Copyright Alliance Presses Presidential Candidates

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Not satisfied with the current copyright terms of life plus seventy years and huge financial liabilities for infringement, the Copyright Alliance is pressuring presidential candidates for stronger copyright laws. In particular, they want the candidates to promise to divert police resources to punish even non-commercial copyright infringement. After all, without copyright, what would become of the next Shakespeare, Michaelangelo, or da Vinci?"

Much weaker copyright

[webmaster404]

We need a much much much weaker copyright system. Already, due to "copyright infringement" the *IAA has managed to fine single mothers and college students outrageous amounts of money for supposedly "stealing songs" this has already harmed the emergence of P2P software as a way of distributing bandwidth better as simply a way of "illegally" distributing material. In technology, there is little innovation compared to what there should be due to software patents, outrageous licenses and copyright. We need to protect fair use and give the right to make backups and to share files and songs, without it, despite what the *IAA thinks, our economy of software, music and movies will collapse leaving the *IAA and artists without a penny. Our copyright system is broken, if it becomes hardly any stronger the USA will be right up there with China and other nations that are hostile to information sharing and become even more digitally shackled then we already are.

Re:Getting you money after you die...

[vux984]

Ah, but that's the beauty of assigning copyright to a corporation. They don't have to die. They don't have to ever stop earning money.

Re:Much weaker copyright

[dosius]

The most I'll grant anyone respect for is 5-10 years for software and audiovisual media, 20-40 years for books.

And I'm blatantly violating copyright laws all the time with my BT tracker, but am I bothered? Do I look bothered? I don't see anything wrong with "blatantly ignoring" a law I don't believe is right. We need so many people to "blatantly ignore" it that they have no choice but to concede (like that'll ever happen).

-uso.

Part of my inaugural speech ...

[Daniel Dvorkin]

"My fellow Americans, today we face many pressing issues: the war in Iraq, assaults on traditional liberties at home and abroad, a difficult economy, climate change, and the list goes on. There's another issue I'd like to address today, and it may seem like it's not quite on the scale of those others. But it's an important one, and it has implications for everything I just mentioned, because the way we're going to solve those problems isn't just to ignore them and hope they'll go away; it's to use our heads and figure out solutions. More than two hundred years ago, the Founders of this great nation decided that one of the best ways to do that was to make sure that smart people who came up with important ideas were rewarded for their work, and I'd like to thank the Copyright Alliance for bringing this issue up.

"Today, I am calling on Congress to fulfill their Constitutional duty to 'secure for a limited time' copyrights and patents. And limited time means limited time. It doesn't mean extending copyright every time Mickey Mouse might be due to enter the public domain. It doesn't mean sitting on patents for things that you didn't invent until someone else figures out how to make money off it, and then suing them out of the blue. When the Constitution was signed, it meant twenty years. If twenty years was good enough for James Madison, it's good enough for me. So I urge Congress to send me a bill restoring the terms of intellectual property law to their original forms, and making it clear that it's a civil matter, not a job for the FBI, because you know, Osama bin Laden is still out there and frankly I think the FBI has more important things to do."

"Thank you, good night, and God bless America."

But that's probably not the answer CA is looking for. ;)

There's an important priciple here.

[Erris]

Way to try to justify your illegal activity, slashfags.

Not that you care about either, AC, but laws should follow morals, not the other way around. Copyright laws are the result of corruption and following them is often immoral. They prevent the free flow of information more important than pop songs anyone can hear on the radio anyway. If the US is still a functional democracy, these initiatives will be defeated and bad laws like the DMCA will be rolled back. As is usually the case, private privilege has led to vast public harm.

Copyright laws have gotten so bad that scientific and medical journals are restricted and hard to find. This is both against the author's intentions and a sever blow to the whole purpose of copyright law. Authors who publish seek the widest possible audience. They want anyone who's interested to have ready access to their findings and that's what publishing is supposed to be about. The purpose of US copyright and patent law expressed in the US Constitution is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [wikipedia.org] Any law that goes against that purpose requires a constitutional amendment. Again [slashdot.org] and again [slashdot.org], prominent scientists [slashdot.org] and artist [salon.com] have stepped forward to complain.

The issue

[edwardpickman]

The real point that should answer the questions is who owns the copyright the creator or the community at large? That really seems the debate. As a copyright holder I've already radically changed what work will be released to the public and how it will be released due to the weakness of the current copyright system. Electronic distibution and foreign markets that ignore copyright has seriously threatened the market and the ability of creators to make a living. Yes there's still money to be made but for how much longer? I have films based on my work in stores in Malaysia shortly after their release for a $1 a copy. South East Asia is already spoiled as a market with the largest potential market China being almost exclusively pirate. If the creator doesn't benefit from his/her work then why do it in the first place? Yes we'll still create but why release it to the public? I can make money off my lesser work so I decided to not release any of my favorite work to the public because of the current system. It's like a genie in the bottle and once it's released it will be copied endlessly. I'm a writer by preference and even if I strictly limit my work to printed text even then some one will likely scan it and post it. The point I'm trying to make is if I can make a living off what I consider lesser work and I want to avoid others exploiting work that is important to me then the world at large will never benefit from the better work. You can say who cares and I agree one artist may not be important but I do know of others quietly doing the same. As free distribution of material gets worse so will the restricting of material so in the end the community suffers. Many artists were mentioned like Shakespear. He's a perfect example. Let's say his work was strictly performed live and never published in any form. He would be completely unknown today. All artists especially writers have work that they never publish. What if they as a group decide to restrict their best work? Already there's been a noticable drop in the quality of the work available. It may not be the primary cause but I will say I know for a fact that some writers are no longer releasing their best work. An artists creation is very much like a child to them and it's at times like throwing your children to the wolves. In the past it was publishers and film studios that molested writers but now the community seems to feel they own our children so it might be time to start keeping our children in a closet. There are two sides to any situation. If the community at large feels they should be able to freely exploit an artists work then they may find one day they control smoke because there might not be much out there to exploit. We need to encourage the best people not punish them. Been to a movie lately? One of my passions is film and in the past I've been known to see three films in a single day in a theater. Now I rarely go and going to Blockbuster is a depressing experience. Dozens of films were released this week for the holiday rush and yet I found myself renting several older films. I'm hesitant to sell film rights anymore due to how poorly they are treated by most film makers these days. Anyone see The Mist? They turned one of Stephen's best stories into a tedious yawn fest. If our best work is going to be stolen and butchered whats the point? I'd rather restrict my favorite work to family and friends and my safe deposit boxes.

Re:Great Works

[Quantam]

"On the one hand we have media execs that demand tougher copyright laws "to protect artists" while having clauses inserted in the same bill to cheat them of their returned rights.

On the other we have a bunch of folk who want to have everything for free and construct elaborate explanations as to how this is great for the artists. "

I'm increasingly of the belief that the morality of file sharing is irrelevant. Right or wrong, I doubt even the government can stop it, as easy as it's become. And we're already at the point where companies' pursuit of profits are inhibiting the good of society, and stopping file sharing (if we are to assume that is even possible) would go much further than that, with a result a lot worse than starving artists and media executives.

More like "all".

[k.a.f.]

Some of the Bard's work was based on the work of other artists.

Actually, 35 of his 36 plays reuse plots from previously published works.

Re:Great Works

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

The RIAA made it socially acceptable to commit file sharing. People don't see the behavior as criminal, they don't see it as wrong.

No, that's not quite true. Naturally, it's easy to get that impression from sites like Slashdot, but in the wider community AFAICT, people do feel guilty about piracy. One person, I kid you not, was actually relieved that a CD was copy protected, so that he wouldn't have to face the decision of a new CD + guilt, or nothing. What the RIAA has done is polarised the debate somewhat. They've all but jettisoned people on the fringes (i.e. Slashdotters, etc), and have piled the guilt onto people in the centre, so that they are more likely to pay for their music. I think it was probably the best way to go, since not prosecuting pirates would simply lead to piracy becoming acceptable nationwide or worldwide. With that kind of morality, first the small independent labels would go, working its way up to toppling the RIAA and other large copyright holders.

Re:Great Works

[Tim C]

The RIAA made it socially acceptable to commit file sharing. People don't see the behavior as criminal, they don't see it as wrong.

I disagree. I think most people found it socially acceptable to copy stuff long before this whole debate got started. Ever since it was easy to copy stuff at home people have been doing it. Why do you think so many games back in the 80s used copy prevention measures? Back then there were no anti-file sharing crusades, no headline-making law suits, no fat-cat executives making easy targets of themselves.

I'm not saying that the RIAA aren't their own worst enemy, or immoral, etc; I'm just saying that copying has been socially acceptable for much longer than the RIAA could be used as a convenient excuse. If nothing else, people have been copying stuff here in the UK for decades, and I'd never heard of the RIAA before I started reading slashdot.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion