Posted on 04/02/2005 4:37:22 AM PST by billorites
That should read, "There is the 5th amendment which doesn't allow Congress to take property of any kind without *just compensation*", not *does allow*
I understand that you don't see the stifling of innovation that is the 'cost' of these laws, and I believe that is likely why our opinions differ on this.
There are people who could play for money that can't afford to, under this system. Those people would be making music, but the system prevents them. That is the 'cost' of this system.
I agree that for a *short* period of time, we can allow this stifling, so that the artist can get paid. But it can't last too long. There must be a balance. You, if I understand correctly, are not aware of the need for such a balance, and would support perpetual 'stifling'.
Here, also, we disagree. I believe music and literature are far more important than you seem to.
I believe that music and literature are, indeed, "useful arts". That they are every bit as important to a vibrant, dynamic culture as physics. In many cases, music can communicate concepts far more effectively than just about any other medium. For a hint at it's power, I'd point to advertising.
I'm a software developer. And the software industry proves quite the opposite.
Software has flourished over the last few decades. When there was no such concept as 'software patents'. Anyone could take any piece of basic code and use it.
But now, since 1997, we have this brand-new concept of 'software patents'. And those are beginning to create real problems in our industry. If allowed to continue, they will be the end of it.
If simple code snippets become 'owned', and no one else can ever use them, it will become impossible for the small, start-up software firm. You'll have to run a massive patent check on every single slice of code, hundreds of thousands of lines of code will have to have lawyers' vetting.
It is the inability of the 'IP' proponents to see the costs of their fallacy that is the biggest concern I have. These laws have a cost.
Real estate is not intellectual property. It is a physical, concrete entity. Intellectual property is an abstract concept, and requires a legal construct to create an entity that the law can be applied to. The Constitution authorizes Congress to create that entity. The current state of affairs is that Congress is authorized to protect the authors of works in the "useful arts". If your music is a "useful art" then if falls within the scope of that authority, and is subject to the rules they have prescribed. If it is not a "useful art" then they have not been granted the authority to provide protection. If you think literature and music should be protected by the federal government, but not as "useful arts", then you need to argue for a Constitutional amendment to give them the authority to do that, rather than searcing for penumbras and emanations.
I believe that the misuse of the 'metaphor' of "property" is what has created the problem here.
What is wanted is a 'minimum wage' type law. A law guaranteeing a creator an income from their creation.
Not a 'property' law, which implies ownership. Ideas are not, can not be, 'property', by their very nature. Does Darwin 'own' the concept of 'Natural Selection'? Hardly.
I believe that 'truths' exist, then someone (or multiple people) 'discover' those truths in the form of ideas. The belief that "the first person to get legal protection for an idea is the only one who can use the idea" seems so clearly wrong.
Intellectual property has existed as long as people have been able to think. The willingness of governments to protect it is new. The RIGHT to it's ownership is the same right that I have to my house, but more so. It is a product of my body/mind, which I own absolutely. The money I have earned that enables me to buy a house is also the result of work I have done which is the product of my body/mind. There are Constutional protections for property; the 5th amendment does not distinguish between any particular kind of property. The clause about limiting the length of time for ownership of a subclass of intellectual property to help the progress of *science and the useful arts* does not apply to music or novels which clearly are neither science NOR useful arts as understood then. There should be no need for a new amendment, but I do think a clarifying one would be helpful.
Agreed.
Why do you think that is? What has made governments unwilling to protect it until recently?
"There are people who could play for money that can't afford to, under this system. Those people would be making music, but the system prevents them. That is the 'cost' of this system."
Someone's inability to afford to play SOMEONE ELSE'S songs for money does not in any way stifle innovation. Innovation is by definition the creation of something NEW. When someone performs a song written by another, they are not creating music, they are just playing it. The best way to stifle innovation is to shorten copyrights.
"I believe that music and literature are, indeed, "useful arts". "
That is great, but it isn't what was meant by the *useful arts* in the 1780's. They meant things like engineering, *physick* and other technologies. It wasn't used for music. It does not mean that music was something that didn't have value to them, it just didn't fall under the idea of a useful art.
They seem to honestly be unaware that this means that there will be less innovation.
The solution, then, is to try and get them to see. For then, it becomes about the 'balance', about how long should the monopoly protection be fore. That is the discussion we should be having.
I would argue that you are incorrect, and I believe I can point to a ton of examples. I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with you in this case.
"What is wanted is a 'minimum wage' type law"
Good God! One minimum wage law is more than enough.
"I believe that 'truths' exist, then someone (or multiple people) 'discover' those truths in the form of ideas. The belief that "the first person to get legal protection for an idea is the only one who can use the idea" seems so clearly wrong."
And it IS wrong... when it comes to science and the useful arts (technology). When it comes to music and literature, truth may be beauty and beauty truth, but artistic truth and beauty are also in the eye of the beholder. When Newton discovered a universal theory of gravity, it was an objective truth that was found. He didn't create gavity. When Hal Blair and Don Robertson wrote *Please Help Me I'm Falling* they were not writing about a new theory of gravity.
Like they said, copyrights are free.
"When Ike and Tina did 'Proud Mary', they were creating."
Nope. Not enough at any rate, which is why the song they did was so clearly *Proud Mary* and not*Mary Had a Little Lamb*
"The folks who get their careers started playing cover music often go on to become 'orignal' artists."
Great. When they start making original music they can make all of the money from their original songs. As it is, they CAN make money right now from cover songs, they just have to pay a small portion of that to the songwriter.
"And even when it is just a pure cover, those musicians are gaining skills and experience that will improve their contribution to 'music'"
Nobody is stopping anybody from learning someones songs to help further their musical training. Most of the songs I play at home are covers; I've learned quite a bit from other people's songs. Like how to make a new song (now I don't claim I have made GOOD new songs, just that they are original)
And yet, think about it -- current 'IP' laws are, in reality, just a wage law.
I find it interesting, that you seem to feel that music is just not as 'important' as physics, or software, and your opinion seems influenced by that concept.
I would argue that music and literature are 'education technologies'. Music can convey ideas much more powerfully than any other medium.
For example, I have a school-age daughter. In her language arts class last week, her teacher brought in an old video tape of the 'School House Rock' stuff. "Conjunction Junction", etc. My daughter now remembers those rules in a way she didn't before.
Now that teacher was breaking the law. The law would have preferred to 'stifle' that type of teaching.
And clearly, literature also has the same power.
There is a cost to these laws. I respect that you want protection for your income, and I don't begrudge you that protection. But that protection has a cost, and therefore a balance must be reached.
You seem to be saying that you feel no balance is necessary, that 'perpettual' stifling of ideas and innovation are acceptable.
Do I misunderstand?
I look upon this battle over copyrights as really a price fixing scheme. I heard on the radio that the MIAA wanted to raise the price of downloads to $2, because the sale of cds has fallen, I don't know if it is a fact.
!
That is an interesting statement.
"Not enough".
Ike and Tina's 'Proud Mary' is very different from the original. They 'innovated', and created something new, something different, and something (in my opinion, of course) greater than the original work.
(Don't get me wrong, I do like the Creedence version too -- but in my opinion they are very different songs. And that is a perfect example, I believe, of my point.)
Exactly.
That would be why songwriter royalties are separate from the performer's.
Agreed.
I'm just trying to illustrate to our friends here the 'cost' of these laws that they seem to not see.
As with your case, in the bar scene. There is a 'cost', there are music outlets that could flourish, but are being 'stifled' by these laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.