EU Plans To Extend Copyright; Turns Copyright System Into Welfare For Musicians
from the what-a-shame dept
Just as we feared, the EU has now approved copyright extension of performance royalties from 50 years to 95 years. This is basically an approval to steal from the public. The public made a deal with musicians 50 years ago: give us music, and we'll give you performance royalties for 50 years. The musicians accepted that, and it was a worthwhile deal for them. Yet, now, the government has decided to change the deal, remove that content from the public domain and give it to the musicians for another 45 years. This is, simply, bad policy. It encourages the exact wrong behavior: telling people that the public will pay them for work they did many many years ago over and over again. This doesn't encourage musicians to continue working and it doesn't encourage them to be fiscally responsible and save for retirement or anything.
At the same time, (again as expected), the EU has said that royalties collecting agencies need to compete, like they do in the US. As we noted a few weeks ago, this is better than forcing all artists to be represented by a single agency, but these agencies tend to do things in the name of artists that can be a lot more damaging than helpful in the long run.
These changes still require approval from the individual EU countries and the EU Parliament, so there's still some chance that folks in Europe will realize that extending copyright on already created works is a bad idea, but that seems unlikely at this point.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Mike, you are a retard
Mike, you are a retard. Music is intellectual property; as much as code, a painting or a trademark. Why shouldn't the creator of the intellectual property profit from it's exploitation? Corparations do this all the time, should the Nike logo become public domain just because it has been around for 50 years? Or better yet should your written words, such as this article become FREE for others to exploit based on the date they were written. Your retarded logic makes me think I should publish a book selling the Articles you've written as soon as they age past 50, unfortunately no one would buy the book, because you are again, retarded. 95 years actually sounds pretty reasonable, that would allow the children of musicians to inherit the copyrights.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Mark, confusing IP with trademark(s) immediately shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
Dr E
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Actually, he's not
How does lifetime copyright ENCOURAGE NEW WORKS? Yes, the person creating something should profit, for a while. But he should also KEEP CREATING rather than sitting on his lazy butt.
Also, we should encourage others to do CREATE DERIVATIVES by using other material that was previously created. How can that happen when the other material never comes out of copyright during the lifetimes of the people that wish to make derivatives?
Since the things I listed above are what copyright is supposed to accomplish, it seems like 95 year copyright is completely missing the mark.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I'd love to see the reverse
I'd love to see the situation go to 5 years for copyright. Watch as all the old musicians squirm that they can't come up with new stuff, and all the new ones who are creative do just fine/improve/change their act!
What an idea!
/facepalm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mike, you are a retard
Um, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Mike allowed you to start publishing a book using his words right NOW (provided you gave proper credit). He understands these economics very well, and you "exploiting his works" would only bring him more positive reputation.
It is a terrible mentality to think that anyone has the "right" to profit off something they created long ago. Should car dealers receive a percentage of customers' paychecks since they are "profiting" off those cars by using them to get to work? Who taught you that you ought to be paid over and over for something you did once? I work as a web developer. Should I go demand recurring checks from my clients because their sites are STILL running off my templates? OMG They're profiting off my work, and I'm not getting a piece of it! This is terrible!
The old "pay me for my creation repeatedly" idea needs to die with all the old business models shoved around by the RIAA/MPAA.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: I'd love to see the reverse
I'm all for this idea. The people who actually WORK for a living will survive just fine, while the oldies struggle to figure out how to exploit the fans.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
> Why shouldn't the creator of the ... property profit from it's exploitation?
See what I did there? Read this sentence without the word 'intellectual' in it and you will see just how nonsensical you sound.
Do you pay the architect and builder of your house every time you use it? What if you rent it out or otherwise make money out of it - do you expect to pay a royalty?
Of course not, the creators of physical property profit from this clever thing called "selling" it, not from anything that subsequently happens to it. Why should "intellectual property" be any different?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Too far...
I agree with intellectual property rights in general, but like a patent, all good things must come to an end. Patentsare only good for 20 years for a reason: to reward the holder by allowing him/her to make massive profits and then force them to improve on it and refile the patent or move on and let everyone else have a turn. The original patent holder for the television got screwed because of this but hey, war sucks like that.
Music should work the same way...reward the artist then make them improve it. 20 years is about right for that.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Mark, confusing IP with trademark(s) immediately shows you have no clue what you are talking about.
Dr E
Trademark law attaches property rights to marks that are used to denote the source of goods or services. Thinking that trademarks are not a form of IP shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
What concern is it of yours?
"This doesn't encourage musicians to continue working and it doesn't encourage them to be fiscally responsible and save for retirement or anything."
What business is it of yours what an individual does with their money or time? If they blow it all on drugs, booze, loose women (men?) and go to an early grave so be it.
I agree they shouldn't get lifetime royalties but certainly not because I care what they do with their time and money.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Not Surprising at All
The EU, being a group of basically socialist nations, is bound to go for this "cradle to grave" protectionism. Same with their healthcare system, it covers everyone regardless of how hard you work (or don't work). The hard working cover the asses of the lazy. That's a welfare state. That's the EU.
Therefore, this ruling is not at all surprising that they are providing welfare to aging rocksters. Create one great hit...set for life...and your kids/grandkids, too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Trademark vs Copyright
"should the Nike logo become public domain just because it has been around for 50 years?"
Trademarks can be renewed so they don't expire. Copyright was only granted for a limited amount of time and are supposed to expire. That was the agreement between the artist and the public to create the work. Now they want to retroactively change the agreement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Mike, you are a retard
" I work as a web developer. Should I go demand recurring checks from my clients because their sites are STILL running off my templates? "
Yes, it is called a license and the Software as a Service model has proven to be quite profitable.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
"Do you pay the architect and builder of your house every time you use it? What if you rent it out or otherwise make money out of it - do you expect to pay a royalty?"
To work as a contractor or work under a contract is a form of Work for Hire, In California for example the person or business who hire's then owns the property, physical or intellectual. Because the negotiation is handled upfront all party agree prior to any product or payment taking place.
your can't really compare a contract or work for hire with copyright in this case.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
....95 years?
Suppose the artist comes up with a hit when they're 17, they're still likely to be dead before the protection runs out.
Maybe the EU is making a powerful statement about how they plan to increase the average lifespan from 75-80 to around 120-130 years. Or maybe they just suck.
Why not just have copyright for the lifetime of the creator. That's excessive too, but 95 years? Where did that figure come from? When has it ever made sense for a child to profit from something their parent created 70 years ago?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I have to retract my comment and I am now too a retard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mike, you are a retard
Mike, you are a retard.
When you disagree with someone, it doesn't automatically make them mentally incompetent. Perhaps it just means they have different (perhaps even better) information than you.
However, when you start off a discussion by insulting your opponent, it's usually an indication that you have no real basis for your argument and are merely going to argue from an emotional viewpoint, with nothing to back you up.
Music is intellectual property; as much as code, a painting or a trademark.
That has nothing to do with the point being made in the post. Even if it's true that music is "intellectual property" you do not address what the post is discussing: which is extending the rights over that property. Property has limits. What the EU is doing here is extending the limits of that property at the expense of the public.
Corparations do this all the time, should the Nike logo become public domain just because it has been around for 50 years?
That's a trademark. Trademark's do not expire based on time. Also, the purpose of trademarks is entirely different than copyright. Trademark is to prevent consumer confusion -- so you don't think those shoes you just overspent on were actually made by Nike when they were made by some kid down the street. That's got nothing to do with "exploiting" the creation.
Or better yet should your written words, such as this article become FREE for others to exploit based on the date they were written.
Yes, they should be free for others to exploit, and I have explicitly stated that they are free for others to exploit -- not based on the date, even.
Your retarded logic makes me think I should publish a book selling the Articles you've written as soon as they age past 50
No reason to wait for 50 years. Feel free to go ahead and do it now. It's great that you want to promote my work. I really appreciate that.
95 years actually sounds pretty reasonable, that would allow the children of musicians to inherit the copyrights.
This post wasn't even discussing the reasonableness of 95 years. Perhaps it is reasonable. But if it's reasonable then that should have been the term 50 years ago when that music was created. If you are going to change the term of copyright, it should only be for *new* works. Not works that were already created under the old deal.
How would you like it if I had sold you your house, and the deal we made was that you paid me $200,000 for it. Then, a few years later, I see that the value of the property has gone up, so now I go back and demand another $200,000 for it. Isn't that fair? Doesn't that sound reasonable? That would allow my kids to inherit some of the money that you are making *exploiting* my work? That's what's happening here.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Trademark law attaches property rights to marks that are used to denote the source of goods or services. Thinking that trademarks are not a form of IP shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.
Actually, he's making an important distinction, so it's wrong to brush him off. In fact, he's much more accurate than you are.
Trademark comes from an entirely different set of rules, and it was not designed to be "property" in any sense, but as a law of consumer protection. It's designed to prevent someone from buying a bottle of Willton's Cola from thinking it's Coca Cola.
It's really quite different than intellectual property.
It's only in the last few decades that IP lawyers have tried to pretend trademark is the third leg of the patent/copyright stool.
It's not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: What concern is it of yours?
What business is it of yours what an individual does with their money or time? If they blow it all on drugs, booze, loose women (men?) and go to an early grave so be it.
But do you want the government rewarding people for doing that? That's what this does.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Mike, you are a retard
This article is written by someone who I am guessing has little knowledge of royalties. I do forget this is the internet and anyone with half a brain (even me) can type up something and magically make it appear on the screen. I in no way makes it fact, correct or even informed. In this case I use the word Retarded, Widely used in the English language to describe something or someone that is ill informed.
Without copyright laws in place I can go and rerecord, or even simple sell digital copies of songs I did not right. For example the Beatles formed in 1958, we will begin to see their records age past 50 years. Shouldn't Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr still be able to control and profit from how their songs are used or sold. Should I be able to start press Beatles records and pocketing all of the cash?
*understand they already sold a large portion of their publishing rights, so this is just and example.
Again with the house. You can't compare Music and the mechanical and performance based royalties that get paid to the song writers to a house. Houses are bought and sold, with little further transaction happening beyond that single instance. Now, a much better argument would be - I can Rent you a house, and I will charge you rent everytime you want to use my house. My house can be inherited by my kids, who then can rent you the house and again charge you money.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"Without copyright laws in place I can go and rerecord, or even simple sell digital copies of songs I did not right. For example the Beatles formed in 1958, we will begin to see their records age past 50 years. Shouldn't Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr still be able to control and profit from how their songs are used or sold. Should I be able to start press Beatles records and pocketing all of the cash?"
They've had 50 years to come up with new stuff, and most of them have gone on to do new things, tours, or explore other avenues of work. So yes, their work *should* fall into the public domain.
Why shouldn't it? And as you said, they've sold most of, if not all, of their publishing rights in the first place. How is it fair for someone ELSE to profit off their work?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Mike, you are a retard
Mmmm, no. Mark YOU are a retard. You obviously know zero about copyright or IP or trademarks.
For your information a painting is a physical object and guess what? The artist does NOT get paid whenever someone sells that painting. And he sure as hell doesn't get paid everytime someone looks at it.
As far as the rest goes: Mike makes a good point but his title is wrong. What 95 years of copyright does is create a welfare system for the recording companies and the families of musicians.
I don't have a problem with musicians and songwriters getting a fair return on their work. But I think that rights should be limited to the lifetime of the creator/performer or 20 years. Whichever is greater.
Your argument about children of musicians inheriting the copyrights is retarded. If a musician is successful and makes money while he is alive he leaves money and property to his children. If he wasn't successful then "inheriting" a copyright is worthless. If he was successful and blew all his money on drugs and whores, well that's too damn bad. His kids didn't do a thing to contribute to whatever he created so there is no reasonable argument that they necessarily have to benefit from it.
Consider this: An architect doesn't get any residuals whenever someone enters a building he designs. He just gets paid for it and that's that. A chemist/doctor/whatever doesn't get 95 years of income from inventing a drug, even if it benefits millions of people. He sells the rights to a drug company and gets a flat sum or a share of the profits. And that share of the profits stops as soon as the patent expires. The same with anyone who actually invents something and patents it.
Also: when a song is played on the radio the musician doesn't get a dime. The SONGWRITER is the one that gets paid. You know why? Because the musician (unless he wrote the song himself) is taking something that someone else created and making money from that.
If a record company releases a greatest hits album with songs from 20 years before the musician probably isn't going to make huge money from the album sales anyway. Because everyone knows that the only ones that make big money from selling albums is usually the record company. So the 95 year copyright benefits the record companies and songwriters a hell of a lot more than the musician.
The copyright system is even more fundamentally flawed than the patent system which allows someone to get a patent for an idea that is so broad and vague that it could apply to anything. Why should an "entertainer" be more highly valued than the guy who cures cancer?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Mike, you are a retard
Actually, Mike, Nike didn't make those shoes. Nike doesn't make any shoes. They license and market them, so if you live in a developing country, chances are those shoes WERE made by some kid up the street.
But that's a far cry from something that would make you a retard.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, he's making an important distinction, so it's wrong to brush him off. In fact, he's much more accurate than you are.
Trademark comes from an entirely different set of rules, and it was not designed to be "property" in any sense, but as a law of consumer protection. It's designed to prevent someone from buying a bottle of Willton's Cola from thinking it's Coca Cola.
It's really quite different than intellectual property.
It's only in the last few decades that IP lawyers have tried to pretend trademark is the third leg of the patent/copyright stool.
It's not.
I'm well aware of where trademark law comes from: the law of unfair competition. But that doesn't change the fact that trademark law gives the trademark owner/user the right to exclude others from using that trademark for as long as the owner has rights to the mark (which is for as long as the owner uses the mark). The right to exclude is a property right, and what the right attaches to thus becomes property. So, while patent law and trademark law come from two different bodies of tort law, the actual things that they protect are still regarded as property.
Property can be any number of things, whether it's land, buildings, personal effects, money, securities, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets. As long as one has the right to exclude others from said things, said things are considered property.
To say that trademarks were not designed to be property evinces a lack of knowledge as to what property is.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Mike, you are a retard
For your information a painting is a physical object and guess what? The artist does NOT get paid whenever someone sells that painting. And he sure as hell doesn't get paid everytime someone looks at it.
Um, what about prints, or reproductions are copyrights that belong to the painter unless otherwise sold with the painting. Just as musicians can sell their recordings to a record label.
Consider this: An architect doesn't get any residuals whenever someone enters a building he designs. He just gets paid for it and that's that. A chemist/doctor/whatever doesn't get 95 years of income from inventing a drug, even if it benefits millions of people. He sells the rights to a drug company and gets a flat sum or a share of the profits. And that share of the profits stops as soon as the patent expires. The same with anyone who actually invents something and patents it.
What do you thing a royalty is - it is exactly a share of the profits.
Also: when a song is played on the radio the musician doesn't get a dime. The SONGWRITER is the one that gets paid. You know why? Because the musician (unless he wrote the song himself) is taking something that someone else created and making money from that.
Again this is exactly what a Publishing royalty is
If a record company releases a greatest hits album with songs from 20 years before the musician probably isn't going to make huge money from the album sales anyway. Because everyone knows that the only ones that make big money from selling albums is usually the record company. So the 95 year copyright benefits the record companies and songwriters a hell of a lot more than the musician.
Not true, not even close. The largest revenue drive in the music industry has always been Publishing. The business' that represent the rights of the Musician and song writers directly. When an Artist "signs" to a Record label they still retain their Publishing rights.
The copyright system is even more fundamentally flawed than the patent system which allows someone to get a patent for an idea that is so broad and vague that it could apply to anything. Why should an "entertainer" be more highly valued than the guy who cures cancer?
I don't think you or I can say who actually makes more money - I have a good idea of what a songwriter might make and what someone who invents a cancer cure would make and I don't think you are able to compare the 2. To cure cancer would eclipse the pocket change Bill Gates has made.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwned
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
For the record, I want to admit that I know nothing about Copyrights or IP. I will soon be changing my name to Mike Mansdick, so very sorry.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Mike, you are a retard
"Um, what about prints, or reproductions are copyrights that belong to the painter unless otherwise sold with the painting. Just as musicians can sell their recordings to a record label."
Prints or reproductions are not paintings. The poster was saying code, paintings and trademarks are intellectual property. I pointed out his error. For that matter prints and reproductions don't necessarily come from a painting. In fact a print and a reproduction are sometimes the same thing. And prints are also physical property, and reproductions are often also physical property.
"What do you thing a royalty is - it is exactly a share of the profits."
Ummm no. A royalty is nothing like a share of the profits. A royalty is a royalty and a share of the profits is a share of the profits. A songwriter gets royalties when a song is played on the radio REGARDLESS of profits. Royalties are fees they are not a share of anything. I don't think you understand the difference.
"Not true, not even close. The largest revenue drive in the music industry has always been Publishing. The business' that represent the rights of the Musician and song writers directly. When an Artist "signs" to a Record label they still retain their Publishing rights."
Once again you are confused. A musician may not even have any publishing rights to retain when he signs with a record company. Publishing rights belong to the SONGWRITER. Even though they can inhabit the same body a songwriter and a musician are just not the same thing. I said that the record label and songwriter would make more money from the deal. I'm not sure from your confused response if you are agreeing or disagreeing.
And it is CERTAINLY not true that the largest revenue comes from Publishing. If that were the case songwriters would make more money than musicians. And they don't. Because a musician is paid for performing and sometimes for recording that performance. The ones that make the big money are the record labels, who sell the recordings of those performances. NOT the ones that publish the actual song. Learn the difference between performing, recording and publishing, ok?
"I don't think you or I can say who actually makes more money - I have a good idea of what a songwriter might make and what someone who invents a cancer cure would make and I don't think you are able to compare the 2. To cure cancer would eclipse the pocket change Bill Gates has made."
Uh yeah I CAN say who actually makes more money. And where did I even mention that a songwriter might make more or less than the guy who cures cancer? I said ENTERTAINER. Once again: LEARN THE DIFFERENCE. And I said "valued", never mentioning anything about what any individual might make. Do you see anyone on the Forbes lists that invented ANY kind of drug? You might find a couple of drug company owners and some guys that own hospitals but not the guys that did the actual inventing. For that matter I haven't seen any somgwriters on there either. A few entertainers though.
And if someone ever does invent the mythic cure for cancer, guess what? They don't get paid for that for the next 95 years.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Too far...
I agree. More ironically, from the Reuters love note: "In Britain the Gowers report for the government came out against extending the 50 year copyright rule for performers, but McCreevy said there was no compelling reason why a performer should not have similar rights to a composer." McGreedy is such a twit that it never occurs to him that there is no compelling reason why Copyright terms should be wildly longer than Patent terms. I am now in favor of eliminating copyright altogether. I can live just fine without professional media. The democratization of content creation means that sufficient art will be produced by real artists seeking fame.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
"mark"
Just for the record, the same individual who posted the first comment, is also responsible for posts 13, 14, 15, 17, 21, 26, 27, 28, even though he changes around his "name" and even pretends (weakly) to be me.
I also like how he declares himself to have "pwned" others.
Very convincing strategy to argue. We present reasoned argument, and you pretend to be other people supporting your own lack of argument.
Plus, when called out on resorting to insults, rather than debate intelligently, your response is to impersonate me.
You're one classy guy "mark."
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Awesome...
I'm rendered almost speechless by some of the viewpoints on here.
For those of you debating that US Trade/Servicemarks are the same or even close to Patents or Copyrights, try a little light reading: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
Directly from the USPTO. Some key statements: "used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others" and "Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark". The scope of Trade/Servicemarks are very narrowly defined, it's only due to a popular misconception promoted by large corporations/big content owners/IP leeches that they are perceived as granting the mark owner anything beyond this in regards to how the mark may be used.
And yes, the comparison of the construction of a house to the writing of a song is dead on. If you want to say they aren't, then give a better argument other than "It just is!", which is all I've seen from the pro-copyrighters here.
Hey, here's a thought, if you're tired of analogies that compare creative works (not just music, but all infinitely copyable works) to physical works, stop insisting that it's a property, as property refers to something that can be owned, and you can't own something that can be copied infinitely once it is made. Anyone who believes that you can and not trample all over the freedom of society (see DRM, ISP content filtering, lawsuit witchhunts, and laws that are being written by corporations and NOT the people) are deluding themselves.
Creative energy, regardless of how it is expressed, is one of the core elements (if not the core element) that defines a society. Are you pro-copyrighters really asserting you want a world where the culture of society is "owned" by a minority and all who resist this paradigm are oppressed by a corporately owned police government? This is what ever expanding copyright will bring us to.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Mike, you are a retard
This article is written by someone who I am guessing has little knowledge of royalties
You can guess, but you would be incorrect. I know quite a bit about copyright and royalties, and have been writing about them for years. It's why I replied to your original comment pointing out the specific details here, which you seemed to have been confused about in your original comment.
In this case I use the word Retarded, Widely used in the English language to describe something or someone that is ill informed.
No, you used the word "retarded" which is widely used to insult -- not to describe someone who is ill-informed.
Without copyright laws in place I can go and rerecord, or even simple sell digital copies of songs I did not right.
I assume you mean "write." And, yes, that is correct. In fact, that was the very idea behind copyright law. It was originally designed to get people to enter works of content into the public domain so that others can go and do what they want with it.
For example the Beatles formed in 1958, we will begin to see their records age past 50 years. Shouldn't Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr still be able to control and profit from how their songs are used or sold.
It amuses me that you accuse us of not understanding the issues, when it is clear you do not. First of all, we are just discussing the performance rights, not the mechanical reproduction, publishing or songwriting rights. So, they still do in fact control how their songs are sold. Of course, I will merely correct your misunderstanding of what we are discussing rather than use an insulting word to describe your (lack of) intelligence.
As for whether or not it is proper, again, the purpose of copyright was to provide such exclusivity "for a limited time" with the clear reasoning that the content would eventually be placed in the public domain for the betterment of everyone.
Do you still get paid for the work you did 50 years ago?
Should I be able to start press Beatles records and pocketing all of the cash?
If you can provide more value, then why not?
Should Paul and Ringo also have to pay the folks who made Paul's guitars and Ringo's drums every time the music is played?
Should Paul and Ringo also have to play the musicians who taught them to play their instruments?
Should Paul and Ringo also have to play all the musicians who created the music they *built* their ideas on?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Tom Clancy wrote "The Hunt for Red October". The work is copyrighted, has earned him scads of money, served as an entree for his later works that are likewise copyrighted and earned him scads of money. Some people have liked his works so much that they got him to agree to movie deals where the people made scads of money and Clancy added to his earlier "scads".
All the while Tom Clancy and the movie folks have been making their "scads", other unrelated "scad-wannabees" have been free to come up with their own original works that in no way depend upon anything Clancy and the movie folks have done. Some of these other people have done such a good job that they too have been able to join the "Tom Clancy Scad Club" (TCSC). Funny thing is that they achieved membership in the TCSC without having ridden any part of Clancy and the movie folks' coat tails. In fact, some of these new TCSC members were able to join even though they too wrote works dealing with some of the thematic elements contained in Clancy's "The Hunt for Red October". Of course they were able to become members because copyright does not extend to "ideas", but to how those "ideas" are expressed.
Question: Since life goes on even with Clancy holding copyright in his original work, and since others are still able to make a living writing about the same "ideas" contained in Clancy's work and without infringing Clancy's copyright, then why is it that Clancy's copright should ever expire? Sure, it might be nice at some later date to repackage his book and take away a few of Clancy's scads, particularly if you do not have any talent for writing original stories, but how does this make society better off? Some might say, "Well, now we can improve his original work!", to which Clancy or his heirs might retort, "Why don't you try writing your own darn story and quit trying to make a quick buck using what someone else did!"
So, I ask, who cares if a copyright extends even into perpetuity? After all, you are always free to come up with your own ideas and hope they are good enough to gain you membership in the TCSC.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that doesn't change the fact that trademark law gives the trademark owner/user the right to exclude others from using that trademark for as long as the owner has rights to the mark
No, this is incorrect, Willton. For someone who purports to know the law, I'm a bit surprised.
Trademark law does not provide a right to exclude. It only provides a right to prevent usage that is confusingly similar or which dilutes the mark.
It does not give a full right to exclude.
Property can be any number of things, whether it's land, buildings, personal effects, money, securities, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets. As long as one has the right to exclude others from said things, said things are considered property.
Yes, by some lawyers who don't understand the impact of calling infinite goods property. So I'm not sure what you think you're proving here, other than that lawyers shouldn't be making important decisions like that.
To say that trademarks were not designed to be property evinces a lack of knowledge as to what property is.
I'd just as soon say that insisting that trademark is intellectual property shows a lack of knowledge as to what trademark is.
There. Can we now make this an "I know you are, but what am I?" debate? Do you really want to get into the semantics of why trademark is not property? Do you really want to be so high and mighty that you end appearing so dense as not to understand what the original commenter meant?
The original comment that set you off on this silly pedantic (and, I should add, incorrect) exploration was to point out that the original poster confused copyright with trademark. That was correct. You chose to defend the other side. Is that the side you really want to be on?
I would think not.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
AC, why do you not identify yourself?
*a bunch of Tom Clancy nonsense deleted*
Question: Since life goes on even with Clancy holding copyright in his original work, and since others are still able to make a living writing about the same "ideas" contained in Clancy's work and without infringing Clancy's copyright, then why is it that Clancy's copright should ever expire? Sure, it might be nice at some later date to repackage his book and take away a few of Clancy's scads, particularly if you do not have any talent for writing original stories, but how does this make society better off? Some might say, "Well, now we can improve his original work!", to which Clancy or his heirs might retort, "Why don't you try writing your own darn story and quit trying to make a quick buck using what someone else did!"
So, I ask, who cares if a copyright extends even into perpetuity? After all, you are always free to come up with your own ideas and hope they are good enough to gain you membership in the TCSC.
Do you have such little understanding of the public domain that you would suggest such a thing? Nearly all creative works are built on the backs of others -- including Clancy's. Shakespeare's works were based on the work of others as well, but in your world, he should have been more original.
Only those who do not understand property, property rights, copyright and the public domain would reasonably suggest an eternal copyright scheme.
I've explained why elsewhere:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070521/015928.shtml
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Sounds like Mike is a commie, Pirate Bay loving tree hugger.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Sounds like Mike is a commie, Pirate Bay loving tree hugger.
This again from the same individual who called me a "retard" and then apparently was unable to respond to the points I raised in pointing out that he did not actually understand what the post was about.
As for the specific charges above, those are pretty funny. For the record, I have never used The Pirate Bay and I do not download unauthorized music.
As for "commie" I'm going to assume this individual means that I support communism. That's an odd assertion, again which seems designed (like "retard") to merely insult, rather than raise any real issue.
Yet, I fail to see how supporting a more capitalist free market solution is somehow considered "commie" when a welfare scheme granting unlimited gov't monopolies is not. Given the history of communism, I would think that the gov't granting universal pensions and monopolies fits much more in with what most people think "communism" represents.
Oh, but you're not here to discuss substance, are you? Your here to throw out random insults. And, when called out, your response is to simply throw out more insults.
Does that make you feel more important somehow? Feel free to just admit that you were wrong with your comments, rather than digging yourself a deeper hole.
Either that or go find a different pool to swim in.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) Doctrine
Let the copyright mongers get what they want. If they want surveillance power to sue those who commit copyright infringement, so be it. If they want a 1000 years of royalty payment, so be it.
Let them extend copyright law to incredible insane level.
Meanwhile, let those of us who didn't use copyright law to making a living, compete. Let us show them how flawed and ineffective their policy is. Let us show them a possible future if they choose to adapt.
Give them what they wish for. They just might not like it.
Like DRM, copyright are not effective tool for future survival and economic prosperity. Since they refuse to listen, we shall show them their folly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
"AC, why do you not identify yourself?"
Because I am attempting to pose a provocative question that I have found is often glossed over in all discussions concerning copyright in general.
Last year Mark Helprin wrote an op-ed piece for the NYT entitled "A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Its Copyright?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20helprin.html
Larry Lessig responded with a strongly worded critique of Helperin's piece. Lessig's response can be found on his wiki page.
http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Against_perpetual_copyright
As I read Lessig's critique I was intrigued by the fact that to the extent Lessig considered Helprin's question to be over the top, the very same thing can be said of many points raised by Leessig. Given Lessig's well deserved reputation as a copyright scholar, I expected much more than what at times seemed to be an almost religious fervor and attachment to the concept of "public domain".
If anyone truly wants to have a meaningful dialogue concerning the duration of copyright, it is useful to understand both sides of the issue.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Because I am attempting to pose a provocative question that I have found is often glossed over in all discussions concerning copyright in general.
What does that have to do with not identifying yourself?
Last year Mark Helprin wrote an op-ed piece for the NYT entitled "A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn’t Its Copyright?"
Did you read the link I put in my original reply to you on this question? Clearly not. It was in response to Helprin's article.
I find it odd that you responded to something entirely different than the points I raise.
Is that the sort of "meaningful dialogue" you like to have?
If anyone truly wants to have a meaningful dialogue concerning the duration of copyright, it is useful to understand both sides of the issue.
Yes, if you actually cared about having a meaningful dialogue. Your responses here suggest something different.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
....95 years?
Suppose the artist comes up with a hit when they're 17, they're still likely to be dead before the protection runs out.
Well, since the corporation can own, buy, and sell property, this makes sense, as a person who has a grasp of life (in your example, 17) probably won't live to see the protection end.
Take the Sonny Bono/Disney extension for example.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Mike, you are a retard
BZZT! Wrong.
Most mechanical or performing rights for music is owned/controlled by labels or music companies who have amassed large portfolios without intent of promoting or creating derivative works.
I can Rent you a house, and I will charge you rent everytime you want to use my house. My house can be inherited by my kids, who then can rent you the house and again charge you money.
Your attempt to create an emotional argument is shallow. It's not the actual writer, artist, or performer, who would enjoy seeing their works sold or re-promoted or derivative works created, but the record companies who control mechanical manufacturing or performing rights.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Creative energy, regardless of how it is expressed, is one of the core elements (if not the core element) that defines a society. Are you pro-copyrighters really asserting you want a world where the culture of society is "owned" by a minority and all who resist this paradigm are oppressed by a corporately owned police government? This is what ever expanding copyright will bring us to.
Good connection, Grae! Your comment got me thinking, and while I haven't connected the two until now, I think your right. You mention about how freedom in society is being written by corporations. On a more grand scale, when you look at No Child Left Behind, and how it's purposefully setup to suppress and teach a non-creative way of thinking. I worry about the next generation!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, this is incorrect, Willton. For someone who purports to know the law, I'm a bit surprised.
Trademark law does not provide a right to exclude. It only provides a right to prevent usage that is confusingly similar or which dilutes the mark.
It does not give a full right to exclude.
How is "a right to prevent usage that is confusingly similar or which dilutes the mark" not a right to exclude? Sure, it's a right that is limited to certain circumstances, but it is still a right to exclude. If I own the mark ROLEX for watches and jewelry, and someone else wants to use ROLEX for watches and jewelry, am I not allowed to exclude that someone from using ROLEX on watches and jewelry? The rationale for the right to exclude others from using a mark does not change the fact that it's still a right to exlude others from using said mark.
Yes, by some lawyers who don't understand the impact of calling infinite goods property. So I'm not sure what you think you're proving here, other than that lawyers shouldn't be making important decisions like that.
Do you even know the definition of property? Have a look here, here, here, here, and here. The word "property" is inherently a legal term, as it refers to a right of ownership that can be legally asserted against others.
So, unless you want to change the dictionary definition of the word "property," you don't have a leg to stand on in saying that trademarks are not property.
As to your apparent distaste for lawyers, I take it you don't have a whole lot of exposure to those who practice law. Otherwise you wouldn't make asinine statements about lawyers, such as the one above.
The original comment that set you off on this silly pedantic (and, I should add, incorrect) exploration was to point out that the original poster confused copyright with trademark. That was correct. You chose to defend the other side. Is that the side you really want to be on?
Read the comment again. The guy said, "Mark, confusing IP with trademark(s) immediately shows you have no clue what you are talking about." He said IP; he did not say copyright. The first poster did confuse trademarks with copyrights, but the second poster, as clearly shown by his quote, apparently thinks that trademarks are not intellectual property. The only people who seem to agree with that statement are you and your faithful readership.
So yes, I will take the side I took, and I have a lot of authority to back me up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
rovism
Hi Willton
Didn't you know? Mike's a classic practitioner of Rovism. Reality's what he says it is. If he says trademarks are not property, you have to accept it. Or you will get standard responses like "Umm...no, you are wrong" or "That is simply untrue," and of course, a whole lot of handwaving.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is "a right to prevent usage that is confusingly similar or which dilutes the mark" not a right to exclude?
The right is for the sake of consumer protection, not a claim of ownership over the mark.
If I own the mark ROLEX for watches and jewelry, and someone else wants to use ROLEX for watches and jewelry, am I not allowed to exclude that someone from using ROLEX on watches and jewelry?
Yes, but not because of the *property* right, but because of the *confusion* it might cause. Property rights are determined for the sake of better allocating scarce resources (i.e., if I own this particular plot of land, you cannot). But trademark is not a property right, it is a consumer protection statute.
Do you even know the definition of property? Have a look here, here, here, here, and here. The word "property" is inherently a legal term, as it refers to a right of ownership that can be legally asserted against others.
Again, property is about ownership, trademark is not. That is the key point that matters.
Besides, we weren't discussing *property* we were discussing *intellectual property*. I recognize it's convenient for you to switch back and forth, but it's a huge mistake to assume that the definition of property automatically applies to intellectual property.
Hell, it's people who make that assumption that have created this horrific "IP" mess that we're in today.
So, unless you want to change the dictionary definition of the word "property," you don't have a leg to stand on in saying that trademarks are not property.
Well, clearly we're not going to agree on this. Trademark law has never been about ownership and has always been about consumer protection. It's simply not about property. That some lawyers want to pretend it is is a tragic result of how some folks, such as yourself, like to think about these issues.
I'll make one last point on this, and then let's leave it, okay? For consumer protection purposes, the gov't does not an advertiser to make false claims. i.e., they are *excluded* from making false claims. Yet no one refers to such truth in advertising laws as "property rights". Yet, by your definition, they are.
Lots of things involve a prevention from being able to do something. Not all of them are about property.
As to your apparent distaste for lawyers, I take it you don't have a whole lot of exposure to those who practice law. Otherwise you wouldn't make asinine statements about lawyers, such as the one above.
I have no distaste for lawyers at all. I like lawyers a lot. I go to the Bay Area "bLAWger" gathering organized by Eric Goldman, a lawyer and a friend who often submits stuff to the site. I email constantly with a number of lawyers in the IP space. Practically half my family are lawyers. I know tons of lawyers. As CEO of this company, I talk to our lawyers all the time. Just today I had an email conversation with our corporate attorneys. Yesterday I had lunch with a well known patent attorney. I just got invited to address the bar association in NY later this year. Obviously, as you say, I don't know any lawyers at all, huh?
Why do you always make these silly assumptions?
My complaint was clearly not about all lawyers (try reading before you slam me). It was about *some* lawyers; those who seem to think that because they study IP law that no one who has a different, informed, well-researched and well-backed up perspective can possibly know how important IP is. It's those lawyers who argue from an emotional standpoint, who refuse to present any research or evidence and simply will claim that you don't know what you're talking about if you dare to point out to them the evidence that they might be wrong.
Read the comment again. The guy said, "Mark, confusing IP with trademark(s) immediately shows you have no clue what you are talking about." He said IP; he did not say copyright.
Right, but he was referring to the definition of IP that covers patents and copyright (i.e., the constitutional clause referring to "promoting the progress"). There are many folks who are knowledgeable in the field who consider trademarks to be entirely separate. There are many folks (obviously you land in this camp) that consider them to be part of the same field. It is not ridiculous to argue that trademarks are not IP, and that's what he did.
And, in response, like those stuck up lawyers I mentioned, you smacked him down. But his point was valid.
The only people who seem to agree with that statement are you and your faithful readership.
Many of whom know the subject matter quite well. And, no, it's not just "my readership" who thinks this way, though, it does appear that many who do agree with this perspective do become readers.
So yes, I will take the side I took, and I have a lot of authority to back me up.
Willton: a recommendation: When picking a fight, try not to side with the guy who thinks that Nike would have lost its swoosh after 50 years if the EU hadn't extended performance rights to 95 years.
The comment you mocked was pointing out something that is absolutely an acceptable statement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: rovism
Mike's a classic practitioner of Rovism. Reality's what he says it is. If he says trademarks are not property, you have to accept it.
Yikes. Well, not that you're going to believe it, but I'd argue otherwise. Rove's classic traits are that he is all about propaganda and *hiding* from any criticism. He is unwilling to even let those who disagree with him have the floor at all.
I, on the other hand, am more than willing to be convinced I am wrong. My current position on the matter came from many of the conversations held on this site, which helped point me to the research and evidence that frames this position.
If someone can present evidence suggesting that the evidence I discuss is wrong, then I am more than willing to change my mind on the matter.
That is, unlike Rove, whose job is merely to convince you that his candidate is electable, I want to have a discussion, where the best ideas win.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re:
Because I am attempting to pose a provocative question that I have found is often glossed over in all discussions concerning copyright in general.
It isn't provocative at all, and it's been discussed repeatedly. And if you found that Lessig's response seemed to border on "religious fervor", it can easily be attributed to the sheer ridiculousness of Helprin's argument.
His criticism of the public domain shows that he has absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever, stating that it amounts to passing "wealth from the families of American writers to the executives and stockholders of various businesses." Of course, it's easily proven false, due to the very definition of public domain. For example, Project Gutenberg, which consists of thousands of volunteers putting public domain works into ebook form, could not exist without the public domain. Various authors have taken stories from the public domain and reworked or retold them in new, creative ways.
He fails to discern, or ignores, the inherent differences between tangible and intangible property, and proceeds to essentially whine about how unfair it is that copyright expires, all the while dismissing the fact that creative works are built on the foundations of other creative works.
Helprin then goes on to praise the founding fathers' political genius, and in the next sentence supports subverting the intent of the Constitution by proposing what amounts to the infamous "forever minus a day" copyright term.
Furthermore, he apparently fails to comprehend the full impact his proposal would have. Following his faulty logic of equating intellectual property with physical property, patents should be given perpetual terms as well. And it follows that someone supporting a perpetual term should, by logical extension, support the retroactive application of copyright and patents to works already in the public domain. After all, shouldn't the grave injustice Helprin insists is presently occurring be corrected for older works as well? In fact, it seems that Helprin supports this interpretation as well, since he bemoans the fact that Katherine Mansfield's heirs do not receive profits from sales of "The Garden Party."
You may argue that I'm taking his arguments to extreme levels, but the fact of the matter is that this is a logical extension of the ideas Helprin put forth in his article. He limited his thoughts to copyright, but patents can equally be considered "the work of the spirit and the mind", as he puts it. So, by supporting a perpetual copyright, Helprin is inadvertently advocating the decline of both creativity and innovation.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Not Surprising at All
"The EU, being a group of basically socialist nations, is bound to go for this "cradle to grave" protectionism."
Since when was protecing the revenue streams of already-rich rock stars and successful record labels a "socialist" idea? I always understood socialism to be about redistributing money to those are are *not* well off. Maybe I'm wrong, and socialism is actually about subsidising rich people and wealthy corporations. In which case big business and rich people should be the biggest supporters of socialism.
And by proposing to extend copyright this way, the EU is simply following the US. So is the US socialist?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Don't be quite so pessimistic
I take a slightly more optimistic view of the chance of this being stopped. The Commission proposal to legalize software patents in the EU was thought to be a done deal, but was stopped because of a very well-organized campaign against it. If the opponents of copyright extension (often the same people under different organizational banners) can similarly get their act together, then they could also achieve the same result.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
logic?
Hi DanC
"His criticism of the public domain shows that he has absolutely no understanding of it whatsoever, stating that it amounts to passing "wealth from the families of American writers to the executives and stockholders of various businesses." Of course, it's easily proven false, due to the very definition of public domain."
Wow, you're sounding just like Mike here. How is it "easily proven false," simply because you say so? The very definition of public domain actually proves him right, because it means no one need pay anything to an author to commercially exploit his work. Am I correct, or are you going to dispute this as well?
"For example, Project Gutenberg, which consists of thousands of volunteers putting public domain works into ebook form, could not exist without the public domain."
How does that disprove his point or prove yours? Sheer smokescreen tactic on your part, but no one's fooled. For instance, Stephen King still makes money every year from the sale of his books because only his publisher has the rights to print and sell them, and that is made possible only because of a nine-letter word called copyright, thanks to which King's works are not yet in Project Gutenberg. But of course, you still think everything should be in the public domain.
"Various authors have taken stories from the public domain and reworked or retold them in new, creative ways."
More Masnickism. Can you point out 10 of these "various authors" who have rewrked or retold them in "new, creative ways"? I can list out 10,000 such authors whose creativity has strangely not been impeded by the existence of copyright.
"He fails to discern, or ignores, the inherent differences between tangible and intangible property, and proceeds to essentially whine about how unfair it is that copyright expires, all the while dismissing the fact that creative works are built on the foundations of other creative works."
Oh...since all creative works are built on other creative works, no one should get a copyright on anything! If only the founding fathers had had the same wisdom, there wouldn't be any concept of copyright at all.
"Following his faulty logic of equating intellectual property with physical property, patents should be given perpetual terms as well."
Faulty logic? Because you say so? Please enlighten me as to why the governments of the world are persisting in this "faulty logic" instead of treating all intellectual property as free-for-all, public property.
"And it follows that someone supporting a perpetual term should, by logical extension, support the retroactive application of copyright and patents to works already in the public domain. After all, shouldn't the grave injustice Helprin insists is presently occurring be corrected for older works as well?"
That's why copyright has an expiry date attached to it, which admittedly many are trying to subvert. The problem arises when people like you promptly use this as a stick to beat all those who are in favor of copyright. I'm against copyright forever, but I'm also against outright abolition.
"In fact, it seems that Helprin supports this interpretation as well, since he bemoans the fact that Katherine Mansfield's heirs do not receive profits from sales of "The Garden Party."
It is such ridiculous arguments by people like Helprin that hurt the pro-copyright group.
"So, by supporting a perpetual copyright, Helprin is inadvertently advocating the decline of both creativity and innovation."
I completely disagree. I don't see how copyright's existence hinders creativity and innovation. How do you explain the presence of so much creativity and innovation all around us, when all these decades of copyright should have actually turned the world into a wasteland? Please enlighten all of us with a simple example. If I want to write a song, poem, screenplay, piece of music that's original, how does the existence of copyright stop me from doing so?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
95years?!
95 years... so a toddler can create some piece of music, and receive money from it until he's 100?
The average lifespan is what? about 75?
So basically 20 years after their death, their next-of-kin can still benefit from their work, that they created when they were 5.
Give me a break!
We all know that it's the RECORD company that's behind this corrupt move.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: logic?
How is it "easily proven false," simply because you say so?
Cram, I can't believe you're going to start this sort of argument up again.
It's "false" not because Dan says so, but because Helprin claims that the public domain only passes wealth from creators to corporations -- and Dan proves that wrong by showing that it enriches our wider culture as well, often having nothing to do with corporations.
He stated that quite clearly. The only "handwaving" here is coming from you.
The very definition of public domain actually proves him right, because it means no one need pay anything to an author to commercially exploit his work.
That's not what Dan said. Try reading before freaking out. He was responding to the specific criticism that the only beneficiaries of the public domain were big corporations at the expense of content creators.
How does that disprove his point or prove yours? Sheer smokescreen tactic on your part, but no one's fooled.
Again, please read what Dan was actually referring to.
For instance, Stephen King still makes money every year from the sale of his books because only his publisher has the rights to print and sell them, and that is made possible only because of a nine-letter word called copyright, thanks to which King's works are not yet in Project Gutenberg. But of course, you still think everything should be in the public domain.
cram, you really ought to read before you spew.
This has nothing to do with what Dan was discussing, which was responding to Helprin's claim that the public domain is theft.
Can you point out 10 of these "various authors" who have rewrked or retold them in "new, creative ways"? I can list out 10,000 such authors whose creativity has strangely not been impeded by the existence of copyright.
You do realize that nearly every bit of Disney's work was built off of public domain stories?
You do realize that nearly every Shakespearian play was actually based on works previously written?
Oh...since all creative works are built on other creative works, no one should get a copyright on anything!
Cram, again, you are responding to something Dan did not say. In your rush to slam, you seem to be arguing against a total strawman. Dan was not arguing against copyright at all. He was responding to Helprin's claim that copyright is identical to tangible property.
Faulty logic? Because you say so? Please enlighten me as to why the governments of the world are persisting in this "faulty logic" instead of treating all intellectual property as free-for-all, public property.
And, again. You are responding to something different. Dan was referring to the "faulty logic" of saying that tangible property is the same as copyright.
Despite what you claim, governments *do not* persist in that kind of faulty logic. All governments realize that tangible property is different than copyri