Slashdot Mirror
Why Recordings From World War I Aren't Public Domain
An anonymous reader writes "While Disney and others have done a great job pushing the end date for works entering the public domain ever further forward, most people have assumed that anything from before 1923 is in the public domain. However, it turns out that this is not true for sound recordings, in part due to an accidental quirk in copyright law history — in that Congress, way back in 1909, believed that sound recordings could not be covered by copyright (they believed the Constitution did not allow recordings to be covered), and thus, some state laws stepped up to create special copyrights for sound recordings. A court ruling then said that these state rules were not overruled by federal copyright law. End result? ANY recorded work from before 1972 (no matter how early it was recorded) won't go into the public domain until 2049 at the earliest."
It looks like my epic youtube video made up entirely of WWI soundclips will have to be put on hold. And yes, a video made entirely of soundclips. What now, huh?
I'm interested however in the equivalent laws over here in the UK. Are we bound to the USA's system as part of some global copyright law thingy? I don't pretend to understand Public Domain, but I'd like to.
To much anime is bad for the brain...desu.
Sorry. Couldn't help it.
Everything they stick theyre mitts on always gets shafted.
So does that mean that if we manage to record the words of Christ from a 2000 year old clay pot, the RIAA will come after us?
So, hopefully, in these economically-difficult times, some rights-holder someplace gets a coupla thousand bucks from some hip-hop artist intent upon incorporating turn-of-the-century jazz recordings into his latest opus.
So, hopefully, in these creativity-starved times, some hip-hop artist forgoes mashing-up some other creator's work and goes the extra mile to invent something brand new.
So, hopefully, some student whose research involves early recordings can't find what he needs on the Internet and visits a library for only the second or third time in his life, and a hundred news worlds are opened to him.
I am hopeful that we will get through this...
Every time I start to feel a shred of guilt about my rampant piracy, I read something like this. Then the guilt goes away. Copyright is a corrupt system, which no longer serves it's original purpose of promoting production of useful art. Instead it is nothing but a mechanism to ensure maximum profits for those least deserving, and to make sure that the public domain remains small and legally dangerous enough to pose no serious competition. I pay copyright law no respect, and will not do so unless it it reformed to bring it back in line with sensible terms, make it less biased towards those who can afford millions of dollars in legal fees and eliminate the possibility of copyright being abused as a tool to censor criticism or prevent interoperability.
So any movie using the Wilhelm Scream are also breaking copyrights? There go a *lot* of big Hollywood movies!
I'm going to continue doing what I normally do, and ignore copyright law. Absurdities like this just show how backwards and useless the system is. Scrap it, make everything public domain.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Coming from the UK, I can understand how people can be extradited on US federal law charges. I'd be surprised if state laws apply too. For that matter how does this affect US citizens in say NY if the law is broken in CA?
Whoops, somebody forgot to read the Constitution.
News flash: Copyright existed, and should exist, to allow an individual to profit from their creation
Did all States create those copyright laws? Or did just some of them do? And what about materials recorded abroad, or broadcast abroad? Enforcing copyright law on a State by State level would seem to me like a very difficult thing to do.
A law passed in Ohio applies in Ohio, not in Iowa.
To be captured by an Ohio copyright, a recording would have to be made in Ohio and copied in Ohio. A recording made in Ohio and copied in Iowa wouldn't count.
I don't think this is much of a problem.
Well, I indeed use it as an excuse for theft. I go into the store and steal the DVDc, CDs and books I want. I even steal the DVD players and TV sets to use them. That way when somebody raids my house and sees I have about 10.000 CDs and DVDs that where stolen, I will be paying much less then somebody who did some copyright infringement of 3 numbers on their mp3 player from an album they bought.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So a state law seems to override a federal law. I wonder what may have changed the courts mind after they decided that the feds can ignore California's medical marijuana laws. I suppose I don't need to ask that question if any of these sound recording belong to RIAA members.
Is it just me, or the press coverage or what? It seems to me like there are tons of issues nowadays where states are in strife with the feds. Same sex marriage, drug laws, immigration laws, copyright laws, etc. Maybe its time to redraw the line between the states and the fed. It sure seems like the states are pushing back, and I support a heterogeneous set of laws. Makes it easier to figure out what works and what doesn't.
Dilbert RSS feed
I agree. The individual artist should be able to profit from their work for the rest of their life. The problem is that a copyright lasts long after the artist is gone. Why does an estate get to profit off the work of a dead individual? If the owner in question is a corporation then the copyright should be valid for a fixed period of time. I would be ok with using the figure of the life expectancy of a female child born in the year the work was created. A female child born in 2003 has a life expectancy of 80.1 years according to the US government. If the rights are sold the copyright expiration should remain the same. If the corporation goes out of business and no one buys the rights then the work should go into the public domain. Individuals and corporations should be allowed to place their works in the public domain at any time during the copyright lifetime with the understanding that the work can not be taken out of the public domain.
"ANY recorded work from before 1972 (no matter how early it was recorded) won't go into the public domain until 2049 at the earliest."
- I think you mean any USA created work?
Interesting spam. Too cogent for a goatse, too off-topic for a genuine response. I bet .47 internets that the link is malware.
Yes, I'm sure all those artists who died more than 70 years ago (remember, we're talking about recordings that would have been Public Domain under federal law) will be extremely pleased. Dead, but pleased.
Dilbert RSS feed
The new findings are not a disaster, it's just yet another example of the ongoing insanity that copyright has become.
So, hopefully, in these creativity-starved times, some hip-hop artist forgoes mashing-up some other creator's work and goes the extra mile to invent something brand new.
There is nothing truly new. Even the most original composer is 90% influenced by the music he has already heard. Getting a jazz musician to play your newly composed jazz solo costs time and money. Sampling is a way for musicians without oodles of money (i.e 90% of them) to make decent music easier. It makes more people able to participate in the creation of our culture.
So, hopefully, some student whose research involves early recordings can't find what he needs on the Internet and visits a library for only the second or third time in his life, and a hundred news worlds are opened to him.
Why force people to use a less efficient tool (vinyl records and CDs at the library) when modern information technology is available in most homes?
Working hard is not an end in itself. If something can be done easier (and probably better), let people do it the easy way, and spend their efforts where they're needed.
It costs a company nothing for you to download their copyrighted media. You deprive them of absolutely no physical property. The only thing a "pirate" does is deprive them of "possibility of income", that being if you actually bought it from them. So I guess if you can physically steal things that have indeterminant probability then I guess you are right.
it's why i use adblock and noscript while running.
Trademark and copyright are completely separate systems. Arguments from one do not copy over to the other.
But the publishers of mass-market works of authorship set in fictional universes, who license the trademarks and copyrights related to a fictional universe as a unit, want end users to forget how separate these systems of exclusive rights are. So they use phrases such as "intellectual property" that confuse the two.
Even if the recordings 'are' still copyrighted, doesn't the original rights holder or his agent need to file a DMCA takedown to do anything about it?
receiving a copy of something isn't copying
The exhaustion of exclusive rights after the first sale of a phonorecord (17 USC 109) applies only after the first sale on United States soil (17 USC 602).
So, hopefully, in these creativity-starved times, some hip-hop artist forgoes mashing-up some other creator's work and goes the extra mile to invent something brand new.
Even people who try to create something that they think is original sometimes fail. It isn't directly applicable to the case of the article (reproduction of sound recordings), but George Harrison got sued and lost when it was discovered he had accidentally copied the ten-note hook (5~ 3~ 2~, 5 6 8 6 8 8) from "He's So Fine" into his song "My Sweet Lord".
Does copyright seriously have to last that long. Death of author + 70 is way long enough. I think making copyright expire with the death of the author is a good idea on things on books, recordings, etc. because if the author's dead, he can't make any money off the work, right.
Odds are that the "artist" doing the recordings during WW I isn't alive
Using copyright royalties as a substitute for an annuity, in order to ensure that your great-grandchildren have a roof over their heads, is still profit. The Supreme Court has declined to second-guess the validity of Congress's attempts "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
That's right, copyright is STEALING! It is stealing history and culture from future generations. It is stealing from the global knowledge of humanity. Not just infringed upon; information is locked up until it rots in to nothingness.
I have no specific desire to take control of mickey-frikkin-mouse away from the Walt Disney Corporation, or similar works from their holders. But I believe the original idea of copyright was to benefit humanity by encouraging people to create more works by granting an author the PRIVILEGE to control how their work was distributed for a limited time.
However, if a holder does not ultimately contribute something back to humanity in exchange for this privilege, then they are literally stealing from humanity.
The current system effectively prevents these works from continuing to benefit and enrich humanity after they are out of print by failing to permit works from entering the public domain in a timely manner if ever. This needs to be fixed.
For a person or entity to retain control over a work indefinitely, such as current laws essentially permit, is STEALING from humanity.
A law passed in Ohio applies in Ohio, not in Iowa.
When your packet travels over a router in Ohio, the copyright owner can take you to court and argue that you are doing business in Ohio.
So a state law seems to override a federal law.
The federal law, 17 USC 301(c), explicitly allows state laws to override it.
So does that mean that if we manage to record the words of Christ from a 2000 year old clay pot, the RIAA will come after us?
No, the Pope will.
What's the difference between the Pope and the RIAA?
The Pope hasn't had a crusade since 1272
While I was writing my philosophy thesis, I discovered that many of G.K. Chesterton's works that he wrote in Britain between 1923 and 1936 when he died are public domain in Britain, where they were published.
But they are not public domain in the U.S.
One of my unfinished projects is to combine all his works that are public domain, and throw a full text index on it to make a little G.K. exclusive search engine -- but we're going to have to go with a non-U.S. ISP if I ever do get around to getting it off the ground.
Pay? In the UK you might even get a flat rent free:
Bradley Wernham, 19, responsible for a £1million crime spree, was spared a prison sentence last October after police told a judge he had turned his life around.
Wernham was given a community service order instead and relocated to another town where he was given a flat rent-free.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/08/05/one-man-crimewave-bradley-wernham-jailed-by-the-judge-who-let-him-off-115875-22465784/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7926040/Prolific-burglar-given-second-chance-offends-again-after-three-months.html
The individual artist should be able to profit from their work for the rest of their life.
Why? I can invent something that saves people's lives and get protection for 20 years under patent law, but some crappy pop song should get protection for the rest of that person's life? Something is wrong there. Why not make it a fixed length of 20 years also?
When you say "should be able to profit" you mean of course be granted a legal monopoly. An artist can profit from their work without any legal protection.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
If a recorded item, writing or whatnot is considered valuable, then the owner should have to buy a license to keep it out of the public domain after a reasonable and free period of time (like the original 7 years). after the free period is over the owner would have to make a determination if the item is valuable enough to pay for to keep it out of the public domain. This protects Mickey, but releases a whole slew of recordings and books that have no commercial viability.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The individual artist should be able to profit from their work for the rest of their life.
Why? The rest of us actually have to work - we don't get to show up for a few weeks and then say "You have to pay me for the rest of my life for that work". Giving them a few years of copyright to make money off of it, sure, I'm fine with that. However, it's BS for them to get paid to sit back and do nothing for 60+ years because once upon a time, they wrote a few songs.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
...something brand new.
No such thing. There are only unique combinations of what already exists. And more often than not, more than one person will independently come up with the same combination, which only further illustrates the absurdity of copyright, patent, and trademark law...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
...should be able to profit from their work for the rest of their life.
Then I'm entitled to the same benefits. I want mileage royalties on every car I fixed back in 1973 for the rest of my life. A penny per mile will be sufficient...
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The optimist is disappointed, the pessimest can be happily surprised. Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
some rights-holder someplace gets a coupla thousand bucks from some hip-hop artist intent upon incorporating turn-of-the-century jazz recordings into his latest opus
Rather, some creative musical genius doesn't give his gifts to the world because it resembles a phrase from some 1920 jazz he's never heard, and is sued into bankrupcy and commits suicide, depriving the world of his gifts.
some hip-hop artist forgoes mashing-up some other creator's work and goes the extra mile to invent something brand new.
The mashup IS brand new; nothing is created from scratch. Art, like science and technology, is built on what has come before.
some student whose research involves early recordings can't find what he needs on the Internet and visits a library for only the second or third time in his life
Nobody who has only been in a library once in his life is likely to have much to give to the world. And besides, the internet is a library. Its only problem is too many writers and too few editors and proofreaders.
Free Martian Whores!
And the ultimate seat of authority, we the people, have decided otherwise
No we haven't. If we the people want copyright reform, we the people will elect representatives to enact it. But given the bipartisan support that things like the Copyright Term Extension Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act have enjoyed, this has not yet happened. I'll believe you once we the people have elected enough members of the United States Pirate Party to the Congress to make the Republican and Democratic caucuses consider a coalition.
It works the other way around as well. The US vs. pretty much the rest of the world use different milestones to calculate copyright expiration. In the US it's the date of creation, elsewhere it's date of the creator's death. So for a long-lived creator who got an early start on his career, copyright on his early works would expire sooner in the US than elsewhere*, but for a short-lived creator or one who created works shortly before his death, those works will generally expire sooner in the rest of the world. (The US has changed its standard to match the rest of the world for new copyrights, but it'll be a while before that's relevant.)
*Once upon a time it was possible for a creator's US copyrights to expire while he was still alive, which was obviously not possible elsewhere.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
In reality of course the whole point of copyright was to promote works of art and scientific discoveries. In the US this purpose is even spelled outright in the Constitution where it reads: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.".
The Founding Fathers (Jefferson particularly ) were very uneasy about granting effective monopoly to authors at the expense of the general public and so they sought to allow it only if the general public benefited from such an arrangement more then it had to invest (in terms of enforcing such a law).
Your attempt at insight aside, the limited time span of Copyright is designed to increase the availability of the arts to everyone in the long run by creating a temporary monopoly on a work for profit to be gained so as to encourage the creation of works that will end up in the public domain eventually.
The goal is to have all of this creativity available to everyone for free, that's the destiny of the work. The temporary profiteering is allowed to encourage creativity from people who are monetarily driven.
Libraries bypass this system by actually purchasing works and then making them available free, entirely bypassing the intent of Copyright to our benefit.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
"in that Congress, way back in 1909..."
The US didn't even join in WWI until 1917, so why is it any business of the US congress? Most of the action happened in France, Belgium, eastern europe, turkey and the middle east
So, hopefully, in these economically-difficult times, some rights-holder someplace gets a coupla thousand bucks from some hip-hop artist intent upon incorporating turn-of-the-century jazz recordings into his latest opus...
Evidently you haven't heard the story behind the movie "Sita Sings the Blues".
Obviously you don't listen to enough music.
From the first days of Jazz to Nine Inch Nails, every now and then true creativity shines and something very new appears on the scene. While music and other art tends to evolve slowly, sometimes a big side-step happens and things change a lot.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
DOn't bet on it.
They aren't sending armored men in, but they do work very hard to control governments while spinning it as 'charity'.
You don't think the money Mother Theresa raised for starving children actually went to the children? Most of it went to building nunneries.
\
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Given the way they originally rejected sound recordings, is the "copy" part of "copyright" a verb (to reproduce) or a noun (as in the publishing industry - i.e. copy editor)? If you go with the publishing definition, then a sound recording doesn't really look like copy.
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce
For sound recordings and only for sound recordings, Congress delegated this to the states in 1972. 17 USC 301(c).
This 'times' or no more or less creatively starved then any other time.
Get back under your bridge you damn troll.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
News flash: you're an uninformed troll who's never read what Copyright exists for.
Copyright is designed to create a temporary monetary gain to encourage the creation of works for the greater good in the public domain.
Copyright is not an implicit human right, its an artificial incentive to allow artists to gain renumeration for their efforts for a limited time. Go do a bit of public domain reading yourself. From copyright.gov:
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
What the hell does the Constitution have to do with this discussion?
Somebody forgot to read it, alright...you did.
They don't even do that, since most people who pirate something wouldn't buy it if the pirated version wasn't available.
And some of the rest, DO buy it if they decide that they like it.
Technoli
That would actually be 1423.
GP might not necessarily be American.
What the hell does the Constitution have to do with this discussion?
Sigh...
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
A song is born...
When? I need an example. What new trends have there been over the last 60 years that really stand out? Aside from the decibel levels?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I have legally recorded hundreds of concerts that I have uploaded to the Live Music Archive. The artist still owns the rights to these recordings and could change their mind to disallow them, but they seldom do.
However, in the real world, well-connected and wealthy people have a tendency to get their way: they buy politicians.
Then why hasn't the consumer electronics industry bought more politicians to get fair use and otherwise unregulated use expanded? Schizophrenic Sony excluded, why are the companies in the MAFIAA so much better than consumer electronics companies at this?
Option 3, copy with impunity, costs me about 25 cents
That's thousands of dollars if you get caught, and if you're selling something, you will get caught. Sure, copying with impunity works for pure end users, but not all people are pure end users. Some are authors who want access to underlying material with which to create.
I'm not sure you have a valid argument there. Most motivated by profit put out work designed to make them a profit. Those who put out work for the love of the art create things that money could never buy. Look at 99% of the music released by the majors and you'll see what I mean. It's all crap.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
I gave two. Learn to read.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I think of the copyright as a patent, a law that gives the creator a chance to profit from his/her work before others copy or co-opt it in some way. This is a good thing as fewer people would be motivated to take risks to make things if they could not enjoy the fruits of their labors.
Yet, keeping these protections in place decades after someone has died?
That is just old fashioned hoarding/money grubbing/robber baroning.
Jazz, a truly American genre combining European and African roots, is the epitome of evolution, and NIN? Please! Learn to write or STFU... The only thing shining here is your arrogance. I mean that in the nicest possible way.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
If, through copyright, you prevent anyone from making music who doesn't have the permission of all who have gone before and who isn't doing a "big side-step", do you think those side-steps will become more or less frequent?
At this rate, soon the public will own nothing at all, everything will be copyright, patent, or contractually resctricted by some corporation.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
I'm not a pure end user. Nor do I sell copies. I make copies and give them away. So do my friends. It works out for everyone except the millionaires. They have my sympathy.
So, hopefully, in these creativity-starved times, some hip-hop artist forgoes mashing-up some other creator's work and goes the extra mile to invent something brand new.
Spoken like someone ignorant about hip-hop, or rap, or the genre in general.
I always find it amusing how people think hip-hop artists are stealing. Well for one, they have to secure rights just like everyone else, so the original sampled artist is still getting paid (or at least his label is).
Two, the vast majority of rap and hip-hop is backed by original unsampled beats. Songs that use samples are actually in the minority due to the fact that they are more expensive to make due to having to secure the rights.
Three, you have to be extremely creative to sample correctly. You just can't take a song and rap over it and send it out the door. Most artists I know write the rap first and then try to find a song that matches later. A few of them listen to a song they like and think of a rap that fits to it.
Probably one of the best rap songs out there is Eminem's "Stan". Non-rap people like that song. Do you think Eminem was being creatively lazy by sampling Dido? Stan wouldn't have really worked with any other song. The beat fits it, and the lyrics of the sampled song work with the spoken lyrics.
So next time you want to open your mouth about rap and hip-hop, I suggest you actually listen to more than 3 songs next time.
> So seeing that I am probably the only person that has this copyrighted material
Your case underlines the bizarre "logic" of modern copyright law. Since you own the media, it is perfectly legal for you to destroy the recordings, which would, of course, destroy the "property" of the rightsholders (since they are the only copy). One wonders how that weird edge case fits into the "you wouldn't steal" rhetoric.
On the other hand, it's totally illegal for you to distribute these recordings to anyone except the rightsholders themselves. So it is effectively illegal for you to preserve this work for future generations.
This is why I do not feel bad in the least to advise you to digitize the recordings and upload them to some filesharing site like RapidShare or MegaUpload in an anonymous way, and then publicize the sharing link on a web forum where there will be a lot of interested people (I'm sure there must be some web forums where WWI history buffs hang out). Much as I like creators to be able to get paid, I hate even more for culture and information to be lost.
A lot of the people who make music do not want their art to be so restricted. Even musicians these days want people to break copyright to enjoy new music that is being locked up by the corporations. A lot of copyright agreements amount to exploitation, and artists enter into these agreements not knowing they are essentially parlaying with pirates.
Step back before the CD, tape, 8-track or 33, and tell me the artists from the first half of this century could have foreseen the copyright cluster-fuck and agreed that they wanted their music to be accessible only to people with money.
And another thing, just because it's the law doesn't mean it's right. Laws get overturned every day, and the way the people make themselves heard is by disagreeing with the law and siding with what they believe is right. "The mechanism by which a creator has chosen to be compensated" is not serving the creator if that person is dead.
I went to the New York Public Library performing arts collection at Lincoln Center, which has a big multimedia collection. I wanted to do the right thing.
I asked the librarian in charge of these things, "What recordings do you have in your collection that I could legally copy and post on the Internet?"
He said, "Nothing!"
I didn't believe him. He said he had attended a copyright lecture by a lawyer and that's what the lawyer told them. I thought they were just being overcautious. But now I understand.
... wouldn't the status of such copyrights depend on the laws in the states where they were recorded?
Have gnu, will travel.
"by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
So, Authors can be given the exclusive right to sell, perform, use, whatever, things they've made or discovered. Cool. Except that right extends beyond the author's death- either to his/her estate, or whatever corporation had been given it.
What is the Constitutional rationale for rights extending after death? I can't imagine it promoting useful art.
There are plenty of ways he can have it. Theft would be ridiculous: if it wasn't listed in the chattels of the company when sold, it doesn't belong to the new owners.
And if it wasn't his, but someone else's? So what's it worth? -$150,000 because if you make anything of that posession you're going to be sued by a dozen corporations wanting it.
In addition, if the copyright had expired before renewal, it wold take a rule of court to make it copyrighted again.
I actually disagree, thanks to autotune. When you thust non-creatives into the roles that just 15 years ago required creatives (people who have become very good at their craft, and therefore know it well enough to change it) you don't get the driving forces that lead towards greater evolution in music. Instead those ideas are relegated to forces outside the mainstream (which has always been instrumental to musical evolution) and we lose a vector of unique creations.
That being said, it's not as dire as some people think. Indie rock is keeping rock and roll alive, jazz is getting stronger again, bluegrass of all things is getting a resurgence, and the unique creations of the last 15 years (electronica) are getting stronger, while new forms of art are being invented daily. All we've really lost due to autotune is a vector that would generate very polished versions of existing genres with some occasional genuine crossover. It's a loss, but it will only change what's played on golden oldie stations in 30 years. Music will continue on unimpeded.
I am become
If you're willing to wait 15 years, were you ever a customer in the first place? There's the bargain basement bin (extremely cheap) or stock clearance sales. Or especially for books, libraries, second hand books and plain old borrowing.
If the proportion of total income is 99.9% done in 15 years, the cost of collecting that 0.1% is just as much per year (not per percent!) as the first year. So that 0.1% is probably costing you to sell.
Which is why books disappear and get orphaned all the time.
So, 15 years later, under the current system, 99.99% of works are no longer available.
How much is being lost if the copyright expires?
FUCK ALL.
And because you don't have to pay to keep the channel open, you actually SAVE money.
IMO, if someone is willing to wait *5* years, they're probably not a customer. 10 years? Nope, try finding books from 10 years ago. Get a list of all the published books from 2000 and see how easy you can get hold of them. To make it easy, just pick the top 100 books B&N were selling. How many of the top100 books are still available from B&N today?
One?
Two?
It's not unlikely NONE.
:-) Yes on both counts. It's the Huns with their Wagner who are the savages that should be exterminated. The Romans failed us and we are all suffering for it
Because otherwise a lot of artists would get shot after they peaked. Or maybe after their first contract renewal.
I am hopeful that we will get through this...
lol I love how you make it sound like it's such a trial. Come on man, it's just music, entertainment. Even if all the music in the world were locked up under copyright and disappeared, never to be heard again, we would still get over it. Copyright issues are annoying but they aren't life-threatening.
Qxe4
Artists can own all the property they buy. We're not going to take away their car or house or pet cat any time soon.
John Cage.
QED.
On a more serious note, Hip-Hop/Rap is an example, depending on whether or whether not you want to call it music (I kid... sort of). On a smaller scale, in 60 years things have changed HUGELY. Rock has splintered into 100s of subgenres (where it didn't really exist 60 years ago), jazz has changed, the blues turned into rock and hip-hop. In 60 years the guitar became the defining instrument in most forms of music. Music 60 years ago is VERY different than music now.
Though, more seriously, there has been tons of innovation within individual genres, though the genre's themselves still owe a lot to their lineages. It is as absurd to claim that music exists independent of its roots, as to claim that there is no innovation. Modern music owes everything to previous innovations, and to claim that there will be no more innovations is just groundless and dumb.
Also top-40 pop music is a minority of the music out there. Even subtracting the full Billboard charts, you still have a HUGE body of music being made. Judging a whole thing by its popular bits is a little silly.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Uh, that isn't exactly true.
Today, if someone were to invent a new type of battery they might very well never have to work again. The folks that put Facebook together (regardless of how much they stole from others) probably do not actually have to work at anything ever again.
Alternatively, while Stephen King probably doesn't have to work and still gets income (a little) from Carrie (his first sale) I assure you there are plenty of authors that get little or nothing from their efforts. Why? Because Carrie is considered to be "valuable" and the other author's work isn't.
Now if you would like to be rewarded with a permanent income stream then get out there and do something valuable. Until then, you're just whining.
I'm all for giving exclusive rights for a considerable time period after the author/inventor died. Otherwise it'd be as simple as offing them and you are free to use their writings and inventions without any problems.
Copyright should only last for 14 years with a single 14 year extension maximum.
After a max of 28 years, it hits public domain regardless of what you do. Don't want it to hit the public domain, then don't sell it to the public to begin with. Have this apply to music, movies, books, software, and everything else. Sorry but if you couldn't make your cash back off your invention within 28 years, then it probably won't matter for the next 28 years.
Also, make it so you can't patent an idea, only implementations of that idea. And anything paid for though public funding is automatically considered public domain, if some medical industry wants to spend 100 million dollars of tax pay money on research, the fruits of that research should be the property of the public who paid for it.
IAAL. Under the Constitution, Congress passed statutes to give authors copyrights for a limited term. This statutory copyright protects authors against unauthorized duplication of their PUBLISHED works -- that is, physical copies that humans could read. When the player piano was invented and popular tunes appeared on piano rolls, composers sued under the copyright statute. They lost because you couldn't put a piano roll on the music stand and read off the tune. Therefore, the music had never been "published." Instead, composers had to use the common law (non-statutory) right to prevent copying of their unpublished works. The common law copyright was more difficult to sue on, but it was perpetual. When cylinder and then disk recordings appeared, the courts applied the player piano rule, since you couldn't listen to a record by looking at the grooves. Common law copyrights continue to exist under American law (though this is abolished and covered by statutes in England, where the recording was made). A further complication is that each state can determine the length of copyrights of unpublished materials. New York courts hold that it is perpetual. Congress overrode state common law copyrights and brought new music copyrights into the statutory system as of 1972. However, pre-1972 common law copyrights were brought into the federal statutory system only as of February 15, 2047. Thus when Naxos reissued Yehudi Menuhin's famous 1932 recording of the Elgar Violin Concerto, this was held to violate the common law copyright of the original issuer (Columbia Records). For more than you ever want to know, read Columbia Records v. Naxos, http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I05_0027.htm
If you read Goldstein v. California you'll find that while congress is prohibited from granting unlimited copyrights (they can however extend them indefinitely... but that's another argument) there is no such bar to stop state legislatures from issuing unlimited copyright.
Ordinarily this would be a supremacy issue, but Congress is only authorized to grant copyrights, not mandated to, and in the area of pre-1972 audio recordings they deferred. This made an opening for state regulation, and they could do whatever they want. This also means that pre-1972 audio recording copyright law is different everywhere, so if you're dealing with any old recordings, find a good lawyer.
An artist can profit from their work without any legal protection.
Agree 100%
If an artist is realy talented, then he has fans. And fans will prefer the performance of the original creator and not some guy from youtube making a cover.
BTW. the bigest problem that I see with copyright and patents is that private persons are treated the same way as legal persons are even if they have completly different priorities and abilites (e.g. human can never live 300 years)
It's a sad state of affairs when your post is modded Funny. I don't think anyone really believes that anymore, even if that's how it was supposed to be.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
You responded by calling him a cheapass. I doubt he is pirating the "small artist" works that you seem to fret over. I'll bet he is ripping DVDs and CDs from the big guys. That is why he feels no guilt. I don't blame him.
Does it not bother you in the least that many if not most of us will be dead and buried before we can legally copy recordings from WWI as per TFA? Or is it just collateral damage so your "small artist" can sell his CDs? You may ignore Disney, and Time Warner and BMG, and all the others, but they are bending you over. Don't try to deny it. Every time I read about estates of Philip K Dick or JRR Tolkien or others suing somebody, I have to ask, how is this promoting anything artistic?
What is the threshold number of notes before a progression becomes a copy?
There is no bright line in cases of musical plagiarism.[1] The amount of similarity needed to reach the "probative similarity" and "substantial similarity" thresholds is decided by a jury on a case-by-case basis based on expert testimony. And in close cases, the party with the better dressed lawyer wins.
[1] Plagiarism is infringement without credit.
You are presenting your incorrect opinion as fact. "A lot of artists" will not get shot, no matter what happens with copyright.
Learn to love Alaska
RIAA didn't try to cover up child molesters, unlike the Pope?
"Oh the Humanity!" ©
A) So Megacorp A doesn't kill off Starving Artist B in order to make his potentially profitable Work C into a public domain work D, instead of paying him piles of Cash E, so he can buy a gold-plated Ferrari F.
B) So Starving Artist B will feel an incentive to make a few more works G,H, and I to be able to support his trophy Wife J, kids K, and charities L, M and O after he kicks the Bucket P.
A) We have laws against murder for that. Anyway, I'm not so sure that corporations would want to do this: once it's in the public domain, anybody would be able to use it. A corporation with a monopoly is bound to make more money off what it's selling than if corporations B and C are also selling it, so it'd be in its best interests to buy the rights.
B) Possible, but I don't see it being a huge incentive. This is hard to quantify- if it's a small enough effect, then extending copyrights beyond death is a net loss to society.
Best to avoid perverse incentives.
You're forgetting the important parts: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts , by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
The extensions you are concerned about are not in the constitution. You can blame lobbyists and congress for them.
AC's point about it being directly related to this discussion stands.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Until then, you're just whining.
No, he's recognizing artificial scarcity for what it is. Artificial.
Reading it narrowly, Congress has the power to give content producers the exclusive right to use their own works.
My question is, since the extensions aren't in the Constitution, under what clause of the Constitution does Congress get to enforce copyright beyond the death of the author?
The original post which started this party: 1. Is probably NOT true, and even if it is true, 2. Can safely be ignored. First of all: Anybody ever hear of this before now? I haven't, and I've dealt with copyright laws for 40 years. I'm not a lawyer (although I've played one on the radio), but with all the squillions of dollars lawyers have collected in copyright cases, how come this point has never come up in any case I've heard of? But let's assume I'm just ignorant, and look at the text: It refers to "...a court decision..." -- WHAT court decision? Where? When? I've never heard of it and haven't found it. Furthermore, the courts have consistently ruled in favor of the uniformity of Federal laws over the years; this alleged ruling goes against that trend. And even if it does exist, was it overturned on appeal -- or rendered nugatory by later legislation? The post also talks about "...some state laws..." Which states? Are the laws still on the books there? Do they require registration? Do they apply only to recordings made within the borders of that state? Do the rights expire? And what about recordings made in states which did NOT "step up" with their own copyright laws? Would they be public domain? Finally, the blanket statement at the end is demonstrably false. "ANY recorded work from before 1972..." does not take into account recordings which were deliberately placed in public domain -- there were certainly some of those. And by the internal logic of this post, it would seem to imply that "some state laws" apply to all states, which is silly. At the very least, the case is overstated. Moreover, the figure of 2049 is not derived, merely asserted. Until somebody comes forward with some specifics on these points, all we have here is an unverified and unsubstantiated rumor, that in its present form is suspiciously vague, contains apparent internal contradictions, and seems most unlikely to be true. However, I could be wrong. And there's no requirement for a lawyer to be RIGHT when he files a lawsuit. But somebody commented, most perceptively, that state laws must be pursued on a state-by-state basis. Copyright violation is not a crime, it's a civil matter, and the burden is on the victim to haul the perpetrator into court and prove the violation. Even I could think of a bunch of questions right off the bat. A smart legal beagle defending a client could doubtless raise a great many more. Enforcing a copyright on this basis is guaranteed to be even more expensive than suing under Federal law, and given all the potential legal hurdles and obstacles, would likely be regarded as a long shot. If I were a lawyer, and a client wanted to hire me to do this, I'd want to be paid in cash -- in advance. The bottom line? Ignore this. You're far more likely to be struck by lightning.
This discussion has attracted a good many people and a lot of really good comments on the copyright dilemma. For what it's worth, I thought I'd toss another concrete block into the pond: A creative person absolutely needs and deserves to be paid for his creativity. But how? Up to now, it's been: -- If a work can't be copied, sell tickets. -- If a work can be copied, the creator controls, and can get a piece of the action, one way or another. Today, digital technology has thrown a monkey wrench ("spanner" in the UK!) into the works. It is no longer physically possible to enforce copyright laws comprehensively, or fairly, or -- for most practical purposes -- at all. There is no technical improvement on the horizon which would make any significant difference in that; and so far, the only technical solutions which have been even imagined all involve the "big brother" syndrome and a massive erosion of privacy -- a cure worse than the disease, because it would damage everybody. The plain truth is, once something is published these days, it becomes public domain de facto, although certainly not de jure. For every 10.000 copyright violations, maybe one might have effective action taken. It's too expensive to even TRY to enforce copyrights unless there's some way to collect big money. Mind you, many people do respect copyrights -- I'm one! -- and the copyright system is still producing money. Still, the problem is clear: The whole concept of "copyright" has become unworkable. BUT -- there is no substitute for it on the horizon, either. So it's still there, and those who depend upon it will simply have to try harder and harder to make it work, which is kinda like putting a band-aid on a severed limb. But they have no choice -- and they are NOT stealing! Any person has a right to get paid for their work. Copyright may be obsolute and unworkable now, but it remains an honest method of protecting the rights of honest people. I got no answers for this situation. It seems to me we need a different way, a better way, for creative people to get paid -- based in reality and upheld by enforceable law. But I do NOT know what that is.
Also: Disney waited until the year the Jungle Book fell into public domain before making their movie.
Wouldn't recordings made during WWI in (say) Europe be covered by European, not California Sate, law?
> The Pope hasn't had a crusade since 1272
Man, what a geezer! I knew he was old, but yeesh.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
> On a more serious note, Hip-Hop/Rap is an example, depending on
> whether or whether not you want to call it music (I kid... sort of).
Real music has counterpoint.
I suppose, in theory, it would be possible to create contrapuntal rap... I think I'd even pay money to hear that... once.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
> Libraries bypass this system by actually purchasing works and then making
> them available free, entirely bypassing the intent of Copyright to our benefit.
You could say the same thing about used book stores.
Libraries do not make copies. They lend them, but each copy still only goes to one person (err, one household, really, but the same caveat applies to a book or movie you buy at the store) at a time. If a book (say, the latest Grisham lawyer novel) is popular, libraries have to buy numerous copies in order to keep up with demand, or else the waiting list gets too long (and people end up just going out and buying their own copies, which after being read once usually end up donated for the Friends of the Library used book sale...)
Libraries do not prevent authors from making a profit on their books. In fact, aspiring authors are generally extremely eager for their books to get into libraries. It's not as good as being featured on Oprah, but it's a big step in the same direction.
Libraries are older than copyright law. I don't think it's reasonable to say that libraries "bypass the intent" of copyright. Copyright law was written with the understanding that libraries would exist. It would have been easy enough for the people who wrote copyright law to write in "exclusive lending rights" for the copyright holder, but they did not choose to do so, because libraries are entirely consistent with the original intent of copyright.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
> bluegrass of all things is getting a resurgence
Egad. Is there any way that could be construed as a good thing? Call me a curmudgeon, but, seriously, bluegrass? Next you'll be talking about how polka is gaining popularity and disco is coming back. There are some musical forms we're better off without.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Not sure why you threw out all those red herrings but anyway, my point seemed pretty clear: Libraries bypass the intent of Copyright by allowing free access to works that would otherwise cost money to the reader to have.
I believe they're doing the right thing and this is justice, fyi. That said, there are plenty of publishers in various industries who don't like the rental or used markets either because they believe those are taking away sales too. None of them would be stupid enough to attack libraries because those are a much more well-established institution, but the same premise stands.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I'm betting they'd be less frequent. Reason being that the artists who make those lateral jumps are likely inspired by the more linear derivations of works that precede them.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
While we're having this flame-fest, Jazz has roots just like rap does, but neither existed in any form to our knowledge in fairly recent history as humanity goes.
Get back to me when you've spent an afternoon listening to the Downward Spiral (preferably the SACD release) and then tell me how derivative it is.
Other people exist "in the genre", but Reznor personally evolved this style more than most.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Copyrights and patents are granted "to promote the useful arts."
The copyright office and patent office should have the right to revoke these or order mandatory licensing if the copyrights and patents are being exercised in a way that not only does not promote the useful arts but actively impedes them.
Where this would come into play:
*Copyrights and patents that were used to block research and non-commercial use of non-published works. Blocking a student from making a film that has a non-fair-use clip of a work that the rights-holders are trying to suppress would qualify, but if they were demanding reasonable fees and the student refused to pay them it would not. Sorry kid, the original artists deserve to be paid reasonable fees for their work.
*Patents that were being used to quash entire industries or raise the cost of "playing" in those industries so high that it's not cost-effective and where the licensing fees cannot be reasonably justified. Holdout-patent-holders in key industries come to mind. The patent office should be able to wield a stick to force rights-holders to join a patent pool or offer their patents liberally and reasonably when doing so would promote the useful arts.
*Copyright enforcement used in a way that prevents previously-published material from being accessible to the general public. For example, not allowing re-publication of racist entertainment films from the Jim Crow era because it is embarrassing to the current rights-holder. News and news-worthy publications which are being suppressed by rights-holders would also fall into this category.
Where this should not come into play:
*As a negotiating strategy when the rights-holders demand$ are not clearly unreasonable
*Where the general public can access the material at prices that are not out of line with industry standards
*For limited-edition copies works of art where the limit was stated in advance of publication, but libraries and other entities allowed to make archival copies would be allowed to do so if they do it in a way that clearly marks their copy as not part of the original limited edition run.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Real music has counterpoint.
In theory, yes. But I don't know if this means anything though. If 90% of the people call hip-hop/rap music, is it music? If people accept it as music, listen to it like music, and call it music, how can it not be music?
Personally I find most of it as musical as the Gregorian chant trend of the 90's.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
You're making my point for me. Chant doesn't have counterpoint. Neither does the drivel they play on the radio, by the way. With a few exceptions, the principle of contrario motu was pretty much abandoned in the eighteenth century and replaced with mere harmony (dependent backup parts, written around the lead, with no life of their own, no contrary motion, no real interaction, no auditory moire effect -- in short, no real musical quality).
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
You're making my point for me
I wasn't really making your point. On a personal, subjective, level I somewhat agree with you about hip-hop/rap, but on a broader level I'm not sure since we enter the "do definitions guide terms, or does use guide definitions" debate. I lean towards the latter, so rap can be music since it seems to be popularly accepted as music.
There really isn't an objective answer to the definition problem though, so my opinion is pretty much worthless.
Hip-hop/rap, also, is closer to the roots of music than most more modern approaches (I'm using "modern" as pretty much a broad brush, meaning all music that isn't played on animal skin drums around a fire, generally for ritual purposes). It's beat driven and repetitive with simple vocal schemes. Neoprimitive, perhaps.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey