Actually, I think the conservative movement urgently needs more people from the arts and culture and has way too many heartless phiistines - how many angels can dance on the head of a pin — types.
You miscast the conversation when you keep harping on what you call facts — really just a bullying way of not allowing new information into the dialogue. You seem not to even know who Stephen Foster was when you say you thought he was a musician not a writer. (He was both — how is that for a fact.) To me that disqualifies you to even have a dialogue about him. He was and remains, one of the most important Americans, ever. Cities should be named after him. Your attitude about him in this exchange — cold, unfeeling, uninformed and disparaging — exemplifies all that is wrong with the conservative movement and why more people from arts and culture who don’t want to be on the left don’t come over to the right.
The conversation was not only about law — it started with the posting of a statement by the pope and went on to the reason for and ethics of the idea of ownership and use of material and the protection of artists. Performance rights, which are linked to copyright, were not protected in the 19th century the way they are now. Music is different from other types of arts because it is a pie with 200% — the author’s rights and the publishing rights. There was a huge change in the law when the author’s rights became non-transferable — the publishing can be sold over and over again. Prior to this change, thousands of authors /musicians were cheated out of their rights.
Actually, YOU seem to be the one not well qualified to talk about Foster. I've bothered to take the time to check into biographical information, and here is a quote:
"While he had substantial royalties from his publishers in New York, his debt increased along with his dependency on alcohol."
So, it appears that Foster was "substantially successful" in spite of the so-called "limitations" on copyright law.
I'm afraid that, despite your fantasies, the story of Stephen Foster is a VERY old one, and continues in the "musics and the arts" culture that you are so fond of. Alcoholic son of an alcoholic father, initially achieves great success. Triggered by either that success, or some downturn in success, the addiction to alcohol (add "recreational drugs" today) increases, leading to an inability to succeed and making bad judgments, and ultimate destruction of the artistic career, and sometimes death. This goes on even today, in spite of the improvement in copyright law.
One doesn't know how much alcohol contributed to the incident that actually caused his death. Supposedly he "suffered from the ague" fell down in his hotel room. Hit his head on a ceramic washbasin, which broke and caused a substantial cut. Unconscious, he had almost bled out, before being found by the chambermaid who was bringing him towels. Despite being taken to a hospital (or perhaps because of it), he succumbed to his injuries.
"Your attitude about him in this exchange — cold, unfeeling, uninformed and disparaging — exemplifies all that is wrong with the conservative movement and why more people from arts and culture who don’t want to be on the left don’t come over to the right."
LOL, more fantasies. I appreciate Foster's music as much as anybody. No, I wasn't "up" on his whole life history. I'm a scientist, so "artsy" bios are of not much interest. But Foster's story pretty much parallels that of Nicola Tesla, which I am familiar with.
But the difference is that "I" took the trouble to actually check the facts, something the "arts and culture" types fail to do, cruising along on their "feelings", and what they hear at their "artsy" group parties.
"There was a huge change in the law when the author’s rights became non-transferable — the publishing can be sold over and over again. Prior to this change, thousands of authors /musicians were cheated out of their rights."
Now, I'll ask this question....was this "change in law" due to the passage of actual legislation, or due to some artist successfully suing a publisher and getting a legal precedent set. Those two situations ARE just slightly different. I'm talking about written law as passed by legislatures....not legal precedent.
And finally, the term of copyright I favor WOULD HAVE PROTECTED Foster's situation..that being "the author's lifetime or seventy-five years, whichever is longer", if his problem was actually legislated law and not legal precedent.
As I said, I base my opinions on facts, not fantasies, and not emotions. You see that as "cold and unfeeling". Too bad...you're wrong.
And I'll offer this observation about the "science culture" vs the "arts culture". If you check into the careers of top scientists, you will pretty much inevitably find that they are also artists of some significance, and so understand the arts. The opposite is NOT true.