EU Copyright Harmonization In the Works

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

would you accept reasonable and a substitute for proper?

No. I think you missed my point. The problem that was solved was how we stimulate people to continue to create if we want them to do that. One way is to use compensation in some form. Another way is to pay them to be "creators" and not pay for a specific thing they created. And there are other possible ways to solve the problem. The problem is not how to to give a proper or resonable compensation for some specific work.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by tompe

No. I think you missed my point. The problem that was solved was how we stimulate people to continue to create if we want them to do that. One way is to use compensation in some form. Another way is to pay them to be "creators" and not pay for a specific thing they created. And there are other possible ways to solve the problem. The problem is not how to to give a proper or resonable compensation for some specific work.

that is the difference between piece work and salary, both are compensation. Basically pay for knowledge or production. Other ways to get them to produce are awards, recognition, satisfaction, perks, etc.

the problem with paying them as creators only is that somebody has to have the money to pay them. Advertisers, billionaires, etc. or someone directly profiting from their output.

Dale

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I'm afraid that, although no one will want to hear this, the solution will almost certainly be one of more complexity and involvement in the copyright process. Unfortunately, I'm no expert either, so I also cannot enumerate specific answers. But I'm sure they will involve the evolution of technologies like digital watermarks and tracking numbers, probably include access to home systems, and require more involved ID tracking.

Yeah, it'll be tough. Think of what extremes governments have to deal with to fight money counterfeiting, and you'll have an idea how tough this is going to be.

As bad as all this sounds, though, it isn't much more than we already put up with to use our cellphones and cable televisions, buy things with credit cards, drive our cars, travel on a plane, or buy beer. All of these things have become more complex with time, and require multiple instances of ID checking, tracking and verification along the way, most of which were certainly bitched about when they were initiated. But we got used to the rigmarole over time, and we'll get used to the copyright rigmarole, too.

Look at it this way: When it gets to be that complicated, we'll be using our computers to automate the process, and it won't seem that bad at all. Like buying MP3s from iTunes easy.

Geeez. And you can say that seriously...

The people over at the Pirate Party in the Netherlands (or is that Sweden?) put it in the proper terms: It's not completely impossible to keep having copyrights laws working the way they did before the advent of the digital age. But to do so, you'll need implementing such total surveillance methods over the population that you'll end up living in a totalitarian state.

Let's be clear, even China with its complete disregard of Human Rights hasn't yet been able to 'properly' control the internet (though not from lack of trying). And except when showing off to the Western Powers, they don't give a damn about copyrigths (which would ask for orders of magnitude more efforts).

Have you read Vinge's "Rainbows End"? The story is nice, but one very interesting aspect is the way copyrights are handled in the book's world - it all comes down to people being allowed to use government certified hardware only(with pre-made backdoors that NSA, Secret Service and the like can use at will). Anything else is prohibited.
That's the kind of things your statement implies, you know?

I believe (and I hope) copyrights are dying, because the alternative is much much worse.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Trenien

Geeez. And you can say that seriously...

Yup.

Originally Posted by Trenien

Have you read Vinge's "Rainbows End"? The story is nice, but one very interesting aspect is the way copyrights are handled in the book's world - it all comes down to people being allowed to use government certified hardware only(with pre-made backdoors that NSA, Secret Service and the like can use at will). Anything else is prohibited.
That's the kind of things your statement implies, you know?

I believe (and I hope) copyrights are dying, because the alternative is much much worse.

The alternative is not worse, except to people who are too paranoid about losing control, and who don't understand that they've already sacrificed loads of it for the sake of convenience.

Have you cracked open your cellphone lately?

Fact is, every TV, radio and cellphone has to meet FCC standards before being legally used in the U.S. Every electrical device has to meet UL standards before being sold. Every scrap of food has to meet FDA regulations before being eaten. Every doctor has to meet AMA standards before they can see you. And every bank and credit card company needs your name, social security number, home address, age and next of kin before you can exchange a single dollar with them. Think about what all that implies. (Take all the time you need.)

Worried about laws getting strict? Dude, we're already there. And guess what? The world isn't descending into a Dark Age because of it. So you might as well stop moaning about some extra paperwork that you've already forked over to a half-dozen entities already, and the fact that you can't buy a Razr from the drunk on the street. Stricter copyright laws aren't going to kill anyone... they're only going to make the paranoid more paranoid.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

the problem with paying them as creators only is that somebody has to have the money to pay them. Advertisers, billionaires, etc. or someone directly profiting from their output.

It could also be the government paying them, if it is determined that their creative efforts are beneficial to society. Of course, when this is done, the issue of "who decides what is beneficial" comes up, and in a government that answers to the people, this can be a sticky issue. Which brings us to non-profits like PBS, a bit more free and liberal about what they fund... but you still have to get in the door.

There are a lot of potential creator-supporting sources, quite possibly enough to go around for almost anyone. Best news is, it can be some of all of these organizations that provide support, if possibly a central non-profit organization could be utilized to direct creators to the group most likely to be willing to support them... a sort of "creators' clearinghouse."

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yup.



The alternative is not worse, except to people who are too paranoid about losing control, and who don't understand that they've already sacrificed loads of it for the sake of convenience.

Have you cracked open your cellphone lately?

Fact is, every TV, radio and cellphone has to meet FCC standards before being legally used in the U.S. Every electrical device has to meet UL standards before being sold. Every scrap of food has to meet FDA regulations before being eaten. Every doctor has to meet AMA standards before they can see you. And every bank and credit card company needs your name, social security number, home address, age and next of kin before you can exchange a single dollar with them. Think about what all that implies. (Take all the time you need.)

Worried about laws getting strict? Dude, we're already there. And guess what? The world isn't descending into a Dark Age because of it. So you might as well stop moaning about some extra paperwork that you've already forked over to a half-dozen entities already, and the fact that you can't buy a Razr from the drunk on the street. Stricter copyright laws aren't going to kill anyone... they're only going to make the paranoid more paranoid.

If you don't understand the difference between goods having to meet real security standards before being sold (such as food not being poisonous or radio not exploding because you looked at it crossly) and a so-called security standard that really means that a public or private body can spy on you at will, I'd say there's unfortunately no hope for you to understand what my point is about.

What was that quote attributed to B. Franklin about security and liberty?..

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Trenien

If you don't understand the difference between goods having to meet real security standards before being sold (such as food not being poisonous or radio not exploding because you looked at it crossly) and a so-called security standard that really mean that a public or private body can spy on you at will, I'd say there's unfortunately no hope for you to understand what my point is about.

And if you don't know the difference between surveillance in the interest of national security, and security to prevent simple theft, you have no hope of understanding my point.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And if you don't know the difference between surveillance in the interest of national security, and security to prevent simple theft, you have no hope of understanding my point.

Simple theft? To quote Lawrence Lessig in The Future of Ideas:

In the context of intellectual property, the general problem is magnified by another blindness, the error induced by thinking of intellectual property as property. By simplifying the nature of the rights that IP law protects, by speaking of it as property, just like the ordinary property of cars and homes, our thinking is guided in a very particular way. When it is viewed as property, we see endless arguments for strengthening IP and few for resisting that increase.

This is not conspiracy. It is a cultural blindness. We have forgotten what the Framers of the American Constitution knew about the nature of IP, and hence we have lost the balance our Framers had in protecting IP.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

We have forgotten what the Framers of the American Constitution knew about the nature of IP, and hence we have lost the balance our Framers had in protecting IP.

Good point, Tompe. For the sake of this discussion (maybe the only chance it has to stay sane), and as long as you have Future of Ideas handy, could you quote or summarize what the Framers of the American Constitution knew about the nature of IP?

I'd be interested in a discussion of how well they integrated their ideas into their understanding that society and its aspects evolve, and therefore so must our understanding of those aspects, and the laws that guide them, evolve. I realize that we've been kicking at this IP thing for quite some time around here, and I suspect many of us are constantly at odds because we do not see the fundamental issues clearly here.

[Greg Anos]

Lessig catches part of the conundrum, but not all of it. There are three sets of players here.

1st, the creators. Most of them create for hopes of gain (in the current world) although not always. (Think of mathematicians - they have never been eligible for any IP protection, but some people do it anyways.) They are why IP way created in the first place, as an encouragement for the production of IP. But this encouragement was always for a limited time, for two reasons. 1 - To keep people creating, by not letting them live off one creation forever (most countries have laws against perpetual trusts, for the same reason). and 2 - That new ideas are the (in the long run) part of the commonweal of all humanity, leading to more prosperity for all.

2nd, the consumers. They pay a higher price for new creations due to IP rules, but get the correlated advantage of more and better IP products.
TANSTAFFL. And eventually, the IP product will be available for free.

3rd, middlemen. In particular, corporations. They are the driving force in trying to convert a wasting asset (IP) to a perpetual asset. That way they can capture a revenue stream forever, as long as they can find somebody to buy it. They refuse to write off a revenue stream, and will spend a lot of money to prevent that. Shucks, their goals is to keep the revenue stream rolling by making people buy the same IP property over and over and over again.


It's that third group that has made such a mockery of the process (regardless of technological advancements), continually stretching copyright length, lobbying over and over again to prevent losing those revenue streams, to the point to where the second group (at least those who think), have reached the "A Pox On Both Your Houses!" viewpoint. And technology has made that view enforceable.

<SHRUG>

Here's the least Draconian compromise I can think of, and it'll annoy <everybody> in the above groups. It's a package, not mix and match.

1. Shorten copyright back to the same length as patent (currently 20 years) -PERIOD. No extensions, no exceptions. (that means YOU - Hollywood.) As a sop to hollywood, let the ticker start for all the old movies same as new ones.

2. Register all IP (by the producer of IP) with a government agency. That's not too hard, just expand and organize the existing IP arms (patent office and copyright office).

3. The purchaser of <any> IP is allowed to register the fact with another goverment agency. Once registered, the person the has the <legal> right to - copy, backup, shift formats, keep multiple copies, to his or hers hearts content - but not to provide copies to any other person.

4. After the end of the copyright period, all registry record are purged, and the producer registry makes available for download formerly copyrighted material for a reasonable time (say 5 years). After that things like Project Gutenberg can take over.

Now if you're too embarassed to registed Debbie and the Three Great Danes - sorry (wait 20 years). If you just don't want to have the goverment tracking you, don't buy copyrighted product, and stay 20 years behind the times. If you don't want to admit you made D & T T G Ds, well, it's PD time.

Ladies and Gentlemen, start your brickbats.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

surveillance in the interest of national security

Ah, yes. National security. Please, somebody thinks about it. And while they're at it, let them think of the children as well.

<SHRUG>

If it wasn't so damn serious, I'd be laughing.

and security to prevent simple theft, you have no hope of understanding my point.

We've discussed that point a few weeks back, I believe. Fortunately, Tompe has answered about it before me.
To add to what he said, the original copyright term in the US was 14 years. The reasoning behind that was enough time should be allowed the copyright owner to reach everywhere in the US - communication and method of distribution where far from instantaneous at the time. But, that term was expected to be shortened as both improved.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Lessig catches part of the conundrum, but not all of it. There are three sets of players here.

1st, the creators. Most of them create for hopes of gain (in the current world) although not always. (Think of mathematicians - they have never been eligible for any IP protection, but some people do it anyways.) They are why IP way created in the first place, as an encouragement for the production of IP. But this encouragement was always for a limited time, for two reasons. 1 - To keep people creating, by not letting them live off one creation forever (most countries have laws against perpetual trusts, for the same reason). and 2 - That new ideas are the (in the long run) part of the commonweal of all humanity, leading to more prosperity for all.

2nd, the consumers. They pay a higher price for new creations due to IP rules, but get the correlated advantage of more and better IP products.
TANSTAFFL. And eventually, the IP product will be available for free.

3rd, middlemen. In particular, corporations. They are the driving force in trying to convert a wasting asset (IP) to a perpetual asset. That way they can capture a revenue stream forever, as long as they can find somebody to buy it. They refuse to write off a revenue stream, and will spend a lot of money to prevent that. Shucks, their goals is to keep the revenue stream rolling by making people buy the same IP property over and over and over again.


It's that third group that has made such a mockery of the process (regardless of technological advancements), continually stretching copyright length, lobbying over and over again to prevent losing those revenue streams, to the point to where the second group (at least those who think), have reached the "A Pox On Both Your Houses!" viewpoint. And technology has made that view enforceable.

<SHRUG>

Here's the least Draconian compromise I can think of, and it'll annoy <everybody> in the above groups. It's a package, not mix and match.

1. Shorten copyright back to the same length as patent (currently 20 years) -PERIOD. No extensions, no exceptions. (that means YOU - Hollywood.) As a sop to hollywood, let the ticker start for all the old movies same as new ones.

2. Register all IP (by the producer of IP) with a government agency. That's not too hard, just expand and organize the existing IP arms (patent office and copyright office).

3. The purchaser of <any> IP is allowed to register the fact with another goverment agency. Once registered, the person the has the <legal> right to - copy, backup, shift formats, keep multiple copies, to his or hers hearts content - but not to provide copies to any other person.

4. After the end of the copyright period, all registry record are purged, and the producer registry makes available for download formerly copyrighted material for a reasonable time (say 5 years). After that things like Project Gutenberg can take over.

Now if you're too embarassed to registed Debbie and the Three Great Danes - sorry (wait 20 years). If you just don't want to have the goverment tracking you, don't buy copyrighted product, and stay 20 years behind the times. If you don't want to admit you made D & T T G Ds, well, it's PD time.

Ladies and Gentlemen, start your brickbats.

The problem that immediately comes to mind is that it's infinitely easier to produce something that deserves copyright - an idea - than it is for some good covered by a patent (don't get me started on software or business patents).

And nobody should be prevented to buy your "Debby and the Three Great Danes" anonymously if they wish to do so.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Good point, Tompe. For the sake of this discussion (maybe the only chance it has to stay sane), and as long as you have Future of Ideas handy, could you quote or summarize what the Framers of the American Constitution knew about the nature of IP?

I think it the following:

IN ADVOCATING the commons, I have not argued for a world with only a commons. Not all resources can or should be organized in a commons. Not all resources must be organized as a commons just because some are. There are public streets as well as private drives, freeways as well as toll roads. The Internet links seamlessly with networks that are completely private. A world with open wires radio spectrum is perfectly consistent with a world where exclusive cable lines are reserved to those who pay. The open and the closed always coexist and depend upon each other in this coexistence.

But there are reasons why some resources need to be controlled and others do not. We've seen these reasons before, but we are in a better position now to understand them. While some resources must be controlled, others can be provided much more freely. The difference is in the nature of the resource, and therefore in the nature of how the resource is supplied.

This was the insight of many in the Enlightenment and, within our tradition, Thomas Jefferson most forcefully. Listen to Jefferson writing to Isaac McPherson in 1813 about the character of the patent power:

[1] If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. [2] Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. [3] That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. [4] Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.23

I've added numbers in brackets to Jefferson's text to make clear the distinct points he is making:
First, Jefferson is describing the nature of an "idea." An idea is, in the terms of the economist, imperfectly excludable. I can keep a secret from you (and therefore exclude you from the secret), but once I tell you the secret, I can't take it back. We can't (yet) erase what has entered our heads.

Second, he is describing the nonrivalrous character of resources like ideas. Your consumption does not lessen mine, as your lighting a candle at mine does not darken me.

These two points then suggest a third: that "nature" has made this world to guarantee that "ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe." Enlightenment was in her plan.

Thus it follows that without government, in the state of nature, there would be no such thing as a "patent" since patents are granted for "inventions" and inventions, "in nature," cannot be "a subject of property."

What is striking about this passage is the glee with which Jefferson reports this fact of nature. Here is the first patent commissioner showing just why nature is against the work of the U.S. Patent Office. But the motive of his glee is the betterment of man. This fact about nature means that of all the resources, information can be the freest.

Yet obviously, Jefferson's story is not true of all resources, or even all resources in the commons. His is an account of a nonrivalrous resource.

A rivalrous resource would not permit your consumption without lessening mine. And his argument cannot be taken to mean that there should be no control that governs nonrivalrous resources. Nature may not protect them, but neither does nature erect governments. Jefferson was not arguing against patent protection; he was instead arguing against the idea that patent protection was in some sense a natural right.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Trenien

To add to what he said, the original copyright term in the US was 14 years. The reasoning behind that was enough time should be allowed the copyright owner to reach everywhere in the US - communication and method of distribution where far from instantaneous at the time. But, that term was expected to be shortened as both improved.

This life+70 years are more annoying for me know after having read the argumenation concerning a balance of interests in Lessig's book. Now I consider this long copyright after the death of the creator as immoral.

Lessig propose a solution where you have to register copyrigt and you get it for 5 years. Then you can renew it 15 times. If you do not renew it the work is placed in the public domain. When you register you have to submit the work. That will makes it easier to find who has copyright and ask permission. Sounds like a reasonable system.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Trenien

The problem that immediately comes to mind is that it's infinitely easier to produce something that deserves copyright - an idea - than it is for some good covered by a patent (don't get me started on software or business patents).

And nobody should be prevented to buy your "Debby and the Three Great Danes" anonymously if they wish to do so.

OF course not. However, under such a system, if you didn't register the purchase, you would not be a legal owner of copyright, and therefore <not> have the legal right to copy, shift format, ect.

The setup I described is just a idea, trying to cover all perspectives. Given the money and power involved, I'd rather bet on Hillary Clinton as the next Pope over something like this happening!