I think it's time the tech industry starts asking for broad sweeping changes of the copyright laws. The copyright industry may be affected by the Internet, but the tech industry is being affected by copyright laws, too, so it should have a say in copyright laws as well. The copyright laws need to be adapted to the digital age and the terms need to be brought down from virtually forever to a much more reasonable time period.

The current strategy of doing nothing is only going to help the copyright industry, even if they don't always get what they want - but they do get something eventually, and it's usually to the detriment of the tech industry.

MPAA said they are now willing to have an open discussion with the tech industry (which by the way still isn't enough, it wasn't just the tech industry protesting SOPA), but apparently they are up to the same old tricks, and they are starting to discuss a new international copyright treaty, once again in secret:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120126/03162017547/public...

> I think it's time the tech industry starts asking for broad sweeping changes of the copyright laws.

This is a great idea. Broad sweeping measures, hopefully with a catchy name, to counteract the current nuttiness. Call it something like "The Internet Freedom Act"

You can't be against Freedom, cay you?

Artistic Freedom Technology Act

I agree. It's time to not just resist further expansion of copyright and copyright enforcement, but to push back.

* Reduce copyright terms to 4 years, non-renewable

* Require registration of works with the copyright office

* Assess an annual fee proportional to revenue earned from the copyrighted work

* Provide for stiff penalties for asserting copyright over works you do not hold the copyright to.

* Affirm that public domain works can never be copyrighted.

>Require registration of works with the copyright office

Yaay - more bureaucracy and competitive advantages for the established business that can afford the fees/process. Kill open-source copyright claim validity in the process ?

>Assess an annual fee proportional to revenue earned from the copyrighted work

Yaay - taxes on top of taxes !

I partially agree with a slight modification. I write a lot of free software / open source software. This relies on copyright of course, to enforce the freedoms. I don't want an onerous registration environment, but if it was "copyright terms to 4 years after last publication without registration" but registration with a fee after that. So if I continue to make the software, it gets the copyright and if I get bored, it turns into PD - and that's fine.

Interestingly it sounds like these "recognized" copyright holders want registration of copyright too ... they say they are willing to provide a regularly updated list of all the copyrighted works they want to be censored.

If that's what they want, give it them. Bringing back copyright registration might not be such a bad idea, at least in a form where after 14 years of free copyright, you have to pay $1 per work per year and provide the contact name and address of the registered copyright holder. All unregistered works older than 14 years would automatically fall out of copyright into the public domain.

I don't understand the thinking behind this scheme. I mean, for example, $1 per year isn't even enough to justify the trouble of collecting it.

The reason for $1 per year is twofold:

(1) It's low enough that it doesn't exclude anyone. If it was $10,000 per year or some other large amount, it would exclude a significant number of people.

(2) The aim of registration is not to extract fees. It's to make sure that works are registered; as soon as an organization goes out of business or loses track of what it's claiming, it forgets to register it, and it's public domain permanently.

Point (2) reveals a flaw, which is that organizations would spring up to do the registration (you'd pay them $100 and they would keep the registration going for 100 years). That's why the copyright holders' real name and address is required -- so that these intermediaries need to keep track of the claimant. You might also try banning such intermediaries, if that would work.

It's not bulletproof, but it's surely better than the current case where long-abandoned works rot on floppy disks that can't legally be rescued. http://www.pcworld.com/article/248571/why_history_needs_soft...

As long as companies like Twitter are openly embracing country specific censorship I don't see this happening anytime soon. Just looking at the recent developments - Megaupload, Google Profiling and Twitter's new found love for Censoring doesn't make me hopeful that Tech companies will stand up for the interests of their users.

  > As long as companies like Twitter are openly
  > embracing country specific censorship

As I understand it, they are just complying with local laws (regardless of the morality of the law). This says nothing about lobbying to change the current laws, or create new ones.

God no.

This is not about the tech industry, this is about civil rights. If the tech industry starts messing with the law in the same way the copyright industry has done, the general public will just get screwed in a different position. Don't for a second think that the major corporations in tech won't march on and start lobbying against privacy laws and such.

There's nothing about the tech industry that is inherently more ethical or less self-serving than the entertainment industry. Corporations messing with laws that affect civil liberties is never a good idea.

Yeah, but what's the equivalent of the MPAA/RIAA in the tech industry? It's crazy how much more money the tech heavyweights have over the music/motion picture industry, yet, the tech industry seems to have almost no influence in politics. Can't they lobby for not being censored?

It's not just about money, it's about connections. It's not as though I could go to Washington with billions of dollars and suddenly have the same influence as Big Oil or Big Media or whatever else. That kind of power takes decades to acquire and secure. That's not to say money has no influence, but it isn't everything.

I think it's time a few big players in the tech industry lead the charge toward making shit like this completely impossible. Regulation and lobbying and beltway insider bullshit is their game, and their rules. Eventually that too will change but that change isn't going to come about playing by their rules.

The problem is that you can censor the internet in the first place, not that some assholes want to censor it. There are always going to be assholes.

Copyrights should not trump human rights. I think that's the next big struggle of the digital age.

    No more censoring for copyright.  
    No more jail terms for copyright.  
    No more searches for copyright.  
    No more extradition for copyright.

Human rights are more important.

Not only censorship but also results manipulation. >Prioritize websites that obtain certification as a licensed site under a recognised scheme

It's like pressuring map makers to exclude "bad areas" of town where knockoffs are sold, but also only listing the shops that a certain cartel, I mean group, want listed.

Agreed Removing links to exclusively pirated content is something I can accept, removing an entire website because it contains piracy I can't. Even worse is the result manipulation, that is ridiculous, whoever pays more gets better rank?

There is no such thing as "copyright industry". The motion picture industry, the phonographic industry, the book publishing industry, the software industry, the video game industry all closely related to copyright yet they are all very different businesses with very different problems, "screwed up" very different ways. This is gross oversimplification and I am sad that this level of naïve uninformed populism is making it to the top of HN.

And yet, so many of the players in different categories are owned by the same companies. It's an oversimplification but it's not a gross one.

It is true that they are owned by the same groups (e.g. the Bertelsmann Group) and that's somewhat relevant but I wouldn't think that has too much importance. These companies exchange owners very often. I'm repeating myself but the woes of these industries are so immensely different in nature, the only thing they share in common is that they blame piracy for their problems, for better or worse.

Wont this hurt potential startup websites? Also, couldnt you still visit the offending website directily? In addition, if the keyword stream was blocked wouldnt Last.Fm be screwed from potential visits?

The copyright industry, which should be termed the intellectual monopoly industry, ought to get a taste of its own medicine. They control "intellectual property", so they charge monopoly prices for their content. If the copyright industry monopoly wants the search engine monopoly to modify their service, they should pay Bing, Google and Yahoo monopoly prices for it. Otherwise they should for once innovate instead of demanding subsidies from the world and figure out for themselves how to protect their own miserable content.

How about blocking all motion picture and record company sites too. It's not as if they actually contribute anything of value to the Internet.

So, why is this a closed-door meeting? Collusion?

Why the fuck isn't it out in the open, where they public can heard and evaluate what's being proposed?

I don't take kindly to people whispering behind my back. All the more so when it is about me. And I get positively paranoid when it's about what the want to do to... erm, "for", me.

I think these people may soon top a final rise to find themselves at cliff's edge. And no way back.

The solution is to realize that the MPAA and RIAA took it upon themselves to start a wild-west no lawful due process to enforce their rights tactic with no discussion with the tech industry or user of the internet.

Its the same entitlement that allows them currently to abuse copyright producers by 'bribing' lawmakers to pass laws exempting their extortion.

Its time that the RIAA and MPAA face investigations and rico charges, the sooner the better.

It's like banning guns. Bad guys will still have them and still know where to get more. Only good, decent, law-abiding people suffer from these efforts.