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!

Copyright Isn't Working, Says EU Technology Chief Neelie Kroes

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the pirate-party-taking-new-crewmembers dept.

EU 314

superglaze writes "Against the backdrop of governments and courts around the world ordering ISPs to block file-sharing sites, European commissioner Neelie Kroes has said people have started to see copyright as 'a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward. ... Citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it,' the EU's digital chief said, adding that the copyright system also wasn't rewarding the vast majority of artists."

cancel ×

314 comments

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

US is the problem (5, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114706)

Every other country has noticed the same thing. What is now holding back is US. In fact, even the Russian Deputy Minister of Economic Development said it's impossible to police copyright [torrentfreak.com] and noted US's hypocrisy in the issue as US itself doesn't do anything about the blatant piracy of Russian films and music. However, I doubt US will change their views about it and if I were them, I would be worried too. Much of the US industry comes from immaterial things like copyrights, patents and artificial restrictions. This is true for both entertainment industry and things like drugs and medication.

But lets not forget that back in time, this is how US got its power - they blatantly ignored European copyrights. Now others are doing the same to US, and they're suffering. What goes around.. Comes around.

Re:US is the problem (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114750)

yeah. the US sucks. bla bla bla..

Every time i read something buy this guy I think of this [xkcd.com]

Re:US is the problem (0, Offtopic)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115004)

CmdrPony is definitely a troll account. He's a subtle one though. 7 times out of 10 when I read something that sounds...off, I need only check the user who posted it and find his name.

Re:US is the problem (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115316)

Maybe he's not really trolling, maybe he's just expressing his opinion?
Now I could be completely wrong here, with a name like "CmdrPony", he's obviously playing on CmdrTaco and the whole slashdot infatuation with Ponies which does vaguely indicate that he might be trying to get a rise out of people, or it could just be a "fun" name. From reading his recent posts today, most of them seem straight up and clear, certainly with very little trolling (There is a "U mad Bro?" comment in there, however that's very obvious and not subtle).

While I'm not directly defending him, I have noticed that Slashdot lately seems to be very quick to judge people as "trolling" simply because they have an opinion that contradicts with what some people believe. I've been labelled a troll myself on more than one occasion, usually because I disagreed with the topic at hand - a good example of this is the recent debacle with Windows Secure boot, whereby many are convinced that it's simply a ploy to sell more copies of windows and block Linux, whereas I don't believe it. I might be wrong, nobody actually knows for sure the real agenda at hand and we wont until devices start shipping with Windows 8 on them, but still I got labelled a troll when personally I thought I was being reasonable.

This post, to me, does seem anything other than perhaps a bit controversial. He clearly doesn't like the US, but does that necessarily make him a troll? The US does certainly seem to be behind all the pushes for copyright enforcement and then there's things like SOPA - which most people utterly disagree with, so is his opinion really that unfounded?

Re:US is the problem (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115490)

> yeah. the US sucks. bla bla bla..

La la la I can't hear you won't help anyone.

CmdrPony might be trolling, I don't even know him/her... surely it sucks hearing over and over again that you suck, but instead of mocking those who complain, it would be better to do something. And by somethng, I mean change yourselves and not just make fun of those who question your moronic ways. This is so childish.

If you're fed up with complaints, how do you think we feel about the USA, Russia and China (and btw, those annoying dwarfs: North Korea, Israel and Iran)?

Isn't it past time you grow up? Everytime someone disagrees with you, you all throw a tantrum. And not only that, you start threatening others and find the first hapless victim in your "let's hurt them" list, which you have prepared beforehand, and make him pay for your bad mood.

Now you just come up with "I'm fed up with those who don't like US". Come on, give a break. The fact you can make pretty drawings about BS doesn't change its smell. It is still BS.

Re:US is the problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114778)

The EU doesn't think water hydrates. Do you really want to take their opinion on anything?

Re:US is the problem (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114832)

Well, in a matter of fact, if you drink PURE H2O (water only, no minerals, nothing else), then you will find out that the water actually is a poison.

Re:US is the problem (-1, Offtopic)

ardor (673957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115082)

Well, in a matter of fact, if you drink PURE H2O (water only, no minerals, nothing else), then you will find out that the water actually is a poison.

I have never seen this rumor confirmed. The minerals in ordinary water are good for your body, but that does not mean their absence kills you. Over by drinking ONLY distilled water, over a long period, symptons of mineral deficiencies may occur, but that's about it.

Re:US is the problem (3, Informative)

lordmetroid (708723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115318)

You cells will explode due to osmosis if you drink pure H2O.

Re:US is the problem (3, Informative)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115362)

It has nothing to do with nutrients.
The inbalance of soluted salt between the inside of cells (quite salty) and outside (no salt) causes water to migrate into the cell through the cell membrane until the solution is balanced for both sides of the membrane. Because water can freely pass through it, but salts usually can't, it means a cell that is surrounded by destilled water soaks up water until it bursts.

Obviously your body will try to enrich any water you drink with salts before it gets into your bloodstream. But if that fails, you are in trouble.

Re:US is the problem (3, Informative)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114960)

Before stepping in the turd of a UKip MEP you should read and digest the real story [europa.eu] .

Re:US is the problem (2)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115078)

You can make a case for the claim being misleading because it implies most people are at risk of dehydration from a normal diet., but the reason you quote is nonsense. They said that water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration because it reduces dehydration itself rather than reducing the risk of it.

Re:US is the problem (2)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115364)

No, the scientists rejected the claim because it was too closely linked to drinking bottled water.

And it was worded as a medical benefit, something that legally can only be attributed to products that are marketed (and by consequence have been certified!) as.... medicine.

Re:US is the problem (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115748)

They said that water doesn't reduce the risk of dehydration because it reduces dehydration itself rather than reducing the risk of it.

Wait, what? I mean, I get what they're saying, but are EU's advertising laws so strict that they've basically said no on a matter of semantics?

(If my statement comes across as something else, let me be clear - I am totally okay with this. There's too much BS in advertising as it is.)

Re:US is the problem (3, Informative)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115094)

Summary : the applicant said that water intake significantly deceases the risk for the disease dehydration : "the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to water and reduced risk of development of dehydration."

Causes of dehydration [wikipedia.org] :

"External or stress-related causes
Prolonged physical activity with sweating without consuming adequate water, especially in a hot and/or dry environment
Prolonged exposure to dry air, e.g., in high-flying airplanes (5%–12% relative humidity)
Blood loss or hypotension due to physical trauma
Diarrhea
Hyperthermia
Shock (hypovolemic)
Vomiting
Burns
Lacrimation
Use of methamphetamine, amphetamine, caffeine and other stimulants
Excessive consumption of alcoholic beverages
Infectious diseases
Cholera
Gastroenteritis
Shigellosis
Yellow fever
Malnutrition
Electrolyte disturbance
Hypernatremia (also caused by dehydration)
Hyponatremia, especially from restricted salt diets
Fasting
Recent rapid weight loss may reflect progressive depletion of fluid volume (the loss of 1 L of fluid results in a weight loss of 1 kg (2.2 lb)).[10]
Patient refusal of nutrition and hydration
Inability to swallow (obstruction of the oesophagus)
Other causes of obligate water loss
Severe hyperglycemia, especially in diabetes mellitus
Glycosuria
Uremia
Diabetes insipidus
Acute emergency dehydration event
Foodborne illness"

Clearly water intake does not prevent all of these, therefor water cannot be said to prevent dehydration. Water can help rehydrate a person when the underlying cause for the dyhadration has been treated though.

Re:US is the problem (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115388)

I don't think water hydrates either.

At least not in ALL cases of dehydration. And that's what the "ban" is about. That there are actually cases of dehydration where adding water to a dehydrated body makes the problem worse instead of better.

Re:US is the problem (5, Interesting)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114806)

What I don't really understand about this is that apparently the US companies who make their money off these immaterial rights tend to oppose the new lucrative markets and obstruct availability in fear off losses whereas that is what causes the losses. I am a big fan of a few select American TV Shows. I have absolutely no legal means within reason to access these programs. I would happily pay a monthly subscription to my favorite shows (Community, Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, Mythbusters, Justified, Breaking Bad, Grimm, Adventure Time, Justified, Game of Thrones and a few more) all platforms that I know of (Hulu, Netflix) are not available in my home country of Germany. iTunes is out of the question (probably geo-restrictions apply to this as well). So I would gladly pay a good deal of money to get quality access to these shows but the "copyright" prevents me from giving these people my money. I could spend money on the DVD box sets if they are eventually released but usually I will watch the episodes once and that's it so I'm not really in the market for plastic discs. I am the threat these people always refer to but I am precisely part of the solution only they refuse to cater to the markets available.

Re:US is the problem (5, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114926)

I am the threat these people always refer to but I am precisely part of the solution only they refuse to cater to the markets available.

You are not part of the solution. The beancounters estimate the profit of entering new markets before a decision to do so gets made. In many cases, it isn't worth it for those companies. Not because they could make a tiny amount of money from you, but because everything else, legal issues, tax issues, capital investments, required company resources, opportunity cost from not doing something else instead, even lower prices through increased competition, etc. Call that the inconvenience factor.

That's the problem with capitalism. It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit. The fact that you have money to spend is irrelevant if the inconvenience factor is too high. There's a sweet spot at any moment in time, and you're not part of it.

Get over it, and do what you have to do, just like they do what they have to do.

Rent-seeking (5, Informative)

srussia (884021) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114982)

Not because they could make a tiny amount of money from you, but because everything else, legal issues, tax issues, capital investments, required company resources, opportunity cost from not doing something else instead, even lower prices through increased competition, etc.Call that the inconvenience factor. That's the problem with capitalism. It isn't about trading with the most number of people, it is about maximizing profit.

Actually, it's not that they can make less money from certain markets, but rather they can make more in others thanks to rent-seeking [wikipedia.org]

Re:US is the problem (3, Interesting)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115552)

Physical stores in the USA used to be difficult to buy from too. An international transfer was scary, and filling out a shipping form too hard. That's changed in a big way over the last few years and lots of folks are making money selling things outside the country... you know, exporting... bringing new money into the economy... offsetting debt and stuff...

Hopefully these guys will eventually realise their bean counters estimated wrong and opening their markets to billions of new customers is actually a good idea.

Re:US is the problem (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114948)

Mexican here, Netflix isn't available for Linux, Hulu is but it isn't available in Mexico. Happy times.

Re:US is the problem (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115304)

Yet TPB works everywhere, isn't that nice? the problem i have is they will NOT sell you want you want. all I want is to buy an .avi file, that's all. my dad has a nice little Nbox to watch his movies on so he doesn't have to hunt for DVDs and if they would sell .avi I would be gifting them to dad, and dad would be buying every movie and TV show he'd ever liked. but instead you have to go get a DVD, rip the DVD, transcode the DVD, all just to get the .avi...or you can go to TPB and skip all the bullshit.

As much as I hated his character on TNG I have to say Wil Wheaton was right, he said "make it simple, make it easy, give people what they want and they'll buy" and then gave as an example him buying a bunch of Dr Who episodes and then crossing the border into Canada and now he can't watch what he has already paid for and he said 'If I would have just downloaded it they would have worked". And that is the problem, their shit just don't cut it. I'm supposed to go buy a portable DVD burner just so i can legally watch movies that I have bought on my netbook? Fuck off media companies, Keep your damned DRMed shit or hoop jumping and just sell me a damned .avi already!

Re:US is the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115016)

Hear, hear. I have this same problem. I don't understand why national boundaries are being imposed on a medium that has no boundaries. Imagine how much more money can be made if you expanded your customer base globally.

Re:US is the problem (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115214)

Music labels did that for music through iTunes but people was used to consume music by going to the store to buy a CD. Videos are different: they are also consumed by buying DVDs but many people just watch TV, rent a DVD or go to cinema. Plus you need subtitles or dubbers. Do you want to coordinate all of them from the USA or leave it to local enterprises? There are many more intermediaries that won't be happy if you cut them off the business but you still need them to get your shows on TV and your movies into theaters. You'd gain money for direct distribution over the Internet but you'd lose some for losing access to those other channels with the added bonus of turning those friends into enemies. Hardly a best practice but that would work if all video producers agree to do it at the same time: the local distributors could feel like not working with them anymore to retaliate against Internet distribution but what would be left for them to distribute? Anyway, demand drives business so there we'll go sooner or later. It think "later" because they'll have to wait until downloading a few GB will be a few minutes matter for all of us (think of slow connections and bandwidth caps). When that happens people buying from local stores won't be a large market anymore, but the problem of subtitles and dubbing will still be there.

Re:US is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115634)

Music labels did that for music through iTunes but people was used to consume music by going to the store to buy a CD. .... Plus you need subtitles or dubbers. Do you want to coordinate all of them from the USA or leave it to local enterprises? ....

There is still a big market outside the USA for the original movies thus without the subtitles or dubbers. But even these are not available outside the USA. Not even from the iTunes store. It is even worse, much music available in the USA version of iTunes is not available from the non USA versions of iTunes. This makes absolutely no sense to me. I can buy cd's and dvd's from the USA version of Amazon. Why can this not also be true for digital downloads? It is because the publishers want to 'protect' their own markets. The net effect however is that out of frustration even the 'law abiding citizen' turns to alternatives like TPB.

Re:US is the problem (1, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115418)

I have absolutely no legal means within reason to access these programs.

So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.

And you DO have the ability to see them. Move to the counties where they are broadcast. The fact that you are not willing to pay that price is very understandable. However you do not have any RIGHT to see them if they are not willing to show them.

If you make a movie of your kid during a holiday sitting on a swing, I also do not have the RIGHT to see that movie. Not even if you show it to all your friends and family.

The fact that you do not do it for money and they do does not change the right to see it.

The problem with copyright is not so much the right to copy. It is the duration of that right of that right and the way it is handled in law by e.g. asking way much more then the actual value. And it is COPYright not ABLE_TO_SEE_ITright.

Re:US is the problem (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115530)

What kind of right? Legal? Irrelevant. Moral? Debatable.

Re:US is the problem (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115558)

It's not so easy to just move countries... The process is costly and not open to everyone, hence why you have so many illegal immigrants in various places.

Also you could argue that offering something on the internet, and then adding arbitrary restrictions based on the country a user is based in amounts to racism.

And yes, the more ridiculous and draconian copyright laws become the more people will feel justified in ignoring them.

Re:US is the problem (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115562)

So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.

Copyright grants the author the exclusive distribution right to their work in exchange for publication. If they are not publishing their work, then they should lose the exclusive distribution right.

Re:US is the problem (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115568)

I have absolutely no legal means within reason to access these programs.

So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.

Who said anything about a "human right to watch TV"? You're creating an absurd straw man.

The OP, like myself, feels there has been no reasonable legal method ot access these shows provided. So I feel no compunction in using methods that are illegal, according to some American companies and their lackeys in government. I know I'm not harming the owners (who aren't the same as the creators) of these shows, despite their absurd claims of untold billions in losses.

Legally, I'm wrong. Morally, I have not a twinge of guilt.

A human *right* to see? (4, Insightful)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115606)

So you don't see them. I am against copyright (as it exists now) but at least I am aware that it isn't a human right to see them.

Why wouldn't it be? The world is divided in countries. And within countries (or groups of those like EU), people have the right to decide for themselves, what are their rights, and what not.

So suppose I come to the US, and record a TV show for personal use (allowed per US law I assume). Then go to country XYZ, bringing that recording with me (still okay I presume). And then copy that recording million-fold, selling it on streetcorners, IF that's allowed by country XYZ's laws (because people in country XYZ decided for themselves that should be okay). Would that be 'wrong'? Should I feel guilty there for 'ripping profits' from the TV show makers?

The way I see it, the problem is not one country (like the US) having too extreme copyright laws, it's in the US trying to force the same upon the rest of the world (through trade agreements or whatever means available). Sure US people should be allowed to have laws in place that seem ridiculous to other countries, but what right does the US have to prevent people elsewhere from using content they get their hands on, once it lands within that country's borders? IMHO: none. And other countries are really stupid to let this crap get shoveled into their face, acting like sheep in a US-led flock. Note that I'm not trying to bash the US here, it's just that the US seems to be the prime driving force behind 'intellectual property' at the moment. The same would hold true for any country trying to force similar things on other countries.

For example the Chinese seem to have a general lack of respect for 'intellectual property', does that make them 'bad'? I think not, they make their own decisions as a nation - and I'd say copying & reproducing things without 3rd country's permission seems to have worked well for them. Same argument goes for countries that are really poor, ignore patents & copy medicines to help a large swat of their population. Ignoring those patents isn't 'bad' - patent-holding medicine companies squeezing money for live-saving medicines out of those poor folks, is. Especially since that behavior doesn't affect their bottom line anyway - if the people are poor enough, they wouldn't be able to pay up. Even if priced friendly: any more than production-cost still causes people to not spend that money on other bare necessities. But since it might be a numbers game, every step to have that poor country respect the companies' patents, will cause (unnecessary) suffering / lost lives. I can't help to feel disgust towards those folks that have only profit in their mind...

Yes it's good content creators get rewarded if society benefits a lot from their work. But IMHO current copyright regimes simply aren't the way to do that (at least if that would be the primary purpose, it's obviously failing to do as intended). And to lawmakers pushing ever harder punishments because 'that would be good for society' : f**k off, you idiot. Only thing you are supporting is the ??AA mafia.

Re:US is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115486)

my favorite shows (Community, Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson, Mythbusters, Justified, Breaking Bad, Grimm, Adventure Time, Justified, Game of Thrones and a few more)

"a few more"? You mean like... Justified?

Re:US is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115550)

What I don't really understand about this is that apparently the US companies who make their money off these immaterial rights tend to oppose the new lucrative markets and obstruct availability in fear off losses whereas that is what causes the losses.

Those companies are run by people who can easily reward themselves for short term gain. Using large investments for long term gain is a risky and relatively thankless gesture in most content companies.

it's a global problem (5, Interesting)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115524)

Much of the US industry comes from immaterial things like copyrights, patents and artificial restrictions. This is true for both entertainment industry and things like drugs and medication.

So does much of Europe's industry.

But lets not forget that back in time, this is how US got its power - they blatantly ignored European copyrights. Now others are doing the same to US, and they're suffering. What goes around.. Comes around.

What a brilliant stroke of anti-Americanism: you hold the US responsible first for fighting draconian European copyrights, then for learning its lesson, building businesses around them, and enforcing them.

But in actual fact, the companies advocating copyright are international: companies like Bertelsmann and Sony are a big part of this. Europe just extended its copyright terms to "protect" the Beatles.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/14/european-union-extends-beatles-copyright-still-gonna-have-to-b/ [engadget.com]

Trying to change IP laws by blaming America for everything isn't just factually incorrect, it is ineffective because it misses the source of problem.

Re:it's a global problem (2)

Teancum (67324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115806)

Considering that many of the changes to American copyright laws have been to address "conformity" to European copyright laws (especially the concept of automatic copyright upon publication and the "Life+term" philosophy), I have a hard time shedding a tear when it comes to European copyright being pushed along as well.

The problem isn't America, but the big corporate lobbyists and major media companies that are the problem. Many of the changes in copyright laws over the past 50 years or so really haven't been for consumer protection or even encouraging the ordinary content developer (author, composer, musician, programmer, artist, etc.) from creating new works but rather to help maintain monopolies over distribution or even preventing new content developers from entering the marketplace.

At least in America, the stated constitutional goal of copyright legislation is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". I wonder how successful most copyright legislation actually achieves that ultimate goal, or if the "useful arts" really are being promoted at all?

Probebly because that is what is has become? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114742)

Probebly because that is what is has become?

Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (5, Interesting)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114786)

European commissioner Neelie Kroes has more brain cells that I had anticipated. That was indeed a Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes. A breath of fresh air.

While it may be good to hear it, there are laws behind the current situation. And that is what we live with. Copyrights, patents, trademarks etc have their use a long as they are not abused from either party.

It is good to hear a Commissioner express and put the facts on the table. But how do we move on? I have no quick answer to that.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (5, Interesting)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114884)

She's the one who fined Microsoft billions to the point where Microsoft finally said "uncle" and gave the Samba team the specs they were looking for.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (5, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115424)

I remember when she got the job, I thought she would be allowing companies all that they wanted to be allowed. Luckily I was wrong.

If all politicians had at least 10% of her common sense, the world would not be in the shit hole we are now.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115792)

Politicians actually have a lot more common sense than we give them credit for.

Like how much a big greedy corporation can pay them than a voter.

Their hearts are broken. Their heads are just fine.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (0, Troll)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115128)

Too bad nobody takes the European Commission seriously anymore. The recent economic troubles have shrunk whatever credibility and influence the Commission had to subzero values. Now the people who matter are the national leaders, and the statements of the EU bureaucrats and MPs have completely dissolved in the noise.

Cameron wants to make the union "freer", Merkel wants to review the Lisbon treaty and who knows what Sarko will come up when her translator wakes up and we learn what's on her mind.

Maybe it is smarter to pay more attention to what happens in the larger EU countries, not listen to what the near-defunct EU bureaucracy is saying.

European commission is important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115144)

European commission is important. Wikipedia:

"The European Commission is the executive body of the European Union. The body is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and the general day-to-day running of the Union."

The politicians cannot propose legislations. Thanks for that!

The European commissioners have power (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115192)

Wikipedia:

"The Commission differs from the other institutions in that it alone has legislative initiative in the European Union, meaning only the Commission can make formal proposals for legislation– legislative proposals cannot originate in the legislative branches. Under the Treaty of Lisbon, no legislative act is allowed in the field of the Common Foreign and Security Policy. In the other fields, however, Council and Parliament are able to request legislation; in most cases the Commission initiates the basis of these proposals, this monopoly is designed to ensure coordinated and coherent drafting of Union law. This monopoly has been challenged by some who claim the Parliament should also have the right, with most national parliaments holding the right in some respects. However, the Council and Parliament may request the Commission to draft legislation, though the Commission does have the power to refuse to do so as it did in 2008 over transnational collective conventions. Under the Lisbon Treaty, EU citizens are also able to request the Commission to legislate in an area via a petition carrying one million signatures, but this is not binding."

That is serious power.

Re:The European commissioners have power (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115536)

And we all see how that's worked out for them.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115520)

"Nobody" is a strong word, and as it is certainly wrong, undermines the rest of your argument.

Rgds

Damon

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115224)

She's loved by all parties here(The Netherlands) so she always has the full support when its time to get new positions out for the countries(strange system yes).

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115276)

We move on by limiting or eliminating copyright itself. A term of 7 years (maximum) would be sufficient.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115476)

I'd even allow more. Movies do have a tendency to be hideously expensive and some companies might feel that seven years is a bit too little to invest a truckload of money into. (Yes, extremely expensive movies tend to be drivel but there's a legitimate market for them.)

But I'd still say that fifteen years should be a hard upper limit, reserved for areas like movies where investments of dozens of millions of $CURRENCY are not unusual.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (5, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115574)

Movies make most of their money shortly after release, within 7 years chances are the movie has reached the point of being shown on tv and if it hasn't recouped its initial production cost chances are it never will.

Copyright terms should be strictly limited, 7 years as an absolute maximum possibly 5... Noone has the right to continue making money from something they did years ago without doing any additional work.

I would place other restrictions too, either outlaw any form of drm or require that a non encumbered version be available once the copyright expires.

Also with software, have the copyright period extend for 7 years or as long as the software continues to be actively supported, whichever is shorter, and with a requirement to release source code once the term expires.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115758)

Good arguments. Perhaps one could use longer terms to get concessions out of the content industry. They can get five years of zealously-guarded copyright, ten years of "you're on your own" or fifteen years of self-policed limited copyright with complex EULAs and DRM being explicitly forbidden.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115576)

I'd even allow more. Movies do have a tendency to be hideously expensive and some companies might feel that seven years is a bit too little to invest a truckload of money into

Really? Movies make the majority of their profits in the first week after release, with another small bump the week after the DVD release. When deciding whether to fund a film, people ask whether it will make back the investment in the opening weekend. Anything after that is expected to be pure profit. The dribble from DVD sales and rental is just a bonus.

Seven years is long enough that most people who want to see it will pay, rather than say 'well, it will enter the public domain in seven years - I'll wait.'

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115766)

Like I told the sibling, good point.

Re:Strong statement by European commissioner Kroes (2)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115510)

"Breath of fresh air" is putting it mildly, I think. Neelie Kroes is one of the few people in the EU government that I actually trust to do what is right for the voters who put her there in the first place and not only asks them for their views (as required), but actually appear to pay attention to what people say as well. I think it's fair to say, that she really gets the underlying issues of IT and comms and so far has not simply pandered to the lobbyists like some of her colleagues have so blatently done - The Register doesn't call her "Steelie Neelie [theregister.co.uk] " for nothing.

Rewards (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114788)

One day a friend of mine went to the factory where CDs are made. He asked someone from the OSA (association for authors protection) what would he get, while beeing registered under OSA, if he composed song (music and lyrics) and someone else would play it e.g. at some concert. The guy from OSA replied that nothing because those money from artistic work usage are distributed according the frequency of appearance on radio or TV. This is clearly punishing those who pay, because they would like to give their money to the composer instead to some mainstream shitty composer. Think of this story when buying clean CD's.

Re:Rewards (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115056)

It would be logistically impossible to divide the money between all artists, even the millions who just put out a track on the internet or play the odd gig down the local pub. So the only solution is to declare some point at which an artist is popular enough to matter, and just ignore anyone less popular than that. The major labels, being big enough to matter, are more than happy with this solution.

Re:Rewards (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115148)

The logical thing to do would be not to make a single entity, for whom such a situation is a logical impossibility, responsible fpr collecting fees. The current situation is a nonsense.

You can tell when you're wrong (5, Interesting)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114794)

You can tell you're wrong when attempts to follow a belief lead to obviously absurd/insane outcomes.

For the belief that data can be handled/restricted like physical objects, that absurdity became fully apparent with that new "resale your used digital music" service, and the MAFIAA (of course) suing it. Reading such nonsense forces you to ask at what point does it become impossible to deny the obvious: The existence of computers and networks between computers renders duplication of data so easy that the ideas of supply-limited economics can no longer meaningfully be applied to data?

Seriously... read that sentence again: "Resell your used digital music." And try to keep a straight face.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (5, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114896)

I think it's best to not pay for music and films at all and watch that whole industry go belly-up. They deserve it. The only people who benefit from the MAFIAA are the ones in the top of those organisations.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (4, Insightful)

Froggie (1154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114954)

Absolutely.

Of course, you could do this in the current rules is simply to stop watching and listening to them, rather than getting copies off the net.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (5, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115012)

What difference does it make? Even if people boycott them and stop watching their films, they'll still blame piracy and lobby for a law that makes everyone pay them a tax!

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115036)

And they will get that accepted and signed as well.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (1)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115828)

What difference does it make? Even if people boycott them and stop watching their films, they'll still blame piracy and lobby for a law that makes everyone pay them a tax!

And they will get that accepted and signed as well.

It's been done before you know. It'll happen again.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115090)

Well, I want to support the artists and writers and producers and actors and all those people, and want them to know that their product is being viewed by a wide audience so they can at least get income from other means (merchandise, concerts, etc), even if they don't get a check from all the unkempt piracy. If I was to just stop watching the shows, I would be hurting the people I love more than the people I hate.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115206)

I already pay the copyright tax in all HD and thumbdrive. I just get what i paid for.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115432)

Luckily we do not need to stop to music or stop buying music. There are alternatives http://bandcamp.com/ [bandcamp.com] is one of them where you can easily see the percentage that goes to the band.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115290)

"I think it's best to not pay for music and films at all and watch that whole industry go belly-up. "

Too many stupid people for this to happen. People don't work on reason

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115160)

I can keep a straight face, as I understand it to be a transfer of license, which is all reselling a cd was anyway.

A license scenario makes some sense so long as it's transferrable.

Re:You can tell when you're wrong (5, Insightful)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115244)

Too bad the "license" only applies when it suits the record company. Try snapping your favorite CD in half and asking the publisher for a replacement copy (plus S&H), since you've "purchased a license and not a physical object."

Copyrights and patents... (5, Insightful)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114822)

... are protectionism and corporate welfare of the 21st century. I think it's best to say that copyright/patents are anti-free market, anti-technology and anti-science IMHO. Not only that human beings just aren't smart enough to judge when something should be or should not be patented. It's a giant clusterfuck.

I think those who argue for them just don't want to find new business models, using the law as a business model has made one hell of a legal mess and created a ethically bankrupt legal system clogged with up with suits. I think someone should really figure out how much inefficiency this is creating and how much all this costs us in terms of the legal system. I imagine that whatever supposed 'gains' we are allegedly getting from these systems are wiped out by lawyers and the lack of free exchange/modification of ideas between products and industries.

Re:Copyrights and patents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114902)

yes anti-free market, perhaps anti-technology, not anti-science
I am free to experiment with patented ideas and copyrighted works. The only think I can't do is resell the implementation of that patented idea or distribute copies of the copyrighted work

Re:Copyrights and patents... (2)

khipu (2511498) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115542)

are protectionism and corporate welfare of the 21st century. I think it's best to say that copyright/patents are anti-free market, anti-technology and anti-science IMHO

You may think that, but such arguments are not very convincing. People will rightfully point out that all property could be viewed that way, physical or not. The fact that I own a piece of land, or a car, or a computer, and that I can keep you from using it, is ultimately just a construct and agreement protected by the state.

If copyrights and patents worked the way they were intended, there would be no reason to get rid of them. The way to attack patents and copyrights is to argue that the utilitarian tradeoff they propose isn't actually working: they do more harm than good.

But copyright IS working (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114856)

Copyright doesn't protect the little guy, yes.
Copyright doesn't restrict much the amount of pirated material people swap, yes.

But that's not what the current laws on copyright are designed to prevent, they want to make it hard to compete with established media companies and rights holders in producing and distributing stuff.

The battle is about controlling the distribution channels, to decide what people will like. It is about criminalizing as many people as possible to justify examining every single packet out your network card.

Proof? proof is that you can't put a site which distribute links, while youtube and megaupload can distribute CONTENT.

If there is a bunch of popular sites instead of a world wide web, propaganda operations can easily make some topics hot and popular.

All the rest is smoke and mirrors. Art has always been at the service of power.

Re:But copyright IS working (4, Insightful)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114900)

Copyright doesn't protect the little guy, yes.

Copyright is a powerful tool in the hands of free software authors, and a force for the public good. Obviously is used for evil as well, and current copyright duration is just offensive.

Re:But copyright IS working (5, Interesting)

Froggie (1154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114964)

Stallman himself would make the case himself that the GPL is an attempt to turn copyright against itself. It's not an argument for copyright but a means to subvert it.

Re:But copyright IS working (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114992)

I'm pretty sure he already has, but can't find the link.

All in all, non-commercial copyright (ie the kind that allows corporations to sue grandmas for allegedly copying a song) is by no means a "force for the public good" in the internet age. That's not "using it for evil", that's "it IS evil".

Re:But copyright IS working (1)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115694)

Stallman himself would make the case himself that the GPL is an attempt to turn copyright against itself. It's not an argument for copyright but a means to subvert it.

That's the beauty of a Free/Open Source software license like the GPL: it works within the system, and its strength grows right along with any bolstering of copyright law that might be done. It's like a sword that becomes bigger & stronger automatically when copyrights are strengthened.

Ideally you wouldn't need that sword in the first place. But if you do, it's nice to have a powerful one in your hands.

Re:But copyright IS working (2, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115076)

Copyright is a force for the public good? Then why does every event since its inception seem to suggest that it only makes the original situation worse? Copyright has always been abused by those with money, and those without money are rarely able to make use of it. This goes back to my knowledge as far as Edison, but I'm sure if you looked at history you'd find many earlier and many worse cases alike.

Free software will keep existing without copyright. In fact, if the pro-copyright rhetoric of software companies is to be even partially believed, it will become the standard of software. Instead of a company producing a proprietary product and selling it to other companies, the business model will become companies funding development themselves and opening it in order to benefit from the funding of other similar companies; the exact model that led to the creation of nearly all open source today. Indeed, I would argue the current system only forces duplication of effort.

There might be some issues if copyright were abolished, but the good far outweighs the bad. Sure you can take the source and make a closed product - but how are you going to complete with the continued development of the open branch? After all, BSD is still around.

There is absolutely no justification for copyright in the modern world. There never was a justification - the whole thing is based on a fictitious romantic concept of authorship. However, we now see the error in it, in a way we could not before the creation of the internet. Copyright has outlived its welcome; it must and will end.

Re:But copyright IS working (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115314)

a tool needs somebody able to wield it, free software authors have that tool but not the means to enforce copyright by themselves.

Re:But copyright IS working (5, Interesting)

Froggie (1154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114990)

I think the 'supporting the established players' argument has merits.

As a young country, the US was notorious for ignoring copyrights and patents held in older, countries during its early development. Japan had the same reputation; China is arguably just leaving this phase itself, as they've tightened their IP rules for WIPO purposes in order to more easily access other markets with their products.

It would seem that, for countries and businesses both, there's a threshold they cross where they realise the value of their ideas, if copyrighted, is worth more to them than the cost of paying for the ideas of others.

Re:But copyright IS working (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115062)

China is just tightening their laws on paper, but it remains to be seen how willing they will be to enforce those laws.

Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38114966)

Copyright was always a practical mechanism.. The basic principle still makes some degree of sense. We share the income from copyrighted works with the creator. This encourages creators, and most* people accept it as reasonably fair.

Here's where things go a bit wrong.
  • Most people online give stuff away. They've been doing so since public had access to photocopiers but now internet distribution offers genuine competition for the traditional model.
  • People see things as a zero sum game. If they're not making a profit, then nobody is making a loss. Whether this is right or not is beside the point. It's how humanity sees things. For this reason we use bittorrent without any moral qualms.
  • We keep trying to apply concepts of relatively expensive typesetting and printing to digital distribution. It was a model that worked well for records, CDs, videos, DVDs and other physical media because the basic principle is the same. Author; set-up; print; distribute. Digital distribution is different. It's a case of author; distribute. The main point being that minimal print runs of a single copy are viable and the perceived cost is essentially zero.
  • Those who approve of copyright make exactly the same mistake. They want the right to sell, lend and do anything they could with a physical copy. This doesn't make sense!. A digital copy is different. Trying to shoehorn rights that make sense for a physical copy becomes illogical. Why do I no longer have access to the copy that I clearly have? Because I "lent" it to someone. Except I didn't lend it. I still have my copy. It's just been blocked.

So, we need a completely new system. We need a way to reward artists to encourage creativity. People will create without the reward, but nowhere near as much! Nobody is going to make Avatar unless they can get a good return. I liked Avatar! But the system also needs to take into account the inherent rights that digital distribution gives us.

I have no solution. I simply want to point out that we need to understand the problem.

* If you think this is unfair, I should point out you're not "most"

Re:Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (4, Insightful)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115092)

How about we leave the problem of making a business profitable to the businesses? It is not the duty nor place of the government to ensure the creation of Avatar. If there is a will, there is a way. The goal now is to end the system that has a stranglehold on every aspect of the internet. Copyright and freedom cannot coexist any longer, something SOPA proves.

Re:Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (2)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115146)

That's not the only solution to the problem.

Most people see it as a huge social benefit that they have such a wealth of media at such a small economic cost. You seem to be taking a much more Libertarian position, which is fair enough, but it's not a position that most of the world shares. For a proposal to gain traction, it needs to be at least palatable to the majority, who do see it as the government's job to make sure that Hollywood can make blockbusters.

I should also point out, In the case of the US, there is a clause in the constitution that does make it clear that this is the place of the government.

Re:Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (4, Insightful)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115270)

Copyright doesn't need to be rebuilt from scratch - we "merely" need to do a clean reinstall of one of the early 20th century versions, with pretty much a couple of tweaks and a single major addition:

Copyright, fourteen years, twenty years if you register your work by filing a copy with the public trustee, the rights of resale and fair use respected, AND the use by a copyright holder of any system that interferes with the public's rights under copyright revokes the protection of copyright for all of their works so encumbered.

I.e. pick one, Copyright or Strong DRM, because as ideals their goals are mutually incompatible.

Re:Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (1)

Sabriel (134364) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115310)

And to reply to myself, there's the ideals of copyright - and then there's what we've ended up with instead. The sad fact is, it may well be that any copyright system we create will be corrupted by avarice.

Re:Copyright needs tobe rebuilt from scratch (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115468)

Most people online give stuff away. They've been doing so since public had access to photocopiers

It goes back further. It goes back to the songs people sing to their kids that they learned from their (grand)parents.
It goes back to the tales we told at the fire in the caves and the images that we copied in those caves.

Can you imagine? "Well Hrraahgh. I see you made an excellent image of a mammoth, but we must fine you 17.408 cows and 307 wifes for the following reason. The technique you used has a copyright on it described as 'making an image on a wall'. Also the palm you used to sign the image is not according to the trademark that Grrnarg has. Even though you have only 4 fingers and he has 5, it is close enough to confuse people. The making of fire to make the charcoal was breaking the patent law. You understand that we do this to protect the tribe."

Gollie gee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114972)

wonder why
what ohter business does someone get to create one thing then sit on there butt for more then a century sucking ( taxing) us all
LIKE YA suing people for enjoying culture, what a great ( NOT) idea.

if people that made doors had DOORRIGHT wed all be in trouble . ITS supposed to give you just enough to live on to do the next thing not for your great grand kids to sit around and get fat, nor was i think it meant for large conglomerates to buy them all up and lobby for taxation aka new copyright laws. I think if labels and large entities that hold more rights that they did not create were banned we'd see things ( terms especially) come down and the system reset it self properly as ARTISTS and CREATORS would be able to make a buck and even create off older works....

at last .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38114976)

an apparently sane and reasoned response.

Conservative-liberal supporting private enterprise (2)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115126)

Kroes is member of VVD.

Wikipedia: "The People's Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) (Dutch: Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie) is a conservative-liberal[1][2] political party located in the Netherlands. The VVD supports private enterprise in the Netherlands and is often perceived as an economic liberal party"

Hmmm. That is why she didn't look like a long-haired smelly.

Copyright works,piracy=theft,stop the hypocricy. (-1, Troll)

master_p (608214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115150)

Copyright works perfectly. The aim of copyright is to prevent an individual or company from profiting from the works of others, in order to allow the creator to enjoy the profits of their works.

Piracy is theft because piracy deevaluates the value of the digital product being pirated.

The whole attempt to abolish copyright is just big huge hypocricy. People claim copyright no longer works because they simply want to enjoy movies, songs, books and video games for free.

Politicians are attempting to ride this anti-copyright wave in order to get more publicity and more votes.

DRM-free media would never work for companies, because they would be copied all over the globe the instant they would be released, bringing profits down to almost zero.

Before the internet, before p2p networks and before bittorrent, there were almost no complaints about copyright, because piracy was untraceable: you physically copied the tapes or cds, no one could trace that. Nowadays that the goods are within a click's reach, but downloads can be traced, there is suddenly a movement against copyright!

And please, do not tell me it is for the artists. The artists are being royally screwed for as long as there is copyright, but no one gave a damn until media could be downloaded so easily.

Re:Copyright works,piracy=theft,stop the hypocricy (5, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115250)

Copyright works perfectly. The aim of copyright is to prevent an individual or company from profiting from the works of others, in order to allow the creator to enjoy the profits of their works.

I'm sure Mr Walt Disney is really enjoying the profit he's getting from his 'still-in-copyright' works, even though he died in '66.

I have no trouble with people profiting off their works for a few years. What I have trouble with is:

1. Copyrights being extended long long long past 'a few years' (Mickey Mouse is still under copyright, since 1928).

2. Stupid enforcing of copyrights in regions where its not avaliable anyway.

3. Copyright as a purely money making process. "Happy Birthday to you" (written in the 1800s) still brings money for the copyright holder.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1111624 [ssrn.com] - who by the way is not the creator.

Yes, you did something clever. Yes enjoy it. But then let the rest of us enjoy it after you're done.

Re:Copyright works,piracy=theft,stop the hypocricy (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115404)

Piracy is theft because piracy deevaluates the value of the digital product being pirated.

Ummmm, what does robbery and violence conducted on the seas have to do with binary digits?

Anyway. You are wrong. Here's why:

By arguing that there is a loss of value, you presume that a person obtaining an unauthorized copy would have spent money to buy the original in the first place. This is not universally true. Some might have bought it, whereas others surely wouldn't.

You cannot steal a digital product. You can make a perfect clone, and the original will still exist unchanged. There is an infinite supply of digital content: you make a music track, and you can make a 100 billion copies for basically no cost. If you price each track at $39.90, and someone buys that track from the store, then copies the track 100 billion times, it does not mean you've lost 3990000000000 dollars in sales. You've not lost anything, since you got paid for the original.

If you don't like the way things are, stop fighting the windmills. Change the way you're getting paid for the digital products. It's not that difficult. Ask the money up front before you release it to the world. After you get the 2 million dollars or whatever, then you release the product without DRM. This way you get paid and "piracy" will have no impact on you. On the contrary, making and releasing a good product would make it possible for you to raise the threshold for the next product, netting you more money. The marketing would be done by the people themselves. On the other hand, if you constantly produce shit, people will not support you anymore.

You can read more by googling up the "Street performer protocol".

That system is logical, obvious and elegant fix to the "piracy problem". It is being opposed because such a system will prevent: 1. distribution channel control (region coding etc.), 2. endless renting of the same content over and over again (selling the same thing to different TV stations, for example), 3. as a summary: it prevents maximizing profits but makes the system "piracy"-free and fair.

How would it make it fair? The creators would get paid the price they think is appropriate and there could not be a problem with unauthorized copying. Humanity as a whole would get access to the culture which belongs to all of them without waiting for 70 years after the original author died. If the price is set too high, no-one will buy but the content would still not be distributed around the world. Thus you could re-price and re-release. Also, the system would actually work by leveraging digital distribution, instead of trying to fight it on a futile way with various silly hacks.

Re:Copyright works,piracy=theft,stop the hypocricy (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115444)

I have a problem with that solution. It'll work for large companies with a lot of liquidity and a track record.

It won't work for startups or small companies with no track record.

To give a personal example. I have on-and-off for the last 4.5 years been working on a literary work. Assume I want to sell it. How would I do that using this system? I make a request for X thousand up front to release it to the world? Of course it wouldn't work for me. For a start nobody has heard of me. And if I don't get this amount, am I supposed to just destroy all this work or keep it permanently to myself? That's senseless.

In an ideal world where everyone knew everything about everyone it'd work. In this world it won't. Not for the small guy.

She is right (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115202)

We frequently buy DVDs and there is no chance to skip the copyright information. It's sometimes combined with the "would you steal a car?"-analogy, which suggests we are potential criminals. We frequently bought DVDs just out of curiosity but we lowered our expenses and only buy those we really, really want to have. No spontaneous visits to the DVD area anymore.

Microsoft did a campaign a decade ago, where they asked on every boot-up, if one would properly register and pay for the install. I eventually skipped my investment of several hundred Deutsche Mark (back then I earned less than 600 Deutsche Mark per month) and migrated to Linux. Until today I have a strong rejection against their products.

Yesterday I read an article on how to be successful in your job and to get ahead. By frequent contact others get familiar with you and their attitude against you stabilizes. So if you start with a good impression you win, otherwise you fail. It didn't say anything about changing attitude by repeated unfriendly behaviour, though.

cb

Re:She is right (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115646)

We frequently buy DVDs and there is no chance to skip the copyright information.

Not much chance to read it either. I remember trying it with a DVD that shows the copyright information in several languages in such a quick succession that you don't have time to read any of it. What prevents you from skipping them also disables the pause function, on my player anyway (Sony). Assuming this is the standard behaviour of DVD players I wonder how DVD publishers can hold you accountable for violating their restrictions if they don't allow you to read them.

Re:She is right (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38115736)

Hang on, let me get this straight. You pirated a copy of Windows, and you're getting upset that Microsoft is asking you to pay up? I don't know what hippy world you're living in, but like it or not, Microsoft deserves to be paid for their product. If you don't like that, use an alternative thats free. I don't see how what Microsoft did was "unfriendly". They called you out on stealing their product, you got all butt hurt and ran off to cry about it. And I think we both know you would have continued to pirate Windows if they hadn't done it.

Democracy at work (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115254)

The recent successes of various pirate parties made it clear that people do not like the current IP system. Now politicians have no other choice than to listen to them.

Re:Democracy at work (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115742)

Guess politicians wisen up. In the 80s, the green movement was ignored long enough to allow a green party to establish itself in most European countries. Most likely they want to avoid something like that to happen again.

And there are LOTS of other problems too (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115676)

You know, lately, I have been having some issues with HDMI and conflicting implementations. It's really getting under my skin. Every time I see the copyright industry interfere with technology, they screw it up in some way. Macrovision in the old days of VHS and the things they wanted to do with digital TV and the crap they pull with HDMI -- it all pisses me off.

The EU was right about water -- it doesn't prevent the causes of dehydration. And the way copyright is being handled does not support the artists and certainly harms the public interest.

Today Copyright is to reward lawyers (1)

Froggels (1724218) | more than 2 years ago | (#38115688)

The original intent was a good thing, but today its purpose is for nothing else than to give jobs and money for lawyers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpTPTQ3e0Jg [youtube.com]
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>