Music copyrights in UK might be extended 20 years

RandomEngy

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081212-uk-ignores-logic-backs-20-year-music-copyright-extension.html

They are considering retroactively extending music copyrights in the UK from 50 years to 70 years. Despite earlier opposition and investigation that concluded it was a stupid thing to do.

The argument being that it would be immoral to ask that a musician only profit for 50 years after a song is written, forcing them to such debased practices such as saving their money and writing more songs. That is, if they want to keep living in the lifestyle that any artist successful enough to sell copies of a 50 year old song is accustomed to living in.

Furthermore, in the EU, they're considering a plan to increase music copyrights to 95 years. I don't live in Europe, but this is just madness. If you live there, please do whatever it takes to get this stopped.

Medopine

This is why moral rights are dumb

Feral

stop pandering to rich IP holders by extending copyrights to wtf lifespans GAWD PEOPLE

Echo

Yes. The only reason for extending copyright is that corporations want to hold on to the rights forever and keep making money off them. The whole "artists must make money from their music!" is just a smokescreen.

Kate of Lokys

Echo wrote: »

Yes. The only reason for extending copyright is that corporations want to hold on to the rights forever and keep making money off them. The whole "artists must make money from their music!" is just a smokescreen.

Artists do currently make money from their music. And they do so for a very reasonable length of time. If somebody manages to write a hit single at age 20, they'll have royalties coming in until they're 70. Honestly, though, by the time a song is 50 years old, it has to be very goddamned special indeed for anyone to still be listening to it, so by that point, they're making pennies on the dollar anyway. Arguing that extending the copyright period from 50 years to 95 will help the artist make money from their music is ridiculous because 80+ years after pretty much any given piece of music was released, the artist is already dead.

Mithrandir86

The interesting thing is that in the states, the rights do not expire until decades (what is it, 50 years?) after you die.

Medopine

life + 70

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Jokerman

Because in America, we are retarded.

Medopine

Because in AMerica, we start small and the just keep expanding whenever [strike]Disney[/strike] justice demands it

Echo

I recall an event a few years back in the UK - an Elvis song performed live on radio had its copyright expire, due to live performances having different copyright periods or something along those lines.

Naturally, this was a complete and utter disaster according to the music mafia, and unless this legal loophole was bricked shut Elvis would never make any music again since he can't make money off it!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Medopine

mcdermott wrote: »

I think I've hit outrage fatigue on copyright terms. I've just kinda accepted that the entire idea of the public domain is dead, or that at the least never again will any media be created and released to it within the same person's lifetime. The Beatles' music will be copyright until beyond the point at which every child born before John Lennon died is also dead.

Then, maybe, it will become public domain.

I can understand this attitude, but given the upcoming change in administration, there may be hope for copyright reform yet.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Kate of Lokys

mcdermott wrote: »

I think I've hit outrage fatigue on copyright terms. I've just kinda accepted that the entire idea of the public domain is dead, or that at the least never again will any media be created and released to it within the same person's lifetime. The Beatles' music will be copyright until beyond the point at which every child born before John Lennon died is also dead.

Then, maybe, it will become public domain.

This is actually a major problem in scholarship. There are relatively few people who study James Joyce, when compared to the number of people studying the other early modernists, and the major reason for that is copyright. (The other major reason is Finnegans Wake). All of Joyce's work is currently in the public domain in Canada, which is great because grad students like me can pick up Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist for $5 each instead of having to buy $20 trade paperbacks. In the US and the UK, however, some of his stuff is still copyrighted. And a whole ton of his non-published work - letters, personal papers, financial statements, draft copies, etc - is under copyright, and the copyright is held by his notoriously skinflint grandson, who refuses to allow people to use the material unless they can pay fat sacks of cash money. Like, seriously, there have been people who have written PhD dissertations on Joyce, quoting extensively (and necessarily) from his manuscripts and related documents, then been told "oh whooops, I'm not going to let you publish that because it contains a larger amount of copyrighted material than is permissible under the fair dealings clause!"

The current copyright system is stupid enough, there is no damned need to make it any stupider by extending things even more.

wishda

mcdermott wrote: »

I think I've hit outrage fatigue on copyright terms. I've just kinda accepted that the entire idea of the public domain is dead, or that at the least never again will any media be created and released to it within the same person's lifetime. The Beatles' music will be copyright until beyond the point at which every child born before John Lennon died is also dead.

Then, maybe, it will become public domain.

The copyrights are being extended at the same time that the ability to enforce copyright is just about dead. Broadband is still in its infancy and even your grandmother can figure out how to download her favorite song off the Internet for free. Government can extend copyright to a million years + 1 and it's still not going to matter.

Echo

wishda wrote: »

The copyrights are being extended at the same time that the ability to enforce copyright is just about dead. Broadband is still in its infancy and even your grandmother can figure out how to download her favorite song off the Internet for free. Government can extend copyright to a million years + 1 and it's still not going to matter.

Well, here in EU-land the music mafia bought a new directive: IPRED1.

There's a part that essentially gives them more rights than what the police can do. The condensed version:

* If they suspect you of filesharing their IP, they can go to a court with an IP address and get personal information on the account owner from the ISP that way. The ISP is legally prohibited to inform you about it for 30 days.

* They can get a search warrant for your house. They get the warrant. They don't get a warrant and get the police to do it. They can legally do it with their own goons.

* The monetary fine under IPRED1 is higher than what you would pay to the family of a murder victim.

And so on.

Feral

Echo wrote: »

wishda wrote: »

The copyrights are being extended at the same time that the ability to enforce copyright is just about dead. Broadband is still in its infancy and even your grandmother can figure out how to download her favorite song off the Internet for free. Government can extend copyright to a million years + 1 and it's still not going to matter.

Well, here in EU-land the music mafia bought a new directive: IPRED1.

There's a part that essentially gives them more rights than what the police can do. The condensed version:

* If they suspect you of filesharing their IP, they can go to a court with an IP address and get personal information on the account owner from the ISP that way. The ISP is legally prohibited to inform you about it for 30 days.

* They can get a search warrant for your house. They get the warrant. They don't get a warrant and get the police to do it. They can legally do it with their own goons.

* The monetary fine under IPRED1 is higher than what you would pay to the family of a murder victim.

And so on.

what.
the.
fuck.

SirUltimos

Echo wrote: »

wishda wrote: »

The copyrights are being extended at the same time that the ability to enforce copyright is just about dead. Broadband is still in its infancy and even your grandmother can figure out how to download her favorite song off the Internet for free. Government can extend copyright to a million years + 1 and it's still not going to matter.

Well, here in EU-land the music mafia bought a new directive: IPRED1.

There's a part that essentially gives them more rights than what the police can do. The condensed version:

* If they suspect you of filesharing their IP, they can go to a court with an IP address and get personal information on the account owner from the ISP that way. The ISP is legally prohibited to inform you about it for 30 days.

* They can get a search warrant for your house. They get the warrant. They don't get a warrant and get the police to do it. They can legally do it with their own goons.

* The monetary fine under IPRED1 is higher than what you would pay to the family of a murder victim.

And so on.

That is absolutely fucking ridiculous.

Echo

Enjoy this tragic read.

The part about ISPs being forced to hand over the personal info of the account owner was even struck down by the EU court in a case in Spain, but Sweden is still on line to introduce that part. The Pirate Party will haul them to the same court the very day IPRED1 goes into effect.

Echo

Oh yeah, I forgot the part where they get to freeze your bank accounts at the same time they're applying for your personal information at the court.

Feral

Man, I thought Sweden was a civilized country.

Echo

This directive comes from EU. We're forced to write it into law.

Mithrandir86

Hmm. We're probably on the verge of an intellectual property-crime version of the liquidity trap. There are diminishing returns to increasing penalties, in terms of aggregate sentencing. This is because juries are more and more hestistant in returning a guilty verdict if the punishment is insane.

That, and how is this justiciable? Just because the actual prosecution rate is low does not mean that you can go crazy with the sentences. It would be like the state only issuing 1 speeding ticket per year, but that ticket is $50,000.

zeeny

Mithrandir86 wrote: »

This is because juries are more and more hesitant in returning a guilty verdict if the punishment is insane.

We're unlikely to have that problem in the EU and I'm unsure of the validity of this statement even if somehow a copyright infringement case makes it in front of a jury.

Mithrandir86

zeeny wrote: »

Mithrandir86 wrote: »

This is because juries are more and more hesitant in returning a guilty verdict if the punishment is insane.

We're unlikely to have that problem in the EU and I'm unsure of the validity of this statement even if somehow a copyright infringement case makes it in front of a jury.

Probably just useless speculation. What is the process in the EU?

zeeny

Mithrandir86 wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

Mithrandir86 wrote: »

This is because juries are more and more hesitant in returning a guilty verdict if the punishment is insane.

We're unlikely to have that problem in the EU and I'm unsure of the validity of this statement even if somehow a copyright infringement case makes it in front of a jury.

Probably just useless speculation. What is the process in the EU?

I was referring mostly to the fact that there is no jury duty in Europe(outside of UK and probably another country or two). Most countries have commission/panels of judges, but civic duty is pretty much a no-go.
There is no black on white procedure for dealing with digital copyright infringement across Europe...yet.
I still have hopes about the copyright reform in Europe, as the EU court seems to be holding the front and keeps striking down the idiocies they come up with in the EU parliament, but probably it won't last for long.

Mithrandir86

zeeny wrote: »

Mithrandir86 wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

Mithrandir86 wrote: »

This is because juries are more and more hesitant in returning a guilty verdict if the punishment is insane.

We're unlikely to have that problem in the EU and I'm unsure of the validity of this statement even if somehow a copyright infringement case makes it in front of a jury.

Probably just useless speculation. What is the process in the EU?

I was referring mostly to the fact that there is no jury duty in Europe(outside of UK and probably another country or two). Most countries have commission/panels of judges, but civic duty is pretty much a no-go.
There is no black on white procedure for dealing with digital copyright infringement across Europe...yet.
I still have hopes about the copyright reform in Europe, as the EU court seems to be holding the front and keeps striking down the idiocies they come up with in the EU parliament, but probably it won't last for long.

Ah. Interesting. Well, judges have also been known to throw out cases if the punishment has been considered unconscionable.

Echo

Also, I should point out that this will all still be civil cases. With punitive damages.

We have never ever had punitive damages in Sweden since the death penalty was abolished.

I'm a Pirate Party member. People often go "bunch of kids that just want to download for free" and sneer, but then I bludgeon them to death with some facts about stuff like IPRED and ACTA, and then I just say "THIS is what the party was formed for."

Rhesus Positive

Kate of Lokys wrote: »

mcdermott wrote: »

I think I've hit outrage fatigue on copyright terms. I've just kinda accepted that the entire idea of the public domain is dead, or that at the least never again will any media be created and released to it within the same person's lifetime. The Beatles' music will be copyright until beyond the point at which every child born before John Lennon died is also dead.

Then, maybe, it will become public domain.

This is actually a major problem in scholarship. There are relatively few people who study James Joyce, when compared to the number of people studying the other early modernists, and the major reason for that is copyright. (The other major reason is Finnegans Wake). All of Joyce's work is currently in the public domain in Canada, which is great because grad students like me can pick up Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist for $5 each instead of having to buy $20 trade paperbacks. In the US and the UK, however, some of his stuff is still copyrighted. And a whole ton of his non-published work - letters, personal papers, financial statements, draft copies, etc - is under copyright, and the copyright is held by his notoriously skinflint grandson, who refuses to allow people to use the material unless they can pay fat sacks of cash money. Like, seriously, there have been people who have written PhD dissertations on Joyce, quoting extensively (and necessarily) from his manuscripts and related documents, then been told "oh whooops, I'm not going to let you publish that because it contains a larger amount of copyrighted material than is permissible under the fair dealings clause!"

The current copyright system is stupid enough, there is no damned need to make it any stupider by extending things even more.

You've just made me so happy that the most recent text I'm studying is a thousand years old.

Cantido

lol EMI.

I used to write articles on this stuff. I'm so fucking sick of it all. I only listen to video game soundtracks and Ninja Tune's artists nowadays. I fucking hate music.

fjafjan

Echo wrote: »

Also, I should point out that this will all still be civil cases. With punitive damages.

We have never ever had punitive damages in Sweden since the death penalty was abolished.

I'm a Pirate Party member. People often go "bunch of kids that just want to download for free" and sneer, but then I bludgeon them to death with some facts about stuff like IPRED and ACTA, and then I just say "THIS is what the party was formed for."

Don't form a fucking party!
"Infiltrate" your party of choice, that way your votes won't be fucking wasted.
I mean single issue parties never were a good idea.

Mithrandir86

fjafjan wrote: »

Echo wrote: »

Also, I should point out that this will all still be civil cases. With punitive damages.

We have never ever had punitive damages in Sweden since the death penalty was abolished.

I'm a Pirate Party member. People often go "bunch of kids that just want to download for free" and sneer, but then I bludgeon them to death with some facts about stuff like IPRED and ACTA, and then I just say "THIS is what the party was formed for."

Don't form a fucking party!
"Infiltrate" your party of choice, that way your votes won't be fucking wasted.
I mean single issue parties never were a good idea.

They work in a proportional system, which is what Sweden I think is. Coalition governments are a matter of course, not an exception.

fjafjan

Mithrandir86 wrote: »

fjafjan wrote: »

Echo wrote: »

Also, I should point out that this will all still be civil cases. With punitive damages.

We have never ever had punitive damages in Sweden since the death penalty was abolished.

I'm a Pirate Party member. People often go "bunch of kids that just want to download for free" and sneer, but then I bludgeon them to death with some facts about stuff like IPRED and ACTA, and then I just say "THIS is what the party was formed for."

Don't form a fucking party!
"Infiltrate" your party of choice, that way your votes won't be fucking wasted.
I mean single issue parties never were a good idea.

They work in a proportional system, which is what Sweden I think is. Coalition governments are a matter of course, not an exception.

I too am swedish. Yes it is proportional, but in order to get ANY seats, you need to have 4% of the electorate, to prevent complete chaos with forty gazillion parties.
So sure, Coalition, but pick an existing party or two, this question is more or less outside of traditional party politics, and make this question part of their platform.
If you are serious about changing these things you want a debate, you want to change public opinion, and you need to have some serious ideas, which is what the pirate party have completely failed to do.

Feral

fjafjan wrote: »

I too am swedish.

You don't say.

fjafjan

Feral wrote: »

fjafjan wrote: »

I too am swedish.

You don't say.

I prefer to sound more like Nibbler, what can I say?

Echo

fjafjan wrote: »

I too am swedish. Yes it is proportional, but in order to get ANY seats, you need to have 4% of the electorate, to prevent complete chaos with forty gazillion parties.
So sure, Coalition, but pick an existing party or two, this question is more or less outside of traditional party politics, and make this question part of their platform.

In the 2006 election, the pirate party (formed that year) got 0.64%, making them the third biggest party outside of the parliament, or tenth biggest overall.

We are now two years later, and the PP now has 400 members less than the Greens, who got 5.64% in the 2006 election.

About 120,000 votes are required to make it into the parliament. In 2006 we got 34918 votes, and that was as a complete unknown. In the next election a lot of undecided people will know about the results in the last election.

We're also aiming for a seat on the EU commission. Several notable professors and other people that have their ducks in a row concerning these matters are of the opinion that it is very likely that we can take a seat there.

If you are serious about changing these things you want a debate, you want to change public opinion, and you need to have some serious ideas, which is what the pirate party have completely failed to do.

Is this public enough for you?

fjafjan

And you think you'll do what?
Seriously, no party is going to support "free file sharing" which appear to be your policy. And that is because free filesharing is a god damn stupid idea. Not having copyrights that last 100 years, now that is reasonable policy, and can be done just as well in a mixed platform.

The fact that you make headlines does not mean you are having a public discourse where you might convince people who admit that software companies should exist and make moneys.

Echo

fjafjan wrote: »

And you think you'll do what?

I'm not a fortune teller. All I can say is that I hope so, and that various people more knowledgeable about politics than me say that it is likely.

Seriously, no party is going to support "free file sharing" which appear to be your policy. And that is because free filesharing is a god damn stupid idea. Not having copyrights that last 100 years, now that is reasonable policy, and can be done just as well in a mixed platform.

Copyright is an infringement on ownership rights. Every single youth organisation for the seven established parties is against IPRED and what it entails.

Politicians only understand one language: the one that threatens their government employment. The only way to do that is to vote them the fuck out of their positions. Trying to work with them is a guarantee for very poor compromises.

We're realists. What we want is the freedom to not get sued out of existence and horribly punished for downloading two crappy Britney songs. Which, in effect, means free filesharing for non-commercial purposes.

And now the MAFIAA is yelling at Obama saying they want to do the same stuff IPRED/ACTA does in the EU.

Rhesus Positive

I'm not Swedish, but the fact that "piratpartiet" is right there in the headline suggests that the media might be portraying you in a less than ideal light - is that true?

fjafjan

Seriously, no party is going to support "free file sharing" which appear to be your policy. And that is because free filesharing is a god damn stupid idea. Not having copyrights that last 100 years, now that is reasonable policy, and can be done just as well in a mixed platform.

Copyright is an infringement on ownership rights. Every single youth organisation for the seven established parties is against IPRED and what it entails.

Politicians only understand one language: the one that threatens their government employment. The only way to do that is to vote them the fuck out of their positions. Trying to work with them is a guarantee for very poor compromises.

We're realists. What we want is the freedom to not get sued out of existence and horribly punished for downloading two crappy Britney songs. Which, in effect, means free filesharing for non-commercial purposes.



And now the MAFIAA is yelling at Obama saying they want to do the same stuff IPRED/ACTA does in the EU.[/QUOTE]

See, IPRED is something I think reasonable people can agree is crazy. The problem is you are not realists. You are saying "people should be able to fileshare as much as they want". To quote wiki regarding the party platform the current position is

Partiet förespråkar en begränsning, till 5 år, av den ekonomiska ensamrätt som idag är satt till 70 år efter upphovsmannens död och som gäller samtliga verk som skyddas av upphovsrätten. Samtidigt så vill de släppa all icke-kommersiell fildelning fri, vilket betyder att filmer, låtar och program kan kopieras fritt så länge verksamheten inte drivs kommersiellt.

Which for non swedish speakers, translates to that they want to reduce copyrights to only last to 5 years. And most importantly, they want to make all non commercial filesharing legal, which means that movies, song and programs can be copied freely as long as it is not in a profitable venture.

This is not realistic, programmers, game makers and movie makers know this.
What I am suggesting is that you pick a party which you agree with in other issues, become an active member there, and push the anti IPRED issue there. Or change your current position on filesharing to something that is actually feasible, not madness.

Aldo

This is EU territory, which means that there is no feasible way for us civilians to influence this, unless an individual country decides to hold a referendum under its population. I do not consider this likely at all.

What is worse is that there is no law that forces the EU to publish anything that leads to their decisions. In layman terms that means that a few politicians walk into a room, shut the door and walk out a few hours later with a new law and no one will know what has happened.

If there *is* a way I'll be very interested to hear about it.