D_dup3 Posted November 17, 2002 Share Posted November 17, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [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.[/b][/quote]The govenment does not enforce copyright laws, except insofar as the laws are interpreted (& cases decided) in courts. The police will never come to your office/house and arrest you for infringement. The government has no cost in maintaining the system; the Lib. of Cong. copyright records are supported by the fees we pay & the courts recoup costs through the filing fees & coust costs of litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by alcohol: If there were no government there would be no copyright.[/quote]This makes no sense...what's your point? If there were no copyrights...then anything anyone created would be easily stolen. How would that be beneficial to an artists...NOT being able to copyright their work??? I think original work should have unlimited copyright as long as there are living heirs of the author. And, the author should also be able to leave those copyrights in a will to whom ever he/she desires. Just like when you own a piece of real estate...it's yours and your heirs. Why would it be fair for someone to be able to take away those copyrights from them in 50 years...or at anytime in the future, for that matter? miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franknputer Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 I believe that alcohol's point was in response to another's idea that "the government should not be involved in copyright". alcohol correctly pointed out that copyright is a creation of law, and thus is the product of the government - and with no government, there would be no recourse for someone whose material was 'stolen' - no copyright protection. If you want to see my opinions on the limits of copyright, scroll up the page. No need to repeat myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 Comparing a few notes from one song to another...is not my idea of proving originality and ownership. All music has bits and pieces of things that came before... But...most songs...as a whole...are original and though they may have "shades" of tunes that came before...they usually can stand on their own two feet. People have been making music for...a loooooooong time....and writing music down for a several hundred years or more...and there still seems to be plenty of room for originality. So...I think that in 500+ years...there can still be new/original music. At any rate...as long as there are direct heirs of the original author...then they should be able to keep the copyrights. Otherwise...the copyright should die with the author. Why keep if or say...50 years after death but not 200...??? If it's just an administrative thing...then maybe the heirs should be responsible for renewing/extending the copyright on a regular basis...if no one renews in XX years...then it reverts to the public domain...??? miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salyphus Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 Well, one reason to not have the copyrights expire immediately upon death of the creator is so we don't get artists being bumped off by people who want to exploit their works :eek: I don't see how having copyrights last as long as there are living heirs could possibly be feasible. Besides, how often is it that the heirs get NOTHING from the work of their family member because it is owned/claimed by some corporation? I think the current compromise is fairly reasonable as long as it doesn't keep getting extended due to bullying (or whatever you want to call it) by Disney et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miroslav Posted November 18, 2002 Share Posted November 18, 2002 And just think... ...once the copyright is gone...then all the big corporations will be grabbing the tunes to use in their TV commercials... That's one reason why I would like copyrights to stay with the author/heirs...forever!!! I know many of popular songs that are now part of ads were not just "taken"...the owners sold rights for usage... But...it sucks when a song reverts back to the public domain...and next week it's being used to sell hamburgers...at no charge!!! miroslav - miroslavmusic.com "Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted November 19, 2002 Share Posted November 19, 2002 Intellectual property should be treated no different than tangible property. When old man Rockefeller died, they didn't make Rockefeller center, or any of his skyscrapers a public domain building that we could all share for free. Whats the difference between a building and a song? Buildings are composed of elements that came before them, from design to construction materials. Compsing a song that someone wants to actually pay to use is not easy. You created it. It is yours to dispose of as you see fit. If that means passing it on to your heirs, so be it. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anoplura Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Bump and [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-bloom112202.asp]Link[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jotown Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 An interesting opinion indeed. Thanks for the link. Jotown:) "It's all good: Except when it's Great" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RM Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 Extensions rule... Just think if the Bible had been legally authored, we may even be able to read waht was actually said, without inferenece or interpetive nuance... Just kidding, but a good case in point. The laws are hard enough to enforce now, and the original works, might bring fruition after the fact, especially for someone like DEl Shannon, or Gene Pitny or etc....(I don't know if they even oened their songs) I vote keep em as long as you can... Rob :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audiobotica Posted November 23, 2002 Share Posted November 23, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: [b]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. [/b][/quote]Agreed! Let's not create future generations of trust fund babies who see no reason to create anything new because some ancient relative did something phenomenal. I've rubbed elbows with the rich long enough to notice one thing, provide comfort and ease for a child and they end up shiftless. Provide comfort and motivation and they can overcome the stultification that can result from too much privilege. Yours in Music, Ben Fury Yours in Music, Ben Fury Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_dup3 Posted November 26, 2002 Share Posted November 26, 2002 After thinking it over a bit, I offer this. One aspect of copyright extension that seems largely undiscussed is the continuing growth of corporate-friendly legislation. This is hardly new but is more overt recently. There's not (should there be?) a difference between types of copyright, whether for creative work or for the item reproduced & sold. While creators stand to have a lengthened period of income from their work, the main point here is to extend the profitability of the mechanical rights. A composer can only live for so long; a corporation might exist forever. Mechanical copyrights are usually held by corporate entities & they want to be able to hold those rights in perpetuity. Furthermore, it's in the nature of things that property gradually changes hands & creative copyrights often wind up owned by businesses rather than individuals or their descendents. Thus businesses rather than individuals are not only the immediate but the ultimate beneficiaries of perpetual copyright. Sometimes I wonder if modern popular arts are becoming more short-lifed. The conceptual disposability of much mass-marketed stuff makes it seem so but then I recall the continued sales of various "oldies" type material...& I don't just mean Ellington, Sinatra, Chuck Berry or various "one-hit wonders". Consider that the Beatles Anthology onslaught a few years ago generated more money than their entire 1960s haul...or that series like the Star Wars films, & attendent products, now stretches the [i]creation[/i] (let alone the revenue) of a work of art over decades. So I think the real rewards here fall to businesses rather than to artists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Lander Posted November 28, 2002 Share Posted November 28, 2002 I happen to agree with DC. If the copyright holder passes on the rights to heirs, that's all well and good but it should end if there is no passdown & Corporations & etc should not be allowed to purchase said copyright. Let them actually produce something copyrightable first. Our Joint "When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_dup3 Posted November 29, 2002 Share Posted November 29, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Uncle Milty: [b]I happen to agree with DC. If the copyright holder passes on the rights to heirs, that's all well and good but it should end if there is no passdown & Corporations & etc should not be allowed to purchase said copyright. Let them actually produce something copyrightable first.[/b][/quote]By what legal means would what you propose be accomplished? Why should this form of property be treated differently than others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dak Lander Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 d, I haven't put a whole lot of thought into it but that was my first impression, and I still think that's the way to go. Implementaion? I'll have to do some thinking about that. Understand my post was about copyrights and not assignable mechanical, performance or recording rights. That's a whole 'nother ballgame. My thoughts as to corporation would be institutions/business that are in the field strictly for profit. You can stick record companies, the RIAA, Harry Fox & other in the music business, as well as other arts related companies. It would be different if they actually created the song/work and were the original copyright holder. Another way to look at the copyright situation is to compare to patents. There is a definite, discernable time limit to the patent holder's right to maintain control over the product before it, essentially, becomes public domain. Maybe, & again I've not really done any deep thinking about this, copyrights should follow suite. Maybe a copyright should expire when the creator/copyrighter expires with no chance to pass it along. After all the heir, or assignee, is not the creator, nor are they the original copyright holder. In that sense, they would be considered no different than my initial interpretation for corporations. Our Joint "When you come slam bang up against trouble, it never looks half as bad if you face up to it." The Duke... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anifa Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 I have not read this entire thread, but within the last few posts that I have read, I would like to interject a thought... Upon death, a copyright holders heirs automatically inherit the earnings of the original holders works; what if the heirs do NOT stake a claim? Does this mean that the monies set in an estate fund infinitely? Who eventually gets these monies, or do the Record Labels make extended efforts to TRACK the rightful beneficiaries down. The way the law reads, there must be a LOT of money waiting to be claimed! Not all heirs know of their inheritance. You can take the man away from his music, but you can't take the music out of the man. Books by Craig Anderton through Amazon Sweetwater: Bruce Swedien\'s "Make Mine Music" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraub Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 A couple thoughts on this, as copyright was a big subject in music school, and I have been following the recent Lawrence Lessig story... d wondered why copywritten material was different from other "property", and that is because it is intangible. It's called "intellectual" property for that reason- it exists first and primarily with it's creator, as opposed to a building or similar "physical" item. And, as such, is subject to much potential mishandling, as others with differing intentions and perceptions of that material get their hands on it. So, copyright was setup to protect this intangible from misdeeds. As stated already, a temporary time frame was chosen, and later lengthened, to better serve the families and heirs of creators of copywritten material, but it was meant to be temporary, even at that. It was the plan of those who made the laws that, in time, the material would be available for others to draw from, and expand upon. If not for that, Walt Disney would probably have had to come up with a different storyline for "Steamboat Mickey", the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, instead of "borrowing" Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill". It's up to the copyright holder to exploit their copyrights for profit (or not), and to make as much as possible (or not) from that exploitation, in the time frame allowed by law. Life of the author plus, say, 50 years seems pretty fair, I think. After that, it's free reign for society all over your music, and mine as well. As it should be, I think. Peace, wraub I'm a lot more like I am now than I was when I got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_dup3 Posted November 30, 2002 Share Posted November 30, 2002 Wraub, you misread...I asked "Uncle Milty" why [i]he[/i] thought it should be treated differently than other property. It's always interesting to see how those who don't read these threads in full comment on areas that have already been discussed or are irrelevent to the original topic, which in this case was the continued extensions of copyrights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wraub Posted December 1, 2002 Share Posted December 1, 2002 d, yup, you are right, I misread, and I am sorry. But I have read the whole thread, and the point I made does apply to the subject at hand. Copyright was, is, and should be temporary. If not, a "free" society is limited in its freedoms to build upon the intellectual landmarks built by others. The majority of those currently interested in "protecting" those intellectual landmarks want a perpetual copyright, depriving others from doing that building. And, incidentally, granting themselves a longer shot at the profits, trying to eke out every last cent from you, from your children, and from their kids too. And, again, d is right about the usual fate of copyrights ending up with corporations. I say let them profit for a while, then cut them off. Let them come with something else then. Might just foster some creativity. Peace, wraub I'm a lot more like I am now than I was when I got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_dup3 Posted December 1, 2002 Share Posted December 1, 2002 My thoughts exactly...I still wonder, though, at Milty's idea that there's any fair way to prohibit the ownership of some types of property by certain designated entities. Another thought occured to me recently. The original idea of copyright/patent protections was to stimulate invention by giving protection to those who created new things. Is it possible that the very restriction that such protection provides will serve to stimulate creativity by those unwilling to pay the cost for use of protected works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.