Imagine copyright free Europe

[cvrle77]

The ability to make and share content without having intellectual property rights may become reality if the EU parliamentary Committee on International Trade (INTA) continues following the lead of a pirate in its ranks.
The document entitled On a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy was released in September and is the brainchild of MEP Amelia Andersdotter, the sole member of the Swedish Pirate party on the INTA.
In outlining the INTA?s recommendations to the EU committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), the paper strikes a populist tone by expressing its awareness ?that some people increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what lies behind it.?
It recognizes that intellectual property rights (IPR) are a driver for innovation, growth and job creation, and calls on more global cooperation in order to ?uphold and modernize intellectual property rights in the future.?
As the dossier expresses ?regrets? over ?the losses incurred by European entrepreneurs? in the absence of a clearly defined IPR regime, the committee?s next recommendation seemingly comes out of left field:
?[The INTA] Calls on the Member States and the Commission to develop IPR policy in order to continue to allow those who wish to create their own content and share it without acquiring IPR to do so.?
Tech Dirt immediately hailed the language, saying ?an official document from the important trade committee of the European Parliament is calling for the option to create without copyright being attached.?
As the only directly elected European institution, a recommendation stemming from an EU parliamentary committee could in fact have very real consequences for the future of Europe?s attitude towards a more liberal IPR regime.
Andersdotter herself is no stranger to navigating the often treacherous waters of the EU, as the 25-year-old already convinced the parliamentary committee on Industry, Research, and Energy to reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) this past summer. Her push to reject ACTA was later followed by the INTA and ultimately the entire EU parliament.
Jeremie Zimmermann, a spokesperson for the digital activist group La Quandrature said the EU decision to ax ACTA was a political symbol of such ?global significance? that ?the way will be open for copyright to be reformed in a positive way.?
If the latest INTA recommendations were in fact intended to become the cornerstone of an IR regime which drastically curbs economic sole right of copyrighted works remains to be seen.
One stumbling block could be the 1968 Berne Convention for the protection of Literary and Artistic Works.
Signatories to the Berne Convention, which includes all members of the EU, are required to recognize the copyrighted works of authors from other signatory countries
While the convention makes copyrighting automatic regardless of the author?s wishes, the 1993 Copyright Duration Directive extended the term of copyright protection to 70 years after the creator?s death for all EU members.
As the existing framework automatically locks in copyright protections for such an extended period regardless of the creator?s wishes, the INTA recommendations may in fact be a corrective to the fixed nature of the Berne Convention by empowering copyright owners to freely give away their work to the public domain.
In this context, the aim of the INTA might not be to create a world where a vast swatch of intellectual property can be shared freely and legally as long as it is not for commercial gain, but rather to give copyright owners more flexibility to freely share their own work.
How AFET reacts to the recommendations presented will go a long way towards clarifying whether a more open copyright system is in fact on the horizon, though it remains to be seen how, if, and when they will officially respond.

Source

cvrle77 Reviewed by cvrle77 on 4th Oct 2012. Imagine copyright free Europe Source Rating: 5

[Ifirst]

if this happens they many people(aka downloaders) will believe that god exist and have listen to their prayers

[ServerDeals]

People would just stop making stuff. Whats the point of making a new action flick for millions of dollars if you will not make back your investment? Why would a artist tour to promote a album that isn't going to sale? I know uploaders will not care about these two facts, but if things like this happen. Better be ready to watch dogs getting chased in backyards on home video before you see a Ironman 3. Its natural economics. If it doesn't work...Stop using the model.

Plus I enjoy taking girls too the movies What am I going to do then? Try and convince them to come back to the house?

[HostMafia]

"Imagine copyright free Europe " That would be nightmare, seriously.

But after reading this, i understand that this is not about completely eliminating copyright, its about having a more flexible IPR law ().

Which is good.

[cvrle77]

People would just stop making stuff. Whats the point of making a new action flick for millions of dollars if you will not make back your investment? Why would a artist tour to promote a album that isn't going to sale? I know uploaders will not care about these two facts, but if things like this happen. Better be ready to watch dogs getting chased in backyards on home video before you see a Ironman 3. Its natural economics. If it doesn't work...Stop using the model.

Plus I enjoy taking girls too the movies What am I going to do then? Try and convince them to come back to the house?

I can't disagree more.
There's tons of artists giving their music for free, because that's how it supposed to be. Music is art. I will live without exploiters, and parasites.
Also, TONS of artists can't make better movies with better scripts, because of monopoly some people have on making movies.

There would be no uploaders, if all stuff is free. Movies and music would be FAR better.
Economics is not natural thing. It's invented, to enslave you. If you don't know nothing about economy, it's not worth discussion. Luckily you are not running any country.

[ServerDeals]

As much as I wished people were more giving I cannot believe it would work itself out. Imagine you are a artist. You have spent years and years looking for a big break. Put in hours and worked multiple jobs to help provide for those around you while still chasing a dream.

Now you've realized your dream and want to make a living off of it. Well firstly if you are not independently signed then you have a record label. This entails that you make a certain number of records and go on a certain number of tours. Tour money is great don't get me wrong but you have no life. No you get a percentage off record sales which is small but if you make 10% on every dollar then you want to sell more. But because of the free interest others have in acquiring your goods free of charge you may sale about 100,000 on a good day nowadays if you are up and coming. So you made a whole 10,000 off of a album that your probably put in about 3-4000 in equipment or booth rental fees that you may or may not have acquired. They take a cut for your time depending on your deal. Everything you do or need makes a piece of pie disappear. So now you are forced to tour and tour and tour and there is no guarantee that record label will still promote you without making a profit, but you still have a contract you are obligated to take care of making little to no money at all.

I'm sure those people would prefer that you go out and support them more then download and distribute. Most artist make samples for youtube and other outlets to give back to the fans. Whats wrong with spending 12 dollars on a album which can make or break a persons career.

I am no saint but a truly negligible law hurts most people more then it does the big fish.

[cvrle77]

What you don't see is, that those who aren't pirated, sell nothing. And make nothing. Because they sux. Piracy is free advertisement internet platform for every artist. Even with millions of free downloads of Madonnas latest album, I don't see her on the street, begging for money. This is the part 99% of people don't get at all. Both you and DMCA mafia, think, if someone downloaded free song, he would never buy it, because he have it already, and he can listen it free. The thing we see in piracy is, we can listen and see what we should buy, before we do it, and this is what they don't offer as option. There's more crap than good things. Actually, there's only 10% of good, and 90% of things just to take money out of your pocket for complete crap. They know they produce crap most of the times, that's the reason why you can't watch the movie before you buy it.

[ServerDeals]

There are also things called mixtapes which artist release free of charge to promote their upcoming albums free world piracy would make it pointless to even bother trying to sale because production costs would outweigh the profit on music. Many times if people purchase music it is because they either can't find a song so they buy on amazon or they have stressed all viable free outlets or were scored from a bad download. Mixtapes offer a album worth of free music from a artist. Their blood sweat and tears worth of music which will never see the opportunity to sell. I am no saint when it comes to things like downloading but I can make no proper justification for it at the end of the day because everyone has to eat and if I was a artist I wouldn't want to have to work at a grocery store part time to maintain a decent income.

[HostMafia]

I can't disagree more.
There's tons of artists giving their music for free, because that's how it supposed to be. Music is art. I will live without exploiters, and parasites.
Also, TONS of artists can't make better movies with better scripts, because of monopoly some people have on making movies.

There would be no uploaders, if all stuff is free. Movies and music would be FAR better.
Economics is not natural thing. It's invented, to enslave you. If you don't know nothing about economy, it's not worth discussion. Luckily you are not running any country.

the thing that you dont understand is that, if there is no copyright, there will be no creation, for the simple thing that you can easily steel any song/software/anything and can promote it as you yourself created it.

this will certainly spawn a new generation of stealers (they are already here), who's sole motive will be to copy / modify creations.

sole purpose of copyright is to protect the rights to copy, without the permission of creator.

you should not force the creator , and creator must be able to use his creation in anyway he wishes (to give it free, to sell it or to completely destroy it). Sometimes money is the sole motivator of the creator.


i would like a clear opinion about economy from you, because what i understand from your posts, you are suggesting that we simply stop using money, and go back to stone age.


p.s. - have seen hundreds of similar discussions, but it never gets old keep arguing about this.
Nothing should be taken personally.

[cvrle77]

LMFAO: if there is no copyright, there will be no creation

Are you SERIOUSLY serious? What do you think there was, before copyright law? We had no art? We had an art in it's pure form. What you see now is commercialization, and has nothing to do with creativity, or art, for that matter.

When you create something for free, no one will 'steal' it because it's free. Who stole firefox? How did it managed to survive all these years? Who stole Open Office? Who stole Linux? And there is nothing bad if you improve something to perfection, or have ability to change something to suit your needs, or taste and not being scared to go to jail because of that.

Sole purpose of copyright is to rip you off your money, and stop creation spirit. Because, you can't modify it. You can't make it better. You can only buy original crap. Artist makes only max 10% from sales, that is like $4 per sold CD with price tag of $40. Cost of that CD per CD to be made is $5/100.000 sold copies. rest is pure profit that someone showed up his ass.

Creation is spirit, form of expression, vision, sense, you don't need money for that. Money is bad motivator, it's already scientifically proved.

Here's the example of that: creation of CPUs.

At the time dual core CPUs were out, creators already had technology to develop CPUs far more than you are currently able to buy. But, they won't sell you 64/128 core CPU today, because they can slowly rip you off your money through years. THAT is economy, and THAT is slowing down progress. Because of copyright.

You are not buying the most quality stuff. Puma almost got closed because of that, 25-30 years ago they made shoes that could last for a decade. They almost got broke because once you buy their shoes, they don't see you for a decade. So, instead of having best, we have worst, overpriced stuff, wasting resources, because that's the way you make more profit.

I say, fuck that.

What about resources, pollution, future generation that will live in mountains of trash we made? My kids and grandkids, your too, are supposed to live in a future WE built.