European Green Party policy on copyright

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

First of all, even if the measure is approved, the books that were written in 1990 for example wouldn't suddenly become PD. So we would be able to see a visible effect only 20 years from now.

Just in case anyone isn't aware of it, this is a fringe party whose policies stand as much chance of becoming law, as I have of becoming Emperor of the Galaxy.

[Greg Anos]

It is a policy to allow the Pirate Party and the Green Party to form a common (larger base)...

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Check Project Gutenberg or here (in the e-books tab).

Maybe now, but this was 20 years ago. The internet opened up a lot of stuff that wasn't available back in the days of typewriters and fax machines.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kartu

Come on guys, how realistic is this:



So I buy a movie, rip it and share it (for no commercial purpose) over p2p network.
If this is legal, it means no-one can make money on the product, once it gone digital. Not a big deal you'd say? Well, apply that to stuff that is digital from the very beginning: software.

Software has been pirated ever since it existed, that never stopped people from buying it.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Software has been pirated ever since it existed, that never stopped people from buying it.

It stopped some people from buying some software.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

If they become PD, then there would be no need for sales, so there would be no cutting out of the loop. And how much income do authors get each year from a 20 year old book?

Copyright covers a lot more than just books. Meat Loaf's Bat Out Of Hell album, for instanace, first released in the late 70s, still outsells more new albums released today.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

People sell public domain and CC stuff now. Look at B&N in the "Nook Classics" section. Lots of books for sale, despite all being public domain. They get sales off it from people who don't know any better.

Or people who like the convenience of being able to pick up a copy of a PD book they know will display correctly on their reader (I have fits some stuff from other sources on my nook color sometimes), and do so without having to fire up the computer and dig out the USB cable to side load.

There are a lot of different values to obtaining a book. The biggest one is the content, but it's hardly the only one.

[taustin]

The original purpose of copyright isn't to prohibit commercial copying, it is to promote the creation of creative works by protecting commercial value. A distinction that isn't all that subtle, but is lose on many people on both (all) sides of the debate.

[Phogg]

[Kubizo]

OK, let's assume that the target of copyright is to maximize the incentive (=profit) of the artists/engineers/programmers/etc..., so that they give their best and produce good stuff.

Before P2P became illegal even for private use in Italy (2004), I downloaded a lot of songs. Quite a few times, I discovered new bands and bought tickets to their concerts. Other times, I liked an album so much that I was not satisfied with the mp3 anymore and I decided to buy the CD. When I stopped using P2P, I stopped going to concerts and buying CDs. What was the impact of banning P2P?

Fortunately now, thanks to Youtube, I started again listening to music for free and occasionally buying CDs and ticket concerts.

While I'm aware that I'm not the typical user, I believe it is not automatically true that copyright is automatically good for authors and bad for users. Sometimes it is bad for both, sometimes it is good for both.

On an unrelated note: while it is true that no company plans for longer than 20 years (or at least it's extremely uncommon), a person might well enjoy the copyright on her/his books for her/his whole life. 20 years might be a little short, especially for books that are not blockbuster since the beginning, but they are appreciated over time.

Ciao!

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by taustin

The original purpose of copyright isn't to prohibit commercial copying, it is to promote the creation of creative works by protecting commercial value. A distinction that isn't all that subtle, but is lose on many people on both (all) sides of the debate.

That!

And lest there be any debate as to that being the purpose, a quick reference to U.S. Constitution would quickly end it. So Congress gets to decide the length. In doing so, they have to consider [and collaborate with] other countries and their laws.

Is 20 years enough? Why 20? Why not 40? Why not 1000? Who decides? Back to congress.

What about special (or not so special) cases like...Mickey Mouse? Should Disney lose their exclusive right to Mickey and Minney and Goofy and Pluto? I don't think so. Not so long as Disney is alive and kicking (the company, not the man). Not even after a 1000 years.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kubizo

Fortunately now, thanks to Youtube, I started again listening to music for free and occasionally buying CDs and ticket concerts.

While I'm aware that I'm not the typical user,
Ciao!

Actually you probably are, or at least will be within another 10 years. A whole generation have grown up where any music they might want is available for free in the internet. It's given a massive boost to sales of independent music, with more bands than ever bringing out CDs on the distro circuit. They wouldn't do that if nobody was buying them.

Mainstream manufacturerd music has also benefitted from increased audience figures and merchandise sales at live events. That's why the labels that feed off them now demand a cut from those sales.

[kartu]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Software has been pirated ever since it existed, that never stopped people from buying it.

Yet it was illegal and that stopped many from doing it.
Once that becomes legal (Basically once that is not a "bad thing"), we'll get refined versions of the pirate bay with good reputation, much more people would do it.

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

Is 20 years enough? Why 20? Why not 40? Why not 1000? Who decides? Back to congress.

In Europe they forgot that original reason for copyright to exist. (OTOH I don't even know if that applied to Europe anyhow.) Latest reasoning on increasing it from 50 to 70 years was that some artists would earn less, if they don't do it. Which is quite far from "promoting creativity" I'd say.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kartu

Yet it was illegal and that stopped many from doing it.
Once that becomes legal (Basically once that is not a "bad thing"), we'll get refined versions of the pirate bay with good reputation, much more people would do it.

Lots of musicians, and a few writers, have gone on public record saying they don't care about non-commercial piracy. That pretty much legitimises it from the fan's point of view, and certainly eliminates any risk of prosecution. But those creators still make money from their creations.

[emellaich]

I don't think you can realistically sanction the non-profit concept of making books available freely. I just about guarantee that this would result in web sites of every book published. For that matter, Google woul do it. An author would sell one copy to google and then it would be downloaded to everyone for free.