The Library of Congress says copyright laws suck.

tempBOT

The GBAtemp Robot
OP
Editorial Team
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
27
Trophies
1
XP
3,813
The Library of Congress says copyright laws suck.

cds.jpg

You think only "pirates" and "freeloaders" rail against current copyright laws? Well, think again - even the Library of Congress seemingly has had enough. The topic is recorded sound preservation, and in a 181-page in-depth study, the Library of Congress concludes that apart from technical difficulties, US copyright law makes it virtually impossible for anyone to perform any form of audio preservation. The painted picture is grim - very grim.

The very detailed and in-depth report has been ten years in the making, and was commissioned in the National Recording Preservation Act of 2000. The goal of the study was to inform Congress of the state of audio preservation, the difficulties encountered, what kind of standard procedures are needed for preservation, and so on. The conclusions in the report are grim, at best.

"Were copyright law followed to the letter, little audio preservation would be undertaken. Were the law strictly enforced, it would brand virtually all audio preservation as illegal," the study concludes, "Copyright laws related to preservation are neither strictly followed nor strictly enforced. Consequently, some audio preservation is conducted."

While the recording industry undertakes some preservation, they will only preserve those recordings from which they think they might profit in the future (what a surprise).

Another important - and very well-worded - complaint in the study is that copyright law is seen as so restrictive by the public, that people simply dismiss it outright. "In the perception of the public, copyright law has a reputation for being overly restrictive," the study notes, "This perception fosters a dismissive attitude toward the law in communities that can hardly be characterized as rogue elements of society.

This detailed study confirms something that I - and many others with me - have been saying for a long time now: modern-day copyright is no longer performing its intended function, i.e., to promote the sciences and arts. Instead, it has become a license to print money, existing almost exclusively to secure the exorbitant income of big content.[/p]

icon11.gif
Source

For my own input section, I'm going to quote a friend of mine.

greyfa.de said:
The problem is that Copyright and Patent Laws make illegal an act that is, really, the simple nature of Human interaction: The dissemination and application of knowledge, language, emotion, and idea. It is, in simple terms, a lock and limits placed upon mimetic behavior.

The nature of our minds is to form, share, and apply Ideas. Successful Ideas spread and become a part of Culture. Unsuccessful Ideas are lost to memory. All Human knowledge formed as these Ideas. All Human Culture formed from these Ideas. And the only way for an Idea to be successful is to spread.

This isn't a new idea. We all know this to be true. A song becomes popular, and it becomes embedded in our Culture. A movie becomes popular, and we all make references to it, quoting and sometimes miming it. An invention succeeds in the market by the popularization of its use - sometimes to the extent where it becomes a part of our daily lives: Cars, computers, firearms, even our homes. That is the nature of the successful Ideas: To become a part of our lives. But not all Ideas are Good.

In the 1500's, a new Idea spread: The Idea to restrict the application of knowledge to a Chosen Few. The purpose of this new meme was to ensure that only the first person to capitalize on it should be permitted to do so. And this Idea isn't wrong. Certainly, the one to form an Idea should have the opportunity to profit from it. And most people realize that this is Just, since the expression of Ideas must be rewarded.

Yet the meme spread to the Law. Kings, Leaders, and powerful businessmen saw an opportunity to control the spread of knowledge. There is some benefit for a despotic Leader to control what Ideas become memes and what Ideas should be suppressed; for when you control the thoughts of your People, you control your Empire. And so it was with the Stationer's Company and the Kings and Lords of the lands: when you control who can say what, you can control the spread of Ideas; and controlling the spread of Ideas allows you to control which Ideas can take root. This was easy to do in the 16th and 17th centuries, since few were privileged enough to control printing presses.

But in other lands, Copyright had no presence. The freedom to express and share Ideas was absolute: unrestricted access to literature permits an unrestricted explosion of new Ideas and the development of new technologies and works. And, unsurprisingly, when there is fierce competition to sell a highly demanded product, prices fall, and when prices fall, the spread grows. And so grows the expression of Ideas. Without Copyright, Culture is unbounded.

In the presence of Copyright, our natural desire to share Ideas is impugned. And worse, the foundation of our Culture - the early Ideas that formed it - is held captive by the very Laws that seek to ensure its dissemination. Locked away in the archives of the Big Studios are thousands of films and recordings - expressions of Ideas that formed our Culture - are rotting, slowly wasting away to dust as a few Archivists struggle to preserve them. Copyright has made it impossible to preserve our own Culture, while once-successful Ideas turn to dust.

Meanwhile, those who want to celebrate our Culture are punished and treated like criminals. Those who want to express themselves get sued into poverty.

It's sad, to me, that musicians pin their hopes and dreams on a recording business that cheats them out of their own earnings. It's sad, to me, that movie directors who want to encourage remixes of their movies are undercut by their own studios and production companies, who work to silence the very people who are celebrating them. It's sad, to me, that the companies that are charged with enforcing music Copyright are little more than an extortion ring, crushing small businesses and forcing many of them to go out of business simply for wanting to play music for their customers. It's sad, to me, that a small company can call into question the real ownership of an entire category of works by claiming ownership of a Copyright they didn't even have.

The real crime here is not piracy.

The real crime is Copyright.

tl;dr: No tl;dr for you. This is a serious issue, especially for the young ones of you (who are most likely to tl;dr this) that intend to make any sort of media/entertainment as your living.
Contributed by Rydian
 

Kwartel

The fairest in all the land
Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
1,298
Trophies
0
Age
28
XP
429
Country
Netherlands
I understand why they use the copyright law, but in the common day and age it's outdated.
 

papavader

Member
Newcomer
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
22
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
165
Country
Canada
A surprising view from the American Congress and a really well thought-out comment! You have made my morning, as Copyright is a favorite subject of mine.

Agreed on the comment. Anything worth reading on a subject is not gonna be short. You can't relay any meaningful information from a tweet or a wall post.
 

Supreme Dirt

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
223
Trophies
0
XP
165
Country
Canada
Ugh, why do I have to read this now? Expect a Canadian perspective with regards to our own virtually non-existent copyright laws tonight.
 

DryYoshi

Love child of Dry Bones and Yoshi
Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
654
Trophies
0
Age
26
Location
Yoshi's Island
XP
263
Country
Netherlands
I didn't really understand what they're talking about.
Can anyone explain to me in short what the heck this news is about?
(The only thing I made up was that making music is illegal or something lol)
(and yeah, copyright sucks, 'specially on youtube)
 

Amak

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
66
Trophies
0
XP
93
Country
United States
Copyright HAD a purpose, but now it is just flat out abused. It need a MAJOR overhaul. Especially with the stupid 70yrs until public domain....
 

BedtimeGuy

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
468
Trophies
0
Age
28
Location
Canada
XP
243
Country
Canada
DryYoshi said:
I didn't really understand what they're talking about.
Can anyone explain to me in short what the heck this news is about?
(The only thing I made up was that making music is illegal or something lol)
(and yeah, copyright sucks, 'specially on youtube)
i know i shouldn't do this buuut

TL;DR: the copyright laws in the US (and in many other countries for that matter) are much too strict and are limiting free expression and the spread of ideas to a ridiculous extent. the laws make little sense and have been passed in the name of a fight against piracy but are hurting mnay people who never do and don't plan on pirating even more. and people need to stand up against this nonsense.

in Canada there are people trying to pass even more ridiculous laws, and I really don't want to see that happen.
 

DJ91990

Grookey Gang!
Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
939
Trophies
0
Age
32
Location
Mom's Basement
Website
www.youtube.com
XP
407
Country
United States
I also think the Copyright law is mis-interpeted by "Copyright holders" to the rest of the world. They don't say that you can't remix a song and collaberate then build someting new.

They just say that "you have uploaded a song or something that contains something that has our song in it. As we sell this song and you have uploaded it to a place where people can listen to it free of charge that is hurting our business. You are a thief and should be punished!"

Also don't you all see!? They attack people that offer free entertainment! If you start remixing every song you hear, you won't need to buy any new .mp3s if there thousands upon thousands of remixes that you can download at no cost! It would ruin the record and entertainment industry's business model! So now they use that corrupted copyright law that THEY helped to create to use as a weapon against the American public!

Two years from now when the presidential election occurs I am going to vote for the person running for president that will combat the old Copyright law and replace it with one that THE PEOPLE want not THE CORPORATION wants! That sure is better than voting for "Government Health Insurance" Bah ha ha ha ha!!
 

DxEggman

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
302
Trophies
0
XP
259
Country
United States
High five to all Canadians! Born and raised in Vancouver here!

On topic, i was kinda surprised at the news; i didnt realize anyone up congress wasn't an idiot.
 

Canonbeat234

Redeemed Temper
Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
2,272
Trophies
0
Age
35
XP
184
Country
Curses, I can't fully articulate this topic with indepth typing due to the fact this is a smartphone with BAD typing inputs.

On-topic: It seems to me that our President can't fully grasp the true power of copyright-laws. It's funny how our videos from the VHS gives you those warning signs from the FBI. Majority of us back then don't know what it meant unless it was by lames terms. Right now the same law is getting complicated and more complex due to the fact certain regulations are not enforced! Congress is realizing that most company's who sue other people from breaking that law, they either don't know the law completely or didn't fully enforce it in the first place.

I however theorize that most products being made by other countries instead of here, those ideas and manufacturing goes in hand-in-hand without any thoughts of those ideas being compromised. To me, who can't say the flashcards were made from China but they manufacture those official Nintendo products and can now 'mimic' their own. This is popularization comes into play because if the GBA or DS were not popular then China will never make flashcards in the first place (R4DS anyone?). This is also when piracy is useless because of the compromise, you given blueprints to your idea. People use it for their own gain, they mimic off of it and now other people can do the same thing!

This is where things get interesting, Nintendo went after the R4 due to its easy accessiblity. They didn't go after CycloDS and Supercard which to me I believe has to with the 'making an example' to all the other flashcards which didn't nothing. The only odd effect it caused was breed clones and clones of R4 flashcards. To me the other flashcard company's has to get the blueprints from somewhere in order to make compatable DS flashcards on the legit handhelds. Nintendo can't fight it even with the new 3DS, because someone from that company will compromise those blueprints and give it to someone else. Or like the GBA, DS, DSlite, DSi, and etc; the manufacturers will find a way to make flashcards base on how the handheld works.

This is some deep shit, it's like no matter what. You will always have rat around you >>
 

lj44

Member
Newcomer
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
21
Trophies
0
Location
Earth
XP
101
Country
United States
Copyright is made to protect the ideas of the inventors, but it shouldn't be used to keep that idea to themselves unless people pay for it.
 

Elaugaufein

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
220
Trophies
0
XP
396
Country
Actually keeping the distribution (the right to make copies of that "idea") to themselves unless people pay is exactly what copyright law is meant to do. Its supposed to give them a monopoly on that for a limited duration so that they have some reason to share their ideas as opposed to keep them in their head where no one can get them.

Its just that current copyright law is considerably more restrictive than the original implementation (especially the DMCA variations, which are roughly equivalent to being guilty of a crime for owning a kitchen knife since it could potentially be used for assault) and the terms have been increased (and as things have been going they are effectively perpetual for anything produced in recent history, since they've been getting extended faster than they lapse).

This is in contrast to the fact that duplication of some forms of IP is now easier than ever, that many forms of storage media last significantly less time than copyright duration (a CD lasts less than a decade) and that old forms for data storage are phased out more rapidly (we've been using books (or scrolls, etc) for centuries, books from centuries ago still exist and are legible), the cassette tape (for music recording) or the Atari Cartridge are already effectively extinct (and it hasn't even been a century).

Copyright no longer does what it was supposed to ie see to it that ideas were released for the benefit of the public (eventually, after the originator had had a chance to profit from them) and instead is used to hold ideas hostage into perpetuity.


TL;DR: Actually yes it should be used to keep ideas to themselves unless people pay for it but only for a limited time. The problem is just that current law doesn't have a meaningfully limited time*. Many works are extinct (decades) before they cease to be copyrighted.

*Okay not just that, there's also ridiculously draconian application, penalties vastly out of proportion to damages done, still holding in full force after a work has been out of publication for longer than it was in publication, denying copying for private use (such as preservation) etc.
 

I K K E

Active Member
Newcomer
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
25
Trophies
0
Website
Visit site
XP
94
Country
Netherlands
This is an interesting topic.
Not just because of the subjects piracy and copyright, but because everybody has a different opinion about this. And everybody thinks they have the right opinion. It's sort of funny, but i think that's because i don't have an opinion.
rofl.gif

But, who is right?
unsure.gif
 

DryYoshi

Love child of Dry Bones and Yoshi
Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
654
Trophies
0
Age
26
Location
Yoshi's Island
XP
263
Country
Netherlands
baffle-boy said:
DryYoshi said:
I didn't really understand what they're talking about.
Can anyone explain to me in short what the heck this news is about?
(The only thing I made up was that making music is illegal or something lol)
(and yeah, copyright sucks, 'specially on youtube)
i know i shouldn't do this buuut

TL;DR: the copyright laws in the US (and in many other countries for that matter) are much too strict and are limiting free expression and the spread of ideas to a ridiculous extent. the laws make little sense and have been passed in the name of a fight against piracy but are hurting mnay people who never do and don't plan on pirating even more. and people need to stand up against this nonsense.

in Canada there are people trying to pass even more ridiculous laws, and I really don't want to see that happen.
OK.
Still didn't really get it, but thx though.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    KenniesNewName @ KenniesNewName: Well new hocus pocus already looks like shit