What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
70 Comments
- compu73rg33k, on 02/14/2009, -4/+48In other news, unauthorized downloads continue to grow as more citizens consider copyright laws irrelevant.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+35except the laws don't protect the artist they protect the copyright holder. the record companies are our generation's buggy whip manufactures, to use the cliche, trying desperately to pass legislation that keeps them in business instead of changing the way they do business. this will work for a while but eventually the crooks who run the recording companies will be out of jobs and the world will be a slightly better place.
- Gndoab, on 02/14/2009, -8/+28the original term of 5 years of copyright is how it should be. It allows those who are truly creative to continue to contribute culture to society, while at the same time minimizing the effect of one hit wonders. For all those artists that say that without an extended copyright term they won't make enough money: GET A JOB!
Keep in mind that a copyright term of 5 years doesn't mean that the artist no longer can make money off it after 5 years, it just means that anyone who thinks they can do a better job with the original material can have a shot at it without paying licensing fees.
And besides, if after 5 years you can't create something else that people want to buy, you are in the wrong line of work. - twiztidsinz, on 02/14/2009, -0/+16I'm all for supporting the ARTISTS.
Not the bureaucrats that leech off the artists. - modsuperstar, on 02/15/2009, -3/+18I'm a designer who does creative work for a living. Will I get paid 60 years from now for work I did 5 years ago? No. This is just people working to protect the gravy train, pure and simple.
- CTK14A, on 02/14/2009, -2/+17Fifty years? Why, that would be right around the time that rock and roll really exploded... no wonder why they're in such a rush to extend copyright.
- portnoy, on 02/14/2009, -0/+13But are you willing to pay that 99 cents every two years? Every year? EVERY TIME YOU LISTEN TO THAT FRELLING SONG??? I for one am tired of being told that I need to rebuy the same music over and over and over again. And I'm done. I've bought it all for the last time. I bought all those LP's, all those 8-track tapes, all those cassettes and CD's and that was it. I ripped those disks into my mp3 player. I haven't bought a single digital music file and I have no intention of doing so. All those albums and tapes went to the dump years ago. The music industry has all the money it's going to get from me. They can extend copyrights to a thousand years, makes no difference to me. And to anyone that wants a copy of anything I have, all you have to do is ask.
- rx8geek, on 02/14/2009, -2/+14This is why I've lost all respect for copyright. It was supposed to be a time limited exclusivity agreement. You cant keep moving the goalposts in favour of one side in the agreement and expect the other parties to be at all happy about it, and you are just shooting yourself in the foot if the agreement is already being blatantly ignored!
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -3/+14Damn, this really drives me to (continue) pirating music.
- Gndoab, on 02/14/2009, -1/+11if they can't make a living out of it, get a job.
Copyright law shouldn't have to change because you can't make enough money with 50 years of entitlements. - Gndoab, on 02/14/2009, -1/+11In the original form, copyright was supposed to be an incentive to create culture, not a license to print money. I agree that the current copyright term is ridiculous, but the original form that the US had (of 5 years) was a good way of rewarding artists while still enriching society.
- shig, on 02/14/2009, -8/+17Copyrights and Patents are special grants of privilege issued by the government and they should be abolished.
- Travelsonic, on 02/14/2009, -2/+10"Yes, you'll bury this comment. Get a job."
Yes you'll make this argument.
Get a life.
How do you know we don't have jobs?
More relevantly, how the hell does the extension help artists? - jivatmanx, on 02/14/2009, -0/+8There is a world of difference between copyrights and patents.
Copyrights in principle aren't that bad. They represent a completely original work such as a book or song, and it really doesn't offer tremendous benefit to society to abolish them completely. I agree if they were 5 or ten years, they would be fine.
Patents, on the other hand, are horrible. Lawyers of large corps can make an extremely obscure patent and then just create endless lawsuits to destroy competition.
Furthermore, they're a more artificial restriction than copyright(which is quite personal) and instead give someone a sole right to an idea, taking away a great benefit to humanity. Imagine if patents had existed in the ancient world.
Someone would have patented the wheel and fire, and we'd still be paying royalties, and not be much more advanced. - jeffiek, on 02/14/2009, -1/+8A good book on the subject - "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine
free online - http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/again ... - cog77, on 02/14/2009, -3/+9actually i don't care that much.
if someone can write a song that i'll want to listen to in 2060, heck, i'll give them another 99 cents in itunes. - TheLD, on 02/14/2009, -3/+8As if the artists and recording industry executives need another 20 bedrooms and bathrooms or another swimming pool. Even 50 years is too long - how is it fair on the people that actually work in this world that an "artist" can have a couple of hits at the age of 20 and live on royalties forever? How is it fair on the artist that the record companies can screw money out of their music even after they are dead?
- magic6435, on 02/15/2009, -1/+5"get a job"? when were we talking about jobs in this comment or article?
- stubear, on 02/15/2009, -1/+5The US never had a 5 year system. The original system was 14 years plus an option 14 year extension for a total of 28 years. This was eventually extended to 28 years for the initial registration while still allowing for the optional 14 years on renewal. In the 1970's this was extended to life of author plus 25 years. The current system was put in place to fulfill our obligations under the Berne Convention which sets copyright terms to life of author plus 70 years. I know it's difficult to do research on the internet so here's the link to learn the history of copyright, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html. Perhaps you should start here, educate yourself, then post.
- shig, on 02/15/2009, -0/+4I think the "necessary evil" approach to copyrights and patents is dangerous.
While I agree that we need incentives to create culture, reward artists for their labor, and to enrich and better society; It requires a big leap from those noble goals to justify copyright and patent laws.
Will it surprise you to learn that virtually none of the innovations that you see on your desk, on the computer screen you are looking at, or in that box humming with fans, enjoyed the protection of intellectual monopolies?
That's why I'm so flabbergasted when people defend a system, that even in it's infancy (18th century), was used to maliciously stifle competition, and allow monopolies use of the courts to make more money litigating "infringement" than they did by selling products in the market.
The system is utterly indefensible... - stubear, on 02/15/2009, -0/+4There NEVER was an original term of 5 years with US Copyright, it was 14 years plus an optional 14 year renewal. Please learn a little about copyright law before posting. Thanks. Don't believe me? Tell that to the US Copyright Office.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1a.html - portnoy, on 02/14/2009, -0/+3The music industry is coming down hard on internet sharing. Back in my youth we would all get together and copy albums to cassettes, which was an incredibly time consuming process. Maybe the time is ripe for mp3 parties. Invite all your friends and share away old school style with new school technology.
- portnoy, on 02/14/2009, -0/+3Exactly, copyright was written as a device to urge creativity. How does it do that by paying someone for multiple lifetimes for one early work? Ok, maybe there is an upside to that. I suppose maybe it kept Rick Astley from needing to create more of his "art".
- Ne007, on 02/14/2009, -3/+6Another reason not to obey copyright.
- hazello, on 02/15/2009, -0/+3Am I the only one who saw 'PENIS EXTENSION'?
I guess it's those years of spam... - shig, on 02/15/2009, -2/+5If an artist can't make money outside of the courts then he is a poor artist regardless of how much money he has.
- reed311, on 02/15/2009, -2/+5Get a job? Their job is creating music that lasts a lifetime. If someone can write a song that stands the test of time and people still listen to it 40+ years later like the Beatles, then they should keep their copyright and earn their royalties. It would be an absolute disaster for everyone involved in the industry if there were only a 5 year copyright, but mostly it would result in an industry comprised of one hit wonders as record companies would be dropping any band that didn't immediately deliver a hit.
- PeppermintPig, on 02/15/2009, -0/+2"You would never see any new movies and very few artists would make it to the national level. ABC would simply steal shows from NBC with no penalty, Warner Bros would steal movies from 20th Century Fox, and the record companies would sell records from artists not on their roster."
You claim that networks would steal from one another, but what exactly would they be stealing? If they do that, they would cause the market on intellectual property to dry up and producers of movies, television, music, and whatever else would revolt.
Copyright and patents are fine when established in a system based on voluntary consent. Otherwise they do more to stifle innovation than help promote it.
Companies focusing on intellectual media would negotiate solutions via contract, and could offer subscription services amongst other things to earn revenue. Advertising would still work as well.
The one thing you shouldn't do is assume their business models are justified. - theviceroy, on 02/15/2009, -0/+2Well I doubt it because in America we already have 75 years past the whole life of the artist.
- portnoy, on 02/15/2009, -1/+3It is nothing but a financial bailout to the media companies but instead of coming from the government it is a direct raping of the consumers.
- inactive, on 02/15/2009, -0/+2***** you.. everyone else just has to deal with REAL life.. not the haze of, I'm-a-musician-and-should-be-treated-better-than-everyone-else... because I make music.. and somehow can't plan for my retirement and save money.. it's called capitalism.. if you can't make a living tough ***** *****.. no laws should be passed to enable you to continue leaching off of some crap you made 70 years ago.. sorry but get a real job and get a real life like the rest of the ***** planet have to do! Cheapskate!
- Gndoab, on 02/15/2009, -0/+2as has been pointed out twice, the original term was for 14 years.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -2/+3The line between artist and promoter is a very blurry one in many cases. When a label hires a manager, songwriter, recording/mixing/mastering engineers, producer, studio time, etc. in order to make a song or an album happen, then pulls strings and greases palms to get the album or song to go mainstream, can they really be written off as incidental to the artist's success?
Without the corporate machine, many a famous artist would be still be an anonymous and mediocre karaoke singer. This includes a lot of deeply principled and "edgy" artists which many of you undoubtedly hold in high regard. - jivatmanx, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1Frys. Not this week though, but like a week ago, and surely there will be again.
You can always get 1tb ones for 100 though. - letdowntourist, on 02/15/2009, -1/+2I would be more than happy about all this if i thought the artists were going to get even a fraction of what they deserve, instead of the music companies themselves. And of course they're in a rush... The Beatles are about to be public domain over there.
- inactive, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1No one is calling for abolishment.. but for laws that are up to date with the current technological climate with regards to the cost of the music equalling the expense it takes to make it and distribute it..
- modsuperstar, on 02/18/2009, -0/+1I'm sure I would have had a real easy time negotiating residuals when I worked for a printing company previously. I do freelance, but as you mentioned a client would have to be out of their minds to allow a freelancer residuals given freelance designers are a dime a dozen. I do work and get paid for the time and effort put into a job. Expecting to get paid for services rendered 60 years after the fact is ridiculous. If I designed a logo for a company and they use it for 60 years, sure I could have negotiated residuals, but in reality the amount of work I put in originally doesn't change. Copyright was enacted so people couldn't blatantly steal artists work, not so rights-holders can sit on their laurels and live on residuals for the rest of their lives.
- unitedkronos, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1As a music producer myself, I don't think copyright should be fully abolished because there would be no way for anyone to earn profit from their work. On the flip side, however, current copyright law is far too complex and gives more rights to the distributor then to the original artists. I think it should be cut down to about 10-15 years with relaxed sampling rules, that would allow more then enough time for artists to earn a decent profit off their work and it would benefit cover and remix culture as well.
- Eupatorus, on 02/17/2009, -0/+1Yeah. I just meant an even further extension.
- jivatmanx, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1Mp3's are *****. All of the cool kids use Flac.
Besides, there are 1.5TB drives for $100.00 now. - portnoy, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1That is true, I store everything as either flac or original cd and then convert to either mp3 (for my Zen) or aac (for my iPod)
- PeppermintPig, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1@Stallionism
The moral thing to do would be to stop using government to protect ideas through force. - Gndoab, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1ok, then a fourteen year term. Whatever. The concept of it not lasting forever was more what I was getting at then a specific date.
- djphatjive, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1Your an idiot!
- Eupatorus, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1Were talking about the EU here. This has no bearing on the Recording Industry Association of AMERICA. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if U.S. copyright law followed suit.
- PeppermintPig, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1Well, what if someone else comes up with the same invention independently? I guess they're just ***** out of luck then?? How is that in any way fair?
Your labor and resources are your own, but your ideas cannot be contained once released into public view.
"Imagine you find a cure for cancer. In a patentless world there is no incentive to produce it. It costs millions of dollars to test and even more to prove to the FDA"
Another money grubbing bureaucracy which should be abolished.
"In a patentless world, if I went through that, some douchebag that didn't spend a cent would steal my idea and profit from it, while I was looted."
Enough people believe intellectual protection is valuable, and you can achieve a reasonable solution without having to force one on everybody else.
The manufacture of books would be severely harmed if the publishers couldn't gain the respect of authors. The revenue stream for that industry would dry up, just as with all other mass production of media. It works both ways, though you don't seem to consider these implications fully.
Whatever the case, it is not the role of government to solve this problem. It's antithetical to liberty, a complete cop-out. - stubear, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1It still doesn't last forever, enough with the melodrama. Sure, it's longer, but honestly, how much of the intellectual property shared on the P2P networks is even 14 days old, much less 14 years? Is culture honestly being held back because people can't remix old episodes of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air? No, what this argument basically boils down to is people want ***** for free, period, end of story. It has NOTHING to do with term limits and everything to do with the rights of distribution, copying and derivatives. There are people, albeit split into different camps, who want these three rights revoked and know they can't make an argument for it so they call all of copyright law a sham.
- Travelsonic, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1"I''m sure some of that money goes to the artists."
0% goes to the artist. It all goes back to the RIAA, and their legal funds.
Sucks, doesn't it? - XeroXenith, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1jivatmanx: where? I'm genuinely interested.
- Eupatorus, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1I can't wait for a world with public domain Beatles recordings. Finally, movies can use actual Beatles songs instead of the cringe-worthy covers you always hear.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is