Posted on 10/30/2010 9:25:25 AM PDT by Reeser
It is the current state of the law that I would claim is immoral, as it doe not fit the clearly defined intentions behind the establishment of the principle that the government should be able to make a grant of copyright for "limited times".
Is it “theft” when some outfit makes copies of recordings and sells those copies on the “jobber racks” at the convenience stores or in the truck stops without paying the artists or the writers? Does the club owner have the right to use my coyrighted material to fill his joint and sell booze without paying me for it? What’s the difference? They’re both making money using other peoples’ work.
To me, both of these questions would have to be answered on the basis of the length of time the works have been under copyright.
One thing I find to be interesting whenever I see discussions of copyright, is the fact that 'artists' seem to think they should be able to and profit from their works in perpetuity, while the rest of us should be content with our 8 to 5 existance.
How long do youbelieve that copyright should be extended to any individual work? Should we have to pay the decendants of Shakespere if we choose to rescite one of his sonnets, or perform one of his plays?
What of other works, such as "America the Beautiful", which probably wouldn't exist in the form we know if copywrite had been as eternal then as it is today.
I'm not philosophically opposed to the concept of copyright itself. What I stand square against is the Thought of copyright as a natural right when it most definitely is not. It is a legal construct erected for a particular purpose, and said purpose is served by the current state of the law.
What limits would you place, if any on the reach of copyright law?
Forgive me for not giving a rip if someone plays your songs 16 years after you wrote them. I yearn for the day that all intellectual property receives the EXACT same "limited time right of exclusivity" in this country.
What you have described is the exact reason that “Wonder Years” is not out on DVD.
As I understand it, they’ve been trying to hammer out an agreement for years because people have been clamoring for a DVD release of that show for quite some time (I am among those who have looked for it in vain).
Regards,
PS: I agree with those who say that artists should be happy and proud to hear their music covered by local bands. NO ONE is going to mistake those bands for the original artists, and I would think that hearing a them cover a particular song could do nothing by encourage sales of the actual album.
Right now record companies select and promote a relatively small group of musicians out of a huge pool of talent.
As online social networking grows and becomes a venue for promoting talented people outside of the musical establishment the establishment’s power, influence and profits decline.
All due respect, but I don’t know who picked the playlist, but it doesn’t matter. The bar apparently hired the band to play there, and so is responsible. Typically it is the bar/restaurant/etc. that obtains the licenses from ASCAP and BMI and not the artist. I think the analysis is the similar to the bar’s liability if a bartender were to assault someone. The bartender is liabile, but so is the bar.
I don’t disagree on the extension of patents. I’ve long held, for example, that the cost of pharmaceuticals would decrease and make the new ones more accessible to all if the developer’s patent rights lasted longer.
Ping
There are some songs which have been around for a long time and have never made any money for the writer. Part of the reason for that is the cyclical nature of popular culture where a very good song may sit dormant until its time comes around. I am not a fan of the RIAA and its alignment with the record companies, but the performance rights organizations - like ASCAP, in this case - are working to have the actual writer/creator paid. The most notorious cheating that goes on is on what are called “mechanical” royalites where the writer has to rely on the record company or the publisher for a true accounting. “Airplay” or live performance royalties are much more monitored for fair payment to the writer.
I've said for years that what we get paid for is moving the equipment in and out of the venue. That's the real work. We have a lot of money invested in that equipment, and it takes careful work to move it, set it up and hook it up, tear it down and pack it. And we do have to repair/replace some of it from time to time. From that perspective, we play the music for free. The pay is for the moving of the equipment.
Great point, and I’d like to add something. When I played in a band, we used to call this “the world doesn’t understand me, I’m a musician” mentality. I see the same thing here....”the world doesn’t understand why my intellectual property is worth more than yours.” Actually, I do understand why your intellectual property is worth more than mine, or other writers’, critics’, journalists’, researchers’, instructional designers’...etc. etc. It’s because Big Daddy Government pointed his magic wand at your intellectual property and said “this is commerce” and pointed it at mine and said “this is not.” So Big Daddy Government says you’re “entitled” to the money? Just be up front and honest that this is your beef....you’re not getting what Big Daddy Government says is owed you. That’s fine. That’s a legitimate beef. But get off your high horse and admit it, instead of trying to make this the moral equivalent of theft. And every distinction I’ve heard is completely arbitrary. So an excerpt from an article isn’t covered because it’s not complete? Well why does Rush Limbaugh have to block out a few bars of bumper music on his mp3 downloads? I’ll tell you why—because Big Daddy Government says he must. So if the same blues chord progression that’s been used for years has a different set of words to it...it’s commerce; but if someone cites an entire poem over the course of an essay....it’s not. Why? Because Big Daddy Government pointed his wand at your words, but not at the other guy’s. You want to know what I think is a natural right? I think it’s a natural right to be able to grab a guitar and start singing your a*## off, whatever’s in your soul at the time. I think it’s a natural right to be able to sit around jamming and then pull out a little riff that spills into a spontaneous, electric burst of energy, rather than sitting there negotiating your way through what may or may not be covered under Big Daddy Government’s definition of commerce. So you don’t think that’s a natural right? That’s FINE. I have no problems that you don’t. But don’t sit in judgment of these guys as thieves. And don’t deny that what you’re arguing for is what Big Daddy Government arbitrarily says you’re entitled to.
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.