A musical political thread!!

[Anderton]

So how do you all feel about copyright extension? The time something can be copyrighted seems to get longer and longer. Now it can extend beyond the creator's death. It used to be that it was assumed copyrighted material would be the exclusive province of the creator for a limited period of time, then pass into the public domain. Had the origial copyright laws continued unchanged, for example, Mickey Mouse would now be in the public domain. So my question is what is a reasonable amount of time for an artist to maintain exclusive control over their work, and reap the benefits therefrom? Should the length of copyright protection be extended or shortened?

[MattC]

if copyright is shortened, how will walt disney's heirs live? will they have to work? and oh, yeah- what's copyright? does that mean that the creator of an original work has exclusive rights to it? It's a novel idea, but I don't think it'll catch on...

[BP3]

Extended. The family (or whomever the creator chooses) of the creator of a song, or whatever other intellectual property should be able to inherit the benefits of the work created, provided the rights remain with the composer. Work for hire, or sold rights should be considered in a different light. Safeguards should be in place to insure that family member have redress from right taken illegally from the composer.

[whitefang]

Having never copywrited anything, I don't fully understand how that law works. It just seems to me that there should never be a time an artists creation leaves his/her control unless the artist willfully relinquishes that control of their own volition. Whitefang

[Salyphus]

I just posted my thoughts about a real world example of the importance of this subject in another thread not two hours ago, in case nobody noticed: http://www.musicgearnetwork.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=008920

[thisDude]

In the case of the mouse, I believe there was a special congressional exception made. Do you believe in magic? Congress does. :D

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by whitefang: [b]It just seems to me that there should never be a time an artists creation leaves his/her control unless the artist willfully relinquishes that control of their own volition. Whitefang[/b][/quote]I have and do copyright music and spoken word recordings. And I agree with Whitefang.

[DC]

I'm in favor of control being in the hands of people; creaters and their heirs for as long as possible and NOT in the hands of coporations.

[alcohol]

[quote] An overly expanded copyright also constitutes a material disincentive to the production and dissemination of creative, transformative uses of preexisting expression. Indeed, a broad, expanded copyright may, in effect, stifle transformative uses in a way that parallels, but is far more systematic than the problem of private censorship. All creative expression involves borrowing from earlier works, to one degree or another, whether in the form of literal or near-literal quotation (as in T.S. Eliot's pastiche of literary greats in The Waste Land), reformulation of basic plot (as in West Side Story's adaptation of Romeo and Juliet), or influence of style (as in the genre of Impressionist painting).[41]  To the extent that copyright in an author's potential source material requires payment for the quotation, reformulation, adaptation, or parody of that material, some such transformative uses will never transpire.[42]  In a very real sense, it does not matter whether a transformative use is silenced by deliberate copyright owner suppression or secondary author inability or unwillingness to pay the copyright owner's price. Regardless of the reason, the resulting harm to cultural development and expressive diversity is the same: transformative expression has been muted....etc.,etc.. [/quote] [url=http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/nnetanel/yljarticle.htm#I.%20THE%20EXPANSION%20OF%20COPYRIGHT]Copyright and a Democratic Civil Society[/url] Your heirs can inherit the wealth of the sale of your copyrighted material under fair terms of duration. Copyright protection into perpetuity is anathema to scientific and artistic progress. Given that the burden of protection of private and intellectual property is a government responsibility, the enforcement of which we all pay for with our taxes, the idea of endless copyright protection is odious and promotes the implementation of social classes entitled by birthright instead of merit.

[Steve Presley]

Damn tough question. And strong arguments on both sides. However, I look at a creation as a family heirloom and all decisions regarding a family treasure should be up to the creator/ holder to disperse as he/ she or their assigns see fit. Not up to the government. IMHO

[alcohol]

If there were no government there would be no copyright. Copyright laws are government creations. Since the government is the author and enforcer of the copyright law then the government has a interest in it's implementation.

[wildabstaol.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Anderton: [b] what is a reasonable amount of time for an artist to maintain exclusive control over their work, and reap the benefits therefrom? Should the length of copyright protection be extended or shortened?[/b][/quote]The copyright should remain the exclusive property of the future heirs, just like any other property. After all, it is money making property, like a house, a business, an investment portfolio, etc. and should be treated as such. 20 years after you die, should your house become public property at no financial gain to your heirs or survivors?

[realtrance]

Money and art don't mix. Copyright was originally valuable as a form of protecting individuals and small, developing industries from destruction via competition or acquisition by larger entities, but these days, copyright is more often than not used in just the opposite way. I think copyright should be limited to the original producer of the work, for her or his lifetime, and that's it; after that, it's in the public domain and if Andy Warhol II wants to draw a moustache on Mickey Mouse and hang it in the Met and call it an original work of art, no corporation should be able to say boo about it. rt

[js]

I'm of two minds on this. Clearly, I would like any creations to be mine for as long as possible, preferably forever. On the other hand, I think that the world benefits from intellectual properly in the public domain. I know that patents and copyrights are different, but at their heart, the goal is the same - to encourage creation by allowing the creator to have controlling rights for a period of time. js After expiration, the world benefits. A good example of this is generic drugs - should drug patents never run out? And the same push for extending copyright durations is being made in the patent area. As someone who attempts to both create "art" (my quotes, since I'm not sure others would agree...) and technical innovations, I see little difference with the creation process and I believe that they should receive equal protection.

[Kendrix]

This really is a dillema isnt it. Well- since I usually see both sides of an argument how about a compromise? How about a new concept of copyright whereby certain privlidges persist in perpetuity for the owner or the c. However, the right to use is granted, effectively placing the item in the public domain, after a certain period of time. Beyond that point the original owner might continue to share, at a much lower pre-set level in some associated revenues. Its key that this sytem be very simple, that it not require negotiation of T's & C's for each case and that it's fees dont substantially inhibit "almost-free" use. Of course, some simple accounting will be involved in some way at some point. I also see the need to distinguish between purely commercial uses ( A mickey Mouse burger shop) and creative uses such as the use of samples from a recording in a derivative song. I also see the need to distinguish between transformative works and simple commercial exploitation of the origianal work. So, If Disney retains Mickey as a trademark as part of an active commercial concern then they shold retain those rights. I should not be able to open the Mickey Mouse burger house. (There go my retirement plans) I'm sure this boundary can be drawn - it wont ever be perfect but it can be drawn. I admit the fine details are a bit murky - but there must be some middle ground that can be created and effectively implemented. "Almost free". One aspect of this is that if something remains really big commercailly (like Mickey M or Led Zeppelin) the owners will still get something worthwhile. In addition, if you vote for me for Govenor, I promise to eliminate all toll booths. ;)

[Anderton]

One of the main reasons given for not extending copyright is that ideas are seen as a product of society, with the artist as the catalyst. In other words, would my Quadrafuzz have existed if LEDs and op amps hadn't been invented? Would Sgt. Pepper's have existed if society hadn't had a more tolerant attitude about drugs and a quest for something new? Regarding patents, different from copyrights, Jefferson was against the concept -- he said that "ideas are cheap and plentiful, and belong to the society that fosters them." So copyright was instituted so that people could basically amortize their lifetime of effort. The copyright laws have continually been strengthened over the years, to the advantage of the holder. The revision in 1976 made it so that that you didn't really have to register something to have it copyrighted -- it was assumed that you owned rights to your work until you specifically assigned those rights elsewhere. It is a tough question. That's why I posted it here...something to chew on.

[Franknputer]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the 1976 version, and I don't agree with the new extensions. The term set forth before was life of the author +50 years - enough for the children of the author to gain from their parents' work. The extension granted to Disney et al. are only benefitting corporate entities that do not want their (paid-for) copyrights subject to the (then-)current laws. They want to retain the rights to exploit (or also NOT exploit) their collections of works in perpetuity. (The 20-year extension is basically a stopgap compromise.) To me, this runs completely counter to the reasons for the limitations in the first place, effectively depriving the world of deriving further from the works of the past - unless you are willing to pay toll to the trolls, of course. :mad:

[Brakka]

Originally posted by Anderton: [b]...It used to be that it was assumed copyrighted material would be the exclusive province of the creator for a limited period of time, then pass into the public domain. Had the origial copyright laws continued unchanged, for example, Mickey Mouse would now be in the public domain.[/b] Oh- check this out, it's not a joke: [img]http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/entertainment/02/austrian_mouse/img/mouse150.jpg[/img] [i]A 700-year-old fresco bearing an uncanny resemblance to Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse has been discovered in Austria. The mouse figure was unearthed by an art historian working on the church in the southern village of Malta. The figure bears an enormous resemblance to Walt Disney's famous mouse to this 14th Century figure. ... Art historians are claiming the discovery could mean the end of Disney's copyright on the character. [/i] [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2481749.stm]Full Story[/url]

[D_dup3]

I think there's a bit of confusion between copyright, patent & trademark on the part of some---keep in mind they're different & have different laws...& these are different (& differently enforced) in many countries. Congress keeps extending the length of copyright protection every few years. Personally I think they all should have some time limits, although exactly [i]what[/i], I can't say at this time. Businesses that invent patentable items deserve to profit but should drug companies continue to extend patents by just changing packaging (as they currently do---thereby preventing generic forms to be sold less expensively)? Creative copyright certainly has a place & it should not end suddenly with one's death but should, say, Paul McCartney's grandkids be able to live off the Buddy Holly catalog? Trademarks, as the "face" of a continuing enterprise, are the only ones that would seem to have any "right" to perpetuity. Regarding the Mouse/Disney thang, I think Kendrix's comments have some bearing & Disney lawyers are/were fools if they didn't examine the options vis a vis trademarking the Mouse.

[Groovepusher Sly]

You should be able to pass your copyright to your heirs. Suppose your copyrighted songs that were never released, were in a trunk that was passed to your heirs, would they have the right to release them or should they go into the public domain? The copyrights should pass just like property. Shouldn’t the heirs benefit when the administration of the estate is a humongous job ala Elvis or Sinatra? Aren’t the heirs entitled to limit the use of and to the preservation of the image and integrity of the artist? Should Microsoft and Apple’s copyrights eventually become public domain? This is different because those are corporations, however, logically since their business is based on those copyrights they should extend into perpetuity or as long as the corporation exists. My 2¢. Sly :cool:

[the people of Earth]

Are software works copyrighted? It seems that they should be patented---they are things that are designed a certain way & do particular work (in effect they are "virtual" machines)...they aren't "creative" endeavors.

[AlanThomas]

[quote]Originally posted by the people of Earth: [b]Are software works copyrighted? It seems that they should be patented---they are things that are designed a certain way & do particular work (in effect they are "virtual" machines)...they aren't "creative" endeavors.[/b][/quote]Software is both copyrightable and patentable. In fact, the software industry is the leading recipient of patents. At a software company I used to work for (no not My Crow Soft), there was a multi-tiered bonus program for software engineers for patents: so many $$ if the company applied for a patent for your idea (which they owned of course, work-for-hire) and so many more $$$ if the patent was awarded.

[Wow]

Here where I live, James Brown sold his copyrighted material(songs) until 2025 and then it reverts back to the family. He got 75 million I believe. He is now broke, go figure. There are all types of things that can be done with copy written material. If the originator loses control after X years then the whole system goes down the toobs.

[Franknputer]

That's not true. The whole system is based upon the idea that the copyright is not forever, so it hardly puts it "down the tubes". You get ample opportunity to exploit your ideas for profit, after which time the general public gets free access to the ideas to create more ideas. Imagine the burden of administering copyright fees in 500 years. An agency would have to keep track of the rightful owners of an incredible array of work, and pay them royalties from all uses. Plus, you would have the burden as a creator to know all music, as everything you might come up with would be subject to copyright checks. Suppose the song you poured your heart & soul into is just a little too similar to one written 200 years prior - you lose, you don't get to make money from it without paying royalties to the great-grandchild of someone who's work you never heard. It's a limited system of compensation for the creation of ideas - limited because creation does not exist in a vaccuum, but is built upon the ideas of others.

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by alcohol: [b]If there were no government there would be no copyright. Copyright laws are government creations. Since the government is the author and enforcer of the copyright law then the government has a interest in it's implementation.[/b][/quote]The goverment is compensated for that protection through taxes. The taxes paid on the songwriting and publishing royalties for a song like "My Funny Valentine" should cover the tab for protecting another million songs.

[Wow]

[quote] Plus, you would have the burden as a creator to know all music, as everything you might come up with would be subject to copyright checks. Suppose the song you poured your heart & soul into is just a little too similar to one written 200 years prior - you lose, you don't get to make money from it without paying royalties to the great-grandchild of someone who's work you never heard. [/quote]The company would have to re-up every so many years. Think of all of the companies that have been around for 75 years. Do they lose the copywrite to the material? If they are still in business then that would be the shaft. It used to be that anything became public domain after 50 or 75 years , I cant remember, but the law is changing as we go because there really were no big companies that had a problem of this when the law's were originally written.

[Salyphus]

If the copyrights expire these companies will have more incentive to create new works to contribute to society, rather than perpetually milking the same old crap while enjoying the protections of the common trust. Among many other reasons... If copyrights never expire eventually EVERY idea will be a derivative work owned by some large corporation. :eek:

[Wow]

There is a copyright on the McDonalds arches, if they lost it then anybody would be able to use the arches. There are a lot more copyrights than just music. Should anybody be able to take these?

[Salyphus]

Are you sure you aren't confusing trademarks and copyrights C.M.? Bottom line for me: business for profit is a privilege granted by the people via the government. Not a right. Of course I seem to be one of the only people left who feel this way :(

[Wow]

The Mcdonalds was just an example, I guess we need to pick one thing and talk about it. It gets confusing. Lets stick with songs, O.K..