What do you think of copyright?

[wolfe]

Some people feel very strongly, either for or against, copyright laws. How do you feel? Do you benefit directly from them, or are they a hindrance to you? Do you feel they're too strict, or do you want them to be stronger?

What do you think?

[paulwl]

US copyright laws are designed to benefit publishing companies by assuring that most popular music remains in copyright long after its popularity is past. I can't imagine any other reason for this than to keep old music from taking potential revenues away from new music, by assuring that it will be a losing proposition for low budget or indie artists/labels to revisit older styles.

In the UK, where music goes Public Domain after 50 or so years, people have more esoteric listening tastes and those tastes can be catered to and at least a small profit made. The big media here don't want that happening.

<$.02>

[Roger Aldridge]

Copyright laws are of great benefit to composers. They are one of the few protections a composer has to being ripped off.
Composers, like book authors, often have to work through publishing companies. This is one of the hard realities of the music business. Publishing companies, of course, take a cut. But, some money goes to the composer.

Think about how hard it is to earn a living as a performer. Believe me, it can be even harder making it as a writer!

As performers we can complain about copyright laws. Never the less, composers and their families deserve to get something in return for their work.

[Bill Mecca]

It's a difficult issue, rife with lots of misinformation being passed around, a lot of that because of the internet itself.

One example I read yesterday, and I'm not sure if it's true (though I doubt it) was that you can't take video or pictures of a single building because the architect holds the copyright, but that if you had several buildings on the street in the picture it would be okay. That logic, extrapolated would mean you can't copy and publish one copyrighted book, but if you do 5 it would be. You also get into the work for hire aspects with that example, the architect, if he/she owns the building could own the copyright, or if it was a work for hire, the building owner, who commissioned the structure would. It depends upon the contract. Then again I have never heard of a building coming under the copyright law.

anyway....

As a video producer, I value copyright laws, and at the same time curse them. I've put a project on a very low flame because I wanted to use a video clip from a well-known old time television show. I can use the clip, but the copyright owner wants $5,000 a minute for 5 years of domestic video rights only. Shot down that idea, since this is a "labor of love" project. As far as I can tell that clip is just sitting in a vault somewhere, not being used, so it's not like it's making them money, or by my using it I would depreive them of income, only the potential of income from someone who has the backing to pay the fee, but it is such a focused use that, well I'm starting to ramble.

On th other hand, I am in the process of producing my own product and will be more than happy to slap the copyright notice on it, pay the filing fee, and get the protection. However if someone wants to use parts of it at a later date, I'm sure we could reach some reasonable agreement.

[BayviewSax]

Like many ideas, it was a good idea that's now in the wrong hands. While visiting one musician's website, I realized that his songs were all available in .mp3 for download (not just to listen to). Judging from the level of savvy used in developing the site, I assumed this was an oversight and sent him an e-mail to that effect. Here is his response:

I thank you for your inquiry on this matter. However, the above is no accident. the record companies (themselves) gain the bulk of their earnings from the actual record sales. The artist have perpetually received a minuscule percentage; This would include Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, and rest.

Consequently, the artists amass their earnings from CONCERT PERFORMANCES; Not the recording sales, in the least. Therefore, in this regard, I make a FINE LIVING (performing), indeed. :-) (smile)

All you need to know about the failures of copyright is that Michael Jackson makes money everytime somebody purchases a Beatles album.

[Ritchie]

The fact whether it is technically possible to download mp3 files does not make any difference whether a copyright exists or not. Copyright is something you own, and as something you own you are able to sell it.

There are more artists who give away music for free, read Steve Coleman's article on http://www.m-base.org/mp3_philosophy.html, lots of music to download legally.

[BayviewSax]

Very true. My whole point was I could care less about who owns the copyright, I'm much more concerned that the musician gets his/her fair share. The fact that some minimally talented person can own the rights to someone elses creativity by way of license really bugs me. If I have the musician's permission to download his music, I couldn't possibly care less who holds the paper on that music.

[wolfe]

Here's an interesting site worth a visit: http://eldered.cc/. It's an act that would allow copyright materials to go into the public domain more quickly, especially when the material no longer has any commercial value. Hopefully something like this could help reverse some of the ill effects of copyright legislation in the past few years.

enjoy

[Dave Dolson]

As Bayviewsax put it, I think "holding the paper" means investment, in most cases. And when someone (or some corporation) makes a legitimate investment, that person (or entity) should expect some returns. I would hope the actual performers made and enforced their contracts with the paper-holder.

But it really doesn't matter what we think about the theory of copyright - it exists big-time here in the U.S. (and around the world) and as long as the major studios and the major music businesses own copyrighted works, those who infringe will pay the price (again, in most cases).

Somehow, I don't think that copyright applies to a building. As I understand it, copyright laws are designed to protect works of art and works-of-art-for-hire. I suppose an architect could/would argue that his design is a work of art, but that is debatable - and if it was done for hire, there may be a question as to who is the copyright holder - the architect or the contractor or the property owner. And, if the holder did not register it properly, he's outta luck in enforcing it.

I spent my last 12 working years with the MPAA's U.S. Anti-Piracy Operations. If you think those Indonesian frauds on eBay bug you, you ought to look closely at video piracy. Several of my cases ended up with state-prison sentences (for state law violations about labelling, not actual copyright infringement; but copyright infringement was certainly an underlying potential cause of action). They really mean that FBI Warning on videos and at the end of films. DAVE

[paulwl]

Copyright is something you own, and as something you own you are able to sell it.
Or burn it. Or dig a hole and bury it so deep it will never see the light of day again.

A film archivist/activist I met recently is advising a coalition who are advocating changing the Bono laws to include a "use it or lose it" clause. To keep rights to anything more than 50 years old, copyright holders would have to renew.

I think it's only fair. After all, how much money does Big Music Inc. think can be made off anything too old to be "oldies"?

[wolfe]

paulwl: that sounds very similar to the Eric Eldered Act (http://eldered.cc). Is it in fact the same effort?

[paulwl]

No...and yes: http://eldred.cc

I read it, I signed it, and I encourage anyone interested in creative freedom to do the same.

[Lowell]

Canadian copyright laws and royalty rates are so out of date that you could write a hit song every year and still remain below the poverty line.
You can safely copy or photograph anyting you want so long as you don't deprive the author of his profit and you don't receive any profit yourself. This may not be strictly legal but if the author has not suffered a financial loss, he can't sue for lost income.
A typical chart for our group costs $80. The copyright agreement allows us to copy it as many times as required FOR OUR GROUP.

[Lowell]

An interesting development in Europe is the copyrighting of paintings. When you buy a painting, you only buy the canvas and paint; the artist retains the copyright. Thus if the painting is used or reproduced for profit, the artist gets a fee for each copy. If the painting is resold, the artist gets a commission on the sale price. This copyright can be sold or transferred to heirs like any other property. Our copyright laws haven't approached this yet but a form of it does exist. Go to any art store in a mall and you will find limited edition prints for sale. This is a case of the artist retaining the copyright and managing it himself. He is also increasing his profit by selling the same piece of work hundreds of times.

[bobsax]

US copyright laws are designed to benefit publishing companies by assuring that most popular music remains in copyright long after its popularity is past. I can't imagine any other reason for this than to keep old music from taking potential revenues away from new music, by assuring that it will be a losing proposition for low budget or indie artists/labels to revisit older styles.

In the UK, where music goes Public Domain after 50 or so years, people have more esoteric listening tastes and those tastes can be catered to and at least a small profit made. The big media here don't want that happening.

<$.02>
well said


A wealth of information
http://www.eff.org/