Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Pirates Sell Spurious Songs — In 1897
Reservoir Hill writes "The NYTimes reported in their June 13, 1897 edition that 'Canadian pirates' were flooding the country with spurious editions of the latest copyrighted popular songs. 'They use the mails to reach purchasers, so members of the American Music Publishers Association assert, and as a result the legitimate music publishing business of the United States has fallen off 50 per cent in the past twelve months' while the pirates published 5,000,000 copies of songs in just one month. The Times added that pirates were publishing sheet music at 2 cents to 5 cents per copy although the original compositions sold for 20 to 40 cents per copy. But 'American publishers had held a conference' and a 'committee had been appointed to fight the pirates' by getting the 'Post Office authorities to stop such mail matter because it infringes the copyright law.' Interestingly enough the pirates of 1897 worked in league with Canadian newspapers that published lists of songs to be sold, with a post office box address belonging to the newspaper itself. Half the money went to pay the newspapers' advertising while the other half went to the pirates who sent the music by mail." The AMPA never dreamed of suing their customers, though.
In ancient Rome, it was completely ordinary for an audience member to transcribe a poetry recital, hand it over to amanuenses to massively copy, and then sell it in the marketplace with no money going back to the creator. Even poets didn't have a problem with it. The only protest I'm aware of in the literature is Martial's unhappiness that some talentless fellow was putting his own name on the transcription of Martial, and plagiarism is rather separate from copying without authorization.
In spite of this activity, literature still flourished in the ancient work. This is because the market depended on patronism. I wouldn't mind going back to those days, and to some extent we never left them. Indeed, most of the films and music I enjoy now are funded through a great deal of support from state arts ministries and private patrons. Record labels aren't so worried about piracy when the bills are already paid.
So privacy might make it harder for makers of the lowbrow to turn a profit. Boo-hoo. True art will continue to shine regardless of copyright laws.
The article was published june 13, 1897 - how the fuck can copyright still be applicable to that article?
The copyright was assigned to a corporate entity, and as such there is no "life + 70 years". It becomes what - 90 years at the outside?
Trying to claim copyright on a 112 year old article is insane ...
Hilarious, and plausible - but has anyone verified that this is a real NYT article and not a mock-up?
that isn't right. you know what else isn't right ? ridiculous copyright terms of 95 or whatwasit years after author's death. ridiculous claims that users can't make a copy for their own, private use of purchased works. ridiculous patent claims.
none of these helps to either advance arts or science. none of these helps to improve artist image.
i recently saw a link to a speach, done in 1841.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_(Macaulay).
"Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living"
that's quite correct, don't you agree ? so if artists have decided to screw everybody else with unreasonable claims (or maybe simply allowed somebody else to do that) - well, screw the artists. maybe it would be healthy to let them feel the pain of no copyright, so that unreasonability of a copyright standing for a hundred of years after they are friggin dead kicks in.
copyright isn't a basic right like right to own a physical unit. it's a privilege, put forth and allowed to be enjoyed with a single stated goal - to advance public good. it has been abused for a hundred years and made in the absolute opposite what was the stated goal. if you see such masses of people considering it unreasonable, maybe, just maybe you are wrong.
ps. it's also quite telling that wikipedia page has the following at the bottom... "This work published before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago."
ps2. personally, i do not support complete abolishment of copyright. i believe the pirateparty program of 5 years and no restrictions on personal use is very, very reasonable. i would even support a slightly extended period of 14 years, which i have seen as an optimal lenght, coming out from some studies.
Rich
Your post triggered a thought. Content owners respect IP? OK:
We designate the public domain as a legal entity with IP rights. Someone writes a song, they must pay for each element of it which can be identified as something in the public domain. Each word (we'll let them slide on letters), each common phrase such as you have noted above that they wish to incorporate into their work, etc.
Same for films. Thy sky appears in your film or 43 out of 129 minutes. The licensing fee for use of the sky in a film is $100 per second or ,0001% of the film's reveneue, whichever is less. Similar terms for everything else.
All proceeds go to a fund to lobby for shorter, more reasonable copyright.
After all, these people are stealing the public domain's IP without any compensation to the public!
Isn't anyone skeptical on the authenticity of the article? Do you really think copyright infringers were called "pirates" in 1897?
No, I understand. It's just if they are going to attempt to eliminate the public domain, I propose we arm it with the capability of self-defense.