SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The United Kingdom is holding a consultation as to when a provision of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 should take effect. Copyright in works of artistic craftsmanship—utilitarian objects (even if mass-produced) which are deemed artistic—shall be extended. Currently, the copyright lasts for 25 years after an item is first offered for sale; the new term will be for the life of the creator, then another 70 years. This means that some works which are now in the public domain will become copyrighted. Publishers of derivative works of such items, for example a book or film in which a work of artistic craftsmanship was photographed, will be obliged to obtain permissions, except for uses which fall under fair dealing.
The provisions may come into effect as soon as 2016, or as late as five years hence, depending on the outcome of the consultation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Monday December 14 2015, @05:01AM
25 years is too long.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @05:53AM
This will kill innovation and stop new designs and art for decades to come.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday December 14 2015, @09:02AM
Yes. The only reason someone designs a chair is the certain knowledge that nobody else is allowed to make one like it for at least 25 years.
Now, people will flock to chair-design knowing they will be able to rake in the cash for 70 years after they die.
It's only fair.
Please ignore the fact that, of all chair designs, there MIGHT be 50 chair designs that are still for sale (new) 25 years after the design was first put into production.
What makes this beyond stupid is that that not only do you have the sole right to making and selling of said chair design, but also that you own some portion of any image of the chair, even after you have sold it.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Whoever on Monday December 14 2015, @06:15AM
Got to motivate those dead craftsmen. I am sure that the deceased will be encouraged by this new IP rights extension to dig themselves up and start producing new objects.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @06:18AM
Indeed. I find the concept of retroactive law quite crazy and very scary.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mendax on Monday December 14 2015, @06:27AM
I like what Mark Twain said about copyright:
Whenever a copyright law is to be made or altered, then the idiots assemble.
Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.
[Regarding his views on the appropriate length of copyright, which was not long enough in his day] The children are all I am interested in; let the grandchildren look out for themselves.
Leave it to Mark Twain to make sense out of nonsense.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @02:19PM
I like this quote better:
Around Whites, eternal copyrights. --Ethanol-Fueled [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by drussell on Monday December 14 2015, @07:33AM
Does nobody else think the copyright extension BS has gone way overboard and is totally out of control?
Why are we (the citizens) not standing up against these shenanigans!??
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday December 14 2015, @08:01AM
Citizens do stand up against them. It's just that our opinions don't matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @08:38AM
Or, perhaps, that our opinion (mine too!) actually is in the minority?
... I'm just playing devil's advocate here :-) I actually am interested in your answer.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday December 14 2015, @05:09PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Monday December 14 2015, @11:36PM
The problem with that, is that we've pushed them to the final stages of the war. They're not giving up the money, and control. We're not giving up our money, control, or privacy either. Common sense cannot prevail period here when you're dealing with low pieces of shit that have no respect for basic human rights.
Since they have no control over the Internet as they did with their old limited distribution channels, and the Internet allows us to take control back from them, then it logically follows that they must control the Internet. Exactly what is happening, and they're attacking anonymity and privacy (and encryption), as it most effectively allows such civil disobedience. You've assumed (possibly) that they will just stop in the face of such resistant behavior. Possibly, even intelligently, they might respond with reform and new business models. Unfortunately, they've demonstrated that in their greed, they're more than willing to destroy basic human rights to maintain control and prop up old industries.
Civil disobedience is very quickly extending in areas that should've never had it at all. Like the basic human right of private communications, and the right to peaceably enjoy one's property. Both of these things act as accomplices to our "crimes", and must be removed if they're going to control anything. Whole purpose of the DMCA was to legitimize the idea of a corporate watchdog in all products to combat our civil disobedience. Our privacy isn't good for business, and reactive laws are simply too slow and costly. We must be watched at all times through our devices in order to protect an ever increasing IP platform.
Pandora's box was opened, they can't control the consequences, so the solution is to destroy us all by letting all of our freedoms die. All to support an idea of how to foster creativity and innovation. Instead of recognizing that one simple fact, they're pushing to legitimize the truly horrid idea of actual ownership of expression and ideas.
Egyptian pharaohs were thought to be Gods simply because they lived and survived past so many generations of slaves. I forsee a future where a child one day may think it's correct that he can own an idea for hundreds of years, creating his own family dynasty. Why not? Disney own whole planets, and that started from a fucking drawing of a mouse. Not that it matters. The chance of that boy coming up with anything original to escape his 3rd class citizenship, and to change his social status, is nearly impossible in the face of huge lawfirms using AI technology to threaten him at every point of his creation with the solemn information of how truly owned his butt is. Easier to work for a large collection of IP that can already protect itself, or in other words, his nearest Wallmart or Google corporate overlords.
Civil disobedience is fine and all, but it doesn't foster positive change anymore. In order to do that, we need to fight them where it matters. IP laws themselves need to be rolled back and changed, and the UK should be utterly ashamed of themselves.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @01:00PM
Egyptian pharaohs were thought to be Gods simply because they lived and survived past so many generations of slaves.
new term will be for the life of the creator, then another 70 years.
Imagine if the life extension stuff succeeds...
I wonder what the penalty would be for illegally copying it and how much the rich will pay for it and how they will afford to pay for it ;).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @08:35AM
Yes, why indeed.
When was the last time you stood up and joined a public protest? When was the last time you contacted the elected represantatives for your area about the topic, to inform her/him about your opinion? When was the last time you did so for the representatives that were _not_ elected in the previous election? When was the last time you made your voting decision contingent upon this topic?
I'm not really trying to attack you personally, but most people uttering your cry to action have not even performed those simple tasks. Tasks that are entirely in the possibility of every citizen and entirely inside our legal frameworks. Tasks that, at least in principle, should be the very foundation of a working democracy. Tasks that, at least in principle, could stand a chance to actually make "them" do what "we" want - if enough of "us" actually want it.
This stuff is a little like a marriage: if you keep bitching to your friends, but don't talk to your spouse, then it's not going to get better.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Monday December 14 2015, @11:22AM
Laws like these are changed because politicians make money from changing them. No amount of protest or letter writing will compete with that. Best thing to do is just disobey copyright law to the extent you are able.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @10:15AM
The average person doesn't give a rat's ass about copyright until somebody DMCA's one of their family video YouTube uploads.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by unzombied on Monday December 14 2015, @06:36PM
Only appears "out of control" at first glance. These are simple changes with obvious beneficiaries. What they show is who is currently in control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @11:10AM
A photograph of a mere object has long been held to not infringe copyright of the object itself. If a craftsman does not want his commercially available products photographed and published, he can get them out of the picture themselves -- recall all copies and destroy them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 14 2015, @05:45PM
1. "mere object" != "a work of artistic craftsmanship"
2. "has long been held to not infringe copyright of the object itself": in which country? it might be the case in the UK, I don't know, just pointing out that you didn't specify and that copyright laws vary from one country to the other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 15 2015, @02:41AM
I submitted the story. I see no inconsistency between the text you've quoted and the Ars Technica and Dezeen articles. One article quotes a publisher, and the other quotes a different publisher, as well as a letter signed by various "design historians, design writers and design educators." They might be wrong, but they do work in the field. The possibility you raise, that existing books may have to be pulped, is a possible consequence they decry. In contrast to your suggestion, I would expect that task to fall on publishers and booksellers.
The taking of a photograph, or the creation of a useful object, could be deemed non-creative. This story is about objects which meet a threshold of originality, which in the UK is lower than in some other parts of the world.
Here's a link to someone's blog post, where the notion of derivative works is explained succinctly:
http://1stangel.co.uk/blog/derivative-works-when-do-i-need-permission/ [1stangel.co.uk]
Note the mention of "a painting or photograph of a sculpture". The situation is similar to a photograph with a work of artistic craftsmanship as its subject.