Supreme Court Upholds Copyright Law Extension

[MattC]

an excerpt: "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - [b]The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Wednesday a 1998 law extending copyright protection by 20 years[/b] , delaying when creative works such as Walt Disney Co.'s Mickey Mouse cartoons, F. Scott Fitzgerald's novels and George Gershwin's songs become public property. The 7-2 ruling was a victory for supporters of the law, including large media companies and song publishers that argued the longer term was needed to protect a vital industry that contributes more than $500 billion to the U.S. economy. It dealt a defeat to an Internet publisher and others who challenged the law for limiting free speech and for harming the creative process by locking up material that they said should be in the public domain for all to use without charge." [url=http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=030115&cat=news&st=newscourtcopyrightdc]The entire article can be found here[/url]

[Matt.Hepworth]

So is it 30 years now?

[Joachim P. Dyndale]

I think that makes it 95 years...

[Jotown]

I'm cool with that.

[doug osborne]

Copyright laws were originally passed to give the creator of a work the exclusive right to copy, and make money from, that work. Congress has constitutional authority to reasonably extend that. Here in the US, Stephen Foster was behind the first Copyright laws, and IMO it made sense to let him be the only one with the ability to sell sheet music of "Swanee River". Congress rightfully extended that over this century as people's lifespan increased. The situation now is that a company like Disney can own a creative work lock, stock and barrel decades or centuries after the original creators died, as long as Congress keeps extending copyright. Does this arrangement promote or discourage creative innovation?

[the people of Earth]

[quote]Originally posted by Joachim P. Dyndale: [b]I think that makes it 95 years...[/b][/quote]The last we'd heard US copyright was for "the life of the composer+50 years, so a 20 year extension seems to make it "life + 70 years" (confess we haven't read the article in full yet). Thus it's really for an indefinite period. Doug's point about continual extensions was recently discussed here at some length (will post link if found). What happens to copyrights that go Public Domain when the composer is resuscitated by medical science from a cryogenic lab? Keep in mind that most countries have their own copyright laws & they are not usually equivalent (or, sometimes, even enforced). I think in Europe, for example, it's currently only 50 years max.

[Jotown]

Just bumping this back up.

[george costanza]

Competing topic threads---bumped for a Race To The Bottom Of The Page!

[Anifa]

George, I'm not trying to compete in thread topics as "this post" had got buried so quickly into all of the NONSENSE threads that get posted on a routine basis; it was not on the front page. Had I sorted through all the rubbish and dug back a page or two, I would have seen this post. Anyway, my duplicate post may be retired as I am posting the ASCAP link in this thread for review to go along with Matt's original link. [url=http://www.ascap.com/press/2003/copyrightstatement_011603.html]ASCAP in the News[/url]

[Jotown]

[quote]Originally posted by Anifa: [b]George, I'm not trying to compete in thread topics as "this post" had got buried so quickly into all of the NONSENSE threads that get posted on a routine basis; it was not on the front page. Had I sorted through all the rubbish and dug back a page or two, I would have seen this post. Anyway, my duplicate post may be retired as I am posting the ASCAP link in this thread for review to go along with Matt's original link. URL=http://www.ascap.com/press/2003/copyrightstatement_011603.html]ASCAP in the News[/URL][/b][/quote]Hey Anifa, I don't think that George was implying anything, just having some fun on a slow forum weekend. He must be really bored. It must be cause of NAMM or something.

[george costanza]

Yeah (thanks, dB), Anifa, I like what I can tell about your outlook & views from what I know here on the forums. I'm sure though, considering the goofiness afloat, that it's easy to misunderstand others or over-react (I read that snide comment somebody made the other day to you on the "Death for oil" thread and I thought that was [i]way[/i] out of line). I didn't mean to offend you or suggest [i]you[/i] were competing...I meant it as a comment on how quickly they would both sink amonst the dross. I mean look at that "This or that?" thread---7 pages! Did it occur to you that I brought both copyright threads back to page one (in the first place) so that people might see both, compare comments or, at the very least, replace some of the drivel threads? :thu:

[MattC]

I'll pose this question: lets suppose that you, the reader, just happend to be the next undiscovered musical genre prodigy, and your music (although you don't know it now as you toil away in your dimly lit studio) will have a huge impact in the future of music. Assuming this, what do you feel about the terms of copyright? Do you want your music to be (somewhat) freely distributed, like Louis Armstrong's music is now, or do you want your heirs (or your label) to control the music's distribution, like Miles Davis' music? Both artists still sell quite well, the only exception is that Armstrong can be found on almost every Jazz compilation and Davis CDs still cost as much as brand new CDs. Now lets consider the more realistic situation: you gain some notoriety and your music sells (even if slowly and for little profit) well after your death. Would the fact that your heirs will make next to nothing of it's sale affect your opinion about copyright? Do you want to keep your music after your death or give it to the people?

[Jotown]

The era's that Miles, and Mr. Armstrong are from has something to do with this as well. Interesting, two threads on the same topic, and few music people seem that interested in this. What does that say? :confused:

[Anifa]

I didn't mean to sound snappy George and I apologize for putting you on the defensive. I'm not offended; it just gets frustrating to see the informative topics get buried SO quickly. [quote] (I read that snide comment somebody made the other day to you on the "Death for oil" thread and I thought that was way out of line). [/quote]I did not make any contributions to the "Death for Oil" thread whatsoever; actually, I had not even opened the topic until now. Just out of curiosity I browsed over to that thread to see what snide remarks were being said about me, as I have noticed another thread that made a smart alec remark about taxes not being a relative subject for discussion on these boards, but apparently on the "Death for Oil" thread you are referring to a user by the name of Anita Fix which is someone entirely different from myself. I hope that people do not confuse the two usernames as I try to use diplomacy in most matters. In the "Responses to posts you love to hate" thread there was a comment that indirectly jeered me for a topic I started relative to filing taxes. I view this person as inexperienced and amateurish if they feel that Income Tax reporting and filings have nothing to do with the Music Business. Also, knowing how you can work the tax laws to benefit by claiming expenses paid out against the profits gained during live performance PUTS IT VERY MUCH ON TOPIC. The original topic was pointing to a page that gave listings of additional deductions that perhaps had been an oversight for some; the topic veered off into a discussion on TurboTax vs. hired accountant. Although the comment offended me somewhat I did not start a flame war, rather, I considered the source and further ignored the thread. My thoughts are this this topic; when business owners die their shares in stock within a corporation go to their heirs, so, what's the big difference? If there were a congressional bill placed on the table that suggested that, upon death, all of a shareholders' stock within a corporation would be sold to the highest bidder with no provision for surviving heirs benefiting from an inheritance; corporate America would pull the platform from underneath politicians feet. People holding assets make provisions for their families as the may be the sole provider of income. Copyrights are that business that someone started, their heirs are entitled.

[Jotown]

There was an excellent segment on this issue tonight on Bill Moyers Now. (No I don't work for the man, his show is just the only place on television where these kinds of things get discussed) The story was very provocative, and actually has made me rethink my position on the matter. Just a few quotes from the segment: PAT SCHROEDER: The copyright industries have greater exports than automobiles, than aircraft, than agriculture. But Americans don't know that. So, they yell that-- "Oh, well, Congress is protecting the copyright industry." Well, Congress protects agriculture, automobiles, and others. And-- and aircraft, for heaven's sakes. Of course they ought be to protecting the copyright industry. RICK KARR: But critics worry that publishers, film studios and record companies — and their millions in campaign contributions — will drown out the public interest when legislators consider future copyright laws. JIM GRIFFIN: You know, equalizing access to knowledge is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society. Depriving people of access to knowledge based on the size of their parents' wallet is a hallmark of a despotic society. SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN: We're allowing the content holders, the content producers, to have a remarkable-- remarkable amount of control over the manner and amount and re-use of all this material. We don't want to build a cultural environment, in which the media companies have that much control over our daily lives. RICK KARR: Vaidhyanathan wonders who will remind Congress that the public has an interest in the copyright bargain, too — and that what's good for commerce isn't always what's good for culture. Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/copyright.html