
Will Hollywood's Whining Thwart Better TPP Copyright Rules? - walterbell
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/08/will-hollywoods-whining-thwart-better-tpp-copyright-rules
======
walterbell
_> Why else was a last-minute intervention by Google sufficient to bring the
USTR back to the negotiating table on this topic, where the sustained
interventions of EFF and 10 other major public interest groups from around the
world were not?_

It would be interesting to know what prompted the late intervention by Google
lobbyists, given that the issues would already have been known by Google, due
to awareness efforts by public interest groups.

Does Adobe have lobbyists to represent the interests of their creative
professional customers? Or Facebook, which is getting into video distribution?

~~~
Maarten88
It's maddening to see how openly corrupt this process is. Having trade
negotiations in secret might be defensible, but the direct access and
involvement of rich and powerful industries into this process while simply
ignoring public interest is incomprehensible. Politicians have fully sold out.

~~~
rayiner
I don't think having trade negotiations in secret is defensible--I think they
should have to make this sausage in public view. But the express purpose of
this process is protecting the interests of rich American corporations abroad.
We want to expand the market for American products, hopefully creating jobs in
the process domestically, while limiting access of foreign companies to our
markets.

~~~
rndmind
Have no doubt these "american" corporations have no loyalty to any country,
just loyalty to avarice and immediate gains.

------
Floegipoky
> Ironically enough their complaints may actually undermine their own long-
> term interests. After all, creative artists of all kinds depend on fair use
> to make new works—from blockbuster pictures to music to fiction

Lol at the idea of Hollywood creating anything that could be described as
creatively artistic.

------
deciplex
Sadly, this one is probably an exception to Betteridge's law.

------
waterlesscloud
Good to see the HN law against sensationalist headlines stands.

------
williamcotton
The problem with remixes is when you put them on a website that doesn't share
revenue with the rights-holders.

I totally agree with the EFF's stated approach at copyright reform [1], but
they need to pick better bedfellows.

If Google, SoundCloud and Facebook had their way, there would be NO copyright.
These aggregators do not make anything so they have no need for copyright.
Copyright to them means giving up a slice of their pie. Whatever pressure
they're putting on the TPP is clearly in their own best financial interests.

These companies are making billions of dollars by organizing and displaying
the creations of other people while the revenue models of every creative
industry are being gutted.

I understand both sides, but the EFF should really try a more balanced
approach.

Making representatives of creative industries out to be petulant children
doesn't help a god damned thing.

Whatever kind of post-scarcity economy that will ultimately put an end to
needing things like copyright, which primarily exists to help intellectual
creations function in a market economy, is nowhere in site. The last I checked
the rents were still climbing through the roof in almost every creative hub in
the Western world.

[1] [https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-
property](https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property)

~~~
josteink
> Whatever kind of post-scarcity economy that will ultimately put an end to
> needing things like copyright, which primarily exists to help intellectual
> creations function in a market economy, is nowhere in site.

There _are_ solutions, but no solutions which will make people into lifetime
millionaires for having one hit-single promoted and pushed worldwide by a
monolithic music-industry.

I'm sure there will be some people who argue that this is a major problem, but
those who still make art for the sake and appreciation of art itself, they can
probably cope with that loss.

Movies are different, and certainly more expensive and collaborative projects.
So how about them?

Movies have gotten increasingly expensive over the last decades... Maybe
that's just a pendulum swing gone too far the wrong way, fuelled by a
misguided copyright-regime?

With crowdfunded movies like Kung Fury making due with less than a percent of
a regular hollywood flick, maybe maybe it's time Hollywood start looking into
what's driving their costs.

Basically: Maybe it's time for the pendulum to swing back?

~~~
api
Why is it okay for programmers to be turned into lifetime _billionaires_ for
what amounts to an interesting hack and a little hustle (e.g. Facebook), but
it's not okay for a musician to make a few large off a successful/popular
track that entertains millions and millions of people for years?

I find the double standard evident in these discussions to be ludicrous and
frankly elitist. "Our unicorns are completely meritocratic, but yours don't
deserve it!"

Then there's this sort of sanctimony, which also always pops up in these
discussions:

> ... but those who still make art for the sake and appreciation of art itself
> ...

Translation: artists should be perfectly content to eat dog food when they get
old because theirs is a noble altruistic profession ... says the member of a
profession whose _average_ college grads can land six figure gigs as early
twenty-somethings and have lifetime earning potential beyond the wildest
dreams of your average musician or artist.

Oh the horrible greed of these artists! They want me to pay less than what I
spend at Starbucks for a week to listen to an album I might enjoy for the rest
of my life!

It's easy to preach altruism for other people or praise others for their noble
asceticism. Try a little poverty yourself sometime. It's not romantic. It's
not noble. It's not virtue. Poverty is humiliation, defeat, suffering, stress,
walking around for years with a rotten tooth because you can't afford a
dentist, and knowing you will spend your old age with bedsores and
cockroaches.

As far as Hollywood's expenses go: do the makers of these indie films have
401k's or retirement benefits? Hollywood employees do, at least most of them.
Providing a real _career_ for people is costly, and Hollywood employs millions
of people in real jobs with real benefits.

I guarantee that the makers of indie films are doing so to break into the biz,
and that they do not have the intent of being poor forever. Look at what the
makers of Primer (arguably the best indie sci-fi flick ever) are doing now.
Indie films and crowdfunding are awesome, but they don't eliminate the need
for copyright or replace the rest of the business model. They just give more
options to indie and emerging artists.

... and don't get me started on the biggest losers in a post-copyright world:
writers. Musicians can tour and films have theater runs. When was the last
time you attended a live reading of a novel by its author? Writing would
vanish as a viable profession. No more novels, no more poetry... at least
other than amateurish efforts and fanfic. Writing a _real_ novel of any
quality takes years.

I don't necessarily support SOPA or some of what's in leaked TPP documents,
but I also do not support those who want to strip artists and the art industry
of their rights so that their work can be monetized for free by content mills,
portals, and advertisers. Hollywood studios and record labels are not
altruistic, but neither are big Silicon Valley tech firms.

Google supports a softening of copyright because it serves their interests --
and because they don't need it! They keep their software in 'the cloud' (trade
secrets) and make money by providing a service with it (capital ownership).
The software biz as a whole could probably survive without copyright for this
reason, and because software has inherent service-like characteristics (the
need for constant updates, etc.). Movies, music, and books do _not_ have these
characteristics.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
> Why is it okay for programmers to be turned into lifetime billionaires for
> what amounts to an interesting hack and a little hustle.

Because most programmers can't do both things well.

~~~
api
Neither can most artists.

