Why Piracy Is Indispensable For The Survival Of Our Culture

[Just18]

Last Year Techdirt wrote about the case of the huge collection of historic jazz recordings that had been acquired by the US National Jazz Museum. The central problem is that even if the recordings can be digitized before they deteriorate, very few people will hear them because of their complicated copyright status.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/09565417551/why-piracy-is-indispensable-survival-our-culture.shtml

[Just18]

Neil Young seems to have changed his view

Neil Young: Piracy Is The New Radio

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/13311617627/neil-young-piracy-is-new-radio-quality-sucks.shtml

[Crow]

Good links Just18 thank you.

[Archie]

Good links Just18 thank you.

+1

Pirates are going to be tomorrow's heroes when they save stuff that would otherwise be dungeoned by self-proclaimed authorities of copyrights who cannot distinguish between the disintegration of stored information and laws that say they cannot be copied because if you do, you'll go to jail.

In today's competing world of art and technology, Open Source would stand a better chance of survival than those who'd rather "protect" their intellectual rights by applying piracy laws incorrectly.

Better technology with the power of the collective ...

Peace and much respect,
Archie

[parnote]

Good links Just18 thank you.

+1!

The first link makes an excellent case for a radical rethinking of current copyright laws. Six to 12 years should be sufficient for allowing the original author to make their wages from.

Just my $0.02.

[Just18]

Good links Just18 thank you.

+1!

The first link makes an excellent case for a radical rethinking of current copyright laws. Six to 12 years should be sufficient for allowing the original author to make their wages from.

Just my $0.02.

Yep,  .....  except I had settled on 5 years for music and a max of 10 years for other artistic work, with a grading in between.

I have though been rethinking my position of late and have not yet re-settled.

As the right to copy protection is one granted by society to particular works for the benefit of the creator of that work, so that the creator might be able to continue to produce artistic works for the benefit of the society granting the copy protection, I have been having a re-think about the very existence of this right.

In the first place, there is no benefit to society if the work is not accessible to all, without hindrance or cost, from the beginning.
This would imply to me that ALL personal use, copying, sharing etc should be explicitly allowed from the beginning.

After that, the commercial utilisation of any work, needs to be considered.
I have not given serious thought to this aspect, but I can not presently see a great objection to a system where commercial use of a work would need a payment to the originator.
The length of time within which that payment would need to be made could be specified along the lines of ...
a number of years (say 10 years) ..... the right passed to the originators estate should he die within the time period. A scale of years for different types of works could easily be done.

In addition, that copy right should NOT be saleable or re-assignable unless as a result of death.
It does NOT benefit society to allow that right to be sold.
It should be vested ONLY in the originator of the protected work.
That would not prevent any originator from using the granted right as collateral for any dealings they might undertake ....  such as showing proof of potential or present income to a lending party to show ability to repay; or even assigning the income from the commercial use of a particular work to a lender for the period of protection.

Also, there could be a provision built in, that after the 10 year period expires, the originator of the work could apply for an 'extension' of the copyright for another period of some years .....  maybe 3 or 5.  This would allow for those situations where a work was not used commercially for some years, but began to be used near the end of its copy right time, and only at that late stage was the originator benefiting from the copy protection.

There is also the possibility that works could require a specific application for copy protection. I am unsure of the benefit (to society) of this proposed scheme.

Balanced against the above, is the question of the existence of copy protection in any form.
Does such copy protection actually benefit society at all?
The actual benefit to society, I think, needs a real present day re-assessment.
Remember, to society, the monetary element of this is not of importance. The benefit is in the continued generation of artistic works.

Would elimination of copy protection seriously damage that benefit to society?
I think probably yes ......  who could afford to make specific documentaries, films, etc etc without some protection from commercial exploitation by others? Probably some, but they would be those who were funded by 'special interests'. The independent voice would be lost. That would be a huge loss to society.


So, I see a benefit to society of copy protection for commercial purposes, for a limited time. That time period could be graded against the type of artistic work being considered.
All personal use, sharing, copying etc should be explicitly allowed.
Copy protection should only apply to commercial use of a work.

With such a scheme in place, I would have no objection to heavy consequences for anyone making commercial use of a copy protected work.
In truth I believe there would be few such breaches.

****

Of course the above is never going to happen.
The direct opposite course is well on its way.
Society's rights are being taken by commercial interests for their own gain.

I have no idea how this can be stopped and reversed without public objections on a large scale.

It is not sufficient, I believe, to only object to new restrictions being introduced, but it is vital that an alternative, such as I have outlined above, be proposed, lobbied for, and generally pushed.
In the meantime, public demonstration of objection to new restrictions, is needed.
I would urge everyone - particularly in the EU - to get out and object to ACTA during the day appointed this month.
There are organised objection demonstrations in almost every city in the EU.

/rant

[kjpetrie]

Your time period is fine for a short work such as a song or short poem or a cartoon, but a series of novels or an opera might take years (or even decades) of work to create, and obviously needs protection for a much longer time. I know you say different kinds of work should have different time scales, so I suppose you are aware of that.

Most feature films never recover the cost of production, and therefore the maximum possible time is needed to persuade their backers to invest in them. Similarly, most 'important' books never make a profit and are subsidised by best-sellers from the same publisher.

In the digital age all these economics shift, and it is possible new business models should emerge, but we need to be careful they don't result in the serious being replaced by the popular to such an extent that society loses sight of things that really matter.

The really worrying thing is that the extent of illicit copying and the industry response has become so ramped up that reasonable approaches are being lost in the rhetoric. Copyright is essentially public recognition of private property, and it is for the owner of the right to decide what should be done with it. That's being lost in all the rhetoric about theft and enforcement. You Tube et al have no knowledge of the private deals which might authorise the uploading of a video, so they can only rely on a contractual requirement that people only upload what they have permission to upload. Perhaps they could require evidence of that permission, but then they would also need proof of ownership to validate that. It is unworkable.

On the other hand, preventing a creator uploading their own work would also be an infringement of copyright, since the owner has the right to make copies.

It's a complicated problem which needs a carefully thought-out solution. That can't happen in the blaze of political name-calling which passes for public debate these days.

So thanks, just18, for attempting to start a proper thought process.

[Just18]

Copyright is essentially public recognition of private property, and it is for the owner of the right to decide what should be done with it.

It may be the way the above is worded, and not intended, but as it is, I would have to disagree.

Ownership is not in question at all when copy protection is considered.

The ownership of the original work is with the creator and they can do as they wish with the original.

Copy protection is to give the originator time to reap the benefits of their work, so that society can have the benefit of creators living in its midst.

Regarding a series of novels ......  each work gets copy protection from the day of its release. So each in the series can be treated as a separate item.
Remember, it is a specific work that is protected under copyright law.


There are lots of works that could fall under copy protection ......  physical works such as paintings, furniture and so on.

I see no reason why, for instance, a cabinet makers efforts should be treated any differently to those of a painter. Just an example .....  there are many works which should fall under copy protection, not just paintings, pictures, movies, music etc.

It was in consideration of such that I mentioned time scales.
The ease of copying should not be a consideration in the law.
The law should address only what should be copy protected and for how long, along with the consequences of breaching the law of course.

It would then be still applicable when we get hold of those duplication machines sci-fi is so fond of showing us 

A good law, or set of laws, will address the copy protection granted to works, and the time it is granted for, as well as the consequences of breaking the law, and not concern itself with how such a law may be broken in the future.

So, as I see it ......  if I am allowed to share a copy of a work with whomever I choose, the law should not be concerned with how I might do that .......  provided it is not a commercial venture.

Taking that attitude could well mean that the likes of Youtube could be considered commercial ventures.
So, maybe Youtube should not exist, as its purpose is to make a profit.

That should not stop someone else setting up a non-profit (non commercial) similar site.

Yes it gets complicated ......  of that there is no doubt .......  but that is exactly why a 'good law' or set of laws is required.
Clear limitations on what would be regarded as 'commercial' would be set out in such a law.

Everyone would know where they stand; what is within the law and what is not.

If the will was there, it is possible.

I know of no place where there is political will to do such as this, hence my belief I will never see anything close to it.

BTW .....  I recognise there are gaping holes to be filled in what I have posted. No problem it is just an outline of the way I am thinking, nothing more.

Thanks for the response kjpetrie