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!

New Copyright Alliance Formed In D.C.

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the they-own-j00 dept.

The Almighty Buck 213

jombeewoof alerted us to a story that went past unnoticed last weekend. A new industry-backed 'Copyright Alliance' was formed in the city of Washington, DC. Tasked with the nebulous goal of 'promoting the value of copyright as an agent for creativity, jobs, and growth', the ultimate goal of the organization is to strengthen copyright laws overall. "Backed by organizations like the MPAA, NBC, News Corp., Disney, Time Warner, the Business Software Alliance, Microsoft, ASCAP, the NBA, and others, the Copyright Alliance has already secured initial support from several members of Congress ... The group is headed by Patrick Ross, a former senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a strongly free-market think tank. Ross has written about IP issues for years, and in a 2005 opinion piece claimed that he was 'looking for anyone who wants to join me in seeking that elusive middle ground.' His new gig may be a strange place to fight for that 'middle ground' in any meaningful sense, as the Alliance is dedicated to 'strengthening copyright law' using 'bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements to protect creators' and advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of strong copyright.'"

cancel ×

213 comments

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

I for one (3, Funny)

Luminus (34868) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269019)

welcome our copyright-law-promoting overlords!

FIRST POST (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19269023)

fristage postage is mine GNAA > j00

Too much control (5, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269039)

The best way to create more pirates is by trying to provide to much control over copyrighted works. What I mean is that if copyright becomes to complicated for the average member of public, then they will just give up trying to play nice with copyright holders.

Obvious quote (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269157)

The tighter you grip, the more will slip through your fingers.

The more laws they create, the less those laws will control. When law becomes esotheric and illogical, people stop heeding it. Partly because they don't even know that it's illegal, since it's anything but common sense that it should be. Partly because they don't care, since it does not match their personal morals. And finally partly because they think it does not matter what they do, they'll break some law anyway.

Re:Too much control (0, Flamebait)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269289)

What's too complicated about understanding that you do not have the right of distribution? You cannot upload files, period. Call it sharing, make it sound altruistic, whatever the hell you want to do, it's distribution plain and simple and it's the one right that allows the economics of intellectual property to work at all. Why should content creators have to give this right up in the digital age?

Re:Too much control (4, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269479)

Yeah there's always at least one person who has to look at copyright backwards.

Why should the people have to give up the right to share things they found funny/interesting with other people in the digital age?

Please take another look at our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The "right to make money off a creative work" is not listed as an inherent right. The right to express yourself however you choose is. Copyright in its original form was intended to be an agreement between the public and the creator for the public to temporarily give up those rights to freedom of expression in order to allow the creator a brief period of time of no competition to market his creative work, if it is indeed marketable.

Re:Too much control (0, Flamebait)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269635)

I'm not looking at copyright backwards, I'm simply stating facts. When you "share" intellectual property you are not expressing an idea, you are passing on an idea someone else already expressed. While the Bill of Rights does not enumerate "the right to make money off creative work" there are two things to consider, 1) the Bill of Rights does not enumerate rights one has, it simply lists some examples of the ones our founding fathers felt were more important than all others, and 2) the U.S. Constitution does mention "The Congress shall have Power . . .
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". This was a part of the original Articles, before any Bill of Rights existed. As far as I know, copyright is not indefinite, therefore it is still temporary, albeit longer than the original terms. However, even with the original terms still in place, most intellectual property traded on P2P networks is still infringing. Any more cliches and bad information you'd like me to dispel?

Re:Too much control (2, Insightful)

mfulk (39978) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269935)

I don't think you dispelled anything. I believe you got pwned.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Author and Inventors..."

What part of this quote says the rights can be transferred away from the author or inventor (to a 3rd party distributor such as a record company for example)? What part of this deals with the simple concept of fair use of media?

Please look back at your n00bish point 1 and reconsider it.

Article X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"

The people get the benefit of the doubt. Govt's role stays limited. That is and always was the intent. Now forming laws that effectively allow for the indefinite stay of copyright as it relates to a person's lifetime circumvents the original intent and deserves to go the way of the Dodo. Dodo.

Re:Too much control (0, Flamebait)

stubear (130454) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270411)

I'm not going to bother with most of your comment because you are simply an idiot. However, I'll address one issue you brought up about Article 8 (what you so casually call "the quote"). Our Constitution does not actually say what we can or cannot do, it's left up to case law to interpret the Constitution and apply the guidance it provides. While Article 8 says nothing about allowing transference of rights to a third party, years of case law does. Article 10, by the away, does not change this at all. Congress si still allowed, through Article 8, to grant temporary monopolies for the purposes of promoting Science and useful arts.

By the way, you misspelled "owned", and no I did not get owned or pwned.

Re:Too much control (1)

jtn (6204) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270615)

I'm not going to bother with most of your comment because you are simply an idiot.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you assure that no one will take whatever you say, no matter how cogent, seriously from that point onwards. Well played.

Re:Too much control (2, Insightful)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269975)

Yes you are.

Why should content creators have to give this right [to distribution] up in the digital age?
If our country was actually still functioning as a democracy, it's not up to the content creators to keep or give up this "right". It's not some right they ought to have that they are giving up. It's an unnatural "right" that the consumers are extending to the content creators, and it's up to the consumers if they want to keep extending that "right" (keeping in mind of course that some of those same consumers might also be in the content creator group).

But unfortunately IP is no longer being operated as a democracy in the US, and the people controlling the majority of entertainment IP want everyone to think exactly as you're thinking.

Re:Too much control (1)

velsin.lionhart (870675) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269871)

"Our Constitution" - assume you mean the U.S.A. Federal Constitution. I'll bite as I will be taking the NY State Bar Exam later this summer... The Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights does not enumerate all inherent rights, it just states some of them explicitly, see IX Amendment. Expressing yourself however you chose is not listed as an inherent right, "freedom of speech" is (per 1st Amendment), and "sharing" works is not necessarily speech as understood by and interpreted by the Supreme Court of the US.

Re:Too much control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270083)

an agreement between the public and the creator for the public to temporarily give up those rights to freedom of expression in order to allow the creator a brief period of time of no competition to market his creative work
That's the best definition I've seen on these forums in awhile. Patents should have the same definition. A limited period of time is the key. After that...public domain! ;-)

Re:Too much control (2, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269541)

Most aren't debating that point. The main point of contention is the Copyright to Public Domain point. Copyright hacks like Disney, etc want obscenely long copyrights so they can profit continuously.

Conversely, I believe that shorter Public Domain laws would create more growth. Would you rather companies continually invest in their employees to continue creating new works or have a few select individuals profit endlessly?

Another main point of debate is fair use. Copyright owners don't want any fair use, they want to license EVERYTHING. Should I be allowed to let you listen to my CD? Why or why not? Etc.

Too much copyright (5, Insightful)

remmelt (837671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269665)

The point is not that people want less copyright, the point is that these corporations want MORE. They're shifting the paradigm (pardon my French) from "copyright is a government granted monopoly" to "copyright is ours by default and you're a pirate."

The government grants the copyright monopoly not because it wants these firms to make money; they grant it because they hope that ARTISTS (see what I did there?) will make more of their art when they can make a buck off of what they do, for the purpose of making a rich culture. So, the purpose of copyright is not financial but cultural gain. This comes with the implied benefit that the ARTIST can make money. When the copyright is held by anyone but the artist, there is no more cultural gain to be had.

The default setting for stuff that goes out of your head and into other people's sight/ears/whatever is that it is no longer yours. I tell you my Great Idea, now you can use it. I sing you my song, you can play it as well. That's the default mode. It's very easy to copyright something (just stick on your name, the year and the alt0169 symbol) but it's so hard to get it back into the public domain where it belongs (after a reasonable period of time,) it's ridiculous.

Also, extending copyright past the death of the artist involved. Make more art, Jimi! Make more art, Django! Make more art, Pablo! Make more art, Joan [blogspot.com] !

Re:Too much copyright (1)

DudeTheMath (522264) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269921)

The biggest problem, as I've heard it described by many academic/creative types (i.e., the ones who would benefit from the release of works into the PD), is the inability to track down copyright holders in order to obtain permission.

What about an office in either USPTO or LOC that registers copyright holders? Then we can cater to the corp whores by simply allowing copyright to be extended past, say, twenty years or the life of the copyright holder by one-year leases of the license from the public for some small fee per work. No fee for the first X years, but you still have to check the box to renew the lease. Thus copyright holders with a large corpus will be making large payments into the public for the express purpose of holding a work out of the PD. Miss a payment, and the work enters the PD. Those with only a few works can pick and choose which to hold onto the rights for. Copyrights can be transferred from the original holder, but those can only be extended an additional X (thirty? fifty?) years before they must revert.

Does anyone see a reason why this wouldn't work? No more orphaned works, no problem finding out if a work has entered the PD, or finding the holder for permission if it hasn't, office supported by the fees (nominal per work) charged. Anything not in the registry is ipso facto in the PD.

Re:Too much copyright (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270519)

"What about an office in either USPTO or LOC that registers copyright holders?"

How about they also pay the dividends and collect the royalties? Instead of having to obtain permission, replace it with simply paying a mandatory reproduction fee as a percentage of obtained revenue.

Authors and artists wouldn't have to bother with the whole painful contract business that rarely has them in the strong position anyway, they could just register their copyright and they'd get paid as their work got distributed and sold, and the sales-points wouldnt have to worry about contract issues or obtaining permissions, they could just pay the fee and be in the clear.

Re:Too much control (4, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269721)

Why should content creators have to give [the distribution] right up in the digital age?

The right isn't inherent in them, it comes from the public. Why should the public continue to give it to them? I'm not averse to it, but we shouldn't give it to them unless it provides a greater net public benefit to give them that right, given the costs it incurs, than it would if we didn't.

Merely to support authors or the publishing industry isn't a good enough reason. How does supporting us benefit us more than it costs us? Are there no alternatives that would yield a greater net benefit? Remember that having more works created and published is beneficial, but that it is also beneficial for the public to have more freedom to do with works what they will.

Re:Too much control (1)

robbiethefett (1047640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270611)

i agree that uploading torrents of dvd rips, etc. is beyond fair use. these mega-conglomerate companies feel that we should give up fair use entirely. i think that's the "middle ground" stated in the summary. i'm not advocating piracy, but the consumers have shown time and time again with itunes, allofmp3, etc. that they are perfectly willing to spend their hard earned cash on media in a format they prefer without restrictions like DRM or other nonsense. that being said, those mega-conglomerate corporations would rather sue the whole world into oblivion than adapt their business model to accommodate the consumer. this is why there is a high level of resentment among consumers towards these companies. on a side note, i think its only common sense that that the large-scale pirates selling bootleg dvds in bazaars the world over will not be affected in the least by any legislation or DRM. and those large-scale pirates are the ones actually hurting the industry. if you want to put out a fire, you extinguish the base. the media companies are blasting water directly into flames high above the base. their house continues to burn.

Paradox patrol (1)

remmelt (837671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269325)

Pro free market. Wtf is up with that anyway? These people want a free market to reign, but also to up their bottom line. The best way to do just that is to coerce lawmakers to pass laws that are favourable to these corps. Usually, this means that other businesses can't get into the market as easily, how shall I put it, they're less enabled. Which makes it less of a free market. Paradox?

Re:Too much control (1)

edizzles (1029108) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269327)

DRM is all ready to the point where most people want to pay for there music buts its so restricted and uselees there better of mailing a bukc to the artitist and just DL from aries. I agree the patent system needs a majr over hall. And somthing needs to be done about the out of controll music industry. I still hopeing that a few big bands will let there contracts dry up and then just publish there music online and cut out the middle man.

age old conflict (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19269349)

All governments become more aristocratic over time, and as such they tend to favor the interests of the few over the interests of the many.

This is just an age-old battle between the classes. The masses benefit most from the free flow of information, and an elite few benefit from being able to prevent that free flow.

Money vs many, once again.

Re:Too much control (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19269389)

mortgage calculations are too complex for almost everyone, does that give people a right to not make the payments?

Re:Too much control (1)

Shadowfire3000 (992415) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269475)

First off I would like to point out that this is not only pointed at this current issue, but any issue that we face in the United States that has to do with Legistlation, law making and the like.

I agree that this is bad, (I am talking more to the US States crowd) just like most planned initiatives by lobbist, our Congress and Government it is usually only Big Business and Government friendly but most people here at Slash and anywhere else don't voice there concerns DIRECTLY to there local and federal govenment contacts letting them know they disapprove of this type of issues. Whether it includes new legistlature or new means of reform you must stand up and be counted - especially if you don't like what is going on!

Things like this are wrecking our economy and small business avalibility to stay afloat. We can all see the truth and nature of this game. Voices make the difference in a silent world!

Why complain if your not going to do anything about (contacting via email / phone your representatives to voice your concerns and get involved). Yes it takes time and effort, but dosen't most things done for good reasons? This stuff frustrates me as well, but I have decided to taken a pro-active stance and choose to step up to the plate and be active toward concerns like this.

How about others who complain about these items do the samething, instead of just gripping about them. We can all make a difference, especially if we do it individually in large numbers.

You can only blame yourself if you don't get involved and do something about it.

This smells like a "Bad Thing"(TM) (2, Insightful)

psyburn (790106) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269101)

The enemy may change its name or wear a different mask but the stench of stagnation reeks heavily from this one.

Not strongly free market (4, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269713)

an organization whose mission is to "strengthen the copyright [or any other] law" is not "strongly free market. The PFF and this Alliance are more correctly called "propertarians" b/c they think everything should be owned.

This is why (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269109)

you must eba ctive in government, all the time. People with opposite views do stuff like this, and if it is the only people the representitves hear from, then it is the only view they can vote on.

The result of being apathetic in politics is to be run by evil men.

Re:This is why (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269159)

Here here!

Our Freedom-loving lobbyists in D.C. will be wearing last weeks shirt pulled out of the dirty clothes and in desperate need of a shower. But their LAN will be secure!

Re:This is why (3, Interesting)

ToxikFetus (925966) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269557)

As a resident of D.C., I find this whole discussion incredibly ironic. A despicable lobbying organization forms in my backyard, but since I have no Congressional representation, I can't do a damn thing about it. I'd *love* to be active in government, but by Constitutional interpretation I can't. This is a case where the big evil corporations *literally* have more governmental influence than me.

Re:This is why (1)

Dausha (546002) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270271)

"...since I have no Congressional representation.... I'd *love* to be active in government, but by Constitutional interpretation I can't. This is a case where the big evil corporations *literally* have more governmental influence than me."

Where's my clue-by-four when I need it. You have much more representation in government than a single rancher in Wyoming because you reside in the seat of government. There is a reason why the federal district was denied representation by those who had just earned the right to representation via Revolutionary War. You already have enough influence.

More importantly, you live in a roughly-square patch of land that's not terribly large. Perhaps you should move out of it to Maryland, where you'll have all the representation you need.

Strengthening?? (1)

eclectro (227083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269143)

Outside of executing copyright infringers, how can copyright law be made 'stronger'. Mandatory brain implants maybe? Both??

The middle ground... (2, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269169)

...depends on where you set the edges. Given the overall mentality when it comes to copyright and DRM from copyright holders, I guess "liberal" just want copyright to extend to infinity minus one. "Conservative" means omnipresent invasive usage control, and somewhere between there they want to find the middle ground. "Totalitarian" would be when you get mandatory surgical implants that record what IP we're exposed to and get billed accordingly.

We need to send congresscritters to math class (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270529)

I'm tired of the Valenti clones spouting the "infinity minus one day" line. Infinity minus one is still infinity.

What exactly will they "teach" (5, Insightful)

mgpeter (132079) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269199)

advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of strong copyright.'

What exactly are they going to teach. Most laws do not remotely cover what is needed with today's technology. For instance, if you start teaching about copyright "infingement" someone will ask if it is an infringement if you rip a CD or copy a movie for personal use. The current problem is that NO ONE KNOWS 100%. These issues have not been hammered out in a court of law and the current statues have no opinion either way.

The first thing that really needs to be done (besides possibly shortening copyright) is to define what exactly can and cannot be done with an existing work. Until then, whatever anyone attempts to teach about copyright is 100% opinion and speculation.

As a side note: The really pathetic thing about copyright is that it was initiated to promote the science and arts, but has since been hijacked by what I believe to be the lowest benefit to our society - the Entertainment Industry.

Re:What exactly will they "teach" (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269259)

>What exactly are they going to teach.

Maybe they will accidentally teach people that the same laws protecting the industry can be used by individuals against the industry.

Re:What exactly will they "teach" (4, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269441)

Fair use was made vague for a reason. That reason is that it's extremely difficult to pin down exactly what is fair use. You're not a copyright infringer if you tape a show and your wife watches it. But if you pull a "well, we're all 99,99% genetically related as humans so the world is my family..." it won't fly. What about your stepson? He's not a blood relative. Same goes with real friends and all your "friends" on the P2P network.

Backups... how many backups should be allowed? One? Three? Ulimited? That remote backup site that, convieniently, all your friends know the password for? Is it fair use to lend a copy away while you still have it on your media server? Would it be fair use to lend a friend get a copy instead of your original disc? Again, if this is a hundred friends where the one original is making the rounds and everywhere it touches there's copies being made, it's probably not.

In any case, the answer is really quite simple in the end: If it's protected by DRM you can't do shit, it's all a violation of the circumvention paragraph, and fair use is only a defense to infringement. Fair use might as well be stricken from the books as a legacy law only applicable to pre-DRM works. Don't like it? Tough.

Re:What exactly will they "teach" (4, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269971)

Fair use might as well be stricken from the books as a legacy law only applicable to pre-DRM works. Don't like it? Tough.

Who the fuck are you to say something like that? This fucking battle is not over. Our rights trump their ability to make money.

WE ARE NOT TO STAND BY WHILE THEY TAKE OUR RIGHTS AWAY! Just because lawmakers are easily influenced by money and are ever so helpful in ensuring that their pockets remain full does not mean that we should roll over, play dead, and take it in the ass while the copyright holders extend their life expectancies, revenue streams, and shit-eating grins.

I guess you could be a shining example of exactly what they want to accomplish. Congratulations.

Re:What exactly will they "teach" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270429)

"Fair use might as well be stricken from the books as a legacy law only applicable to pre-DRM works. Don't like it? Tough."

There is nothing happening here that can't be solved by refusing to purchase products with DRM. It's working in the music industry. The online retailers can't ditch DRM fast enough. Apple was the only one with significant volume of DRM music, and even THEY see the handwriting on the wall. This is an important victory, as it sets the precedent for other uses of DRM.

On the other side of the DRM boycott we have massive circumvention as demonstrated by the DVD 09F9 phenomenon.

DRM is a formidable problem much the same way that the Soviet Union was once a formidable enemy. Despite the apparently bleak future, the other side has some fatal flaws. With a little pressure and patience, the opponent will disintegrate all by itself.

As a teacher... (2, Interesting)

Anderson Council (1096781) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269511)

I can tell you that in order to productively "teach" something, there needs to be room for discussion and dissent. More specifically, people don't tend to absorb material as well when it is preached as gospel, regardless of how much of an opinion they may have had on the subject previously. Taking everything at face value is never the mark of a good student.

In this case however, any "teachings" undertaken with regard to copyright will be treated as gospel. If I had to spend time in front of a crowd discussing something as loaded as copyright, something about which basically every person is going to already have some opinion about, I wouldn't assume they will walk away with "my message". More likely I'd be taken aback by the level of opinion (not necessarily legal) being expressed, and more likely than not I'd come away with a broader appreciation of the subject. Needless to say the opinions won't be rooted in legal terms, or formal definitions of the word; however, people already have a life's worth of experience dealing with the issue as they saw it. Someone telling them "you can't do this because it's wrong" means nothing as most of them aren't of the opinion that it's wrong =). Tough sell, even outside the /. crowd.

This should not come as a surprise though, and I'm sure we have many more years of this nonsense ahead of us. The push of the corporate juggernaught has brought us to a time when one of the few genuine homegrown exports coming out of the US (or perhaps "the west" more generally) is entertainment. If they can't leverage their power in other countries (many of which don't care --- and I'm not referring to Mozambique here; I live in Canada and I don't care much about them wanting tighter copyright laws), there is no room for growth.

Tell me we aren't already at the limit of the $200M summer blockbuster machine ;).

--
~AC

Lobbyists (1)

DogDude (805747) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269579)

It's sad to see so many Slashdotters that have absolutely no inkling as to how business/government works. This is a lobbyist group, or a PAC (political action group). They're paid by the large industries to, in turn, pay politicians to vote a particular way. Happens every day in the US. Nothing at all unusual about this development.

Re:What exactly will they "teach" (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269653)

For instance, if you start teaching about copyright "infingement" someone will ask if it is an infringement if you rip a CD or copy a movie for personal use. The current problem is that NO ONE KNOWS 100%. These issues have not been hammered out in a court of law and the current statues have no opinion either way.

Actually, the statutes are clear that making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works is illegal. There are exceptions to this in the statutes, but whether or not they'll apply depends on the circumstances in which you do it. E.g. if you rip a CD, that can be non-actionable, but only for the right kind of CD and the right kind of equipment or target media you're ripping to, who you are, and what you're going to do with the new copy. The fair use exception is often invoked, but it is deliberately the vaguest exception of all, since it will protect you if what you are doing is infringing but fair, whatever it is. Some courts have looked at these issues, but unless parties actually bring it to court, which hasn't happened much, it's tough to get much of a consensus. And again, for something like fair use, it's all on a case-by-case basis anyway; some CD ripping is fair, some isn't fair, because it depends entirely on the circumstances.

Still, we can at best say that it is generally easy to know what constitutes prima facie infringement. It's the limits to copyright which are harder to be clear about.

The really pathetic thing about copyright is that it was initiated to promote the science and arts

No, copyright is intended to promote the progress of science. Remember that the Constitution is pretty old, and that the English language changes a lot. What they meant was that it's supposed to improve general human knowledge. The entertainment industry's products are a subset of this. The useful arts is what patent law is meant to promote the progress of, by which they meant practical technology. There are more remnants of this use of the word art in the language still, e.g. prior art, state of the art, person having ordinary skill in the art, etc. It's just funny how now we think of patents as being associated with science and copyrights as being associated with the arts.

Re:What exactly will they "teach" (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270079)

It doesn't sound like they will define copyright to people, rather to explain the role of copyright in society, about its benefits and importance, and attempt to reverse the recent trend in people believing they are entitled to an artist's work for free.

That said, they will also no doubt tout the evil of copy protection evasion, and brush over the concept of fair use.

"Oh yeah, you are allowed to copy songs to your iPod, but you aren't allowed to copy your DVDs. That's piracy."

Content not worth protecting (3, Insightful)

harshmanrob (955287) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269203)

In a previous DRM discussion, I pointed out the wasteful costs of DRM and copy-protection technology and it will ultimately be defeated by those who choose to. What this "copyright alliance" is an another attempt to create laws to stop people from developing software except for companies like Microsoft.

The software and record companies have invested millions into developing copy-prevention, lock-out chips, etc and it gets defeated by some person with 20 lines of code. That is why they want congress to write laws against it. How do you think the CEO of CBS felt when he gets music mp3s emailed to him from some guy who beat a copy-protected CD with a black marker the day it came out.

I have always believed that DMCA was never designed to fight music and software pirates, but to stop the Open Source software developers. I would not be surprised if congress tried to "license" developers in the coming years. Something else that bothers me is if the try to merge the DMCA and the Patriot Act.

Nothing good can come of this. (1)

Malakusen (961638) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269225)

Seriously. Is this even a good idea for the companies themselves? Doubtful. Certainly isn't a good idea for me.

Didn't even get to be the first to post (1)

jombeewoof (1107009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269251)

I've been reading /. for a while, but never saw a need to sign up and post till I saw this article. I think it might be time to relocate to a place that caters more to individual rights than America has become... China comes to mind, maybe some former soviet state.

Re:Didn't even get to be the first to post (1)

cliffski (65094) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269439)

you want to go live in china because in the US they want you to pay for movies you download?
is this a joke?

Apparently sarcasm doesn't float on /. (1)

jombeewoof (1107009) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270561)

I was being facetious. I'll not move to China any more than I would move to Cuba.
On the other hand, the vote that I cast during election does not matter. I can cast my vote for whomever I feel is the closest to me on a variety of issues, but even when a new congressman/woman senator whatever gets voted in it's only a few years till they're on the corporate payroll. No matter how strong their convictions or how much they promise to "change the government from the inside out" they cannot hold out against the lobbyists.
My solution, outlaw corporate lobbying. It's the only real solution to the greater evil. Not DRM, not copyright law, not global warming or any of those things. Taken individually these are all threats to our way of life. The fact that none of us can influence any politician 1/100th of a percent as much as Microsoft, or Sony, or MPAA or any corporate group is the real crime.
I would gladly give up my "right" to copy a movie, or cd if MY interests were being looked after in washington.
My interests are fairly simple, I wish to do whatever the fuck I want so long as it harms none. I want to listen to cd's I purchase on whatever device I want to. I want to watch movies I buy wherever I feel the need to watch them. I want to use my xbox as a cheap ftp server that can also stream the movies I've purchased to any tv in my house.
According to the current rules in place, none of these things I want to do is legal.
The arguments that the protected content is not worth paying for doesn't float with me. If it's worth stealing, it's probably worth shelling out a few bucks for. But take Vista for example, if I pay $600 for the top of the line version. I cannot use it in the manner I see fit. I must use it according the their rules, and those rules are so strict, and the measures in place to make sure that I don't break them are so prohibitive that it does not make any sense for me to pay that much for it.
I'm not saying I've never downloaded software/music/movies. I have, I've downloaded tons of IP. But everything I've ever downloaded was either complete trash which I've deleted, or something I have a legit copy of. IP, copyright, DRM, these are symptoms of the much more dreadful disease of corruption. And corruption at the highest levels, as bad as it currently is can only lead to revolution. This country is not old enough to be in the dire shape that is in. In a mere 230 years we've gone from We the people, to screw the people.

"America has to go through some kind of a radical change". --MH

Re:Didn't even get to be the first to post (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269659)

You might want to consider moving to England because that country is part of the European Union (no software patents and no copyright infringement law as long as the copyright infringment is not on a commercial basis) and because they speak english there.

On the other hand that country has strong (IMO) bonds with Bush and about a zillion camera's on the street (and thereby not really caring about your privacy). Holland is a nice place as well (IMO, I live there)

I have actually been thinking of moving to America but these kinds of laws keep holding me back)

Re:Didn't even get to be the first to post (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269941)

If you've been reading for a while you know that in Soviet state, Slashdot signs up to you... *ducks*

As today is the 30th anniversary... (3, Funny)

ClayJar (126217) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269255)

As today is the 30th anniversary of the release of Star Wars, I cannot help but say...

"I've got a bad feeling about this."

Re:As today is the 30th anniversary... (1)

guabah (968691) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270053)

I feel a disturbance in the force, as in millions of geeks suddenly cried out in terror and then silenced.

Education for whom? (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269281)

advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of strong copyright.'"

Don't they already teach this at the business schools that produce these jackasses? And do they honestly expect anyone else - say, productive members of society - to buy this line of bullshit?

Still the same smell, though (1)

Progman3K (515744) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269291)

Look at this bowel-movement! It now has a new coat of paint!

Re:Still the same smell, though (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269577)

A derivative work if I've ever seen one.

NOT free market -- free reign for cos. (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269311)

The group is headed by Patrick Ross, a former senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a strongly free-market think tank.
...

the Alliance is dedicated to 'strengthening copyright law' using 'bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements to protect creators' and advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of strong copyright.
Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights...

This just goes to show that many of the free market idealogues out there aren't really about free markets; instead they are all about unrestricted corporate activity. The two are not the same, and shouldn't be conflated. It's been shown time and again that maintenance of a free market requires government intervention (see Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the US); even the Austrian school will admit that their economic model requires adjustment (and by implication, government action) to correct for monopolies.

Re:NOT free market -- free reign for cos. (1)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269613)

The whole idea of the "free market" is suspect in this day-and-age anyway. Even if the government does not regulate a market, some other organization will. Oil prices?!? That's not supply and demand causing those price spikes -- its the commodities markets. Every time Hugo Chavez says "boo" or Iran does something naughty, the price shoots up, and so does the price at the pump.

Re:NOT free market -- free reign for cos. (4, Insightful)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269743)

The group is headed by Patrick Ross, a former senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a strongly free-market think tank.
Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights...

I assumed they were using the words in their most Orwellian sense. You know, in "1984" the Ministry of Peace was in charge of War, the Ministry of Plenty was in charge or rationing, and as for the Ministry of Love... well you get the idea.

If you think of it like that, the Progress & Freedom Foundation makes perfect sense.

Re:NOT free market -- free reign for cos. (1)

remmelt (837671) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269813)

"free market" vs. "unrestricted corporate activity"

Hmmm, but that doesn't have that nice Freedom ring to it, does it? We all want a little freedom, don't we? Let's give it up for freedom!

Re:NOT free market -- free reign for cos. (2, Informative)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270069)

Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights...
You're right. A free market would be opposed to copyright.

There's no true free market. Here's what you have:

1. an illegal cartel
2. government(s) interference to maintain that cartel, despite it being illegal.
3. government(s) interference to regulate freedom in restricting free access to ideas.


Ironically, in Russia or China, which still have more of a Command and Control Economy than the West in many areas, you see freedom from copyright restrictions because the above don't apply.

Somewhere, there has to be a happy medium (pun intended.)

Re:NOT free market -- free reign for cos. (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270105)

"Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights..."

Bingo! But somehow may who claim to be for Free markets somewhow can't see that letting people have these government granted monopolies messes with the Free Market. Cant' the Free Market find a solution to this problem?

MOD PARENT UP.

all the best,

drew

Re:NOT free market -- free reign for cos. (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270137)

Does not compute philosophically. You'd think a free market idealogue would be against copyrights...
If he were an ideologue, it would not compute. Perhaps he believes in a healthily regulated mostly free market? Perhaps he is more of a moderate rather than an ideologue?

Translation (5, Insightful)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269331)

We're setting up a new group to funnel money to incumbents prior to the '08 election.

Re:Translation (4, Insightful)

supersnail (106701) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270123)

Mod parent up hes got it exactly right.

You should relly question how getting the copyright on "Winnie the Pooh" extended
by 50 years benefits creativity.
The original author is long dead, his family sold the rights to Disney for a pittance
in the '60s. So all that is being protected is Disneys right to make money.

Is it election time already? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19269341)

Wow, it comes round fast, it seems like only a yesterday that laws big wads of cash were handed out in the name of 'creating' economic value by reducing competition.

Free market (4, Insightful)

pubjames (468013) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269357)

"a strongly free-market think tank"

I would have thought an organisation that was strongly free-market would be against stronger copyright laws.

I expect they are really "pro-big-business" rather that "free-market".

Re:Free market (1)

Frozen Void (831218) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269797)

Their definition of "free market" must be market which megacorporations control without any oversight and small companies have no chance to compete.

League of Evil (1)

colonslashslash (762464) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269377)

jombeewoof alerted us to a story that went past unnoticed last weekend. A new industry-backed 'League of Evil' was formed in the city of Washington, DC. Tasked with the nefarious goal of 'promoting the value of copyright as an agent for world domination and the creation of several doomsday weapons', the ultimate goal of the organization is to strengthen copyright laws and strike terror into the hearts of puny Earth humans worldwide. "Backed by organizations like the MPAA, NBC, News Corp., Disney, The Galactic Trade Federation, Time Warner, the Business Software Alliance, Microsoft, Invader Zim, ASCAP, the NBA, and others, the League of Evil has already blackmailed initial support from several members of Congress ... The group is headed by Dr Doom, a former senior fellow at the Super Villains Workers Union, a doom-bringing think-tank. Doom has written about genocidal issues for years, and in a 2005 opinion piece claimed that he was 'looking for any fool who wants to join me in seeking that elusive dark side.' His new gig may be a strange place to fight for that 'dark side' in any meaningful sense, as the League is dedicated to using 'bilateral, regional, and multilateral weapons of mass destruction to protect super villains' interests and enslave humans using over-elaborate schemes and mind-control rays 'that teach the value of bowing to your new emperors and overlords.'"

Read the summary again (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270217)

Read the summary again. It's surprisingly objective, a damn sight better than most /. submissions. Don't feel too bad, I read "nefarious" instead of "nebulous" too.

I have no problem with strong copyright (5, Insightful)

brouski (827510) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269405)

It's long copyright I have a problem with. Like copyright that exists long after the original creator is dead.

Re:I have no problem with strong copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19269739)

Try this on people when you watch a movie.

Cool I can go to jail for 10 years if I copy this movie and get fined 250,000 dollars.

Or as my gf put it 'thats stupid, crack dealers and murders dont even get sentances like that.'

When put into that light it becomes quite obvious how lame copyright law is.

Death of Democracy (5, Insightful)

palladiate (1018086) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269423)

The inability to share knowledge will collapse a democracy. A democracy can only survive with free access to information, and a population willing to be educated. Soon, we will have neither. How can we trust our neighbor to help run this country when they know nothing?

In fact, we as a soceity cannot survive without free exchange of information. Culture, the shared information of a group, includes not only "book learning" but stories, music, patterns, and ideas. All of those are being taken from us and gifted to monied interests.

Once, poems like Beowulf would be told, retold, and changed according to the zeitgeist. The characters would be familiar, the plot would be familiar, but the small changes over time would stand out to listeners, and the bards and shapers would emphasize or change different parts to better reflect their audience and the state of current culture. That is what held us together.

Now, we no longer have the power to control our own culture, it will be permenant and immutable for all eternity. Star Wars is a new Beowulf, but we as a culture cannot own it and make it ours. It is now eternal and unchanging, as will be our culture. Another word for eternal and unchanging is dead.

Add to the dead culture and uneducated citizenry a new type of tax- the culture and learning tax, paid to everyone who holds IP. Do you think that given the total control of information flow that IP-holders wouldn't leverage every dollar from their holdings? They'll go so far to protect their "property" that they will certainly cut off all fair uses, such as critical review. Expect even bad movie reviews to go the way of the dinosaur. "Sorry Mr. Ebert, you gave us one too many bad reviews, your license to view all Universal movies has been revoked."

The only silver lining is that the same technology to lock down all ideas has given us a massive, nearly infinite virtual library. The internet, large hard drive arrays, and instant communications have given us the means to acquire and archive massive amounts of data. Do you remember your grade-school librarian? She was a scary old woman probably, and would scare the pants off of little kids. Librarians have always needed to be scary, as they have a hard job keeping information from the hands that would hide it. In the future, we are our own librarians. It's time to get scary.

Re:Death of Democracy (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269837)

You have complete control over your 'culture'. You just refuse to exercise it.

Don't rely on others to control your culture. Write a story yourself, place it in the public domain, and encourage others to retell it. There, now all your arguments are moot.

"Fair use" is a bandaid on the problem: People keep buying goods without liking the contract. If you buy a movie and don't like the permissions they allow you, that's your fault, not yours and not the governments.

STOP BUYING THINGS THAT DON'T SATISFY YOU.

Before 'money', it used to be obvious how to get what you want. Bargain for it. 3 pigs not worth 2 chickens? Tell the other person so. You'll either come to an agreement, or buy from someone else.

Not happy with a DVD you can't freely copy? Don't buy it. Buy a DVD that allows it, or tell the company that they lost a sale because you refuse to buy something that you can't use as you like.

Expecting the government to protect your 'rights' on this clearly is not working. Instead, the companies need to understand that their customers aren't buying it anymore. They need to serve us, not the other way around.

Whisky Tango Foxtrot? (2, Informative)

palladiate (1018086) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270235)

None of that is what I addressed.

Don't rely on others to control your culture. Write a story yourself, place it in the public domain...

First, I cannot put my stories in the public domain (I used to write more, I now help my wife write). If I do, someone like Disney can take the idea, copyright it (or even patent the plot), and prevent me from addressing their additions to my work. In fact, Disney or another large media company could force me to no longer use my original material in any substantive way. They are larger, and they can fight me off. Even though Anderson's The Little Mermaid is in the public domain, if I made an animated movie, they would certainly fight me in court. I have to use copyright as a 'bandaid' to defend your ability to make derivative works from mine (Creative Commons).

Before 'money', it used to be obvious how to get what you want. Bargain for it. 3 pigs not worth 2 chickens? Tell the other person so. You'll either come to an agreement, or buy from someone else.

Second, before "money," if I wanted to give away a copy of a scroll, I'd copy it and give it to you. I didn't need to pay the guy who originally wrote it, or figure out who wrote it 500 years ago, find his descendants, and figure out which one is owed the royalties. How do you divide 3 chickens 900 ways among great-grandkids?

Not happy with a DVD you can't freely copy? Don't buy it.

Third, don't buy that DVD? It's part of our shared culture. Sure, I can ostrasize myself from my peers and have my own culture unique to me. Wait, no I can't, that's not what a culture is. Fact is, media companies control the flow, content, and mutability of our culture. I'm not judging it, I'm saying it's true. Really, do people who watch American Idol contemplate they no longer play a role in their own culture? Does it mean they have no culture? How do we voluntarily wean everyone from restricted IP? I can't answer those questions. But I know if I don't watch American Idol, Lost, or other big shows I share much less ground with those around me.

People keep buying goods without liking the contract.

Third, permissions, contract? Whisky Tango Foxtrot, indeed. It's copyright law, not contract law that determines what I do with that CD. It's the DMCA that dictates what I do with that DVD. There are zero contracts regarding my purchase of them.

I expect the government to get the hell out of my culture, out of my abilites to archive and record that culture, and respect my natural right to share information freely. Thomas Jefferson held very deep the belief that knowledge should be shared freely. He made a great statement about candles and flames and lighting the darkness, look it up. The governemnt doesn't need to repect my rights. It needs to get the hell out of the monopoly-granting business. We need no more Charters of the Crown. We are a democracy, damnit, and all rights are ours be default! I don't need a government to protect them, and I certainly don't need one taking inalienable liberties away.

I'm not attacking you, as you are certainly sympathetic to most of my arguments. I am attacking a bit of what you said though. Keep on arguing, and keep on sharing your ideas. It's what makes us great.

Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? (1)

DShard (159067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270479)

Even though Anderson's The Little Mermaid is in the public domain, if I made an animated movie, they would certainly fight me in court.

UAV [amazon.com] Begs to differ.

Re:Whisky Tango Foxtrot? (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270597)

"Even though Anderson's The Little Mermaid is in the public domain, if I made an animated movie, they would certainly fight me in court."

While I take your point, you are wrong about this. See 1992. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Mermaid [wikipedia.org]

I don't think anyone was ever free to spread 'culture' the way you are talking about. Certainly they used to all tell the same stories. that was pretty much by agreement, though I admit lack of a way to restrict it played a large part.

But 'culture' is not a single item. It's an over-all feel. Western 'culture' is most certainly spread freely. Just think of how many people complain that 'all songs are alike' and such.

Contract... No, that's probably not the right word, but that's basically what happens. You agree to purchase the DVD for $x with certain limitations. If you do not agree to those limitations, you don't buy the DVD. Nobody is removing your from your fellows. You can only do that yourself. The choices are 'buy the dvd' or 'share culture with your friends', according to what you've said. There is no third 'buy the dvd and do whatever you like, regardless of the agreement.'

Copyright law does not state what you CAN do, it states what you can't. The contract, or agreement, with the creator is what gives you those rights. (This is not a defense of copyright. It's just information.)

Let's go back to sharing culture... Back in the days of roaming bards, do you think anyone ever said 'I'll sell you a song, but you can't perform it for anyone else.' ? Of course, but the answer was almost assuredly 'No deal.' Bards had only 1 use for a new song, and that was to perform it for others.

DVDs are different. Their intended purpose is to display a video. There's nothing in their purpose about copying it for friends or placing it on the internet for download. Nothing about ripping it to your Myth box and watching it that way. If you want those 'rights', you'll have to renegotiate. It just so happens that the studios are not willing to renegotiate at this point because they make all the money they want without doing that.

Everyone's got a right to their own property, intellectual or not. They can choose to sell it in any way shape or form, and anyone can choose not to purchase it.

I'm not claiming to be squeaky clean. Anyone who does is a saint or a liar. But I'm willing to admit what's 'right and wrong' and that I know the difference. (That sounds like an attack on you, but it's not. It's aimed at everyone who denies that 'piracy' is wrong.)

Re:Death of Democracy (1)

darjen (879890) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270017)

The inability to share knowledge will collapse a democracy. A democracy can only survive with free access to information, and a population willing to be educated. Soon, we will have neither. How can we trust our neighbor to help run this country when they know nothing?
I would say that free access to information online is actually the number one challenge to government and democratic rule. When people see the myriad of things wrong with those who would exercise force over us, they become that much more disinclined to accept new laws and further loss of freedom. People are beginning to see that the right to vote, in and of itself, does not protect our right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Our brand of democracy is what led to the copyright situation we are now in.

You're pretty much right. (1)

palladiate (1018086) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270373)

You're right. But, read up on our "founding fathers." They were an ornery, angry, unruly bunch. They were fanatical about being left the hell alone. Sure, they were personable, and many had quite a few friends and shared their ideas with the world, but they hated to be forced to action. They were even very disliked by the moneymakers in the colonies, part from loyalties to the Crown, and part from loyalties to their income streams.

Perfect information and instant communication destroy tyranny. You can't distort public perception if the public knows exactly what it perceives, and you can't distort history if we have a perfect, open record of government and offical business. So, yes, information access is anathema to control. That's why Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and others advocated public libraries so vigorously. But, we cannot have our original brand of democracy without it. Instead, we have our current democracy because of our lack of education and information.

Stop whining and create something then. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270257)

"All of those are being taken from us and gifted to monied interests"

what bullshit.

who is "us" and who are the "monied interests". has it occured to you that copyright protects ANYONE who gets off their ass and actually CREATES stuff? Has it occured to you that its anti-copyright extremists like you who are taking the hard wrk of other people from them and putting them out of business? The nest time you warez a piece of software, a game, or take a copy of a book, a movuie or TV show, maybe you should spare a thought for the 'monied interests' of the poor bastards who put their lifes work into creative works that leeches like yourself took for free.
But that isnt enough for you is it? You dont want to just leech other peoples hard work for fuck all, but you want to come on to slashdot and rpeach like some saint about how evil all those people are who create the cultural works in the first place, and somehow you are the force for good because you sit on your ass and take their work for free.
If you want to create some communist utopia of free cuture, go write a book and distribute it for free, theres no alw against it. Dont expect to be able to pay your rent though.
its morons like you that are the reason companies have to use DRM.

Can anyone think of (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269425)

why these guys should be kept alive? Not only are they not contributing to society, they are actively trying to take things away from society, apparently solely for their own benefit.

The PFF is no libertarian group on IP (3, Informative)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269485)

They strongly favor a policy that effectively destroys common law protections of property rights, subordinates physical property rights to IP rights and the presumption that all property rights to IP belong to the creator. They are, in effect, rabidly pro-government on IP and are against even moderate supporters of strong copyright law like myself. Even my views, which I have stated in blog discussions with them, are unacceptable to them, and they include:

1) Prosecuting file sharers under the No Electronic Theft Act for any serious sharing of data.
2) Throwing the book at college students who use most of the bandwidth on the network for sharing, using college policy to suspend or expel them.
3) Making IP conform to the same law and expectations that physical property is governed by. This means I fully support normalizing the relationship between the two, with the only caveat being maintaining the sole "right to copy" in the hands of the creator.

PFF likes spam and software patents (2, Informative)

Halo1 (136547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269745)

Additionally, they are also in favour of spam [dotcomeon.com] and software patents [zdnet.co.uk] . They're not pro-market, they're pro-big business.

Re:PFF likes spam and software patents (1)

Thaelon (250687) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270269)

Why does everybody thing that people's views and that the things they advocate are ever anything other than selfish motives?

The human animal is really not so complicated.

Every human being will, for the most part, do anything they can get away with if it means personal gain.

This simple fact explains the actions of almost anyone in almost all circumstances. These people aren't "pro-big business" they're "pro-self", just like you and I. This alliance is made up of people, and those people are simply seeking to make themselves richer, preserve their incomes or protect their existing business models.

Given this simple fact, you can't honestly expect them to do anything less.

They want as much of our money as possible for as little effort as possible. We want as much of their stuff as we can get for as little as we can pay for it. They just have a lot more power (money) than we do.

Middle Ground (1)

false_cause (1013577) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269503)

a 2005 opinion piece claimed that he was 'looking for anyone who wants to join me in seeking that elusive middle ground.' Turns out the middle ground is actually money; something I've also found to be elusive.

any news? (1)

Ep0xi (1093943) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269575)

#include "advancing educational programs "that teach the value of strong copyright."

They are just putting in white what was gray for several years.

I am working to develop the way to ensure "teaching the strong value of copyright" without using the "Public force".

Maybe the best ways is the way they used to do it:

Case Intellectual Property infringement = True Do Intellectual punishment
Or the old way

Case Intellectual property infringement = True Do Phisical harm
Power is not just a measurement, it's a real force.

Hate (2, Insightful)

Das Auge (597142) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269607)

I reserve the word 'hate' for truly worthy people. I don't hate the people that cut me off, I don't hate the people who get my order wrong, and I don't even hate the people that give me the run-around.

But I really do hate these people, and the people like them, that try to hold society back.

The value of strong copyright? (1)

DrivingBear (931124) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269619)

On a similar note the AAWA (American Ass Watcher's Association) has just announced that they will be advancing educational programs 'that teach the value of not wearing pants.'

Phew, finally! (1)

arse maker (1058608) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269633)

We finally have someone getting together to try to protect the digital media rights of these companies, its been a long time comming. They should be able to nail this on the head in a few months and make life much better for us all who buy their products.

Oh good (2, Funny)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269675)

Because you know, I was just thinking, what we're really lacking is another copyright PAC.

I'm shocked... (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269753)

The RIAA is not on the list!

The NBA??!! (1)

interstellar_donkey (200782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269861)

Well, if the handling of the recent Suns-Spurs series is any indication of the organization's ethics, I'm sure it's going to be fair.

secured initial support? (3, Insightful)

JimDaGeek (983925) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269867)

the Copyright Alliance has already secured initial support from several members of Congress
Is this the PC way of saying, "the Copyright Alliance has already paid for initial support from several members of Congress"?

Re:secured initial support? (1)

DShard (159067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270279)

along with the corollary:
"Several members of congress have taken bribes and now support the Copyright Alliance"

The criminals taking the bribes:
Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC)

I am not about to say that these guys are the only criminals in congress. Every single congressman takes PAC money. That money is a bribe. Even the best intentioned, reform minded, person that goes to Washington eventually succumbs to careerism. The only people who can stop that in our Government are the same people who want the system to remain the way it is.

A Good Article on Copyright (4, Insightful)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 7 years ago | (#19269911)

If you haven't read Bounty Hunters [greglondon.com] by Greg London, you really should give it a go.

He describes the struggle of society to reward creators in analogy to paying bounty hunters to track criminals. It's a good analogy, and the analysis in section three is good. He spends time talking about making copyright have the proper length so that artists create, but not so long that society pays too much. I must admit that before reading it, I was skeptical that copyright could ever work or had anything to offer. He convinced me that it can be a good system, but there must be fairness in the term of protection.

The last flesh-and-blood discussion about copyright I had was very illuminating. I publish in science, and generally see copyright as getting in the way; I believe ideas that I come up with make me more valuable, rather than having external value (they could be useful for others to learn, then they've increased the value of their labor). But I spoke with a friend who writes fiction. Naturally, she had a different bend. She wanted to be compensated for her work and she didn't want any other writer writing substandard work with her characters, diluting her vision. There were just different issues between knowledge-based creative product and entertainment-based creative product. I would write more about how I disagreed with her, and thought her fears were unfounded, but it seems unfair to do that without a chance to respond

Monopoly rights on thoughts are some of the most important things facing our society now. We've developed a system where the physical reproduction of these things (text, music, images) is dirt cheap, nearly free, and it is forcing us to reconsider exactly what copyright and patents mean. The "Intellectual Property" crowd has a lot of money, and I think they are dangerous. We need to forge a new compromise between creators and society that maximizes creative output. That will require negotiating the "price" of that work in terms of monopoly protections.

There is a great disturbance in the force (1)

Digital Vomit (891734) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270063)

The People have a new enemy...

Copyright Tank (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270109)

The group is headed by Patrick Ross, a former senior fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, a strongly free-market think tank.


Copyright is derived from the Constitution's instructions for Congress to "promote progress in science and the useful arts". But they now impede progress more than they promote it. A "free market" is unencumbered by government-created monopolies like copyright. Copyright is a misnamed privilege to restrict free expression.

Does anyone think that Ross is busy protecting freedom, progress and markets? Or is he busy grabbing as much money as he can for people with licenses to print it?

Forces of Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270133)

MPAA, the Business Software Alliance, Microsoft. What could go wrong?

Be afraid (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270203)

Be very afraid.

This is not good for our rights and freedoms. The money they will have at their disposal to attack us with will be mind boggling.

"Middle ground" is already behind him... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19270327)

Copyright doesn't need to be "strengthened", it only needs to be clarified a little and, most importantly, restored to a more sane balance between creators and users (i.e. rollback of the ever-extendeded terms before things expire into the public domain). As it is now, the public domain has been consistently sacrificed, legal exercise of "fair use" rights are being stymied by DRM and anti-circumvention laws, and you even have people talking about loony ideas such as extending copyright forever, as if they were talking about property and land rights.

Companies such as Disney have profitted ENORMOUSLY from the existence of the public domain. Now all they want to do is use copyright to stake out parts of the free realm of ideas, own them forever, and destroy any future contribution of them to the public domain. It's hypocritical and wrong.

Just gets better (2, Interesting)

hamster.powered (1105135) | more than 7 years ago | (#19270391)

After what I just heard on the radio this week... I can only imagine the kind of crazy extensions they'll try to start tacking onto copyright.

On my local radio station, every monday morning the morning show DJ's (Stuck 'n Gunner, if anyone's heard of 'em) will do "Microwave Monday". This involves either putting something in a microwave that one is not supposed to, or otherwise somehow mangling, tormenting, and/or destroying a microwave.

A couple months back, they had a popular band on the show (who I guess I better not mention, as I haven't purchased the rights to say their name in public). The DJ's and said band proceeded to bash the living hell out of a microwave on video, and posted the video (as they do with all their MM videos) online.

This past week the record label for that band got the video taken down on some kind of alleged copyright violation... for a video of the band smashing a microwave; no musical performance involved. WTF?!?!?! Glad i didn't become a musician. Apparently becoming a big name US musician means you can no longer do anything on video, ever, without paying the label.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>