Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Legal We have some very, very good news for Europeans (which happens to include myself): we have the European Parliament on our sides when it comes to battling ACTA. If you may recall, ACTA is basically an attempt by the US to impose upon the rest of the world draconian measures like three strikes laws and the DMCA. All parties within the European Parliament have together put forth a resolution that would effectively tackle ACTA.
Thread beginning with comment 413085
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

Copyright is a state-granted monopoly on distribution. This means that only the copyright holder may distribute that which he holds copyright over. Downloading is not distributing. Downloading is acquiring. Copyright does not concern itself with acquiring, hence why downloading is legal here, while uploading is not.


So don't you think that copyright law needs reform to take into account the new age of digital distribution?

The core of the matter is you benefiting from others work without any form of compensation going to them. Don't you think that's wrong?

Obviously, the way of the future is home entertainment computers, and it is just a matter of time before they are in everyone's home. At that point, if we were all living under netherlands copyright law, what would be the point of anyone making TV shows or movies anymore, when you realistically couldn't expect to even make your costs back?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So don't you think that copyright law needs reform to take into account the new age of digital distribution?


Uhm...No. We did not need to change copyright laws when tapedecks came around and we don't need it now. Distributing content without the permission of the copyright holder was a clear infringement then and and it still is one now.
What needs to move with the times is not the copyright law, but the large behemoth organizations that are trying to modify it for their own purpose.

Edited 2010-03-10 15:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You should read some larry lessig. Copyright law needs to adapt to market paradigm shifts, and should always strive to strike a balance between protecting the creators, and the public good. You are right that things are weighted on the side of the creators in the states, but what Thom was talking is just outdated.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So don't you think that copyright law needs reform to take into account the new age of digital distribution?


I think copyright should be designed in such a way that it promotes the arts - not in a way that it promotes making money, something which has NEVER been the intent of the concept of copyright.

Considering how content providers are abusing copyright - yes, I'd rather see it reduced greatly, just to make sure we kill off the big content providers, and then rebuild the whole concept from the ground-up.

We live in a capitalist society, and in such a society, business models should be able to die. The old-world, pre-internet business model of the content providers has failed, and we should not use laws to try and keep them erect.

When we discovered a massive natural gas reserve in The Netherlands in the '60s (one of the biggest in the world), we allowed the coal mines in the south to die. The changing market had rendered the coal mining model obsolete, and as such, it died out. It's harsh, but that'd how mankind progresses. The content providers' old business model - like the coal mines - should simply die out. It has no life in it any more, and abusing legislation to uphold a failing business model is something I'd expect from a communist country - not from the west.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Ok, so I get where you are coming from. Unfortunately, creating art for the sake of creating art will mean that all that exists is low budget artsy type things. Which have their place, but personally, I want my BSG.

My problem is for something with production values to exist, you need some way to make money. Once the rest of the world have caught up to the geeks in terms of technology usage, in the style of copyright you are describing, that would mean all revenue coming from product placement style advertising, where an ad is inseparable from the content, or the content itself becomes an ad.

Personally, I would rather have 20 second commercial breaks every half hour from a hulu style site then that. In fact, the only single thing I hate about hulu is that it is not available outside the states.

Now, maybe I can't just think up an innovative enough model for high quality TV and movies to exist. But the money needs to come from somewhere.

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

The core of the matter is you benefiting from others work without any form of compensation going to them. Don't you think that's wrong?


\begin{rambling}

Not necessarily. I don't think content producers have any reasonable expectation to be compensated every single time someone views their work, on into eternity. I also don't think it's the government's job to guarantee by law the profitability of a certain segment of industry.

It's the job of a copyright regime to ensure that content production is profitable enough that people will want to produce content, not that it's profitable to the highest degree possible. It's actually quite important that content producers stop deriving income from their product as quickly as possible, so that they have an incentive to keep producing more, new material, instead of sitting atop their existing IP and collecting licensing fees on unto the heat-death of the universe.

So... no. People don't have an inherent right to make money from their creative product, or to control its distribution. We, the people of free democracies with copyright regimes, are nice enough to put in place a legal regime that allows content producers to make enough money that it'll be profitable to produce media. That's it. We certainly do not owe them money every time we consume that media, anywhere, forever.

\end{rambling}

Edited 2010-03-10 17:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3