Slashdot Mirror
Royal Society Issues IP Charter
An anonymous reader writes "The Economist
and the Guardian
both have stories about the release of the
Adelphi Charter – an international blueprint for how
intellectual property should be made – by Britain's Royal
Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacture and Commerce.
The Economist says “The Adelphi group are a varied crew
ranging from Gilberto Gil, the Brazilian culture minister (and pop
star) to Sir John Sulston, a Nobel-winning scientist who helped
decode the human genome, and James Boyle, a law professor at Duke
University. They believe that the intellectual-property system is
starting to lean so far in favor of private enrichment that it no
longer serves the public interest.” The charter calls for
evidence-based policy, and a balance between rights protection and
the public domain. It also condemns business method and software
patents."
No way will this get signed into law.
...top mice vote to bell cat.
"Top mice vote to bell cat" Yeah, yeah, more we can't win attitude.
Will current posters please instead offer suggestions for how to get the Government to pay attention instead of whining? Or at least, do both? How many millions of smart (don't prove me wrong) people read this? We're a force of Nature on the Internet, capable of manually DDoSing servers into a meltdown.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
"They believe that the intellectual-property system is starting to lean so far in favor of private enrichment that it no longer serves the public interest."
p anies-are-literally-grinding-their-employees-and-c ustomers-into-ground-beef" school of "greed is good" Randism^H^H^H^H^H^H^HLibertarianism have considerable influence in American politics, as well as online. I predict an influx of the usual suspects brashly asserting that this is "a free market", and that if you don't like the way the Fortune 100 companies do business, "you're welcome to start your own company", and talking about how great patents are, and accusing slashdotters of hating the poor innocent inventors and wanting their children to starve... (ignoring completely the fact that actual inventors are being screwed over by corporations just like consumers are...)
Well, no shit Sherlock.
However, at present, members of the radical, "laissez-faire-no-matter-what-yes-even-if-the-com
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
so software patents are wrong?
The answer is obvious when you consider the Slashdot effect, that we can overload servers with traffic just by browsing to them. We should conduct a campaign of letter writings, followed by Slashdot attacks on government servers until our demands are acknowledged. The same thing can be organized at local levels for practically any political cause (and overloadable resource) through the net.
Our weapons for freedom can be our webbrowsers, because most of us are too untrained, too cowardly or too afraid of the very real jail sentence that awaits to pick up a gun and revolt.
and naturally they shall be completely ignored. if these policies were adopted you would see a swing back to how capitalism really should be. all about servicing the people and using demand for services to drive innovation and competition.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I think our lawmakers are bought and sold by big corporations, but perhaps, just perhaps, enough of them can be shamed into doing the right thing. And that's to remember that the goal of government is to serve the public interest, not the person with the most money.
Maybe it won't happen, but at least it's worth the try. Because I can promise you it will never happen if we don't *start* trying.
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble. I like my coffee black, just like my metal" - Mindless Self Indulgence
I've always thought that it's mind-bogglingly moronic to have anything but this. Surely laws of any nature should be passed only if there's evidence that it is necessary for the public good? And seemingly no law that's been passed in association with copyrights since I've been alive has had this.
I asked this question in the AWOL Sid Meier interview, but I'll ask it again: which software company would find it infeasible to continue if software copyright terms were limited to fourteen years? Fourteen years ago, Atari and Amiga were mainstream systems. Fourteen years ago, the WWW was being invented. Fourteen years ago, Windows 3.1 didn't exist. Are there seriously people out there that argue Microsoft depends upon copyright protection for Windows 3.0 today?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
every slashdotter to make 1000 copies of the Adelphi Charter and deliver them to random letterboxes in his/her neighbourhood.
Hey, even international spies need IP...
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
No offense, but you have absolutely no clue in the world what in the hell you are talking about. Go do a Google search with "libertarian intellectual property". Now before you post anything else, read a few of the hits you get.
Oh... what is this? It turns out that libertarians actually fall somewhere between against IP laws or vaguely in favor of weakened IP laws. I know that +1 insightful karma tastes wonderful, as you did manage to throw in a bunch of libertarian buzz words combined with IP law and disparaging remarks, but you can do it without posting in complete ignorance.
The libertarian position in IP law is weak at best. They do NOT have a universal stance on the issue. Libertarians do NOT like the idea of a government enforced monopoly via IP laws. Only the utility of IP laws has led some libertarians to abandon the extreme position of no IP laws at all to favor something more limited. In other words, your average libertarian is more likely somewhere left of your average democrat on the issue. The most pro-IP law libertarians are moderates at best.
So, thanks for your ignorance. It really livened up my day. Hey, how about you make a post showing that libertarians are pro-war and how they love drug laws. I bet you can score another insightful post off that ignorant bullshit too.
But our power can be more usefully applied as a grassroots political force than by merely DDOSing all and sundry in an ineffective attempt to change policy. That tactic just gives the opposition a ready ad hominem attack with which to dismiss us, no matter how just our cause or how rational our arguments. As with SCO, every web site outage for the next six months suddenly becomes the work of lawless commie pirate hackers who want to selfishly stop people making music and... well, everyone looses interest, expect maybe to pass tough new laws further restricting free speech online.
Not that I'm saying that was your suggestion, but I'd hate for someone to misread it that way. I'm sure you understand.
Let's turn that power to doing good -- statistically, at least one person here is bound to have a good idea.
I think the good idea is the charter from TFA. This is a tremendously valuable contribution to the debate. For one thing, the Royal Society have considerable prestige. It's a lot harder to laugh them off than it is slashdot. The diversity of the authors helps in this regard as well.
For another the charter gives us a good talking point - something to campaign for. So you can contact your local lawmaker type and ask what he'd doing to bring about compliance with the Adelphi Charter. We can use it as a justification to ask whether the public good has been considered in respect to a specific IP ruling, and as further support for the abolition of software and business methods and software patents.
This doesn't give us any new techniques for getting the attention of government - but then we don't really need any - the old ones still work. What this gives us a lot of new, high quality ammo. My bright idea would be to suggest that we use it.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Gilberto Gil is a pretty interesting guy. A few days ago, the guardian had this pretty interesting article about him, which talks a bit about Brazil's stance on free software. What is going on in Brazil is pretty interesting, also in terms of patents on food. For example there was a huge outcry after a Japanese firm patented a modification of the delicious cupuaçu fruit. The term "biopiracy" is part of popular language over there.
Deconstruct the State
Who says there needs to be a balance at all? You have 2 extremes when it comes to intellectual 'property': a) none, read: no IP protection of any kind, and b) the kind that would give **AA bosses a wet dream. You think (what is best for society as a whole) is somewhere in between? Personally, I doubt it. I seriously doubt that the whole concept of intellectual 'property' has ANY net postive effect for society as a whole. I think it's more like DRM: good for some, but mostly a net negative, overhead, 'red tape'.
Now since around the same time that the concept of IP was introduced, there's been an explosion in literature, music, scientific advances etc. And proponents of IP protection like to say that's cause and result. I think that's bull, and pure coincidence. Anyone think the world would never have seen beautiful animated movies like those coming from the Disney studios, had there been 0 IP protection? Or that MP3 audio format would never have been developed?
We'll never know, since there's no way to find out what our world would be like if IP protections hadn't existed. But I do know one thing for sure: the overhead that IP protections cause, exist. No doubt about that. Drawing up licenses costs money, enforcing them costs money, fighting over them in court costs money, destroying 100,000 counterfeit CD's is waste (of energy and production capacity), reading EULA's takes people's time. Anyone ever tried to make an estimate how big a cost to society this all adds up to?
For me it's been clear for a while: I fundamentally don't like the concept of intellectual property (even for what I might produce myself), and simply try to ignore it as much as I can get away with. Like so many people do in practice. Oh and BTW: that doesn't mean none of my money goes to creative folks like musicians etc. It's just not IP laws that make me do that.extended period copywrite protects microsoft in two ways:
first, would be valuable code in window 3.1 that would help the people writing windows emulation write better stuff. even though it's win16, it would still help to understand where ms started and give clues to where it went.
second, i would expect that there is a lot of source code out there (not just ms) that would have evidence of wrong doing. patent infringement would still be an issue for several more years and trademark/servicemark infringement (not as likely) would be an issue for a lot longer. while the statute of limitations might have run out, it would give ammunition to organizations claiming copywrite infringement.
i would also expect other bad things to be found is source code.
eric
You better keep us up to date - I'm already erect with excitement.
Now THIS is an overlord I would welcome!
"These laws and regulations must serve, and never overturn, the basic human rights to education,employment and cultural life."
My clients demand monetary damages for violations of their right to a cultural life! As you can clearly see, my poor clients have no lives at all!
Jesus, people continue to pirate receipes every day and the law does absolutely nothing about it. It only takes mediocre cooking skills to follow a receipe, which means people who would otherwise need to engage the services of professional chefs are capable of producing meals that are comparable to restaurant quality. No wonder chefs are so poor! If they had some legal protection they could continue to advance the culinary arts without giving up their livelihood. Stop home kitchens now! It's not like software is any more complex than a cooking receipe, and programmers get legal protection for their works.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The Royal Society* is an organisation that promotes UK science, The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce is different.
*Yes, they should call themselves The Royal Society of Britain or something else a bit more specific to prevent confusion like this.
I quit!
Every time I read something about IP law, whether copyrigt or patent or whatnot, I always see the same argument that if IP law were not present then the whole economy would collapse because all the content and idea producers would stop producing their wares due to lack of profitability.
Pure BS. I can guarantee that at this point in our society the abolition of IP law would do anything BUT destroy the economy of a nation or the world. Why can I guarantee this? Because the general public has become accustomed to being content consumers. When something comes along (say, digital music) that is significantly useful or good, people will consume regardless of the "legality" of it. Hence, the widespread piracy of music and the eventual development of legal download services.
People want their music, their movies, their medicines, and their meat. The incumbent monopolies keep saying that without DRM, broadcast flags, or patents, they would never produce the products that they do. I say that's just fine by me. Because even if the big companies halted all production in protest of the removal of IP laws, the public would still maintain its desire to consume, so at that point the market will be wide open for ANYONE to fulfill the neeed of the people and profit from it.
I'm not saying the IP laws SHOULD be abolished, just that they are seriously flawed and need some reform a 'la the article above. Also, the public's need for "stuff" is a powerful force (capable of toppling governments in the past), so it is only a matter of time before the current establishment of monopolistc laws fall as well. The sooner the change comes though, the better all will be.
An interesting article that argues for radical reform of copyright (do not let the words "intellectual property" spring from your mouth) can be found (in an unusual place I think) here. Maybe the tide is slackening and will begin to turn soon.
Where's their proof that the ideas they're putting forward are right.
Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis. Until there is a enough money behind the idea that copyright/patents are overbearing, no one is going to seriously try to prove it.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Yes, I know, this is /. & we have a million examples of patents stifling innovation... but no legitimate analysis.
No such analysis is needed--that's the whole point of the Adelphi principles--the burden of proof isn't symmetric.
Patent proponents want society to give them something truly extraordinary: a 20 year monopoly on the exploitation of an idea. That demand requires justification by people who want that kind of monopoly. No counterargument is needed--if proponents can't provide a clear justification, patents should not exist.
Brilliant. You have hit the nail squarely on the head. It would require TRM devices (Trusted Receipe Monitors, i.e. odor detectors) in every room of every house to ensure patent holders are properly compensated--even for microwave dinners. One can almost see it now, when the FLIAA (Food Liscensing Investigating Association Agency) lawyer-goon says, "Sorry, Senator Lardbottom, your daughter copied a chili dog without a liscence. That'll cost you $30,000.00."
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
As a libertarian I take offense at the idea that I am pro corporate. The libertarian creed can be summed up in one sentence: I want to live my own life and make my own choices, and I don't want the government or corporations to have the capacity to forcibly deny me those choices. A true libertarian would be against centralized corporate power because that would be a NET LOSS of individual choice. A true libertarian would be FOR laws which preserve as close to perfect competition as possible, because that produces the highest net gain in individual choice. A true libertarian would be AGAINST the DMCA because that is the government's direct infringement on both perfect competition and personal choice. Don't start bashing libertarians for the "it's already a free market" argument. That's a REPUBLICAN rhetorical concept.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
instead of having the same argument that is repeated at least three times a week, how about people post suggestions of what the ip laws should be.
to me having ip laws with software doesn't make much sense.
isn't it kind of like trying to patent a math formula?
with music and movies, the companies should have protection for at most 5 years, after that, it's fair game.
Anyone who wants to understand false "property rights" only has to open up a history book and read about the 1850's. Just as the slave plantation system had to die for society to enter the industrial revolution, the copyright content controll systems need to die in order for society to enter the information age. And as other technologies make it easier to repliacte discoveries, patents will eventually need to die too.
Yes, slavery. They called it a property right, they screamed there was no incentive without it, they said it was responsible for great wealth and prosperity of American business and commerce. And it was all bunk, even though it was geniuses that were saying it.
Well the same is true with copyrights and patents. Anyone with an IQ over 20 can easially see that they are not anything like any other kind of incentive or free market property right. And most people with an IQ over 80 can see that inspite of the theory, that is is far more the exception that copyrights or patents help the small time creator than it is the rule.
In fact copyrights and patents are not only bunk, they are often pure evil. Like how copyrights have ripped apart american culture and replaced it with hollywood and ruined the persuit of knowledge in student text book industry, or like how thousands of patnets are sat on and not used for anything but to lock out competitors. Or how disputes and lawsuits in the world court involving AIDS patents arguably caused over a million people to be dead from AIDS in Africa who wouldn't have been otherwise. And now, for copyrights, they pratically want to shut down the internet and microregulate every technology chip maker in the US. Well I say F**k em, on the internet copyrights are dead and they don't even deserve the token support they are getting.
They'll ignore the Royal Society the same as they ignored everyone else, both educated and slashdotter, who dared speak out against their whoring to content distributors.
I unfortunately reversed Say's Law in my original post. Say's Law states that supply creates demand, not that demand creates supply. The entry on wikipedia for Say's Law describes the idea and its ramifications for the curious. I botched it entirely with the reversal.
However, despite being embarassingly wrong on a public forum, I think that the underlying logic remains relatively intact. Consider: the existance of strong consumer demand for a product at a particular price in no way guarantees that suppliers will be able to meet that demand. Indeed, the law of demand states that lowering price will nearly always increase demand.
For example, I can guarantee that if spaceflight were completely safe and only cost say, 3 dollars per trip, there would be huge consumer demand. But this does not guarantee that suppliers will jump in and fill the need, because obviously, there's no way they can do this and make a profit, and turning a profit is what suppliers are about.
So the crux of my point, really, was that the existance of large demand does not guarantee supply. If technology is creating a price ceiling for distribution -- which seems likely, if digital distribution continues to drive the cost of distribution to zero and thus the profit to be made from distribution to zero -- then the companies currently depending on that business model will go out of business. Not a loss, really, as far as I'm concerned. Buggy whips and all that.
Again, appologies for my error. My memory is failing me.
Boyle's a Law Professor. Had to be.
In the meantime, there has been remarkable progress on most of those fronts. The two individuals who deserve most of the credit on the campaigning and lobbying side are Rufus Pollock and Gavin Hill of the FFII UK. Gavin is the "someone" who contacted me last year. In fact, that contact resulted from a slashdot discussion. And in parallel to the political stuff, we've now seen some really good rulings by Judge Prescott of the High Court of England and Wales who has already invalidated a few software patents.
Someone said in this thread that people should make suggestions for how to make political decision-makers more aware. Here's a suggestion:
Vote Against Software Patents / Vote For Your Right To Program
We're doing this online campaign and we've already had a very good start. This is about the most important political award series in the EU, and if our camp once again demonstrates its Internet campaigning power (we're trying hard!), then this will make politicians, press and the public more aware of the software patent issue.
This is indeed one very good solution - to allow contribution to come only from individuals, and for those over a certain cost to be publicly disclosed. This is called the 'Open-funding system'. In contrast, the 'Closed-funding system' is one where any body or entity may make any donation to the government for their own desires and no information beyond the two parties may ever know. So in an open-funding system, for a company to make a lobbying contribution they would need to do it via an individual, and this would be more transparent and accountable, and it would be visible to shareholders and the public through publicly accessible accounts. The only problem is the transition to a more open system would be lobbied against by the large corporations out there.
You can start by having a look at these ones, for example:
"Stronger IP protection is not always better. Chances are that patents on software, common practice in the US and on the brink of being legalised in Europe, in fact stifle innovation. Europe could still alter course"
PriceWaterhouseCoopers:
"The mild regime of IP protection in the past has led to a very innovative and competitive software industry with low entry barriers. A software patent, which serves to protect inventions of a non-technical nature, could kill the high innovation rate."
Federal Trade Commission:
"More patents in more industries and with greater breadth are not always the best ways to maximize consumer welfare."
"Many panelists and participants expressed the view that software and Internet patents are impeding innovation. They stated that such patents are impairing follow-on incentives, increasing entry barriers, creating uncertainty that harms incentives to invest in innovation, and producing patent thickets. Panelists discussed how defensive patenting increases the complexity of patent thickets and forces companies to divert resources from R&D into obtaining patents. Commentators noted that patent thickets make it more difficult to commercialize new products and raise uncertainty and investment risks. Some panelists also noted that hold-up has become a problem that can result in higher prices being passed along to consumers."
The FFII has a list of further studies that you can have a look at here.
Now, perhaps I can turn the questions around. Can anybody provide a link to a single reputable study that concludes that software patents are necessary or good for society?
If so, please do.
But to the best of my knowledge there isn't any such study, so please don't feel embarassed if you can't. :-)
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
In most other countries, the PEOPLE own their letterboxes, as part of their houses - they get to say what can go in and what can't - even the postal services have to obey people's individual rules (such as no junk, for example).
In the US, the USPS owns the letterboxes, and you have to obey their rules if you want to use their system.
To me, that's like having the state own the computer I'm typing this on - a dangerously stalinist ideal.
The USPS is set up in such a way as to inhibit freedom of communication, not to facilitate it.
You're probably right, it is illegal in the US.t ml :))
For that matter, i think its illegal about everywhere.
Nonetheless, when "prestige" http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,842603,00.h
hit galicia, a common catch phrase "nunca mais" (never again) was all over the place in protests and stickers.
Some activists made rubber stamps with it, and would allow people to stamp their bills with them.
It was 100% illegal, but i stamped all the bills i had in my wallet (at my own risk), as well as other people, I saw euro bills with that message as far as portugal and france. (I dont travel a lot
It a nice little VERY EFFECTIVE protest
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
You ask who says there needs to be a balance at all? Shall we start with Thomas Jefferson and Lord Macaulay. It is perfectly reasonable that those who create new stuff should have some opportunity to profit from what they create; whether they choose to is up to them. If what you create is your only form of income, you'll want to make a living out of it. That's not the same as requiring that you can protect that right after your own death - and that trust funds or publishers can continue to make money out of you for decades afterwards. Unless you have the opportunity to profit from your creativity, the only creativity in the world will be provided by the idle rich and the garret-dwelling, starving artist.
Who would believe in penguins,unless he had seen them? Conor O Brien - Across Three Oceans
but fitting an anti roll bar (sway bar) to the rear suspension of a rear engined car is the stupidest thing you could possibly do if you wanted to improve the roadholding. The problem was the swing axle suspension. If you brake hard then the rear wheels drop down and go to very positive camber. If you were breaking hard for a corner then you'd likely steer in before the back came down. If that happens the rear stays up. And you then corner with the rear up in the air, extreme positive camber on the outside rear wheel (trying to keep the car on the road) and quite possibly a warm soggy feeling between you and the seat.
Fitting that rear anti roll bar wouldn't have cured this. It would simply have insured that not breaking hard and going into a corner a bit fast would make the car violently oversteer. And result in warm soggy feeling time again. There's really only two ways of dealing with this. Prevent positive camber by preventing to much downward suspension travel and setting a high stationary negative camber, but that would be less comfortable, or redesign the rear suspension to something like (semi) trailing arms.
I don't believe the 50 cents option was suggested by people who wanted to cure the problem. I don't know a lot about Ralph Nader but he struck me as someone with a deep and intrinsic fear of technology.
I found out recently that it is not as easy as I thought to change somebodies mind about the *AA. I was chatting with a good friend and we got to talking about the internet (he is not a savvy user of it) and intelectual property. It took a long time to convince him that the industry doesn't exist because of "the way things are" but things are the way they are because of the industries. When I tried to speak of a middle ground between filesharing and super controlling copyright, I met with "but artists have to get paid". I am filled with optimism by the Internet, I think its going to change everything positively when it comes to content creation and distribution, but I find people who havn't been using it for years are quite the opposite. They believe firmly that the industries are looking after the content creators best interest. What we need is a way to educate people, I think this article is a great step in the right direction. People just need to know that selling your soul to get a "deal" is not the only way.
"how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
Britain - and other nations - have lots of Royal Societies for all sorts of things. Convention has it that the only one called `The Royal Society' is this one:
u rceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=u tf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:offici al
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/
Lots of Royal Societies? Yep - look here:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=royal+society&so
You can't get away from Royal stuff in the British Isles - I mean, even the definitely very anti-British-rule and entirely republican Republic (i.e., we have no royalty here, matey[1]) of Ireland has this:
http://www.rsgyc.ie/ - founded in 1838, so that `Royal' was a definite reference to the British monarch - Queen Victoria at that time (reigned 1837-1901).
[1] Aside from the point that all of Irish descent are the descendents of kings. Nothing's straightforward.
Allowing murder in society makes it much harder for stable organisations to form, as you never know when key members will get topped. This means that specialisation, the key to economic success, is harder to achieve and sustain. This damages the economy.
And the fact that it's so short, sweet and self-explanatory is why we see the same taboo against killing people without due warning cropping up worldwide.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Maybe you should read your own post?
I made it! I wont go into details (Because they could be reading this, you know) but yes: I made it through the day with honors and they believe I am a genuine Microcrap Certified Turd. Note to self: I am not even using 2% of my full potential.
This idea came to me: We should stick a copy of the Adelphi Charter, along with essays and papers supporting those positions, in archives with music, software, movies, and other media, name the archives for the media (of course), and put the archives on peer to peer networks and torrent trackers where they'll be downloaded. As people download and redistribute our media (everyone loves stolen music), they'll find political notices bundled with it.
As this one got lost down the thread, here it is again:
Make nice rubber stamps with whatever motto suits your fancy , "No software patents" comes to mind, although I'm more radical than that and would use : "I.P. property IS I.P theft!" (theft from the public to the hands of a few corporations by lawyers and with some goverments help)
Stamp until you run out of ink. I would choose as medium currency. Euros, Dolars, Yens, etc.
I saw this used when the prestige oil tanker provoked an ecological disaster in galicia and it was very effective.
(as written somewhere else on this thread)
Probably 100% illegal, but it would prove you mean it.
When you cant avoid seeing the message, mass media would pick it, politicals wouldnt stand a chance but get the point.
PS: this is a bit extremist, I saw other ideas down the thead with more good sense, but i also think it takes all kind of people going in a direction to make a change.
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
I, for one, welcome our new voting anti-software patent overlords. And I already voted. Suggest you guys think of doing the same. Remember, you can only be really against software patents if you vote. As a great man once said "Them as is not for us, is against us" He lacked grammar, but his heart was true. Time to vote, folks. Put up or shut up.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
You're arguing with a troll that'll twist the meaning of your words just so he can keep arguing with you, convinced that he's completely right.
In a recent Guardian interview Gil protested that he's wanted to make his music freely available but his labels stopped him - 'what does it come to when an author doesn't even own his own songs'. Obviously a thought that didn't pass through his head when he sold them back in the 70s! I wonder if he thought people were giving him money because they liked him?
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh