Shared publicly  - 
We spend millions trying to enforce current copyright legislation. Meanwhile, many artists struggle by on tiny incomes, and inflexible rules mean we're paralysed with fear and inaction when confronted with innovative ideas. Here's my ideas on creating a system that puts artists at its heart.
Werner Van Belle's profile photoRon de Jong's profile photoTristan Everitt's profile photoHans Peters's profile photo
Your idea's are in my opinion always spot on! But how long will it last before we see actually something (like the current copyright system) changing?
I am amazed that we Europeans always follow the Mickey Mouse Lobby of the U.S.
Don't forget that Mickey Mouse itself was a ripp off. Culture needs to be able to develop upon prior work. There has to be protection of intellectural property, but not that long!
Well SOPA will show us all how wrong we are :-/
Nice words +Neelie Kroes , now how long will it take to put up such a system? The agencies have tightened their grip on the consumer like money hungry multinationals while leaving the artists they should represent standing in the bitter cold. Now is the time to show the consumer and the artists that Europe stands for their case by putting on a balanced system that works.
In my opninon, the first thing to do is to get rid of collection societies (SABAM, GEMA,...). That money never ends up in the artists hand. Once that wrong situation is righted one can consider how to continue, but trying to get the thing 'fixed' while at the same time letting this disease spread its tentacles will very likely not be possible.
We do need proper protection for ideas and creative and innovative initiatives. In a way that the creator is protected ánd able to move around with his/her idea/creation. At the moment I see a lot creatives and innovative iniatives fail due to the fear of loosing ones right over a creation.

Not being able to execute ideas due to fear of loss of property leads to death of creation. Having ideas is nice.... but no more than that, if one is not able to execute the idea in it's full.

I believe however that this is a global issue. Nevertheless Europe should take the lead in securing the creative rights of its inhabitants. If Europe as an entity, is not able to do so, Europe will fall back in economic growth, wealth and prosperity.

As mentioned correctly the current copyrights don't really protect but disable creativity and thus forward motion.
+Leo Verdonck I think the question is not IF we should protect IP but how and for how long?

Should we extend this period everytime the first songs of the Beatles catalogue fear to get out of the time frame?

Should we allow companies like ASCAP/BMI (in the US) to sue kids sitting at a bonfire singing a popular song?
George if you read my comment you might find that I'm talking about protection of IP at the beginning of a creative process. And that the current "way of protecting" is not the right way to facilitate creative and innovative iniatives. Please read beyond the first line ;0)
George, Leo: 'Intellectual property' is an artifical construction. Things are created in the spirit of their time, based on things that came before. Getting rid of intellectual property is the only way forward, and the only strategy that will resist the tooth of time.
Dear Werner, getting rid of intellectual property is ridiculous. I agree that a lot of things are created in the spirit of time. That doesn't mean however that the person that thinks of it shouldn't have any right to it. It's the way we regulate this that is the issue. Like George Holzer says... not the IF but the HOW is what it's about. Saying that IP is an artificial construction... any law / reglementation we humans make is artificial, nevertheless most of them have a role in human interaction. Rules should be made that enable a better use of IP instead of rules that disable the use of IP and kill creativity.
Most laws/artificial constructions have a purpose for society. I don't see how IP benefits society.

As far as I see it, creators/authors have no benefit. And it is even so that many people who create things (not managers and lawyers) find IP laws a hindrance to innovation and culture.Therefore I feel that this particular construct has become obsolete.

Your wish to have a 'better use of IP' is not excluded by abolishing intellectual property. However, if you want 'different' laws, I'm sure the big players will ensure that you have less choice in the end than you currently have. They do not want to give you any rights.

If you want 'different IP' you will also need to discuss who 'owns' an 'idea'. The company, the inventor, the patent office, the state, university, mother, father ? All of this is nonsense. You cannot 'own' ideas.
I am really excited that +Neelie Kroes, in a powerful position, wants to work on modernizing copyright, and I agree completely with the analysis of the flaws of the current system.

In the alternatives however, I see no mention of the fundamental problem: if law enforcement cannot identify the individual consumer, they can not make him pay. P2P sharing cannot be stopped (without severely hampering personal privacy at least). Why not create a framework that makes it easier to have a business model that profits from "piracy"? For instance: collection agencies paying artists for works that have been released under "free" licenses (eg creative commons)?
Neelie .... The only lady that is worth a 1000 politician European men,.. especially the Dutch ones.
Change the system!
Adding to miss Kroes, establuish the total benefits on an idea when rewarding an artist or inventor a patent.
=> The small artist are ensured of this and can grow
=> The large corporations (and/aka/or patenttrolls) need to be smart and sensible on how much legal action they the exploitation of an idea is worth.
The total benefit could be determined by a group of humane, social, independent sector-specialists.
Of course there are plenty of question on such change, but it sure is better than current abuse, misuse and the great creative artists left with little.
Dear Ron, it makes no sense to demand such things from Oracle, google or any other company. Software is abstract and cannot be protected with DRM. Why would you demand others to spend time on your impossible wishes ? Why don't you protect your own software with an appropriate obfuscation scheme ?
DRM is just a technique, just like obfuscation is. Executable software is not abstract at all, it's only seen as abstract by users that take it for granted. Software Piracy is good for € billions of losses and we HAVE to deal with theft as otherwise (just like the music industry) that to will steeply go downhill !
You cannot say that executable software is not 'abstract'. It is an electromagnetic cloud inside a computer. Do you want to lay claim on the electromagnetic flux maybe ?

You also didn't answer the question: why should somebody else make your software secure ? Why don't you do it yourself ?
Your feedback merely distracts from the topic and has no relevancy herein. The topic is protection of intellectual property (information like you find in books) and not the "Electromagnetic FIELD" side effects of an ("binary operating") electronic device.
well the bible says all knowledge comes from god, so hes holding the copyright. :) I think paying people for things they do should be on voluntary basis, Artist who dont get money for theire work, will be less motivated to make new works, so if you enjoy theire work , show some respect and donate what you think its worth. The internet makes such a system possible , and you do away with alot of overhead, and its self regulating. just my 2 cnts .
@Ron: Sorry, to 'distract' then. But what DO you actually want to protect ? The binary code ? Which obviously is not the same in a hacked version. So you can't complain about that then.

Anyway, I see you don't answer the very simple question why don't you protect your own software ? Why do you insist that Oracle shoud be forced to solve a problem you can't solve yourself ?
@michel: I've also been toying around with such ideas. The problem is that many inventions are only recognized after the inventor is dead. Maybe a merge of communism, capitalism and direct democracy. Every person could have xxx credits each month and should spend them. They can however choose in detail on what to spend them. I'd admit that I'm not sure whether this will work very well or whether other systems could be thought of that are better. It is however clear to me that intellectual property/patents and this entire ego-boosting businiess is a fart in time (tm). I don't think many people are willing to pay greece for pythagoris his work ? Are we ? Or maybe we should pay fourier and gauss as well ?
That comes with the nature of Oracle's way to compile Java Source Code to Java Byte Code. Currently you can reverse byte code back into source code, stick your own name on it, disable the license code mechanism and resell it again, as if you've made the software yourself.
The problem here is "javac", which is Oracle's byte code compiler that should provide more protection.

There are obfuscaters, but using those on large applications will also break things inside the application, so not a good option.

The C language doesn't have this problem as the byte/binary code doesn't reverse back into source code, but into assembly code which is very low-level and notoriously hard to analyze in such quantities!
You could write your application in C if that would have suited you better. However, if somebody would then reimplement the same software, the same screens, the same functionality, I suspect that you would still be crying foul. So, I don't think decompilation is the real issue you have. I suspect that, if you could, you would patent the idea of your application. Then everything would ceratinly be solved. You could even sue those who made a better but similar product ! Wouldn't that be great ?
I choose Java for its phenomenal cross platform capability, something that C doesn't offer. We all know that asian cultures don't care much about other's intellectual property and widely violate it and ignore owner's complaints, knowing they're safe, being so far away from the western world.

The only proper way to do it is to have "javac" compile source code into heavily encrypted byte code only readable / interpretable by the JRE / Java Virtual Machine (runtime compiler).
So you will need to compile your source for each individual platform again then ? Not so crossplatform anymore would I say.
Java has been the most widely used programming language for the past decade, which emphasizes the magnitude of the problem.
I hope our European Commission takes this as a serious issue as more and more our economies are software dependent.
Not only intellectual property theft is an economic threat, but also our national security becomes a threat with the use of Java.
Ministries, Defense, Banks, Telecoms and the Internet provider industries, widely use Java written software !!!
Java is secure because it interprets byecode instead of creating executable code. That makes it also crossplatform. You are here continuously saying that the european comission should 'deal with the problem'. Nothing prohibits you yourself from generating encrypted byecode. All you need to do is to create an appropriate classloader and your wishes are fullfilled.
Custom classloaders also run inside the JRE. After decryption the JRE still runs in-memory bytecode. So although the class files them selves cannot be reversed anymore, the in-memory bytecode (objects) can simply be obtained from memory for reverse engineering to Java Source Code. It makes it slightly harder to reverse, but with a bit of googling it still is relatively easy to reverse.
So classloader encryption also can't protect against theft, because of an insecure JRE architecture, which only Oracle can fix!
'The in-memory bytecode can simply be obtained from memory'. I'm not sure this is true. It would essentially make the entire JVM pointless from a security perspective and all accessmodifiers (private, protected, public) would have no meaning. What I propose is a feasable solution. You can provide a classloader, generated for each client individually, with a private key that will contact your server. There the encrypted class awaits and is sent to the client when requested by that client. Since the key is unique for each individuel client, hacking it would be problematic. Of course, your customers might think you're a facist and your business might go broke since those 'customers' and projected 'losses' never existed in the first place.

Your mantra 'Orace should fix it' makes no sense from another perspective either: you get the java virtual machine for free. You didn't pay for it. Why do you feel that you can tell oracle what to do suddenly ?

A third opposing argument is that the operating system has access to everything anyway. Why don't you go to microsoft and start telling them that they should maybe make their operatng system secure. And then maybe you can go to hardware designers and tell them that they should make sure hardware should only run your code if you approved it. And then you will need to fight virtualization on 'approved' hardware. What you want is impossible, and no level of regulation can fix that. And that is something copyright/intellectual property maximalists do not seem to get. You want to fight an unwinnable war.
Your idea:
- Native classloaders would kill the crossplatform design, introducing another huge global problem.
- Millions of Java applications require additional development.
My idea:
- Oracle would add encryption to "javac" and "java" removing in-memory objects (small effort for the mighty Oracle)
- Millions of Java applications would only need a straight recompilation and run the latest JRE.
- No additional development required on millions of Java Apps

You would repair every malformed meatball coming out the mincer, whereas I would rather have the manufacturer change the mincer itself.
I actually don't think either idea will work. If it were that simple to fix security issues and ensure that what you believe is running is actually that what is running, you could be sure that someone would already have patented it. Currently no system exists that guarantees 'unhackability'. So, in your case, if you are so sure your ideas are possible, it would be wise to set up a company that can do what you describe, patent the details and set up a businness in that area.
Yeah, why isn't Oracle integrating encryption you might ask. Perhaps the lack of encryption is beneficial to the industries (think banking, governments, large multinationals) in order to lower cost on development. Expensive Western developers innovate and the results are put into the hands of much cheaper developers in low cost countries like China and India ! The industry has always been seeking cheaper ways to manufacturer, why else do you think massive software development activity moved to India ? Because it's cheaper !!! Why else do you think massive activity of electronic device manufacturing went to China ? Because it's cheaper !!! Entire industries have moved to Asia, leaving massive numbers of unemployment people behind in the West and at the same time create a gigantic economic problem as these unemployed western people were also consumers. The worst thing of all is, Asia now has taken over innovative capabilities and doesn't need western innovators as much, which leaves our global economic crisis in a vicious circle!
Only new UNCOPYABLE innovations are worth taking on as nobody will again invest years of research knowing that it will be stolen and leave you with debt.
That's why we need Oracle to respond to the economic consequences of the lack of security!
I did not ask why oracle is not doing the impossible. I asked why you didn't do it and why nobody found a watertight solution. If your solution is so simple and elegant, go ahead, implement it. Sell it. If it really wokrs, everybody will love it and buy it.
The answer to your question could have been answered by a twelve year old, because I don't have the source for javac & java nor do I work at Oracle! An academic like you knew my answer before asking, so I can conclude that you're on someone-els's agenda ! end of discussion!
Our deceased prins Bernhard once said (in similar words), people won't understand, if they're being paid to not understand ! I think the same goes for you Werner ! I don't know who's paying you, but I think you're here to influence the digital agenda in favor of your industry's cost savings on intellectual property infringement ! In simple words, you're somehow loyal to the paying side ! That's why a moral/ethic discussion on this topic with you is completely useless !
Since 13 November 2006, the sun microsystems javac compiler is opensourced (this is the compiler that was bought buy oracle). An implementation of a java virtual machine can be found at in the section 'Free and open source Implementations'. So you can access the compiler and test new ideas.

Implying that I have an agenda is silly. I'm bringing forth rational arguments. I'll summarize them.
- nobody told you to use java. You choose it
- nobody asked you to pay for the virtual machine. You got that for free. Without waranty !
- what you want to solve is, as far as I see it, not solvable.
- even if you would have the ultimate copyprotection, you might not see those 'losses' materialized. The question then: is it worth it ?

Your arguments go along the following lines:
- 'they' don't want to fix the problem. With intent so that the chinese can reap the benefits of your hard work
- I have a solution, but refuse to demonstrate it and will not sell it either
- this werner guy has an agenda and cannot be trusted. Ad honimen attacks are not very nice and in this case also incorrect.
I had my Java training in 2004 so I should have checked the source again. Perhaps you're not on the paying side's agenda then and I apologize to you for saying so then. I just don't understand why you're so resistant to having Oracle work on security. It just makes no sense to have millions implement a security gap whereas this could be fixed once and for all by the main manufacturer. They also want their product to be successful right ?
We're all dependent on underlying technology. I can't develop products and also develop compilers at the same time, there's just no time enough in this incredibly fast moving economy. We all specialize in certain fields and one can't be a specialist in all disciplines. Perhaps you're so resistant, because you have your solution and other's don't, but you don't care and that sets you apart and makes you feel proud and I do understand that. We're all humans!
I really liked your posting. Like the article sated, "There are lots of potential ideas out there for new systems of recognition and reward – but too often they are killed stone dead by rigid, pre-digital legislation". Spotify is a great example of how it took several years to gain foothold in all european countries. I'm in Ireland and at the moment it's currently not available in Ireland, but I already have been using it for a number of years because I created an account in the North of Ireland (U.K). I can use it in both countries, but I can only create an account in one (U.K.) and not 10km away (ROI). Due to legal reasons it has taken Spotify a while to reach all European countries and for those same reasons it seems more appealing to start a tech startup company in the U.S. than in Europe. Spotify got released in the U.S. before it was released to all European countries (i.e. Ireland), that does not sound right.
ja okee als het met de muzikant zo gaat.
dan ben ik het er mee eens.
maar de rechten worden heel vaak afgekocht,
in het begin, door grotere organisaties.
op het moment dat de muzikant geen geld heeft.
de rechten worden zelfs op de beurs verhandelt.
en dit kan niet en moet gewoon stoppen.
rechten van een muzikant mogen niet ontnomen kunnen worden.
want zoals het nu is steunen we alleen die grote jongens die vette winsten maken.
Add a comment...