European Copyrights Expire; RIAA Nervous

colmore writes "This article in today's New York Times (free reg. req.) discusses the expiration of European copyrights for recordings made in the 1950s. Now "bootleg" labels can legitimately print a lot of still-popular early rock, country, jazz, and classical albums. The good folks at the RIAA are trying to establish stricter customs controls. So does this mean cheap Elvis or a diluted pool of products?"

Comments

Is this the same in the US?

[Kevin Stevens]

Does this work the same way in the US? Is older music no longer copyrighted? I assume this is NOT the case, or else P2P networks would have alot more legitimacy. Will US music ever go into the public domain?

So You're Saying...

[HyperColor Underware]

So you're saying that this might actually degrade quality of songs that were made before the digital age?

The reproduction will be near flawless; in fact, wouldn't they be able to reproduce the new Elvis Greatest Hits thing? Or by re-mastering it, do they create a new copyright on said recordings?

Who wants to make a bet?

[I'm a racist.]

I'll go ahead and say the RIAA's first serious move will be to apply another law to prevent this from happening (DMCA anyone? Trademark? Anti-trust [that'd be ironic]?) as soon as someone puts out a legitimate publication of copyright-less material.

We'll probably see WIPO get involved here too.

If the DMCA could be used against Sklyarov (even if it wasn't that successful, it was still a major pain in the ass for him), couldn't they just apply American copyright law against a European distributor?

I thought Europe already had long copyrights

[mcfiddish]

Wasn't one of the reasons Congress extended copyrights in the US to bring them in line with the longer European copyrights? What copyrights were those?

Re:I thought Europe already had long copyrights

[Florian Weimer]

Yes, that is true, European copyrights ARE 95 years, for NEW copyrights. They didnt make the extension retrospective like the USA's act.

There is no completely consistent copyright law in Europe. In Germany, the copyright still expires 70 years after the creator's death (like it's in the US).

AFAIK, the 95 year mark in the US only applies to works which haven't creator, and such works cannot be copyrighted in Europe in the first place (if there's no author, there's no way his rights can be protected).

Importing???

[Tiger Smile]

Are their any existing laws that would prevent me from bringing something back here for personal use?

-- James Dornan

IANAL, but...

[HBI]

My understanding was that recordings in the US weren't even covered by copyright until 1972 or so.

Now i'm going to do some googling...

February 15, 1972

Effective date of act extending limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed and first published on or after this date.

For reference

Hmm. Now, if i'm reading this right, the actual sound recordings of pre-1972 music aren't even covered by copyright and probably are freely redistributable, right? Which means...who cares about the Euro copyrights from a US perspective?

Kindly correct me if i'm wrong.

download

[Anonymous Coward]

So where is a euro website where i can i download all these tracks?

The RIAA isn't really worried about "bootlegs" or "pirate material" (if it's not copyrighted how can it be "pirated") anyways they're just scared that some kid will make a website with all the newly freed songs on it and they won't be able to a god damn thing.

Reason they care....

[jsimon12]

The RIAA belives that since you can now legally make copies of songs from the 50's in Europe that no one in America will buy their overpriced American copies in favor of the cheaper public domain European versions. So they want more control at our borders. Damn the RIAA, US copyrights should be expiring, damn the Bono Amendment.

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[I'm a racist.]

The problem in America is that Congress has implemented retroactive extensions to copyrights.

What this means is that someone created some content, at year 0, with full knowledge that the copyright would expire in X years. At year (X - 1), Congress extends copyrights to (X + Y) years. Now, said content is still under copyright until year (X + Y), even though it's creator had accepted the fact that it would fall into the public domain at year X.

This is what Lessig was in front of the Supreme Court for. Congress can arbitrarily apply a copyright extension every time a chunk of media (eg. "Steamboat Willie", owned by Disney - the first appearance of Mickey Mouse) is about to fall into the public domain.

Clearly, Walt was okay with the idea of Mickey becoming public domain in X years, but Eisner sees things a bit differently...

Price cuts? Yeah right.

[poot_rootbeer]

The correct response to combat an influx of recordings imported from countries where the copyrights have expired would be to SLASH PRICES on domestic copies of these same 50-year-old recordings. Sell an Elvis CD for $3.99 and there's no incentive for consumers to pay $5.99 (to cover shipping costs) for the identical CD from a European label.

Unfortunately, the RIAA and their constituent member record labels have grown so accustomed to using legislation as a weapon against their own sales base (that's US, yo) that the idea of selling CDs for cheap (it doesn't even have to be at a loss, they could still profit healthily) hasn't even crossed their minds as a way of maintaining their market share.

All is as it should be in europe

[Black Copter Control]

This was the original intent of the Copyright ammendment to the constitution -- to ensure that works were made so that they could, after "a limited period of time", be passed into the public domain for all people to enjoy.

When those works were created in the '50s, it was with the understanding that their copyright would only continue for a couple of decades -- not for a couple of centuries. There appeared to be sufficient economic incentives to create them back then. Now that they're legitimitely PD in Europe, I think that that's a good thing.

It's the people who want to keep these recordings out of the public domain that are the real pirates.

jazz

[bcrowell]

One of the things that send jazz into a retreat in the 1950's and 60's was that before then, there had been a lot of opportunities for jazz musicians to hear each other and play with each other. But around that time, it started getting much more expensive to go to jazz clubs. Also, the number of venues got below critical mass, even in Manhattan, so you could no longer walk from bar to bar and hear Dizzy Gillespie in one place, then Thelonious Monk in another.

Now a lot of the jazz catalog is public domain in Europe, while in the U.S. we're limited to pre-1922 dreck like Moonlight Bay.

It would be really cool if jazz could start to flourish again in Europe via the internet, with people being able to trade their recordings of songs, broadcast their gigs via internet radio, etc.

Re:jazz

[mystran]

Actually, with certain other types of music, something similar is happening.

At least here in Finland (probably elsewhere too), many people that make electric music (trance, house, breakbeat, psy-trance, "goa", and so on) just let people distribute their stuff as mp3's as much as they want. Actually, many publish their songs as mp3 on their own website.

Many of these authors have strong beliefs in freedom of expression, and think that internet enables GOOD music to be popular, instead of who happens to get a deal from a recording company.

These people play whatever they want as DJ's in underground raves, but there is something interesting in the scene: most people think that "you should buy records of artists you like to support them" even if the same people would happily give you any piece of music they have in their library.

I think this is a cool direction. Another thing that is probably going to cut record sales here is that MANY a people think that "why bother buing a (copyrighted) CD when you have to get it as mp3 from someone anyway to be able to listen to it where you want". Things might change..

Re:Piratical

[tpengster]

Um... since these copies are being made after the copyright has expired, how are these "piratical products"? Where has piracy been committed?

But then, why bother being objective when we can just call our opponents pirates in 7 different parts of speech? (Even though "piratical" is a noun according to your fine dictionary)

Letting the RIAA control the language, (or in this case, the grammar) of the debate is the reason they are winning in the first place

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[Kevin Stevens]

I am not one to defend Corporate America, but if you were Eisner, wouldnt you do the same? If one of the cornerstones of your business were to all of a sudden become freely reproducible, wouldnt you try to stop that from happening? I personally believe that an artist should have the right to his work during his lifetime, and to some extent believe the artist's survivors should have some entitlement to benefit from the copyrighted work. I think the problem lies when copyrights only benefit the businesses who bought them. However, I see no reason why only SONY music should have the rights to work done in the 50's if the artist is not still compensated in some form.

It's really a contract with the public...

[I'm a racist.]

I see your point, and it's very valid, but there's a flaw in that argument. Let's use Mickey Mouse as an example.

The root of the problem is that when Walt created Mickey, and published his film, he essentially entered into a contract with the public. He agreed that he had a specific number of years from which to profit off of his creation (and he clearly took great advantage of this). Now, the Disney corporation (standing in for Walt himself) has not held up their end of the bargain.

The public agreed, in exchange for not using the intellectual property of Disney for some period of time, that they would gain the possesion of that property for the good of society at large. We held up our end of that bargain (sure some people didn't, but Disney was allowed to sick their lawyers on those folks, as well as use our legal infrastructure for that purpose), so where's the part that benefits us??

Yes, it's certainly in Eisner's interests to extend copyrights (including doing it retroactively). I do not fault him for endorsing such a policy. What I do have a problem with is the way he endorses it, and the fact that Congress doesn't understand or care about the public's side of things. The RIAA/MPAA have made quite a few shady deals (Hollings isn't called "senator Disney" for nothing) in order to get legislation to swing their way. This is really what's wrong with copyright law as it stands (and how it seems to be progressing).

Re:It's really a contract with the public...

[AKnightCowboy]

Well, but you have to see it from their perspective. They created content (or signed acts that created content) that brings in millions of dollars a year. Why should they have to suddenly at some arbitrary date no longer be able to exploit their intellectual property? It's like building a house and after 95 years of owning your house it suddenly becomes a historical landmark and you're evicted by the county. WTF? Wouldn't YOU be a little pissed off at getting kicked out of your house and having tourists romp around it? The world operates on the principle of intellectual property more than ever today. Trillions of dollars of the economies of countries of the world revolves around this idea that a person's ideas are property and that they can exploit it as they wish without another stealing it. I wouldn't be suprised if in the future copyright expiration in the USA is abolished entirely. Don't get me wrong, I don't support this by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just trying to play Devil's advocate.

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[AragornSonOfArathorn]

I am not one to defend Corporate America, but if you were Eisner, wouldnt you do the same? If one of the cornerstones of your business were to all of a sudden become freely reproducible, wouldnt you try to stop that from happening?...

Will having "Steamboat Willie" (or any other equally old work) in the public domain really hurt the copyright holder? Is there really so much demand for Steamboat Willie tapes, DVDs, T-shirts, cereal, and whatnot that if it was freely available it would really affect their bottom line? Ok, I'm exaggerating slightly, but my point is some media company's (like Disney's) whole operation is not going to come crashing down if some near-100 year old work is in the public domain.

Choice quotes from article, not at all provoking

[Graabein]

Quotes from the article:

Copyright protection lasts only 50 years in Europe compared to 95 years in the United States

Only 50 years?

"The import of those products would be an act of piracy," said Neil Turkewitz, the executive vice president international for the Recording Industry Association of America

Piracy? When it's perfectly legal, not to mention more than reasonable?

Mr. Turkewitz said, "We will try to get these products blocked," arguing that customs agents "have the authority to seize these European recordings even in the absence of an injunction brought by the copyright owners."

In other words, only abide by the rule of law as long as it's convenient and profitable?

I guess this just goes to show, yet again, who's really in charge.

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[mendepie]

Will having "Steamboat Willie" (or any other equally old work) in the public domain really hurt the copyright holder? Is there really so much demand for Steamboat Willie tapes, DVDs, T-shirts, cereal, and whatnot that if it was freely available it would really affect their bottom line?

While copies of Steamboat Willie leagally floating around does not directly scare Disney that much, it is the character of Mickey Mouse that does.

Today you cant use the Mouse's image without being hounded (and loosing to) disney's Lawyers. When the copyright expires, you will be able to use the image of Mickey Mouse (as he appears in Steamboat Willy) since that image is now in the public domain.

The potential loss of control of the Mickey Mouse Image is what gives Disney the Willies.

You should not that this is an extreme case, it is not just a story or song that is loosing it's copyright, but a Image that is close to, if not, a Trademark. I can understand why Disney wants to protect it, but extension of copyrights is not the right answer.

Re:The situation in Germany

[gl4ss]

hm? as i understood, the company wouldnt get another 50 years.

if it was that way they could do a test burn at their offices and call it a release... they get 50 years on that sure(the cd they just burnt), but not 50years more on the original release, which could be copied easily?

anyways, there is a $hitload of old classical music recordings on clay that are public domain(pre ww2), these were played during nighttime on one radio channel around here(because there were no local riaa-fee on these because they were pd), and they played it during most of the 90's..

not that classical music cd's were that expensive anyways, but playing on them radio would cost the same as playing modern pop if they werent pd..

So what are they going to do ...

[scharkalvin]

When Europeans start LEGALLY posting MP3's of this material on the internet? After all it IS legal in Europe so those countries don't have to demand this stuff be banned from the 'net. Oh it's illegal here in the states, well foo on you!

I think that copyrights on books, music, plays (any performance or written art) should only be legally held by individuals NOT corporations and the copyright limited in term to the lifetime of that individual. IOW it becomes public domain AFTER the copyright holders death.

Now when it comes to things like movies where there isn't a single person to claim the copyright things do get a little muddy, but since a human lifetime is about 72 years on average and a person might copyright something at anytime during that lifetime set the life of a corporate copyright on
art at something between 50-75 years NO LONGER!!!!

Who has the Balls to try this?

[valisk]

IIRC the WTO has the legal mandate to force countries to change their laws in respect of barriers to trade.
A European record label which sells PD Music in Europe might want to expand its trade to the USA, where due to to extended copyrights it would be faced with an effective barrier to trade.
This company can through its national government file a complaint with the WTO, and the artificial barrier can be ordered to be removed and vast damages paid to the company for loss of potential earnings, also huge daily fines can be laid against the government in question until the laws are changed to match the European laws. IIRC the WTO allows for protective tarriffs to protect from and prepare industries for severe change to their marketplaces, IIRC these tarriffs can last a maximum of 3 years...

Re:RIAA

[Arrgh]

Gutenberg printed Bibles in Latin; it was Martin Luther who translated them into German and printed them for "ordinary" people. Here's a fun quote from Neil Postman's Technopoly:

"Gutenberg, for example, was by all accounts a devout Catholic who would have been horrified to hear that accursed heretic Luther describe printing as 'God's highest act of grace, whereby the business of the Gospel is driven forward.' Luther understood, as Gutenberg did not, that the mass-produced book, by placing the Word of God on every kitchen table, makes each Christian his own thrologian -- one might even say his own priest.... In the struggle between unity and diversity of relgious belief, the press favored the latter, and we can assume that this possibility never occured to Gutenberg."

Next time you need something nitpicked to death, you know who to call. ;)

Re:RIAA's Everything-is-mine Mentality

[pnuema]

If this is true, then there is a hole in US copyright laws you can drive a truck through. Anyone want to make a bazillion dollars? 1. Get a country who is recognized by the US government to set a ridiculously low legnth of copyright protection - say one year. 2. In one year, all copyrighted works enter the public domain. Set up a company that mass produces records, and set it to work. Sell them retail for $1. 3. Set up another company in, another country, who buys the CD's at retail price from the first company, and turn around and import them to the US. 4. Sell them to Wal-Mart at $3 per. 5. Repeat.

Movies

[Anonymous Coward]

What about movies?

Can distribute copies of Metropolis (the German one, not the japanese cartoon) in Divx or SVCD now?

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[Blue Stone]

If Mickey Mouse is a trademark, Disney have failed to aggressively defend it.
There's at least two instances where Mad Magazine have parodied Mickey Mouse (Mickey Rodent) using exact copies of his, and Donald's, Goofy's and Pluto's image, for the purposes of parody, which isn't allowed under Trademark Law, I believe.

The cartoons went unchallenged, and were created in the early 50's, so their Trademark could be argued to have lapsed. [IANAL etc.]

Re:P2P's salvation

[John Hasler]

No need for P2P. It's perfectly legal to put this stuff up on Web sites in Europe. Of course, the RIAA will try to make US ISPs block access to these sites, but this will give the US telecommunications industry more incentive to oppose the RIAA's agenda.

European 50s public domain - Real life at customs

[harvey the nerd]

10 yrs ago real life hassling other countries' products, so-called "pirate copies," through customs. Importation for resale and personal copies are quite diferent. I'm a self employed engineer that reads broadly. I travel to Asia for family/business reasons. Over a month or two I picked up 80 classic technical reprints from other fields, mostly 1950-1960s. No way are they worth $60-$200 each to me or market value (outdated, but useful for a neophyte that likes to be broadly fluent). Customs agent: looks like confiscatable books not allowed to be imported. Me: I'm not importing them for resale, they're my personal books (with a laser stare) legally printed, bought, used overseas, and returning with me just like I'm moving from overseas. Customs agent: (noises) going to have to bond them or dump them. Me: I will want a complete listing, title and author for bonding (legal storage limbo). (Think actual writing effort, poor time efficiency, BAD will and prejudicial complaints here) Customs: Let me check with my supervisor. 5 mins later: "You're allowed one personal copy of each" (Duh! IANAL either)

Interesting

[Lonath]

The US bitches about China and other nations about censorship all the time.

Will the US take steps to censor European websites? (Hey! Be like China and censor websites that conflict with the -ISM your country worships even if the content of those websites is perfectly legal within those other countries!)

Heck, if it's legal to import this music, then it's got to be legal to download it...Right? If you can sell records and sell downloadable music, how is downloading any different than making some copies and shipping them here?

I wonder if this also means that all those old Disney movies are no longer under copyright.

It also leads to an interesting question about a possible long term strategy. The **AA's could assert that it's illegal to link to sites legally loaded with content if the content is under copyright anywhere. They could then lobby for perpetual copyright in some other country and still effectively keep control over the Internet distribution of content forever...

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[cervo]

Let's be honest here. Steamboat willy is not making disney any money. I do not know if mickey becomes public domain or not with that release, but let's assume he does.

Disney has always made many classic fairytells incredibly well like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. Others have made the same movies in animated form, only disney's are still popular. Let's look at the anime Dragon Ball and DBZ. Both were based on the manga and made by the same guy, they were incredibly entertaining. DBZ quite probably was/is the most popular anime series ever(as said by a number of source, but probably unsubstantiated). Dragon Ball GT was a sequel to Dragon Ball Z not based on the manga. It sucked bad.

The point? Disney is crazy, even if they lost the copyright on Mickey Mouse, in all likelyhood no one else would be able to make a decent Mickey Mouse cartoon. Disney has always been a big force in the entertainment industry, as is shown by most of the other animated fairytails not being as well known as the Disney ones. And even if someone managed to revive mickey mouse and make a fortune, Mickey isn't really making disney a whole lot with his cartoons today. The brand name recognition with Mickey is fixed for disney as well. When people see Mickey, they will automatically think Disney. So if other studios did manage to make cartoons it would be an advertisement for Disney.

In short, Eisner is a moron. Instead of paying for lawyers and buying off politicians, he should invest his money into making a better product. Overall Disney's movies have been going downhill. Admittedly some of them are good such as Monster Inc, but for the most part the majority of Disney movies are starting to suck lately. He should spend less time worrying about nothing and more time worrying about Disney's future.

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[IdleTime]

I guess it is more of a law question than a comment to you.

I find it strange that the supreme court can enforce a law that will be applied backwards in time so to speak. Basically you are never sure if whatever you do is not going to be affected by some law in the future and you may even be sued in the future for something that was legal when you did it in the past, but now (in the future) is illegal. That doesn't make sense to me.

Ok, extend the copyright laws, but only for new work created AFTER the law was passed. Work created earlier, will expire as said law regulated when the work was created.

WOLF-FM launched oldies Internet radio station

[ddkilzer]

WOLF FM just launched an oldies radio station on January 1 called Howlin Oldies.

Coincidence?

This is how it should work...

[DJ-Pandemic]

This is how this should work 1. A work is copywrited for the life of the author, and no longer. 2. A work is considered to be part of the public domain (IE, can be shared through whatever means available, not for profit) if the author is not actively distributing the work, or an authorized distributor of the work ceases to distribute said work (As in out of print CDs, movies... Basically, if I can't go to the store and buy it, I should be able to get it through whatever public domain channel of my choice without having to fear being chased after.) These two simple things would basically turn the market on its ear... All kinds of things would be going public domain within reasonably short periods of time because there would just be too much content to distribute.. Publishers and record companies can not afford to continue to distribute every single release that has ever been made, nor can all of these fit into. Also, its good for the authors of these works to have things go into the public domain during their lifetimes under these set of rules as it can cause interest to surge to the point that a distributor that is doing their homework would see that something is becoming popular again, negotiate distribution rights with the author, and once again have the work put out in its whole, possibly in a higher definition media, or with new artwork, etc. After the authors death, then simple supply and demand can drive distribution.. You can just get the public domain kazaa version, or you can pick up a store copy from the distributor of your choice if its a popular item, being that the popularity of the item drives the distributors into maintaining the quality of the release. This would also probably lead to a boom in restoring older works that have deteriorated or have been edited or otherwise abridged. oh well enough babbling...

"Mickey Mouse" as a trademark?

[yerricde]

Actually, Walt Disney would argue that Mickey Mouse is a trademark, so no, not anyone could use Mickey Mouse to market their product.

Several years ago, I bought a VHS tape with "Bugs Bunny" and the likeness of Bugs on the front and language to the effect of "This videotape contains public domain audiovisual works and is not endorsed by Warner Communications" on the back. Less than a week ago, I saw several similar tapes for sale at my local Walgreens store. If what you're saying is true, that trademark law gives Disney a monopoly on the early Mickey Mouse cartoons even after their copyrights have expired, then I'd expect Time Warner to have prevailed in legal action against these sellers of "Bugs Bunny" tapes years ago.

Or you could just follow the example of the maintainers of the GPL version of Star Control 2, who call their product "The Ur-Quan Masters" instead of "Star Control 2".

Re: Piratical

[bezuwork's friend]

I've wondered about the use of the word piracy with copyright. I did a search on Lexis and found that the word piracy was used for copying literary works at least as far back as the 18th century. One early US case is Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591 (1834) which references the following British case (1700s):

Miller v. Taylor, 4 Burr. 2307 (Lord Mansfield)

Is there any law student who has access to British cases who can get the text of this case? It would be fun to track down the original use of the term with copyright.

Re:Yes, it's the same.

[Skjellifetti]

What if the work is the inheritence? If I were to write a blockbuster novel and die the day before it makes the NYTimes list, I would not want the work to go into the public domain until my spouse and kids have made what I would have made had I lived.

Go read John Kennedy Toole's novel A Confederacy of Dunces as an example. Toole couldn't find a publisher and committed suicide. His mom enlisted the help of a prof at Loyola who found a publisher. The book was reasonably successful (and BTW, is well worth the read). Should it go into the public domain because the author is dead?

Disney has co-opted the mindshare

[yerricde]

How do you think Disney makes all their money? The don't own classic greats such as "Pinochio"

Disney owns Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940). Every other direct[1] film adaptation of the novel The Adventures of Pinocchio by Carlo Collodi (read an English translation here) has failed at the box office because the differences from the familiar Disney version are too jarring. Just look at how bad Disney's Pinocchio 2.0 (2002) is doing, even though it is more faithful to the novel, chapter by chapter, than any previous feature film adaptation of the novel. The obvious conclusion is that Disney has co-opted the common knowledge of Pinocchio so as to create a false impression in the average American's mind that "if it's not Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940), it's not the real Pinocchio."

[1] I don't consider Short Circuit or A.I. a direct adaptation.

Intellectual property is a flawed notion.

[ubernostrum]

The house analogy is quite flawed; why not try another? You have a big couch. You want to move that big couch. You call up your friends and say "I'll give a case of beer to whoever helps me move the couch". First guy who shows up can't move it on his own; then two more show up, and the four of you can't quite get it. Then one more comes and when he starts lifting as well, the couch gets moved. You give the beer to the last guy who showed up, and no one else.

Sound fair? It's how intellectual "property", if it really were property, would have to work. Good thing it's not. The idea of intellectual "property" just doesn't jive, for a variety of reasons:

• The "creation" involved is not creation ex nihilo; all authors and composers draw on previous work for inspiration and source material. Granting an exclusive property right to the last one to contribute to what is essentially historically a group effort is akin to only giving the beer to the last guy who helped lift; it makes the system morally unjust.
• If copyright were a property right it would be unable to expire; as you pointed out, owning something now means you'll own it 96 years from now. Yet this would cause copyright to quickly be in violation of many property-rights theories. For example, John Locke says that an appropriation of property to oneself is just if and only if one leaves "enough and as good for others". But if copyright is a property right and thus perpetual, we would very quickly run out of things left for others; as previously mentioned, "creation" of property in this sense involves drawing upon the work of others, and to do so would be illegal. There might be the occasional truly new idea, but copyright would fast reach a point where we were not leaving "enough and as good".
• The notion of copyright as property grants an exclusive property right in something which is non-exclusive. In the case of physical property, the right makes sense because physical items can generally only be possessed by one person at a time and the stability of society demands that some form of ownership be instituted in order to prevent constant strife over such possession; this principle is the basis of several major theories of property (e.g., Thomas Hobbes' and David Hume's). However, with something which can be possessed non-exclusively, applying such a rule makes little sense; if all can enjoy and benefit from possession of a thing simltaneously with no strife and no harm, would it not be an evil to deny such enjoyment and possession?

And that's just the tip of the iceberg; I've been researching the philosophy of copyright for a damned long time and while there are certainly some fuzzy areas, I can sy with absolute certainty that copyright cannot be "property" in the sense in which you have used the term.