RIAA's Rosen 'writing Iraq copyright laws'

[Fett101]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30441.html

RIAA's Rosen 'writing Iraq copyright laws'
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Posted: 29/04/2003 at 01:11 GMT


Chief executive for the Recording Industry Association of America, Hilary Rosen, is helping draft copyright legislation for the New Iraq, according to investigative journalist Gregory Palast.

"Who's really going to win this war? It looks like Madonna," Palast told Democracy Now radio. "Where before, they feared Saddam Hussein, now they have to fear Sony Records will chop off their hands if they bootleg a Madonna album."

Under Iraqi copyright legislation, passed by The Revolution Leadership Council in 1971, a copyright lapses 25 years after the death of the author, but no more then fifty years after the publication of the work. It's shorter for private works, and there are several public interest exemptions.

We wonder which member of The Revolution Leadership Council penned this, or whether someone wrote it for them, but the real author of this enlightened document ought to step forward. Maybe they could help liberate the USA - which extended copyright to seventy years after the author's death - from Hollywood.

(Do we sense a campaign coming on?)

But if true, and Palast has a good record for trade politics, Rosen's dash for Baghdad isn't hard to explain.

Iraq does not have a reciprocal copyright agreement with the United States, which means that US works are not protected.

Hilary will almost certainly be setting to work on the current law's Article 13:- "The author may not prevent a person making one copy of a published work for his own use."

And she will want to stiffen the penalties for infringement:- one hundred dinars, or three hundred for repeat offenders. Maybe she will shoot for something closer to the $97 trillion the RIAA has claimed as damages from the file-sharing students back in the Homeland.

With the effective collapse of the UN's food program, it's nice to see Rosen's humanitarian impulses remain untarnished by war.

A month ago Congressman Darrell Issa (R., San Diego) introduced a bill ensuring that Qualcomm, based in his congressional district, be given a foothold in the New Iraq. Europe and the Middle East use the global GSM standard.

[mobrien_12]

RIAA == SCUM

[SpeeDFreaK]

By the corporations, for the corporations.

[Calum]

quote:"Who's really going to win this war? It looks like Madonna," Palast told Democracy Now radio. "Where before, they feared Saddam Hussein, now they have to fear Sony Records will chop off their hands if they bootleg a Madonna album."

these copyright regulations appear to have no interest in actually allowing the creator of a work to have control over how liberally their work is distributed. it seems to centre solely on how to make people have a shit time in fact, and make as much money as possible go to those who have the most money already. and that's the american dream, kids, you salute it every morning. lucky iraq that they should get all this wholesome US goodness.

[ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Calum: crusader for peace & freedom ]

[Faust]

Haven't these people suffered enough?

The one country with sane copyright laws and we bomb it.  Why?  To get rid of weapons of mass destruction!  Of which we have so far found [checks newspaper] erm... none.  But we're still looking!  (Why doesn't Colin Powell just go to wherever he took those pictures of?  Because he lied!)

Ok we'll doublethink that weapons of mass destruction bit...  It was to free the Iraqi people and establish a democratic American dictatorship!  Who will leave after three years when people work out how much this is costing them, leaving the fundamentalist Islamics to duke it out with the hard line communists (who btw are the two most popular Iraqi factions for leadership.)

And just think!  We got to kill hundreds of Iraqis a day when we could just have removed Saddam a bit more slowly with less deaths!

SKILL!!!

EditLJust in case anyone mistakes this as anti American, note that I'm an Australian - we're just as guilty of this as you are...  

[ May 01, 2003: Message edited by: Faust ]

[Calum]

anti-australian! (oh yes, the australian prime minister, 10 points to any non australian who can name him    ) actually said anybody who was anti-war was anti-australian)

and the mouth foaming types will just say you are even more anti american because you are an australian. been there.

and the yanks don't need to find any WMD, because everybody knows that whatever happens, the yanks are RIGHT, aren't they? look it up in the dictionary:

"Right: whatever the americans do to anybody else"

[KernelPanic]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
anti-australian! (oh yes, the australian prime minister, 10 points to any non australian who can name him     ) actually said anybody who was anti-war was anti-australian)

John Howard - Nazi Fscker

[Faust]

John Howards an evil little fucker on the outside I'll admit that.  But my personal thought is that he is a puppet of the cabinet.    

If you want some real evil bastards look at Alexander Downer (hey i'll just threaten east timor into giving us oil...) and Phillip Ruddock (the living dead "kill all refugees" himself.)  Man I hate the liberal party.  Stupid evil bastards the lot of em.

At least its not like our chat radio hosts - one of whom suggested that the thousands of anti war demonstrators could be "fixed" with some anthrax.

BTW all theres a cool new game you should be able to get over P2P when it comes out of develepment... its a realistic simulation entitiled "escape from woomera."  Ruddock is a bit cut about this one to say the least.  

[psyjax]

This should be in the lounge.

Any mods care to do the honers?

[Fett101]

Yes Yes. I had to think a bit about where to put this since there is no plain ole' news section, and there are some non MS reletad news stories in this place.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:

these copyright regulations appear to have no interest in actually allowing the creator of a work to have control over how liberally their work is distributed.

Some copyright laws are out of order but on the whole, do they not attempt protect the artist ? Using music as an example, if the artist intends on making a living from selling music, he can't just give his product away and have anybody with a PC and internet access a means to distribute the artists work for free. Like it or not, music is a commodity that can be bought and sold or if the artist prefers, given away. Where it gets fuzzy, is once the music has been bought by the consumer, can the consumer then distribute it for free or otherwise ?

[Faust]

What part of the Iraqi law let people "pirate" an artists new song?  All it meant was that after 25 years of profit it became public domain.  25 years is more than enough time to bleed the customers dry, come on!

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
What part of the Iraqi law let people "pirate" an artists new song?  All it meant was that after 25 years of profit it became public domain.  25 years is more than enough time to bleed the customers dry, come on!

Why, because you say so ?!! I'm sure Yoko Ono would disagree along with the rest of the people that have a finger in the Beatles pie.  

As far as I am concerned, anybody listening to Madonna's little dittys should get their ears chopped off, we would be doing them a favour !!  

 

[Faust]

I agree re the madonna thing.
Come on, who the hell would *listen* to Yoko Ono sing?  The only reason she gets money is because she gets to ride the Beatles 4000+ year copyright.  That isn't the artist profiting, it's just blatant profiteering.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by Faust:
I agree re the madonna thing.
Come on, who the hell would *listen* to Yoko Ono sing?  The only reason she gets money is because she gets to ride the Beatles 4000+ year copyright.  That isn't the artist profiting, it's just blatant profiteering.

Fuck, no one want to hear Yoko sing. She is however in control of John Lennon's estate and his assets, i.e. his music.  
In most cases, commercial music is shite anyway but, the artist went to the bother of recording it (whther it's music or a book) and the artist should determine the longivity of the copyright, not "you" or the publisher, e.g. Walt Disney Sony Music. The artist should also be incontrol of how his work is distributed. If the artist does not want his work to be freely available on the internet, what is the problem ? There are tons of musicians who publish their work on the internet for free and frankly, most of that is shite too. I agree that a copyright should not last indefinately but again, the consumer should not dictate when that is.