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!

Denmark Now Supports EU Copyright Term Extension

Unknown Lamer posted more than 3 years ago | from the public-domain-considered-harmful dept.

EU 145

airfoobar submitted an editorial by Bernt Hugenholtz. From the article "Bad news from Denmark. According to an official press release, the Danish government has changed its position and now endorses the European Commission's proposal to extend the term of protection for sound recordings. Since Denmark was part of a fragile blocking minority in the European Council, there is a danger now that the EU Presidency will try to push through the proposal within a matter of weeks."

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

No comments? (1)

Svippy (876087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35749982)

Posted by Unknown Lamer? I sense a conspiracy against my country!

Obligatory.... (4, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35749986)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Re:Obligatory.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750010)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K!

Re:Obligatory.... (4, Interesting)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750212)

Did you look at the date of the press release? February 24th 2011. It is more than a month ago, and so far very little has been in the Danish media on the subject. Something is indeed rotten ...

Eternal Copyright (1)

queenb**ch (446380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750252)

So lets just all copywrite and trademark everything until we end up using Orewellian "Double plus good" because "awesome" has been copywrited until the end of time.

Re:Eternal Copyright (1)

Zumbs (1241138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750654)

What do you mean "Double plus good" is not copyrighted?!

Re:Obligatory.... (1)

jopsen (885607) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751028)

Did you look at the date of the press release? February 24th 2011. It is more than a month ago, and so far very little has been in the Danish media on the subject. Something is indeed rotten ...

Well, did you take the time to write a letter in a newspaper ?
- It's not fair to cry about the lack of public debate if you're not willing to start it..
And unfortunately we can't expect politicians to hang out on slashdot...

Anyway, are we doing anything about this? do politicians even know that we care? Perhaps we (Danish slashdot users) should do something... ideas?

Re:Obligatory.... (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752982)

Did you look at the date of the press release? February 24th 2011. It is more than a month ago, and so far very little has been in the Danish media on the subject. Something is indeed rotten ...

Well, did you take the time to write a letter in a newspaper ? - It's not fair to cry about the lack of public debate if you're not willing to start it.. And unfortunately we can't expect politicians to hang out on slashdot... Anyway, are we doing anything about this? do politicians even know that we care? Perhaps we (Danish slashdot users) should do something... ideas?

I'd start by finding out which specific politicians are responsible for this and, more importantly, what means were used to convince them to change their minds. Follow the money back to whatever organization bribed them and then shout it from the rooftops. Embarrass the hell out of them.

No slur intended upon your government, by the way. I'm American, and our political leaders sold themselves (and us) down the river some time ago. So whenever I hear that the content industry has won another round, I have a pretty good idea how they did it.

Re:Obligatory.... (0)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750430)

And has been, ever since they turned to Fascism back in 2001.

Re:Obligatory.... (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750468)

Sorry . . . Fascism has been copyrighted, trademarked, and patented. Nobody can use it anymore.

Does not benefit the majority (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750502)

This change was made because the right people were bribed and/or threatened.

Humanity's single greatest embarrassment is their complete incompetence at self-governance.

Re:Humanity's single greatest embarrassment... (1)

VirginMary (123020) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751186)

Humanity's single greatest embarrassment is their complete incompetence at self-governance.

And here I thought it was religion, given the fact that the majority of mankind believes in an imaginary all-powerful entity that cares what they do and then bothers to punish or reward them based on whether they follow different sets of rules based on which particular flavour of superstition a given individual subscribes to.

Re:Humanity's single greatest embarrassment... (1)

Baseclass (785652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751846)

At the very least religion seems to make for effective conditioning in that healthy skepticism and logical reasoning don't appear to be valued by society at large (at least in the US). Alas, questioning authority is frowned upon by a sizable portion of the population.

Re:Obligatory.... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750784)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I think the takeaway is that there are greedy assholes and lickspittles who will do their bidding at the expense of their fellow citizens, everywhere.

Re:Obligatory.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750868)

Someone just got rich in the state of Denmark.

Re:Obligatory.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751886)

I'm sorry, but that phrase is copyrighted by the estate of William Shakespeare in perpetuity, and you have to pay a license fee to use it.

[or would, if this forever-extending copyright law insanity was around in the 1600s]

Another extension? (1)

mpeskett (1221084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35749994)

Well, that certainly sounds necessary to encourage artists to create. Not redundant or counter-productive at all.

Re:Another extension? (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750102)

Of course it does. What's to stop people waiting 50 years then getting my cds for free eh?

Protect the artists' rights!

Protect Sarcasm!

Re:Another extension? (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750236)

Well what motivation would they have to create if they couldn't be assured that their ancestors will be able to make money off of it until the heat-death of the universe? It takes a long time for artists to make their money back you know. Do you expect them to turn a profit within just a decade or two? Don't forget the poor starving record companies need to get their 80-97% cut first, and what would artists do without them in this age of dirt-cheap digital distribution and viral marketing?

Re:Another extension? (2)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750292)

Well what motivation would they have to create if they couldn't be assured that their ancestors will be able to make money off of it until the heat-death of the universe?

I presume you're implying that they'll invent time-travel, and that will in turn require the use of very strange verb conjugations.

Re:Another extension? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750498)

Holy shit it took me forever to see that I said "ancestors," and now I can't even think of the word I should be using. I need a vacation.

Re:Another extension? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750596)

Oh, "descendants," that was it.

Re:Another extension? (2)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750608)

I think the word you were looking for is Freeloa... er... Descendants.

Re:Another extension? (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752988)

I think the word you were looking for is Freeloa... er... Descendants.

"Parasites" works as well.

Re:Another extension? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750622)

They should extend copyright back to the 16th century. That will encourage Shakespeare to write more classic plays like Hamlet.

70 years?! (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750002)

Anything older than a decade is ancient!

Re:70 years?! (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750180)

What are you, some kind of pedophile? My daughter is a decade old, thank you very much!

Re:70 years?! (2)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750308)

Yes, in fact, I prefer things young. Like, meat. I like my ham to be well under a decade old; it has a funny taste to it after 70 years. Even 4 years old is a huge stretch for me. Or dogs, I'm not sure I'd go for a 12 year old dog, or a 25 year old one; maybe 1-2 years, 3 or 4 if I find a used one at a shelter somewhere. I am definitely not into the resale of children; I dislike children actually, but if I were to have one of my own it would have to be rather fresh, in fact brand new, probably make my own.

Re:70 years?! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750354)

I dislike children actually.

Have you tried them slathered in barbecue sauce and slow-roasted over an open spit?

Re:70 years?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750460)

I dislike children actually.

Have you tried them slathered in barbecue sauce and slow-roasted over an open spit?

Curried.

Kind of tastes like .... goat.

Re:70 years?! (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750914)

I don['t recall having tried that particular method, but Johnathon Swift had some rather good recipes that at the very least work wonderfully for Irish children. I would recommend trying all of them out before one makin a blanket statement about not liking children.

Re:70 years?! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750942)

There you go... Anybody that doesn't like children has obviously never had them prepared properly!

Re:70 years?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35752256)

I doubt the FDA would approve that recipe...

Re:70 years?! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752996)

I dislike children actually.

Have you tried them slathered in barbecue sauce and slow-roasted over an open spit?

"Children? Of course I like children. I prefer mine boiled." -- W.C. Fields

Re:70 years?! (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750324)

I'm sorry to hear that. You should probably start looking into life insurance.

Re:70 years?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750578)

The music industry is full of pedophiles though. Do you think normal people would market sexually-charged songs performed by sluts and pervs otherwise?
You can be jailed for telling a minor what a condom is but it's perfectly OK to promote Ke$ha and the likes to kids.

Seriously, we JAIL pedos in Europe. Music Industry, STAY THE FUCK OUT. I'll be glad to press charges for soliciting a minor the moment the CEO of a record company crosses the border of my country. Because I really, honestly, think the reason they advertise Britney Spears on TV, between cartoons, is to get my 8 year-old daughter to loosen her morals and become an easier victim to abuse.

Re:70 years?! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750872)

Your rant is a little over the top, but I honestly believe the reason most record company execs don't want to give up control of the advertising and distribution of music is that with direct artist to consumer sales, these aging has-beens would no longer have any chance whatsoever of getting blowjobs from aspiring Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake wanna-bes. I don't think it's about economics, and the marketing of prefab boy bands preteen female vocalists can't possibly make economic sense -- their audience doesn't have any income!

Re:70 years?! (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753000)

and the marketing of prefab boy bands preteen female vocalists can't possibly make economic sense -- their audience doesn't have any income!

No, but their parents do.

ratchet effect (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750014)

We're clinging to the status quo, occasionally slipping. The long-term trend is clear. We **never** push things back the other way. We never even try, and we certainly don't succeed.

Re:ratchet effect (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750790)

Despite being offered by an AC, his point actually merits serious consideration. He's right -- we're slipping further and further back, and no right-thinking people actually do anything to counteract these terrible laws. Does nobody care?

Re:ratchet effect (1)

raptor_87 (881471) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750836)

People do care, but most of the response has been to release things with highly permissive licenses (GPL, CC, etc).

The money, Lebowski? (1)

TehNoobTrumpet (1836716) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750048)

Question is...who bribed and who got bribed?

When limits mean nothing (2)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750050)

At some point, a person should stand before a legislative committee dealing with copyright term extensions - pick a country where these discussions are happening, any one - and ask just how many more term extensions will be granted, or whether copyright terms will be made permanent de jure, not just de facto.

Re:When limits mean nothing (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750192)

and ask

Silly rabbit, only big donors get to actually talk to the legislators (and have them actually listen, anyway).

Re:When limits mean nothing (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750242)

Copyright must last at least as long as the lifetime of the corporations whose "rights" they are protecting!

Re:When limits mean nothing (2)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750408)

That was sort of what they tried in the US with Eldred v. Ashcroft, but it failed. The "nice" thing about doing copyright extensions with a finite creep each time is that it stays de jure finite while it is de facto infinite, so the people doing it never have to show their true intent as they stay within the letter of the law.

Courtesy of The Kingdom (1, Flamebait)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750080)

Danskjävlar!

Re:Courtesy of The Kingdom (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750168)

Google translate says "Dansk jävlar!" is "Danish bastards!"... in Swedish. (Two words, not one.)

Du er fucking velkommen!

Re:Courtesy of The Kingdom (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750250)

I realize it's in Swedish. The phrase is repeated many times by a Swedish character from a Danish show called Riget (or, The Kingdom in Danish). But I've always heard it translated as "Danish scum!"

Re:Courtesy of The Kingdom (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750260)

Google translate says "Dansk jävlar!" is "Danish bastards!"

Literally, it would be "Danish devils", but the meaning is bastards.

Du er fucking velkommen!

"You are Welcome" in Swedish is "var så god"

Re:Courtesy of The Kingdom (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750348)

It's better when you hear him [youtube.com] say it though...

Re:Courtesy of The Kingdom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751646)

If you do it as one word [google.com] it says Danish Devils

Re:Courtesy of The Kingdom (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751230)

I recently moved to Denmark. But the first thing that popped into my mind when reading this, was indeed to go outside and shout "Dansk jävlaaaaar!!!!". I don't think my neighbours will like me after that, though :)

Re:Courtesy of The Kingdom (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753014)

I recently moved to Denmark. But the first thing that popped into my mind when reading this, was indeed to go outside and shout "Dansk jävlaaaaar!!!!". I don't think my neighbours will like me after that, though :)

Do they like you now? If not ... go for it.

stop wasting taxpayer money (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750140)

Simply extend copyright to 700 years and be done for it for a while.

Re:stop wasting taxpayer money (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750356)

That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm sure once they have that they'll turn their attention to forcing people to pay for products they think about releasing.

Re:stop wasting taxpayer money (2)

robot_love (1089921) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750672)

Hah! I already thought of that. Your bill is in the mail.

Re:stop wasting taxpayer money (1)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750684)

Why not just make bribery legal?

Re:stop wasting taxpayer money (1)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750966)

And taxable!

Re:stop wasting taxpayer money (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751036)

You mean, like in the US? Welcome to campaign donations, lobbying and revolving door.

I somehow doubt these guys in Denmark broken the letter of the law, too...

Oblig. Heinlein (4, Informative)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750154)

"But I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am responsible for everything I do."
  ("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966)

No copyright extensions will affect me as long as P2P exists.

Re:Oblig. Heinlein (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750786)

thank you for this quote,
          this is my life motto, but I never formulated it that precisely, I think I will use it as sig.

Re:Oblig. Heinlein (2)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750830)

Incorrect. You are now a criminal. This affects you.

It's not your fault, but it is your problem. The fault is crappy laws, your problem is you are now a criminal. Sucks to be human these days.

Re:Oblig. Heinlein (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751994)

No copyright extensions will affect me as long as P2P exists.

P2P can't reach into studio vaults or libraries' rare book collections and liberate material, copyrighted or not.
A lot of our collective heritage is going to dissappear because someone doesn't want to spend the money to save deteriorating cellulose reels.

EP needs another reading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750188)

Denmark seem to have decided to go with the parliaments line, they are still not supporting the initial council proposal. If the rest of the council does not bend to the parliament's will, the EP will have a second reading, and the proposal will maybe be shot down.

Dimson (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750314)

[url-http]

Copyright terms (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750326)

At the current pace of extending copyright terms, copyrights themselves will have no meaning.

Re:Copyright terms (1)

burisch_research (1095299) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750844)

As in, the infinite team of monkeys will soon have had enough time to allow the RIAA high command to copyright every possible work? This does not seem to be out of the question, at this rate.

Re:Copyright terms (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35753038)

At the current pace of extending copyright terms, copyrights themselves will have no meaning.

No meaning relevant to their original (and in the U.S., Constitutionally-mandated) purpose, but they will still have value. Not to us, of course.

Here's my deal (5, Interesting)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750330)

As long as they keep extending it, I'll keep ignoring it. I think that's fair.

Still skullfucking Elvis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750520)

Apparently the industry just *hasn't* finished skullfucking Elvis yet, so they need another twenty years...

Bribery and corruption (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750524)

So, who was bribed to make this change ?

Remember about spain. (5, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750562)

Remember how spain was to push a draconian penalty system for filesharers, until through wikileaks it came out that u.s. government was heavily bullying and threatening spanish government to pass the bill. And when this hit the news, spanish assembly unanimously turned down the filth that originated from u.s.

I dont even suspect - im sure that there is same kind of play at work here. A government which was against what private interests in the dirtiest, rotten country of the world, switches stance out of the blue.

Re:Remember about spain. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751332)

The Danish prime minister visited one Mr. Obama [cnn.com] only a few, short weeks ago.

Also the Danish government is taking some heat from EU in other matters these days, notably on environmental issues. This may be an attempt at placating the EU by playing nice in another 'minor' issue (considering the internal political trouble the Danish government is currently facing on the home front).

you might as well talk to a wall (4, Interesting)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750592)

Probably the most powerful counterargument is that exclusive rights in sound recordings are granted for a reason. The prospect of a temporary legal monopoly acts as an incentive for the industry to invest in recording and distributing sound recordings. Logically, the term of protection should therefore be just long enough for record companies to recoup these investments.

That's the US reasoning. In Europe, control of their creations is viewed as an intrinsic right of artists and creators. Furthermore, any argument you make from the American point of view is going to be met by the deep-seated European conviction that there is no art or culture in the US that's worth protecting anyway so Americans should just keep out of these discussions. If you want to convince Europeans, you need to come up with a different argument. But, frankly, between European attitudes, corporate lobbying, and policy laundering, you might as well talk to a wall.

(Remember that the current copyright insanity originated in Europe with the Berne convention; the US refused to comply for a long time, but finally gave in in the 1970's.)

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750840)

I take it those who claim that also don't watch american movies, read american books, or listen to any american music? (I don't mean just new or popular stuff...)

BTW, what caused the US to cave in eventually? Couldn't and shouldn't the US have upheld their version of copyright indefinitely?

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (1)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751156)

I take it those who claim that also don't watch american movies, read american books, or listen to any american music? (I don't mean just new or popular stuff...)

I didn't say it was rational.

BTW, what caused the US to cave in eventually? Couldn't and shouldn't the US have upheld their version of copyright indefinitely?

You can read the history here:

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

The US needed some kind of international agreement, and the only choice was Berne, since that's what everybody else had agreed on. And the only way these agreements ever can go is that they become more restrictive and more punitive. It's the same with international agreements on drugs.

International treaties undermining liberties in individual nations is a big problem. More and more it's being used by special interests to undermine democratic decision making ("policy laundering").

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

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (1)

alendit (1454311) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751202)

You are probably right about European belief about copyright being a natural right, although i didn't think it was much different in the USA, seeing how copyright infrigement is always equated to thievery, both in Europe and in the US.

But i never met a person who'd think US works should somehow be treated differently. There is, of cause, a certain aversion to the US meddling in EU's affairs, but it come rather from....well, the US melddling in EU affairs, rather than anything other ;)

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751286)

deep-seated European conviction that there is no art or culture in the US that's worth protecting anyway so Americans should just keep out of these discussions.

Funny, they keep *buying* it.

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751442)

Don't forget that we dont really have "copyright" in the sense the USA defines it in europe.

In Europe we have moral rights, or author rights, and al the laws around it are completely different than the US versions.

E.g. a contract like this:
a) All rights to this work, including translation, adaption and derivation and any future distribution on new media (yet to discover) are transfered with here in to Company X.
b) Company X pays Mr. Y a one time fee of $10.000 ... would be completely legal in the USA.

In europe it is not (beyond scope to show all terms that are not compliant to european law)

And the typical USA question: "we have to see if that holds up in court" is a pretty strange thing in europe anyway. The law always holds up in court....

So, what are you against? You don't even know it I assume?

I as an author write a novel, I make a contract with a publisher to publish it. (In the USA he has now the copyright, in europe: NOT, he only has the right to publish this as books!)
I die.
My legal heirs inherit my copyright (in fact it would be called authors rights or moral rights).
Now the publisher mikes to make a movie deal with PIXAR to make it a kind of cartoon movie.
----> MY HIERS ---- have the copyright, he has to ask them ... in fact EVERYONE can simply ask my heirs and make a contract with them, the publisher HAS NO ISSUES/INTERFERENCE with that work beyond books.

And for fuck sake I don't see what is wrong with that. We can now ask if it is fair that copyright is extended by 75 years after the creators death.

Well, if I own a house ... and die ... my family will own it until the universe gets cold or they sell it. No one asks if it is fair that they own it still 100 years after I'm dead.

Regarding my parent: the Berne convention in fact tried very hard to make european "copyright" similar to the USA one. Luckily lots of points stood the same and backfired to the USA that they indeed adapted theirs a bit.

angel'o'sphere

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (1)

MeateaW (1988688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751916)

When I start selling your book, I am not selling YOUR book. I am selling something that LOOKS like your book.

Your example of the house is a false example.

The closest would be, if you die your heirs inherit your house.
Your heirs can't stop someone copying your house. Copying your garden layout, copying your trees. That would be nuts.

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752032)

Erm ...
you dont want to get my point but that is oki.

However, you seem not to know much about copyright.

Your heirs can't stop someone copying your house. Copying your garden layout, copying your trees. That would be nuts.

Of course they can. But that was not the point of the discussion.

angel'o'sphere

Re:you might as well talk to a wall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751948)

And for fuck sake I don't see what is wrong with that. We can now ask if it is fair that copyright is extended by 75 years after the creators death.

Well, if I own a house ... and die ... my family will own it until the universe gets cold or they sell it. No one asks if it is fair that they own it still 100 years after I'm dead.

angel'o'sphere

I can tell you what's wrong with that. If I build a house on my own property, but that happens to looks a lot like the one you built 66 years ago, those heirs are going to sue me for copyright infringement. That's what's wrong with it. Just look at what the Tolkien estate is doing. The Elvis Presley enterprises inc. or whatever it's called; Junkie XL having to go down on his knees and lick their boots to get his version of 'a little less conversation' published. It's not just about making copies of the original work. It's also about making derivative works (which are of course the sole responsibility of the new creator). If you want to keep something to yourself, keep your mouth closed. If you shout it out on a soap box in town square, it's really no longer "yours". There's a legal construct that you're the only one allowed to do certain things with this public information, but it's all out and in the open: public. The legal construct is thought up as a device that acts as a balance between what would be good for the creator, and what would be good for the partakers of this information.

The anger is that when Grandpa Joe was known as Joey, a swingin' happenin' kinda guy, Joey bought a phonogram. 33 1/3 r.p.m. it said. (p) 1961. He loved that recording to death. And every time Joey thought he could finally make a copy and give it to his friends, a new law was enacted which put that date further in the future. And further. And further. Now he's a sad, old man. The ideals he had as a 20-something back in the 60s are now crushed, replaced by the bitter understanding of how the Real World works. How ideals mean nothing. How power corrupts.

What's ex-post facto? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35750652)

So if one buys a album in 1961 when the copyright term is 20 years,
    one has an expectation that it will be in the public domain in their lifetime.

If a law later changes the rules, is that ex-post facto.

(Is the act the buying of the album, of trying to distribute it 20 years later?)

Re:What's ex-post facto? (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751580)

So if one buys a album in 1961 when the copyright term is 20 years,
          one has an expectation that it will be in the public domain in their lifetime.

Suppose you bought it as an investment, planning on selling copies starting in 1981. Could you sue the corrupt lawmakers?

30 years is enough (2)

cartman (18204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35750964)

30 years is sufficient, for two reasons. First, 30 years is sufficient time for an artist to receive payment, for most of his working career, as a result of some artistic production he created. Second, 30 years is long enough that the "net present discounted value" (at a 5% discount rate) of anything after 30 years is negligible. As a result, record companies will not make investments or produce anything or change their investment behavior now because of payments to be received after 30 years in the future.

Remember that intellectual property is not "property" in the normal sense. It cannot be stolen, for example, but only copied. Intellectual property is a construct, whereby the producers of intellectual content can be compensated for their labor. 30 years is enough time for people to be compensated for their labor, and is longer than the investment horizon of companies.

Re:30 years is enough (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751526)

You know that perhaps 90% of all creators never get payed for anything they do because they are not "discovered" by a publisher who has an idea how to make money from it?

If you say 30 years is enough then I only archive everything that I can find and after 30 years I decide on my own terms how to mak money form it. The creator never sees a dime.

Also your complete argument, intellectual property can not be stolen is complete mood.

My hieres don't care if their father worked 45 years on a ship, house, lumping wood and the family is as poor as mice in the church or if he worked on a great opera that unfortunately only got "popular" after his death.

In your idea my hieres deserve nothing. I find that wrong.

angel'o'sphere

Re:30 years is enough (1)

cartman (18204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751874)

You know that perhaps 90% of all creators never get payed for anything they do because they are not "discovered" by a publisher who has an idea how to make money from it?

This is true, but it wouldn't be any different if the term of copyright were longer than 30 years.

If you say 30 years is enough then I only archive everything that I can find and after 30 years I decide on my own terms how to mak money form it.

You wouldn't be able to make much money from it, because it would be in the public domain at that point and everyone could download a copy for free. It would be hard to charge money for things which are freely available.

My hieres don't care if their father worked 45 years on a ship, house, lumping wood and the family is as poor as mice in the church or if he worked on a great opera that unfortunately only got "popular" after his death... In your idea my hieres deserve nothing. I find that wrong.

I don't think very many artists are discovered 45 years after they produced their work. Usually, if 45 years have passed then the work has been forgotten.

Honestly I don't see why the children or grandchildren of some artist should continue to be paid for labor that was performed over 30 years ago. I am not paid for my father's labor in the 1970s. It would be one thing if the artist made a lot of money and passed along some of his money. But here, the heirs would continue to draw income for something they had no hand in producing, in addition to whatever inheritance they received. Bear in mind that consumers must pay to support the heirs' income, so your example of "a family as poor as mice" might be the family of consumers who listen to music and must pay for it.

I grant that perhaps there should be some exception for artistic productions which have extremely meager sales initially or are obscure, and then suddenly are "discovered" decades later. In that case perhaps the date of discovery should mark the beginning of the 30 year period.

Re:30 years is enough (1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752068)

I am not paid for my father's labor in the 1970s.

That only depends.

If your father cultivated a wine berg, and you happen to own it, and you are still making wine: ofc you are payed based on his work.

If your father happend to become a multi billonair, ofc you are "payed" from the interest his fortune generates.

While your post has a lot of sense: a hugh amount of /. posters who are opposing copyright (or any similar thing) are only apposing it to be able to freely copy/download shit.

They don't understand anything about the time BEFORE copyright existed, and they certainly would not want to live at such times.

angel'o'sphere

...no (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752826)

If your father cultivated a wine berg, and you happen to own it, and you are still making wine: ofc you are payed based on his work.
Your analogy is utterly misguided.
The wineberg is still growing grapes, and he is making wine. He isn't paid for his father's wineberg, he's paid for the wine he produces. His father's labour has merely created some value - a well kept wineyard , which aids in the making of wine
Unlike information, wine is matter, and as such, it is scarce - he must make more of it to sell, and customers must buy more of it, to , well, get drunk

The analogy with regular labour is more like if every family, as long as the house stands, had to pay five bucks per given time period to every one of the builders, and then their children
That's essentially what royalties are

Re:30 years is enough (1)

MeateaW (1988688) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752034)

You are really not thinking very much are you.
If you can't convince someone to pay you for something you are doing, get this, you don't deserve to get paid. I know its hard to imagine, but you don't get paid for it, period.
If you write music, and can't convince someone to pay you for it, don't give it away for free. Keep it! your heirs can try to sell it later, and get paid for it then!

If you build a boat, and can't convince someone to buy it from you. So instead you give it away. Your heirs don't get paid for it ever.. Why should they when you can't sell your music when you are alive?

Re:30 years is enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751906)

30 years is long enough that the "net present discounted value" (at a 5% discount rate) of anything after 30 years is negligible.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but: 0.9530 =~ 0.21. I don't think that's negligible!

How Is This Justified? (1)

organgtool (966989) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751104)

OK, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but can anyone tell me how this could be justified? Using U.S. copyright as an example, the first law to grant copyright was enacted in 1790 and secured an artist with 14 years of protection and one 14-year extension if the artist was still alive. It is important to note that during this time, reproduction of the copyrighted work was extremely difficult. The phonograph would not be invented for another 100 years which means that copyright essentially boiled down to 28 years of exclusive performance rights. Even once the phonograph was invented, it would take a long time to produce a sufficient quantity of records and an even longer time to ship the records to other countries. Fast forward to the year 2011 and now we allow musicians to retain copyright for 120 years. This is four times the length of time that the original copyright laws allowed and this is at a time when a song can be recorded and distributed nearly instantaneously to the other side of the planet. With such better means of distribution, how can we justify periods of copyright law that extend far beyond the average lifetime of the musician who created the works?

Of course, the answer is that corporations need to be able to milk their products for as long as they possibly can and musicians want to make sure that their children never have to work a day in their lives, so they pay to have the laws extended. Every time these laws are extended, works that should enter the public domain are taken away from us and withheld for a longer period of time. These extensions will continue until we stand up and demand copyright reform that brings us closer to the original copyright laws. With such easier means of distribution, there is no reason to offer more than that.

Movie studios own TV news (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752108)

With such better means of distribution, how can we justify periods of copyright law that extend far beyond the average lifetime of the musician who created the works?

Easy: In the government of man, he who has the gold makes the rules. The movie studios, through their ownership of television news media [pineight.com] , control who gets chosen in the primary elections. They play up Hollywood's favorite candidate (e.g. Barack Obama and John McCain) and don't let anyone proposing real change (e.g. Ron Paul) get a word in edgewise at the debates.

Some racket (1)

OutSourcingIsTreason (734571) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751210)

I wish that I too could keep getting paid for the work I did decades ago but because I don't make records if I don't do more work I don't get paid.

Maybe if I bribe enough high ranking public officials they'll take stuff that rightfully belongs to the public and give it to me too.

Actually that's part of the reason. (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | more than 3 years ago | (#35751348)

See, If your work (no matter whether you are a builder, architect, engineer, or what) would get such obscene amount of *protection* , society's economy would hurt badly , and folks would be against in a much stronger manner
It's the very fact that the things this concerns are just entertainment - music, games, some books means that absurdity like this is easier tolerated as it doesn't impinge on anything essential

Per Stig Møller has his head in the sand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751304)

Proof: "I attach great importance to the musicians have strong rights" as a basis to extend the copyright term. If he pulls his head out of the sand, he might learn that musicians aren't to benefit from this, but rather a very select group of very large companies. But everyone reading /. already knows that.

It's our task to let ordinary people know, that these large companies are trying to steal content from them that's about to become theirs. But this stealing... is that legal?
  "I will make it legal"

FOFF EU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751382)

50 years is ENOUGH. We want there recordings in public domain, not extended indefinetely.

The REAL reason! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35751422)

The REAL reason that this extension needs to be in place is because of the greatest fear of the content providers: the main-streaming of public domain, formerly commercial, music. Right now it's just not there, it doesn't exist. Can you imagine a website like Project Gutenberg where you can legally download music from the 60s? Free music from The Beatles (though scratchy and in mono)? This has to be stopped at any cost!!! Panic!!!! Before you know it there's Project Edison!!!!

Compensation (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | more than 3 years ago | (#35752242)

When you annex a house to make a road you must pay the owner. Those songs would have been mine (public property, therefore part mine) and now they won't be. I want compensation for your annexation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?