Slashdot Mirror
Reason Magazine on Copyright Legislation
Bob Kopp writes "The libertarian magazine Reason is running an article about the clash between corporations that own copyrights and 'grassroots, participatory culture.' The article discusses the effects of the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which extended the life span of copyrights by 20 years, as well as the dangers of information monopolies in general."
The site http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/ has a lot of information about the Sonny Bono Copyright Act and the disgusting lobbying that went on to get the legislation passed. It also has sample letters to Congress and Congresional addresses.
I urge everyone to write their representatives complaining about the subversion of copyright and intellectual property rights that the industry is in the process of conducting. It is worth also mentioning the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which allows even the terms of access to copyrighted works to be dictated, and the resulting assault by the MPAA on our rights to view DVDs we purchased.
To those who say your voice is not heard, most members of Congress and people in government are ordinary folk looking to continue in their jobs. Both soft money industry donations and your voice matter. If you think your voice cannot match the lobby funds of industry titans - you are mistaken.
Taking a cynical view that public interest plays no role, in a purely economic analysis, their is a cost to every vote. Given the money spent on campaigns and the number of votes actually up for grabs - that is a significant conversion price, probably comparable to a $500 donation.
A thousand letters from constituents to every representative addressing will make a difference. So please put a fraction of the time spent reading Slashdot into efforts to inform Congress and the media about the abuse of IP laws!
The following is a letter I wrote several months ago to the editor of "Performing Songwriter" magazine about a column written by Bill Parsons" about the "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act" and the "Fairness In Music Licencing Act". I make a number of points that I believe are valid and would like to share them with a larger number of people. The editor never responded.
We've been subscribers to Performing Songwriter for a number of years.
In general, we enjoy the content, especially Janis Ian's column. But one item has always bothered me. Your lack of a letters column. I realize that your publishing schedule and limited editorial space might make this a bit more difficult, but the fact is that you don't do so even on your web site, where space is for all practical purposes unlimited.
This lack has kept me from writing about something else that has annoyed me to no end for quite some time: Bill Parson's "Legislative Update". I realize Parsons is a performing songwriter, but I suspect that is not his primary source of income. He is singing from the RIAA/ASCAP/BMI songbook, and in the interest of full disclosure perhaps you should reveal who he has received a paycheck from this year. My point is, he sounds exactly like a lobbyist. His web page on songs.com states that he is "...a former aide to consumer advocate Ralph Nader". I have no problem with that...just with who is he *currently* aiding?*
Now, I have no problem with political debate, but you have provided no forum for anyone to respond to Parson's ill-considered attacks on the public domain, and passionate defense of the rights of huge publishing empires under the disingenuous guise of "protecting the rights of songwriters".
But this latest, an attack on Eric Eldred is the worst. As the editor, did you bother to visit the Eldred Press web site? Parsons paints Eldred as a commercial publisher, trying to weasel out of paying for work. This is so far from the truth that it verges on libelous.
Here's Eric Eldred's web site:
http://eldred.ne.mediaone.net/
Does this look like the commercial entity that Parson's implies? I quote Parsons:
The implication is that Eldred has a commercial interest (a reasonable assumption from someone I assume to be a lobbyist). The truth is, he does not, and never has. Also, the use of the loaded term "fallen into the public domain". Read the Constitution: the public domain is the intended repository of all creative works. Copyright is a limited right, granted for a limited period of time. For 28 years to be extended to 150 years is a mockery.
Perhaps this is hard to grasp, the intention of the framers that everything should naturally fall into the public domain. I find it useful to imagine that Benjamin Franklin had never invented the public lending library. Imagine that tomorrow, someone tried to do so. Imagine the uproar from copyright holders:
This modern day Franklin would never get away with it...they'dcrucify him.
Also, I'd suggest exercising some editorial discretion and rein in Parson's annoying habit of referring to the "(Un)Fairness In Music Licensing Act". It might have been "cute" the first time, but lacking a balancing opposing viewpoint, it's just childish.
And frankly, childishness is the major issue here. It takes children some years to learn to share, and to realize the greater good for all accomplished by sharing. And that's what this is about - the desire of one man (Eldred) to share works that are no longer producing income for their original creators, as the very grown-up framers of the Constitution intended. Here's the passage fromArticle 1:
You can find a lot more about this from the following page:
The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension act was bought and paid for by a group that contributed more lobbying money than the tobacco companies combined. Parsons claims that it benefits performing songwriters. This is a damned lie. It extends the term of copyright from 50 years after any songwriter is dead and gone to 70 years after their heart has stopped beating. In what possible way does this benefit any songwriter? That, in the unlikely event one of your songs remains popular for 70 years after you're dead, your great-grandchildren rather than your grandchildren will be on the gravy train? And it is a nice train..."Rhapsody In Blue" sold to United Airlines for a cool half-million - providing a lot of money to use to ensure the train keep right on running.
Parsons is appealing to songwriters, none of whom will receive the any benefit from it, that this act is a good thing. Do you believe that there is some great social good accomplished by making a few "trust fund babies" that outweighs the vast social good accomplished by having a large and thriving public domain? Because, that's the ultimate goal of the copyright extensionists. The elimination of the public domain.
Try to imagine a world where Stephen Foster's songs had never entered the public domain. Public domain keeps songs alive, by making it easy for publishers to keep them in print, to provide a world of tunes that songwriters can use to embroider into their own work.
Because the truth is, songwriters do not create melodies. They discover them. In western music, there are a finite number of possible melodies, even fewer in the popular keys. Every songwriter "creates" a melody at some time, only to later find out that Mozart had used it while he was still in diapers. Try to imagine that the basic 4-bar blues riff was copyrighted; that's the world that Parsons wants for us.
A good example of how overly long copyright periods inhibit artists: Kate Bush wrote a song using Molly Bloom's speech from "Ulysses". The song fit the words beautifully and it was nearly ready from release when the Joyce estate refused permission. No amount of bargaining could get Joyce's grandson to relent, and Kate had to "re-write the speech" into her song "The Sensual World". James Joyce didn't refuse Kate permission, his grandson did. He's proven to be the bane of Joyce scholars his entire life, and now will for generations to come.
There's a lot more I could write about this, but the fact that you have no avenue for your readers to respond, to present the opposing side of a political lobbying effort, makes my effort seem pointless. I can only hope that you'll make an effort to see the entire picture, and not just the one that some people are paid to promote. When looking at political issuse, the phrase "follow the money" is apt: look to see which side has a large amount of money to promote it's effort; the side that has less money is the one more likely to have the public's best interest at heart.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
It's sad that so many materials are locked away, hidden and ususable by the general public.
This is an additional, and very serious, problem with current copyright law. For example, movie studios have an economic incentive to not releasing old works. When these titles die, it removes the small competition they pose for your viewing time.
It is hard to know how many other treasures like It's a Wonderful Life (which beacme popular when it entered the public domain before it was stolen by Viacom) are sitting in film vaults in Hollywood slowly deteriorating.
There is a solution to this problem, and it draws on the early copyright law of this country. Two prominent features of the original copyright law where 1) Registration and 2) Renewal.
1. Registration of objects seeking copyright protection insured that a copy of a book, for example, was stored by the government so that it would be available to enter the public domain at the expiration of the copyright. Thus the public was assured that it's public domain interests were not ignored.
2. Renewal required that an author seeking the full length of copyright term request renewal after 14 years. This insured that most works entered the public domain quickly while extremely valuable works could be renewed by their creators. Thus average copyright terms were kept short, yet the incentive to create was maintained because valuable works could have their copyrights renewed (for up to 28 years).
It is clearly evident today how thoughtful our forefathers were in creating a system of intellectual property which spawned innovation and creativity. Current law does not serve that purpose, but only the purpose of monopoly. If we return to a system requiring registration and renewal, we can more fairly balance and protect the intellectual property rights of authors with the public good. Requiring registration (digital submissions of films, music, books, etc.) for a full copyright term would insure that these creations don't disappear from the earth.
Proposal: An intelligent system, I think, would grant a 10 year automatic copyright, with the option for a 50 year renewal provided only that a digital archive was submitted to the Copyright Office.
Robert Wilde