">> Hippy rockers..."
" Let ‘em rot..."
Where's your sense of charity? Besides, have you turned on the radio lately?
Old songs have long been protected, thanks to the retrospective copyright law that Congress enacted 15 or 20 years ago.
That was Clinton's doing. I'm convinced it was a quid pro quo; you'll recall there was nothing he wouldn't sell for a few campaign bucks. It smells as bad now as it did back then. Remember, that was back in the day when the RIAA was suing private citizens into bankruptcy--at least ones who had anything--because their kid neglected to click off the "share" button on their download app. Most parents were unaware and considered it akin to the radio.
If somebody plays a song and I like it, I'll buy the record or maybe go to the show. I don't care what they look or smell like. But at the same time, I don't feel anyone's obliged to pump quarters into them like some parking meter.
I'd say make the copyrights on recordings good for five years--half the span of a patent. Seems fair to me, considering the expense of the patent and the relative benefit to society.
When people talk about "intellectual property" I get 'skeeved'* out. Intangibles-intellectual clouds,light rays,electric pulses or sound waves are not property. If you're a scholar, sell a book. There are enough penalties for plagiarism. If you're a singer, sell the record or tickets. "Intellectual property" as a concept is an open invitation to havoc: It can only be enforced randomly. It's impossible to know when you've done something that will make you vulnerable; this is already happening in the software industry. Worst of all, it opens the door of your home to professional snoops.
*skeeve
"(verb) to gross out; to digust; to make your skin crawl, sometimes with undertones of sexual deviance/perversion"
(from Urban Dictionary) I recently heard my kid use it. I don't think anyone's got a copyright, so feel free.
>> I wonder if NPR, claimed to be a “nonprofit,” has to pay the RIAA “royalties.” <<
I imagine that they need to have licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESAC to play songs controlled by those three copyright enforcers. I do remember watching C-SPAN once when somebody asked Bryan Lamb why his bumper music was always something written by Bach. He said it was to avoid paying for copyrighted songs.
>> The artists get little if any actual royalties <<
Maybe they don’t get enough. But if so, it’s something they need to negotiate with ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and the various publishers. I think it’s a marketplace matter, not a governmental problem.
>> Intangibles - intellectual clouds, light rays, electric pulses or sound waves are not property <<
Sorry, but if Congress and the Courts invest those intangibles with the status of property that can be bought and sold, then they are property, regardless of whether you approve.
>> If you’re a scholar, sell a book <<
What if somebody makes bootleg copies? Then the author gets no return whatsoever for his work.
>> There are enough penalties for plagiarism <<
That’s a totally different issue. And let’s ask Doris Kearns Goodwin, who seems to have paid no price at all for her plagiarism. Ditto for the CNN commentator Zakaria (I forget his first name) of Pakistani origin? I believe he’s still going strong, again despite his admitted plagiarism.
>> If you’re a singer, sell the record <<
Again, what if somebody makes bootleg copies of your record? You get no return.
>> “Intellectual property” as a concept is an open invitation to havoc <<
Tell it to the Founding Fathers, who had the wisdom to put patent and copyright protections into the Constitution. Even though they never used the modern term “intellectual property,” that’s exactly what we’ve had — in effect — for the last 226 years since the US Constitution became operative. It doesn’t mean, of course, that every single aspect of patent, trademark and copyright law as enacted by the Congress and interpreted by the Courts is wise or beneficial. Far from it. But as a general concept, intellectual property has long served us well.