to be a copyright expert. You shouldn't need to worry how much is going to the society, and how much is going to the real people behind those entities. We should find a way to make that disappear. It should be on a B2B level not a B2C level.

Translation: "If you just want to stream content (notice it's about listen or watch one piece of media, not own a copy of) from some centralized repository that's maintained of your control, don't worry your pretty little head about whether the artist is getting anything, because it's all going to a 'society' or 'agency' with a bunch of letters in its name. We need to obfuscate it so nobody sees it. If it's B2B, then we can finally nip that Artist-to-Consumer thing in the bud."

So there is also probably a greater unity in the content business at the higher level - we're in this together. How to agree on a licensing framework that is simpler for users of works - the users in this context being corporations.

Again, the perspective whereby neither the people creating the music, nor the people listening to the music, are customers. They're the products. The user or customer is always some form of middleman, distributor, or licencing society.

The proposal means if you went to a country with no copyright protection, you got zero. The EU is a big work in progress and you have countries that have sophisticated copyright protection from the 19th Century. Here in the UK, people understand what it is. But in many new countries the courts don't understand copyright.

It makes it very difficult for the society to maintain the value of those rights. Of course all those users would go to the copyright havens - it's an irrational business for societies to allow such a system. They would be competing against each other to rip their members off. That's lunacy.

"I don't like arbitrage. Arbitrage makes it very difficult for us middlemen to maintain the value of 'our' rights. All those users would buy it somewhere else, for cheaper. That's an irrational business for middlemen -- middlemen aren't supposed to compete against each other for customer dollars or artists' contracts. We're supposed to be a cartel, all of us working together, competing only insofar as to the degree as to which we can rip off the artists and listeners within our individual fiefdoms."

Fuck that noise, Eric.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (0)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226699)

Fuck that noise, Eric.

Here, here! Fuck that noise indeed, Eric! Fuck it indeed.

And once you do, I'll be the first to call you a "noise fucker". Why? BECAUSE YOU'RE A SCOTT!

Oh, how I love this Slashdot ribaldry!

Shut your fucking face, uncle fucker! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227573)

no text.

But a lot of farting...

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (4, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226785)

No, you don't know how to make your world spin with those rules.

Correct. What the Internet has wrought is extremely simple copying and distribution. What this does is make the RIAA and all their middlemen completely irrelevant. Hello, record companies: We don't need you. We don't want you. Go away.. Yes, there is room for promoters, but there is no reason why need record companies. We don't need records, hence we don't need record companies. It's just that simple. Record companies provide zero value add.

Re:Transparency. Credit Card Number (1)

B_SharpC (698293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227523)

Yes it should be shared for free. So please post your Credit Card number for all of us to see. Show those record companies. Put up or shut up.

Re:Transparency. Credit Card Number (0)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228227)

I can't claim to be an old-schooler, I read /. a lot before I finally gave in and joined. I can honestly say that in all of my years reading this site, this comment may be one of the dumbest. This is quite a feat, and I salute you!

Re:Transparency. Credit Card Number (1)

B_SharpC (698293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28233047)

Troll. Unsupported nonsense. Try a reasoned response next time.

The legal system actively halts posting identity numbers on websites. It can and will eventually halt posting mp3s, pdfs, mpgs that belong to others.

Put up or shut up. Post your financial numbers. Like an mp3, it is just data, free for anyone.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227575)

Your argument seems self-defeating. The primary goal of the record companies and their primary reason for existence is promotion; getting CDs to stores, in iTunes, on Amazon, etc; getting them played on the radio; making music videos and getthing those played, etc, etc. I imagine that actually pressing CDs is probably a trivial part of their business.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (2, Insightful)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227947)

Hardly self-defeating. You are aware that getting things on to iTunes or Amazon is incredibly easy if you're independent, correct? Even going through an aggregator isn't that difficult. And the RIAA et al aren't doing much in the way of promotion any more. Most artists don't get music videos unless the song's already popular, since the music video channels don't run many videos any more, unless the artist is popular. Most people don't listen to regular radio, but either speciality stations or internet radio, again, both can have independent music submitted to them. The only time it would be useful is if you're playing large (stadium-type) concerts, and most artists never get that far. Record companies as they currently exist aren't there for the little artist. They're focused on the stuff they *know* can make them money. They don't wanna promote something that might tank.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228129)

How does that invalidate my comment? They're there to promote what they know will make money. The actual printing of 'records' (CDs) is fairly trivial.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28232291)

With apologies to Bill Clinton: It's the business model, stupid! The business model was based on the fact that musicians needed to a cut a record deal to get promoted. THe power of the RIAA was all about the fact that they were the ones that got music distributed.

It's not needed anymore. Promoters should be hired by the artists. And since promotion can be done by the artists themselves, professional promoters should be consultants. And their fees should be comparatively a lot lower.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226841)

When you move from this to nothing, to "everything is free", that's not a real economy. And nobody knows how to make the world spin with those rules.

No, you don't know how to make your world spin with those rules. They seem to be working fine for software developers, for instance. And last I checked, Trent Reznor wasn't exactly living in grinding poverty.

I understand why you picked him, but he isn't exactly the poster child for that business model. As in, it is easy to give your music away for free and make money with concerts/merchandise/etc when you are already famous. It is harder to rationalize doing that when you are a poor artist trying to get a break.

There was a /. discussion of the free Radiohead album release that went along these lines.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227057)

How do performers become famous? I really don't know any who DON'T give away their music. Now, that music MAY become valuable, in which case there would be an "economy" surrounding that exact product.

Honestly, it doesn't happen a lot.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227089)

The radiohead album sucked and now they're crying about it?

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (2, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227377)

So let's pick a niche band that is utterly dependent on piracy [techdirt.com] (their own words). It works for all types of artists, if you do it right. The trick is that you actually have to work and keep writing new songs and doing shows and such instead of writing one hit and sitting on your ass collecting a toll every time someone listens to it somewhere.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227959)

The trick is that you actually have to work and keep writing new songs and doing shows and such instead of writing one hit and sitting on your ass collecting a toll every time someone listens to it somewhere.

Wait. Is that supposed to be the downside for the public?

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

vivaelamor (1418031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228517)

Why should there be a downside for the public? Or the artist for the matter, unless they believe their music is worth more than those who listen to it do.. I'm sure there's a word for that somewhere.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227751)

Masnick's Law [techdirt.com] strikes again.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (3, Interesting)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227747)

I agree. His cluelessness (or dishonesty) is deep.

there is no business if everything is free

Free? No. Far less expensive than in the recent past, thanks to technological advances, but not free. Storage space and bandwidth costs money. But content monopolists seem unwilling to share any of this bounty, this technology dividend. They also are unwilling to allow the technology to be used to its full potential, for fear of losing control they have already lost anyway. This severely limits its value to all of us. He can't see it. He'd rather rake in 90% or more of a small pie than 1% of a pie 1000 times the size, all the while whining that they deserve 90% of the big pie.

in many new countries the courts don't understand copyright.

He talks as if toll booths are the only way to make money. All this babbling about rights and value and licensing. And then this insulting talking down as if 3rd world countries don't understand copyright. As if he does. They understand it alright, far better than he. They know very well that intellectual property is a tool that rich nations used to wring even more from poor nations.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28229717)

He talks as if toll booths are the only way to make money. All this babbling about rights and value and licensing

When the only tool you have is a hammer, all the world looks like a nail.

And then this insulting talking down as if 3rd world countries don't understand copyright. As if he does. They understand it alright, far better than he. They know very well that intellectual property is a tool that rich nations used to wring even more from poor nations.

Correction: When the only tool you've ever used is a hammer, the whole world looks has to be beaten into the form of a nail.

Re:Transparency. You keep using that word. (1)

JakartaDean (834076) | more than 5 years ago | (#28235753)

I looked, but I can't find mod parent -1 gibberish. Feel free to interpret as you see fit. (But i you find English out of that last sentence, I'm coming back to call you on it.)

One Gem But Otherwise Nothing (2, Interesting)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226665)

I was actually pleasantly surprised to read his comment,

Now it's like physics - value is never destroyed, it goes somewhere else.

Unfortunately, the rest of his comments came across as clueless. He seems to waffle on any direction to take, and instead provides half-hearted statements about possibily, maybe, some-day, exploring something different. IMO, there's nothing else new here, but a general feeling that he wishes the copyright situation would just return to "normal."

Re:One Gem But Otherwise Nothing (4, Funny)

Swanktastic (109747) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226695)

Now it's like physics - value is never destroyed, it goes somewhere else.

He hasn't gotten to the chapter on entropy yet... It's going to blow his mind.

Re:One Gem But Otherwise Nothing (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226905)

That's actually a markedly wrong statement anyway. Value can be and is created and destroyed all the time. It's not like energy or charge or mass or momentum.

Consider - what is the value of an orange? If you just had a big meal, it's pretty small. If you haven't eaten in a week it's very large. Now if you have an orange and are starving, but just before you eat it someone offers you a four-course meal instead (and only if you do not consume the orange), the value of that orange is instantly and dramatically reduced (and it will never come back).

Re:One Gem But Otherwise Nothing (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227525)

I suppose that's an issue of subjective vs. objective value. The orange never changes; it's value to you is decreased, but if you're starving again its value 'increases'. If you put a starving person and a person who's just eaten a four-course meal in a room with a single orange, the orange's value to the starving person will be much greater than to the person who's just eaten- but this has nothing really at all to do with the orange.

I think what he's saying is that we all have things that we value; and this 'value' does not go away. We do not suddenly end up valuing nothing or valuing everything. But what we value often changes, and how we express those values also changes. 'Value' is not created or destroyed, but the way we perceive it is consistently in a state of flux.

The content industry, like any other industry, must keep an eye on the perception of 'value' and modify what it is selling accordingly.

Re:One Gem But Otherwise Nothing (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228095)

What you call 'objective value' I would call 'wealth' - that is, the intrinsic quality of the object. The orange has (unless it rots, is destroyed, etc.) the same nutritional, visual, physical, and flavor properties regardless of people's current state of desire (the 'value') of the orange.

The way I look at it is: the 'wealth' of an object is related to what the object is, the 'value' of an object is related to what someone is willing to trade for an object. (Note: services have value, but I would not say they embody economic wealth as services are 'transient' things; the result of services is often the creation of wealth though.)

So in essence I agree with what you state - the "content industry" (what a terrible term in my opinion) does need to focus on providing things for which people are willing to trade.

Re:One Gem But Otherwise Nothing (1)

segur (1066520) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228309)

I suppose that's an issue of subjective vs. objective value.

There would have to be some objective notion of value first, of which I'm not currently aware.

The orange never changes; it's value to you is decreased, but if you're starving again its value 'increases'. If you put a starving person and a person who's just eaten a four-course meal in a room with a single orange, the orange's value to the starving person will be much greater than to the person who's just eaten- but this has nothing really at all to do with the orange.

Probably the closest thing to "objective value" we have is expressend in how much are peaple willing to pay for it (and this being rather vague definition). And such value changes pretty easily—you can create it if you grow oranges or make a chair, you can destroy it if you eat the fruit or destroy the item. In fact the object does not have to change itself to change its value, that can by achieved for example just by moving it around: if you have ton of oranges at your farm you can try to sell them there, but it's often better idea to move them to some market, where they can be sold for better price, hereby increasing their value.

I think what he's saying is that we all have things that we value; and this 'value' does not go away.

I think it can.

We do not suddenly end up valuing nothing or valuing everything.

Probably not in such absolute terms, but I wouldn't be that sure.

But what we value often changes, and how we express those values also changes. 'Value' is not created or destroyed, but the way we perceive it is consistently in a state of flux.

Value is created and destroyed all the time; for how we perceive it is precisely what matters.

The content industry, like any other industry, must keep an eye on the perception of 'value' and modify what it is selling accordingly.

Agreed.

What's wrong with a monthly salary? (4, Insightful)

zyklone (8959) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226707)

What is it with these 'copyright holders' that makes them think they're supposed to live forever of one weeks work.

Wouldn't it be better for the community if they worked their entire life producing new stuff for whoever wants new media.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227609)

Yes, it would. But in order for there to be incentive for them to produce, they have to be recompensed for doing so (whether this recompense needs to be monetary or not is debatable and depends on the artist).

Copyright is intended to secure that recompense. The open question is what balance is most efficient for society as a whole; which balancing level of copyright produces the right amount of artists and the right return into the public domain of their work.

I am dubious that that number is zero copyright, however, just as it is also dubious that that number is infinity. Really, however, on the whole you are seeing a relatively short span for copyright; 75 years, for example, is much closer to zero than it is to infinity.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

vivaelamor (1418031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227869)

Really, however, on the whole you are seeing a relatively short span for copyright; 75 years, for example, is much closer to zero than it is to infinity.

I like your logic! Let me use that. 'Really, however, on the whole you are seeing a relatively small amount of death; 6.7 billion, for example, is much closer to zero than it is to infinity.'

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228153)

There aren't an infinite number of people to kill. As a proportion of the theoretically available 'space', 6.7 billion people is very much closer to 'all' the people than it is to 'none' of the people. Seventy-five years is very much closer to 'none' of the time than it is to 'all' of the time.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228287)

There aren't an infinite number of people to kill. As a proportion of the theoretically available 'space', 6.7 billion people is very much closer to 'all' the people than it is to 'none' of the people. Seventy-five years is very much closer to 'none' of the time than it is to 'all' of the time.

Actually, there are only about 80 years of time (give or take). 75 years is therefore much closer to all time than it is to zero time.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

vivaelamor (1418031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228345)

My thanks to bentcd for already making the key point you seem to be missing. I would like to clarify further that there are only 6.7 billion people at the moment. Much like the current average life-span is only 75 years. If we lived forever then you may have a point although I would imagine living forever would make it rather moot.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28230457)

Why are you using 'lifespan' as 'all the time'? It's rather conclusive that time runs for a lot longer than your mere existence. Or is there something out here I'm not following?

Copyright is for a 'limited time'. The period encompassed by 'time' is an infinitely large number. Zero is the smallest period of time. (well, perhaps dirac time, but you get the idea). 75 is very close to zero on the scale from zero to infinity.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

vivaelamor (1418031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28234899)

Geez, you're really trying to defend the logic of your post by attacking the logic of a parody of your own post? Well I guess by helping you with the logic of my parody I am in some way helping you with the logic of your own post so here goes.

For a start, 'all time' is a matter of perspective meets semantics. While you could argue that there is only one definition of 'all time' you may as well argue that they sky isn't blue. Really, you could say that all time could be in different contexts both a mere moment and a non number. Within the context of my parody it was a lifespan.

The semantics was pretty much why I parodied your post, I was objecting to your use of infinity to make 75 years seem like a small number because you can only draw one relationship between a number and infinity. It doesn't matter what number you use, it's relationship to infinity is always the same. If you still don't understand my point, ask a mathmatician.. they can probably explain it better than I can.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28228417)

What if 'time' is measured relative to cultural relevancy (rather than your ludicrous argument relative to absolute time)?

What is 75 years then? Much closer to four generations. And life plus 70? Much closer to seven generations. How about comparing the body of works under an expression monopoly to the body in the public domain; It's closer to 100% than any number near equal.

Current copyright terms are indefensible.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228003)

But it's not 75 years. It's life of the artist + 70 years. If copyright is supposed to compensate the artist for the energy and effort put in to making their work, why should it go past the life of the artist at all? Why does a record company get to benefit from the work of a dead person more than half a century ago?

And what right do the artist's children have to collect new money on the effort of their ancestor? If a company was started and handed down, it's still making money because effort is still being put in. Something in copyright doesn't require new effort to make new money. Shouldn't society benefit of use of something before it becomes irrelevant?

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228179)

I was using 75 years as an example, not a hard date.

The other questions are part of the equation I have mentioned as to determining the relevance of copyright; they are not determinative in and of themselves. (One could argue there is incentive to create for economic stability for one's children, for example).

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28228303)

In EU it isn't, it is 50 years from the original performance [wikipedia.org] .

Even so, it is too long. Really, if someone records a song at 17 year old, is it really his right to profit from that until he is 67? A right that should be taken as granted?

If the copyright was shortened to, say, 30 years, I doubt people would suddenly stop making music. Hell, I doubt we would see any notable difference so society would be served still. And artists would get profits. But... The rest of the people would get to enjoy a lot more products legally.

Re:What's wrong with a monthly salary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28229531)

Really, however, on the whole you are seeing a relatively short span for copyright; 75 years, for example, is much closer to zero than it is to infinity.

This may not be entirely accurate. I can't find the source on this, but I recall an article on ArsTechnica from some economists claiming that copyright lengths of greater than 70 years were economically indistinguishable from infinite copyright.

Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to be. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28226773)

Eric would like you to believe that, "there is no business if everything is for free.", which is not simply true, and not really the issue. In fact, there were a lot of successful artists and art long before copyright ever came along. Copyright is a good thing, but not when it's been corrupted and misused by corporations and non-contributing freeloaders. The real truth is that an artist could do quite well with the seven years of being the sole legal owner of the right of reproduction of their art. The founding fathers were smart enough to limit the term to a reasonable number of years, why can't we respect their original intentions? Furthermore, aren't we risking the very usefulness, and relevance, of an up to date public domain?

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227427)

He's actually right. There is no business if everything is for free. But nobody is suggesting that everything be free. Only the things that make sense to be free. When the incremental cost of duplication is nothing, then the price should logically be free. Assuming that you understand supply and demand economics. So what you do is you use your free content to entice people to pay for something. Hell... look at all those free flyers in the supermarket... and they cost money to print! This talking about letting everyone else do the work of copying stuff for you, you don't have to lift a finger. You get people listening, you can find fans who will pay for exclusive access, for tickets, for shows, for new music, for all kinds of things. The problem here is that Eric doesn't want to lost his position of gatekeeper and tollbooth operator between artists and the public. He doesn't want to see his middleman, leech-like business model go by the wayside. Right now, he doesn't have to provide any value to artists or fans because he just controls access due to legal blockades. He contributes nothing to society, to culture, to anything, and he gets paid very well for it.

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227557)

That's a fallacious argument, to be sure, that because the cost of duplication is zero, then the price should be free. The way that equation works is that the number of copies approaches infinity, the price of each individual copy approaches zero. But each individual copy is never free, because there is always a) an incidental cost per copy, and b) a cost to create the first copy.

For your postulate to hold, the incidental cost must be zero, and the original copy must cost nothing to produce. What is really happening, however, is that as the number of copies increases, the original cost is distributed across all extant copies so that each copy costs a+b/(n) where a and b are as above and n is the number of copies. If the incidental cost is trivial ($0.0001, for example), you can get very close to free indeed but you can never reach it.

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227909)

No, it's not a fallacious argument. You just don't understand economics. If the cost of duplication is zero, then there is no way to charge for each incremental copy other than by artificially controlling and distorting the market. Note how I NEVER said that because the PRICE was free that the value was zero. Those are two very different things. The incidental cost has no bearing on the duplication cost. It's a sunk cost, and investment, a write-off, if you will. You use it as the basis, the investment, to make your services and the actually scarce goods that you control that much more valuable.

Let's use a different example... oxygen. It's "free", and for all intents and purposes it's infinite, but we all know it really isn't. Yet, somehow, people make money by compressing it into cylinders and selling those, or adding perfumes to it and selling sniffs. Which are scarce products, built on the free one.

The media market should work in the same way. Once a recording is made, it has no price due to free duplication, but it has great value in getting the creator publicity (assuming it's any good). The creator can then charge for scarce goods tied to that free, yet valuable, infinitely copied data. Signed albums, t-shirts, hanging out with fans, whatever. Lots of things that are scarce that people will pay good money for. The thing missing is that there's no RIAA, no A&R man, nobody being the "gatekeeper" as to what's good and bad, as to who succeeds and who doesn't, as to who gets heard and who doesn't. The economics, if they worked naturally instead of through the distortion of asinine laws, would enrich society as a whole. It'd just make fewer "super stars", and it'd make the people who call themselves artist representatives and such actually work rather than simply act as toll-collecting gatekeepers.

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228253)

No, it's not a fallacious argument. You just don't understand economics. If the cost of duplication is zero, then there is no way to charge for each incremental copy other than by artificially controlling and distorting the market. Note how I NEVER said that because the PRICE was free that the value was zero. Those are two very different things. The incidental cost has no bearing on the duplication cost. It's a sunk cost, and investment, a write-off, if you will. You use it as the basis, the investment, to make your services and the actually scarce goods that you control that much more valuable.

I think you're distorting the original argument I responded to. You said the cost of copies should be free. I pointed out that regardless of whether or not the cost of distribution is zero, the cost of copies should not be free. You still need to extract your original investment, which necessitates at least some price per copy. Not all these copies need to cost the same, certainly. But if you sink costs with no expectation of return on that cost, economically, you're an idiot.

The media market should work in the same way. Once a recording is made, it has no price due to free duplication, but it has great value in getting the creator publicity (assuming it's any good). The creator can then charge for scarce goods tied to that free, yet valuable, infinitely copied data. Signed albums, t-shirts, hanging out with fans, whatever. Lots of things that are scarce that people will pay good money for. The thing missing is that there's no RIAA, no A&R man, nobody being the "gatekeeper" as to what's good and bad, as to who succeeds and who doesn't, as to who gets heard and who doesn't. The economics, if they worked naturally instead of through the distortion of asinine laws, would enrich society as a whole. It'd just make fewer "super stars", and it'd make the people who call themselves artist representatives and such actually work rather than simply act as toll-collecting gatekeepers.

That's an entirely different argument, though. Essentially you're suggesting that you should make a sunk investment in the music itself in order to reap rewards in the selling of other things. That seems to be a silly argument at best. What if I have no interest in making t-shirts or signing albums or hanging out with fans? The music has value. If it didn't, people wouldn't listen to it. It's only economically sound in that the costs of copying a t-shirt or signed album and selling it are non-trivial and therefore people are not likely to counterfeit them.

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 5 years ago | (#28230417)

The copies should be free because the economics work that way. Just like grass should be green. Sure, there are a few exceptions, just like you can sell some copies, but those aren't the rule. You're not an idiot for sinking a cost without expecting a direct return on that product. You're an idiot for sinking a cost with no thought about how you're going to use it to make money. Do you expect to get a return from buying a computer by reselling the parts? Or do you expect a return from the work that the computer enables? Did you go through school expecting to get paid to go to school? Or did you get a degree in order to make money? Same thing with a recording. The free distribution enables you to be popular, it enables you to do other things worth more. Feel free to try charge for copies. But expect to fail because you're spitting into the wind. Don't think the wind is wrong when it changes direction... figure out how to work with it. That's why sailboats can still make headway going into the wind... they just don't attack it directly.

I don't want to do all the parts of my job, either. That doesn't mean I don't get to pick and choose what I do. If you don't want to do the fan service, then you aren't going to be a very successful artist. That's how the real world works. Just because you don't like that a new technology has changed the landscape doesn't mean that the law should limit the technology. It means you should use it to succeed. Or do you think that buggy whip manufacturers should have been legislated into success, and cars should never have been allowed to drive without someone walking in front of them waving a red flag [greatachievements.org] because that protected the way people thought transportation should be done, it protected the horse stables and breeders and street cleaners?

You are wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28228075)

You are about 99% wrong. The cost of duplication is effectively zero. Basically the cost of some small percentage of electricity. There is no cost to create the "first copy", the cost is 100% tied up in creating the "original". That is the only significant cost and it has absolutely nothing to do with copying the original.and making subsequent copies. If you want to get really pedantic you can include the percentage of all costs directly associated with the copying (internet service, datacenter electric, heating/cooling, etc...) Even if you add all that up the direct costs for the 10 seconds of download for a song or 10 minutes for a movie comes to less that $0.10. Possibly under a single penny under some circumstances.

Your line of thinking is purely a business abstraction on how to extract value from the original. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of duplication. It just so happens that with the internet the control of duplication has slipped out of the companies hands and the costs are effectively zero. This basically means that your way of thinking for valuing a copy now has fundamental flaws and you should find a smarter way of extracting the value.

Go read up on topics like "artificial scarcity" and "supply and demand".

I mean seriously this has been coming since the invention of the personal tape recorder.

Re:You are wrong. (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228281)

You are about 99% wrong. The cost of duplication is effectively zero. Basically the cost of some small percentage of electricity. There is no cost to create the "first copy", the cost is 100% tied up in creating the "original". That is the only significant cost and it has absolutely nothing to do with copying the original.and making subsequent copies. If you want to get really pedantic you can include the percentage of all costs directly associated with the copying (internet service, datacenter electric, heating/cooling, etc...) Even if you add all that up the direct costs for the 10 seconds of download for a song or 10 minutes for a movie comes to less that $0.10. Possibly under a single penny under some circumstances.

When I said 'first copy' I thought it was obvious that I meant 'original'. In the case of electronic data the difference between copies and the original is non-existent so in my mind it seems silly to draw a distinction between them- they're all copies. The first copy is the original, but it's also a 'copy'.

Your line of thinking is purely a business abstraction on how to extract value from the original. It has nothing to do with the actual cost of duplication. It just so happens that with the internet the control of duplication has slipped out of the companies hands and the costs are effectively zero. This basically means that your way of thinking for valuing a copy now has fundamental flaws and you should find a smarter way of extracting the value.

Of course it's a business abstraction. That's what the entire discussion is all about. The cost of duplication is relevant to the 'price' of the object, just as the cost of creating the original/first copy is relevant to the price of the object.

Your argument essentially boils down to the fact that because people can illegally duplicate something, and therefore you should not even attempt to sell it is silly and goes directly against the entire purpose of copyright- a very reasonable, intelligent purpose.

Re:You are wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28229387)

It may have been what the discussion was about, but you weren't making a statement about the discussion, or if you were you were either intentionally or un-intentionally using the wrong terminology to further cloud the issue as you did in youre reply above.

I said nothing about illegal duplication and nothing about trying to sell it or not. I also said nothing about copyright. So you're creating straw-men to beat down in order to have a counter argument.

You're trying to justify a fallacy by using flawed thought processes and arguments and by generally making shit up and hoping people don't notice. (Or trying to confuse them with language.)

Then again, perhaps i'm over-estimating you and you just don't really grasp the english language enough to say what you mean.

Since you said the point of the discussion was deriving value from created works, i'll provide the following thoughts:

Copyright and patents were originally created to provide incentives to create so that society would gain the benefits of those creations. By protecting the works created for a fixed amount of time people might have the opportunity to get their investment back and perhaps make a decent living off it. For a number of decades they served their purpose very well. After that time had passed the works were to become part of the public domain so the rest of society could build upon them and permit society as a whole to reap even greater benefits.

Over the past 2-3 decades (maybe more) they have become twisted and abused into stifling creativity and progress and robbing society of its cultural roots. We are all poorer because of this. At least a few people have made enormous sums of money from it.

With the current state of technology production costs have dropped to the point where it is trivial to create and distribute copyrightable works. This will continue to drop. Because of this people are regularly creating without financial motivation. The need for the original protections has weakened as people not longer need them to eliminate the risk of creation.

I would argue that copyright is now a barrier to creating works for two reasons:
1. If you create a single phenomenally popular work you sit on your laurels and collect the paychecks for 2 lifetimes. Perhaps if you knew the time was limited you would create more.
2. Historically most new works are derived on older works in the public domain which were likely orignally descended from campfire tales tens fo thousands of years ago. Almost all of Disney's stories and success come from old fables that they copied. With he current state of copyright law there can never be another company that will pick up disney's works and turn them into something better or more fanciful. The culture is locked away forever.

Society will benefit far more from less restrictive copyright, perhaps even moving it back to the original terms.

As an example of cultural and societal benefits from unrestricted copying:
1. The entire open source movement without which the internet would have never become what it is today.
2. Wikipedia
3. All the tens of thousands of independent artists giving their work away for free from books, songs, movies, and software.

Personally in about 5 years I think congress needs to take an open and honest look at the original purpose of copyright and patents and re-evaluate if they are serving their original stated purposes, and what would best benefit society moving forward.

This might be near impossible given the level of lobbying and payoffs the people who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo will provide. Maybe there's another way.

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

cdrguru (88047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227463)

Before there was copyright the primary way an artist was "successful" was to have a wealthy patron. Often a king or other noble. The problem was, as Mozart found out, if you do not deliver what your patron wants you stave pennyless and die a tragic, early death. Clearly, art was the domain of the nobel class and no others.

Sure, there were various minstrels and the odd performing troupe here and there, but I wouldn't call them successful unless you count "not starving to death" as being a success. I'm sure there were plenty that did starve to death, but you will note that as few as a couple hundred years later nobody knows about them. The only artists that are known are those that had wealthy and powerful patrons. And no, I don't think we are looking at the absolute top 1% of the talent that existed. We are looking at the ones that were (a) adequate and (b) had a patron.

Everyone else, talented or not, is forgotten.

I'd say the "new business model" that keeps getting touted is exactly where we were 400 years ago.

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227637)

The patron system had some advantages, to be sure, but as you point out, it really depended on your patron. If your patron was wealthy and willing to wait, you got some marvelous things, like the Sistine Chapel. The problem is, there are relatively few of those; copyright attempts to extend at least some measure of protection to the entire populace to ensure a much wider spectrum of creators.

Which is, as I think we agree, why that system went out of style 400 years ago..

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228299)

400 years ago? Are you saying that Bach, Mozart & Beethoven weren't dependent on patrons?

And that's different from today HOW exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227643)

You gotta get signed by a big label, else you'll get nowhere.

You gotta get on the radio or you'll get nowhere.

And if they don't want to produce your work any more, you'll get nowhere.

It used to be The Earl Of Dorchester. Now it's BMG. Or Sony/EMI.

Net difference? Fuck all.

PS what's happened to the people in Bucks Fizz? One is running a fish-and-chip van. Those being pushed by the label are there. Everyone else is lost and forgotten.

Re:And that's different from today HOW exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28228015)

You gotta get signed by a big label, else you'll get nowhere.

Only because of the amount of control they have over all aspects of the music industry.

You gotta get on the radio or you'll get nowhere.

Only because of the amount of control the Big4/RIAA have over all aspects of the music industry.

And if they don't want to produce your work any more, you'll get nowhere.

Only because of the amount of control they have over all aspects of the music industry.

See the pattern here?

PS what's happened to the people in Bucks Fizz? One is running a fish-and-chip van. Those being pushed by the label are there. Everyone else is lost and forgotten.

Bucks Fizz was created by Andy Hill. They didn't write the songs or produce them. I couldn't find any details about their contracts but it wouldn't surprise me if they were given a 'wage' for their work and a few small performance related bonuses. If thats the case then why would they not have to work after their previous job ended? They dont deserve any special treatment just because they did their job.

Re:Sharing isn't the problem Eric makes it out to (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228343)

I'd say the "new business model" that keeps getting touted is exactly where we were 400 years ago.

Except that the patron of the 21st century is the public at large or, as an economist might put it, the marketplace. The artist can now have a direct, unfiltered feed directly to his customers rather than go through cumbersome expensive middle men. The only reason an artist may not want this unprecendented power is that someone has been feeding him misinformation about it. No prizes for guessing who that someone might be.

Paradox (4, Interesting)

nathan s (719490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226793)

This content is worth nothing without an audience, and our intention is to make it widely available - but at the right price, a price that rewards the labour of people who are producing those great works.

I like this line, because it sort of encapsulates the paradox of trying to force your audience to pay for content when they are pretty clearly demonstrating a willingness to either "steal" it or jump to other content that is provided for free if you make it at all expensive or inconvenient for them. Your content has no value without them, but you want to be able to screw them over at the same time, essentially. Seems like a pretty clear case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Now, granted, I'm only an amateur artist/writer/composer, but I am pretty content just to have the audience. As a thousand other small content creators have said on Slashdot in a thousand similar comments before, this notion that people are going to stop creating stuff just because they aren't getting paid for it is demonstrably false. A lot of us do it because it's fun, like fixing motorcycles or watching television is to other people. You can make some sort of argument that the existing system provides "valuable" gatekeeping and quality control if you want, but then you are getting into the murky waters of subjective tastes and preferences, not to mention the vested interest in not having to compete that the "established" artists and composers who are the membership of these societies possess.

The short of it is that the old business models just won't work anymore and these guys are kicking and screaming on the "artists'" side in the same way that the various publishing/distribution associations are. This guy points out himself that concerts and live broadcasts are still doing pretty well. These are clues about the sort of thing that have actual monetary value now; it will take more experimenting and time before new models are worked out and clear paths are found to monetizing content that does not require some sort of physical presence to experience.

I don't think anyone actually has all the answers yet. I have some friends who are semi-professional content creators (musicians, mostly) who are grappling with this more directly, and even they don't have all the answers, but they seem to be doing okay performing locally and giving away their recordings essentially as advertising to fill seats at gigs. For my part, I'll just keep making stuff and throwing it online. I figure if the audience gets big enough, I might be able to eventually do it full time, which is enough of a dream for me.

Re:Paradox (1)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227335)

This content is worth nothing without an audience, and our intention is to make it widely available - but at the right price, a price that rewards the labour of people who are producing those great works.

Your content has no value without them ...

Sounds like standard economics to me. The product you sell has no value except by the fact that people are willing to pay for it (i.e. there is demand for it). You want to charge a high enough price to make it worth your while, but also a low enough price to not destroy the demand.

Re:Paradox (1)

nathan s (719490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227413)

I realize you're trolling, but to be clear, I didn't say you have to give your content away. I am saying that if it's priced outside of what your audience is willing to spend (something iTunes got right, it seems, while a lot of other people got it wrong) or somehow inconvenient (i.e. DRM), you can't expect them to just fork over the cash when there are a dozen other people itching to take your place in the provider chain and give them content for less.

Re:Paradox (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228143)

I don't think he was trolling. It really is standard economics. The system will only support the price people are willing to pay, in the form people are willing to pay. But if no one pays, then nothing's likely to be made, as few people are willing to work for free consistently.

For example, simply because you open a shop selling something doesn't mean that product has an inherent value. Just because you've said your shiny coaster is worth $20 doesn't mean it is. It's only worth $20 if people actually start paying that $20. If people decide that the shiny coaster isn't worth $20, since they can get a wicker coaster down the block for $5 that does everything your shiny coaster does, with no downsides, then your coasters have no value.

But if you sell your shiny coasters for $10, and they don't mildew ever, but the $5 wicker coasters do, if they get wet, then some people might decide that extra $5 is worth it. Now your product has value, since people are willing to give that money.

To bring this back to the actual music industry, they're trying to charge money for something they can't prove is better than what someone else is giving away for free, aka label artists vs. independent artists. And they don't want to bother proving their product is better by letting anyone have samples (free, good quality downloads), and in fact, they want to charge you for every possible "coaster" use you want. You can't just use your computer to get the music off the CD, and then put it on any device you want. That's like the coaster company saying that you need to buy a different coaster for each room in your house, you're not allowed to move it from the dining room to the living room. And I'm getting really far afield of what's actually covered in your posts, so I'll just finish by saying you're right, economics is chiefly driven by the laziness of people, and the fact that if one company doesn't deliver, another will, either by making a product cheaper or easier, as long as they can still turn a bit of profit in the doing.

Re:Paradox (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227701)

I think the problem is twofold.

Firstly, content creation and delivery has gotten much easier in the past 150 years or so. It's possible for someone, in their spare time, to create content and distribute it widely; and because they are doing it in their spare time, they can also afford to distribute it for free and care only for eyeballs.

That said, however, there is a problem. The amount of time required to become masterfully proficient in something is impressive- on the order of at least 10,000 hours of practice, which is a figure often bandied around. If you're working full time (8 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 weeks a year) that's five years of solid practice doing nothing but what you want to do to become technically proficient in. Most of the people like you, who are doing this in their spare time, are, with respect, not masterfully proficient- or even close to it.

That was the design of the patronage system of the middle ages and the enlightenment- that a wealthy patron essentially paid someone to do nothing but work on something for their enjoyment, so they could devote that time. It worked.

But there are few wealthy patrons these days. Copyright was created to provide an incentive for individuals to put in the immense amount of time required to become masterfully proficient.

While the internet age does make it easier to create and distribute content, not all content can be created by amateurs in their spare time. Nor would we want it to. Erasing copyright without replacing it with something which provides a similar incentive program would essentially choke off that content production. You'd have a huge glut of amateur producers and very, very few expert producers; and while in this time of 'just good enough' content, that might suffice for some people it would be, at least in my opinion, disastrous for society as a whole.

Re:Paradox (2, Insightful)

nathan s (719490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227935)

I don't entirely disagree with you. I take no offense at the implication that I lack masterful proficiency at creating art - although this is a separate conversation full of discussion about how much of the work of "polishing" content to make it appear "masterful" - from music to movies - is now done by individuals other than the actual content creators or originators of the ideas. This is another can of worms entirely, albeit a relevant one since it's unclear whether any one person can really be an "expert" anymore in the sense you seem to be implying.

I do think it's important to be careful not to overrate the importance of experts, though, because barring outright unbearably bad content, a lot of this becomes a matter of taste, as I implied in my original post. Much of today's most popular content both online and in traditional media has been created by people who were just messing around in their free time and who certainly haven't put 10,000 hours (a figure which, while it amuses me, is certainly not scientific) into content creation - in many cases, the creators are simply too young to have had that much free time, for one thing (university, full-time jobs, etc.)

Essentially the "old" system was a "chance" lottery, where publishers and producers took a chance on new artists fully expecting to take an actual financial loss on most of them while they hoped for a few superstars, and I don't really see that it was fundamentally superior or produced more "experts" than the internet has done so far. I think even if you look at successful artists in whatever medium as defined by the old system, you can see clear progression in skill in earlier works versus later ones, and I see no reason why you should expect anything else in the emerging new system.

Just my two cents, anyway.:)

Re:Paradox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227737)

Make owning media include the right to modify , embrace and extend. Let people who are going to use the media - cover bands , fan fic authors etc and sell it to them
with the correct license. Require attribution of source in extensions.

Keep it free for anyone else to simply personally enjoy or after 5 years has past.

Let the people sing , write and make great works.

Or get out of our way because we are doing it anyway.

I Love this guy! Such Chutpah (3, Insightful)

ratboy666 (104074) | more than 5 years ago | (#28226939)

Manages to contradict himself!

"It happened with YouTube here in the UK.

We have a dialog with them to try and understand what they need - because they are very relevant. But based on what I know, when they decided to pull all the UK premium content - despite the PRS not requesting that - that was not helpful. It gives the impression that rights societies are difficult to work with and willing to withdraw works from the public. But nothing could be further from the truth. This content is worth nothing without an audience, and our intention is to make it widely available - but at the right price, a price that rewards the labour of people who are producing those great works."

and a little further...

"We need to rely on a mix of understanding licensing terms, and being able to experiment, and if the business has no turnover the rights owners should not subsidize the business by giving the content away for free. If you don't pay your electricity bill you'll get cut off."

I guess that HE wants the power to turn it off, but doesn't want to let others make the decision. But I just love the direct contradiction.

And I just love this -- in reference to ISPs and the pricing of broadband:

"That's another aspect of the destruction of value. If you wanted to price them at fair value you would at least need to be an order of magnitude higher than it is now."

So, I guess my broadband should be $400 a month, and $360 of that should go to him?

Wow, just... wow... Unbelievable.

Re:I Love this guy! Such Chutpah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227321)

He should start a video site in the UK, get consumers (directly or through there ISP) to subscribe, and make (or redirect, to stick to the physics of money) Millions !

Re:I Love this guy! Such Chutpah (1)

vivaelamor (1418031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28228059)

They do seem to pick poor analogies to make pro copyright points.

if you don't pay your electricity bill you'll get cut off

Yeah.. but they don't need the law to be able to do that. If people stream music then the person streaming the music can cut them off at any time, that would be the right parallel to draw with his analogy. I don't get my electricity taken away for not paying for it.. the supply gets stopped.

When you use analogies to show an actual comparison between what they want and what normally happens you get something completely different. My current favourite is making chairs compared to file sharing. A craftsman makes and sells a chair to Mr Bean. Mr Bean has a friend called Mr Ballmer who likes that chair and wants one just like it. Mr Bean makes an exact copy of that chair, using his own tools and materials, and gives it to the friend for free. Now in that scenario, how would the craftsman sue Mr Bean for copyright infringement? If you were to have Mr Bean mass producing chairs and giving them away for free (probably all to Ballmer), then again, what part of the law is the craftsman going to sue Mr Bean under and why the hell should he be able to anyway?

Re:I Love this guy! Such Chutpah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28229957)

Mr Bean makes an exact copy of that chair, using his own tools and materials, and gives it to the friend for free. Now in that scenario, how would the craftsman sue Mr Bean for copyright infringement? If you were to have Mr Bean mass producing chairs and giving them away for free (probably all to Ballmer), then again, what part of the law is the craftsman going to sue Mr Bean under and why the hell should he be able to anyway?

That is my biggest issue with the current state of copyright. I, personally, have no interest in reselling original works to others. But what if I want to make a derivative work? Many of the pro-copyright crowd (cliffski, I'm looking at you) assume that people just want to take their work and either not pay for it or make money from it. There is a large swath of interest in combining works to form something new. Custom music videos are a good example of this. They violate copyright on both sides, but are a "new and creative" work. Some of them [youtube.com] are quite [youtube.com] brilliant. [youtube.com] The Grey Album [illegal-art.org] is another example, as is the Harry Potter Lexicon. [mtv.com] But you can't do those legally now, and by the time they're out of copyright the material won't be meaningful and... you'll be dead.

As someone else mentioned, the public is tired of having their culture locked up and resold to them with onerous restrictions. They're taking it back and no amount of laws will prevent or stop it.

Hi (1)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227227)

In the name of most EU Internet users: Fuck off!

We will pay for a proper service, not stop wanking and deliver something worth buying. When P2P service is easier and faster to use then yours system, you got a problem.

I can cry with you if you want, but since the dawn of Internet, piracy was never easier and there is absolutely no reason for this to change, ever. Cry, pray, scream, it ain't gonna work.

More hot air ... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28227239)

And it should be transparent. If you're a member of the public and you just want watch a movie or listen to a song, you shouldn't need to be a copyright expert.

Then why not let people use the media they bought how they wish?

You shouldn't need to worry how much is going to the society, and how much is going to the real people behind those entities.

So he wants the content industries to be able to screw the artists without anyone ever finding out?

It would put together all the world's repertory and enable one society to grant a worldwide license.

And who gets to set how much does a license costs? Eric? Governments? The UN? The content industries? Whoever does end up setting the costs, it wont be the artists themselves or impartial members of the public.

If they want to have a global society then do it properly and with realistic limits.

  . Set copyright to 20 years on ALL works.
  . Stop requiring massive licenses for every 15 second piece of media played in a video/movie.
      Maybe something like a standard rate of x% then for each additional piece its 50% more.
  . If the copyright holder is not the person who created it then the copyright ends when they die.
  . If you're going to have a single global society then content companies cant restrict where you buy your media.
      No region codes & no country specific limitations.

Re:More hot air ... (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28231429)

If the copyright holder is not the person who created it then the copyright ends when they die.

Like hell. 20 years or when they die, whichever is shorter. Period. Corporations do not need "special" protection.

P2P Copyright Theft: No Free Lunch (0, Troll)

B_SharpC (698293) | more than 5 years ago | (#28227343)

P2P Pirates peer to peer theft of copyright material has an unintended consequence. It results in junk quality of books and music. Instead of reading 1 quality book, P2P crooks must now waste their time reading 5 or 10.

There is no free lunch. Nothing is free. It only 'appears' free. The money P2P pirates 'save' is lost having to read 10 books instead of one. 20 music songs instead of 1.

Basic economics 101. Nothing is free. Everything costs. Authors realize this so they spread out the material across multiple documents. Pirates don't value their time much.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?