The Steel Guitar Forum

I keep hearing money, money, money. Music is supposed to be for the enjoyment of folks. If I want to give someone a copy of a cd, I dont sit around thinking about who's losing or making money! I'm thinking about how much my friend is going to enjoy the cd! Technicalities, be damned!! I know artists that play music for a living have to make money. But that's surely not all that counts. (I hope)

Okay, I lied - one more post.

"No, it's not right, as someone said, for anyone to post the complete works of some famous writer or artist on the internet when their material is still easily commercially available. That's absurd, and that's not what we're talking about here. We'd simply like to have access to the works that aren't being produced, or aren't easily available."

Let's use my Dave Van Ronk example. Most of his work is from a while ago- 60's and 70's. I've met his wife Andrea. I know she derives income from the sale of his CD's, CD's which fit your critera - They are not readily available and they aren't being produced, certainly not in any quantity. Besides the income, she is responsible her husband's legacy - how he appears and is presented in public - she is charged with protecting his image and reputation. If someone had the right to present his material in any way they see fit, this would damage her and the reputation of Dave. I believe she has the right say how he is presented to his fans and the public at large. After all, she suffered the price of his life choices (not much money, etc).

The problem with all of your arguements in my mind is that they are inherently selfish. "I should be able to download this. It is my right". There is little thought to the other side of the equation except to blame BIG BUSINESS. Well most of these cases do not involve BIG BUSINESS.

I go back to my original arguement. It is impossible to sort through who should be protected and who shouldn't. That is why a law is created and passed, hopefully by people who have thought through the issue and have tried to protect people's rights.

In the case of Dave, and many many other cases could be mentioned, small people who suffered for their or their spouses art (be they artists, producers, or what have you) could be damaged if they did not have the protection of copywrite laws.

Does that mean that some times you can't get access to material that want? Yes. In the old days, people would get around that by being record collectors. They would trade and sell rare records. It created a sense of excitement to discover a lost artist. It generated the thrill of the hunt.

That pleasure is gone now with the Internet and people's feelings of entitlement.

Bill - my question is merely "How long should works be protected?". Why is music and literature so much more special than inventions? Like all legal questions, this is a question of balance of rights and privileges.

It's easy to find a sympathetic example on either side of this issue. How about the retirees whose life savings are in a pharmaceutical company. Why not allow those companies to monopolize marketing and production of their proprietary inventions for 100 years? This would certainly help the investors, and would certainly be a serious boondoggle for the pharmaceutical. The reason is that the public also has an interest in this - the right to get reasonably priced versions of the drug after the company has had a chance to recoup their investment and make some serious monopoly money. Monopolies are, theoretically, illegal. Copyrights and patents are an exception to this rule.

Originally, both copyrights and patents were rigidly time-limited to give exclusive control for a reasonable period, but not forever. For all intents and purposes, 70 years after creator death is 'forever', in this fast-paced business world.

The other big issue here is that it effectively kills whole styles of music, which aren't popular enough to merit commercial reissue. I argue that the public's right to an entire art form supersedes the right of either the descendants of the creators or a third party who bought the rights to have total monopoly control for a time span anywhere near this long.

<SMALL>Besides the income, she is responsible her husband's legacy - how he appears and is presented in public - she is charged with protecting his image and reputation.</SMALL>

I argue that this has nothing to do with copyright. The copyright has to do with the creation, not the artist's image. If a work goes into public domain, there is absolutely nothing preventing a spouse or descendants from presenting the work and the artist's image as they see fit. But IMO, others should be able to present that image as they see fit - one cannot stop critics or writers of history with copyright. It was never intended for that, in fact such people are specifically exempted from copyright under "fair use" even now.

A final thought - From the point of view of downloading music, I don't have a dog in this hunt. I have and continue to buy tons of old records, and rarely if ever download any music. I have hundreds of old LPs queued up waiting to be listened to. My concern is the preservation of whole art forms which are not currently 'in vogue', and industry manipulation of peoples' tastes. I think a reasonable copyright time limit should be enacted and then rigidly enforced. But IMO, the 'damage' from downloading obsolete old music, country or otherwise, is a total red herring.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 05 August 2005 at 05:49 PM.]</p></FONT>

News flash from 1998:
Faced with the loss of exclusive rights to [Mickey Rat] in 2003, Disney helped lead a successful effort to obtain an extra 20 years of copyright protection

Here is some info on how copyrights are handled in Europe. What is to stop a record lady clone from putting it all on a Euro server? It appears any recordings over 50 years old are considered PD. I am not sure how much of the following applies to the UK only or to all of Europe. The following paragraphs were culled from posts on other forums:

The new Sound Recording Copyright law (1956) came into effect on January 1st 1957 and was not made retroactive. The previous law had granted copyright for fifty years from the end of the year in which the sound recording was made, while the new law granted the copyright for fifty years from the end of the year in which it was released (as long as the recording was released within fifty years of having been made).

Therefore, at present, any recording made in 1956 - whether issued that year or not - only has copyright protection until 1st January 2007. For any recording made from the 1st January 1957 onwards, the protection
lasts from the end of the year in which it was released (e.g. Hal Harris' "Jitterbop Baby" was recorded in 1957 but not released until 1978, and thus enjoys copyright protection until 1st January 2029!). If
a recording is not released within 50 years of having been made, according to the 1956 act, it is deemed to be public domain at the
expiration of fifty years from the end of the year in which it was recorded.

Only the "Sound Recording" goes into the public domain after 50 years as far as European law is concerned. Copyright on the song is still protected until 70 years following the end of the year of the composer's death (or of the last surviving composer's death if written by more than one person.


Therefore, a European company cannot be sued this year for instance by Sun Entertainment Corp, for reissuing any recording made before 1955, but can be taken to court by Hi Lo/Knox/Carlin for failing to licence the record and paying the required songwriter/publisher royalty on that track.

There are a small number of Sun tracks that will be completely "free" within the next few years, though; for instance, Jerry Lee's version of Jimmie Rodgers' "My Carolina Sunshine Girl". As Rodgers died in 1933, all of his copyrighted works (songs) will become PD from January 1, 2003, and therefore from January 1, 2008 any European company may be able to reissue that recording without paying anybody! There is a query hanging over post-1957 recordings, though, but we'll have to wait and see what happens as far as that is concerned.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Mitch Drumm on 05 August 2005 at 06:33 PM.]</p></FONT>

Here is a little something for you folks to take the place of the record lady:
http://www.redhotjazz.com/

the russians are comin'
http://freddie.spb.ru:8000/music/instrumental/chet_atkins/

no you were'nt Donny
you've got the "chic" fer nailin' it <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by CrowBear Schmitt on 06 August 2005 at 02:36 AM.]</p></FONT>

It's a commie plot! (Can't get them to play.)

Well after confering with b0b, taking into consideration the amount of bandwidth required vs. the information that can be had, and obtaining the writers permission I'm going to post this email from Pam McClusky. It explains some of the difficulties and pitfalls that exist for internet broadcasters.Here's the cut and paste:

Hello Fred,

My name is Pam McCluskey and I'm an internet radio broadcaster. My station is
located at http://www.ramradio.net. Emmett Roch's wife Rachel sent me the link
to this thread...
http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum10/HTML/005445.html

It's a very good discussion and I wish I could talk to everybody, but I can't
figure out how to register to the forum.

I wanted to fill in some gray areas about websites and digital music. Digital
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 outlines exactly how music can be used and
shared on a website. Here's a link to the legislation: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/hr2281.pdf

But here's the deal in a nutshell as I understand it...

1. The web domain name has to be licensed by the FCC. (We can't afford the
license yet and that's why our listeners have to launch the stream from our
Live365 station page. They insert ads into our stream in return for
piggybacking off their license. In addition, we have to follow these rules when
broadcasting.

1. Program must not be part of an "interactive service." For your purposes, this
means that you cannot perform sound recordings within one hour of a request by a
listener or at a time designated by the listener.

2. In any three-hour period, you should not intentionally program more than
three songs (and not more than two songs in a row) from the same recording; you
should not intentionally program more than four songs (and not more than three
songs in a row) from the same recording artist or anthology/box set.

3. Continuous looped programs may not be less than three hours long.

4. Rebroadcasts of programs may be performed at scheduled times as follows:

- Programs of less than one-hour: no more than three times in a two-week
period;
- Programs longer than one hour: no more than four times in any two-week
period.

5. No publishing advance program guides or use other means to pre-announce when
particular sound recordings will be played.

6. Only broadcast sound recordings that are authorized for performance in the
United States.

7. Pass through (and not disable or remove) identification or technological
protection information included in the sound recording (if any).

8. Unlike traditional radio, we are required to pay performance rights to
SoundExchange which is a new royalty agency specific to satellite radio and
internet radio broadcasts. From what I understand, the fees are collected to be
paid to all performers on the recording. So sidemen are entitled to royalties,
even if they didn't write the song. I think it is a good thing to recognize the
sidemen, because their contribution can make or break a recording. (And I am not
just saying that because you are on a steel guitar forum. <smile> ) However, it
annoys me that only digital mediums are targeted to pay performance rights.
Traditional radio should be paying SoundExchange too. There is no rational
reason why they should be exempt from that fee while we pay it. Additionally,
songs in the public domain do collect royalty fees from us because we have to
pay the performance right.

9. We have to keep a record of how many people are tuned into our station when a
song plays. Each person tuned in is considered a single performance of the song.

The bottom line is it is very difficult to have an internet station and we have
to constantly be on our toes to keep it legal. Because we are an upstart medium
and the RIAA and Clear Channel are desperate to control their slipping monopoly
and they will get the RIAA and FCC to go after us as soon as we break any rule.
They have me so nervous that I even include the 100 year old wax cylinders we
play in the logs. I'm sure they are public domain, but I'm afraid to take any
chances.

All this legal stuff is a tangled web spun by a brutal and corrupt industry. I
know how much work it takes to maintain a website with music and how much pride
I take in the effort. It would wreck me to have everything we've built suddenly
yanked from under me and my heart is truly broken for the record lady. Heaven
knows if big business decides to lobby and change the DMCA rules again or tack
on additional fees, we could get yanked off the air too. The poor woman is
living one of my worst fears.

Anyway...thank you for listening. I'm not a lawyer and everything above is how
I've interpreted the regulations. I could be wrong on any of the above. I hope
you find some value in this information. I'll keep reading the thread. You all
have some interesting opinions and observations on file sharing and I'm
learning from you.

Take care,
Pam

--
Listen to the Circle...Unbroken! www.ramradio.net

Posted in its entirety. Opened my eyes somewhat.
Phred

------------------
"From Truth, Justice is Born"--Quanah Parker-1904


<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 07 August 2005 at 06:36 AM.]</p></FONT><font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 07 August 2005 at 06:37 AM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>I'd like to hear from someone who really thinks creative works or inventions should be protected for 80-100 years. What is the justification? I can't see it.</SMALL>

Just call up your Senator and Representative and ask them -- they're the one's who passed this requirement into law. Apparently they think it's justified or it wouldn't be law.

I'd also like to know the reason for such protection.

<SMALL>A copyright lawyer was asked on the witness stand in a trial in California, "so, technically, a person walking down the street, whistling a copyrighted song is breaking the law?" and his answer was "yes". That pretty much sums up the whole thing for me. Technically illegal, yes. Right in pursuing legal action? That's another question.</SMALL>

Jim, I think we can all agree that if a property owner has been wronged under the eyes of the law, no matter how trivial, that owner does have the right to pursue legal action.

However, I think the issue here is not whether the property owner has the right to pursue every little infraction. Instead, the issue for the copyright owner is efficient allocation of resources. That is, it's pretty much impossible and/or impracticle to go after every violation. So, what you want to do as a copyright owner is to put your limited resources into going after the violations that will provide the greatest benefit.

For example, if you owned a department store, and you could only afford two security officers you wouldn't tell them to watch all the kids to keep them from stealing those penny gumballs. Instead, you'd tell them to watch the high-dollar stuff like <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-hclick.php?hid=1' target='_blank'>jewelry</a> and the like. Once in a while you might nail a kid or two for stealing a gumball if you thought it might help stem future problems. <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 17 August 2005 at 12:13 PM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>In short, you're all hippocrites. EVERYONE copies stuff, but...they choose to "overlook" their own indiscretions while calling others on theirs. For GOD's sake! Is there anyone here who doesn't have illegal material on their computer, or somewhere in their collection???</SMALL>

Donny, you're probably right in that everyone has probably at one time or another violated a copyright law. However, I am not trying to "call others on their violations." I'm merely trying to point out that the owners of copyrights have the right to go after violators if they choose to do so.

<SMALL>They figured that the country wouldn't grow and remain free if a few people and their descendents sat around on their fat rumps for hundreds of years monopolizing everything.</SMALL>

Actually, I believe the Framers of the Constitution came at it from a different direction. Most, if not all, countries at the time the Constitution was written had no such thing as patents, copyrights or trademarks. Maybe the King might give a certain guild or craftsman the right to make a certain thing for a period of time, but the actual inventor of the "thing" was lucky to get anything.

The Framers knew that in order for the economy of the new country to grow, it would not only be necessary, but vital that inventors and artists as well as business would be given protection of their artistic works, inventions, and trademarks/tradenames, respectively.

From what I see, the main issue with most people in this thread is the term of protection for copyrights. I myself can't see any justification for the apparent excessive term of protection. But, like I've said above -- we'll have to take that up with our Senators and Representatives, and I seriously doubt that we'll see any change.

<SMALL>Actually, I believe the Framers of the Constitution came at it from a different direction. Most, if not all, countries at the time the Constitution was written had no such thing as patents, copyrights or trademarks.</SMALL>

One might think that our great American society was originator of these concepts, but such is not the case. With the advent of the printing press in the 16th century, authorities (usually the royal families) wanted to control what was published. In 1662, the "Licensing Act" in England gave a kind of monopolistic control over who could print the works, and which works they could print. A group of men called the "Stationer's Company" (a collection of printers who could censor publications) were set up to control who could print what, and this went on until the 1700's. In 1710, however, Parliament came to enact a set of laws called "The Statute of Anne" to benefit <u>all</u> the printers and booksellers, and finally make printed materials more available to the common man. This statute is where a 14 year period was decided upon as the limit of "copy rights" on printed works, and they allowed one renewal of another 14 years for a maximum of 28 years (but only if the author was still alive). Thus began the concept of "Public Domain", and the explosion of books and other printed material became the stimulus for growth and enlightenment of the entire world.

Our own copyright laws, established decades afterward, were largely based on those set forth in those "Statute of Anne" doctrines. Trademarks and hallmarks go back even further, to the 14th century, and were used by manufacturers to identify their wares. Patents go back as far as the mid-15th century, when they were used to protect the innovations of certain glass-making processes discovered in Italy.

Just after the American Revolution (in 1788), Article I, section 8 of the Constitution was ratified, stating...

"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 writing and discoveries".

Nowadays though, where our Congress is concerned, "progress" certainly seems to have taken a back-seat to "profits", whereby those same copyrights now last for a minimum of 95 years instead of the original 14.

That's capitalism for ya!

Donny, well stated.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>Nowadays though, where our Congress is concerned, "progress" certainly seems to have taken a back-seat to "profits", whereby those same copyrights now last for a minimum of 95 years instead of the original 14.

That's capitalism for ya!</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's not capitalism, and certainly not Adam Smith-style free enterprise, which requires competition, not oligopoly. This reminds me much more of corporate monarchy.

We have a choice: "growth and enlightenment" with reasonable copyright/patent periods or "monopolistic windfall" with indefinite and long copyright/patent periods.

I still haven't heard anybody but Bill McCloskey attack the question "Why should artistic copyrights be so many times longer than inventor patents?". I disagree with his argument, but he does make a case. Is "Just call up your Senator and Representative and ask them" the best anybody can do? Surely nobody expects a serious answer from them, do they? Perhaps someone will argue that we should let pharmaceutical companies have 100-year patents, and wipe out the generic drug industry? I doubt many would agree with this, but at least it would be consistent.

Let me make an argument why inventor patents for things like drugs should be, if anything, much longer than for artistic works. The issue is money - it costs tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to do the research to develop, test, and get FDA approval a single drug, and involves much risk for the companies that do this. It is entirely reasonable that they would need lengthy periods of special consideration to simply recoup their investment. I don't see how copyrighted works even come close to deserving this level of special consideration. Most popular music doesn't even have a 'shelf life' of more than a few months or a few years, and generally the make/break period is very short. Again, what is the compelling interest that the monopoly copyright period be so much longer?

I think copyright laws suck.

Patent laws aren't too far behind them.

People should get paid for what they do.

Well.

Once.

As far as I'm concerned the music copyright laws have created too many dead beats, and fed too many leeches and lawyers.


JMHO.


EJL

(whistling Night Life in heretical defiance...)

Obviously, you are not a songwriter/inventor, etc ....

The reason that patents and copyrights are necessary in a free enterprise system is that someone takes risk to develop a drug, produce a song, etc. Unless we want to move to a socialistic system where people are just "paid, and well, by the government" to do things - that as long as we want a free market to decide what merits being paid or not, then we're stuck giving the creators a reasonable period of time to make good money, as an incentive to do the creating in the first place. One may argue "The government shouldn't pay.", but I counter that in such a system, there'd be nobody else to do it.

Specifically, if generic drug producers and cover artists could just immediately swoop in and copy everything with total impunity and everybody just waits for the government check to arrive, I don't think much creating would be done - we've already seen the way that works. But note the term free market - monopoly control is anathema to that notion, whether it's the government or a corporation. So there must be a tradeoff here. This is where I think the argument lies.

I am arguing, by my reasoning, that any of the tunes TRL had posted should not be "entitled" to that type of monopoly control anymore. By permitting multi-generation monopolies of artistic works, whole artistic forms are being obliterated - to what principle or benefit? But I already argued this point, I'll stop.

Barry. I'd have the same opinion if I was.

That's how I work.

Took me 50 some years to get that way finally..



EJL

<SMALL>Obviously, you are not a songwriter/inventor, etc ....</SMALL>

And just as obviously, altruism is a pretty much lost concept to the same group!

Hey guys,
I'm a new member and this is my first post but I'd like to put my two cents worth in on this subject.
I agree with Eric in that I feel that songwriters and singers should be paid once per song.
If a songwriter is paid each time one of his songs is recorded, how come the machine shops don't get paid each time a piece of equiment they have built a part for is used.
Since I,m a machinist that's the best analogy I could come up with.
Just my opinion.

Well for now, I'm with me too.

I'm just guessing but I think there are a lot of yard sale receipts that are going to have to be gone through and a lot of royalties owed, and people locked up...

There are a lot of laws that we tolerate while breaking them every day. I suppose it makes us feel a little naughty so we toleratr them...



EJL

Let me advance one more argument for strictly limited terms for patents and copyrights. One reason for permitting them at all is to give a strictly practical incentive to create, as has been discussed earlier. But another premise, generally not stated, is that "creation" is somehow original, and in a certain sense, inspired. The question to me is, "Inspired by what?".

I agree that most "original" creatsions are, to some extent, "original". But I would forcefully argue that all creators "borrow" heavily from earlier creators and generations of creators. Nothing is truly "original", although some are more than others. I further argue that one doesn't completely own one's creations.

I think this is another philosophical underpinning of the historical strict time limits on patents and copyrights. Of course, this is all consonant with the practical issue of making available earlier generations of creations, to prime the pump for future generations. This is largely gone now in music, and something should be done about it. It should emphatically not be left to the lawyers and politicians.

My understanding is that the term of a patent or copyright is supposedly a "balance" between giving the owner a limited "monopoly" in return for eventually giving the work to the public after the term expires.

In other words, it's a "give-and-take" between between the inventor/artist and the government.

The government "gives" the inventor/author a monopoly (in the form of a patent or copyright) on the inventor's/author's work for a fixed term in return for the inventor/author disclosing or making the work available to the public.

The inventor/author "gives" his/her work to the public when the term expires in return for the government providing the monopoly during the term.

<SMALL>If a songwriter is paid each time one of his songs is recorded, how come the machine shops don't get paid each time a piece of equiment they have built a part for is used.</SMALL>

Lanny -- good question. I'll take a stab at answering it, to the extent that I'm able

Not to get picky, but it's not necessarily the songwriter who gets paid royalties. In fact, many songwriters today do indeed get paid only once for a song. Let's say a songwriter writes a song. The songwriter wants to get paid for the song, of course, but doesn't want to mess around and deal with all the hassle involved with licensing the song, policing the copyright, and trying to collect all the royalties. So, the songwriter finds a publisher to <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=334' target='_blank'>buy</a> the copyright to the song. So, the songwriter often sells the song for a lump-sum price to the publisher. The songwriter now has no ownership rights in the song. All the ownership rights lie with the publisher, who bought the song from the songwriter.**(see footnote)

Now, the publisher will collect the royalties for the song. However, it's not all gravy. The publisher has to find an artist to record the song, then has to market the song and/or the recording in order to make any money off the song. Then, they have to either hire a licensing company to collect the royalties, or they have to do it themselves. None of these things being very easy to do -- especially for an individual songwriter. So, you can see why many songwriters choose to sell their ownership rights in their songs rather than hold on to them in hopes of getting rich off the royalties.

In regard to the machine-shop analogy, think of it this way. It would be next to impossible for a patent owner to accurately track each time a device covered by his/her patent is used. Besides, most devices have a "useful life" which is the use a particular type of device can experience before it falls apart or becomes a useless pile of junk.

So, it's a whole lot easier just to build the "use fees" into the purchase price of the device rather than to try to track each time each device is used and then try to collect a fee for that use.

Also, copyrights are handled this way too. Think of the last CD you bought. The copyright owner isn't going to charge you a fee each time you play it. They're just going to sell it for a fixed price. That fixed price has an "implied license" for you to play the CD as many times as you want as long as you adhere to the terms of the license, which means you can only play it for personal use (you can not broadcast it or transmit it or make illegal copies etc. etc.).

However, for some copyright matters it's better to charge a "per use" fee rather than a flat fee. For example, consider public performance of a certain song. Some radio stations may only broadcast the song once a month, while other radio stations may broadcast the song every day. So, it's not practical to charge a flat fee in this instance. It's better to charge a "per use" fee.

Also, some patents are also handled this way. For example, method patents (which cover "methods" of doing something, or methods of manufacture or methods of processing) are often handled on a "per use" fee basis.

For example, let's say you come up with a new way of processing a certain type of food. It would be difficult to use a flat fee type of arrangement in this instance. So, in such a case the patent owner will often license the patent to a food processor, wherein the patent owner will receive a fee for each unit of food produced using the method covered by his/her patent.

So, to answer your question, both patents and copyrights can either be covered by a flat fee or a per use fee depending on the circumstances.


** I also understand that many publishing companies try to have most of their songs written by an "in-house" staff of songwriters who have signed assignment contracts with the publisher. This way, the publisher minimizes the probability of future problems, wherein somebody with "come out of the woodwork" after a certain song makes it big to claim that they actually wrote or co-wrote the song.
<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 23 August 2005 at 11:32 AM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>Is "Just call up your Senator and Representative and ask them" the best anybody can do?</SMALL>

Dave, OK -- how about my argument below?

But, first--

<SMALL>Surely nobody expects a serious answer from them, do they?</SMALL>

Well, again, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO MADE UP THE LAW. If you can't get an answer from the one's who actually made up the law, who can you get if from?

OK, here's my argument for why copyrights should have a longer term than patents (by the way, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this argument -- I'm merely presenting what I would consider a valid and reasonable argument).

FIRST-- If you can't recoup your R&D costs within the 20 year term of a patent, then the thing is probably not worth producing, so, why should the patent term be longer than it already is? How many pharmacutical companies are still paying off R&D costs for drugs they developed 20 or 30 years ago? Also, a majority of the patent applications are by corporations rather than individuals. On the other hand, most artistic works are by individuals who may only sell a handful of (or maybe even only one) artistic works during their lifetime.

SECOND-- Patents almost always cover piece-meal works. In other words, very rarely, if ever, does a patent cover something that's COMPLETELY and TOTALLY new. That is, most patents cover inventions that are basically incremental baby steps over what's already known. Stated yet another way, if not for relying HEAVILY on known technology, most patents would not be granted. On the other hand copyrighted works are nearly always completely and totally new works. They might take up where a previous work left off, but the work itself is totally new (a new book doesn't usually contain, for example, 90% of a previously published book). The only exception to this is the relatively new phenomenon of using "samples" of other songs in a new song. So, given the fact that patents are baby steps, whereas artistic works may be a once-in-a-lifetime thing, then the patent term should be naturally shorter.

THIRD-- Patents usually, if not always, cover things that without question improve the quality of life in some way or another. One can make the argument that artistic works improve the quality of life, but I'd argue not. Instead, I'd argue that artistic works are more of icing on the cake rather than the staple of life. I mean, if you have to pay a royalty to record a 50-year old song rather than doing it for free, so what? Is that really going to affect your quality of life? On the other hand, if you or a loved one have some sort of cancer, wouldn't it be much more important to you to be able to get a cancer-fighting drug at generic prices rather than being able to record your favorite Merle Haggard song without paying a royalty fee?
So, I would argue that since patents cover things that are much more prone to affect the quality of life, then the terms for protection should be much shorter than artistic works because the value to society of receiving the material covered by patents is greater.



<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 23 August 2005 at 12:17 PM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>We have a choice: "growth and enlightenment" with reasonable copyright/patent periods or "monopolistic windfall" with indefinite and long copyright/patent periods.</SMALL>

I would argue that shortening the copyright terms would lead to little if any "growth and enlightenment."

The patent term on the other hand is very important to growth and enlightenment.

As you've pointed out, Dave, one example of the importance of patents is to allow recoupment of R&D investment in a number of important areas, one of which is pharmacuticals. Furthermore, generic drugs are available after the expiration of the 20-year patent term. The current patent system is of enormous benefit to the overall quality of life for most people because it both leads to research and development and also results in lower cost of higher technology stuff after a reasonable term. I would say that this is a perfect example of "growth and enlightenment."

However, how will shortening the copyright term lead to "growth and enlightenment?" How about somebody answering that question. What is the real reason for shortening the copyright term? Is is just so you can <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=334' target='_blank'>buy</a> cheaper CD's and so you can play another person's <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=268' target='_blank'>music</a> without paying for it? I don't know how that can lead to "growth and enlightenment."


In regard to copyright terms, let me pose these open questions:

1st question -- how would you feel if you were an artist who had put in 15 years of hard livin', playing all the honkytonks, bars and jukejoints in the country trying to get noticed, all the while writing song after song after song, honing your writing skills. Finally, you write a song that makes a big break. You've literally put your whole life into this one song, blood, sweat, tears and all. In fact, you feel as much emotional attachment to this one song as you would for your own child. How long would you want to have copyright protection for this song before anyone and everyone could take this song and do whatever the heck they wanted to do with it, without even giving you so much as a red cent? 10 years, 15 years? How long is enough?

2nd question: what do you suppose would happen in the <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=268' target='_blank'>music</a> industry if the copyright term were significantly shorter -- perhaps only 10 to 15 years? Let me re-phrase this question: Let's say for any given artist, a CD of <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=268' target='_blank'>music</a> less than 10 years old costs $20 and a CD of 10-year old or older <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=268' target='_blank'>music</a> costs $3. How many $20 CD's would you <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=334' target='_blank'>buy</a> and how many $3 CD's would you <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=334' target='_blank'>buy</a>? I think the answer is pretty obvious especially based on what people have said about this very subject here on the forum. The answer I think is that everyone would <a href='http://consumeralertsystem.com/cas/zx-h ... hp?hid=334' target='_blank'>buy</a> mostly the $3 CD's particularly in light of the fact that the newer $20 CD's will be available in a few years for $3.

So, how much money will the artist make? Someone take a guess. <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 23 August 2005 at 05:51 PM.]</p></FONT>