White Paper Decries RIAA Attempts To Raise Infringement Payouts

Little Big Man writes "Public Knowledge, the CEA, and six other industry and public interest groups have issued a white paper critical of the attempts of the RIAA and other major copyright players to have statutory infringement levels raised. 'Noting that the courts can currently award massive statutory damages without rightsholders having to demonstrate that they have suffered any actual harm, the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties ... The authors of the white paper paint a dreary future where "copyright trolls" file lawsuits in order to rake in massive amounts of statutory damages, where innovation is stifled, and where artists are afraid to "Recut, Reframe, and Recycle" because of the financial risks involved.'"

Nice idea but...

[Anonymous Coward]

A hundred whitepapers wont do much good unless you can afford to lobby a few politicians and they only deal in cash.

Re:

[Speare]

We need a "-1 Cynical" (or maybe +1) moderation choice.

Re:

[mrxak]

It's a money war, and unfortunately every forced copyright settlement is paying politicians for the sorts of laws that make extorting people so easy. Somebody form a lobby group for shutting down the RIAA's frivolous lawsuits and I'll gladly donate money to it.

Re:Nice idea but...

[CodeBuster]

Its called the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) [eff.org] and they would be pleased to accept your tax deductible donation right now [eff.org]. I have donated money to them each year for the past three (3) years now. I think you will agree, after reviewing their website, that their lobbying efforts have been intelligent, organized, informed, and as their list of successful actions attests, surprisingly effective as well. The professional lobbyist is an inevitable and some would say unfortunate part of our democracy, but the EFF proves that it does not take a fortune to effectively agitate for positive change or resist unwelcome changes. If you can donate even fifty ($50) US dollars on a yearly basis then that would be a useful and powerful statement against the RIAA and other special interest groups who are fighting to take away and roll back your rights and carve out unwarranted new rights and protections for themselves at your expense.

Re:

[mpe]

It's a money war, and unfortunately every forced copyright settlement is paying politicians for the sorts of laws that make extorting people so easy.

Maybe "they" will mess up sometime and buy a law which allows the "plebs" to extort "them". In which case they won't have time to pay politicans to do anything about repealing/altering the law in question.

Re:

[u-235-sentinel]

A hundred whitepapers wont do much good unless you can afford to lobby a few politicians and they only deal in cash.

And with the way the economy is going, it must be in euro's ;-)

Not going to make a difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless whoever wrote this white paper is prepared to bribe congresmen, presidents, and government officials at the rate at which the RIAA is doing it nothing will ever change.

Put simply, corruption and bribary are the language of American politics.

CEA to RIAA:

[Enlarged to Show Tex]

We are in your politics killin' your business models

Re:

[Dr.Merkwurdigeliebe]

Wear in ur politics killin ur biznis models If you're going to lolCat something, do it right. at least half the words have to be spelled phonetically

Poison Pill

[TubeSteak]

Let them raise the statuatory infringement cap...
But only if they cut copyright back to 14 years instead of life + 70 yrs.

Re:

[Nullav]

14 years is just about as ridiculous as what the RIAA is proposing, the only difference is that it hurts people on the other side. Say what you will about riding a single work for a lifetime, but if someone's buying what you spent time to make, I'm sure you'd want a chunk of it, too.
I'd rather see it reduced to ~70 years or the artist's lifetime (whichever is shorter), with (significantly) derivative works expiring at the same time. This wouldn't fix the current mess, or the dystopian future of shotgun laws

Re:

[jimicus]

14 years is just about as ridiculous as what the RIAA is proposing, the only difference is that it hurts people on the other side. Say what you will about riding a single work for a lifetime, but if someone's buying what you spent time to make, I'm sure you'd want a chunk of it, too.

What you're effectively saying is that anyone who produces any sort of intellectual property which becomes sufficiently popular should receive an exception to the rule of thumb which says "keep some of your money aside and put i

Wash. Rinse, Repeat

[SeaFox]

Let them raise the statutory infringement cap...
But only if they cut copyright back to 14 years instead of life + 70 yrs.

They'll accept the offer, then in 13 years when there's a different Congress they'll have copyright extended again.

Re:Poison Pill

[TheRaven64]

That would put everything before 1994 into the public domain. That includes things like Super Mario Bros., the original Linux kernel, the first two Terminator movies, Blade Runner, the first six Star Trek movies, all the Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, and more into the public domain.

And, of these, which are you saying has not made enough money to finance the original development and make a reasonable profit? The aim of copyright, after all, is to promote the development of creative works by allowing the creators to make money from them. If 14 years is enough time for the creators to make enough money from their creations to both fund their development and provide an adequate return on investment to encourage for future funding then 14 years is long enough. It might not be, but none of the counterexamples you cite back up your claim that it's too short.

Re:Poison Pill

[Maxo-Texas]

Regarding "Blade Runner", released in 1982 (26 years)

Aug 3, 2007
Ladd jury orders WB to pay up over profits

The 12-juror panel then ruled 10-2 to adopt the plaintiffs' suggested damage calculations for 12 films produced by the Ladd Co., including "Blade Runner," "Chariots of Fire" and the "Police Academy" movies.

The Superior Court jury delivered a unanimous verdict in finding that the studio breached its duties to the producers. The 12-juror panel then ruled 10-2 to adopt the plaintiffs' suggested damage calculations for 12 films produced by the Ladd Co., including "Blade Runner," "Chariots of Fire" and the "Police Academy" movies.

---

The movie was profitable loooooong ago and the studios are still ripping people off with fancy accounting.

I personally support the original "14 years + option to reup 14 years".

The current disney purchased "forever" system is obscene and removes any respect for the copyright system because it is so obviously unfair and corrupt.

Re:

[Loibisch]

> damage calculations for [...] the "Police Academy" movies.
That had to be a harsh number...
I can't remember anyone who saw this who didn't go out brain-damaged from those stupid movies...

Re:Poison Pill

[mrxak]

Copyrights should last 70 years because that's probably how how the artist will live after they've made it, and possibly help their family after they're dead. Copyright holders are rarely the millionaires you seem to think they are. Yeah, you have the big record companies and movie companies, but a lot more copyrights are being given to authors or freelance photographers, exactly the sorts of people that need long-term protection because chances are they aren't making a lot of money off of their work. You want to shorten patent terms, sure, you want to make it harder for the RIAA to extort people, sure, but let the starving artists have control of their work during their lifetime.

Re:Poison Pill

[Shagg]

Think of it the other way. How many artists will stop creating because they "only" have 14 years to make money off of it.

Copyright was not originally intended to guarantee the artist a paycheck for the rest of their life. Having copyrights that last for the life of the creator isn't about "encouraging the arts" it's about locking in control and legally enforcing a profit, neither of which are what it was created for.

Re:

[zenkonami]

True, but I think it's important to remember that the creative arts are a different kind of business than many others. In most cases, you get no pension, no retirement, no health care, no sick days...it's a freelance gig (most of the time) and with it come those hazards...hazards the artist hopes can be made up for over the life of their works.

The artist is being paid for work they did, but if they stop promoting it, it is likely to stop producing money for them, so they are also, effectively, being paid

Re:

[mOdQuArK!]

I think it's important to remember that the creative arts are a different kind of business than many others

No they're not. That's the incorrect assumption that keeps this stupid argument about "intellectual property" going.

"Being creative" is no different than providing any other sort of service. For most types of services, you get paid for what people think is the value of the provided service, at the time that you provide the service. Only the greedy want to get paid over and over for providing a single

Re:

[milsoRgen]

I'm starting to understand now... I like this imaginary property thing, let's have it apply to other works as well... Like if I'm a house painter, I should still get paid for that house I painted 20 years ago... That would rock... Seriously tho the length a copyright can be held should be drastically shortened, it would keep the creative types pumping out new works.

Re:

[milsoRgen]

I think you are placing to much monetary value on art... A lot of people make art simply for the sake of creating something.

But you do have an interesting point about, "being ahead of your time". That is certainly a possibility. However, if someone is to make anything profound and truly meaningful being it book, music, poetry, etc., etc.. People who are interested in that work are generally going to seek out the truest version, the "Authorized" editions if you will. The editions the author is directly ti

Re:

[bishiraver]

Answer:

If copyright is issued to a legal non-human body (ie, corporation, LLC):

Copyright term is 14 years with possibility to re-apply.

If copyright is issued to a human person (as opposed to a corporation or legal body), it is copywritten for 70 years.

Re:

[aussie_a]

The solution is easy. Coporations will assign all copyright to 1 person, and that person then gives the corporation an exclusive license for 100 years.

Re:

[syousef]

That would only make sense if the artists were getting a reasonable amount of money from their copyrighted works. In general they don't, and few those that do get too much which is then spent on the cult of celebrity, drugs and hookers.

Even if you still do subscribe to the idea that the artist should profit from their work, the idea that an artist should CONTROL (or sell control of) their work for their lifetime is a separate issue. It would be possible to award civil damages for use of a work without compe

Re:

[JudgeFurious]

You have a good point and so does the fellow you're talking to. I can't help but feel like there is no perfect answer to this however and I find myself thinking of the age old sequence of events where a relative few screw things up for everybody. A handful of people own the laws now and when it no longer suits their purpose they buy extensions on existing laws or sometimes entirely new ones. We may not be able to afford to keep helping those starving artists you speak of. The few may have broken the system

Re:Poison Pill

[Chosen Reject]

You have just demonstrated that you haven't any idea why copyright was created in the first place. People are by nature creative. We do stuff all the time that is new. Not all of it (or even a majority of it) is interesting or useful to other people, but a lot of stuff is. As a society we only grow when everybody's creative ideas are out on the table. We take the best ones and build upon that.

However, ideas are an infinite good. Some people don't want to share their creative ideas unless they have some way to profit from it. Because ideas can't be controlled like a physical thing can, some people a long time ago designed copyright to give incentive to those people. In brief, copyright is the government granting a temporary monopoly on your idea (so that you can profit from it) to you in exchange for you to share that idea with society. During that copyright period, you are free to charge however much you want for the use of that copyrighted material (free use excepting). After that copyrighted period though, the public and society as a whole is now free to build upon that idea however they see fit. If you want to have another monopoly that allows you to create money off an idea, then you have to come up with something new and creative again. Thus, copyrights give incentive to create more copyrighted work from even the original author. However, with a copyright term that is guaranteed for life, what incentive do you have to create something new more than once? Sure you can create more works to make even more money, but if you are content with what you have, you have no reason to create new works. Let's take an example. If the copyright for Star Wars ran out in 1993 (14 years after 1979) then George Lucas would have been forced to come up with something new to make money. He couldn't just continue riding the Star Wars wave the rest of his life. (For those of you who didn't like the prequels, this means that after 1993 anybody could have made them). As it is, he just sits around and makes money off of a few properties he's made.

I will only be for lifetime+ copyrights once my work as a plumber guarantees me and my posterity money for all individual jobs I do. If I make a toilet and install it somewhere, then guarantee me that I can get a decent income from that work for the rest of my life and my childrens' lives as well. If I happen to want more money, then I will install a second toilet and then you have to guarantee me profits from two toilets. But it doesn't work like that in real life and it shouldn't be that way for anything else. To make a more appropriate analogy: Say you are a marketing guy and you come up with a neat way to advertise a product. Should you be guaranteed an income for you and your posterity for that one idea? No, that would be silly. You get paid a salary and if you stop coming up with ideas then you're fired and the next idea-man gets hired in your place. Same with individual authors of creative works. They should have to keep coming up with ideas if that is how they want to make a living. If they don't, then they can go work as a salaried employee somewhere.

In either case, if you want to leave your children some inheritance, that is your deal. People who don't make money off of copyrighted things have to save up and invest in order to provide for their families. Why should a person who came up with some idea before anyone else be treated any differently in that regard? We, as a society, gave them an opportunity to market their creative work and make money, now it is our turn to build on it.

I have kind of gone astray. Anyway, the purpose of copyright is to grant a temporary monopoly to give incentive for you to release your work of art into society. Society grants that (through the government) and in return we get your creative work and get to build upon it. Copyright gives incentive to people who have creative works to release it upon society for the express reason of society being able to use that

Re:

[click2005]

and possibly help their family after they're dead.

I've never understood that part.. why should the family (usually not a family but a company anyway) get to live off someone else's work? Is there some reason why the family of an artist/author/creator of whatever cant earn a living like most other people on the planet? Why do they deserve special treatment? Its not like they contributed to society in any way.

Re:

[mrxak]

Why should your kids or spouse benefit from your income? People actually work to support their families. And when they aren't around, it's usually nice if they still provide some support, from insurance, or whatever's in the estate. I guess it's that whole evolution thing where you take care of your family so your genes survive.

Re:

[click2005]

That still doesn't give any reason why people who create copyrighted works should get special privileges. What you said applies to everyone, not just artists/authors etc.

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Don't worry about it. In 99.44% of cases, the work isn't of any value anyway (whether valueless originally, or has lost whatever value it once had), so the family isn't helped one iota. It's like giving them a box full of losing lottery tickets. The public is still harmed because the work isn't in the public domain, but the family isn't helped because the work is of no economic value. Everyone loses!

Except for the rare lottery winner who has a work that is valuable. Of course, that work was probably always

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Copyrights should last 70 years because that's probably how how the artist will live after they've made it, and possibly help their family after they're dead.

I'm sorry, but that's a really stupid argument.

First, copyright isn't intended to help authors or their families. It is intended to get them to create and publish the work and otherwise to protect it as little as possible, for as brief a time as possible. That is, we want the maximum incentive for the minimum cost. If most authors would be incentivized

Re:

[jrumney]

Why should copyright holders' families be entitled to anything after their death? If they want to provide for their families, why can't they buy life insurance and invest the money they make while they are alive, like the rest of us?

Re:

[vimh42]

But the goal of so many isn't to make money to fund development but rather to hit it big with their one hit wonder and ride on its laurels for the rest of their lives.

Re:

[zenkonami]

But the goal of so many isn't to make money to fund development but rather to hit it big with their one hit wonder and ride on its laurels for the rest of their lives.

That may be the goal, but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Re:Poison Pill

[dada21]

It means that the content you've now dumped into the public domain will suddenly start showing up on TV, surrounded by ads, making money for the TV network but offering nothing back to the creators.

It means that it'll show up on boot-leg DVDs for $5/pop - with all $5 going to the person who ripped the disk and nothing to the creator.

Good! That's how it should be!

Someone taking a near infiite resource (digital info), combining it with a very finite resource (time/airwaves) and then finding a hungry market for it!

Everything I create I release to the public domain, yet I still make good income on it.

Re:

[meringuoid]

Let me guess, you're one of the "information wants to be free" types who thinks that a work entering the public domain means that it will become freely shared and easily available. Wrong. What it means is that people can start making money off it without giving the original creators a dime. It means that the content you've now dumped into the public domain will suddenly start showing up on TV, surrounded by ads, making money for the TV network but offering nothing back to the creators. It means that it'

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Sounds good to me. Besides, the middle man in your example has no monopoly on that position. Nothing prevents the author, or me, or anyone else from hawking the exact same thing. For example, I can go to the bookstore and buy a copy of Hamlet, or I can go online and download a copy for free, and I can sit outside the bookstore and give copies away, or whatever. So can Shakespeare. Well, zombie Shakespeare, anyway.

Also, by mandating that authors who want a copyright on their work deposit a copy of the work a

Re:

[Lord_Breetai]

...although even 50 years would public domain some stuff that's still making the creators money.

But that's just it, ip holders will always claim they're still making money with their ip, and continue to lobby for extensions. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Re: limited terms

[Migraineman]

Do you have any idea how ridiculously fucking short 14 years is?!

Long enough so you have a reasonable time to market your work and make money; short enough that you don't get to sit on your ass for the rest of your life, and short enough that you are prohibited from obstructing other peoples' progress.

Go re-read the Constitution ...

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As copyright stands now, the term can outlive the author. That's bad. Exactly how does that beyond-death structure encourage the dead guy to create additional works? (hint - it doesn't.)

Re:

[hedwards]

Clearly the funds should be used to bring back the author as a zombie.

Re:

[Anakron]

how does that beyond-death structure encourage the dead guy to create additional works?

It doesn't. However, it also reduces any incentive for the artist to suffer an "accidental" death.

Re:

[dgatwood]

So does having a fixed period of 14+14 years. Having it automatically outlive the author by a given number of years, however, could be an incentive to keep the author alive in a persistent vegetative state for 50 years....

*shivers*

Re:

[sconeu]

Or, as someone said many years ago...

P2P Killed Elvis [slashdot.org]!!!

Re:

[PitaBred]

I think it seems just about right. If you haven't profited in 14 years, then you're doing it wrong.

Copyright isn't there to create a gravy train. It's there to encourage the useful arts and benefit the country as a whole, not just the original content creators of things that become popular.

Re:

[Shagg]

I think it seems just about right. If you haven't profited in 14 years, then you're doing it wrong.

Agreed, and if you haven't done anything new after 14 years in order to keep paying the bills, maybe you should go out and get a job like everyone else.

Re:

[dgatwood]

To be fair, it was originally 14 years with the ability to renew once for an additional 14, for a total of 28. That would mean that unless a title was not making money, the effective term was 28 years. That would release anything made before 1980. That pretty much puts all the old UNIX code in the clear plus a few early Atari games, but not much else.

Also, you seem to mistakenly believe that copyright holders are usually the original creators. Almost all works of consequence made since about 1970 have

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Why, then, should a song get almost five times the protection? (I feel this way even speaking with my songwriter hat on, BTW.)

Well, that's sort of apples and oranges. Patents don't last as long (originally the patent term was 14 years, then 17, and recently 20, and we've altered when the clock starts) but the protection is much broader, and on different subject matter.

Still, I do agree that both should be as short as possible while still encouraging the creation or invention of as much as possible. Frankly,

Re:

[dgatwood]

Frankly, I don't care whether a work was easy or difficult to create. If about as many still would've been created had the rewards been less, then reduce the rewards; if many more would be created if the rewards were greater, increase the rewards.

That's my point, though. Some things would be created far less if the copyright were short. If it takes a year to write a book and six or seven years to shop it around to publishers (not unusual for new authors), a ten year copyright term would basically mean

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

That's my point, though. Some things would be created far less if the copyright were short. If it takes a year to write a book and six or seven years to shop it around to publishers (not unusual for new authors), a ten year copyright term would basically mean that few would consider becoming a novelist.

The problem is, that I suggested that there would be a lesser form of copyright for unpublished works, and regular copyright for published works. The former would have a term subsisting from fixation of the w

Re:

[dgatwood]

1. Yes, you could do that to be "published", but no, posting it does not necessarily constitute publication. Posting it in a private area for select individuals to view is no more publication than lending a draft to your friend. We probably do need to clarify the definition of publication, though. In any case, while you can "click post" and publish, you can't really make money that way, and as such, copyright law should not pressure authors to "publish" in such a self-defeating manner simply to meet som

Re:

[dgatwood]

No, copyright starts when it is fixed. There's a difference. A draft is, in fact, copyrighted under the Berne convention, and the U.S. is a signatory to that. Under current copyright law, publication is not required for copyright protection. I believe that this should remain the case, as failing to do so could produce a whole string of burglary of authors' homes....

Note: publication does affect the duration of copyright protection for commercially-produced works, so it is not completely meaningless un

You obviously need a clue.

[znerk]

14 years is plenty of time to make plenty of money from an idea. Star Wars would be public domain, yes, but do you really think George Lucas (or his estate) needs more money from Skywalker and company?

The idea is not to "milk products until they're dead", the idea is to put the ideas into the public domain so that all can profit from them... after the original creator (who, half the time, isn't even the one who got the copywrite) makes a reasonable amount of money from it.

Yes, I have a *very* good idea just

Re:

[aussie_a]

Yet most of those things were profitable well within 14 years. Sounds like 14 years is a good timelength.

Is this misworded?

[Anonymous Coward]

'Noting that the courts can currently award massive statutory damages without rightsholders having to demonstrate that they have suffered any actual harm, the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties

I'm misunderstanding how the assignment of statutory damages without a demonstration, much less proof of harm can be considered in the interest of both parties.

Obvious really

[Recovering Hater]

The RIAA won't be happy until they can sue someone for "100 Jillion dollars" *

* Spoken in Dr. Evilese

Re:Obvious really

[HikingStick]

In all likelihood, I believe the RIAA would prefer to make copyright infringement a capital offense.

The executions, themselves, will be recorded (and copyrighted) and then tacked on the beginning of every DVD or future media type.

After a few years, consumers will be able to purchase "The best of RIAA Executions" in a variety of formats (each disk or download fully protected by DRM, of course).

Re:

[snarkh]

Finally it would be clear what exactly the RIAA "executives" do.

Re:

[jimicus]

In all likelihood, I believe the RIAA would prefer to make copyright infringement a capital offense.

I doubt it. It's rather hard to get money off a dead person.

Future?

[Anonymous Coward]

The authors of the white paper paint a dreary future where "copyright trolls" file lawsuits in order to rake in massive amounts of statutory damages, where innovation is stifled, and where artists are afraid to "Recut, Reframe, and Recycle" because of the financial risks involved.'"

Strange. That sounds remarkably similar to the dreary present.

Copyright lawsuits to censor, intimidate, or extract cash are already fairly common. Also, the financial and legal burden to remixing content and culture is already so high that no independent artist can endure it, and most big-name outfits avoid it wherever possible.

Welcome to the future.

content creators

[SoupGuru]

I have a dream. I have a dream that content creators will find it easier and easier to retain the rights to their works instead of being coerced into signing them away to a 3rd party.

If large monolithic recording companies and their associations didn't con the artists into handing over the rights to their labor in the first place, none of this would be an issue. Hopefully the industry will change and allow the artists more freedom over their work while still being able to make a living.

Re:

[squallbsr]

I almost died of laughter...

Re:

[zenkonami]

+1 Good Idea.

This just in

[LockeOnLogic]

A late amendment to the PRO-IP would give the RIAA permission to "hold you upside down and shake out every last penny" on suspicion of copywrite infringement. Not satisfied with this development, RIAA is now pushing for a further amendment permitting cavity searches as well.

Re:

[jedidiah]

Someone needs to put this on a t-shirt.

I think Lars Ulrich or James Hetfield would be the perfect
subjects to be oversized the "troll" holding a poor media
consumer up in the air by his leg.

Higher return-on-investment.

[fahrbot-bot]

The RIAA makes perfect sense here. In response to dwindling (or flat) profits from lawsuits, they want to raise the guaranteed ROI on fewer lawsuits. Models the recording industry business practices perfectly... Rape, don't innovate.

Copyright trolls?

[Malevolent Tester]

The RIAA raised my infringement liberally.

Having their cake and eating it too

[Shagg]

Why is it that the RIAA (and I guess the MPAA too?) are able to basically have the best of both worlds with current copyright laws. They have the reduced burden of proof that a civil court gives them, but are also allowed to basically get criminal levels of punishment. If they really want to be able to financially ruin someones life for a single infringement, shouldn't they at least have to do it in criminal court with a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof.

Re:

[pembo13]

Seems to me that the punishments are higher than the average criminal punishment

Re:Having their cake and eating it too

[jedidiah]

You would get about 1/100th punishment from just shoplifting it.

"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[sm62704]

...the white paper calls current copyright law a "carefully designed compromise" meant to balance the interests of both parties

I don't. I think copyright is WAY out of hand. Terms should be brought back to the eighteenth century's tewnty years, and no noncommercial use should be called infringing except in the case of plagairism.

P2P is advertising and MP3s are free samples of a far better commodity.

If copyright were reasonable, you wouldn't have folks on slashdot calling for its abolition like you do now.

-mcgrew

PS- I hold hundreds of copyrights, two having ISBN numbers. The two registered ones would have gone into the public domain already if I'd had my way, as they are both over 20 years old. How are you going to convince Jimi hendrix to record any more songs? That is what the US Constitution says the purpose of copyright is!

Re:

[FishWithAHammer]

P2P is advertising and MP3s are free samples of a far better commodity.

This is disingenuous. The difference between a 256kbps MP3 and an audio CD is negligible and you know it.

The complaints about copyright--and I might add that holding copyrights does not make you an expert, though it might make you an outlier--boil down to "I can get it for free, so I want it for free."

Re:

[cliffski]

agreed. People aren't on slashdot arguing about copyright because copyright is a problem. They are doing it because it helps them justify piracy/theft. There was no huge outcry 20 years ago about copyright terms or the penalties for infringement. In fact, I never heard anyone ever criticize anything about copyright until it became easy to download copied music and movies from the web.
In short, the only thing thats changed is its easier to copy stuff now. People want stuff for free (big surprise!) so they tr

Re:

[UncleTogie]

People aren't on slashdot arguing about copyright because copyright is a problem. They are doing it because it helps them justify piracy/theft. There was no huge outcry 20 years ago about copyright terms or the penalties for infringement. In fact, I never heard anyone ever criticize anything about copyright until it became easy to download copied music and movies from the web.

Guess you weren't born early enough to hear the whining about VCRs, [wikipedia.org] were you?

I'll gripe when any industry gets too big for its britches 'n' starts pissing on the consumer. No "piracy" excuse needed.

Re:

[UncleTogie]

Remind me which industry is too big for its britches, again?

Broadly, the entertainment industry.

"Big Music" earned $18bn globally last year - much less than Apple Inc. alone, and about the same as Google Inc.

They could've made more if they'd given their customers what they wanted, instead of sticking to what is widely seen as a flawed business model.

You're proving his point.

Try reading carefully before you post next time. My reply was to this:

In fact, I never heard anyone ever criticize anything about copyright until it became easy to download copied music and movies from the web.

I simply pointed out that it's a rehash of the earlier fight.

But don't let facts spoil your argument, if it allows you to justify not paying for stuff. Heck, that's your Freetard right, dammit.

Wow. What a jackass. If you read any of my other posts, you'd find my reasoning. To paraphrase 'em: I've never advocated piracy. But when it's been made criminal for a deaf guy to view le

Selfishness rules

[ThurlMakes7]

Spot on. In one way it's even worse: denying the originators (of music, or quality games like your good self) has become a moral crusade in its own right.

This quote summed it up for me:

"can there ever have been a more empty and worthless cause than fighting for the right for artists not to be paid?" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/03/jammie_thomas_attorney_flees/ [theregister.co.uk]

Which is an interesting PoV from the guy who coined the word "pigopolist".

People used to campaign to make everyone better off, to rais

Re:

[russotto]

"can there ever have been a more empty and worthless cause than fighting for the right for artists not to be paid?"

Didn't Slashdot just report about the RIAA doing just that?

People used to campaign to make everyone better off, to raise everyone higher. Now they campaign to make talented people worse off. The anti-copyright nuts will disappear up their own backsides eventually, I just wonder how much damage they'll do before they feck off.

Copyright's terms have been increased (Bono), its subject matter e

Re:

[sm62704]

In the US, before a thing can be copyrighted it must be "affixed in tangible form". That should give a clue to one place where the insudtry has gone and is going wrong. They should NOT be selling downloads, certainly not selling them for a dollar a pop.

Instead, downloads should be free, or at least cheap enough to discourage anyone from wanting to upload them. Instead of a dollar, a nickle or dime should be enough. If a file is on my own server the cost of letting someone download it from me is negligible.

C

Re:"carefully designed compromise", my ass!

[shark72]

"P2P is advertising and MP3s are free samples of a far better commodity."

I've purchased hundreds of MP3 and AAC tracks. Not once have I proceeded to purchase the CD version, nor have I gone to see the performer play live, or -- to use the Slashdot cliche -- "bought a t-shirt." The track was the product, not an ad. And the fact is that there are many, many consumers like me. If I could have legally gotten those MP3 files for free, then the copyright owner would have seen exactly zero money from me. Let's not pretend that MP3 files hold no value... while I acknowledge that many people reading this use P2P as their primary source for music, Apple and others have done quite well in the business of selling downloads.

"I hold hundreds of copyrights, two having ISBN numbers. The two registered ones would have gone into the public domain already if I'd had my way, as they are both over 20 years old."

Possibly a dumb question... if you hold the copyright, don't you have your way? Does obtaining an ISBN hamper your ability to release something into the public domain?

I'm thinking of what Cory Doctrow has done with some of his stuff... he didn't see the need for it to be under copyright any longer, so he set it free. His stuff, too, has ISBNs, so I don't understand what the difference is here.

Re:

[Dusty00]

False analogy.

The argument made on Slashdot, and elsewhere, is that the music is the promotional material. No promotional material is ever 100% effective. If I'm at the grocery store, get a free sample and don't purchase the product I don't feel any obligation to pay for the sample I've received.

Re:

[shark72]

"The argument made on Slashdot, and elsewhere, is that the music is the promotional material. No promotional material is ever 100% effective. If I'm at the grocery store, get a free sample and don't purchase the product I don't feel any obligation to pay for the sample I've received."

It can be promotional material. It can incite the customer to buy more music from the same artist, or do Ye Olde t-shirt and concert thing. But, any product can also be described in similar terms. Hyundai could give away ca

Re:

[EzInKy]

...and no noncommercial use should be called infringing except in the case of plagairism.


You would think this would already be the case as current copyright law stomps all over the first amendment.

Re:

[stubear]

Even if copyright terms were brought back to 20 years there would still be MASSIVE violations occurring on P2P networks. People don't pirate movies, music, and software that is 20+ years old, they are illegally distributing works that are barely days or weeks old. In some cases works that have yet to be publicly released wind up on P2P networks. Your advertisement argument, weak as it is, only works for music. How do you suggest movie and TV production companies make a living? TV shows are traded on P2

Re:

[cpt kangarooski]

Perhaps he means that he wants the same time limit to apply to everyone. If he dedicates them to the public domain, then he's at a disadvantage with everyone else. If that's the standard time limit, however, then he's in the same boat with everyone else, and there's no comparative disadvantage for him.

Re:

[sm62704]

Nope, no contract, I own the copyrights. One of them is completely worthless, since it will only work on a computer that they stopped selling in 1983, a program that hacked it into a higher graphics mode than it was designed for, along with a crude (by today's standards) program to let you draw pictures on it.

The other one is Artificial Insanity, I may port that one to javascript. I may even open-source it.

Re:

[sm62704]

WOOSH!

I'd post anonymously too. The point is that copyright is supposed to convince artists to create in order to make more works go into the public domain.

Hindrix' works should be in the public domain, as there's no way outside of hell he's going to record again.

Colors

[Teflon_Jeff]

White papers aren't going to et it done, Green papers are the only way to make a change in laws.

Already seeing "Copyright Trolls"

[Jason Levine]

The authors of the white paper paint a dreary future where "copyright trolls" file lawsuits in order to rake in massive amounts of statutory damages

It's not widespread yet as a means for profit, but copyright protection laws are being already being (mis-)used to silence critics and competitors. There was the Lexmark DMCA case [techdirt.com] where they argued that a competitor's ink replacement system was a violation of the DMCA. There are the widespread Scientology claims of copyright on items they don't own, but want offline [chillingeffects.org]. In general, anyone who wants a site offline quickly [techdirt.com] can just file a DMCA claim on it You can sort out those messy perjury issues later (if they come up at all). Attach a financial reward for filing DMCA claims and suddenly copyright trolls will appear everywhere.

The real trick is a nuisance fine.

[samuel4242]

I've grown so annoyed with the virtual shoplifters on the internet who give fair use a bad name that I actually hope the RIAA will be able to hang a few of the folks with the 50,000 song collection that they got for free. But I don't think charging $150,000 per incident is the way to do it. Charge $150 and the police will be more likely to prosecute. Heck, if the police department in my town could write tickets for illicit copies, you know they would love that. They routinely write $27 tickets for inane vio

Corporate use of an individual's copyrighted work?

[Christoph]

A corporation took a photo from my website (cgstock.com) and used it in an entire ad campaign (phone book, brochures, newspaper). I saw it, they refused to pay, then sued me for defamation when I wrote about it on my website ( http://www.cgstock.com/essays/vilana [cgstock.com] ).

The case went to trial in federal court November 5th, 2007 (case 06-01164, District of MN -- my copyright infringement claim and multiple counterclaims over me "disparaging" them...it was a bench trial and I'm still waiting for the judge's ruling).

I explicitly permit non-commercial use of my photos -- personal web pages, schools, etc. (I require a photo credit, but I would not sue over it). But I greatly object if you are making money from my work, you HAVE A BUDGET to pay me, but are cutting me out of the loop to inflate your profits while I'm earning nothing.

There are excessive penalties for copyright infringement where the infringer does not seek to profit, but (speaking subjectively) I would like the corporation that stole my photos (two photos, actually), lied about it, forged evidence, and tied up in court since 2005, to pay "a billion dollars"...not just a token amount, or a few hundred. The risk of getting caught has to be a deterrent, which (for this company) it was not.

(licensing photos largely relies on professionalism and the honor system; if a local bank tells me they are going to use my photo in 1,000 brochures, I assume they are not using it in a TV campaign, billboards, and 100,000 brochures -- if so, the damages should outweigh the benefit of lying).

I guess this relates to the change in copyright law (to address P2P) that equated infringement without a profit motive = infringement with a profit motive.

A new idea

[GregPK]

I think that the artists should get 50 percent of all settlements... The RIAA of course would balk at this. But it goes with thier primary arguement that its robbing the musician of hard earned money. If artists got half of all settlements they'd be more likely to help the RIAA catch people.

Re:

[Bombula]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal." - Pablo Picasso

What was that you were saying?

There is nothing new under the sun

[spun]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.
If you can't be bothered to ask the originator if she minds if you reuse her work, you can't call yourself respectful.
If you can't honor the wishes of the originator when he says he doesn't want you reusing his work, you shouldn't call yourself honest.

All in all, the only way in which I'd miss the recyclers is in the lack of easy targets for mockery.

Everything in art is recycled. If you can't see that, you have not studied art, literature, or history. Go ahead, find me one original piece of art, something that has never, ever been done before, and which is not influenced by anything which went before. Or try a thought experiment: if you raised a kid in a box with no contact with the outside world, would they be capable of producing anything approaching art?

Re:

[Chosen Reject]

Go ahead, find me one original piece of art, something that has never, ever been done before, and which is not influenced by anything which went before.

Ask and you shall recieve [wikimedia.org]

I kid. I kid. I actually agree with you.

Re:

[freedom_surfer]

Because we know all artists have originated all their work and techniques and not built upon the foundations of their predecessors...

I have a better idea...if you want to horde your art, then don't share it or release it to the general public...a real artist would prefer his/her work to be enjoyed by many rather than locked away with a financial key...IMHO

Now should people have protections for their created works? Of course....but for 70+ years? No way... if you can't make your money back in 14 years, th

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Every musician who's written a song that uses the I-IV-V structure is a laughable fraud, because somebody else came up with that idea first.

Don't even get me started on the hacks who use the verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus song structure!

Re:

[IndustrialComplex]

The Queen song goes da da da da da da da... my song goes da da da da da da DA

Re:

[tepples]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.

If I write a song, how can I tell whether I have subconsciously copied something that I had heard on the radio ten years ago?

Re:

[meringuoid]

Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist.

Damn. Well, there goes Shakespeare, then.

Re:

[zotz]

"Honestly, if you can't come up with material yourself, you shouldn't call yourself an artist."

Cool, so any works found to be built upon works in the public domain and so on down the line will automatically be put into the public domain then? I mean, if they are building on the works of others, they can't be artists and why should we give copyrights on artistic works to non-artists? Right?

How about we go on a copyright offensive everyone?
http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-thoughts-on-copyright-offensi [blogspot.com]