|
Common Sense - Copyright Reform now!
The events of the last several days involving the RIAA's assault on consumers with subpoenas, law suits, congressional hearings and public relations blitz is actually the culmination of a campaign that began many years ago to slowly but inexorably change the United States Copyright Act ( 17 U.S. Code 101 et. seq.) into an instrument of global power to be wielded by large media conglomerates in the unfolding digital age. Far from its constitional purpose of promoting the arts by securing for limited times for authors the fruits of their labors, it has become a monstrosity, through a series of tortured amendments and pretzel logic. It now regulates both artists' and consumer's behavior while ignoring its traditional function of regulating the behavior of competitors.
This is not new. It was obvious as early as 1984 (Sony v Betamax) that the consumer was viewed by the media as the greatest competitor to its monopoly. What is new is the total disregard for American civil rights that the new foreign owners of the record business (Sony, BMG, EMI. and Vivendi, who cynically call themselves the "Recording Industry Association of America") have exhibited in lobbying for laws that have only heretofore existed in other nations. Yes, it can happen here, and it already has.
What we are experiencing now is a forerunner of things to come,, with expanded Patriot Act powers and other paramilitary measures slowly being implemented in the US after 9/11. Due Process and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures are in jeopardy.
Musicians should not be the harbingers of fascism. The Copyright Act must be reformed. In the coming weeks, this will be made more evident as we report on the latest RIAA atrocities.
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
Stryker111111
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 9:56 PM
Welcome to the revolution. |
|
RIP-RIAA
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 10:12 PM
Yes, our computers will be neutered, big corporations will search our PC's and houses at will and we can only listen to music which can make big bucks for the foreigners who own the RIAA.
Boycott RIAA music ! Rediscover your older music and try world music instead of the crap we are being fed. DO NOT BUY MUSIC FROM "BIG MUSIC Instead Borrow music, visit your local library, buy used CD's or share with a friend.
When they come out with DRM enabled PC's and software refuse to "upgrade"
Vote for anybody who is not receiving money from the RIAA. Vote the politicians out of office who voted for all this fascist stuff.
|
|
ThePirateKing
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 10:21 PM
Great post leflaw. I wish someone would tell the artists who's works are being exploited by the current copyright laws to take this opportunity to speak up for copyright reform.
They won't get another chance like this until the RIAA screws up again .. ok, I guess there's no big hurry :).
Seriously though, the copyright issue affects alot broader area than just the music industry. Random House's monoply on the publishing industry is another example of copyright run rampant. Writer's only make about 7-9% on each book sold, with the rest going into the publisher's pocket. With current POD technology (which everyone is using, including Random House), publisher overhead is at an all-time low.
In all fairness to publishers, and what-not, shouldn't the bigger chunk of the profit go to the artist, or writer who is the REAL copyright holder?
An artist shouldn't have to sell his soul to get his work out into the world, only to lose that work to some greedy corporation that had nothing what-ever to do with the creation of that work. |
|
aaron29
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 10:25 PM
Remember you have two ways to vote:
1.) With your heart on election day.
2.) With your wallet any other day!
That goes for boycotts and contributions to candidates who stand for your position. The great thing about using your wallet, is you can vote more than once and for candidates outside your voting area..
If everyone contributed the cost of one CD, 60 Million X $20 = 1.2 Billion! A lot of campaign money there!
Praise the Lord and pass the Ammunition! |
|
leflaw
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 10:45 PM
eff_wipo_19961122.comments
Electronic Frontier Foundation response to PTO Request for Comments on proposed Sui Generis Database Protection Treaty. EFF advising removing the treaty from the agenda of the Geneva Diplomatic Conference on Certain Copyright and Neighboring Rights Questions, and outlines several serious problems with the proposed treaty, aside from the fact that it is an attempt by the US Administration to pull and "end run" around our own legislature. These problems include: undermining of several Supreme Court rulings; making facts rather than expressions copyrightable; making non-creative assemblages of obvious information copyrightable; encouragement of monopolism; undermining of the public's fair use rights to government information maintained by contractors; undermining of the Freedom of Information Act; vagueness in definitions to the extent that "database" can mean almost anything; providing for the copyright of even minute amounts of information in a database; establishing essentially infinite-duration copyright by allowing a minor change to a "database" to reset the period of copyright coverage; attempting to hold online system operators liable for the actions of users beyond their control; and finally prohibiting necessary reverse engineering, cryptanalysis and software recovery by greatly over-broad criminalization of tools to perform these tasks if they can also conceivably be used for copyright infringement. In short, the treaty draft is ill-conceived, and caters to the wishes of a small number of corporations at the expense of the entire public. |
|
RIAA-Lover
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 11:16 PM
That is freaking scary. The corporations are out of control and I fear there is nothing we can really do to stop them. Give the masses their alcohol, reality shows and Walmart and they seem to be content. Frightening stuff. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 11:20 PM
Good article. Glad to see it happening.
Love the logo, btw. |
|
gdZiemann
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 11:22 PM
Realizing that was a vague statement, let me rephrase -- Glad to see a copyright reform movement taking shape. |
|
RIAA-Lover
|
Date: October 2, 2003 @ 11:24 PM
Leflaw - you asked me about by name on another thread. I have a dark sense of humor. |
|
wwhwooo
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:00 AM
just bought 2 cd's(used) tried to burn copy for use at work-failed one "enhanced" other "copy controlled" IFPI. Old nakamechi dragon & metal tape looking good again. used to record fm radio on reel to reel for later playback. what would the fine be for that? we need more protection from unreasonable search and seizure (ie spyware etc) and less protection for money grubbing giant corporations with failed business models. music has long been one of the most corrupt and exploitative of all industries. |
|
FatesWebb
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:41 AM
ThePirateKing
Since the writer signs over the copyright to the publisher, actually the publisher is the REAL copyright owner. I agree 7 percent is VERY LOW even half of the standard set for years. Just more examples of how the publishing business has gotten out of control.
FatesWebb
""In all fairness to publishers, and what-not, shouldn't the bigger chunk of the profit go to the artist, or writer who is the REAL copyright holder?"" |
|
FatesWebb
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:43 AM
wwhoo, nothing can stop acoustics, and the fact that mp3s are not the best quality anyways, I suggest setting a mic next to the speaker, and record the cd as mp3.... SO WHAT ewwwe you protected it....
FatesWebb |
|
Free2B
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:50 AM
:shootuzi: RIAA
Viva DMUSIC Revolution! |
|
stopthemadness
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 2:26 AM
what a shame that the RIAA is playing this game at the expense of the buyers of their wares. from biting the hand that feeds you comes very severe consequences. as this charade draws out even longer, the goverment will see the mass destruction this modern monster called the RIAA has created and strike them down with the same letter of the law that they playing around in the courts with their jackboot lawyers. what comes around, goes around. LL cool J needs to wake up, because he forgot where he came from...........hollis queens without a pot to piss in. the RIAA is is going to stab him in the back with the same hand they are patting him with. to the revolution :) |
|
Justin42980
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 3:55 AM
way off topic here, but Deltron 3030 has a song called Del's Nightmare which is a song based on basically how RIAA's screw the artists.. good song, you should give it a listen |
|
Justin42980
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 3:57 AM
LL should realize how much the RIAA has made off of his album and if he really had any gull he would realize that he probably could've made ten times as much as he did if he got his fair piece of the pie... |
|
Justin42980
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 4:00 AM
DELTRON 3030 is tha hoooot sheeit!! |
|
evildownloader
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 7:07 AM
In order to sue someone for lost income, especially such a high amount, doesn't the plaintiff have to prove that the defendant actually cost them that much? I would think they need to submit all kind of evidence that would link each individual with an actual dollar amount. Maybe I'm just naive in thinking the law should be fair. |
|
wwhwooo
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 7:22 AM
things i have downloaded are things i wouldn't buy or couldn't find... ie are off the market/out of print but these "enhanced" cd's mean WAR!!! |
|
leflaw
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 7:47 AM
Michael Robertson and Mp3.com had to pay $25,000 per CD . |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 7:50 AM
Copyright reform is essential. Both
leflaw and CodeWarrior both say this, but we need to really DO something. Just working our typing fingers is not getting it done.
-bulkeraser |
|
Bufo
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 8:16 AM
This is a great article. Glad to see that copyright law is getting more attention on the file sharing debate (at least on this website). There are a few good articles in the copyright forum of this site as well (see, for example, aaron29's post on Oct 1)
But you are correct, bulkeraser - we need to get articles on copyright reform out in the mainstream media, not just this website. If we can make the public at large realize how unfair and unjust our copyright laws are, it will change a lot of people's perspective on the P2P file sharing debate. Remember, the RIAA gets its power from the existing copyright laws. We should not destroy all copyright law, of course. And we may not even be successful in reforming the existing law to a great extent. But we should be able to at least make it a major issue in the P2P debate. |
|
INeedAlover
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 9:13 AM
Here's a novel solution to the copyright dilema: Make it illegal for ANY corporation to hold a copyright. That would solve most of the problems we are experiencing and put the monopolisic idea of copyright where it was intended to be.. in the hands of the writer and artist. Wow what a novel idea! |
|
leflaw
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 9:14 AM
I have registered copyrightreform.org and copyrightreform.net , and I dedicate one of them (i don't care which one) to the movement.
Time to get serious. As soon we get $1,000.00 or more contributions in, I will try to buy .com ( its for sale).
(not to out down our contributors - you have been GREAT!!!!! |
|
independentm...
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 9:16 AM
Copyrights should be non-transferable. If you created it, you should not be able to sell it or give it away. (Or have it stolen from you by some company/corporation.)
Shmoo, of Electric Gypsy
http://electricgypsy.iuma.com |
|
darknite9
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 9:22 AM
INeedALover is right, that would eliminate the work for hire clause of artists contracts. They would retain all rights and could sell to the lowest bidder for distribution rights while taking the majority of the profit. Kind of like George Lucas arrangement with Fox studios. He makes star wars, they get a small (3-5%percent if I remember right) for the right to distribute the film to theaters.
Since Copyright was originally intended for the creators, could work for hire be challenged and declared illegal? |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 10:34 AM
I noticed CodeWarrior created a cool
banner on the need for copyright reform, repeal of the DMCA, and down with Digital Rights Management...
at:
http://codewarrior.web1000.com/ |
|
1953GM
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 10:42 AM
Ineedalover is on the right track! |
|
0utsyder
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 10:55 AM
With this copyright law that says they own the music that we buy that means that CD's and tapes that get stolen that I buy the RIAA should have to replace them, becuase if I don't own them to do as I please then someone does and someone 0utsyde of me should have to replace them. |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 10:59 AM
They own the music, you own the CD physical media. No vendor of any product that I know of, has a duty or is liable to any customer for stolen merchandise, except, credit card companies limit cardholder liability to 50 dollars on stolen cards.
-bulkeraser
"Making blanks out of ones and zeros" |
|
TheFirstNutZo
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 11:00 AM
Is there way that we could get that logo blown up real big and put onto a T-Short or long-sleeve shirt? Or maybe in the form of sew on shoulder patches?
A new requiring individuals to own copyrights would be good, but here is a small catch -- a corporation is considered an individual under law. That is why they are allowed to bring civil charges against people, by law, a corporation is an individual. |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 11:56 AM
It is a great logo. Is it copyrighted by leflaw? There's probably a lot that would like to use that, but, we wouldn't want to copyright infringe (wink wink), so, info appreciated. |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:00 PM
WE NEED TO USE THE TERM "NATURAL PERSONA", NOT JUST PERSON, BECAUSE A NATURAL PERSON CANNOT BE A CORPORATION, BUT A PERSON CAN.
Black's Law Dictionary (7th Ed.) (1999) defines "person" as:
1. A human being.
2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being.
Black's defines "natural person" as:
A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law. |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:00 PM
MEANT NATURAL PERSON, NOT PERSONA. SORRY FOR TYPO.
|
|
Jazzmary2U
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:29 PM
register. vote. register. vote. register. vote.
oh,yeah.. and boycott, too!
T-shirt logo: I WANT MY MP3! |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:51 PM
The only problem is that currently, over 37 states are using then touch screen voting machines. They have a known back door and wireless connections and are proven to be "hackable" and they are made by DIEBOLD, Inc. and the head of Diebold has already professed his complete allegiance to Mr. Bush, and I believe he said something like he would do whatever it took to get Mr. Bush re-elected. I think the fix is already in...and there will be no hanging chads to count when its just ones and zeros!
-bulkeraser |
|
Bufo
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:53 PM
Hmm - not sure if it would be a good idea to make it illegal for a creator to sell his/her copyright. There may be cases where it is in the best interest of the copyright holder to be allowed to sell or trade it.
But the important thing is to modify copyright law so that the terms (and penalties for infringement) are reasonable. If we went back to the 14+14 yr term, there would be a lot of music in the public domain which could be shared on P2P with no legal threats.
This in turn would cause the prices of "new" commercial music to go down since folks will have the option to exchange "free" music in the public domain. And of course, Artists should be free to allow some of their creations to be shared on P2P (for exposure) even if those creations are copyrighted. |
|
Bufo
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 12:55 PM
... And I concur with others on this posting. The Copyright Reform logo is really cool. |
|
tomsong
|
Date: October 3, 2003 @ 11:33 PM
The European Database Directive is a dubious piece of legislation passed a couple of years ago that says the data and structure of a database can be copyrighted.
Kind of a dicey situtaion; and a perfect example of how the IFPI and Jay Berman go back and forth between the EU and the US Congress and attempt to lengthen terms on both ends, usually calling it a "minor clarification." Or "bringing into line with world trade agreements." Whichever is longer.
If we were to resolve this in our favor, it would be in the opposite direction; that is, convene WIPO and clarify that "facts" and "underlying ideas" must remain free. |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 4, 2003 @ 11:05 AM
tomsong- I don't believe WIPO is amenable to working this out in our favor, regardless of facts. If you agree that the WIPO is globalist in orientation
(almost a given from its very name,
World Intellectual Property Org.), then, it is in many respects, set against the concerns and rights of the individual, and favors the imposition on governmental controls and big corporate controls over copyright to the detriment of the individual. The DMCA is written in such a way as to favor a draconian , and aggressive prosecution of cases against allegedly offending individuals. The 150,000 penalty per song pales against the provisions of criminal penalties which are also part of the DMCA, under which, if a user is perceived to trade/share a copyrighted material in exchange for financial reward (which can be, in exchange for other copyrighted material, as in a P2P upload/download scenario), the first offense can result in 5 yrs in fed prison and a half million fine. For the subsequent offense, 10 yrs in prison and a million fine.
WIPO and DMCA are anathema to individual consumer rights. The DMCA is a daunting document to read, but, nestled among its provisions, is some of the least customer friendly, and most corporate/government friendly legislative provisions I have ever seen.
Trying to get the WIPO to change things for the better, to me, would have been like the prisonsers at Aushwitz demanding the commandant start cooking kosher food and giving each person a car.
The point is, when an organization almost has as its raison d'être , the eliminaton of individual rights and controls, and privacy, you must effect changes externally, i.e. from other organizatons and from the people.
And, where does our government get off imposing these Euro standards on us anyway? Wasn't this country founded to free ourselves from oppressive Euro domination and control anyway?
You don't make Hitler better by asking him to shave his moustache off. Something that is fundamentally evil must be opposed in its fundamentality,
not by trying to make it more palatable!
-bulkeraser |
|
bulkeraser
|
Date: October 4, 2003 @ 11:26 AM
(can't take credit for all the above,
most of that I got from something CodeWarrior wrote a while ago)
-bulkeraser
"Making blanks out of ones and zeros" |
|
50sKid
|
Date: October 5, 2003 @ 5:53 PM
Been thinking about this for quite a while, and will now jump into the discussion. This is an excerpt from a letter I sent to Steven Spielberg, at Dreamworks (7-29-02), and forwarded to my entertainment attorney, outlining the terms I expect from a potential purchaser of the RIGHTS to some of my work, which I personally copyrighted (for $ 30 a script) :
---------------------------------------
Rather than sell the scripts outright, I want to retain permanent ownership, including book and other rights, similar to the way that a playwright does with their material.
Also, rather than ask a high initial, one-time price for each script, I want to set up a financial arrangement where I am paid a non-refundable advance, as payment against a percentage of the gross receipts of the movie. This would be similar to the contract in a book deal. This advance would be a minimum of $ 200K per script.
In this way, your initial investment would be relatively small, I would be paid enough to justify the writing of the script, and we would both fairly share the risks and rewards involved in each project.
---------------------------------------
I think the same arrangement should be the only way to go for any creative person; writer, musician, painter, or other artist. The riaa, or any other corporation, should not own a copyright, or even a patent. Those should be owned by the creator of the work. In instances where the corporation supplied resources necessary to bring the work to fruition, they could get a break on the fee paid to license the work. No exceptions, and no work-for-hire / slave labor loop hopes. Without the person who creates the material, the majors would have to work for a living, just like the rest of us, so they need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Also, the limits for copyrights and patents definitely need to go back to the more rational 14 + 14 year model. If you can't make a reasonable profit in 28 years, then you need to let someone else have a go at it.
I'm thinking outside the box, and that may be one of the reasons that my stories are not being requested for reading, but so be it. All progress is made, as a famous person once said, by unreasonable [not docile] people.
The Kid |
|
|
Navigation
