3 ms·

https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU Tom Scott explains the situation and the solution best. Just shorten copyright to 20 years (instead o

https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU https://youtu.be/1Jwo5qc78QU Tom Scott explains the situation and the solution best. Just shorten copyright to 20 years (instead of life + 70 years). .......that said, we did just strong-arm the world into matching US copyright law and I’m not sure we could do that now even if we wanted to.

tptacek 6y ago
It's pretty funny, because, as a solution, it simultaneously (a) doesn't actually address the problem, because the content that DRM protects and that people want is stuff released within the last few months, and (b) can't happen, as it sets copyright length back below what it was in 1909, before Disney even existed. In fact: the 1970s extension to copyright (the one predating "Sonny Bono" was done to bring the US into compliance with Europe. People have weird thoughts about copyright.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
zerocrates 6y ago
DMCA 1201 is a whole different can of worms, one which isn't really affected by the copyright term. 1201's whole purpose is "anticircumvention": to ban tools for breaking DRM, not to actually punish infringement. That is, The Matrix being out of copyright tomorrow wouldn't change anything for DeCSS under 1201. The linked blog post here is actually quite strange: the post is talking about 1201 abuse, but the proposal is about copyright infringement and 512 takedown, neither of which are really related to 1201. So its hard to see how this would "blunt" 1201 at all. The recent high-profile situations have blurred the lines between the takedown provisions and the anticircumvention ones, especially as they just get listed in a "dmca" repository on Github, and the post even mentions this in the case of the Widevine takedowns, but the little technicalities do in fact matter here.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Thorrez 6y ago
How does shortening copyright length solve the DRM problem? Companies could still put DRM on 50 year old content, and it would still be illegal to break the DRM because breaking DRM is against the law even if an individual piece of content isn't copyrighted.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  Copyright exists to motivate artists (and others) to extraordinary levels of effort by rewarding them extremely handsomely for their struggles (life copyright + 70 years for their kids). It’s arguable that 20 years still provides most of that same motivation and disallows huge corporations to profit off of artists who have been dead for 40+ years. What motivation to new artists does anyone owning the rights to Mickey Mouse do other than enrich people who had no hand in creating it? Shortening copyright would allow DRM to focus on a very small subset of works and allow everyone to use and enjoy older works. Yes, DRM may be arbitrarily placed on anything but if the work can be freely acquired elsewhere without fear of retribution, then no one will seek out the DRM version anyway.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    Hmm, good point. One single person can bypass the DRM, and then everyone else can copy that file indiscriminately.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > breaking DRM is against the law even if an individual piece of content isn't copyrighted This is not the case actually; the problem is that while breaking "protection measures" on a non-copyrighted work may be legal per se, DMCA 1201 will still hinder development of tools to break such protection, as long as these same measures are being used to provide effective protection on copyrighted works.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tptacek 6y ago

It's pretty funny, because, as a solution, it simultaneously (a) doesn't actually address the problem, because the content that DRM protects and that people want is stuff released within the last few months, and (b) can't happen, as it sets copyright length back below what it was in 1909, before Disney even existed. In fact: the 1970s extension to copyright (the one predating "Sonny Bono" was done to bring the US into compliance with Europe. People have weird thoughts about copyright.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

zerocrates 6y ago

DMCA 1201 is a whole different can of worms, one which isn't really affected by the copyright term. 1201's whole purpose is "anticircumvention": to ban tools for breaking DRM, not to actually punish infringement. That is, The Matrix being out of copyright tomorrow wouldn't change anything for DeCSS under 1201. The linked blog post here is actually quite strange: the post is talking about 1201 abuse, but the proposal is about copyright infringement and 512 takedown, neither of which are really related to 1201. So its hard to see how this would "blunt" 1201 at all. The recent high-profile situations have blurred the lines between the takedown provisions and the anticircumvention ones, especially as they just get listed in a "dmca" repository on Github, and the post even mentions this in the case of the Widevine takedowns, but the little technicalities do in fact matter here.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Thorrez 6y ago

How does shortening copyright length solve the DRM problem? Companies could still put DRM on 50 year old content, and it would still be illegal to break the DRM because breaking DRM is against the law even if an individual piece of content isn't copyrighted.

jimbob45 6y ago
Copyright exists to motivate artists (and others) to extraordinary levels of effort by rewarding them extremely handsomely for their struggles (life copyright + 70 years for their kids). It’s arguable that 20 years still provides most of that same motivation and disallows huge corporations to profit off of artists who have been dead for 40+ years. What motivation to new artists does anyone owning the rights to Mickey Mouse do other than enrich people who had no hand in creating it? Shortening copyright would allow DRM to focus on a very small subset of works and allow everyone to use and enjoy older works. Yes, DRM may be arbitrarily placed on anything but if the work can be freely acquired elsewhere without fear of retribution, then no one will seek out the DRM version anyway.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  Hmm, good point. One single person can bypass the DRM, and then everyone else can copy that file indiscriminately.
zozbot234 6y ago
> breaking DRM is against the law even if an individual piece of content isn't copyrighted This is not the case actually; the problem is that while breaking "protection measures" on a non-copyrighted work may be legal per se, DMCA 1201 will still hinder development of tools to break such protection, as long as these same measures are being used to provide effective protection on copyrighted works.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]