Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
EU Government DRM Piracy Politics Your Rights Online

EU Parliament Group Opposes Long Copyrights and Oppressive DRM 172

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-not-easy-being-green dept.
the_arrow writes "Apparently there are some politicians who 'get it.' At least it seems that way after reading an entry on the blog of Rick Falkvinge (founder of the Swedish Pirate Party). He says the Green party group, fifth largest in the European Parliament, has officially adopted several of the Pirate Party's stances in a new position paper (PDF). The Greens say, 'the copyright monopoly does not extend to what an ordinary person can do with ordinary equipment in their home and spare time,' adding that a 20-year protection term is more reasonable than 70 years. They go on to say, 'Net Neutrality must be guaranteed,' and also mention DRM: 'It must always be legal to circumvent DRM restrictions, and we should consider introducing a ban in the consumer rights legislation on DRM technologies that restrict legal uses of a work.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Parliament Group Opposes Long Copyrights and Oppressive DRM

Comments Filter:
  • Twenty? Try 10 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc (621217) on Friday October 07, 2011 @04:51PM (#37643518) Homepage
    Art falls into 3 categories.

    1. Masterpiece (Potter/Tolkien/Shakespeare/Jane Austen/Picasso etc.) These usually make a tone of money in the first 5 years - or don't make any till after the author is dead. In either case, there is no point in extending the length of the copyright. It won't affect the author significantly, either way.

    2. Profitable, but not masterpieces. These make their money in the first year, and then fade out quick. By the 5th year, it is practically nothing. But they might do a sequel, which can extend profits. Still, 10 years after the first original work, it won't matter. Either the series has made someone very rich, or their new profits come from the new books, not the old ones.

    3. Not profitable. Not in 1 year, not in 10, not in 20, not in 70. NEVER profitable.

    There is zero reason to extend copyrights past 10 years, let alone 20.

  • by mmcuh (1088773) on Friday October 07, 2011 @05:00PM (#37643612)
    No, the article is about the copyright policies adopted by the Green group with 56 elected representatives in the highest legislative body of the European Union. Which happen to coincide to a large degree with the copyright policies of the Swedish Pirate Party, probably because they have a MEP who is a member of the Green group.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07, 2011 @05:20PM (#37643766)

    Content creatores make content, big media makes money, big media evades taxes.

  • Re:Twenty? Try 10 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by icebraining (1313345) on Friday October 07, 2011 @05:40PM (#37643960) Homepage

    I don't want my nurtured stuff to be sold on some thieves bazaar by hoarders and internet opportunists.

    And I want free ponies, doesn't mean the government should spend taxpayer money forcing confiscating and giving me them.

    Why would anybody be against copyright?

    They're not. They're for a more limited copyright. One which doesn't impose an unreasonable burden on the government and on society.

  • by mykos (1627575) on Friday October 07, 2011 @05:48PM (#37644022)
    Never forget that. Long copyright steals our public domain.

    Before digital distribution, 5-7 years was considered an adequate amount of time to monopolize an idea. You'd think that number would go down with faster distribution because the creator could get it out there faster.
  • Re:Twenty? Try 10 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by suutar (1860506) on Friday October 07, 2011 @06:24PM (#37644364)
    I have no problem with the author, editor, proofreader, typesetter, et al getting paid for their effort. What I do have a problem with is stuff that was good enough for me to enjoy, but not good enough to stay in print forever, _ceasing_to_exist_ when the printed copies of (e.g.) Analog from the 1970s have all rotted away. The publisher probably won't believe enough people will pay for the Adventures of Ferdinand Feghoot to reprint them commercially (and they're probably right), but nobody else can reprint them at all... leaving the only copies of this stuff on pulp paper.

    H. G. Wells's work seems to be some of the most recent stuff that's in public domain without the author explicitly saying so. With Disney trying to protect Steamboat Willie forever, I don't see that changing. So from now on (almost certainly for the rest of my life, at least) there will be essentially two bodies of work that can be gotten: reprints of stuff older than about 1920, and whatever is currently for sale. That's it. And that's not fine. That's not "Progress in the Useful Arts" in my book.

    So while I understand why you as an author want your rights protected, and I'm happy to keep you fed and housed and producing new work if it's any good, I'm not happy enough to keep your grandchildren fed and housed off your work that I'm willing to watch the good-but-not-fantastic stuff just vanish.

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.

Working...