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!

Brazil Considering Legalizing File Sharing

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the great-buffet-now-free dept.

Government 233

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like Brazil may be the country to watch if you're interested in much more consumer-friendly copyright laws (assuming US diplomatic pressure doesn't interfere). As that country goes through a copyright reform process, among the proposals is one that would create fines not just for infringing, but also for hindering fair use and the public domain. Also, there is a big push underway, with widespread support — even from some artists groups — to legalize file sharing in exchange for a small levy (~$1.74/month) on your broadband connection. Of course, one reason why Brazil may be doing it this way is because of the massive success the Brazilian musical genre technobrega has had by embracing file sharing as a way to promote new works, and making money (often lots of it) through other avenues, like live shows."

cancel ×

233 comments

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

No more HollyWood films in ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33470854)

3 ... 2 ... 1

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (3, Interesting)

Andorin (1624303) | about 4 years ago | (#33470966)

Yeah. Hollywood's going to close down because people can freely share their movies in another country.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471024)

The US exports and produces very little, almost everything is manufactured in Asia or some developing country with cheap labour. The only thing they have is lots and lots of money, and IP lots of it. That's why they will intervene, not because of moral or legal reasons.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471118)

The US exports and produces very little, almost everything is manufactured in Asia or some developing country with cheap labour.

Uh-huh. That's why the US has exports over 1 trillion dollars? And believe it or not, the US does make a lot of things, just not so much in the way of junk volume good. Instead the US basically makes the parts that make up the factories that make those Asian goods.

Funny how that works.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (4, Interesting)

ascari (1400977) | about 4 years ago | (#33471156)

Brazil has a stellar record of not caring much what the US thinks or does. They are true pioneers of "un-American" practices in many areas, like reducing dependency on oil through ethanol fuels, requiring as tough visa/immigration requirements of Americans as the US does of other countries and so on. If anybody can pull it off it's the Brazilians.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (5, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#33471628)

I've spent a fair amount of time in Brazil in the past decade. If you wanted to position yourself to live in a country that's going to be in really good shape over the next few decades, with good quality of life and vibrant economies, you could do a lot worse than learning Portuguese and moving to Sao Paolo or Campinas or any of several smaller cities in Brazil.

There really seems to be a progressive spirit and socially responsible direction to the way Brazil is heading. There are still plenty of problems, as you would expect in a country so large and so relatively young. But they seem to be proving that you can be a developing country that will compete in the world economy without selling out entirely to corporate interests. It's not entirely paradise, but there are places in Brazil where you'd think you died and gone to heaven. There are opportunities there. And even in Rio de Janeiro, where there are horribly poor slums and rampant corruption, there are indications that things might turn around. They're smart enough to be taking the bits of European Socialism that work best, and the bits of capitalism that seem to work, and not worrying about what America and Morgan Chase think.

Brazil is destined to be a success story, I think. And a good example for other South American countries. At least it'll be a success as long as the US can keep from sending assassins to take out any political leader who dares speak to Hugo Chavez, and putting in some military dictator so the corporations can rape Brazil too.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (5, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33471786)

Unless they fix their wealth distribution don't expect too much. I would love to see them do well, but when a couple people ride around in helicoptors and children starve in favelas, it leads to crime, corruption and many of the other problems that plague latin America.

The USA will do anything it can to make sure Brazil is safe for US corporations, knocking off a legally elected politician is only the tip of that iceberg.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (2, Informative)

rmezzari (245108) | about 4 years ago | (#33472102)

Ok Mr PopeRatzo.I'm a brazilian, and I live in Brazil. This contry is a complete mess and a huge pile of crap. I've spent a fair amount of time in the US in the past decade. So, I was wondering: Since you think that this stupid hellhole of a country is so great and filled with so many opportunities, let's make a deal. I will trade my brazilian citizenship for your american citizenship. You move here, I move there. You can even have my job, wich is a very good one for brazilian standards. Deal?

Put your money where your mouth is, or else stop spreading nonsense as saying that this CRAP of a country is any good. I hate this hellhole, and have been trying to go to the US legally for about 4 years. You guys have NO idea how good and plantyful your lives are.

Actually, is not true to say that Brazil is 100% useless because is great for sexual tourism (the hookers are plenty and beautiful) but that's it.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33472244)

I've spent a fair amount of time in Brazil in the past decade. If you wanted to position yourself to live in a country that's going to be in really good shape over the next few decades, with good quality of life and vibrant economies, you could do a lot worse than learning Portuguese and moving to Sao Paolo or Campinas or any of several smaller cities in Brazil.

DO NOT go to Sao Paulo. It`s a shittier version of your standard large city.

If you wanna come to Brazil, Rio is the place to be! Come about and I`ll show you the nice spots... ^^

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (3, Informative)

russ1337 (938915) | about 4 years ago | (#33471202)

The US exports and produces very little, almost everything is manufactured in Asia or some developing country with cheap labour. The only thing they have is lots and lots of money, and IP lots of it. That's why they will intervene, not because of moral or legal reasons.

really? The data does not support that conclusion:

The top ten categories of exports from USA to other countries in dollar value were:
1. Civilian aircraft $74 billion, up 1.3% from 2007 (5.7% of total US exports)
2. Semiconductors $50.6 billion, up 0.3% (3.9%)
3. Passenger cars $49.6 billion, up 13.3% (3.9%)
4. Medicinal, dental and pharmaceutical preparations $40.4 billion, up 15% (3.1%)
5. Other vehicle parts and accessories $39.9 billion, down 10.1% (3.1%)
6. Other industrial machinery $38.1 billion, down 0.6% (3%)
7. Fuel oil $34.9 billion, up 124.1% (2.7%)
8. Organic chemicals $33.4 billion, up 5.5% (2.6%)
9. Telecommunications equipment $32.9 billion, up 4.6% (2.6%)
10. Plastic materials $31.6 billion, up 8.7% (2.5%).

http://www.importexportbook.com/what-does-the-usa-import-and-export/ [importexportbook.com]

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471282)

Interesting numbers but aren't they a bit useless if you don't either compare them to imports or to the exports of another country?

I mean, 7 cubic foot per litre is all nice and well but without context it's pretty damn unhelpful/useless.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (3, Informative)

russ1337 (938915) | about 4 years ago | (#33471404)

Interesting numbers but aren't they a bit useless if you don't either compare them to imports or to the exports of another country?

I mean, 7 cubic foot per litre is all nice and well but without context it's pretty damn unhelpful/useless.

I wouldn't call the 3rd largest exporter 'very little'. Plus it's only 200M behind the leader.

1 People's Republic of China $1,204,000,000,000 2009 est.
2 Germany $1,159,000,000,000 2009 est.
3 United States $1,046,000,000,000 2009 est.
4 Japan $542,300,000,000 2009 est.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports [wikipedia.org]

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (1)

russ1337 (938915) | about 4 years ago | (#33471416)

woops. decimal place fail

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33471646)

Yet, Germany has a population only of only 81 million, compared to the USA at 330million, the Chinese at over a Billion and the Japanese at 127 million. What ever it is they are doing, we need to start copying them. Perhaps it is all those worker friendly laws.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 4 years ago | (#33471920)

Perhaps it's that the US is such a physically large country that it consumes quite a lot of its own produce. I'd be more interested to see the numbers if you took out within-EU exports from Germany and US exports to Canada and Mexico.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33472116)

please mod this insigthful

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471480)

Interesting numbers but aren't they a bit useless if you don't either compare them to imports or to the exports of another country?

Nope, not necessary to refute the statements of the GP, which claimed that the US exported and produced very little. All the parent had to do was produce data showing that the US did produce things.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (0, Troll)

Americium (1343605) | about 4 years ago | (#33471498)

That's why they will intervene, not because of moral or legal reasons.

You have it all wrong, it IS the moral thing to do. If the US can't protect it's IP when it manufactures abroad, it'll have to bring all those factories home. Those countries will have no one to export to. India is testing the front on eavesdropping on everyone, including businesses, we'll see if that affects outsourcing. Brazil is testing a different front. China and many US businesses have issues, just remember the Google fiasco.

It's also the Legal thing, Patents are in the constitution. I agree that the US is far to aggressive(borderline ridiculous) in it's approach/pricing, but Tit for Tat. We need IP laws, just sensible ones. Artists DO have a right to their work, but how about 5-15yrs, not 90yrs. I thought the Pirate Party in Sweden had a chance to accomplish that, but I think they will have their hand full with Wikileaks.

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33471872)

We did the same thing to the British. That nice picture of Sam Addams everyone knows is only famous because his shirt was made on a "pirated" loom.

Cue economy sanction in 3..2.. (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | about 4 years ago | (#33471036)

You can expect all companies of the "knowledge based economy" to immediately demand their governments to impose economy sanction while their expensive landsharks in Brazil files suits in parallel to halt implementation of the said law. The bought and paid for politicians of respective governments would very faithfully demand Brazil to scrap the whole idea or risk their combined wrath.

In summary - Best of Luck guys, it's never going to fly, as the douche bags in the "knowledge base economy" cartel will make sure you fry.

Who gets a cut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471172)

And how do they determine who gets paid from that fee?

I'm going to go release a million pieces of sh!t songs in Brazil, but if all artists are getting a cut based on the number of songs, it should work out really well. (Just don't tell anyone else, keep it between us).

Re:No more HollyWood films in ... (2, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 years ago | (#33471542)

No more HollyWood films in ...3...2...1

Don't tease me and promise something you can't deliver. I just don't know what I'd do if there were no more Eat, Pray, Loves.

It's FUCKING Brazi!! Hole in the ground piss pot! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33472094)

Do you really care what the fuck some piss-poor country does? Of course it will "legalize" stealing; you can't buy shit with piss, what little Brazil has. Now go cut down some forests and send it off to Europa so they can make me my dining room furniture. Yes they will last a lifetime: MINE !! After that, who cares, and you won't either, because now you can "legally" steal my movies. Seems only fair.

Who would have thought (1)

KillaGouge (973562) | about 4 years ago | (#33470858)

Yet another country that realizes you can make more money if the music is free. Didn't the Grateful Dead already figure this out?

Re:Who would have thought (3, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#33470898)

Yet another country that realizes you can make more money if the music is free. Didn't the Grateful Dead already figure this out?

Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.

Re:Who would have thought (2, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 4 years ago | (#33470922)

Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.

They might not had made hundreds of millions of dollars if not for insane copyright law.

Re:Who would have thought (1, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 4 years ago | (#33470998)

Oh right, being paid for their art is just insane!

Re:Who would have thought (4, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | about 4 years ago | (#33471020)

And demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars per "infringed" song isn't insane?

Re:Who would have thought (2, Insightful)

santiagodraco (1254708) | about 4 years ago | (#33472144)

How exactly does that apply to the discussion of whether or not the beetles made millions of dollars SELLING their music and not giving it away free? The discussion wasn't about the merits of current law.

Re:Who would have thought (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 4 years ago | (#33471152)

Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.

Keeping your grandparent's work under lock and key almost a century after it was created, however, is asshattery of the highest order and does nothing for the public good, nor does it encourage new work.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 4 years ago | (#33471466)

Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.

Really? Why?

Copyright is an artificial scheme, and a utilitarian one. It isn't mandatory that it exist, and if it does exist, it isn't up to the author to make that decision, or decide what the specific details are; that's up to the public (via a legitimate government accountable to the public, working in the public interest).

If it is in the public interest that only works made on Tuesdays should be copyrighted, and that the copyright should only last for a week, then that's what should be done. That authors might want otherwise is utterly irrelevant, save for how their desires are a factor in determining the overall public interest. (Not so much to cater to them, but to find a way to manipulate them into doing what's good for the public)

I'd rather have everything on the table. I don't really care whether copyright lasts for a day or for a million years, so long as however long it lasts, and whatever rights it consists of, are carefully formulated so as to serve the public interests better than any alternative law, or no law at all.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 4 years ago | (#33471506)

My bad, that sentence should've contained "in my opinion" somewhere. I thought the 'public good' argument was somewhat implicit from the end of the post, but I guess I was unclear.

I entirely agree with you that the authors' wishes are generally irrelevant (except to the extent that those wishes impact the creation of future works). My opinion pretty much mirrors yours, I just happen to be of the opinion that 15-20 years, as it was originally, would serve the public good fairly well.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 4 years ago | (#33471576)

Ah, well, that's fine then. I apologize if I came across as too harsh or anything.

Myself, I'd rather see strict registration, renewal, and deposit formalities, and then have numerous, short terms. The number of renewals might vary depending on the type of work. The maximum length for the most protected works might easily wind up being in the 15-20 year range, however.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#33471634)

No system that tries to implement any sort of monopoly can address the fundamental problem with copyright that the internet has amplified - that it is human nature to copy stuff we like, on both a wholesale and a piecemeal (derivative) basis. It seems like common sense that we would settle on a system that channels human nature to incent creators instead of fights it.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33471794)

Mandatory licensing can solve that.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | about 4 years ago | (#33472172)

Well, could we try distinguishing between non-commercial infringement by natural persons, and everything else? My suspicion is that most people would accept being able to copy things so long as it was just between real people, and no money was involved (nor other things of value, such as advertisements, or even ratios), but that if the copying is in some way commercial, or involves businesses or other artificial entities, then the author ought to have rights over that.

Re:Who would have thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471588)

They should be paid for their work and not given a free ride for 70 longer than they live!

Re:Who would have thought (3, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | about 4 years ago | (#33471042)

Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.

They might not had made hundreds of millions of dollars if not for insane copyright law.

Sure they would have. Because copyright law was largely irrelevant as far as pirating music back then. Tape recorders were crude, and there was no way to make quality reproductions of songs for the average listener. If you wanted the record, you had to buy it from the store. Even into the 80's and early 90's, your best option was recording an album from cassette to cassette, and even with some higher end tape decks, you still didn't get sound quality as good as the original. Computer technology is what changed things, not copyright law. Now, suddenly any schmuck can make a perfect copy of a CD and distribute it to millions of his closest friends on the Internet.

Re:Who would have thought (3, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33471388)

Now, suddenly any schmuck can make a perfect copy of a CD and distribute it to millions of his closest friends on the Internet.

Long story short you could make many really good analog copies of the first generations, but it didn't last and one person with bad equipment destroyed the chain. What changed with perfect copies as opposed to near-perfect copies is that you can have infinite generations. You don't need to give it to a million friends, only a few as long as they in total pass it on to more people. It's a little bit like a nuke going of, if you have a ratio >1 there's a chain reaction until you run out of reactive material.

Fractional people sound silly so let's just start with 10 people having it and each giving it to 1.2 people on average. So those 10 give it to 10*1.2 = 12. Those 12 give it to 12*1.2 = ~14. Those 14 give it to 14*1.2 = ~17. Those 17 give it to 17*1.2 = ~20 and so it keeps going growing exponentially with 1.2^n until you run out of people who'd want it. And nobody did more than share a little over one copy. There is no big bad wolf, only many equal peers.

Re:Who would have thought (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471428)

Computers have also lead that there are a more than a dozen composer that create studio qualite work in each and every neighbourhood.
If I were dependent on a business where people would be willing to do my work for free just because they think it is fun then I would really reconsider what the fsck I was doing.

Re:Who would have thought (3, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#33470950)

Well the Beatles and Rolling Stones made hundreds of millions more than the Grateful Dead by not making their music free.

Or they were just more mainstream and thus had a bigger audience.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 4 years ago | (#33470978)

You can't really isolate which factor made it happen.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about 4 years ago | (#33471028)

You can say that comparing the Beatles to your average band is disingenuous at best. The context just can never be matched.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | about 4 years ago | (#33471566)

I mean, yes, but you can't say exactly what caused them to be monetary successes, and to what degree each factor (openness of music, raw size, marketing) played in said success. The truest measure of financial success would probably be the amount of money they made per fan, but even that is lacking a definitive way to isolate the factor of openness. Isolating that factor, and seeing how much each band made per fan because of it, is the only way to truly tell what effect the degree of openness has on a band's financial success.

Re:Who would have thought (5, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33471058)

They made millions to the detriment of other smaller artists. Back then the label/distributor system was absolute: there was no way into the music industry without being signed. The labels would only take up so many artists, who they promoted the hell out of, while all other artists were forced into obscurity.

That's a terrible system, because there's less music being made that way, and people are spoon-fed only what the labels want them to listen to.

Today things are changing, because the labels' promotional machine is being overridden by more open distribution systems. So--- today it's not about making millions, it's about making a fair living (fairer distribution of wealth, and a level playing field) and having a chance to fame based on the quality of your work rather than dumb luck of getting picked up by a bunch of professional marketeers.

I think Brazil has the right idea, and I'll really really hate it when the big WIPO/ACTA/TRIPPS bullies shit their usual brick.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

DesScorp (410532) | about 4 years ago | (#33470968)

Yet another country that realizes you can make more money if the music is free. Didn't the Grateful Dead already figure this out?

This is a silly argument on its face, and doesn't square with history. The Grateful Dead made a lot of money off of their model, but they were the exception to the rule, and their major contemporaries made vastly more sums of money than they did. The key to truly big time success is mass media exposure, not word of mouth. Word of mouth can help break an artist out of anonymity, but it's no substitute for being played on radio, TV, and for selling CD's and iTunes downloads. Lots of other artists... some of them already established... have tried the "give it away and charge for concerts" model, and no one since the GD has really made big money off of that model. There's no substitute for having a record company promoting you, and they're not going to do that if no one is paying for the music.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | about 4 years ago | (#33471108)

Also, their model required a dedicated group of followers who would attend as many shows as possible. This is not a very scalable model, when most bands would be lucky to have a (un-obsessed) fan attend one or two of their shows over their lifetime.

Re:Who would have thought (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471890)

"no one since the GD has really made big money off of that model"

Depends how you define "big money". Using the Dead model, Phish grossed $27M for their 25-show 2004 tour. I have not yet seen numbers for their '09 or '10 tours, but every show is sold out. They also make huge amounts of money from shwag and cd sales (cd's on their own record label) which are sold on their website. As I'll not respond to "yeah but phish sucks" bullcrap, to doubters of the numbers involved here I will point out that their tours have NO corporate sponsorship _whatsoever_ ; the tours are self-sustaining AND profitable -- otherwise they'd not have continued to tour for the past ~25 years. For example, they had a 3-day festival last fall in Indio, CA (home of the better-known Coachella festival) at which Phish was the only band, and with 40,000 in attendance at $200 per ticket for the 3-day show: $8M in ticket sales alone. Don't know any phish fans? they tend to buy lots of the tshirts & wacky shwag both at the shows and online. So, in terms of gross revenue, there is lots of it, and the 4 band members are millionaires many times over. So, profitable? Yes. Maybe not as much as the Dead, but I would still categorize it as "big money". This, from a band that in '09 & '10 charged $50 for any ticket for any non-festival show. They put the tours together themselves, though they do have to use ticketmaster for some of the shows, per the agreement ticketbastard has with the major venues; for as many shows as possible they use ticketHorse for ticket sales.

Not bad for some guys that met in a dorm at University of Vermont in 1983. The thing is, they just love to play live: from '90-'94 they played 100-125 shows per year. In '09, 50 shows. '10 should be about 50 shows total. Fans love their music, especially the live shows, and fans also love the fact that this is a band that never required any corporate backing. And the band encourages taping their shows. It's the Grateful Dead model at work, and while I agree with you that most bands don't make as much as the Dead or Phish, I will point out that it is still a viable model, one that many other bands use (across many genres) and do very well financially.

I cringe when I see the corporate-backed band who wants to go into the studio, crank out an album, and sit back & watch the cash roll in. The overwhelming majority of it, as you well know, is lousy music put out by "artists" who disappear in a few years. If a band is willing to let me copy/download their shows for free, and I like their music, you can sure as hell bet I'll buy their cd and go see them in concert. To me, that's the way it ought to be. The music industry, IMHO, is a complete crock of shit, as there are talented bands in every genre that are willing to work their asses off to make a go of it, but most people have never heard of them, thanks to music industry douches. I give those douches as few dollars as possible; like many, I hope that their model dies off. And here I sit with HUGE amounts of music, much of it free -- music that spans many genres, music that I love.

Re:Who would have thought (1)

westlake (615356) | about 4 years ago | (#33471798)

Yet another country that realizes you can make more money if the music is free. Didn't the Grateful Dead already figure this out?

The Grateful Dead in its most recognizable form was active from 1967 to 1995.

The "tapers" were just that - fans recording live performances to reel-to-reel or cassette tapes.

Fans who had paid for their tickets exchanging copies 1 for 1 with fans who had also paid for their concert tickets.

The Deadhead played by Deadhead rules.

Garcia performed in over 2000 concerts - around 70 a year. The price you pay for that is seeing major talents dying young. That Garcia survived into his fifties is something like a miracle.

   

Re:Who would have thought (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33472066)

I think that had more to do with the drugs than anything else. Playing 70 Gigs a year is less work than most folks do.

Here are the current stats for the rest of them:
Vince Welnick: sucicide 2006, so unrelated
Brent Mydland: 1990 dug overdose, so unrelated
Donna Jean Godchaux: Alive, 63
Keith Godchauz: Car crash 1980 unrelated
Tom Constanten: Alive, 67
Mickey Hart: Alive 66
Ron "Pigpen" McKernan: Congenital medical issue and alcoholism 1973, so unrelated
Bill Kreutzmann: Alive, 64
Phil Lesh: Alive, 70
Bob Weir: Alive, 62

You ready to admit you're wrong?

Re:Who would have thought (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | about 4 years ago | (#33472142)

How is a tax for music on your broadband connection "free"?

Re: Levy (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | about 4 years ago | (#33470874)

I'd gladly pay a buck seventy-five if it would keep the legals off my back. Just like up here in Canada where we pay extra for CDs and they leave us alone; I'd rather not have to pay at all - seems like extortion - but it's a fair compromise.

Re: Katrina (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 4 years ago | (#33470878)

Sometimes a levy breaks.

Re: Levy (2, Interesting)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | about 4 years ago | (#33470924)

What is a little weird about this model is that it ultimately creates a quasi-governmental funding basis for the arts: everyone pays a flat fee that gives them unfettered access to all the world's music (film, etc.) - then, who decides how that money is allocated?

Nobody? (2, Interesting)

Cyberax (705495) | about 4 years ago | (#33470956)

Why not use objective standards, like number of 'registered downloads' or randomized popularity polls?

Re:Nobody? (1)

tsm_sf (545316) | about 4 years ago | (#33471052)

That's not gonna keep justin beiber's handler in cocaine, now, is it?

Re: Levy (1)

harlows_monkeys (106428) | about 4 years ago | (#33472250)

What is a little weird about this model is that it ultimately creates a quasi-governmental funding basis for the arts: everyone pays a flat fee that gives them unfettered access to all the world's music (film, etc.) - then, who decides how that money is allocated?

Yes, that's the problem with that solution. It can be shown by the mathematical economists that for goods with certain attributes, a free market is an optimal way to determine how those goods should be produced and distributed. Unfortunately, goods like music lack the necessary attributes, leading to what economists call a "market failure" when you try to use a free market to handle music.

There are two known viable solutions to this kind of market failure. One is to artificially, by force of law, imbue things like music copies with the properties that physical goods have that make them work with a free market. The free market then can determine which music to produce, based on consumer preferences, and funnel the money for that to artists, and all are sort of happy. However, with this solution consumers are paying more than the marginal cost of production for their copies, which is more than they "should" be paying, and that leads to underconsumption. So the tradeoff here is that we get underconsumption, but the good side is that we let the free market deal with resource allocation--no need for government interference other than to provide the legal framework that gives copies the necessary attributes. This is the approach the current copyright system takes in most places.

The other known viable solution is to make copying legal, so that consumers do get their copies for essentially zero, and can consume all the music they wish to consume. Artists are paid by the government, possibly via a special tax on something hopefully at least somewhat correlated with music consumption (an internet tax is a decent approximation for this), or perhaps just out of some general "cultural improvement" budget. The problem with this solution is that someone has to decide which artists get funded. If it is not done right, you could end up with a Bureau of Music that decides what stuffy old safe music gets funded. Better would be to find some way to measure what people are actually choosing to copy and allocate the money accordingly.

Personally, I think it is time to give the second approach a serious test. The first approach worked well when copying was hard enough that most people obeyed the law. Copying is easy now, and far too many people are willing to cheat and get their music for zero relying on the honest people to keep the artists going for the leeches. Time to recognize that use of music is nearly universal and treat it as a public good to be supported by the public.

Re: Levy (2, Insightful)

beakerMeep (716990) | about 4 years ago | (#33470952)

What about artists though? I'd gladly pay money if it actually went to artists.

Paying companies who may or may not represent the artists I listen to, and may or may not have a oppressive contract with the artists I listen to, seems like a perfect example of rent seeking. IMO, it is extortion. Especially since you are paying it to avoid legal hassle. Maybe we should all incorporate as Music Labels and get a slice of the pie.

Really though, it comes down to ease of use and lack of DRM -- aka providing a superior experience. I have discovered that, I don't feel the need to pirate games or music now that Steam* and Amazon are around.

I'm in no hurry to legalize file sharing though, unless there's a good proposal for making sure artists actually get paid.
Also, who buys CDs anymore?

* Yes Steam has DRM, but it succeeds in the ease of use and superior experience categories at least, offering hosted (I hate the word cloud but it fits here) flexibility in exchange for the DRM.

Brazil (Gilliam) (5, Funny)

billybob2001 (234675) | about 4 years ago | (#33470906)

This is information retrieval not information dispersal

Facts they forgot to mention (-1, Flamebait)

hessian (467078) | about 4 years ago | (#33470920)

They forgot to mention a few details:

1. Brazil has few content producers, so stands to lose nothing economically. American, European, Japanese and Indian companies will.
2. In many parts of Brazil, rule of law does not exist, so legalizing what will happen inevitably is not much of a loss.
3. Brazil is a third world country that faces many problems. Keeping these positive headlines rolling distracts from the appalling corruption, dysfunctional public services, disease, pollution and neglect that plagues the country.

I love much of Brazil -- who can't like Sepultura, Evil, and Sarcofago? I ask you -- but I think we should be honest with ourselves about this situation.

Re:Facts they forgot to mention (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 4 years ago | (#33471192)

There's one other point worth mentioning with respect to "tecno brega". From WP article on it:

Music of the genre is created primarily through remixing and reworking songs from popular music and music from the eighties ... Often producing their music with little concern for copyright, the music is "born free."

So, yeah. If you do little but remix existing works, and without paying for the use of that source material, I can see how you can make a living even with the meager profits you'd get. But I don't see how it can possibly be a sustainable business model if everyone starts doing that. You'll run out of stuff to remix!

Re:Facts they forgot to mention (1)

PrimordialSoup (1065284) | about 4 years ago | (#33471254)

remix the remixes and later remixes the remixess

Re:Facts they forgot to mention (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 4 years ago | (#33471438)

Stronger - Kanye West
Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger - Daft Punk
Cola Bottle Baby - Edwin Birdsong

I'm sure someone can think of a longer chain but that is the most famous one I think.

Gee, what a concept (5, Interesting)

Phrogman (80473) | about 4 years ago | (#33470942)

Musicians making money from performing music to live audiences. You know, the way they did for thousands of years (figuratively speaking).

Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.

I don't download music at all. I also don't buy it. I barely ever listen to it outside of occasionally turning on a rock station in the car. I don't miss it much either.

Honestly, since there is no way they are ever going to stop filesharing, its not a bad idea to legalize it IMHO. Its like legalizing marijuana. It wouldn't hurt anyone if they did that in my opinion, but it would let the government tax the sales. Perhaps thats a solution? Let the government tax your time on a P2P network? Nah

Well the problem (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33471128)

Is that not everything works like music. Video games would be a good example. Once you have the game, well that's what you wanted. There isn't a "live show" to go see or anything. The whole point is having a game to play. If you declare it legal to just copy games, that'll really hurt sales. Any way I can think of to deal with that just leads to decreased game quality:

1) Make it legal to share single player but require payment for multi-player. Ok well that'll just kill off single player games, which is what many people want. To the extent a game has a single player mode it'd be minimal.

2) Make it legal to copy the game, but require downloadable addons to be paid for. That would just encourage the game to be as short as possible and everything in addons. No more 40+ hours RPGs that than ALSO have a bunch of addons, it'd be more like a 2-3 hour game introduction with "addons" having to be purchased to get any real content.

3) Make it legal to copy the game, but allow patching/maintenance to cost money. In that case you'd get broken beta quality code as the "release" and then have it patched some time later for a fee.

For video games that are not of the subscription type like MMOs, a "Pay to get the content," model works the best. You give them money, they give you game. However for that to work, it needs to be required that you pay for the game up front. If you make it legal to not pay. Many people will elect not to (more than currently do).

Re:Well the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471166)

1 is the only option there. WIth 2 and 3 it just takes one person to buy the addons/patches and they can share those too.

Re:Well the problem (2, Interesting)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33471210)

Create the first few missions and release them. Tell people that if they like what they see, they should pay/donate to you to create more.

Isn't that much better? We pay artists to create, not to make copies

Re:Well the problem (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 4 years ago | (#33471490)

A donation bar for every studio with the option to put it towards a specific game (i want a starcon sequel!). Then they build a game around the budget that they are given (by extrapolating from the first few weeks' donations).

There are some problems that definitely need to be worked out but it might be a viable option for some groups. Though I must say that it might make starting up even more difficult.

Won't work (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33471518)

A large part of the problem is that for a lot of cool games, it takes a large team working on it. It isn't a guy, it is 20 or 50 or 100 people working together. This means it costs a good deal to do. Also the costs of getting everything together and making part of a game can be a very large part of the cost. So unless you want all games to go down to mid to low end indy quality, that isn't happening. Not saying there's anything wrong with those too, but I like bigger, more polished games as well.

Then there's the problem that who is going to be willing to donate for potential future content? If the developers say "Ok we'll make more but it is going to cost us $1,000,000. So as soon as we have that many donations, we'll start work." Like hell I'm paying in to that. What happens if they don't get enough? What happens if they release something that sucks? I'm not putting down money before I see what I'm going to get.

Of course if you flip it around, release somethign and ask for donations, then you have the problem that people are cheapskates. Games have done that, a "pay what you want," sort of thing and the results are pathetic. It averages $2-3 per copy if you are lucky. So using that system they'd hardly get any money. They might get even less if it were commonplace since the people who make large donations to show support for these rare events might not do so.

What it comes down to, is when you pay for a game you ARE playing for your share in their creating it. They spend $5 million, $20 million, $50 million, whatever to bring together all the designers, programmers, artists, animators, musicians, voice actors, testers, and so on needed to make that game. They put up the money and make a (hopefully) good game, if you think it looks good you kick in some cash and get to play it.

I don't want a society where only the rich can have really nice things because only they can hire people to make them. I like it where people can get together to create on a large project, and a bunch of normal people can kick in a little bit if they like it to buy their copy of it.

Re:Won't work (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33471886)

Well, my suggestion was:
1) They create a few missions, release them.
2) You play them, like them. Donate to create more.
3) They create a few more missions.
4) Goto 2

So, you do get to play before you buy. Also, I don't see why more polished games shouldn't be possible with this system -- the best products will draw more attention and will get more donations.

Note that what I am suggesting is not "pay what you want". That's an entirely different business model, which is a crap shoot imho. When I say "donate" I basically mean something like "preorder".

And I really believe what I'm saying definitely does not imply "a society where only the rich can have really nice things because only they can hire people to make them". Quite the opposite, in fact! Those who can afford to will pay for stuff to be created, but after it's done no copyright is needed to protect the work, because the artists have already been compensated. In other words, art can be released directly in the public domain for everyone--rich or poor--to enjoy, which is surely not the case right now.

I think this sort of system is quite beautiful, tbh, and may be the only way forward as far as I can see.

Re:Won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33472074)

"What happens if they don't get enough? "

Then you get your money back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract
Pay attention, please. This is not a new concept and has been posted on Slashot before. Like, hundreds of times.

"What happens if they release something that sucks?"
Same thing that happens now: people don't buy the next game. So, there's the EXACT same incentive for them to not release something that sucks, as there is now.

Wait, are you saying that, under strict copyright, nobody buys games they don't like? Hm. An interesting hypothesis.

"I'm not putting down money before I see what I'm going to get."
So you only buy games you get for free first...?
Or do you mean you only buy games from producers whose work you've liked in the past?

Keep in mind that in an assurance-contract-driven creative world, you already have free access to the work that someone has already done, completely for free. So you've got a pretty good idea of what they're capable of.

"What it comes down to, is when you pay for a game you ARE playing for your share in their creating it." ...except what you actually GET for your money is something with zero or negative value. That is, a copy of the work, or a copy of the work that breaks your computer in the quest to pretend to be valuable.

Because an individual copy of any piece of information has no discrete value, Information without access restriction is not valuable. There, I said it: restricted access to information is what MAKES it valuable, that is, worth spending money for. You would not pay anything to read a book that was already in your hands; you already have unrestricted access to it. If you didn't have a copy, that is to say if you don't have access to the book, it may well be worth it to you to spend money to get that access.

Information with access restriction is, by definition, not distributable. If you want to restrict access to a work that you intend to distribute, and that has no physical barriers to distribution, the only way to do so is to make the creation of the work the sole point of restriction.

Nobody is willing to pay you for directions to the corner store, no matter how badly they need to get there. The information is useful, but not valuable, because everyone knows it. With digital information, the difference between any piece of information that everyone DOES have, and any piece of information that anyone CAN have, is vanishingly small.

Up until recently, the physical requirements that make copyright laws work, physical requirements that have existed for literally all of human history, were a very effective form of access restriction. It costs resources to make a physical copy, and you lose those resources if the copy is destroyed, so making copies requires a real investment. Moreover, due to economies of scale, in an industrial society it actually costs more to make small numbers of equivalent-quality copies than it does to make great big ones; to make a signifigant profit on publication requires a fairly large operation. It is a trivial thing to ask that someone not make that not-inconsiderable investment without permission, and to enforce the request.

Now, however, we have a technology specifically designed to transcend those physical limitations. Not a better, faster, more efficient printing press, but a MAGICAL one that can create, and destroy, and even modify any number copies at no cost. Not "less" cost, but NO cost. You lose NOTHING by destroying a digital copy, so long as there is another copy for you to copy. That is, so long as access is not restricted to copies of the work, no individual copy has any value.

The only way to pretend that the copy has individual value, is to BREAK THE TRANSCENDENT TECHNOLOGY. This is called "DRM", which is an acronym for "MAKING YOUR COMPUTER NO LONGER DO THE ONE AND ONLY THING IS IS MEANT TO DO, WHICH IS MANIPULATE INFORMATION AT THE BEHEST OF ITS MASTER". Or something like that. It is a mathematically broken concept that does nothing at best and harms those who come into contact with it at worst.

Ultimately, you are not paying your share in their creating it. That already happened. You're paying for the NEXT game. Why, aside from people lacking in vision, such as yourself, do we need a gigantic, technologically obsolete publishing middleman to process that transaction for us? Because that's what you're used to? Because that's all you've ever known? Because you really believe that executives are more qualified to judge what gamers will want next then the gamers themselves are?*

As it stands now, paying full price for a game you love is no guarantee that the creators will see any funding for their next game. Even though it's your money, someone else gets to decide what it will be spent on next. Sure, a small portion of it often goes to fund the efforts of the creative teams whose last game you bought, but ultimately, that's really just a coincidence, and it's never more than a small percentage of the total amount you spent. The rest goes to making games you don't like. How fair is THAT?

*I have to admit that this occasionally turns out to be true

Re:Well the problem (2, Insightful)

notknown86 (1190215) | about 4 years ago | (#33471672)

You make it sound like quality is directly proportional to cost.

It is not, which is why 90% of commercial movies, bands, software, etc in the mainstream suck so bad.

To your video game example. How about interlaced advertising as a model? Works for TV.

My argument against copyright laws is this: if they disappeared overnight, movies would still be shot; musicians would still make music; software would still be written by programmers; and yes, video games would still be created. Because all of these things are fun to someone, somewhere. Those people tend to be the true artists, and will make these things, even if the cash incentive was removed completely. Which it does not need to be, but it could easily be *reduced*.

The only question then - are we willing to slash the amount of money? For me, the answer is yes - because I'm damn sick of this blockbuster mentality that pervades most of my entertainment. Give me the work product of an artist vs the work product of a corporation any day.

Re:Well the problem (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33471960)

You know I hear that, but I don't see it. Seems like there aren't a whole lot of game companies willing to work for free. The free games out there are few and far between, and by and large quite pathetic. Everyone seems to assume that people will just create for free forgetting that people also have to eat, pay rent, those kind of things. Plus it is not feasible except extremely rarely to complete a large work by themselves. Takes too much time, too many skill sets. Well when there's no money, no company, then it is much harder to pull that all together.

Heck you even see that in open source. When people name the big projects that work well, like Firefox, you discover a great many have financial backing. A company is interested in paying for it which is why it is so organized.

If you think games should cost less, well then buy only cheap ones. There are indy titles that cost a lot less. However you can't then bitch that they should be more polished, more in depth, have better writing, better graphics, etc. If you want the game that three guys knock out at home, well you get that quality. If you want the more major title, have to pay for it.

Personally I think games are great. I buy something like Dragon Age for $50. A single play through takes like 40 highly entertaining hours. Even if I only played it once that is a bit more than a buck an hour to be amused. As it turns out it is quite replayable, I've probably played it 120 hours or so. That is just 40 cents an hour or so. Rather good rate in my opinion.

We all have to make money somehow, and if you want people to spend more time on their talents, you have to pay them. I may do computer or network support in my off hours, but only if you are a friend and only if I feel like it and only if I decide the problem doesn't take too much time. However when I get paid for it, I'll do what it takes to fix the issue. I only work at it 40 hours a week because someone is paying me. I wouldn't go and do that just for fun.

Re:Well the problem (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33471710)

#3 is already what we have. Buy any game for PS3 or 360, toss in it and see how many patches they need. This is for consoles that normally have less patches than the PC versions.

Re:Gee, what a concept (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | about 4 years ago | (#33471144)

Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.

In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.

Re:Gee, what a concept (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471200)

In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.

In other words, since I would get screwed in that deal, I want everyone else to get screwed too.

Re:Gee, what a concept (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | about 4 years ago | (#33471274)

Are you paying your musicians to perform on stage, or are you paying them so they can keep composing? When an artist you like asks for donations to record his next album, you have a choice: either pay or not pay. If you don't pay, the album won't be created in the first place. The idea is that musicians need to learn to interact with their audience and make them want to give them money, not demand payment from their ivory tower.

Re:Gee, what a concept (3, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33471754)

Yet, that music would still be played. I make beer, cider, wine, paint and produce lots of other stuff that no one pays me to make. I give most of it away as I could never use it all. I still even have a day job. We would be far better off with more people creating art/music/culture and them making less money at it. You might still have a few big stars, but not everything is done for love of money.

Re:Gee, what a concept (4, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 4 years ago | (#33471774)

Its only in the last 200 years or so that we have had the idea that musicians should make money for a recording of their performance. Perhaps that was the real mistaken concept, and filesharing/easily created copies of musical recordings are merely bringing things back to normal.

In other words, only musicians who play the kind of music that you like to listen to should make a living at their music. Those of us who like to listen to music that cannot be easily or cheaply played at live performances should be out of luck.

Yep. Sounds like he's saying that if your music isn't that popular and the musicians can't make a living at it, maybe they should just play anyway because they love it. Music, for many of us, is a hobby - a passion.

i would like you to stop watching tv (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 4 years ago | (#33472382)

because as soon as tv came along, all of my favorite radio dramas went off the air

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_drama [wikipedia.org]

so television obviously means the death of creativity. plus, i want to hold all of technological change hostage because my favorite media is not working the way it worked before new media came along

you are forcing my favorite form of artistic expression to die, just because you want to watch tv. that is so unfair of you, why should i be out of luck just because your new media came along and killed by beloved radio dramas? why does television mean that radio drama actors can't make a living anymore?

Re:Gee, what a concept (1)

Jarik_Tentsu (1065748) | about 4 years ago | (#33472370)

While I do hold your point of view, one could also argue that for thousands of years there was no way *to* enjoy someone's works *except* Live. You had to go to a live performance to hear someone's work. While now, you can enjoy their work at home, in the car, wherever...and in fact, a very small portion actually go to watch it live.

I am in agreement though. I think they should view recordings as advertisement for gigs really. Make money off commercial licensing royalties and performances.

Not even because of what is 'right' and 'wrong', but more on what is the only real viable commercial model they have now. No one is gonna stop file sharing - they need to get used to it.

File sharing is already legal (3, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | about 4 years ago | (#33470944)

Please don't confuse file sharing with illegal distribution of copyrighted material on peer-to-peer networks.

Re:File sharing is already legal (4, Informative)

Andorin (1624303) | about 4 years ago | (#33471044)

The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.

Re:File sharing is already legal (2, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | about 4 years ago | (#33471496)

The distinction is both important and meaningless. File sharing itself is not illegal, but the term is usually applied to what the protocols are used for: copyright infringement. It's a much less loaded term than "piracy" when used in a formal sense.

You can make the argument that piracy is too harsh a word for individual copyright infringment, but you could also make the argument that "file sharing" in the context of infringement is basically a way of legitimizing something illegal... a kind of PR. Calling it file sharing is a bit like calling illegal aliens "undocumented workers". It's a kind of spin.

Re:File sharing is already legal (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | about 4 years ago | (#33471104)

Beat me to it :)

I predict... (1)

bragr (1612015) | about 4 years ago | (#33471070)

that as soon as they start moving towards that, lobby groups start leaning on their governments, who will start leaning on the Brazilian government, which will quickly do an about face. Gotta love those international trade agreements.

Mmm, (2)

Iburnaga (1089755) | about 4 years ago | (#33471122)

I suddenly feel very Brazilian right now. I wonder if they need Chemists in Brazil...

Re:Mmm, (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | about 4 years ago | (#33471504)

Troll? Mods have lost it. :/

Re:Mmm, (2)

Iburnaga (1089755) | about 4 years ago | (#33471622)

Oh well I'm on the darkside now. Feels kind of...sinister in a good way.

Re:Mmm, (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471856)

LOL, don't let it worry you, it just confirms what we know about moderators here. :-)

moD up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471176)

chronic abuse of all; 1n orde9r to go

Never heard that about legalizing file sharing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33471432)

I'm a Brazilian, almost always connected, and I've never heard anything about legalizing file sharing. I very much doubt it.

Spanish (1)

dandart (1274360) | about 4 years ago | (#33471472)

I hear the Spanish have this already. Their policy is to add a premium to MP3 players, phones, computers etc of a few euros, so that they can download any copyrighted music to it and play it for free whilst paying for it using the premium! Clever, huh?

Taxes (1)

hagnat (752654) | about 4 years ago | (#33471730)

yay, more taxes for me to pay as an excuse for the government to justify the media corporations why it fail so bad to fight music piracy... i hope they stop the annoying anti-piracy commercials after that

mod me troll if you want, but as a brazilian i am not that happy about this piece of law which adds more taxes than we already have to pay

Re:Taxes (2, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 4 years ago | (#33471832)

How exactly can the government be expected to "fight music piracy" any better?

I would expect that in any reasonable society protecting a government granted monopoly from noncommercial infringement would rank pretty low on the scale of stuff to worry about. I would expect in a society with as bad a wealth distribution, and all that entails, as Brazil would make that even lower on the scale of stuff to worry about.

levy (2, Interesting)

bigdavex (155746) | about 4 years ago | (#33472098)

Also, there is a big push underway, with widespread support -- even from some artists groups -- to legalize file sharing in exchange for a small levy (~$1.74/month) on your broadband connection.

Fuck that. I don't infringe copyright. Don't steal my money. No new, undiscovered band is going to see this money. It's no different than taking money from the subscribers and giving it to Microsoft, because someone might download MS Office.

waitaminute (1)

uniquegeek (981813) | about 4 years ago | (#33472138)

This is the country my brother just moved to... and he had to ditch all his LEGAL DVDs because they were the wrong country code, and would be illegal there.

This is old news for Canada... (1)

gagol (583737) | about 4 years ago | (#33472246)

We have a levy tax from like over ten years. Every blank media, Ipod, hard drive have a small levy tax. I known artists and they receive checks every three months based on their share of album sales. What that means, artists receive their fair share of money AND you cannot get sued if you, or your children, happen to download music. Learn more from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy [wikipedia.org] . Winter have it's advantages!

"US Diplomatic Pressure" (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | about 4 years ago | (#33472270)

It's sad that the word "diplomacy" was once associated with peace and understanding. In this country, it's synonymous with bullying and threats.

The truth about copyright (4, Informative)

devent (1627873) | about 4 years ago | (#33472304)

Was copyright invented by writers and artists, to protect themselves?
No. Actually, it was invented by publishers, to preserve an information ownership monopoly based on a government censorship policy.
Do musicians, writers, and artists depend on copyright to earn a living?
The vast majority of musicians, writers, and artists will never see a dime of copyright royalties in their lives.
Is copying a copyrighted work the same as stealing it?
If I steal your bicycle, now you have no bicycle. If I copy your song, now we both have it.
Would creativity dry up without copyright?
If there had been no worthwhile or enduring artistic work produced before copyright, this would be a more plausible argument. But the world before modern copyright was hardly a barren cultural desert: Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, J.S. Bach, Li Bo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Michelangelo...

Inform yourself on http://questioncopyright.org/faq [questioncopyright.org] , as a bonus you can download a free movie Sita Sings the Blues [questioncopyright.org]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>