In Europe, Pirates Are Writing Copyright Law

StanStill · Jan 6, 2015

Interesting article I found. Just curious how lovers of liberty feel about copyright law, if it is being abused, and if it needs to be changed. The EU is about to rewrite theirs, but I have a feeling the Pirate Party is going to have an uphill battle.

How long can one own the "rights" to something they already sold to you?

In Europe, Pirates Are Writing Copyright Law
Strangely unreported by mainstream media, there is a major revision of the copyright monopoly underway in the European Union. And the person in charge, Julia Reda, is a Pirate Party representative. The tide is turning.

For years – nay, for decades – net activists and freedom-of-speech activists have been fighting against the copyright industry's corrupt initiatives. In country after country, the copyright industry was practically calling out for mail-order legislation, and receiving it every time.

The collateral damage to liberties has been immense, and has spilled far outside the net. In the US, people are complaining that copyright monopoly law is now unintentionally preventing them to modify items they legally own, such as cars or games consoles. They're absolutely wrong: that was the exact intention with the most recent round of revisions to copyright monopoly law – to limit property rights and to lock people out of their own possessions. (The copyright monopoly is, and has always been, a limitation on property rights.)

Read more...

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

Do you have as much contempt for physical property rights of individuals as you do for intellectual property rights of individuals?

StanStill · Jan 6, 2015

PapaBull said:
Do you have as much contempt for physical property rights of individuals as you do for intellectual property rights of individuals?

Funny you say that... because the battle over copyright monopolies is a battle between the property rights of individuals and the intellectual property rights of copyright holders.

If I buy something it becomes mine to use as I see fit, right? Sounds like you are the one who doesn't believe in property rights.

Kontrary · Jan 6, 2015

The pirate party does great work and has some valuable research. The implications of the patent laws means that so many impoverished on the planet do not have access to drugs that would relieve suffering and even cure them. They have also done a great job at debunking the lie that pharm companies "own" these drugs they patents because they spent so much on research...what people dont realize is how much money our own taxes have provided to this research they patent (other entities also provide money, such as grants from non profits, other nations contribute, educational facilities as well as previous work already done that they build upon).

The pirate party actually illustrated that it would cost us LESS if we were to fund research ourselves directly and simply pay a fair profit margin to those who manufacture drugs, they need not be entities we do our "research" through.

This is definitely a battle cause of course its a scenario that pits profit against whats actually good for humanity...and profit wins so much of the time because the dedicated greedy work very hard at it. They are rather brilliant in couching this issue being about music or movies and make it seem as if they are protecting people, but its really just the opposite.

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

StanStill said:
Funny you say that... because the battle over copyright monopolies is a battle between the property rights of individuals and the intellectual property rights of copyright holders.

If I buy something it becomes mine to use as I see fit, right? Sounds like you are the one who doesn't believe in property rights.

Absolutely. If you buy INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, you can use them as you see fit. If you just steal the intellectual property instead of purchasing the rights to that intellectual property, you are not rightful owner and cannot do as you see fit. If you spend a year writing a book, I think it's fair that YOU get the royalties for sales of YOUR work. Someone copying it and selling it has no right to profit from YOUR work. If you don't support copyright law, you don't support the work of scientists, artists, musicians, inventors, etc. etc. etc. Basically, you assume that you should be able to steal the work of others and that makes you a thief - at least at heart.

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

Kontrary said:
The pirate party does great work and has some valuable research. The implications of the patent laws means that so many impoverished on the planet do not have access to drugs that would relieve suffering and even cure them. They have also done a great job at debunking the lie that pharm companies "own" these drugs they patents because they spent so much on research...what people dont realize is how much money our own taxes have provided to this research they patent (other entities also provide money, such as grants from non profits, other nations contribute, educational facilities as well as previous work already done that they build upon).

The pirate party actually illustrated that it would cost us LESS if we were to fund research ourselves directly and simply pay a fair profit margin to those who manufacture drugs, they need not be entities we do our "research" through.

This is definitely a battle cause of course its a scenario that pits profit against whats actually good for humanity...and profit wins so much of the time because the dedicated greedy work very hard at it. They are rather brilliant in couching this issue being about music or movies and make it seem as if they are protecting people, but its really just the opposite.

Clearly you don't make a living creating intellectual property. I'd wager you'd have a very different opinion if you made your living producing intellectual property like musicians, writers, inventors and researchers do. It's all good as long as it's someone else (otherwise known as "not you") that's ...... out of the rewards for their work, isn't it?

Rorschach · Jan 6, 2015

"ARRR! These here movies, charaacters and stories belong to us now, maties! ARRRR!"

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

Rorschach said:
"ARRR! These here movies, charaacters and stories belong to us now, maties! ARRRR!"

Yeah, .... those ........ that put in the work and sweat to produce intellectual property that WE enjoy. They should be satisfied just knowing that we enjoy their work for free. I wonder how many of the ........ that would begrudge artists the profits of their work would be happy if other people stole the profits from THEIR work. "Sorry, no paycheck this week. The people deserve the product of your labor for free. Sorry about your luck, pal".

That's under the unlikely scenario that any of them know anything about working for a living, of course.

Kontrary · Jan 6, 2015

PapaBull said:
Clearly you don't make a living creating intellectual property. I'd wager you'd have a very different opinion if you made your living producing intellectual property like musicians, writers, inventors and researchers do. It's all good as long as it's someone else (otherwise known as "not you") that's ...... out of the rewards for their work, isn't it?

Again you show you dont know that much about the issue, most artists dont actually own their own work, a corp does.

johnflesh · Jan 6, 2015

Kontrary said:
Again you show you dont know that much about the issue, most artists dont actually own their own work, a corp does.

That's quickly changing with self publishing.

Kontrary · Jan 6, 2015

johnflesh said:
That's quickly changing with self publishing.

Currently more artists are able to access the public directly and distribute their art on their own but we will have to fight to keep that because as it stands now, they keep trying to pass new laws about the internet that would create more and more obstacles and sending us back to a system where everything has to go through a distribution chokehold that some corps can make money on....making it more important than ever to keep the net free of those. As people do find a way to circumvent the old systems, they are figuring out how to plug that hole back up.

BUT, these laws are much more about things like drugs than about music itself (although I do think the arts are very important)....there is a reason that the discourse is always about movies and music, it keeps people from looking at what the implications are for our health care..and there is NOTHING beneficial about patents in that area for humanity (for those who rake in great profits there is, but thats a minority that win while the majority will suffer).

johnflesh · Jan 6, 2015

Kontrary said:
Currently more artists are able to access the public directly and distribute their art on their own but we will have to fight to keep that because as it stands now, they keep trying to pass new laws about the internet that would create more and more obstacles and sending us back to a system where everything has to go through a distribution chokehold that some corps can make money on....making it more important than ever to keep the net free of those. As people do find a way to circumvent the old systems, they are figuring out how to plug that hole back up.

Yes but in these cases, I'm fairly confident that the artists will manage to find a way. Currently many are enjoying success at minor and self made labels.

BUT, these laws are much more about things like drugs than about music itself (although I do think the arts are very important)....there is a reason that the discourse is always about movies and music, it keeps people from looking at what the implications are for our health care..and there is NOTHING beneficial about patents in that area for humanity (for those who rake in great profits there is, but thats a minority that win while the majority will suffer).

I realize this. My response was to your point about artists. I'm an artist so I have a little invested in that sense.

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

Kontrary said:
Currently more artists are able to access the public directly and distribute their art on their own but we will have to fight to keep that because as it stands now, they keep trying to pass new laws about the internet that would create more and more obstacles and sending us back to a system where everything has to go through a distribution chokehold that some corps can make money on....making it more important than ever to keep the net free of those. As people do find a way to circumvent the old systems, they are figuring out how to plug that hole back up.

BUT, these laws are much more about things like drugs than about music itself (although I do think the arts are very important)....there is a reason that the discourse is always about movies and music, it keeps people from looking at what the implications are for our health care..and there is NOTHING beneficial about patents in that area for humanity (for those who rake in great profits there is, but thats a minority that win while the majority will suffer).

What's beneficial about patents in the area of intellectual property is that if you make a policy out of letting everyone steal and profit from the intellectual property of others that can be the result of great expense and great effort, then you destroy the motivation to spend the money and effort involved to create that intellectual property. If you can steal software or movies or drug formulas, you're stealing just as much as if you're pulling up to a warehouse in a panel truck, cutting the lock off the door and helping yourself to the merchandise someone else bought and paid for.

Kontrary · Jan 6, 2015

johnflesh said:
Yes but in these cases, I'm fairly confident that the artists will manage to find a way. Currently many are enjoying success at minor and self made labels.

I realize this. My response was to your point about artists. I'm an artist so I have a little invested in that sense.

Well they wont find a way if they make it illegal or prohibitive...what if you have to pay a boatload of cash to be able to put your stuff up on the net where people can access and even buy from you?

And the MAJORITY of work is not owned by the creator, its owned by a corp...thats a fact even WITH the access we now enjoy with the internet...when they plug that hole up, they will get rid of the minority who own their own creations AND are actually making a living on their work.

Kontrary · Jan 6, 2015

PapaBull said:
What's beneficial about patents in the area of intellectual property is that if you make a policy out of letting everyone steal and profit from the intellectual property of others that can be the result of great expense and great effort, then you destroy the motivation to spend the money and effort involved to create that intellectual property. If you can steal software or movies or drug formulas, you're stealing just as much as if you're pulling up to a warehouse in a panel truck, cutting the lock off the door and helping yourself to the merchandise someone else bought and paid for.

No actually pharm companies are stealing from tax payers around the world...we all help fund their research but ONLY THEY profit and horde the products benefit unless someone can afford to pay them their desired profits. Foundations, govts, charities etc who also fund this research dont demand patents to help, only corps do and we allow this via patents...we should get rid of that.

Currently we have lots of people who make money of SOMEONE ELSES creation and can even block the creator from performing their own creation! We arent protecting creators of art, we are protecting corps ability to own it and horde it and make the profits on it..even at the expense of the creator so the patent and copyright laws dont even accomplish what you claim they do.

NiteGuy · Jan 6, 2015

PapaBull said:
Absolutely. If you buy INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, you can use them as you see fit. If you just steal the intellectual property instead of purchasing the rights to that intellectual property, you are not rightful owner and cannot do as you see fit. If you spend a year writing a book, I think it's fair that YOU get the royalties for sales of YOUR work. Someone copying it and selling it has no right to profit from YOUR work. If you don't support copyright law, you don't support the work of scientists, artists, musicians, inventors, etc. etc. etc. Basically, you assume that you should be able to steal the work of others and that makes you a thief - at least at heart.

Not at all.

The first copyright laws in this country allowed for an author of a particular work a 14 year period of protection, with extensions of 14 years if the author survived the original 14 year life of the original copyright.

But these limitations on copyrighted works have been greatly expanded - to the point that copyright protections now extend 70 years after the death of an author. And the driver of these extensions have not come from individuals, so much as they have from corporations.

For instance, much of the works of Walt Disney would be ending within the next two decades. But because Walt ceded the copyrights to the Disney corporation, those works are now effectively protected in perpetuity. That was not the intent of the original copyright laws.

Or take Sherlock Holmes. The estate of Conan-Doyle has argued for decades that the Estate is entitled to royalties and licensing fees on all of Conan-Doyle's works, so long as the estate survives. Fortunately a judge has slapped down such nonsense:

"The Case of the Greedy Estate" is a story in three parts. First, in 2013, editor Leslie Klinger filed a complaint against the Conan Doyle Estate regarding an anthology of new Sherlock Holmes stories. The estate had threatened to block sales of the anthology unless it received a licensing fee for the use of elements of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories.

Ruben Castillo, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that, even though not all Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain, elements from the stories that appeared before January 1st, 1923 are in the public domain.

Then, in Part II of our saga, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner rejected an appeal made by the estate, concluding in June 2014 that, "The spectre of perpetual, or at least nearly perpetual, copyright … looms, once one realizes that the Doyle estate is seeking 135 years (1887–2022) of copyright protection for the character of Sherlock Holmes as depicted in the first Sherlock Holmes story."

And that brings us to Part III in "The Case of the Greedy Estate." Editor Leslie Klinger sued the Conan Doyle Estate for reimbursement of legal fees. Judge Posner ruled in favor of Klinger and, in doing so, issued a warning to the estate, comparing its behavior to extortion.

Another Legal Victory Keeps Sherlock Holmes In The Public Domain

There is nothing wrong with copyright laws. There is something wrong with trying to hang onto them, practically speaking, forever.

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

NiteGuy said:
Not at all.

The first copyright laws in this country allowed for an author of a particular work a 14 year period of protection, with extensions of 14 years if the author survived the original 14 year life of the original copyright.

But these limitations on copyrighted works have been greatly expanded - to the point that copyright protections now extend 70 years after the death of an author. And the driver of these extensions have not come from individuals, so much as they have from corporations.

For instance, much of the works of Walt Disney would be ending within the next two decades. But because Walt ceded the copyrights to the Disney corporation, those works are now effectively protected in perpetuity. That was not the intent of the original copyright laws.

Or take Sherlock Holmes. The estate of Conan-Doyle has argued for decades that the Estate is entitled to royalties and licensing fees on all of Conan-Doyle's works, so long as the estate survives. Fortunately a judge has slapped down such nonsense:

There is nothing wrong with copyright laws. There is something wrong with trying to hang onto them, practically speaking, forever.

I agree with THIS. I don't agree with the elimination of copyright laws overall, though, because that's just plain theft. What the hell is so wrong with people that we can't simply agree that somewhere in the middle is a good and reasonable area of common sense? Why do people have to argue logical fallacy exclude the middle like either copyright laws are evil and should be overturned - or they should be in force forever (or nearly so as 70 years seems to be from the perspective of a single human lifetime).

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

Kontrary said:
No actually pharm companies are stealing from tax payers around the world...we all help fund their research but ONLY THEY profit and horde the products benefit unless someone can afford to pay them their desired profits. Foundations, govts, charities etc who also fund this research dont demand patents to help, only corps do and we allow this via patents...we should get rid of that.

Donations are donations. Unless you attach strings to donations, you can't claim there are strings attached. I know that pharmaceutical companies spend enormous amounts of money funding their own research. How do you think we help fund their research? If it's with profits from drugs we buy, then your argument fails, because when you buy drugs, the drugs are yours and the money you pay for them is theirs.

Kontrary · Jan 6, 2015

PapaBull said:
Donations are donations. I know that pharmaceutical companies spend enormous amounts of money funding their own research. How do you think we help fund their research? If it's with profits from drugs we buy, then your argument fails, because when you buy drugs, the drugs are yours and the money you pay for them is theirs.

No actually whats been shown is we spend less money if we directly fund the research and dont funnel it to them via "profits"...AND we get the added benefit of researching what we NEED instead of whats most profitable AND we get the added benefit of sharing ALL information learned along the way in a research project that other researchers can access that would help them in their own research instead of shielding all information as "proprietary" which only SLOWS progress.

PapaBull · Jan 6, 2015

Kontrary said:
No actually whats been shown is we spend less money if we directly fund the research and dont funnel it to them via "profits"...AND we get the added benefit of researching what we NEED instead of whats most profitable AND we get the added benefit of sharing ALL information learned along the way in a research project that other researchers can access that would help them in their own research instead of shielding all information as "proprietary" which only SLOWS progress.

I think those who directly fund the research have all the rights to the product of that research. So is it your contention that we should prevent people from doing private research so that they can't have a private claim to the work? If you prohibit anything but socialized research funded by taxpayer dollars (although I'm not confident that's a great idea), the public is or should be the benefactor of all intellectual property that results. I'm not understanding the dilemma for you here unless you don't want to stop private research and only want to prevent the from profiting from the product of their own efforts.

Search

Search

In Europe, Pirates Are Writing Copyright Law

StanStill

PapaBull

StanStill

Kontrary

PapaBull

PapaBull

Rorschach

PapaBull

Kontrary

johnflesh

Kontrary

johnflesh

PapaBull

Kontrary

Kontrary

NiteGuy

PapaBull

PapaBull

Kontrary

PapaBull

Similar Discussions

Recent Discussions