Copyright isn't working, says European Commission
Summary: People have come to see copyright as a tool of punishment, Europe's technology chief has said in her strongest-yet attack on the current copyright system.Digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Saturday that the creative industries had to embrace rather than resist new technological ways of distributing artistic works.
People have come to see copyright as a tool of punishment, Europe's technology chief has said in her strongest-yet attack on the current copyright system.
Digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said on Saturday that the creative industries had to embrace rather than resist new technological ways of distributing artistic works. She added that the existing copyright system was not rewarding the vast majority of artists.
"Is the current copyright system the right and only tool to achieve our objectives? Not really," Kroes said in a speech to the Forum D'Avignon thinktank. "Citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it."
"Sadly, many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward," Kroes added.
The commissioner said online distribution and cloud computing offered a "totally new way of purchasing, delivering and consuming cultural works", and suggested that the existing legal framework around copyright was not flexible enough to take advantage of this evolution.
Rights-holders have long complained about the damage done to their industry by online copyright infringement. Governments and courts in countries including the UK have responded by blocking access to websites that help people unlawfully share music, videos, games and software.
Some countries, such as New Zealand and France, also threaten repeat infringers with suspension or disconnection of their broadband services.
Kroes's speech was not the first time the creative industries have been taken to task for not sufficiently adapting to the digital age. The commissioner herself has said she intends to overcome the content industry's failure to agree pan-EU licensing deals, and the fact that countries such as the UK tax e-books more highly than they do physical books.
According to Kroes, in one large EU country 97.5 percent of artists earn less than €1,000 (£856) a month from the copyright system. "This is a devastatingly hard way to earn a living," she said.
The commissioner did not provide any definitive answers as to what should replace the current copyright system, apart from saying it those advocating new business models should get a fairer hearing than they do at present.
"In times of change, we need creativity, out-of-the-box thinking: creative art to overcome this difficult period and creative business models to monetise the art," Kroes said. "New ideas which could benefit artists are killed before they can show their merit, dead on arrival. This needs to change."
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
It looks as if the Nordic Republic has got off to a bad start - its in the wrong place. Sorry World.
Regrets Daft John
Consider the following scenario.
A drugs company spends 5 years and "200,000,000 developing a new drug that will give AIDS sufferers an extra 10 years of life expectancy. It has 20 years at the most to recover the money and show a profit. The price of the drug is therefore expensive.
Some hack working for a newspaper decides, between drinks, that it should be made available to the third world for peanuts. He publishes a booklet full of his reasons why this should be so. The copyright of that book lasts for 70 years after his death.
if it was £2 everywhere why would you bother to download or pirate it,
as for drug companies I find it real strange that they are very good at making something that will keep you ticking over but never really find a cure.
for example someone with aids.
give you a pill to cure you and make you immune to aids, that's it no more money for the drug company, on the other hand give you something that keeps you ticking over for 10+ years loads ov money it costs more than a £*0000 a year to treat a aids sufferer,
Its a well known fact there is no money in a cure. if there was non or limited copy-write protection that would stop some of the profiting from the misery of the ordinary person and give them more incentive to instead come up with a cure, I think it is absolute baloney that after the £trillions spent on research on cancer they are no closer to a cure.
The only major contribution that a copy-write do is that it gives the licence holders is a licence to print money.
It is and unfair system heavily weighted towards the benefit of a few at the expense of the many and it should be replaced with a fairer system,
1) Keeping up with internet and what it means in terms of geography. If right-holders were forced to offer licensing deals that cover the world rather than different terms for each country, it would solve a large part of the problem i.e. differing availabilities and pricing leading to inequalities and people deciding to download content illegally.
2) The disconnect of rights from the artists. Most of the cost of content goes to distributors when today's internet distribution is cheap. When an artist has been dead for decades and more, paying royalties is no longer rewarding the artist. Not having material enter the public domain often makes it unavailable altogether and in fact decreases the artist's cultural legacy. Regardless of the inflated pricing schemes applied today and the unfair record contracts used to fleece young musicians, with a business model in which a product which is produced only once and continuing to demand money for it for over a century it is hardly surprising people are fed up.
At length: http://culturalliberty.org/blog/index.php?id=276
Of course it is possible to exchange intellectual work for the money of all those who want it produced, you just need an exchange mechanism such as http://contingencymarket.com
Artists don't need a monopoly. Publishing corporations used to a monopoly need a monopoly.
At length: The 18th Century Overture - A Crescendo of Copyright - Natural Finale and Reprise.
Of course it is possible to exchange intellectual work for the money of all those who want it produced, you just need an exchange mechanism such as The Contingency Market.
Artists don't need a monopoly. Publishing corporations used to a monopoly need a monopoly.
Thanks for your comment. ZDNet Uk did use to allow hyperlinks in comments, but we found the threads were overwhelmed in spam attacks. We decided that as links could still be shared by typing them out, on balance it made more sense to remove this capability.
Basically, blame it on the spammers! What do people think? Does this make sense?
Karen
Copyright infringement, you can have it for breakfast, lunch and dinner without the law bothering you, making Isp's (BT) fat-rich and with it, POWER.
If a kid can't download for free music, films and games why would he want a high speed net connection? He would tell the old man to change to a slower connection or simply disconnect it. That would not be good to the health of the Isp's (BT).
Isp's (BT) have grown and become big on the expense of the music and movie industry, without paying a single cent, just by simply knowingly allowing forbidden transactions to be done in their store.
For free or paying for it, the public wants films and music.
Films and music cost money to be made.
Art creators are people that have the same needs as ordinary people, they can´t live only by breathing air, so they should be the only ones to decide if their work is to be given for free or not.
As it has been proven more than once, the net environment isn't safe, secure business deals on the net is unreal, so is ending piracy.
Drug trafficking an consumption will never end, but the law enforcement agents have made it a risky business.
Why shouldn't the same be done with copyright infringement?
Check this site, and see what piracy does to a creator
http://popuppirates.com/
ISPs spent a fortune implementing high speed connections, whereas the movie/music industry have spent hardly anything shifting to this new market place. No, instead, they focus their efforts on tackling a problem that would go away if they simply made their products worth buying and priced them reasonably.
The industry that makes movies/music is itself incredibly corrupt and damaging to the actual creators (the actors, the writers etc...). Just look up 'hollywood accounting'.
How do you do it in the net environment?
An author puts his song for sale on the net for 10 cents.
A pirate puts the same song available for free.
You are in the same store and your are going to download the cheapest.
How is the author going to make money?
Perhaps trough publicity...
that's how pirates make their money, without having to bother in buying instruments, renting a studio, paying musicians, technicians, promoting costs, graphic art work...
pirates don't even have to worry about the law or the tax collector, their 'work' is tax free.
If creators have people representing them, it's because they need help in areas that they don't feel at ease in dealing with. It's the creators decision to be well or badly represented, the creator is the one that's going to suffer the consequences of a possible bad choice.
Since WWW means World Wild Web, it needs to be policed.
Citizens that have Law and order in the UK, have to thank street cameras that identified the looters in the recent riots.
If you like films, music, literature...
Don´t kill the hen that lays golden eggs,
feed it.
Artists create even when there is no 'protection'. It is the huge distributor companies that always scream and lobby governments to protect them from evil pirates.
Copyright law must have only two goals - make sure the knowledge is distributed in the society, make sure that more knowledge is created. Paying artists in some way is a minor subpoint in the second goal. Interests of artists or distributors must NEVER be the primary driving force behind legislation - only the interest of the society as a whole is relevant.