EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain, Retroactively Extends Copyright

from the stealing-from-the-public dept

As was unfortunately expected, despite no evidence that this made any economic sense at all, the member states of the EU have agreed to retroactively extend copyright another 20 years, at which point you can expect it to be extended again (thanks to jtdeboe for sending this over). This is nothing short of governments and the entertainment industry seizing works from the public domain. As we've said before, the purpose of copyright law is to incent the creation of new works. If existing copyright law was enough to incentivize the creation at the time, then there's simply no reason to retroactively extend the law.

This proposal, which various studies have shown will do little to help content creators, has been pushed for a long time by the record labels. It had been blocked in Europe for a while, but for reasons unknown, Denmark recently changed its mind, thereby enabling this effort to flat out seize material from the public.

It's especially sad that this comes just a few months after the Hargreaves report, which explicitly points out that so much policy is made without evidence -- and copyright extension is a perfect example of that. Citizens of the EU: your politicians just sold you out to the record labels, taking away content that was legally yours and no longer will be.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 8:18pm

    Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?

    When your views don't include corruption, you've no grasp on reality. When The Rich are allowed total freedom, they always go crazy and ruin civilization. This is only a small part of their total takeover, this time using computerized policing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 6:38am

      Re: Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?

      Maybe there's a typo in your post or something but this critique of the above, "When your views don't include corruption, you've no grasp on reality." completely ignores this portions of the text, "Citizens of the EU: your politicians just sold you out to the record labels." Does 'sold you out' need to be spelled out more clearly for you to see that it means 'corruption?'

      The centralization of power in a 'government' is what allows 'The Rich,' really anyone with significant political influence rich or not, some 'rich' are even excluded, the freedom to go crazy. They are not really taking over so much as they're consolidating their power and they're not using 'computerized policing' as much as they're just using the same tool they've always used: powerful central governments.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The Groove Tiger (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 7:21am

      Re: Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?

      I agree, Mike, you're so busy speaking out and pointing out corruption that you've blinded yourself to all the corruption around you!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 7:54am

      Re: Market keeps getting further from "perfectly competetive", doesn't it, Mike?

      "When your views don't include corruption"

      You know how I know you didn't read the article before your usual moronic attack...?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Richard Ahlquist, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 8:20pm

    They will spend millions on enforcement

    They will try to protect all that orphaned work because the record labels bribed them into it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 8:31pm

    EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain

    meanwhile, the public seizes ALL works and makes then public domain.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:59pm

      Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain

      So you're saying the citizens of the countries to whom these government officials are supposedly answerable ignore the laws that said government officials pass while ignoring the interests of the public in favor of monied interests? Sounds appropriate to me.

      If the people who pass the laws are not answerable to the public, then the public is not answerable to their laws.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 11:20pm

      Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain

      I fucking hope. These idiots couldn't innovate their way into a paper bag, and are greedier tan the Hungry Caterpillar.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Still an anonymous coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 11:54pm

      Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain

      I have to admit you put a smile on my face after reading something upsetting.

      The purpose of laws and rules is to make you think about them before you break them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zot-Sindi, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:21am

      Re: EU Officially Seizes The Public Domain

      i wish it where that easy

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 8:36pm

    For reasons unknown I will start pirating more stuff although I don't even like that crap that much.

    This is one of those moments that I have no regrets for not having respect for copyright at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    AJ (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 8:44pm

    The EU is not subject to the US constitution

    the purpose of copyright law is to incent the creation of new works

    Unfortunately only the US constitution says that. I don't believe many (any?) EU countries have constitutions that limit what their legislative bodies can do in quite the same way as the US does, so they can make the purpose of their copyright laws be whatever they want them to be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:09pm

      Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

      "The purpose of copyright and related rights is twofold: to encourage a dynamic creative culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."
      http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:42pm

        Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

        " and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public"

        If copyright permits companies to license the content, and make it available at a reasonable price, does that not fit the bill? Does something have to be in the public domain to get widespread, affordable access?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jeffrey Nonken (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:19pm

          Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

          If you ignore the first point (in fact, take it out back and shoot it), yeah, permanent copyright fulfills the second part... until the copyright owners abuse their power and over-charge for their works. Or limit access to them such that people can only get them in formats which the copyright holders prefer. Which we know will never, ever happen.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

          With today's technologies there would be cheap, widespread, affordable access without the current middle men trying to maximize their own revenues and profits.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

          It does if it is out of print and it doesn't have enough economic value perceived.

          Why copyright needs to be so long, why can it last just 10 years.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Zot-Sindi, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:32am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

            ten years is far too long for today's fast paced world

            about 1-2 year(s) sounds about right

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              BearGriz72 (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:51am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

              Hell most of us would me happy if you knocked it back to 25 years. (Less would be better of course.) but even that would have us shouting "Huzzah!" and dancing in the streets!

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Samuel Abram (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 10:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

              Personally, I think 50 years maximum is adequate. In the US, we have 95 years, which is WAAAAY too long.
              Permanently extending copyright does more harm to copyright than 1,000,000 pirates. Why should we respect copyright if it lasts forever and never expires?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Tor (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:36pm

          Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

          Yes, it has to be in the public domain.
          As long as it is not in the public domain you normally have a big deadweight loss. If there is a great number of people for whom the mental/economical transaction cost of licensing is too high in the individual case then you will have a great number of cases where works of art are never used although they would have been had said works just been in the public domain.

          Imagine you have a painter who has to ask for permission every time he wants to use a new color on his palette. Surely he wouldn't work very well under such circumstances.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Zot-Sindi, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:22am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

            or a cook that must ask for permission to use each and every ingredient

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 8:13am

          Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

          "Does something have to be in the public domain to get widespread, affordable access?"

          Yes. Only a handful of works get made commercially available after their initial releases. Others literally rot away in warehouses because there's no commercial incentive to release them in a new edition.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 4th, 2012 @ 7:56am

        Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

        Wrong, it's for censorship and gate keeping. Always has been, always will be.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      timmaguire42 (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 6:45pm

      Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

      You beat me to it. Promoting the arts and sciences is an American concept. In Europe, IP rights are moral rights--the creator owns it because he created it. "Limited time" and "public good" are not part of their IP culture.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      jnm, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 8:16pm

      Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

      So much for the protection of the US constitution. The US was 13 years faster than the EU at extending the lifetime.

      The Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) of 1998 extended copyright terms in the United States by 20 years. Since the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright would last for the life of the author plus 50 years, or 75 years for a work of corporate authorship. The Act extended these terms to life of the author plus 70 years and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier.[1] Copyright protection for works published prior to January 1, 1978, was increased by 20 years to a total of 95 years from their publication date.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 8:36pm

        Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

        Well, this was a loophole. The US constitution explicitly says that copyright is limited. It doesn't say for how long. So legislators just extend and extend copyright thus creating a perpetual copyright cycle.

        Eric Eldred and Larry Lessig (a hero of mine, BTW) challenged the pernicious CTEA 11 years ago in the Eldred v. Ashcroft case. Unfortunately, they lost in a 7-2 Supreme Court decision.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 8:48pm

          Re: Re: Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

          I would like to think that a 7-2 decision would be a motivation to actually read it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Steve Withers, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 1:55am

      Re: The EU is not subject to the US constitution

      AJ: The US Constitution doesn't limit what US legislators can do. They just appoint an Attorney-General willing to say that whatever violation of the Constitution they wish to enact isn't really a violation at all....and proceed. This is how the US Patriot Act has made a joke of the 4th Amendment. This is how the US President can claim to have a right to ignore the Constitution in Guantanamo...despite that very same Constitution being the source of 100% of his powers. Only the US House of Representative can declare....yet the US has been involved in over 50 wars since the last time the House declared war. I could go on and on....but please don't persist in thinking the US Constitution is a living document. It's stone, cold dead. Killed by corrupt political actors and a complacent, ignorant citizenry.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:18pm

    Public who?

    "Denmark recently changed its mind, thereby enabling this effort to flat out seize material from the public. "

    Who is this "Public" and why should they be enabled anyway?"

    I'm certain "Public" hasn't donated lately, so why should they be considered?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Mike Shore, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:23pm

    Copyright vs Reality

    Does anyone really care at all about copyright anymore? If I want to listen to a song, I will find it and listen to it. Copyright will not affect my decision to pay for it or not. This is simply keeping alive the lawyers and the entertainment middlemen who are dead but simply do not realize it yet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:35pm

      Re: Copyright vs Reality

      The more copyright is extended, perverted, abused, and forced upon populations who are never permitted any say in the matter, the more people who would never give copyright a second thought will be affected negatively somehow.

      Since copyright only exists by consent of the public, don't be surprised when the public decides that copyright no longer serves them and they declare it null and void.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      kyle clements (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:51pm

      Re: Copyright vs Reality

      It's not about consuming works in the public domain. It's about re-using them. Sure, I can listen to any song or watch any movie for free. But I can't include music from the 1950's in my own videos. I can't have old AM radio classics in the background of a scene. A character or poster in the background might lead to a legal headache if the estate is packed with douches.

      My view: If they can steal from the public domain, we can steal from copyright owners guilt-free.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Zot-Sindi, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:25am

        Re: Re: Copyright vs Reality

        sure you can include them, just be ready to pay out the friggin ass for a single song that will cost you about as much as making the whole damn movie itself

        now if the cost was something like ... 5-10 dollars per song/character .etc, that would actually be sane, i'd pay that

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Zot-Sindi, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:24am

      Re: Copyright vs Reality

      i don't give a damn about copyright except for the part where the supporters of it will go out of their way to make people who don't care about it's life as hard as possible as much as possible

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ttyp00, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 5:42am

      Re: Copyright vs Reality

      huzzah!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:37pm

    Why isn't there any mainstream media coverage of this? Why doesn't this get broadcasted on public airwaves and over cableco infrastructure?

    Oh, that's right, the govt grants monopoly privileges over those communication channels and the privileged monopolists won't criticize laws that unfairly favor them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:43pm

    Mike, I have to say that your pure dejected tone of the post is powerful. It also reveals you to be a rather sore loser.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      blaktron (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:48pm

      Re:

      Maybe he believes in the public domain? And when something you believe in gets stomped on, it sucks. Now you don't even understand basic humanity? Weird...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:54pm

      Re:

      Add "sore loser" to TAM's list of "words and phrases I have no understand of."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      techflaws.org (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:15pm

      Re:

      Says the shilltard who weirdly believe that cheating the public yet again won't backfire. LOL.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:24pm

        Re: Re:

        Suggestion use "shillturd" instead of "shilltard".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 6:23am

        Re: Re:

        Outside of one of two works that are discussed in the story, can you name anything else that is suddenly "reclaimed" that was going to be in the public domain?

        I bet most people here could not, which indicates how much you really care about the public domain. It's all about tearing down copyright, not the actual content.

        You guys are freaking amazing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 7:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "It's all about tearing down copyright, not the actual content."

          When this is the best you can do, you might as well just quit and join our cause.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 8:31am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Outside of one of two works that are discussed in the story, can you name anything else that is suddenly "reclaimed" that was going to be in the public domain?"

          Everything else released in the same years that were going to be PD before this extension? That would be thousands of works, so I won't list them here just because you're too stupid to consider them, or apparently believe that only 2 works were released in that 20 year period.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 7:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Paul, without looking hard, tell me:

            WHAT WORKS?

            See, my problem isn't that works are or are not going to be in the PD, it's that a bunch of people are here getting all upset about it, yet they have absolutely no idea what works are involved, likely wouldn't care, and probably have never considered to even enjoy those works.

            Please tell us, in your own words, of an exact example that has happened in your personal life that this copyright extension would have harmed, where you would not have been able to do something. Please make sure to include the name of the work involved.

            My guess? You can't name one.

            So what I am wondering is, since this copyright extension clearly doesn't appear to cause you any problems one way or the other, why are you so upset about it?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 9:07am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              They're upset about it because they want to download everything for free!!

              "Me! Me! Me!" is the battle cry of Mike's Army of Soulless Sycophants.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2011 @ 6:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Hey, you're agreeing with the other Anonymous Coward.

                Therefore, you must be the same person!

                ...Makes about as much sense as thinking another A.C. is a "a techdirt staff member posting anonymously."

                To give an answer to the original A.C.'s question:
                http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/02/international/02CND_COPY.html

                This year, it would have included "the earliest records of the rock era, including those of artists like Cliff Richard," according to this "quick quip" from VVM.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                PaulT (profile), Sep 11th, 2011 @ 2:38am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                *waves*

                Hey, I'm over here, concerned about orphaned works and restrictions that prevent rather than encourage new works. I'm concerned about art literally disappearing because some corporation wants to carry on making money from people who died, but they want to continue profiting from their corpse.

                You can keep attacking that flaky looking pirate strawman you set up over there in the corner, but it's not going to help you look like you have a real argument.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              PaulT (profile), Sep 11th, 2011 @ 3:13am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "My guess? You can't name one."

              Ah, this old argument, huh? "I can't think of any answer that's acceptable to me, so nobody can". You're not only wrong, you're in your usual position, facing exactly 180 degrees from the truth, but have deluded yourself into thinking you're right.

              Let's take this slowly, because it's apparently too complicated for you. The extension covers EVERYTHING produced between 50 and 70 years ago. Assuming it's immediately effective, that means that everything produced between 1941 and 1961 is affected. I'm not going sit here and list them all just because you don't have the mental capacity to work out why this is a problem.

              To put it bluntly, works including the early recordings of famous artists like Elvis and the entire back catalogue of someone like Buddy Holly has been snatched from the public domain. The reason for this is simply to protect some corporate interests, and profits for people who were almost certainly not alive at the time the work was created. In the meantime, works from artists who didn't get to be as famous as those people? No commercial incentive to re-release them, and thus they are ultimately erased from history. Unacceptable.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Prisoner 201, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:22pm

      Re:

      You do realise that stuff that has been legally in the public domain for up to 19 years will suddenly be covered by copyright again.

      A number of creators will have their artworks ruined by this, or be forced to jump through countless legal hoops and fork out licencing fees for something that was legally free to use just a few days ago.

      So yeah, getting raped up the ass does make you a bit sore.

      So you are a anal rape apologist? Well, AC, are you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:29pm

      Re:

      It's not Mike that's lost, it's the whole public. We have every right to be sore when anything is ripped from the public domain at the behest of a bunch of money-grubbing obsolete middlemen. (Is that you perhaps?)

      Any time you and your ilk claim "it's for the artists", we remember shit like this and add it to the list of reasons to look for ways to avoid giving Big Content money whenever possible. That leaves us with either unauthorized content or anything that sends money directly to artists. Is that the end result you were hoping for?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 9:45pm

    I see no evil here and Europe can pass all the legislation they want because I'm copyright-blind, so I don't see it and consequently don't fallow it, meaning I will continue to copy anything I want, when I want and I doubt it will change anything in my life.

    Here let me advocate for legal piracy now:

    http://librivox.org/
    http://www.jamendo.com/
    http://vodo.net/
    http://www.guttenbergnj.org /
    http://mimiandeunice.com/
    http://www.archive.org/

    You should really, really stop watching TV, movies or listening to radio that plays the MAFIAA content.

    The laws don't matter what matters is what you do, if you consume that crap you are a supporter of that system and you deserve those laws, if you don't consume it and it is able to use liberal licenses then those laws don't matter either.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 5:01pm

      Re:

      "Legal Piracy" is a contradiction. If fire-sharing is legally free, by definition, it is not piracy.

      It was absurd when the Nashville Songwriters Association used it and it is equally absurd when you use it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 10:23pm

    We need to hack the operating system of countries.

    I want a Git repository for the laws of the land.
    I want a text editor.
    and finally I want a diff to produce patches for the laws in that country.

    Since politicians are incompetent it is time for the people to take matters into their own hands.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      zub, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 12:10am

      Re:

      In fact I've been dreaming about this. It would be so cool!

      Revision control systems (which is something used daily by programmers, in fact not only them) would be so useful for keeping the laws.

      Too bad nobody of the politicans even know what a revision control system is. (And why would they want it, it's not like they'd want the public to easily see the changes made over time.)

      Of course somebody could replicate what they are doing in an own repo, but keeping it up to date would require some work...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcel de Jong (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 2:19am

      Re:

      As long as there is strong policing on changes, otherwise it might devolve into a shouting match with trolls. But it's a nice idea for sure.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    AW (profile), Sep 8th, 2011 @ 11:06pm

    Let logic dictate

    It would seem logical that if the current governance believes that retroactive copyright is promoting the goals of progress, should they not abandon public domain altogether? Why would they take steps that seem to only act as a step towards creating a complacent culture. Giving false hope of a logical and reasonable expectation of a creative work benefiting the public seems damaging to morale and at best dishonest at worst negligent. I would suggest that the goals of stagnation, job loss and creative vacuum could be far faster achieved and should be considered. Please extend this to the logical conclusion EU, abandon public domain and increase taxation of goods on your society, this is the most opportune time to do so, with the high unemployment, they will have to choose between creative signs and wooden stakes and pitchforks. Obviously signs are more a value to them except, of course, if they write a previously used slogan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Daddy Warbucks, Sep 8th, 2011 @ 11:43pm

    Brazil is Next to Grab

    Brazil Looks to Crimialize Ripping a CD
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110826/00352915694/brazil-looks-to-criminalize-ripping-cd.sht ml

    Centralized Govt will ALWAYS destroy the rights of the people to enhance power.

    Looks like the broken down model will hold us down for now, but the future holds freedom.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Common sense, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 5:21am

      Re: Brazil is Next to Grab

      It is *not* your right to steal.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Sep 10th, 2011 @ 7:38am

        Re: Re: Brazil is Next to Grab

        "It is *not* your right to steal."

        Funnily enough, he never said it was. He's talking about something you can do with the objects you've paid for.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Daddy Warbucks, Sep 21st, 2011 @ 1:13pm

        Re: Re: Brazil is Next to Grab

        Steal what?
        Please explain what is being stolen by me ripping a copy of my purchased CD?

        Common sense is *not* your strong point.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    zub, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 12:14am

    What are the implications?

    Just to be clear here - does that really mean that there are works that were all legal, using things in the public domain, that have become illegal overnight?

    That's seriously wrong...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Marcel Popescu (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:23am

    Citizens of the EU: your politicians just sold you out

    And this is news how?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 1:45am

    Once again the public fails to compete and it's representatives whine and whine.

    If post-copyright business models are really the norm, and you can really make more money with them, then you have the resources and the numbers to outcompete the companies (which you so often call incompetent in every respect) that want to lock up content.

    You love competition and the market. This is a competition and market for power, influence, and control. Stop whining. Start competing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 2:18am

      Re:

      You will be sorry for those words one day.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      The eejit (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 2:22am

      Re:

      Does murder count as competing? Because, short of that, I don't see a way out of this.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Marcel de Jong (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 2:25am

      Re:

      The public fails to compete? Compete with what?
      What are you suggesting?
      How can the public compete with Mr Moneybags the lobbyist and Mr Corrupt Politician?

      There are also no business models to support the locked-up content. In fact an enormous amount of our intellectual culture are now going to waste, all because of the greed of a few stupid-as-fuck MAFIAA-scumbags.

      Old music, books and movies that are now left rotting on shelves, because the Big Content companies feel that there's no money in restoring them, and getting a license to make a legal backup for preservation's sake are prohibitively expensive. And why? So that Disney Co can still keep the copyright on their stolen Mouse icon.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 10:17am

      Real Economists (like Milton Friedman) are and were against extending copyright terms.

      Hell, Milton Friedman himself only said he would sign onto a brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft (a US supreme court case challenging the Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the term of copyright by 20 years) on the side of Eldred (i.e. the side opposing the CTEA) if the words "No Brainer" were used.

      How does it feel to be to the right of Milton freaking Friedman?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      rubberpants, Sep 11th, 2011 @ 8:51pm

      Re:

      It's a good thing the soul can't be copyrighted, otherwise Satan would have to pay royalties for yours.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 2:06am

    If anyone was looking for proof of corruption in the EU

    it's right here. There wasn't so much as a debate on it. They just rubberstamped this.

    And they loudly complain and wonder why so few people trust the politicians in Brussels (and Strasbourg).
    Gee, do ya think maybe because you put corporate interests before the public's?

    They waste our tax-money, make up ridiculous laws that make very little sense on a national scale, they never listen to the interest of the people (apart from very few notable exceptions).

    If it were up to me, we'd disband this whole European Government thing, and give the reigns back to national governments. (Not that they are much better, but at least we have a more direct influence on them, Europe is abstracted away from the people.)
    I know that's very right-wing of me, even though I'm normally quite left-wing socialistic. But in the European Governments' case, it's worse than the disease it was supposed to battle.

    Oh, and give me back my guilder!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Xenobyte (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 4:04am

    Fail

    One thing is to extend copyright on works still under copyright, another thing entirely is to take works already progressed into public domain and return them to a copyrighted state. The first is semantics, the second completely unacceptable.

    I for one have almost completely stopped paying for music (own 5000+ CDs) and video (own 2500+ DVDs and Blu-rays) and turned to illegal downloads. Yes, I used to be a happy customer but this obscene quest by the copyright holders to squeeze more money out of their 'property' and to control distribution against all logic and common sense has made me say stop. They've moved beyond fairness and reasonable and into the domain of pure greed and megalomania.

    No more. This ends now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 4:27am

      Re: Fail

      I too own way too many (Hundreds!) shiny bits of plastic.
      I'm getting a VPN account and getting the content I want.
      Not once have the copyright shills offered to find a way to make the public happy. Extending copyright is stealing from the public for something they paid for already. Paid for many times over I might sadly add.
      Why is the people of the EU allowing this to happen? Why don't they vote the bastards out of office?
      Then again, Obama promised less rules and more transparency and we Americans fell for that load of crap too.
      I have always felt that the content creators deserved their due compensation. But this and past actions just smacks of greed and a willingness to imprison their fan base. If we don't vote the obviously bribed officials out of office, then we deserve to be ass raped over and over again.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    John Doe, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 5:08am

    Hmmm, this has me thinking

    I don't pirate anything, but maybe somebody should start a list of all of the works that would have their original copyright expire by now. Then maybe I would consider pirating those works since they were stolen from me first.

    I might be on to something here.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 8:00am

    Please correct me if I am mistaken because I am not intimately familiar with the details of this legislation, but it is my understanding that it does not confer copyright on works whose copyright terms have already expired, but only reaches works that are still within their copyright terms.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Robert (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 9:53am

    @66 AC retroactive question?

    Here's a quote from the official Dossier translated into English from German. http://irights.info/userfiles/Schutzfrist_A5_engl_final(1).pdf

    "This dossier aims at providing an overview of the presently escalating discussion taking place in Europe since 2005, about a term extension for related rights in sound recordings. Start- ing in the UK, music industry lobbyists have been pushing for years to have the term for all existing and future recordings extended by at least 20, better even by 45 years. Below fol- lows a short description of the rights in question, of the points made for and against a term extension and of the chain of events that lead to the situation where this extension might, notwithstanding a strong opposition, be actually made into EU law in September 2011."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 3:29pm

      Re: @66 AC retroactive question?

      This does not really answer the question. It does talk about term "extensions", but not about granting "terms" to works whose terms have already expired.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 12:42pm

    The internet is to the MAFIAA what Waterloo was to Napoleon.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 12:55pm

    Hippie Crap

    The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work". The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work.

    That's it. That's all. This "social justification" idea is a steaming pool of rancid bullshit.

    There is no "public domain" from which the government has "seized" anything. Step out of the drum circle, take off your magic RFD wizard cape, and rejoin us in reality.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Samuel Abram (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 5:29pm

      Re: Hippie Crap

      The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work". The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work.


      Not in the US, at least. The stated purpose is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". That's it. That's all. Not to "protect intellectual property". Not even "to earn money for authors". It's to promote progress.

      The EU could be different, though.


      There is no "public domain" from which the government has "seized" anything. Step out of the drum circle, take off your magic RFD wizard cape, and rejoin us in reality.


      Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even extending past copyrights delay their expiration thereof and concurrent entrance into the public domain. It's making sure that the public domain is retarded by 20 years and nothing enters it. That's a significant burden to society.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PaulT (profile), Sep 10th, 2011 @ 2:54am

      Re: Hippie Crap

      "The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work"."

      Not its stated purpose, and even then only for a limited time.

      " The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work."

      If you think authors, rather than corporations who did nothing to create the work, are the ones being protected, you might need to read more.

      "There is no "public domain" from which the government has "seized" anything."

      If you really believe this and don't have a paycheck invested in saying this, you're rather clueless.

      "Step out of the drum circle"

      Also, is it just me or has the "hippy" accusation been cropping a lot of late? It's not the '60s, so such accusations do come across as rather stupid anyway, but I do find it interesting that this seems to be the troll accusation of late for those who actually dare to oppose the corporate gods they worship.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), Sep 10th, 2011 @ 6:52pm

      Re: Hippie Crap

      The purpose of copyright law isn't to "incent creation of new work". The purpose is to protect the author's right to profit from his work.

      This is 100% factually wrong.

      Don't believe me? Ask Congress:
      The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based on any natural right that the author has in his writings... but on the grounds that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted... Not primarily for the benefit of the author, but primarily for the benefit of the public such rights are given.


      ...Or the Supreme court:
      It may seem unfair that much of the fruit of the compiler's labor may be used by others without compensation. As Justice Brennan has correctly observed, however, this is not "some unforeseen byproduct of a statutory scheme."... It is, rather, "the essence of copyright," ... and a constitutional requirement. The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."


      ...Or Thomas Jefferson, the founding father (and patent worker) who helped write that clause:
      Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.


      It is pretty much the same in Britain (which is where the U.S. got the idea for copyright in the first place).

      However, it is different in the European Union. The harmonizing of copyright law is the Berne Convention - which is utterly silent on the ultimate purpose of copyright law, but does include sections akin to Fair Use laws here in the States.

      A couple of the member states have "moral rights," or droit d'auteur. Created in France, these are considered inalienable; they could not be transferred to others, e.g. publishers, even if the authors wanted to. They are limited to what we would call CC-BY: right of attribution. (That's why CC0 isn't a legal option worldwide; artists simply are not allowed by law to put their own works into the public domain.) They are also granted the right to object to derogatory treatment of their works; in the U.S., this is covered by libel and defamation laws, and are unrelated to copyright.

      Economic rights - the rights granted to publishers - are separate rights, which are not "moral rights," and those are the ones that were extended.

      And even in France, home of droit d'auteur, economic rights were enacted for the same purpose as U.S. and British copyrights. To quote Peter K. Yu:
      However... the author's right was also conditioned on the deposit of copies with the Bibliotheque Nationale, and nineteenth-century commentators characterized the 1793 law as utilitarian and "a charitable grant from society," rather than a full recognition of the perpetual right of an author's heirs to the fruits of his labor.


      So, you're pretty much wrong no matter how you look at it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 3:34pm

    to the states enforcing their legislation

    fuck you. fuck everything you claim to stand for. you don't represent me. you don't represent anyone i have ever met. how could you? how could something so tyrannical and absolute, like a state, represent or meaningfully amalgamate the beliefs of a group of individuals.
    this is all about their insatiable thirst for MORE power. i say fuck them. fuck their ideas, and intentions. the more of us who openly say FUCK YOU to those 'ruling' us, the closer we get to murdering those fuckers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 5:34pm

    Copyright is for losers.

    Smart artists know that filesharing is the best "try before you buy" marketing method out there. Stupid ones think the world owes them a living for writing a fucking song or a book. Pirates consistently consume more LEGAL content than non-pirates.

    In the end, it doesn't matter, because with proper precautions in place, the shilltards will never even know their "rights" (I use the term loosely) are being "violated". The scene has always been faster to adapt and change than the corporate world, and it always will be.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Angry Voter, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 5:36pm

    It's not a government - it's just organized crime working for the plutocrats.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Squall, Sep 9th, 2011 @ 5:38pm

    Awesome. Another 20 years of only hearing the last line of "Happy Birthday" on TV.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    misterdoug (profile), Sep 9th, 2011 @ 7:19pm

    Content? Aww, please

    Since everybody else is thoroughly hashing over the copyright stuff I just want to object to the word, "content."

    What we're talking about is human culture -- art, music, literature, all of which got along fine for thousands of years without IP laws or record companies. What is at stake is people having possession of their own culture instead of renting it, and without giving anyone the power to take it away because of a business decision.

    Art is more than something to fill up web pages. Calling it "content" just perpetuates the IP industry's own mindset of treating culture like a commodity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Steve Withers, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 1:50am

    If they show no respect, they get none.

    This more or less kills any respect I had for their property rights.

    They clearly have no respect at all for ours as they are very happy to steal from the public domain...and all of us.

    These laws are killing any remaining respect for copyright.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 9:47am

    This doesn't even matter. The day I actually have to pay for movies and music is the day I'll start believing they're actually making a difference. I could care less if I have a "right" to download something so long as I have the ability.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    A. Good Name, Sep 10th, 2011 @ 12:10pm

    real purpose of copyright law

    The real purpose of copyright law is a legislative framework for moving privately owned ideas into the public domain.

    It's all how you paint the picture: copyright extenders will tell you it's to "protect" works.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      wvhillbilly (profile), Sep 12th, 2011 @ 8:17pm

      Re: real purpose of copyright law

      Right on. If legislators keep extending the term of copyright to infinity no more works will ever enter the public domain unless explicitly donated, the media they are recorded on will rot to dust, the works will be lost forever and all others will be denied the opportunity to build on them. (One of the ways which culture is shaped is by building on the works of others once they are in the public domain.)

      Thus all culture will ultimately become whatever the labels/authors dictate it will be, and the rest will be lost forever.

      (Oh, we still have Edison cylinder records, if anyone can find them and something to play them on. They've been donated to the public domain. Not much else has.)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Sep 10th, 2011 @ 5:27pm

    Never heard of publicdomain, but...

    ...I just checked piratebay, kickasstorrents, and demonoid, and at least from my initial survey, it appears that all the content is still there...

    Perhaps publicdomain should consider some sort of partnership with one of these larger content providers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Sep 10th, 2011 @ 5:39pm

    Never heard of publicdomain, but...

    ...I just checked piratebay, kickasstorrents, and demonoid, and at least from my initial survey, it appears that all the content is still there...

    Perhaps publicdomain should consider some sort of partnership with one of these larger content providers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    vancedecker (profile), Sep 10th, 2011 @ 5:39pm

    Never heard of publicdomain, but...

    ...I just checked piratebay, kickasstorrents, and demonoid, and at least from my initial survey, it appears that all the content is still there...

    Perhaps publicdomain should consider some sort of partnership with one of these larger content providers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    wvhillbilly (profile), Sep 12th, 2011 @ 7:54pm

    Extending copyright

    Can the labels or anyone else seize and put their copyright on stuff that has been explicitly donated to the public domain? I'm sure they would if they could.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 4th, 2012 @ 7:58am

    Silly rabbits, copyright is for censorship and gate keeping. Always has been, always will be. Ask queen Ann.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This