5 ms·

Reasonable Anger In Europe Over Ridiculous Copyright Extension

101 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

nirvana 15y ago
Any time period is going to be essentially arbitrary... but it seems to me that 20 years like patents, or maybe 30 years is plenty of time for the creator to derive value in the marketplace from their work. These were never meant to be eternal, for good reason, and constantly extending them to me seems very corrupt... that this is favoring one group's interests over another.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  This can (and has been) modeled using future value analysis (from economics). Since future payments are discounted (based on interest and inflation), extending copyright means that the value now of creating a new work increases but by smaller and smaller amounts. Somewhere in the 15-30 year range is about "right" according to most studies -- the additional value of even an infinite extension is minimal at this point. Then there's the economic value of a work: very few copyrighted works have an economic life of one year, let alone a century. This is particularly true since copyright protections were extended to all works rather than just those which were registered with a copyright office (this post is copyrighted, however my economic interest in it is nil, still, it will extend for the next 120 years). The real argument for extensions is copyright term in works of enduring value whose copyright is about to expire. This is the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Law" in the US. Walt Disney's first Mickey Mouse cartoon, "Steamboat Willie" (itself borrowing very heavily from earlier works) was published in 1928, and there's been a strong trend in extension to prevent works from at least this date from ever entering the public domain. This results in the exceptionally strong protections of copyright being extended to a huge volume of valueless (and often ownerless in the sense that no true owner can be identified or contacted) to protect a very small number of works of enduring economic value, though by no means does this promote the directive in the US Constitution "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" (other nations have their own justifications).
  - jerf 15y ago
    While I'd love to see copyright terms just tuned down across the board, I could deal with a system whereby the next extensions required explicit renewals. For practicality's sake I might even be willing to put up with allowing owners to file one form for their entire catalog rather than enumerating everything, because if nothing else at least this would clear the zombie owner backlog.
    - nkassis 15y ago
      I agree with this and I think you could even scale the fee for renewal up over time to discourage just automatic renewal of stuff that has almost no commercial value anymore. Seriously I could care less if disney wants to keep paying for steamboat willie to stay copyrighted as long as the fee keeps going up making them think about the value of doing so.
    - dredmorbius 15y ago
      Which is much more "how it used to be". Initial copyright, until 1976, was for 28 years, registration required, with one renewal allowed for a total of 56 years (if I recall correctly). While registration is still possible in the US (and is required for certain damages), it's not required. I agree that this would help greatly in addressing the matter of "orphan works".
nextparadigms 15y ago
Obviously the labels are doing it for themselves, but even their argument that they're doing it for the (very old) artists isn't a good one. The purpose of the copyright was to ultimately create a richer culture, and to do that they needed artists to create works of art, but once they do that, the period of time for which they own the copyright should be optimized for "minimization" not maximization, so the society at large can benefit from them. Copyiright was designed to ultimately help the society. Helping the artists protect their works is just a step towards that goal, not the goal itself. But sadly the labels are trying to make protecting the works the ultimate and only goal of copyright, because they get to benefit even more than the artists themselves from that.
pyre 15y ago
I think that the advertisement incident in the UK a few yeats back was telling. A full page advert with a list of artists that supposedly supported the copyright extension. People noticed that some of the artists on the list weren't even alive, and some artists came out that they were never asked if they supported it or not.
akkartik 15y ago
Wait, so composers and lyricists get life+70 years? How long has that been going on? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8759524/Will-copyright-extensions-ever-end.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8759524/Will-copy...
cHalgan 15y ago
I just want to point one thing: As China is becoming the super-power (engine of the world), their view how copyright should be handled will become prevalent. In other words, the majority of money to be made will be in Chindia and not in Europe and US. We need to prepare for that.
- hxa7241 15y ago
  The USA will find the weapon of IP law etc. it has been building all over the world turned against it. One would expect China and India to follow USA commercial practice and use the established structures of IP. But USA-IP is not intended to be good economics in the real sense, it is supposed to benefit the USA. When the USA is a net importer, it will be the loser. It will start to disavow international IP. But IP is fairly dumb in an information economy so it must die out in the not too distant future anyway.
  - jerf 15y ago
    Historically speaking, it is far more likely than in 10-20 years, China will "see the light" and institute much stronger IP laws, once they have more stuff to protect, because your proposal is unstable; if the US starts disrespecting Chinese copyright, the historical outcome is a treaty, not mutual disrespect. If mutual disrespect were the stable outcome, we'd already see that.
    - hxa7241 15y ago
      Well, yes, disavowal is too strong: the USA will just try to reduce (international) IP. The main point is the turnaround.
RexRollman 15y ago
I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain.
- hypersoar 15y ago
  This only applies to performers. As it says in the linked article, composers and lyricists already get life + 70 years.
  - eftpotrm 15y ago
    So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? I'm a firmly amateur musician so this isn't relevant to me, but as it happens I do as much improvisation as formal writing; there is a distinct anomaly exposed here, to my mind. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the copyright system, I strongly feel that the level of rights a creator receives should be equal regardless of their means of creation; the moral logic for preferencing one form of publishing over another in law seems entirely absent, to me.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - jasonlotito 15y ago
      > So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? Within this context, I believe the logic is you are playing someones written composition. If it's yours, then it's protected as normal. If it's not, then you merely performed a creation.
      - eftpotrm 15y ago
        If you think performers are merely mechanically repeating someone else's composition, I would suggest that you're not a musician...
praptak 15y ago
Hey copyright hoarders. We had a deal. The society granted you a limited time monopoly in exchange for the works going into the public domain after this time. You broke this deal by hands of corrupt politicians. I do not feel obliged to keep my end of this deal anymore.
- BadassFractal 15y ago
  Too bad they can still sue the shit out of you if you lose the bittorrent lottery and your IP is selected for public exemplary punishment.
  - tomjen3 15y ago
    Which isn't likely to be a concern anymore, since most people here would be smart enough to either use a private tracker (which isn't selected) or to use some filehost like rapidshare.
buff-a 15y ago
FTA: They've sold out the public, who they're supposed to represent. People keep saying this like its an opinion. This is the central fact of modern day politicians and government bureaucrats. Lets stop fucking talking about it. Lets get a voter measure on the ballot to criminalize it.
pointyhat 15y ago
I genuinely give as much of a shit as I did before they extended it and I'm sure that is the case for the rest of the population. This is more about PR and marketing than it is about law.

101 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

Any time period is going to be essentially arbitrary... but it seems to me that 20 years like patents, or maybe 30 years is plenty of time for the creator to derive value in the marketplace from their work. These were never meant to be eternal, for good reason, and constantly extending them to me seems very corrupt... that this is favoring one group's interests over another.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 15y ago
This can (and has been) modeled using future value analysis (from economics). Since future payments are discounted (based on interest and inflation), extending copyright means that the value now of creating a new work increases but by smaller and smaller amounts. Somewhere in the 15-30 year range is about "right" according to most studies -- the additional value of even an infinite extension is minimal at this point. Then there's the economic value of a work: very few copyrighted works have an economic life of one year, let alone a century. This is particularly true since copyright protections were extended to all works rather than just those which were registered with a copyright office (this post is copyrighted, however my economic interest in it is nil, still, it will extend for the next 120 years). The real argument for extensions is copyright term in works of enduring value whose copyright is about to expire. This is the "Mickey Mouse Copyright Law" in the US. Walt Disney's first Mickey Mouse cartoon, "Steamboat Willie" (itself borrowing very heavily from earlier works) was published in 1928, and there's been a strong trend in extension to prevent works from at least this date from ever entering the public domain. This results in the exceptionally strong protections of copyright being extended to a huge volume of valueless (and often ownerless in the sense that no true owner can be identified or contacted) to protect a very small number of works of enduring economic value, though by no means does this promote the directive in the US Constitution "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" (other nations have their own justifications).
- jerf 15y ago
  While I'd love to see copyright terms just tuned down across the board, I could deal with a system whereby the next extensions required explicit renewals. For practicality's sake I might even be willing to put up with allowing owners to file one form for their entire catalog rather than enumerating everything, because if nothing else at least this would clear the zombie owner backlog.
  - nkassis 15y ago
    I agree with this and I think you could even scale the fee for renewal up over time to discourage just automatic renewal of stuff that has almost no commercial value anymore. Seriously I could care less if disney wants to keep paying for steamboat willie to stay copyrighted as long as the fee keeps going up making them think about the value of doing so.
  - dredmorbius 15y ago
    Which is much more "how it used to be". Initial copyright, until 1976, was for 28 years, registration required, with one renewal allowed for a total of 56 years (if I recall correctly). While registration is still possible in the US (and is required for certain damages), it's not required. I agree that this would help greatly in addressing the matter of "orphan works".

nextparadigms 15y ago

Obviously the labels are doing it for themselves, but even their argument that they're doing it for the (very old) artists isn't a good one. The purpose of the copyright was to ultimately create a richer culture, and to do that they needed artists to create works of art, but once they do that, the period of time for which they own the copyright should be optimized for "minimization" not maximization, so the society at large can benefit from them. Copyiright was designed to ultimately help the society. Helping the artists protect their works is just a step towards that goal, not the goal itself. But sadly the labels are trying to make protecting the works the ultimate and only goal of copyright, because they get to benefit even more than the artists themselves from that.

pyre 15y ago

I think that the advertisement incident in the UK a few yeats back was telling. A full page advert with a list of artists that supposedly supported the copyright extension. People noticed that some of the artists on the list weren't even alive, and some artists came out that they were never asked if they supported it or not.

akkartik 15y ago

Wait, so composers and lyricists get life+70 years? How long has that been going on? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8759524/Will-copyright-extensions-ever-end.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8759524/Will-copy...

cHalgan 15y ago

I just want to point one thing: As China is becoming the super-power (engine of the world), their view how copyright should be handled will become prevalent. In other words, the majority of money to be made will be in Chindia and not in Europe and US. We need to prepare for that.

hxa7241 15y ago
The USA will find the weapon of IP law etc. it has been building all over the world turned against it. One would expect China and India to follow USA commercial practice and use the established structures of IP. But USA-IP is not intended to be good economics in the real sense, it is supposed to benefit the USA. When the USA is a net importer, it will be the loser. It will start to disavow international IP. But IP is fairly dumb in an information economy so it must die out in the not too distant future anyway.
- jerf 15y ago
  Historically speaking, it is far more likely than in 10-20 years, China will "see the light" and institute much stronger IP laws, once they have more stuff to protect, because your proposal is unstable; if the US starts disrespecting Chinese copyright, the historical outcome is a treaty, not mutual disrespect. If mutual disrespect were the stable outcome, we'd already see that.
  - hxa7241 15y ago
    Well, yes, disavowal is too strong: the USA will just try to reduce (international) IP. The main point is the turnaround.

RexRollman 15y ago

I don't believe that a living creator should have to suffer their creations going into the public domain. Once dead, however, their works should transition to the public domain.

hypersoar 15y ago
This only applies to performers. As it says in the linked article, composers and lyricists already get life + 70 years.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? I'm a firmly amateur musician so this isn't relevant to me, but as it happens I do as much improvisation as formal writing; there is a distinct anomaly exposed here, to my mind. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the copyright system, I strongly feel that the level of rights a creator receives should be equal regardless of their means of creation; the moral logic for preferencing one form of publishing over another in law seems entirely absent, to me.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasonlotito 15y ago
    > So if I express myself by writing I get life + 70, but by playing I get a flat 50? Why the differing value judgment? Within this context, I believe the logic is you are playing someones written composition. If it's yours, then it's protected as normal. If it's not, then you merely performed a creation.
    - eftpotrm 15y ago
      If you think performers are merely mechanically repeating someone else's composition, I would suggest that you're not a musician...

praptak 15y ago

Hey copyright hoarders. We had a deal. The society granted you a limited time monopoly in exchange for the works going into the public domain after this time. You broke this deal by hands of corrupt politicians. I do not feel obliged to keep my end of this deal anymore.

BadassFractal 15y ago
Too bad they can still sue the shit out of you if you lose the bittorrent lottery and your IP is selected for public exemplary punishment.
- tomjen3 15y ago
  Which isn't likely to be a concern anymore, since most people here would be smart enough to either use a private tracker (which isn't selected) or to use some filehost like rapidshare.

buff-a 15y ago

FTA: They've sold out the public, who they're supposed to represent. People keep saying this like its an opinion. This is the central fact of modern day politicians and government bureaucrats. Lets stop fucking talking about it. Lets get a voter measure on the ballot to criminalize it.

pointyhat 15y ago

I genuinely give as much of a shit as I did before they extended it and I'm sure that is the case for the rest of the population. This is more about PR and marketing than it is about law.