Slashdot Mirror
Dead Musicians Signing Media Rights Petitions
epeus writes "Following from the Gowers coverage and the Musicians' ad in the FT, Larry Lessig admits he was wrong about term extension: 'If you read the list, you'll see that at least some of these artists are apparently dead (e.g. Lonnie Donegan, died 4th November 2002; Freddie Garrity, died 20th May 2006). I take it the ability of these dead authors to sign a petition asking for their copyright terms to be extended can only mean that even after death, term extension continues to inspire. I'm not yet sure how. But I guess I should be a good sport about it, and just confess I was wrong. For if artists can sign petitions after they've died, then why can't they produce new recordings fifty year ago?'"
> The crux of this problem is that you're treating ideas and creativity as property -- intangible ethereal things as tangible
> physical things. Please try to ignore the fact that lawyers and the media are hung up on this terminology of "intellectual
> property". No one owns an idea - it's not possible, just as owning a thought isn't possible and I'll prove it to you:
This all sounds good and well until consideration is given to the economics of the matter.
If I have 30k USD in my bank account, and I spend that money over the course of a year, paying for my rent, food, heating and clothes, and I spent that time developing a wonderful new idea - a fantastic math theorum, say a new data compression method - then if that idea does *not* belong to me and anyone else can use it for free, I've been robbed blind; because I paid for that new method and other people are using it for free.
Now, so far, so good. I might even risk to say that we are in agreement so far. I think the disagreement comes next; in that I say this method - and the revenue derived thereof - belongs permanently to this person, and you say it should, after a while, this method and so the revenue derived thereof - should be taken from this person, so that no one has to pay for it any more.
> OTOH if property rights exist it's legal to draw a circle and live off lawsuits against everyone who tries to create a car, a
> clockwork or any of thousands of things that use a wheel. And while you do nothing with your drawing of a circle, nobody else is
> allowed to do anything with it either.
If you draw a circle, property rights mean that you own that circle that you've drawn.
You put in the time and effort to make the drawing; it belongs to you.
It does not mean you own ALL circles.
> How is this theft? When these artists recorded their songs 50 years ago, copyright was even shorter! They knew exactly how long
> their works would stay out of public domain.
That fact something is a law does not mean it is right.
Segregation was law.
> The offspring are not royalty, and as such are not entitled to live forever off of their parents via extensions.
They were given something by their parents. We come along and take it. Isn't that theft? do you envy their success or luck so much you justify theft by it?
Have your parents given you anything? how would you feel if the State came along and took it from you? I think you would be deeply outraged, and rightly so.