German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright
from the yet-more-entitlement dept
The German series “Tatort” (“Crime Scene”) has been running since 1970, and remains one of the most popular programs on German television. Given this venerable position, it’s perhaps not completely surprising that its scriptwriters — 51 of them — have written an open letter complaining about the supposedly negative attitudes of some groups to copyright (German original). But what is noteworthy is the tone and content of the letter.
It’s addressed to “Dear Greens, dear Pirates, dear Left-wingers, dear Net community” — as if these share a common position on copyright reform, which indicates just how little the authors of the letter understand their respective policies. The letter itself is framed in terms of what the scriptwriters term “life lies”.
The main “life lie” concerns the idea that the term of copyright needs to be shortened to make it fit for the digital age, where huge numbers of people are creators as well as consumers:
Not only does the author suffer expropriation through a reduction in the copyright term and is thus dramatically worse off, no, this proposal doesn’t even change the situation of the supposedly innocent end-user one bit: your illegal downloads or streams concern mostly the absolutely latest films, music, books, photos and designs — and not works that are, say, 20, 40 or 60 years old. A shortening of the copyright term would change nothing for this problem, and would be purely symbolic: look, we have taken something away from the authors….
This shows an extraordinary lack of understanding on the part of the Tatort scriptwriters. Nobody is suggesting that reducing the term of copyright will “solve” the problem of unauthorized downloads: it addresses a completely different question to do with the re-use of copyright materials, something the signatories of the letter seem unable to grasp.
But more remarkable is the sense of entitlement — the idea that authors have a right to a copyright term that for practical purposes is typically in excess of one hundred years (life plus 70 years in most jurisdictions.) They call any reduction of copyright “expropriation”, and seem blissfully unaware that this necessarily implies that the repeated extension of copyright from the original 14 years of the 1710 Statute of Anne was a similar “expropriation” of the public domain.
The point here is that there is no reason why the term of copyright should only increase, or why it should not be reduced back to its original levels, or even beyond — it’s for society to decide how long the state-backed monopoly ought to be, and how much incentive is needed to encourage creativity. The scriptwriters’ view, as laid bare in this open letter, reveals an indifference to the public’s thoughts that borders on contempt.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Filed Under: copyright terms, germany, public domain, scriptwriting, tatort, television
Comments on “German Scriptwriters Attack 'Greens, Pirates, Left-wingers And Internet Community' For Daring To Have Different Views On Copyright”
Shortening lengths
I’m starting to think that in order to get copyright duration knocked down to a level that I think is reasonable, I’m going to have to start arguing for a point far beyond the goal. That way when the various lobbies meet in “the middle” it isn’t another small extension chipping away at my Public Domain.
Abolish copyright!
Re: Shortening lengths
Big Copyright wants Infinity, How about half of that?
Re: Re: Shortening lengths
We’ll start at negative infinity then.
They have to pay US to watch their content.
Re: Re: Shortening lengths
Big Copyright wants Infinity, How about half of that?
No – how about 1 over that?
Re: Re: Re: Shortening lengths
Sonny Bono’s widow (who took over his seat in Congress when he died) wanted copyright duration to be “eternity minus one day”.
Re: Shortening lengths
+1
Yes abolish it entirely and make a World Wide Call to do so.Then we can settle on something less drastic.Good idea.Now as to how we could accomplish this one ?
Re: Re: Shortening lengths
I’m afraid we’ll have to wait out the final death throes of several industries who build up massively successful influence machines based on pre-internet economics, politics and morality. Inertia of something so big is hard to counteract, but it will run out eventually.
Re: Re: Re: Shortening lengths
Not without specific action to ensure they don’t find a means of unnatural propagation of its existence. As they get closer to the brink of falling, they will only become more drastic in their measures. If we are not careful, some drastic horrible maneuver they try will actually succeed.
Of course, they could also adapt as the old guard is pushed out by retirement/hospitalization/age, which would be better than either alternative.
Wow, Germans haven’t changed in over 80 years.
Re: Response to: Zakida Paul on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:55am
To be fair… SOME PEOPLE haven’t changed. These misconceptions based in greed are in no way uniquely German and part of the reason this small minority of the German society is voicing this is the simple fact that the larger majority is publicly demonstrating against their position. The implications of your statement are wholely unfair.
Re: Re: Response to: Zakida Paul on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:55am
I agree, you shouldn’t judge a countries general populace over the misguided intentions of a vocal minority.
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Zakida Paul on Apr 3rd, 2012 @ 3:55am
Especially if you are looking at America…
Re: Change
How can they change when all intellectual rights have been locked up for over 80 years in most places? Any independant thought must be owned by someone so no one has the right to act upon unique ideas other than corporate overlords. Facisim at its best…
Re: 51 people from CCC answer
Wow, Germans haven’t changed in over 80 years.
You’re wrong. Immediately 51 people from the CCC published an answer.
Antwort auf den offenen Brief der Tatort-Drehbuchschreiber
Saucy bit translated:
“There are no two opposite sides, at least not producers and consumers, but at most pre-digital ignorants with a rights exploitation fetish on one side, and you and we on the other, the ones that get their oppressive contracts imposed on”.
the letter should have been addressed:-
‘to everyone that dares to disagrees with us and our views’
people are always complaining about those that ‘pirate’ files and what gives then the right to do so. i would like to know what gives anyone who has ‘innovated’ in any way, shape or form the right to be paid forever for that possible one innovation and even worse, pass that right to following generations? i agree that the original person(s) should earn, but not until the ‘year dot’. and future generations that actually did nothing shouldn’t be allowed to carry on milking from the original. i mean, gimme a break!
Re: Re:
People do have a right to be compensated for the things they create for as long as they live.
What is have a problem with is the distribution companies siphoning money off that should be going to the creators and profiting from other people’s work long after they have died.
Re: Re: Re:
People do have a right to be compensated for the things they create for as long as they live.
No, they don’t. Most of us do a job and get paid once for it at the time. If we want income in retirement we have to save and invest from the money we have. In practice that includes most artists who get deals from major publishers, record labels etc – because the terms and conditions usually assign all the recurrent income to the company. Only established artists who get to re-negotiate their contracts second time around do any better.
Personally I would love a cut of the income of every student I have ever taught – surely on your logic I deserve it?
Re: Re: Re:
“People do have a right to be compensated for the things they create for as long as they live.”
WoooHooo ! – Gravy Train here I come
Re: Re: Re:
Nope, people have a right to be compensated as long as they work for it, creation is not enough to guarantee anything.
Re: Re: Re:
No, copyright is not a natural right but a claim to state enforcement, and the claimed “right” is therefore not property.
You don’t have the “right” to employ state violence against other private parties as a logical extension of property rights.
State enforcement of property rights is only a substitute for having people fending off intruders by physical force.
In the natural state, the only property right you meaningfully possess is the power to fend of intruders by force.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would say copyright is a natural right. EXCLUSIVE COPYRIGHT is claimed. When something is created the creator automatically has the right to copy it. That’s a natural right. However, the ability to deny others from doing the same, now THAT’S the part that is claimed.
Re: Re: Re:2 You're trying to invent your own law.
Copyright was NEVER a natural right.
No. Artists don’t have any right to be paid for their work or to exert exclusive control over it. That’s a power of the government. That power exists to serve the public good.
This notion of copyright as property is just a distortion of the law to primarily suit large corporate interests.
The permanent “power to exclude” has dire consequences when applied to things that are easily recreated by many people using nothing more than their own intellect and a common pool of intellectual capitol.
Re: Re: Re:3 You're trying to invent your own law.
Copyright was NEVER a natural right.
I think he means that the rights that are granted in 17 USC 106 (here in the States) are natural rights, that by default are held by everyone.
They are “property rights,” in the sense that without government interference, they are the rights to do whatever you want with your property (a copy of the work). For example, if a work is in the public domain, that doesn’t mean nobody has the right to copy it, distribute it, display it publicly, etc.; it means that everyone has the right to do so.
Copyright doesn’t grant those rights; it creates the right to prevent others from exercising them. The only “right” created by copyright is the right of exclusion.
Re: Re: Re:
Or, if by some chance it turns out that isn’t true, may I propose:
People do not have the right to be compensated at all for simply creating something.
Re: Re: Re:
>People do have a right to be compensated for the things they create for as long as they live.
Damn right they do!
That’s why…
…when a mechanic fixes your car he gets paid every time you use it after that.
…when someone is on an assembly line and creates a car they get a cut every time it’s sold.
…a farmer gets a cut of the sales every time a piece of his produce gets sold(from him, to company, to person going to eat it).
…when someone builds a piece of furniture they get paid every time someone uses it.
…when people build a house they get a cut of every transaction made regarding it, from the original sale, to every monthly payment on it.
…when a painter/sculptor/artist of whatever sort sells one of their pieces they get paid any time someone looks at it.
…when someone is involved in building a road or a bridge they get paid every time someone drives over it.
Re: Re: People do have a right to be compensated..
really? i have to pay my plumber every time i…
Re: Re: Re: People do have a right to be compensated..
#1 – Yes, #2 – Yes
Re: Re: Re:
Zakida:
Your second point is valid.
The first point isn’t.
No one has a “right” to be “compensated for as long as they live”.
Copyright used to be 28 years plus another 28 (if you did the paperwork) and that’s it!
Disney forced changes to the law when Mickey Mouse’s first apperances were approaching the 56-year limit.
(Speaking of which, you think Disney’s been paying the writers and artists of their movies/books/etc beyond the first use of their material?
The answer is “nope”!)
Re: Re: Re:
The Constitution of the US states:
The Declaration of Independence of the US (non-binding) states:
At least in the US, the closest natural right to what you are discussing is the pursuit of Happiness (commonly held to mean the pursuit of wealth or land, I personally find this meaning the least fruitful). In other words, I can’t prevent you from seeking compensation, but you aren’t ever guaranteed to find it.
I can’t speak to other countries, as I have enough on my plate trying to navigate the labyrinth of a single legal system in my spare time.
Mind providing an argument in favor of the right for compensation?
Re: Re:
I wrote this post.
Pay me mothafucka.
Er...
So I agree with the overall point, but bringing up changes to the Statute of Anne in response to German scriptwriters is probably not the best strategy here.
Re: Er...
bringing up changes to the Statute of Anne in response to German scriptwriters is probably not the best strategy here.
This is true. Germany’s copyright laws (when it eventually wrote them) were based almost entirely on the droit d’auteur, the “moral rights” of authors.
A better point to make is that Germany didn’t have copyright laws until the late 19th century, over a hundred years after the Statute of Anne was passed in England.
According to historian Eckhard Hoeffner, that lack of copyright was the driving force behind the “Gruenderzeit” (the wave of economic growth that Germany experienced in the nineteenth century).
I wonder if these script writers own the scripts that they write. Or is it like in the U.S. where script writers are “Work for Hire.”
In which case, it doesn’t matter how long copyright lasts, they still don’t own their own work.
Re: Re:
“I wonder if these script writers own the scripts that they write. Or is it like in the U.S. where script writers are “Work for Hire.”
Europe has “moral rights” clauses in their copyright laws, something that’ll never appear in American copyright laws due to corporate interference.
Re: Re: Re:
something that’ll never appear in American copyright laws due to corporate interference.
It’s starting to be chipped away in Germany too, with 2007’s law that allows “buy-out” contracts.
Re: Re: Re:
Yep, the way around that is through contractual obligations LoL
Re: Re:
Actually they don’t cause they sign so-called “total buyout” contracts. The irony wasn’t lost on the CCC replying that the writers actually are experiencing the long-debated “culture flatrate” cause they are paid by mandatory GEZ fees every German houselhold has to pay.
Re: Re:
My feelings exactly. Unless they own a piece of the show, why do they care how long the copyright period is? They’re not going to get any royalties from the show, the producers will. In Hollywood, for example, you give up a lot of your future rights for high pay in the here and now! I don’t see what the justification is for their letter!
derp
It’s easy to have “different” views on stealing others content, when you’ve never invested into any content yourself to have it ripped off. Grow up and realize you aren’t entitled to free content, people put a great deal of money and effort into content that needs to be paid for.
Re: derp
The public domain was never ripped off either, amirite?
Re: derp
Grow up and learn to embrace technology instead of railing against it by illegally abusing the legislative system to pass draconian laws that in turn abuse the public’s rights only to prop up outdated business models for your own personal greed.
Re: derp
Your title is right.
All you said was “derp”.
Try talking to fanfiction writers, fanartists, fansubbers, and people who do translations for free or for a small fee.
They invest in content that takes a great deal of effort. But, you know what? It’s a great deal of effort that does not, for the most part, does not require people to pay them.
I’m in that group, BTW.
So, the only one who needs to grow up, as far as I can see…
Is you.
Re: Re: derp
Talking about fansubs did you see the new collaboration tool for the Libre Office?
Now ten people can get the same sub and edit it at the same time, instead of taking one hour everybody can do it in 15 minutes 🙂
Re: derp
Needs to be paid for? There isn’t a need for it to be paid for because it’s a luxury item. Thus it need not even exist.
While I DO agree on artists getting rewarded for contributions to the arts it should not be done via govt monopolies, and most certainly should not be done in a way to punishes fans for sharing. Specifically fanfiction and remixes as I find they can really add a lot to my enjoyment of a work and the world would be poorer without such works.
Re: derp
It’s easy to have “different” views on stealing others content, when you’ve never invested into any content yourself
Stop making assumptions about people who rad and comment on this site whose views differ from your. Just because your opinions are driven by your own financial interest it doesn’t follow that everyone else is venal.
Re: derp
Well after you grow up and realized you are not entitled to a granted monopoly or free money dude.
Re: derp
I put a ‘great deal of money and effort’ into my posts, WHERE IS MAH MONEH!?!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?
vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Re: derp
Grow up and realize you aren’t entitled to free money, people before you put a great deal of money and effort into culture that needs to be paid for by giving works back to the public domain after a limited period.
Re: derp
you’ve never invested into any content yourself
I’ve done this. Can I call you an idiot now?
Re: derp
If it takes you 100+ years to recoup your investment, you’re doing something seriously wrong.
Re: derp
AC said: “Grow up and realize you aren’t entitled to free content, people put a great deal of money and effort into content that needs to be paid for.”
So you’re saying I’m not entitled to the files of Public Domain texts for free, even though little effort and no money went into producing them?
AC said: “It’s easy to have “different” views on stealing others content, when you’ve never invested into any content yourself to have it ripped off.”
What I described above isn’t stealing, and neither is copyright infringement. If they were, copyfraudsters would find themselves in court a lot more often than they do. And before you start, I’m a writer of fanfiction, original fiction, and lyrics, which totally negates what you say about those with less than maximalist views ‘not being creators’.
"dear net community"...
…um, isn’t that about 2.8bn people now?
Oh yes, and a massive 8 comments before we have someone conflating infringement with theft and completely missing the point of the article. Good work there.
If they think stronger copyright laws help create jobs then maybe they should explain why Microsoft announced recently that they were moving their main distribution center in Europe out of Germany and to the Netherlands, mainly out of fear of potentially losing a lawsuit to Motorola and having an injunction automatically put in place to shut down their distribution center for them.
So even if Microsoft comes out the winner in the lawsuit, Germany still lost already.
Collateral Damage
The copyright “land-grab” is not limited to simply extending the time period of copyright, but also reaching out to claim that other content that has the apparent look-and-feel of a content created by an author is somehow infringement. Orson Scott Card Rips Apart JK Rowling For The Lexicon Lawsuit
Public Television
The german Tatort is airing on public television paid for by a special tax (GEZ). So i suppose the screenwriters of that show are paid with my taxes. Its outrages they think they should benefit from their work for 2 generations down the line when we already paid them to do that job in the first place.
Public Television
The german Tatort is airing on public television paid for by a special tax (GEZ). So i suppose the screenwriters of that show are paid with my taxes. Its outrages they think they should benefit from their work for 2 generations down the line when we already paid them to do that job in the first place.
Expropriation implies that something is being taken away. Nothing is being taken away from the artist (all though you could better argue something was taken away from the public domain).
No, artists can continue to use their “monopoly” as long as they want. The public is simply saying that they won’t back said monopoly after x number of years.
Define irony...
I find it incredibly ironic that the Grimm Fairy Tales are Germany’s best works that were shared all over the world, creating Hollywood and its continued success, then suddenly Germans (who profited greatly from lax copyright rules anyway) are the ones that feel that copyright is too long. What a sense of entitlement…
A shortening of the copyright term would change nothing for this problem, and would be purely symbolic.
If that’s true then why not just do it? Sounds like a win win to me. If it’s just symbolic from your perspective then it’s only going to make you look good to those for whom it’s not just symbolic. Unless, of course, it’s not just symbolic after all…
My proposed solution
Don’t extend copyright, just shorten content creators lives. Then there will be nothing to fight over 😀
Re: My proposed solution
At first I wanted to mod you down. Not Slashdot – Can’t.
Then I realized that you have stumbled on the an answer that is easier to implement than reducing copyright. And I was quietly ashamed.
After some thought, I really want to agree with you.
Must resist the dark side…
Re: Re: My proposed solution
I promise that I’m not trying to sway you, but we do have cake…
Re: Re: Re: My proposed solution
The cake is a lie!
Re: My proposed solution
You created your above post. One year has been taken off your life. You are also free to sue anyone who reproduces it (though I can’t guarantee you’ll get very far).
Answer to that ridiculous letter by CCC members
There is an answering letter by the CCC (Chaos Computer Club): http://ccc.de/de/updates/2012/drehbuchautoren
Re: Answer to that ridiculous letter by CCC members
There is an answering letter by the CCC
Amusingly enough, when I use Google Translate to read the article in English, the headline is:
“Response to the open letter to the crime scene screenwriter”
Since their opinions are tantamount to a “crime scene,” this is unintentionally accurate.
(And, yes, I know enough German to know that “Tatort” literally means “crime scene.” Just thought it was funny.)
Germanic logic fail.
So… if everyone is only fixated on the new stuff then there is no real reason to keep the old stuff locked down with ever increasing copyright terms now is there?
The copyright on 30 year old works serves no economic purpose.
So you could compromise on the length of copyright and it would not actually do you any harm. It would be a great public relations coup that would make you look reasonable and accommodating without actually losing you anything.
Re: Germanic logic fail.
If copyright was cut to 30 years, people might respect it again…
It would take some time though. Thanks to the MPAA and RIAA, people’s attitudes about copyright are at an all-time low.
Re: Re: Germanic logic fail.
I think end of first release plus five years, with first release to contribute a maximum of two years, would be a reasonable compromise.
After all, that gives you five years for all your merchandising needs, and even enough time to work on a sequel. After all, copyright is on a specific expression, so you could keep some claim to the material (but not the original work) so long as you are rolling out sequels.
That would serve as a decent incentive to make sure you have a good sequel, which is painfully missing from the current system.
They have the means (internet)to create a new business model that would cater to both parties, the ‘net community’ KNOWS its possible, with the advent of using ads to make revenue ala Google, or cheap monthly subcription, ala Netflix
If they offer something for free or cheap, i have no doubts that they’ll make up the numbers for any shortfall in profit, if they actually listen and offer what their customers are ‘screaming’ at them………WORLDWIDE, another standard feature of the internet
They have the unique position, of having money to do this, so my question, what is it about the old business model that they are so afraid to loss, its not like they cant run them both simultaneously, unless one negates the other.
Are they afraid of change? Are they so entrenched in doing the same thing the same way, that they wont even consider doing everything and learning everything all over again? Will it be that bad, if foresight and the right experts are consulted? Does the internet offer, a considerable amount of freedom of speech in what ever form that their unwilling to nurture?
its not like a site like imdb can in some cases, make a or break a movie or tv show, say, by stopping a customer from finding out whether they like or not like said movie or tv show by not paying for it ……….its not like ive never paid for something i ended up not liking………..gawhhh, the cheek of me
Re: Re:
Competition. The barriers to entry are falling, which tends to drive the market to a position where profit margins are slim. This is widely recognized as good for the economy and bad for those already in a given market.
Felix Schwenzel replied with some life lies these authors seem to suffer from:
– to believe that as a Tatort scriptwriter you are creating “highly creative art and culture”
– the hope to enter constructive talks with calling the other side clueless and hostile
So they plead…
…your illegal downloads or streams concern mostly the absolutely latest films, music, books, photos and designs…
And all I can hear is:
We aren’t making money out of you. We want to make money out of you even after a hundred years.
“your illegal downloads or streams concern mostly the absolutely latest films, music, books, photos and designs — and not works that are, say, 20, 40 or 60 years old. A shortening of the copyright term would change nothing for this problem”
Don’t they recognise with this that they dont need large copyright terms, since only the latest works are pirated, why protect the old ones.
Maybe the copyright protection should be changed by a “pay to be protected” system, once you’re work stops generating enough revenue to cover the protection you stop paying and the work passes to the public domain.
I believe it won’t even reach 10 years before that happens
New App
New app for screenplay writers:
https://apps.facebook.com/the_producer/