Discussion: On Copyright
738 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 30 Newer→ Last
-
robbery, you need to do some Googling on Robin, seriously :-)
-
I don't have the time to be diverted right now (although I admit to having some sympathy for Rob's arguments and have yet to see any tangible argument as to why IP cannot evolve into a a right somewhat akin to property.
hi simon. busy time here as well but interesting discussion. I think I may have pissed my client off by continually reading from a laptop screen while I'm supposed to be recording his flute solos.
if you do get a spare moment can you explain the elvis's recordings into public domain. I was repeating something you had said in a previous discussion and may well have got it wrong.
-
Simon
as to why IP cannot evolve into a a right somewhat akin to property
Applied to my industry (software) *and* artistic work that thought is terrifying.
-
robbery talks about fairness, constantly. How is it "fair" that our economic contribution is being undermined to support the RIAA and their likes?
I'm not comparing open source software to music. I'm comparing music to other huge industries that exist to create profit. I'm on your side to spread wealth to you. im not dissing open source software developers or the hippy life style, I'd prefer it to the dog eat dog structure we live in. What I'm saying is if we have a dog eat dog self profiting society then why would we as a society expect any portion of our people to give away their stuff. I've sen no argument forwarded to explain this apart from thats the way it is, shut up and be grateful for what we give you. That argument doesn't show an evolving civilization.
your comment about economies being undermined by the likes of me is funny, you should come round for dinner and we'll discuss it. you'll have to bring a chair and some food though as my present exploitation of the world doesn't create the income to provide either for you. you're falling for I see rich rockstars and stretched limos on my screen there for all musicians are like that.
simon can probably give us figures on proportion of world profit created by music compared to say something like law, oil, or any other industry.
take our own country as an example. there is only one fat cat here, niel finn, and he's not that fat. there are a lot of round table fat cats though. -
take our own country as an example. there is only one fat cat here, niel finn, and he's not that fat. there are a lot of round table fat cats though.
And I don't think anyone disagrees that it would be good to have a notoriously thin occupation made fatter.
Where we disagree on is finding the best means. It isn't through handing yet more control to a discredited, centralised, outdated distribution system.
You are asking others to make increasing sacrifices to achieve that the fatter goal. I say there are far far better ways and I believe people like Robin and many others have demonstrated that.
-
I believe that to be an accurate summary..
I do have a tongue and a cheek sasha, you are aware of that :)
love a good discussion...don, tell us about how you get your income
-
Just for clarification, because we need to know what we're talking about: copyright does NOT cover ideas. Not in New Zealand, or the US. Forms, genres, styles, themes, chord progressions, very short phrases of music- not covered, nor should they be, nor is anyone seriously calling for that.
To state the obvious: current copyright law makes it a crime for people to copy someone else's existing work for a limited time. -
If you can steal it, then it's physical.
No, things don't need to be physical to be stolen, a quick google will give you some examples: eg. Intellectual property is still property.
It would seem capitalist to mug someone and take their wallet, but we don't because as a society we have decided we don't like that sort of thing.
Well that's misrepresenting capitalism. Capitalism requires a free market, not people mugging each other.
-
Don, what I don't understand is what you think we are "sacrificing" that ahm, we're not also "sacrificing" when we don't shop-lift.
-
For those who've just tuned in, we've had somebody demanding to be told why the copyright term shouldn't (I summarise) be shorter, then a gap, then someone demanding to be told why it shouldn't go on forever. Neither have been convinced.
I've notice in arguing both have expressed polar opposite view on how useful and available material is to everyone else while under copyright, which may account for some of it.
And frankly, I think both needed to do some more work in favour of their position before they can demand rebuttal. For example, what reason for copyright existing at all means it should go on forever?
I think it right and useful and fair that 'creators' (who are not, we should remember, only artists and the work not only art) should be able to profit from their work in a way other than by commission.I think it right and useful and fair that work comes into the public domain. Oh yes I do. I especially think I should be able to use somebody's work if they've been dead for decades. (And again, this includes stuff that is less worthy but sometimes more important than art).
I'm sure both these opions are a product of the times (and while the public domain is the more venerable and 'natural' state of affair that does not actually count for much) but I can't help noticing the are times with an awful lot of cultural and intellectual capitial about the place.
Now: It just happens that a life-plus arrangement satisfies (or satisfices) both those positions.
Now, personally I may have clarified some things with myself in this but I think it's getting silly.We live in a world where you can in principle be sued for singing 'happy birthday' where someone can hear you and where some people apparently want to be able to have you arrested.
We can all have one more go if we like, but then can we talk about something other than the term?
any tangible argument as to why IP cannot evolve into a a right somewhat akin to property
See Robin S above. Because it is not property and does not behave like property. IP does not work that way!
-
-
Where we disagree on is finding the best means. It isn't through handing yet more control to a discredited, centralised, outdated distribution system.
dude, stop lumping me in with those pricks, its offensive.
I think you're attributing arguments to me that I haven't forwarded.
my simple case is the elvis recordings. I think when those original recordings were made they became a piece of property and should maintain their value indefinitely or until they are left un attended at which time they become public domain.remember people can re record those songs with their own voice if they want but elvis's voice belongs to the people that own the rights to those recordings and its their to exploit until they no long wish to do so.
When I create a recording thats what I think I should have the right to do and anyone I sell the rights of that recording to should have those right and if I die and leave those rights to someone then they should have those rights and so on. I have invested in property, I've made something that is identifiable. you can do your own versions of those songs but I paid for these versions so they're mine.
if you like how I've done my drum sounds and want to them in your songs either front for the cash to do your own recordings or pay me to use mine. being a cheap ass isn't an excuse. and if you can't afford it do something that fits with what you feel comfortable investing in your music, just like I did. don't leach off me, unless of course I can leach off you and everyone else in society in which case its a level playing field and I'm cool with that.That's the concept i'm I'm putting forward. now tell me why after 50-70 years what was mine isn't any more.
-
I'm hoping I haven't missed this somewhere upthread - would I be right in thinking that copyright is a reserved right of creators but the same legal rights should not be extended to publishers, distributors and retailers ?
-
Only because someone is fixin to sue you, surely?
Not at all....long before the threat of legal action for sampling there was a rush to find the most obscure sample you could. It was about the cool factor
See Robin S above. Because it is not property and does not behave like property. IP does not work that way!
I have, and I don't think Robin covers it.
Lyndon, you sound like someone saying that slaves cannot be freed. The evolution of of the concept of intellectual property (note the word property in the term) is evidence that it can and has evolved and can evolve further. And that evolution is happening bit by bit in a variety of ways (witness the new recording artists coalition in the UK, the EU moves earlier this year, and the relentless challenges in Californian courts to the concept of assignment).
It wasn't long ago when it was perfectly legal to go to a gig, record it and release that recording (you only had to pay the mechanical royalty..writers, not performers) in many countries, Australia included. That evolved after much argument that the performance was essentially in the public domain because of it's public performance.
Physicality...well take a CD / record..there are several copyrights. There is the cover artwork which stands separate to the contents. The contents are broken down into two copyrights
a) the song as written. This is an interesting copyright because it already covers many of Robin's concerns. Once a song is released it is partially already in the pubic domain. Once the writer has given permission for it's release anyone anywhere can then perform it forever and ever. They have no need to track down the writer and are not limited by that, as they pay the performance fee, or at least the producer of the recording does, to a society which is globally linked and it is their job to track down the writer. If they cannot then the monies go into what is called a Control Account and if the writer cannot be found after a period that then goes, I think by law, into the consolidated fund..back to society. It's evolved over the years, works well and allows things like adaptation, parody and the like and continues to evolve largely under the direction of the writers themselves. That covers the 'idea' IP.
b) the other copyright, the one I think of most concern to Rob, is the execution of the idea..the recording. This is a physical act, and produces a physical object with inherent value..much like building a house or a car, using an idea or a series of ideas. It has a physical outcome..the recording, and I've yet to hear anyone hear satisfactorily explain why that physical object differs from any car or house created from an idea. Much physical property evolves from an idea. I understand that you are still left with the recording no matter how many copies are made, but that original physical property still has value only if others don't have the right to offer exact facsimiles of your property.And that is evolving too, witness that Lennon case (dunno why it's news now..the landmark aspect of it was the legal decision some months back) which adds a fair use add-on to the concept of the ownership of the physical master. That's the beginning of something which must eventually affect the sampling industry...fair usage must and will evolve there too to fix that often unfair minefield (and I'm sure The Verve and many others will agree)
Rob..the Elvis masters have just been pulled back into copyright in Europe I think, or are about to be, by the evolution of the EU copyright law which I understand is retrospective.
-
And if there is any argument for retaining copyright it must be the album of trance remixes of Elvis which I heard everywhere in Hong Kong last week.....my god...
-
@robbery
Dude, you're wilfully ignoring the point that has been made to you repeatedly that copyright isn't a property right. Never has been.Copyright has only existed as a legal construct since 1710, when the Statute of Anne was passed in England. Before that, publishers obtained the right from the Crown to make copies of a manuscript in printed form, not from the author at all. The Crown maintained a) that everything in the kingdom belonged to them andb) they needed to control what was disseminated in case it was subversive. From the late 1500's the Stationers Guild (which included printers and publishers) kept a register of who had the rights to make copies of which books, in order to resolve disputes between publishers.
Intellectual property, as a term, has gained modern usage since 1967 when WIPO was formed (at the urging of those who would profit from its formation, I'd suggest) but the term goes back to 1865 at least, as Wikipedia has it:
**History**
Modern usage of the term intellectual property began with the 1967 establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), but it did not enter popular usage until passage of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.The earliest use of the term intellectual property appears to be in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case Davoll et al. v. Brown., in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears." (1 Woodb. & M. 53, 3 West.L.J. 151, 7 F.Cas. 197, No. 3662, 2 Robb.Pat.Cas. 303, Merw.Pat.Inv. 414). The statement that "discoveries are...property" goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years."[6] In Europe, French author A. Nion mentioned propriété intellectuelle in his Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs, published in 1846.
The concept's origins can potentially be traced back further. Jewish law includes several considerations whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist. The Talmud contains the first known example of codifying a prohibition against the theft of ideas, which is further discussed in the Shulchan Aruch.
Just because you want copyright to be a property right, doesn't mean it is. History, society and the law are against you on this. You need to accept that because your incessant "why" makes rational discussion difficult.
-
my simple case is the elvis recordings. I think when those original recordings were made they became a piece of property and should maintain their value indefinitely
They don't. They never have. The song itself isn't property. The author (et al.) simply are given the right to monopolise reproduction and derivation for a while. In exchange, they get to make stuff out of other things that are public domain too. Where would poor old disney be if they had to pay royalties on every copy of Snow White that they sold. I mean, they didn't come up with the story.
You still haven't explained why you hate Project Gutenberg :)
or until they are left un attended at which time they become public domain.
I don't mind that, I just think it's not worth the tradeoff of indefinite copyrights.
Actually, you know what would happen if you allowed indefinite copyright? Companies would buy up copyrights from authors and their estates, and license it forever. Eventually nothing would come out of copyright, and 99% of culture would be under the thrall of these companies. But from the author's point of view, nothing has changed. They're still not getting money for them. But, worthy projects to archive and distribute public domain books, movies, etc. die. And everyone is poorer for it.
Why do you hate people? ;)
-
And if there is any argument for retaining copyright it must be the album of trance remixes of Elvis which I heard everywhere in Hong Kong last week.....my god...
Sorry, it won't help there.
-
The evolution of of the concept of intellectual property (note the word property in the term) is evidence that it can and has evolved and can evolve further.
Intellectual property is an inaccurate and loaded term. Perhaps instead call them 'copyrights'. As in 'right to copy'. A right granted by society. We're not going to give you this right without maximising our return.
Sure it can evolve. Right now it's evolving at the direction of big companies with a lot of money. Do you think they have your interests at heart? I really don't think so.
the Elvis masters have just been pulled back into copyright in Europe I think, or are about to be, by the evolution of the EU copyright law which I understand is retrospective.
Retroactively taking from the public, at the behest of a music label? That doesn't seem wrong to you?
-
@Simon
The concept of copyright hasn't actually evolved that much. Only the duration has really changed in 300 years.A bunch of people who are making $$$$ out of the process have been pushing for a change of name, but that's just applying lipstick. It's not evolution. The substance is still the same.
-
Damn, I type too slowly ;-)
-
ust because you want copyright to be a property right, doesn't mean it is. History, society and the law are against you on this. You need to accept that because your incessant "why" makes rational discussion difficult.
It's a non argument Mark...the simple evolution of copyright and the protections added over the years is enough to indicate that. Past is not good enough to indicate future. I made a comment about slaves above and whilst reading this thread last night watched a documentary on the slave trade on BBC Knowledge. The argument, apart the financial one, put up relentlessly by the pro-slavers prior to 1834 was fairly similar to your yours..they are property, and any questions as to why are not rational.
Hopefully we find ways to move ahead.
-
Retroactively taking from the public, at the behest of a music label? That doesn't seem wrong to you?
Actually the driving force behind this was as much an artist's initiative as a corporate one.
And the way music publishing copyrights and the use thereoff has evolved is far more than duration. As is the implied end result of the fairly momentous Lennon decision which could have radical results.
I'm also thinking that durations, regardless of anything else do indicate evolution.
In the music industry the move is very much away from the corporations and the large companies retaining control. Instead there has been a fairly rapid divestment of the control of copyright back the creator. That is one of the crucial themes of the evolution of recording and songwriting copyright in recent years..maybe the past 15 or so.
-
Just because you want copyright to be a property right, doesn't mean it is. History, society and the law are against you on this.
To push Mark's example above about copy rights descending from the crown. That's true of many other rights, including licenses to produce certain things, and property rights. All land used to be owned by the Crown and was granted to people in return for certain things (taxes, service on the lord's land). It was only inheritable with the consent of the crown - and the crown tended to take a whack out of all property when it was inherited.
-
Observation: the people arguing the Doctorowish position appear to be be male technological types with an active amateur interest in the arts, a good grasp of copyright law, but very little art historical knowledge, very little conception of how culture and art actually work at a professional level.
I mean, things like
support for art schools such as The Learning Connection.
and (I paraphrase) ``artists don't care too much about the money'' ``work in copyright can't be built upon''; youse don't actually know a huge amount about how culture & fine arts work, do you?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.