Forum - View topicINTEREST: Japanese Lawmakers Put Expanded Copyright Bill on Hold Amid Concerns of 'Internet Atrophy'
|
Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
partially
Posts: 702 Location: Oz |
|
||
|
Well that is a bizarre reason to u-turn. Not least of which because I fail to see why in their eyes less internet use is a bad thing.
|
|||
|
|||
Hoppy800
 Posts: 3331 |
|
||
|
That bill got delayed and watered down quickly, there was no way that was going to pass without ending in the killing every single industry affected as it was too draconian.
|
|||
|
|||
zrnzle500
 Posts: 3767 |
|
||
Probably just a pretext for them to table it. Sounds better than “it wasn’t a really a good idea in the first place, and as written it was opposed even by some from the very industry it was supposed to help” |
|||
|
|||
Phraze
 Posts: 43 |
|
||
|
It's good this was retracted, though the reasons look less than noble. But, I guess, legalizing everything may give rise to more elaborate ways to pirate data. Better to work towards a loyal customer base.
|
|||
|
|||
Actar
 Posts: 1074 Location: Singapore |
|
||
|
Yes, let's make lyrics and screenshots illegal too. Brilliant.
|
|||
|
|||
Яeverse
 Posts: 1140 Location: Indianapolis |
|
||
|
Internet atrophy?
As long as banking and shopping is online, no ones going to stop using the internet just because they cant download an anime. |
|||
|
|||
|
jdnation
Posts: 1998 |
|
||
|
They probably meant internet atrophy in this regard...
Publishers might become too wary of putting their stuff online, along with other independent people and maybe even fan artists because some algorithm might issue claims against them. Also if people are so scared of using online manga services or visiting manga-related fan sites because they'll have no idea whether or not what they are downloading may be illegitimate, then naturally your own customers will diminish. Imagine the poor sap thinking he's going to save some fan-art piece of his favourite waifu, but it turns out to be official material and apparently this is a no-no. How the heck would you know? Would there be disclaimers on everything? How would you even police this? This whole thing is a draconian overreach clusterF of a law. It's a confusing mess. I could literally kill off any fan community, dojin/fan-art market, because people would be too scared to put up anything online. |
|||
|
|||
Deadwing
 Posts: 174 Location: North Augusta, SC |
|
||
|
If anything, copyright laws need to be weakened in much of the developed world, at least in certain areas, and made to where the balance of power is shifted more towards consumers.
Fair use laws need to be strengthened. Fan works, so long as they are not sold for profit, should be protected, and copyright holders should not be allowed to hound someone or issue a takedown notice for, say, making a Let's Play or posting a piece of fanart on DeviantArt or Pixiv. In fact, Japan has no Fair Use provision in its law, one of the ways its own IP law is arguably worse than it is in the U.S. That the market for doujin has thrived there has little to do with a permissive copyright regime and more to do with the copyright holders turning a blind eye to it (probably because many in the anime & manga industry started off making fan works). But Nintendo is a company that apparently does not acknowledge any sort of fair use of their IPs, and frequently and aggressively pursues those who make fan games based on their games or makes videos on the internet that contain footage of their games. In the U.S., the first-sale doctrine needs to be expanded to cover digital downloads. In Japan, as far as I'm aware there is no explicitly defined first-sale rule at all, and if that's the case it should change. Basically, if a person purchases a legit copy of a work, it should unquestionably be theirs to lend, sell, trade, or gift at their own discretion. Copyright terms need to be greatly reduced. In most nations, copyright terms have an obscenely long duration. In the U.S., works made by an individual have a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years, while works made by a group (i.e., "corporate authorship," meaning most movies, TV shows, & video games) have a term of 95 years. That means that most works made within a person's lifetime will not enter the public domain until after they are dead. The U.S. Constitution mandates "limited terms," which is vague. The Supreme Court decided that even the current long terms, even when retroactively applied (i.e., when the goalposts keep getting moved), are still finite in nature, and thus constitutional, but to me that's more adhering to the letter of the law than to the spirit of the law. Copyright terms of such extreme lengths might as well be infinite for our purposes for any works made when we were old enough to remember when they were new (or relatively new). Under current law, Star Wars won't enter the public domain until 2072, Ghostbusters not until 2079, and The Matrix not until 2094. How many of us born before 1990 will still be alive then? Copyright terms for individual works should last for 20 years, with the option to renew for a second term of 20 years, for a maximum possible total of 40 years (slightly longer than the original 14+14 year term provided by the Copyright Act of 1790, the first copyright law in the U.S.). That's more than enough time for someone to make good money off of their works. A provision needs to be in place to make sure that the term can no longer be extended. Fictional characters should, if the company that created them can demonstrate that the character's likeness is central to the branding, still be subject to trademark, but not copyright (e.g., people would be free to make fan works, merchandise, etc., featuring the now 91-year-old Mickey Mouse, but could not use him as part of their own corporate logo). Copyright also needs a "use it or lose it" provision, which would mandate that any work that has been out of print for a certain period of time (say, five years) will automatically enter the public domain. Secondary provisions need to be in place to prevent loophole abuse, such as putting a movie or book up for download for a week right before it lapses into the public domain. There should be an unquestioned "right to repair" for anyone who purchases a machine or other device that may or may not contain computer software. If someone buys a device, then it should be absolutely treated as their property to dismantle, repair, or modify at their own discretion. So long as they are not distributing new copies of copyrighted software, then there should be nothing the manufacturer should do about if should the owner of the product choose to repair their machine. Any copyright treaties need to be renegotiated to comport with these shorter terms and expanded consumer protections. If they cannot be renegotiated, then they should be withdrawn from. Intellectual property laws have given companies too much power over regular citizens, and they need to be knocked down a peg or two. Copyright was never intended to be a perpetual money-making scheme, and IP holders need to be reminded of that. |
|||
|
|||
|
Emma Iveli
Posts: 679 Location: Hobo with internet |
|
||
|
You know a lot of this copyright law is stuff is because politicians often don't quite understand how the internet works (Anyone else remember "a series of tubes"). I can't be the only one thinking "Aw... they're starting learn".
|
|||
|
|||
Kadmos1
 Posts: 13552 Location: In Phoenix but has an 85308 ZIP |
|
||
|
@Deadwing: I think the 56-year coverage under the Copyright Act of 1909 was the best for duration length. Funny how this is the era many Disney classics, of which were largely public domain-based stories, were made yet Disney lobbies for continued copyright length. Hypocritical and/or ironic indeed.
Sometime Work A book, short story, movie, or TV epi.) fell into the American public domain because they were not renewed. However, Work B (book, short story, movie, or TV epi. that is the source material for Work A) is still copyrighted. Being that Work A is a derivative work of Work B, this means that Work A can be effectively pulled from the public domain and re-copyrighted. I don't care if Work A is still copyrighted, when a work falls into the American public domain, it should stay and not be allowed to get re-copyrighted. By doing so, what is effectively "public domain infringement" has been committed. Now, making a derivative work of that public domain work (colorization, digital re-mastering, deleted scenes, etc.) is different. However, I think such a derivative work should be labeled something like "director's cut" or "special edition" or "or digitally re-mastered edition" to show it is a bit different from its predecessor. Also, trademarking a public domain name, image, or even sound acts as a perpetual copyright. I am applying this more for comic book, book, and movie characters. Something like "Mona Lisa Films" with the famous painting and a globe behind her for that company's logo is fair game. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group