Should we change how we approach copyright law, and IP?

[AnimeFan188]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

"However, despite this apparent victory for the Internet, transparency and democracy, the Commission indicated that it will press ahead with the court reference, and if the Court doesn't reject ACTA as well, will consider bringing it back before the Parliament."

Maybe we need something like this:

Internet lines up behind The Declaration of Internet Freedom

Not sure what effect (if any) it will have though.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Maybe we need something like this:

Internet lines up behind The Declaration of Internet Freedom

Not sure what effect (if any) it will have though.

The Court can ignore the Internet at their own peril.........they risk losing most of their money and income if they do because technology has embraced them.

[AnimeFan188]

Cablevision to Suspend Repeat Copyright Scofflaws, Comcast to Hijack Browsers:

"Comcast is to begin hijacking browsers of its internet subscribers who are detected
of repeatedly infringing on public file-sharing networks while Cablevision Systems
said it would suspend subscribers for 24 hours after their fifth offense.

The punishment comes as the nation’s biggest internet service providers this week
began rolling out the so-called “Copyright Alert System,” which is backed by the
President Barack Obama administration and was heavily pushed by the recording
and movie studios."

See:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...rowser-hijack/


How many other intrusive measures like this are going to be foisted on the public
before there's a backlash?

[kyp275]

I think a better question is what can the public actually do, as in many places there aren't all that many choices (and in some places none) for the consumers, since telecoms in the US are pretty much state-sponsored oligopolies.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I think a better question is what can the public actually do, as in many places there aren't all that many choices (and in some places none) for the consumers, since telecoms in the US are pretty much state-sponsored oligopolies.

Something else. These are systems, and all systems can be broken.

[Kudryavka]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

For awhile now, I've been disappointed in what I view as the slow but steady degradation of YouTube's value as it becomes ever more nerfed by modern copyright law and "Intellectual Property" laws.

Not that long ago I could put up almost any AMV on YouTube, and it would be viewable to everybody all around the world. Now such an AMV is typically instant blocked in "some countries" (almost invariably including the ones where most potential viewers are living in).

As annoying as I found this, I could at least see where music companies are coming from on this (anime companies I really couldn't see having much basis here). Yes, it is an entire song used in the AMV, after all. A song that they might want to sell for the same price as a cup of coffee through an online seller like iTunes.


However, late last night I ran into what is likely the most asinine case of a YouTube takedown I've ever experienced.

I had recently discovered on YouTube a meme called "Guile's Theme Goes With Everything", referring to the theme song of playable Street Fighter character Guile. Just for some shits and giggles, I tried Guile's theme with a few scenes from the last episode of Madoka Magica.

So for all intents and purposes I created a spoof video involving about 5 minutes of an anime episode, and a 4 minute theme song. Yes, the video is admittedly very spoilerrific, but it has only about a quarter of an anime episode in it. The "song" is the theme instrumental of a video game character.

I put that up on YouTube, and not only was it blocked from "some countries", it was completely deleted by YouTube.

Because I guess seeing a few minutes of raw Madoka Magica (no subtitles) done to a video game character's theme music is going to totally kill sales for Madoka Magica and Street Fighter games...




To see the sales-crushing mash-up vid in question, so you can judge its financially destructive nature for yourself, you can download it from here.


Friends, this is completely ridiculous. There's just no other way to put it. It's madness. It's actual madness.

And it's already here, without PIPA, SOPA, ACTA, or any of the rest.


So I don't think it's enough any more to simply react to bad copyright, trademark, or intellectual property bills/acts when they come up.

No, I think it's time to go on the offensive, partly to get back what has already been lost, if it's at all possible.

There's also the fact that, in politics, when you simply react to what your opponent is doing, you'll inevitably lose ground over time. This is because every fight you win doesn't cause your opponent to lose ground, but every fight you lose causes your opponent to gain ground. Taking a purely defensive or reactive approach in politics will not be fruitful in the long-term.


So, maybe we should try to think of ways to go on the offensive here. Maybe we should think of ways of creating a paradigm shift in how copyrights, trademarks, and IP are viewed, both legally and by society as a whole.

I don't have any easy answers right now, that's for sure, just some vague and broad ideas. But I would be interested to know what everybody here thinks.

Agree. Totally annoying, but it's what the copyright owner wants to do, so not much we can say. Though we can always take measures to prevent auto deletion (flip the video, tune the audio an octave higher or lower) or just go somewhere else (Youtube is by far the most afflicted video site by copyright mess. From my experience NicoNico is also pretty unsafe for Japanese properties).

Especially annoying that Shaft only blocks certain shows that it owns. Monogatari series and Madoka are some of the few series that they care about blocking from Youtube. But I can find the entire series of Denpa Onna and Arakawa Under the Bridge on Youtube right now, and various untampered videos of Vampire Bund hmmmm

(yes I know why )

[AnimeFan188]

Head of US Copyright Office wants to shorten terms, just barely:

"US Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante is about to give testimony (PDF) to part of the
House Judiciary Committee, in which she proposes that the US government do something it
hasn't done, ever—shorten copyright terms.

"You may want to consider alleviating some of the pressure and gridlock brought about by
the long copyright term for example, by reverting works to the public domain after a period of
life plus fifty years unless heirs or successors register their interests with the Copyright
Office," Pallante's written testimony states."

See:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...s-just-barely/

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

Head of US Copyright Office wants to shorten terms, just barely:

"US Register of Copyrights Maria Pallante is about to give testimony (PDF) to part of the
House Judiciary Committee, in which she proposes that the US government do something it
hasn't done, ever—shorten copyright terms.

"You may want to consider alleviating some of the pressure and gridlock brought about by
the long copyright term for example, by reverting works to the public domain after a period of
life plus fifty years unless heirs or successors register their interests with the Copyright
Office," Pallante's written testimony states."

See:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...s-just-barely/

And the creative arts gatekeepers and profit takers all had heart attacks. (notice I didn't say the *CREATORS*. I'm referring to the corporate entities that assert control over executions of entertainment and art ... you know, the ones who take profits while the actual creator dies without seeing a penny of it)

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I think a better question is what can the public actually do, as in many places there aren't all that many choices (and in some places none) for the consumers, since telecoms in the US are pretty much state-sponsored oligopolies.

Simple, just use a VPN.

Or, you know, don't use torrents for anything that the MPAA or RIAA controls. You should be fine for most everything else, and direct downloads they can't make heads or tails of without deep-packet inspection.

[Ithekro]

There was talk about at some point when 3D printers become more common, that model companies will have to change their sales policies to sell patterns for printers instead of model kits.

[Archon_Wing]

Yes.

Indeed, one should not be victimized by plagiarism and theft, but to claim that anyone that comes across your product is your bitch, is another story

[Vexx]

"Comcast is to begin hijacking browsers of its internet subscribers who are detected
of repeatedly infringing on public file-sharing networks

I certainly hope they just meant they'd be redirecting http upstream requests because "hijacking a browser" is a crime under the existing computer laws.

So are "man in the middle" attacks on packet streams.

Just sayin...

[AnimeFan188]

Manga Publishers “Will Sue Sites Posting Spoilers”:

"Top manga publishers are vowing a legal crackdown on sites wicked enough to
post spoilers about the plot of such gems as Naruto and One Piece, blaming them
for their declining sales, and have already threatened one of one of the largest such
sites into virtual closure.

According to comments from the administrator of major Naruto spoiler site “Naruto
Channel” received a message from a publisher indicating that “we would be grateful
if you would be so kind as to delete your articles and close your site.”"


"They also made clear that whether English or Japanese, the copyright situation is
the same and action may be taken, suggesting scanlators may not be safe either."

See:

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2014/0...ting-spoilers/

[Nightbat®]

Here're the things I can't stand in current copywrite law


I can Invent a car that runs on water, after 15-20 years everyone is allowed to immitate the technology
But I can sue them 70 years later if the bodywork looks or the name sounds too much like my old PoS Watercar


And there's another thing in somewhat the same analogy
-I buy a car
-It's mine
-I can sell it

Now take that example to a computergame
-I buy a game
-It's not mine
-I'm not allowed to sell it (perhaps with compensation towards the manufacturer in some cases)

...now, is a game more expensive to produce than a car that it needs more protection?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

...now, is a game more expensive to produce than a car that it needs more protection?

Not that I agree with it, but I think it's usually that a car depreciates over time as it suffers wear and tear. A computer game doesn't really suffer from such circumstances.

[Nightbat®]

where's the support for a game that takes no cost to produce, costs half as much in R/D (god knows why with all those templates), but has less regulations to adhere to

I just tried to play NFS carbon on Win 8, crashed harder than a 80 year old Mercedes and THAT I can still get fixed
(I just recieved a free master brake-cilinder for my motorcycle for free because of 'safety issues' the bike is as old as NFS Carbon, spare parts have to be stocked for at least 10 years after introduction)

Movies/music/software aren't intellectual works anymore, they're a mass-product, and should recieve no more protection than any other product


(And as for art?
We're wasting valuable recources creating and protecting BullS... like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pindakaasvloer)

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Here're the things I can't stand in current copywrite law


I can Invent a car that runs on water, after 15-20 years everyone is allowed to immitate the technology
But I can sue them 70 years later if the bodywork looks or the name sounds too much like my old PoS Watercar


And there's another thing in somewhat the same analogy
-I buy a car
-It's mine
-I can sell it

Now take that example to a computergame
-I buy a game
-It's not mine
-I'm not allowed to sell it (perhaps with compensation towards the manufacturer in some cases)

...now, is a game more expensive to produce than a car that it needs more protection?

I see where you're coming from, but:
- it is important that your watercar technology spreads. Beyond your own means of exploiting it.
- 50 year old tech is generally not that valuable. Mickey is still worth billions. As for the forgotten shit of the 60's equivalent of Bieber... well, it's forgotten. Who cares, one way or another?

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

where's the support for a game that takes no cost to produce, costs half as much in R/D (god knows why with all those templates), but has less regulations to adhere to

I just tried to play NFS carbon on Win 8, crashed harder than a 80 year old Mercedes and THAT I can still get fixed
(I just recieved a free master brake-cilinder for my motorcycle for free because of 'safety issues' the bike is as old as NFS Carbon, spare parts have to be stocked for at least 10 years after introduction)

Movies/music/software aren't intellectual works anymore, they're a mass-product, and should recieve no more protection than any other product


(And as for art?
We're wasting valuable recources creating and protecting BullS... like this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pindakaasvloer)

If someone wants to make "art", and another guy wants to buy it for an obscene amount of money, it's their prerogatives. As for what we spend protecting it... If it was truly worthless, people wouldn't try to steal it, and we wouldn't protect it.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I see where you're coming from, but:
- it is important that your watercar technology spreads. Beyond you own means of exploiting it.
- 50 year old tech is generally not that valuable. Mickey is still worth billions. As for the forgotten shit of the 60's equivalent of Bieber... well, it's forgotten. Who cares, one way or another?

Don't you think 50 year old tech could possibly be ridiculously valuable if the corporations are allowed to hold on to them indefinitely? Oh, want to make a car? Sorry, we still hold rights over the combustion engine. Witness the constant patent wars over relatively recent but "fundamental" tech, how Google paid $11 billion for Motorola's portfolio a few years ago, etc., to see "what could have been."

On the IP side, all the creators of Mickey are dead. Every single person working at Disney today has nothing to do with Mickey, yet they are holding on to the rights, making obscene profits, and guarding their rights to it jealously and hurting the rest of society's rights to common cultural heritage because fuck it, corporations are people who happen to live forever or something.

Meanwhile, the "who cares" forgotten works are unable to be reproduced because copyright law isn't just for Mickey, though it was written for the benefit of those who hold the rights to Mickey. They are literally lost because of the laws. We have all sorts of "obscure" examples of things people want to preserve, reproduce, develop further, whatever, but they can't because copyright law is in effect and all the creators are dead/held by asshole unrelated trustees/whatever.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Don't you think 50 year old tech could possibly be ridiculously valuable if the corporations are allowed to hold on to them indefinitely? Oh, want to make a car? Sorry, we still hold rights over the combustion engine. Witness the constant patent wars over relatively recent but "fundamental" tech, how Google paid $11 billion for Motorola's portfolio a few years ago, etc., to see "what could have been."

Some patents would still be very valuable, yes. Which, I suppose, is the same for artistic rights where only one in a million will be worth spit in five decades.

On the IP side, all the creators of Mickey are dead. Every single person working at Disney today has nothing to do with Mickey, yet they are holding on to the rights, making obscene profits, and guarding their rights to it jealously and hurting the rest of society's rights to common cultural heritage because fuck it, corporations are people who happen to live forever or something.

Meanwhile, the "who cares" forgotten works are unable to be reproduced because copyright law isn't just for Mickey, though it was written for the benefit of those who hold the rights to Mickey. They are literally lost because of the laws. We have all sorts of "obscure" examples of things people want to preserve, reproduce, develop further, whatever, but they can't because copyright law is in effect and all the creators are dead/held by asshole unrelated trustees/whatever.

Which is why it's important for patents to have a time limit. Mickey and the like, though? Doesn't matter. Yes, it means people have to make up new birthday songs to put in movies. But, again, who cares?

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

who cares?

You do realize Marilyn Monroe's footage of singing ' Happy Birthday' to JFK just became a courtcase don't you