UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create… Eternal Copyright
from the what-the-actual-fuck? dept
Yes, we’ve seen lots of folks using COVID-19 to push their specific agendas forward, but this one is just bizarre. UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) is an organization that is supposed to be focused on developing education and culture around the globe. From any objective standpoint, you’d think it would be in favor of things like more open licensing and sharing of culture, but, in practice, the organization has long been hijacked by copyright maximalist interests. Almost exactly a decade ago, we were perplexed at the organization’s decision to launch an anti-piracy organization. After all, “piracy” (or sharing of culture) is actually how culture and ideas frequently spread in the developing countries where UNESCO focuses.
So, I guess it isn’t so surprising a decade later that UNESCO is using COVID-19 to float the idea of an eternal copyright. I only wish I was kidding:
In our #ResiliArt launch debate on how to support culture during #COVID19, #UNESCO?s Goodwill Ambassador @jeanmicheljarre suggested eternal copyright. What do you think?
We?ve started the conversation, now we count on you to join it.
?? https://t.co/CdGXKOKnhd #ShareCulture pic.twitter.com/iuRrR3j9DW
— UNESCO (@UNESCO) April 19, 2020
They phrase this as “just started the conversation,” but that’s a trollish setup for a terrible, terrible idea. In case you can’t see the video, it’s electronic music creator Jean-Michel Jarre suggesting eternal copyright as a way to support future artists:
Why not going to the other way around, and to create the concept of eternal copyright. And I mean by this that after a certain period of time, the rights of movies, of music, of everything, would go to a global fund to help artists, and especially artists in emerging countries.
First, we can all agree that helping to enable and support artists in emerging countries is a good general idea. I’ve seen a former RIAA executive screaming about how everyone criticizing this idea is showing their true colors in how they don’t want to support artists. But that’s just silly. The criticism of this idea is that it doesn’t “support” artists at all, and will almost certainly make creativity and supporting artists more difficult. And that’s because art and creativity has always relied on building upon the works of those who came before — and locking up everything for eternity would make that cost prohibitive for all but the wealthiest of creators. Indeed, the idea that we need copyright and copyright alone to support artists shows (yet again) just how uncreative the people who claim to support copyright can be.
The way copyright works, with content (eventually) aging out into the public domain is exactly how these works already support emerging artists, by giving them more raw materials to build on and be creative around and to share further around the globe. It’s the locking up of content behind copyright and paywalls that limits that cultural sharing and cultural raw material.
And, of course, one can only imagine how much Disney would need to pay into this global fund for all the public domain works it turned into its movies.
It’s also not clear how all of this works. He seems to suggest that the eternal copyright would lead to money going into a fund that is used to support artists, rather than the heirs of the copyright holders. So, more or less a giant collection society for old copyright. Of course, we’ve spent decades detailing how nearly every collection society is rife with corruption. There are stories of them using the money to pad execs’ pockets, of using it to lobby, and of frequently distributing the money in unfair ways that actually tend to favor successful artists at the expense of up-and-coming artists. Or in some cases, they just claim they they “can’t find” the artists they owe money to.
Does anyone really expect that this new mega fund, taking money from ancient works will somehow magically give the money to smaller artists? Or will it just be used to divert funds to the already successful?
Again, there are plenty of reasonable concerns about artists making money — especially during the pandemic. But an eternal copyright may be the worst possible suggestion, and I’m only skimming the reasons why. Dan Takash has an excellent Twitter thread detailing many more reasons as well, including how this would almost certainly lock-in certain forms of “western” culture, at the expense of cultures around the globe.
Incredibly, just days later, UNESCO is tweeting about how culture is part of our “shared humanity.” Yeah, that’s why we have the public domain. To make sure that the public can share in it all. The plan for a universal copyright is to literally take away that culture and to lock it up with bureaucrats who get to determine who is allowed to do what with culture and for how much. That’s not a shared humanity.
Filed Under: artists, collection society, covid-19, eternal copyright, jean michel jarre, unesco
Comments on “UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create… Eternal Copyright”
I would say Jean Michelle Jarre has possessed by the ghost of Sonny Bono…
Seriously, eternal copyright is just about the worst idea that you could come up with, next to "Every child should be traumatized when they’re three years old."
How long is infinity minus 1?
Isn’t public domain the same as eternal copyright? The creator(s) get their fiscal reward during the monopoly period (which should go back to the 14 + optional (but expensive) 14 years) and then it remains as culture with creative recognition rewards, eternally.
Maybe the eternal part should include required reference to whatever creator ‘influenced’ the current creation, though that list might get awfully long and has big opportunities for missing contributors which might extend the maximalist penchant for litigation.
That satisfies all the objectives that UNESCO stated, without the money part, which has a tendency to stick to processing parts and never makes it to the supposed beneficiary(s), a likely intended consequence of the imagined protocol.
I would suggest that the committee read Melancholy Elephants , but they would probably criticize the author for making the work available for free, and on his own website at that.
I do not think that "Goodwill Ambassador" means what they think it means.
Laugh riot
"a global fund to help artists"
Riiight, help the artists. There will be no middleman involved at all. Sure.
Re: Laugh riot
Well, only the real artists anyway, because clearly if someone isn’t signed to a label/publisher/studio they aren’t professional enough to bother with paying, though you can be damn sure they’ll still be require to pay.
And of course the people in charge of making sure the money goes to the correct artists will need to take a teeny-tiny cut, just enough to make ends meet really.
Oh, and the labels/publishers/studios of course, after all it’s only thanks to their brave and skilled filtering of real artists from amateurs, and as such they deserve to get a modest portion as well so they can continue to act as the brave caretakers of culture that they excel at.
Want to be involved with culture? Time to pay up.
Delightful, someone actually put forth the idea that culture should be locked up behind a paywall, only available to those that pay the toll and to hell with everyone else. Insanity like this is exactly what gets people thinking that copyright needs either be reformed or die, because when you start demanding payment for creativity and involvement in human culture it’s pretty clear that your position is beyond indefensible.
Still, nice for UNESCO to make it crystal clear that they have been utterly corrupted and are just another bunch of copyright maximalists and parasites(but I repeat myself).
Eternal copyright would only ever help those who are already entrenched as “major players” in the entertainment industry. You think that shit is going to help someone like Jim Sterling? Nope. Eternal copyright will only ever help wealthy people and multi-billion-dollar companies that have the money to enforce copyrights to the strongest extent possible and buy up as many properties as possible (to prevent other adaptations from other companies/people, natch). Anyone who supports the idea is either already wealthy or bootlicking for people who are.
Thanks for asking, UNESCO.
I have many thoughts on eternal copyright. But, as I live in the United States, let’s start with "Yeah, that would be unconstitutional."
Why?
Considering that Copyright was 14+14, and the ability to copy and distribute the copyrighted works was so much slower than in today’s world. Why do these people keep extending the duration of Copyright well beyond any reasonable timeframe?
Re: Why?
Because Mickey Mouse needs to be in Disney jail for the crimes he committed.
Re:
Because they see copyright as a form of “earned” welfare through which they should be paid until the end of their lives (and, for some reason, beyond even that).
Re: Why?
Because lazy and entitled people really like the idea of being paid forever for an idea they had once, or even better an idea someone else had.
Re: Re: Why?
And yet, many legislators are willing to cooperate with that goal, they still don’t like the idea of paying people a guaranteed basic income. There’s not really much difference between the two.
A copyright held by the estate of the original creator isn’t benefiting anyone but the heirs. And they certainly didn’t do anything to earn that monopoly.
Re: Re: Re: Why?
This is why I’ve written it into my will that when I die, all of the works I published will enter the public domain. I have no children, and while copyright is (thankfully) expiring now, it’s still subject to retroactive term extension, so I want to make sure that there will be no Samuel Abram estate when I’m dead and gone and that anybody will be able to use my works (except works for hire) for any purpose whatsoever once I kick the bucket.
Re: Re: Re:2 Why?
"This is why I’ve written it into my will that when I die, all of the works I published will enter the public domain."
The way the insanity which is IP law works you’ll probably need to set it free under a amximum-permissive CC-license.
The public domain has few legal defenders so it is, as we have seen, regularly poached in by opportunistic copyright trolls out for a quick buck. In a more sane world CC wouldn’t be required, of course, but there you go…
Re: Re: Re:2 Why?
Your awesome1 Please also have instruction for tell public your give cool stuff to public domain, hlep people know about it.
Re: Re: Re: Why?
And yet, many legislators are willing to cooperate with that goal, they still don’t like the idea of paying people a guaranteed basic income. There’s not really much difference between the two.
There is actually, in that the latter isn’t likely to result in generous ‘donations’ to politicians, whereas the former would.
Re: Re: Why?
"Because lazy and entitled people really like the idea of being paid forever for an idea they had once, or even better an idea someone else had."
Like Steve Jobs, the Google kids, etc?
Vampires don’t sleep during the day either. /sarcasm Never underestimate the depravity vampire class lobbyists.
TRied for along time,
To figure out What and how a 1 world Gov. would be like.
What would the advantages be for anyone, any company.
Or how to fix it.
Understand that the UN has 1 really big problem here. There are 3 countries that Control the Whole thing. If you control/Bribe/… These 3 countries into do what the ???? wants, what are we going to get.
First, is to be Subtle. and not to let things be Above board, easily seen, just make a few changes here and there. Controlling every nation isnt Easy, esp. If you dont want to TRY to control the people, you make it look as if they STILL have control.
The only thing it would/can do is Change the balances between Each nation for certain things. Like manipulating the stock market to make the rich, richer.
How many Major corps have extended themselves around the world, Kept or changed names in each Nation, but are still Run by the same people in the end.
RIAA/MPAA used to have little control over things outside the USA and then the EU, and its spread to other nations now. It wasnt Copy protected if all you did was run across the border, and MOST naitons making music/movies DIDNT really pay attention or care to much. 2 Other countries that make movies for the middle east, and even All the Anime, Those nations DONT PAY actors 1/10th the wages the people int he USA get. But NOW, if you bring Music into the USA its still has Copyrights… But are the Creators/actors, getting the wages/money/profits they would/should/might get? According tot he actions in the USA, RIUAA/MPAA, the odds say, NOT A CHANCE IN HELL. After you pay off the services to these agencies I will BET, that the creators and actors end up Paying more on TOP.
Its also been in the news abit, in the past(but I aint seen it recently published) how corps are trying to pay off the politicians in other countries to allow them to do things Under the table, or to get away with things AS they do int he USA. Many of those countries have some REAL strict laws/regs and those corps (where ever they come from) are slowly taking over those nations AS they have here.
IF you wish abit of proof, go out and find a recording from another nation, and look at the label and Warnings, I will bet they are very similar, to the USA ones.
As to other Corps, its about the same. Union Carbide still hasnt paid for the mishap they have from the 70’s. BP has changed its name a few times over politics, and other problems, including Oil spills around the world. And why does our nation Subsidize oil exploration? Dont they make enough money from us??
Seed companies around the world, belong to 3-4 Corps, and have Contracts NOT to reuse seed, and they have to pay for more seed every year to have better crops??
We need to fix a few things, or its going to get abit worse. they are taking advantage of everything. The old ideals of capitalism are that If you can make money from it, DO IT.
But if an artistic Family Lives on 1 persons creations, they dont NEED to make more Art.. they dont need to Write more books, create more Music, Make more interesting Computer hardware, they dont need to do anything, except SIT, and take money. You pay others to monitor it so no one ELSE gets anything without paying a Good amount of money..
At least such an idea would be unconstitutional, since a permanent government-enforced monopoly would violate the part of the Constitution that allows Congress to write laws granting copyrights and patents.
Re: Re:
And which explicitly states that they may be granted "for limited Times".
Re: Re: Re:
I guess "limited times" is one of those phrases like "well-regulated militia" which judges seem not only utterly unable to understand but to actually reverse.
"Indeed, the idea that we need copyright and copyright alone to support artists shows (yet again) just how uncreative the people who claim to support copyright can be."
Well, I think they’re showing an immense amount of creativity in their arguments.
Did someone let Tero Pulkinnen into UNESCO?
Re: Re:
As sad a case of wishful thinking and opportunistic greed as "Meshpage" Pulkinnen represents it’s a fact that he’s just parroting people like Járre and Valenti.
Every "creator, artist and innovator" on the side of copyright maximalism is braying the same message, over and over again, in a unified chorus.
Re: Re: Re:
AND?
The families after their death..
Picking up Books and music that Hardly had any protections in the past, are NOW protected and giving money to Grand Children..Doyle, and Lovecraft among them.
Why stop with copyright?
Can anyone develop their own OS for a computer that builds on Windows?
SQL? Is Larry Ellison getting "earned welfare?"
It’s very easy for a news site that publishes perishable articles on current events not to care what happens to those who write books that are the product of YEARS of research.
Abolishing copyright would do so for major tech companies and their software, and a lot more than just the stuff people like to pirate.
I favor a flat five-year copyright term myself, with very strict enforcement.
UNESCO can go to eternal something for that option
Re: Re:
HOW about setting them up, on a deserted island, and the rubber raft they need Costs them to much to even buy??
HOw about we set them out in the middle of nowhere, and give them access to nothing except a CHEAP DIAL phone, with no connection, and tell them they can order anything they can, over the phone.
Lets create a Documentary of UNESCO, then only broadcast in locations they cant get to, and move every time they try to Get there to watch it.(let them pay us to have a copy)
Or we could show them a GREAT reason to leave it alone, as Jarre music would only be in the nations he has released in, and NOT sampled AROUND the world, and remakes and remixes of his music is Inspirational to everyone.. NOT just to the RIAA, trying to get money from every idiot that copied it.
I’m always slightly depressed when I hear this idiot talk about such things. I used to be such a big fan of his music and his innovative and visionary concerts. But, he’s not done anything of worth since the early 90s from what I can tell.
Bonus: I was first introduced to his music via a pirated mixtape, and went on to buy numerous albums after that (although I never did make it to a live concert).
Re: Re:
But thanks to copyright, he continues to be paid for it. Unlike the rest of us who’e glad to just be paid at the end of the month for the work we did at the beginning of the month.
Re: Re: Re:
…or be paid for the social security payments we made during our working life in order to be able to coast through a time of record unemployment. Which is somehow more important to me than whether Jean-Michel Jarre gets royalties off his Oxygene albums in case he didn’t properly invest the millions from his massive tours.
Re: Re:
But, he’s not done anything of worth since the early 90s from what I can tell.
And like that their pushing for eternal copyright suddenly makes a lot more sense.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, but it really shouldn’t. The guy has a net worth of around $100 million and was absolutely huge during his heyday, and has inspired multiple generations with his pioneering work. What more does he need?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"What more does he need?"
Recognition, you peon!
Poor little Jean-Michel hasn’t seen a group of screaming fans in years! No longer do young girls throw their knickers at him and scream for him to have their babies! He is no longer the talk among the young intellectuals who really should appreciate the way his albums and a few glasses of wine contributed to their birth!
The least you could do is keep reminding him that he is not forgotten by sending him symbolic checks with money in perpetuity!
Yes, there’s an /s here.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
The sad thing is that’s not even true, as he’s had some successful tours in the last few years.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"The sad thing is that’s not even true, as he’s had some successful tours in the last few years."
Not enough to compensate for him growing, well, old, I’m guessing.
Money may be a bad compensation for no longer having screaming teens throw their nubile bodies at him or for not quite drawing the massive crowds he used to in his heyday, but at least it’s something.
It’s the nature of "entitlement". It’s not up to him to remind you he’s great, it’s up to you to regularly pay him his well-earned recognition. Perpetually.
What he really wants is a clergy, I believe.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sadly for some people there is no such thing as ‘enough’, and they will always reach for more even as they drown in what they already have.
Assuming it’s not greed though two possibilities come to mind, either he sold out because it was profitable for him, or he’s just really easy to trick and fell for the maximalist rot.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Or simpler still, as it is for so very many artists who’ve bought the idea that every copy of information they originally created is still their personal property when it’s in someone else’s head.
"Because MINE!"
It’s the excuse of the five-year-old bully claiming his self-made sandcastle in the communal park and beating up other children wanting to play in the sandbox as well.
I was so irritated by this that I wrote a long email to Unesco, and I think it doesn’t hurt to share it here as well, and urge as many people as possible to do the same in their own words.
IJsselstein, 24 April 2020.
Re: Re:
This is the most concise argument against copyright extension I have heard yet. It does not "promote the progress" of entertainment arts, it stifles progress.
And yes, this makes me listen to music by Jean-Michel Jarre with a different ear. I won’t enjoy it anymore. It is as with those movies or series made by directors who later turned out to have sexually abused their actors. Unwatchable and not funny anymore with that knowledge.
Re: Re:
I mean, it’s a little different than that.
If I wanted to get UNESCO defunded by turning people against it’s very existence, raising ‘ideas’ like these would be a good start. The social media operator should be fired for giving Jean Michelle Jarre’s crap ideas any sort of oxygene.
Damn it
I wish I had invented the wheel a few thousand years ago. I would own everything now
Fuck off, UNESCO, you monopolistic bastards! And I say that as a copyright owner myself. After all, we are all standing on the shoulders of those who went before.
Re: Re:
"After all, we are all standing on the shoulders of those who went before."
I’m afraid that according to every pro-copyright advocate with a lobby, standing on those shoulders means you need to pay those people – or their estates, rather. Forever.
Copyright maximalists have a well-funded voice. The rational none.
UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create... Eternal Copyri
The very reason for copyright is to limit it to a certain period, otherwise, information and knowledge would be locked up forever. Anyone suggesting eternal copyright has no clue what copyright is and what the purpose of copyright laws are for. The whole world has been moving to open up knowledge for the very reason that copyright has been too restrictive or prohibitive. UNESCO has been a huge promoter of Open Access for years (they invited me to speak at one of their OA conferences in Copenhagen many years ago), which means opening up information and knowledge-sharing. So why would it now even suggest closing up all information under eternal copyright? Perhaps the pandemic has clouded some people’s minds????
Re: UNESCO Suggests COVID-19 Is A Reason To Create... Eternal Co
"Anyone suggesting eternal copyright has no clue what copyright is and what the purpose of copyright laws are for."
To perpetually lock up the act of creation into the hands of prior successful actors who then get to act as permanent gatekeepers and profit in perpetuity?
Because that was always the true purpose of copyright, both as implemented by the british empire, and later on as ensconced in the Berne convention.
Every other argument, such as "for science the arts" or "for the authors" were constructed long after the fact to stifle opposition for the open middleman protectionism the legislation was all about.
Copyright was always a red flag act. Quite openly meant to benefit no one but the gatekeeper industry of increasingly redundant middlemen.