ArsTechnica: EU adds 20 years to music copyrights

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

No problem with that.

The net result would be corporations owning virtually everything of cultural interest because, over the long term, they would be the entities best suited to keep up the registration and pay the taxes. Not a good thing.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

The net result would be corporations owning virtually everything of cultural interest because, over the long term, they would be the entities best suited to keep up the registration and pay the taxes. Not a good thing.

Why wouldn't it be a good thing? The stuff would still be out there for people to use.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

If the rejoinder is that the monopolies have to be granted to ensure a public good (as is the case with copyright in the US), then it does not follow that perpetual copyright ought to be granted because this would not be in the public interest. Also, if we were to accept a definition of property as government granted monopoly, then said government can radically change the scope of property rights, leaving with you no rational grounds for complaint (there being no more fundamental concept of just ownership you can appeal to).

Luqman

Anything's possible with legislation.

Who says the public has to benefit from an artist's creation? It was his to create, his to disseminate, and his to destroy.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Why wouldn't it be a good thing? The stuff would still be out there for people to use.

Wait, what?

You're not okay with copyright ending-over-time and being free to all, presumably because that hurts artists? But you are okay with an onerous tax-and-registration system that would pretty much guarantee that all artists would have to sell their intellectual property (at less than its long-term worth) to mega-corporations?

Because...... under-pants gnomes?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Wait, what?

You're not okay with copyright ending-over-time and being free to all, presumably because that hurts artists? But you are okay with an onerous tax-and-registration system that would pretty much guarantee that all artists would have to sell their intellectual property (at less than its long-term worth) to mega-corporations?

Who said the tax had to be onerous? It could based on value (ie, sales). No sales would equal minimal value, therefore a minimum/token tax to keep it from falling into orphan/public domain status.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Anything's possible with legislation.

Who says the public has to benefit from an artist's creation? It was his to create, his to disseminate, and his to destroy.

The US constitution.Public benefit is exactly why the government will grant you a monopoly on the distribution of your work and go to bat to enforce it. And it is also why it will rescind the right it granted you to own a piece of land if it is needed to promote the common welfare. With compensation, of course.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Why wouldn't it be a good thing? The stuff would still be out there for people to use.

It would not be out there for people to use. To consume, maybe. But the culture of reimagination and adaptation that has kept our literary heritage fresh would die beneath the corporate boot heel. You'd have to satisfy committees of lawyers and accountants to get a license and even then it would be severely restricted in the name of "brand management."

[Kenneth_irl]

This is simply a horrible change in the wrong direction, and I am ashamed that the Danish government didn't vote against this. This was also completely ninja'ed pass the public knowledge to my own knowledge. I am now more aware than ever before how the EU can be a possible threat against the people of any single country in the EU. It is clear that this change is directed sponsored by the same industy that seeks to profit from this. How anyone could support this is beyond my comprehension. How ignorant you must be. How can some of you not see how copyright can be a threat to innovation and personal freedom? This kind of atrocity demonstrates why I have personally stopped supporting these types of indutries directly by not buying their products anymore. It's funny how we can buy, seemingly, innocent products like movies, ect, and don't realise that we're digging a hole for ourselves in the process, so to say.

[BoldlyDubious]

It's interesting to note that, while modern media have greatly enhanced the possibility for ideas and works of art to be spread worldwide quickly (and therefore to quickly generate world-level revenue for their authors, if the public appreciates), the period of time that has to pass before such ideas and works of art can become "public domain" is made longer, instead of shorter.

[Kenneth_irl]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

It's interesting to note that, while modern media have greatly enhanced the possibility for ideas and works of art to be spread worldwide quickly (and therefore to quickly generate world-level revenue for their authors, if the public appreciates), the period of time that has to pass before such ideas and works of art can become "public domain" is made longer, instead of shorter.

Yes, isn't it? Well, it just goes to show that democracy is not mainly for the people, but also very much for the rich and influential to use as a power tool to get what they want, too. However, I'm really glad that I live in a small country, and not a big one like the USA - where democracy is much more transparent and 'innocent', at this point in time, at least.