Slashdot | UK Report Suggests Tougher Copyright Laws

Why are our governments wasting so much time on this? Could it be that they are all being paid on the hush hush to do so? If that is the case, why don't we revolt?

Seems that stubborn headed ignorance is the rule of the day? Its a shame..

. No matter what decision is made, all this time, money, and resource has already been wasted to try to equalize what one industry wants made into law to line their own pockets. Yeah, I know, this is just one industry, but this is the industry that is on topic.

.. its a start if we all, and I mean all, simply stop buying music.

See how that suits them. Don't buy any for gifts this year; don't buy any for personal use. They can't possibly prosecute all downloaders, nor could they afford to continue to do so without revenue.

We can't all be put in jail...

• by Josh Lindenmuth (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @08:44PM
  • by zappepcs (Score:3) Wednesday December 06, @08:52PM
    • by Josh Lindenmuth (Score:3) Wednesday December 06, @09:00PM
      • by 1u3hr (Score:3) Wednesday December 06, @10:45PM
      • by bky1701 (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @11:53PM
    • by ThaReetLad (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @04:28AM
  • by Mr2001 (Score:3) Wednesday December 06, @09:19PM
    • by LordSnooty (Score:3) Thursday December 07, @05:02AM

      How else would you suggest they stop the problem? No matter how you cut it, downloading copyrighted music without paying for it is a crime.

      Ah yes, and the fact that it is illegal is the end of the argument of course.

      The law is the ultimate decider of morality, right? The fact that certain groups have purchased law that leans heavily in their favor, in direct contravention of the stated premise of the area of law in question, that is immaterial, yes? I do not have to supply an alternate solution to the "problem".

      The "problem" is the solution. If a small cartel of non-producing corrupt money-grubbers think they can erect a permanent fence around our common freakin' culture and charge us admission, the only solution is to refuse to acknowledge the validity of the fence and knock it down wherever we can. "but it's against the law!

      "

    • by cpt kangarooski (Score:3) Thursday December 07, @02:09AM
      • by melikamp (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @07:55AM
    • by julesh (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @10:47AM
    • by fair_n_hite_451 (Score:1) Thursday December 07, @12:58PM beneath your current threshold.
  • by MikeFM (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @04:08PM
    • by Hyperspite (Score:1) Friday December 08, @03:25AM
      • by MikeFM (Score:2) Friday December 08, @10:37AM
        I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes. I have good friends who are musicians, and they are seeing huge declines in their incomes from music sales, even though they seem to have larger fan bases and draw greater crowds at concerts.

        While most of us here at /. buy our music legally, this is not the case for the majority of people with MP3 players and digital music collections. While the move to independant music publishers and online distribution of legal music is good for some (particularly those who like to listen to non-mainstream music), it won't address the problem.

        Any ideas for how to effectively stop illegal downloads?

        beneath your current threshold.
    • by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday December 06, @08:36PM
    • by QuantumG (Score:1) Wednesday December 06, @08:39PM
      • by Salvance (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @08:54PM
        • by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @08:57PM
          • by AntiDragon (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @08:44AM
            • by QuantumG (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @08:51AM
              • by AndrewRUK (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @04:01PM
              • by QuantumG (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @05:47PM
              • by Weedlekin (Score:2) Friday December 08, @06:40AM
            • by jotaeleemeese (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @10:13AM
              • by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @10:28PM
                • by TheLink (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @12:12AM
                  • by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @01:16AM
                  • by TheLink (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @02:06AM
                  • by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @03:12AM
                  • by TheLink (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @08:48AM

                    So you're saying that you could get ten million people to invest ten dollars, sight unseen, into a movie, for the eventual hope that they'll possibly like it?

                    Do you think a business model like that would genuinely fly?

                    Yes and yes. If I liked Terminator 3 a lot, and I knew Terminator 4 was at risk of not being made, would it be worth $10 to fund its production -- particicularly if I knew I'd be able to get my money back if it didn't get made (i.

                    e. if not enough money could be raised after all)? Of course it would.

                    That's $10 I'd be spending on a ticket anyway, right?

                    We have enough trouble just getting people to donate money to people who really need it, let alone to people who just want to create entertainment/art/whatever. The entire idea is completely against human nature.

                    No, it isn't. See, this isn't a donation, it's payment for a service, which incidentally benefits more than just the people who pay for it. It's like if ten people live on a dirt road, and eight of them get fed up with the dust, so they pool their money and hire someone to pave the road.

                    They aren't donating money to the paver, or to each other; they're paying for the benefit of living on a paved road. Now, it happens to be the case that the two people who didn't pay, and any of their visitors, will also get to enjoy that benefit, but the reason it got paved in the first place is because those eight people felt strongly enough about it to open their wallets. If enough people feel strongly enough certain types of movies, those movies will get made.

                    It's just like what we have now, but with a more direct connection between funding and production - studios won't have to drop $100 million on a movie just to find out that it only sells $50 million worth of tickets.

                    • by Shaper_pmp (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @09:32AM
                    • by orkysoft (Score:1) Thursday December 07, @09:45AM
                    • by Mr2001 (Score:1) Thursday December 07, @06:08PM
                  • by AGMW (Score:3) Thursday December 07, @06:45AM
                    • by Mr2001 (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @07:10PM
                    • by AGMW (Score:2) Friday December 08, @03:08AM
                      • by Salvance (Score:3) Wednesday December 06, @09:09PM
                        • by zappepcs (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @09:14PM
                        • by MidnightBrewer (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @11:27PM
                          • by QuantumG (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @11:56PM
                        • by InspectorPraline (Score:1) Saturday December 09, @12:09AM
                          "I happen to agree that the world needs far tougher copyright protections, and ones that are more effective (while being less intrusive) than current DRM schemes." Well, if you mean better protections, I don't think it is needed, but.

                          .. However, if you mean harsher penalties, they are already way over the top.

                          I think I know why, but that doesn't excuse things. As far as I can tell, you can get a way harsher sentence in my country for being found in posession of a knock off CD or DVD that you purchased thinking it was legit than for going into a store and really stealing the genuine article. Somehow that seems backward to me.

                          all the best,

                          • by Tim C (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @02:36AM
                            • by zotz (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @07:45AM
                          • by julesh (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @11:54AM
                            • by zotz (Score:2) Friday December 08, @09:26AM
                              • by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @10:55PM
                              • by cliffski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @04:22AM
                                • by westyvw (Score:2) Friday December 08, @01:07AM
                                • by openright (Score:1) Wednesday December 06, @10:14PM
                                • by 1u3hr (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @10:53PM
                                • by WindBourne (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @11:32PM
                                • by drsmithy (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @11:55PM
                                  • by cliffski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @11:25AM
                                    • by drsmithy (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @07:32PM
                                      • by cliffski (Score:2) Friday December 08, @03:53AM
                                        • by drsmithy (Score:2) Friday December 08, @02:32PM
                                          • by jZnat (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @02:08AM
                                        • by rohan972 (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @07:25AM
                                          • by cliffski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @11:30AM
                                            • by rohan972 (Score:1) Friday December 08, @02:24AM
                                              • by cliffski (Score:2) Friday December 08, @03:57AM
                                                • by rohan972 (Score:1) Friday December 08, @07:40AM
                                                  • by cliffski (Score:2) Friday December 08, @10:25AM
                                                  • by rohan972 (Score:1) Friday December 08, @06:09PM
                                                  • by blahplusplus (Score:2) Saturday December 09, @03:16AM
                                                    • by MidnightBrewer (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @11:20PM
                                                      • by fuzznutz (Score:1) Thursday December 07, @12:16AM
                                                        • by MidnightBrewer (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @08:30AM
                                                          • by fuzznutz (Score:1) Thursday December 07, @10:07AM
                                                            • by MidnightBrewer (Score:2) Friday December 08, @04:01AM
                                                            • by aadvancedGIR (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @04:45AM
                                                            • by jotaeleemeese (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @10:27AM beneath your current threshold.
                                                          • by jrumney (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @08:02AM
                                                          • by mdwh2 (Score:1) Thursday December 07, @09:26AM
                                                            • by Beryllium Sphere(tm) (Score:3) Wednesday December 06, @10:44PM
                                                              • by GauteL (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @06:35AM
                                                              • by ThaReetLad (Score:1) Thursday December 07, @07:11AM
                                                              • Is one that only allows copyrights to be owned by people, not corporations.
                                                              • Is one that is of a definite scope and duration, with possibly shorter durations for works that are intrinsically transient, such as software.

                                                              • Is one that has a limited-scope exemption from copyright infringement for purposes that would qualify as fair usage.
                                                              • Is one that has an unlimited exemption from copyright infringement for personal and private copying.
                                                              • Is one that does not get ammended to legally inihibit people from excercising the priveledges afforded by the above two exemptions merely because of the obstacles posed by enforcement.

                                                              • by zotz (Score:3) Wednesday December 06, @09:03PM
                                                                • by mark-t (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @12:11AM
                                                                • by cpt kangarooski (Score:3) Thursday December 07, @01:36AM
                                                                  • by zotz (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @07:35AM
                                                                    • by teknognome (Score:1) Wednesday December 06, @09:49PM
                                                                    • by strider44 (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @01:54AM
                                                                    • by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @10:08PM
                                                                      • by cpt kangarooski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @01:44AM
                                                                        • by ZachPruckowski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @02:03AM
                                                                        • by Pofy (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @03:02AM beneath your current threshold.
                                                                      • by muonman (Score:1) Wednesday December 06, @09:13PM
                                                                      • by cpt kangarooski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @01:25AM
                                                                      • by Tim C (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @02:44AM
                                                                        • by mark-t (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @02:57AM
                                                                      • by kinkie (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @03:24AM They just cant say 'the copyright holders need more heaploads of money for longer durations' to the public of course, hence they come up with 'innovation' crap. You cant innovate nothing if you dont already have huge capital behind your back.

                                                                        There are millions of people trying to 'innovate' under the current system, yet the percentage of those who succeed are comparable to the rates of people winning lotteries. More bought 'opinion', i say, about this 'report'. Give me 2-3 million dollars extra, ill go buy you another 'respectable' 'report' that is saying copyright is bad.

                          Not sure what these guys's point is. You can always ask a recording executive what their opinion is and get a vote for more copyright laws. The fact that we study European copyright laws brings up an interesting point.

                          Europeans take copyright laws much more seriously than u.s., they analyse the licenses exhaustively before they touch any IP even if there's no consequence to them, so they don't have as many laws enforcing the licenses.

                          Because they care about the license, open source software has become much more popular in Europe. U.s.

                          ahans don't take copyright laws seriously at all, so they've created more laws. U.s.

                          ahans go by whether it's downloadable and what the password is. When the emphasis is on downloadability over licensability, you get less attention to open source in u.s.

                          .

                          "Criminals made over 270m from film piracy in 2005, making this the worst affected single sector for intellectual property crime out of all IP industries. "This is revenue that has been lost to the local and national economy and is affecting British jobs.

                          " SO the supposed 270 million lost suddenly disappeared from the British economy? If you are going to make a case for more copyright protection, at least be honest about it. Stop trying to look like you are working for "the people" cause we all know "the people" want free movies.

                          Not that it's anything we don't already know but the current copyright laws do not serve the purpose that they were intended to. Protecting the rights of the author to profit from his ideas while protecting the public to make use of and grow from the benefits provided by the idea. Personally, I feel copyright laws should be abolished and redone from scratch.

                          
                          My biggest argument for this lies in the fact that different forms of intellectually property are not treated fairly and equally. Why should the author (and heirs) of copyrighted song benefit for 70 years after his death (and in perpetuity through renewals), while the author (and heirs) of a patent for a fusion reactor containment system only be allowed to profit for a total of 20 years after the filing of the patent??

                          ? Ask the 'A' in "RSA" about this sometime. He's not dead but the protection of his property is.

                          Walt disney has been dead for 40 years, yet you still can't make a cartoon mouse without being sued.
                          Is a song worth more than a fusion reactor? No.

                          Is a fusion reactor worth more than a song? No. (Well, I think it is but I'm generally considered uncultured.

                          )
                          My point is that both are intellectual property and both should be treated fairly and equally with regards to each other. Whether your view is "Copyrights should last 20 years after the filing of the copyright" or "Patents should last 70 years beyond death and be renewable", I don't care. But the intellectual effort of all authors should be treated with a measure of equality.

                          
                          My view point is 20 years after filing for both. That seems to strike the right balance of the author gets to make a huge profit for 20 years while the public can derive a benefit in the foreseeable future.
                          

                          • by stubear (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @09:59PM
                            • by jwiegley (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @10:38PM
                              • by 1u3hr (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @02:31AM
                          • by cpt kangarooski (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @01:51AM
                          • by julesh (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @11:18AM OK, since obligatory moan for some reason the eds posted a story about a BBC article and not my version straight from the source /obligatory moan , let's get a few things cleared up.

                            
                            We're talking about the [hm-treasury.gov.uk].

                            This was a wide-reaching review, covering a lot more than just copyright, though of course copyright is a major component in our IP framework.
                            In terms of copyright law, here are some of the major recommendations from the review:
                            

                          • The EC should not extend the copyright term for sound recordings and performers' rights. Moreover, if any extensions are proposed, they should not be retroactive.

                            (The arguments given for this approach would make most Slashdotters proud, I imagine!)

                          • The UK should introduce a tightly specified private copying exception, to legalise format-shifting.
                          • Enforcement needs to be stronger, with tougher penalties and consideration given to a fast track procedure.

                          • It is too early in the development of DRM to start legislating about it, but it should not be allowed to interfere with legitimate uses of copyright material that are non-infringing. An existing mechanism to report such abuses of DRM is noted, but is so convoluted that no-one has ever used it. The Review recommends making this process much more obvious and easier to use.

                            The Review also recommends taking another look at some of these issues further down the line to investigate whether the system is working fairly.

                          Personally, I agree with most of the review's conclusions and recommendations. I was, however, disappointed that they felt the need to limit their recommendation for a personal copying exception so much.

                          The Review acknowledged that some personal uses were perceived, incorrectly, to be legal by many people, and that banning such uses by law damages the credibility of copyright as a whole in the public eye. They also acknowledged that some of these uses do not harm the interests of the copyright holder. They have also stressed throughout their process that their review would be evidence-led.

                          I find it intriguing, therefore, that they have completely failed to address other reasonable personal uses mentioned in several of the submissions, such as backing up, recording broadcasts, and making compilations.
                          Some submissions gave quite reasonable arguments based on existing law in favour of explicitly legitimising these. For example, under blanket UK consumer protection legislation, any article purchased from a shop must be (a) fit for purpose, and (b) capable of lasting for the expected lifetime of the product.

                          Since the expected lifetime for information is indefinite, abusing copyright and/or DRM so that when someone's CD wears out they have to buy a whole new CD because they couldn't take a back-up should be a violation of UK trading laws. (Bizarrely, under the proposed system, you could take a back-up as long as it's in a different format, and if your original copy wore out you could then shift the information back again as you would still have only a single copy in any given format of material you had legitimately obtained.)
                          On the whole, I give them 8/10 given the huge scale of what they were attempting.

                          At least pretty much everything I've read of the review so far is a reasonable position, and most of it is a clear improvement on where we are now. My complaint, such as it is, is more that they didn't go far enough in some areas than that they went in the wrong direction. But such is progress, perhaps.

                          
                          

                          • by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Wednesday December 06, @09:33PM beneath your current threshold.
                        • by julesh (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @11:43AM
                          • by Anonymous Brave Guy (Score:2) Thursday December 07, @12:51PM
                            The planet is much smaller. The exchange of information and culture is much faster.

                            Technological development grows and changes at a pace that isn't easily contained by the interests of copyrighted content holders. Indeed, the amount of intellectual property claims also seems to be growing at ever-increasing rates. I argue that the current mass of IP is already beyond managable levels and in fact has grown to the point that it impedes new artistic works and inventions which is contrary the original intent of "IP" as a concept and institution.

                            As a means to reduce the present condition and in the interests of preventing the stagnation of technology and human advancement, I propose that a REDUCTION in the term limits of copyright and patents such that they not extend beyond five years for patents and ten years for copyright from the point of such claim is initially granted. We don't need to extend copyright and patent terms. We shouldn't keep them at their present duration.

                            They should be reduced as it is quite obvious that patent claims are used and traded to the exclusion and extortion of smaller, emerging business. Copyrights serving beyond the death of the original creators are not serving the purpose commonly cited which is to compensate artists for their work. Indeed, it is being harvested by non-creative parties whose interests are not those of the public which represents a complete abuse of both parties intended to benefit from the creation of copyright as a concept and institution.

                            A reduction in copyright terms would restore copyright to better serve the public's interests and those of the creators of copyrighted materials.

                            The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which represents the mainstream recording industry, broadly welcomed the report but said it would continue to press for the copyright extension. Peter Jamieson, chairman of the BPI, said: "Stealing music is effectively stealing the future of British musicians and the people who invest in them.

                            "The decision on extension is ultimately for the European Commission and we will be putting our case vigorously when it reviews the relevant directive next year."

                            I love this bit - they don't even try to justify the reason for copyright extension which is they want to continue making money of something old - and they probably can because *some* people will still buy 51 year old stuff if they find it valuable. The point is that the material has passed into collective conciousness if its still wanted after 50 years and it ought to be free (I mean in the public domain not free as in beer).

                            Putting things in the public domain doesn't translate to free as in beer - you still have to get it from someplace and unless its widely available someone can certainly charge you for the convenience of making it available. Ofcourse you can turn around and host it yourself and they can't do anything about that. What putting things in the public domain does do is allow anyone anywhere to study it freely, edit it, really do whatever they damn well please with it and not have consequences.

                            Yes I'm being a heretic and saying that something that is old but still profitable should be given away to anyone for anything for essentially free because that will encourage creativity. It will also help ensure those works actually get preserved. If something is available freely and openly and anyone can make copies of it (books, music, movies software, whatever) then it stands a much better chance of survival then if its still controlled by one company.

                            The Association of Independent Music (AIM) said it was particularly unhappy over the issue of allowing more private copying. A spokesman said: "This is taking pragmatism to the point of capitulation, and falls drastically short of creating the progressive copyright framework needed in the digital age. "By tidying up a small part of the copyright law, we believe Gowers may well be opening the floodgates to uncontrolled and unstoppable private copying and sharing from person to person, as well as format to format.

                            "

                            This one is od coming from AIM precisely because they are supposed to be independent and I thought the issue of pivate copying was more of an issue for the major labels - I've not had time to follow the money yet. I think they misunderstood something though - Gowers advocated private copying and format shifting yes but they did not say without DRM. This ofcourse begs the $64,000 question - how the heck do you get something under a DRM scheme into the public domain after the copyright term is up.

                            Frankly I'd hope that with 50 years in the interim we could break any DRM there was quite easily by brute force if need be but the question is if the format will remain readable over that period at all. I'd say obligate companies to release material into the public domain after their copyright term is up in a current format without any restriction. Yes this costs money but they did profit of the damn thing for 50 years - its minimum payback and the cost is already pretty damned low.

                            1. Make your weak, long ranged laws strong but short ranged. 2.

                            Back stab people and extend them with the DMCA 2.0. 3.

                            The RIAA profits (you don't).

                            Remember the "warnings" on record sleeves "Home taping is killing music" - did it? Copyright was supposed to be to protect the melody and words of a song so that another artist cannot copy large parts of the song/melody without paying royalties.

                            Not to stop the audience getting hold of the song. It's a greedy, ugly industry trying to scare governments into passing laws to make their income stream bigger and easier to maintain. Want to know why sales are falling?

                            Because a lot of mainstream music is bland, boring crap. Where are the protest singers in the charts? Where are the artists?

                            It's all family oriented, safe for the children, shrink wrapped, corporate approved, vaguely pornographic nonsense.

                            * Legalising copying for private use (between devices, or reencoding between formats - yes, it's sad that this has to be made legal, but it's still a step forward). Whilst many including myself are against tough penalties for file sharing, I'm not sure many people have a problem when it comes to those profitting from piracy?

                            Having said that, I am worried about the mention of "bootleggers" - I would worry if this covered those selling (often rare) live recordings which have never been published by the record companies; many of these would have been lost forever if it wasn't for bootlegging.