SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports
The US Copyright Office is asking the tech industry and members of the public to comment about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and in particular the rules governing copyright infringement.
Section 512 of the DMCA gives ISPs and internet hosts immunity from prosecution if material that infringes copyright, such as music tracks, is taken down promptly if the entity owning the rights to it protests. "Repeat infringers" are penalized.
[...] The DMCA was signed into law in 1998, and since then flaws have been consistently pointed out in the legislation, not least with section 512. So the Copyright Office wants to know how to improve things.
"The Office will consider the costs and burdens of the notice-and-takedown process on large- and small-scale copyright owners, online service providers, and the general public", the request reads.
"The Office will also review how successfully section 512 addresses online infringement and protects against improper takedown notices. To aid in this effort, and to provide thorough assistance to Congress, the Office is seeking public input on a number of key questions."
In the request for responses, the Office posits 28 questions it would like answered, including how the legislation is working in practice, what legal precedents are affecting its operation, and whether takedown notices are effective. It also asks for any academic studies on the matter.
[...] The guidelines for submissions will be posted on February 1 and the open period for comments ends on March 21, so there's plenty of time to get a submission ready. How much good this will do, however, remains to be seen.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday January 09 2016, @09:55AM
Your statement presupposes that copyright is intrinsically wrong.
Well, that's because it is. Enforcing copyright necessarily requires censorship, and censorship is intolerable. Copyright infringement cannot actually cause tangible harm, so what we have is a victimless crime. You cannot "lose" a sale because you never owned the sale to begin with, and you also cannot own potential future profits. Any initial investment to organize the data in the first place was taken on by the authors; people who engaged in unauthorized copying after the product was released did not force the authors to make such an investment, so you cannot blame them for the initial investment.
You're creating a victimless crime that promotes censorship and loss of private property rights, and then saying that the ends justify the means because you believe you'll get more shiny goodies out of it.
then I could justify the idea of copyright enforcement, and the DMCA.
Nothing would justify the DMCA. How can forbidding people from removing digital restrictions management be justified? How can censorship be justified? Even worse: How can 'censor first, ask questions later' policies be justified? It my eyes, they can't.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 09 2016, @03:31PM
"Enforcing copyright necessarily requires censorship,"
I can't agree. Back when I was growing up, you bought music on vinyl, or you just listened to it on the radio. Only wealthy people could afford reel-to-reels. If you wanted vinyl, you paid the price. It cost ten or twenty cents for the studios to make and ship the vinyl, and they charged you a dollar for it. Or, if you wanted the whole album, it cost the studios forty or fifty cents to press the vinyl, and they charged you $5 to $10 for the album. There was no censorship involved - you wanted a physical item which could produce the squacking noises you liked, you paid the price.
Along came cheap tape, and everyone was recording whatever they wanted, and carrying it with them, wherever they wanted. Up on a mountain, in a tunnel, hell, you could take it to the dark side of the moon if you wanted (and if you had the ride to get there). No one bothered you, unless you were SELLING these recordings.
Today, the *IAA's of the world are working toward actual censorship. Swap a few bits of data with friends or peers, and they want millions of dollars, or imprison you. Yeah, that amounts to censorship.
But, getting back to basics, copyright law was never meant to stop people from sharing information, or to stop people copying music, or whatever. The original idea was, "if there's any money to be made from a song or story, then the author should get some of that money". I can't argue that. If you write a story tomorrow, and within a year, half the population of the world pays $10.00 to own their own copy of it, then you SHOULD get some of that money. If, however, no one wants to pay for the story, you are still entitled to some of that profit - which is $0 of course.
That is where copyright has gone most seriously wrong. There is a presumption that the author can set the price of the story, and that he should get rich off of it. People just don't think that those works of art are that valuable.
They would do better to put their works out there on the internet, and ask for donation. If I really enjoy a movie, book, or song, I can hit the Paypal link, and donate fifty bucks. If I like it, but not a whole lot, I can donate ten bucks. If it actually sucks, but it amused me a little, I can donate fifty cents. And, if it REALLY sucks, I can submit a bill for the time wasted watching the crappy movie.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Touché) by mcgrew on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:23PM
Back when I was growing up, you bought music on vinyl, or you just listened to it on the radio. Only wealthy people could afford reel-to-reels
How old are you, Grandpa? I had a tape recorder when I was 12 and we were far from wealthy. I'm 63 now. Traded cassettes the whole time I was in high school. File sharing dates back to the 1960s, and a decade later recording was explicitly legalized.
It cost ten or twenty cents for the studios to make and ship the vinyl
Citation sorely needed, especially the shipping part. You also left out warehousing costs and retail overhead and profit.
hell, you could take it to the dark side of the moon if you wanted
People did take music to the far side of the moon. Aside from those few nits, your comment was insightful.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday January 09 2016, @05:06PM
I can't agree.
Copyright creates a system where people can be punished for making/distributing copies of data in certain circumstances. How is this not censorship? Even disregarding the censorship angle, it still reduces your private property rights.
The original idea was, "if there's any money to be made from a song or story, then the author should get some of that money".
Why? It's my money and I choose where to spend it. If I want to give my money to some guy making copies of a song someone else made instead of the original author, that's my business. You don't own my money before I give it to you, you don't own potential sales, and you don't own potential future profits.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 09 2016, @06:13PM
> If I want to give my money to some guy making copies of a song someone else made instead of the original author, that's my business.
I cam imagine that a creator that caught you doing this, might decide that it was THEIR business to give you a punch in the nose...
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 10 2016, @02:46AM
the original concept of copyright was that, in exchange for temporary exclusive distribution rights, that once your period of exclusive distribution ended the work became public domain. it was both a way to enrich the public domain and allow people a way to survive while working on their next project. its one of those "the benefits outweigh the cost" cases. this has, however, become extremely distorted such that nothing remains of the original concept. most people don't have a problem with the original concept of copyright, just idealogues like you who refuse to compromise or budge on anything short of what they consider "perfect".
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday January 10 2016, @12:51PM
the original concept of copyright was that, in exchange for temporary exclusive distribution rights, that once your period of exclusive distribution ended the work became public domain.
Infringing upon free speech and private property rights to stop something that doesn't even cause any real harm in order to obtain more shiny goodies is not justifiable to me at all. The original concept of copyright was flawed as well. Whether or not it is effecting at encouraging innovation is a secondary matter, but no one has even demonstrated scientific evidence that it does such a thing.
I cannot, in good conscious, support punishing people for behaviors that are not truly harmful, even if doing so allows for more innovation.
its one of those "the benefits outweigh the cost" cases.
Only if you don't mind punishing people for engaging in an activity that isn't even harmful and place a very low value on freedom.
most people don't have a problem with the original concept of copyright,
What most people do or do not have a problem with is irrelevant. Why did you feel the need to mention this?
just idealogues like you who refuse to compromise or budge on anything short of what they consider "perfect".
Yes, yes. Typical nonsense where you take the easy way out and label anyone you don't like as an "extremist" or an "ideologue"; it has the convenient benefit of allowing one to shut off their brain and not think about the validity of the arguments presented, but whether or not that was your intention, I don't know.
Anyway, what you're saying is just false. Perfect is the enemy of good. I am all for compromises that will improve the situation from my point of view, which means I would accept (or temporarily tolerate) weaker copyright laws. Of course, it would not stop there and I would continue advocating for the complete abolition of copyright. But in the mean time, I'm all in favor of lessening the severity of these rights violations. I would recommend that you simply ask me what my positions are, instead of pretending that you know what they are or getting this information from some unknown source.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday January 10 2016, @11:16PM
who said anything about shiny goodies? i'm talking about fucking food and shelter, you know things required to survive:
allow people a way to survive while working on their next project
nope, not anyone, just you, because i know from experience that you will never budge on your positions or compromise in any way, no matter how irrational, extreme, and incorrect they are. well, not just you because there are plenty of others around here who refuse to compromise or budge from their positions no matter what, but you, specifically, i know it is true of you because i've read enough of your posts and you make it extremely obvious in just about every discussion you take part in. there's a word for that kind of thing too, "idealogue" [merriam-webster.com].
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday January 11 2016, @01:04AM
who said anything about shiny goodies? i'm talking about fucking food and shelter, you know things required to survive:
There is no fundamental right to make money doing a particular job, and the ones who engage in copying neither help nor hurt that goal. Some business models fail and others succeed, but you don't get to infringe on other people's freedom of speech just to 'guarantee' yourself a minimum amount of income. Since they are not causing harm, it is unjustifiable to me to punish them. The ends don't justify the means.
And since you were talking about the original intentions of copyright, you should know that copyright in the US was not intended to exist so that artists can make money doing their jobs, but to promote innovation. The copyright clause makes this clear. Giving people monopolies on the distribution of particular implementations of ideas was just a means to that end. Quite a difference, there.
So I am baffled by your response, because it appears to indicate that you think that we can infringe upon people's fundamental rights and outlaw actions that are not even harmful so that some people can make enough money doing particular jobs. I don't find that to be justifiable. It seems to me that what you might want is a basic income.
because i know from experience that you will never budge on your positions or compromise in any way,
I've already told you that this is false, and that I would be willing to accept a compromise if it meant having weaker copyright law even if that isn't my ultimate goal. Are you trying to tell me what I believe? If so, that is rather foolish, I think. Why not just argue with an imaginary opponent if you're going to do that?
Or what do you mean by "compromise"? To give up my position because I don't share your values?
no matter how irrational, extreme, and incorrect they are
I'm not seeing how my position here is irrational or incorrect. You may not share my values, but you have not shown my position is logically flawed.
How "extreme" you think a particular position is has nothing to do with its validity, so I'm not sure why you bothered mentioning that. Why would I "budge on" (What does this mean, exactly? You listed it as a separate thing from "compromise", so I assume they are different.) a position merely because it's considered "extreme"?
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:14PM
If you get rid of copyright, nobody could make a living writing. You would have a LOT less good art, music, or literature.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday January 09 2016, @04:56PM
I don't know whether or not that is true. Neither do you, even though you stated that as a fact.
More importantly, the ends don't justify the means. I value freedom of speech, private property rights, and not having victimless crimes over having more shiny stuff.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 13 2016, @04:34PM
There's a lot wrong with current copyright law, true. And some people would in fact write and paint and play music because they enjoy doing so, but Stephen King would write a lot fewer books and your favorite musicians would release a lot less music. It's a fact that you can't live without money in this society, and unless you're rich or retired you have to work. No copyright means writing is no longer a job.
But copyright is way too long, and I think noncommercial file sharing should be legal.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday January 13 2016, @05:50PM
I don't know what a society with our level of technology without copyright would look like. As far as I know, none exist. I can't draw a conclusion as to whether or not what you're saying is true.
But I ultimately care more about the freedom of speech and private property angle than the discussion about innovation.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday January 10 2016, @01:23AM
If you get rid of copyright, nobody could make a living writing. You would have a LOT less good art, music, or literature.
Da Vinci, Michelanglo, Handel, Bach, Shakespeare, Chaucer... wouldn't have created anything?
I'm not saying we shouldn't have copyright; I am saying that the current length of protection is far too long (by over a century in some jurisdictions) and the restrictions on personal use are truly insane. I am also saying that copyright isn't the only way of compensating writers, composers, sculptors, painters, coders, teachers...
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday January 13 2016, @04:29PM
If you got rid of copyright the rich would have culture and no one else. But I agree that copyright lengths are WAY too long. I'd like to see the Bono Act repealed.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience