European Green Party policy on copyright

[mr ploppy]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/67862207/C...ht-28sept11-EN

It all makes perfect sense to me, but I can't really see the suits liking it.

[Sil_liS]

We want to restore copyright to its origins, and make absolutely clear that it only regulates copying for commercial purposes. To share copies, or otherwise spread or make use of use somebody else’s copyrighted work, should never be prohibited if it is done non-commercially and without a profit motive. Peer-to-peer file sharing is an example of such an activity that should be legal.

and

§25. Much of today’s entertainment industry is built on the commercial exclusivity on copyrighted works. This, we want to preserve. But today’s protection times — life plus 70 years — are absurd. No investor would even look at a business case where the time to pay-back was that long.We want to shorten the protection time to something that is reasonable from both society’s and an investor’s point of view, and propose 20 years from publication.

and

A general exception in copyright for orphan works is not desirable, but an exception for libraries etc.in the frame of a "LEX-Europeana" should be considered.

and

§30. The ‘book famine’ experienced by visually impaired and print -disabled people needs to be addressed. The Commission and Member States have obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to take all appropriate measures to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy access to cultural materials in accessible formats, and to ensure that laws protecting IPR do not constitute an unreasonable or discriminatory barrier to access by people with disabilities to cultural materials.

[j.p.s]

I was going to say that they are too dismissive of the orphan works problem, but a return to 20 year copyright would pretty much obsolete the concept of orphaned works.

[Hellmark]

Personally, I think it is a step in the right direction, but perhaps goes a bit too far. Companies have too much sway over legislation, and 20 years isn't very long. I mean, look at how much people still buy that are 20+ years old, and it wouldn't stop those sales, just cut the creator out of the loop.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Personally, I think it is a step in the right direction, but perhaps goes a bit too far. Companies have too much sway over legislation, and 20 years isn't very long. I mean, look at how much people still buy that are 20+ years old, and it wouldn't stop those sales, just cut the creator out of the loop.

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?

[Giggleton]

It's hard to go backwards, unless you're a luddite. I propose in lieu of time component to copyright, a maximum income limit is imposed on all creative works, which when reached would place said creative work immediately into the public domain. Although ending copyright outright would be far simpler.

[SleepyBob]

To share copies, or otherwise spread or make use of use somebody else’s copyrighted work, should never be prohibited if it is done non-commercially and without a profit motive.

Much of today’s entertainment industry is built on the commercial exclusivity on copyrighted works. This, we want to preserve.

No, the majority of today's entertainment industry is built on the exclusivity of the ability to distribute their copyrighted works, not just commercial operations. If it's legal for individuals to share with everyone in the world via P2P, there's no incentive to ever buy another CD or DVD again.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

No, the majority of today's entertainment industry is built on the exclusivity of the ability to distribute their copyrighted works, not just commercial operations. If it's legal for individuals to share with everyone in the world via P2P, there's no incentive to ever buy another CD or DVD again.

People have been sharing digital content online for over 15 years now, and offline for as long as CDs and DVDs have existed. Cassette and video recorders didn't kill the entertainment industry and neither will the internet.

Internet piracy, particularly of music, has been good for the industry as a whole. It created enough demand for hardware mp3 players to bring the prices crashing down, which turned a niche product into something that everyone and their granny's dog now owns. That paved the way for companies to sell digital content to all those new owners. There's no real reason why other types of digital content won't work the same way if allowed to.

The people who don't pay for anything don't really matter. They're not your customers, they never have been and they never will be. It's their influence on the market as a whole that matters.

[Hellmark]

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?

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.

[teh603]

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.

Well, where else would you get them? Just because they're in the public domain doesn't mean the public has access to them, especially in the days before the internet became as big as it is today. My dad still has some photocopies of ancient and out-of-print public domain books that I have no idea where he got, but he'd buy them in a heartbeat if they were to come back into print or be available as ebooks.

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I was going to say that they are too dismissive of the orphan works problem, but a return to 20 year copyright would pretty much obsolete the concept of orphaned works.

I'll be honest, either a 20-year rule or a use-it-or-lose-it rule would work wonders for keeping things available to the reader.

[Greg Anos]

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

[Sil_liS]

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.

But that is because most of the stuff published in the last 100 years is still under copyright. If the norm would be "if it was printed more than 20 years ago then it's free" people would check.

[crossi]

No, I think people would still buy books whose copyrights had expired. Amazon makes it easy to find the book you are looking for, it's free storage of the books plus syncing between devices and keeping track of your last page, notes and shared highlights would make Amazons version more desireable even if you had to pay for it (if the price wasn't TOO high anyway) for a lot of people.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by crossi

No, I think people would still buy books whose copyrights had expired. Amazon makes it easy to find the book you are looking for, it's free storage of the books plus syncing between devices and keeping track of your last page, notes and shared highlights would make Amazons version more desireable even if you had to pay for it (if the price wasn't TOO high anyway) for a lot of people.

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.

20 years from now there would be at least one database for PD books, there are other free online storage options, and in 20 years we will have more, Amazon isn't the only one that does syncing between devices , and again, in 20 years we will have even more options.

[kartu]

Come on guys, how realistic is this:

We want to restore copyright to its origins, and make absolutely clear that it only regulates copying for commercial purposes. To share copies, or otherwise spread or make use of use somebody else’s copyrighted work, should never be prohibited if it is done non-commercially and without a profit motive. Peer-to-peer file sharing is an example of such an activity that should be legal.

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.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

People have been sharing digital content online for over 15 years now, and offline for as long as CDs and DVDs have existed. Cassette and video recorders didn't kill the entertainment industry and neither will the internet.

With "poor actors" only make like tens of millions (Hanks made 50.000.000$ on last Illuminati), they have quite a long way to death.