EU Copyright Harmonization In the Works

[Greg Anos]

Here is another quote from the founding fathers (from The Federalist Papers)


FEDERALIST No. 43
The Same Subject Continued (The Powers Conferred by the
Constitution Further Considered)
For the Independent Journal.

MADISON

To the People of the State of New York:
THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers:1.
A power ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
''The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The
copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great
Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful
inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors.
The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of
individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual
provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have
anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the
instance of Congress.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

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...

I pretty much don't have a problem with this compromise. I suppose the copyright length could be argued back and forth... the suggestion of a more limited copyright length and a specific number of possible short-term extensions (until the end of a specified period is reached) is also a good one.

And it does place a big burden on sellers/buyers to make sure product is not illegally reproduced or distibuted. That will be a b***h to pull off, in this digital era, but no one said life was easy.

Otherwise, it makes perfect sense.

Clearly, the Founding Fathers recognized that, although copyright and patent are "contrary to nature," in terms of the existence of Men who must live in cooperation to survive and thrive, copyright was in the best interests of the public as it encouraged more and faster innovation than they would have without it.

Can anyone argue that copyright and patent systems do not produce more and faster creation and innovation... or that we would be better off without such increased creation and innovation?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

I agree that copyright-based compensation should be able to be passed on to the survivors of a creator, if he/she passes before the copyright period is over. However, I agree that the length of that extension is over-long. It should be based on the normal length of the copyright (for instance, if it is set to 20 years, as suggested here) and no longer.

One exception, maybe: If the survivors are not yet adults, and have no other legal guardians, extension could conceivably be granted until they are considered to be of adult age.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And it does place a big burden on sellers/buyers to make sure product is not illegally reproduced or distibuted. That will be a b***h to pull off, in this digital era, but no one said life was easy.

I agree it would be difficult. But it would bring back a large group of people
into the IP system who turn to piracy thru frustration with the current reality. And that would dramatically marginalize the remainder of pirates, cutting off their moral standing to the rest of IP consumers. But this can only be done in a context that acknowledges consumers needs, not by just pounding them with a bigger club, because they now have a club of their own to pound back with. (Sort of like the 1850's comment - The Lord God made men big and small, but Mr. Colt made them all equal.)

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Can anyone argue that copyright and patent systems do not produce more and faster creation and innovation... or that we would be better off without such increased creation and innovation?

As I have said earlier, I believe in copyright. It's just that copyright as it currently stands is being destroyed by technology, whether I like it or not.
Unforunately, there are too many big power blocks hopelessly tied to the status quo, with too much to lose, for me to be optimistic anything will change.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

As I have said earlier, I believe in copyright. It's just that copyright as it currently stands is being destroyed by technology, whether I like it or not.
Unforunately, there are too many big power blocks hopelessly tied to the status quo, with too much to lose, for me to be optimistic anything will change.

It is possible that the EU tackling this will influence the US to take similar steps... especially if the EU "encourages" it, or if the new EU laws versus the old US laws adversely impact US commercial interests. It might be what is needed to push everyone else into lockstep.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I pretty much don't have a problem with this compromise. I suppose the copyright length could be argued back and forth... the suggestion of a more limited copyright length and a specific number of possible short-term extensions (until the end of a specified period is reached) is also a good one.

And it does place a big burden on sellers/buyers to make sure product is not illegally reproduced or distibuted. That will be a b***h to pull off, in this digital era, but no one said life was easy.

Otherwise, it makes perfect sense.

Clearly, the Founding Fathers recognized that, although copyright and patent are "contrary to nature," in terms of the existence of Men who must live in cooperation to survive and thrive, copyright was in the best interests of the public as it encouraged more and faster innovation than they would have without it.

Can anyone argue that copyright and patent systems do not produce more and faster creation and innovation... or that we would be better off without such increased creation and innovation?

Well, I can, taking real life example: China, which hasn't really cared about any kind of IP until it's been browbeaten into caring.

But most interestingly, there are people with far better credentials that do. It's a bit long, but this book/thesis argues against IP makes you look back upon very many things we usually just assume to be true:

Against Intellectual Monopoly, by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
http://www.dklevine.com/general/inte...al/against.htm

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Trenien

Well, I can, taking real life example: China, which hasn't really cared about any kind of IP until it's been browbeaten into caring.

Most people consider that China has so far lagged behind the rest of the industrialized world, in terms of creation and innovation... with the exception of the areas where it has openly ignored the IP restrictions of other countries to clone and sell cheap copies of others' products. Copying isn't quite the same as innovating.

[igorsk]

It's kinda funny that Hollywood industry began from massive patent infrigement.
http://www.makeindependentfilms.com/history.htm

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Personally, I think it's even funnier that a group that started out by fighting patents and copyrights, now maintain themselves by staunchly defending those patents and copyrights, and having the laws rewritten to uphold their copyrights beyond their original limits.

Hollywood isn't the only commercial entity that started out as independent, fighting the system in order to create what they wanted, and eventually ended up as closed and commercial as the entities they originally fought against. In fact, a number of the publishers that are mentioned around these parts have a similar history.

It might be arguable how much copyright hindered the early independents, but to an extent, it was doing exactly what it was designed to do, which was to keep others from profiting from some one else's ideas. Let's face it, everyone would like to be able to sell a great product, but it should not be fair for Citizen A to simply steal the idea from Citizen B who spent a lot of time and effort developing something unique and valuable. Restricting access to Citizen A, or requiring Citizen A to compensate Citizen B, for a limited period of time, is a fair practice.

That's in theory, obviously. As the article pointed out, the courts decided against the standing copyright laws later, and changed the status quo in early cinema (a sign that our present copyright state isn't carved in stone), opening more opportunities for commerce and competition. The laws should always be balanced to allow early compensation, then encourage competition, without allowing a perpetual monopoly to dominate the market.

And most importantly, the laws have to be written with the understanding that times change, needs change, technology changes, and the laws must be capable of changing to keep up.

[Trenien]

Here's another one who thinks the copyright model is obsolete:

Kevin Kelly

It's a much shorter read than the previous link I posted.

Interestingly enough, I find I often work according to the principles Embodiment and Patronage, as described in the article. Case in point: I'm a roleplayer. I often download books that I have no desire neither of buying nor of using - it's only idle curiosity. However, I did download, a couple of months ago, the pdf of a rulebook of a game that sounded interesting. After checking it up, yes it was as good as the hype said, so I bought myself a Hardcover version of it.
So here you have it:
- Patronage: I like what that company makes, and I'm going to use it, so I bought one.
- Embodiment: the same book is available as a pdf ($12), a softcover ($25) or a harcover ($40). Of course, I bought myself a harcover.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It is possible that the EU tackling this will influence the US to take similar steps... especially if the EU "encourages" it, or if the new EU laws versus the old US laws adversely impact US commercial interests. It might be what is needed to push everyone else into lockstep.

There is, IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with existing copyright laws. What is needed is EDUCATION to teach young people that simply because they technically CAN copy something without paying for it, it is not RIGHT to do so.

All children (I hope) I taught that it is "wrong" to take something from a shop without paying for it; they need to be taught that it is equally wrong to take something from the Internet without paying for it.

There is a voluntary agreement being discussed at present among European ISPs to deal with persistent copyright infringers. It woud be a three stage process - first a warning letter, then a temporary sessation of service, and then a permanent ban. The idea is that persistent offenders would not be able to get access from any ISP.

[DMcCunney]

Harry: There is, IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with existing copyright laws.

Dennis: Given the current trends of copyright law in the US, where nothing will ever go out of copyright, I question the assumption that there's nothing wrong with the laws.

Harry: Yes, I agree with you that "perpetual copyright" is clearly not a good thing, and must act to stiffle creativity. In the rest of the world, however, new material is continuing to enter the public domain year upon year, so you're describing a problem that's specific to the US, rather than being a problem with copyright in general. As I've mentioned before, our (UK) government recently rejected a proposal to extend copyright terms, and I've seen no mention anywhere of any proposals in the EU to extend copyright beyond "life + 70", which appears to be very much becoming accepted as the "global standard".

Dennis: The current trend in the states can be largely laid at the feet of DisneyCo, who wants to make sure Mickey Mouse and friends never become Public Domain.

The simple solution would be a legal distinction between rights held by individuals and rights held by business entities. Rights can be "author's life + X years", but if the "author" is a business concern like Disney, "author's life" can be indefinite.

Harry: That sounds good to me, certainly.

[HarryT]

Sorry Dennis - I accidentally pressed the "edit" button on your post instead of replying to it - my answer is mixed up above with your original post. I've gone back and tried to make it clear "who said what".

My apologies!

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry Dennis - I accidentally pressed the "edit" button on your post instead of replying to it - my answer is mixed up above with your original post. I've gone back and tried to make it clear "who said what".

My apologies!

I have Admin rights on another PhBBB forum, and have made that exact error. Oops!

You did a good job of fixup.
_______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Harry: There is, IMHO, absolutely nothing wrong with existing copyright laws.

Dennis: Given the current trends of copyright law in the US, where nothing will ever go out of copyright, I question the assumption that there's nothing wrong with the laws.

Harry: Yes, I agree with you that "perpetual copyright" is clearly not a good thing, and must act to stiffle creativity. In the rest of the world, however, new material is continuing to enter the public domain year upon year, so you're describing a problem that's specific to the US, rather than being a problem with copyright in general. As I've mentioned before, our (UK) government recently rejected a proposal to extend copyright terms, and I've seen no mention anywhere of any proposals in the EU to extend copyright beyond "life + 70", which appears to be very much becoming accepted as the "global standard".

Dennis: The current trend in the states can be largely laid at the feet of DisneyCo, who wants to make sure Mickey Mouse and friends never become Public Domain.

The simple solution would be a legal distinction between rights held by individuals and rights held by business entities. Rights can be "author's life + X years", but if the "author" is a business concern like Disney, "author's life" can be indefinite.

Harry: That sounds good to me, certainly.

If I were someone in a position to do so in the US Federal Government, I'd say to Disney "You've been living off of Walt's creativity for decades. What have you produced since he died that shows any sign of becoming a classic work fit to stand along side of Mickey and friends?"

Walt simply wanted to tell stories, did so brilliantly, and made a bundle as a side effect. Current management simply wants to make a bundle, and has forgotten that making money happens as a result of doing something else well that people want to buy. The bean counters have wrested power from the creative folks, and it shows.
______
Dennis