
Tough Copyright Laws Chill Innovation, Tech Companies Warn Lawmakers - Lightning
http://torrentfreak.com/tough-copyright-laws-chill-innovation-tech-companies-warn-lawmakers-130727/
======
rayiner
The dynamic in the industry is obvious: its content creators versus content
distributors. Tech companies are the latter. Of course they think that
copyright hurts "innovation." What they really want is weak copyright laws
that let them keep the maximum amount of money in the chain. But when you
think about it, people don't go to Youtube, Netflix, iTunes Store because some
engineer at a tech company implemented a really great video player or ad
distribution platform. The part of that transaction that is the biggest value-
add to the consumer is not the part the tech companies do. The big value-add
is content. That's the important part. So why should the tech companies make
all the money in that chain?

If the media companies weren't such dicks suing grandmas, people probably
would have more sympathy for them. Here is a vastly bigger industry (all US
music + movie sales are less than Apple's revenue alone) pushing for weaker
property rights so they can keep more of the profits in a transaction where
someone else does the real valuable work the customers are paying for.

------
codex
TL;DR: lobbyist group for special-interest industry A wants to change laws
favored by lobbyist group for special-interest industry B. Both industry A and
B are motivated by nothing other than self-interest; specifically, tech.
companies that allow users to post content online are annoyed with
requirements to police that content, and the more copyrighted content
contributed online by users, the better their own business models become.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_Every year that a work is covered by a copyright is a year that subsequent
users cannot build on that work. While incremental protection may provide
additional reward to the author, society pays for this reward by being
deprived of follow-on use, while the author and his or her heirs accumulate
profits._

I think that is a good point no matter the motives for making it. At _some_
point protecting intellectual property "just because" becomes a problem, and
not protecting it at all is obviously a problem, too; so where is the sweet
spot? Immortal companies like Disney would probably say "50.000 years", but
what would be best for humans?

What _is_ fair to creators and their families? On the one hand I'm thinking,
if you create something so great that people hundreds of years later still
cherish it, why _shouldn 't_ your grand grand grand kids have a slice of that
pie? On the other I think it's rubbish that one can't legally sample a few
chords from songs that are 50 years old, just because some corporation happens
to be fussy about it. Maybe the full work should be protected longer, but
restrictions on derivative works could gradually soften much sooner?

And should it be the same for all types of copyrighted content? Think
documentary footage etc. - while I would argue "fantastic" art isn't something
society necessarily is entitled to enjoy as soon, when it comes to other
things, the sooner it's up on archive.org the better!

~~~
lucian1900
> if you create something so great that people hundreds of years later still
> cherish it, why shouldn't your grand grand grand kids have a slice of that
> pie?

Because you could no longer be incentivised to create more, since you'd be
dead. Kids should be satisfied with wealth accumulated while you could still
create.

~~~
PavlovsCat
I agree personally, but there is still a difference between that and outright
enforcing it as society. Also I'd argue a lot of things were created for the
sake of creation anyway (or to be "consumed" on the spot, see classical music,
much of it created as a one-off for a specific mass etc... people _expected_
composers to constantly write new stuff, no touring with greatest hits) ...
but then it's still up to the authors to license it accordingly, right?

~~~
lucian1900
I think we've seen enough of both worlds (no copyright and 100 year copyright)
to know that both extremes are problematic. What about 5-10 year copyright?
I'd like to give that a try.

~~~
spacelizard
Since when have we ever had no copyright? I don't believe that a system whose
primary purpose is to give certain people the "right" to attack others with
litigation will ever succeed in fueling innovation. The only thing copyright
does is pit people against each other.

It seems to me that the entire system needs to be removed and replaced with
another system with the primary goal of giving authors more control over how
they get credit for their works.

~~~
sdoering
Well, I would say round about 303 years ago:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne)

