| Author |
Topic: duration of copyright |
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 11 Sep 2003 1:14 pm |
|
The Constitution of the United States provides that Congress has the 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 Writings and Discoveries."
Now and then Congress, has changed the meaning of "limited Times".
For the sake of this thread, let's discuss musical copyrights rather than patents, etc.
In your opinion, how long should this time be?
Should it be affected by the death of the author, and if so, how?
Should the law be the same if the author (copyright holder) is a corporation, rather than an individual? |
|
|
 |
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 11 Sep 2003 2:36 pm
|
|
Earnest -- good questions.
Personally, I would like to know the reasons behind the current "author's life plus 70 years" duration for copyrights.
I know you said let's leave patents out of it, but compared to the term of a patent (which is 17 years from the date of issue), the copyright term seems awfully long. I don't really have any opinion as to whether the current copyright term length is good or bad -- it's just that it seems really long in comparison with the patent term.
Also, I'm not sure why the author's death should have anything to do with the length of the term. The dependency of the copyright term on the author's lifespan seems to me to be arbitrary and unfair -- it means that the value of copyrights of works of older authors are diminished by virtue of the fact that the copyright term will likely be considerably shorter than the term of a very young author.
To answer your questions:
1. How long should it be? I don't really know, but it seems to me that the copyright term should be more in line with the patent term.
2. Should the term be affected by the author's death? No, not in my opinion. As I said above, that seems arbitrary and unfair.
3. Should the term be the same for individuals and corporations? At the present time, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be the same for both -- but I suppose I could be persuaded by good, sound reasoning. 
--edit-- OOOPS! I just realized that I made a mistake on the patent term: 17 years from issue is the old term. That recently changed and it's now 20 years from the date of filing. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 14 September 2003 at 08:37 AM.] |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 11 Sep 2003 4:22 pm
|
|
And..if a writer or person who owns the copyright dies and Wills the entire estate to another..the copyright is part of the estate..so it is now owned by another ..who is presumed quite alive..
death really has nothing to do with it unless there are no surviving family members to stake a claim.
|
|
|
|
Greg Simmons
From:
where the buffalo (used to) roam AND the Mojave
|
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 11 Sep 2003 5:28 pm
|
|
Don' confuse me with facts! I want opinions.
Seriously: imagine that there is no copyright law, and you are Congress, guided only by that clause in the U. S. Constitution. After a certain period of time, copyright will expire, and a musical composition will enter the public domian. How long should this time be? |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 11 Sep 2003 7:01 pm
|
|
| ...depends on the length of the song... |
|
|
|
Ken Lang
From:
Simi Valley, Ca
|
Posted 11 Sep 2003 8:07 pm
|
|
As I recall, the term used to be 25 years after the death of the author. That would be fine. Give the kids a little money for their old age.
In point of fact these days, very few authors hold the copyright to their own works. The record companies/publishers usually end with the copyrights to a song and the author is left with getting the writers share and hoping the publisher can sell the song in enough places to make him a little money.
So death plus 70 years benifits the publisher mostly and the writers kinfolk a little too, if the song can be sold after all that time.
Again, 25 years seems right. I doubt that in 2073 there will be many people interested in covering a Mud-on-ya song for the history channel.
Now the Hag, that may be different.
[This message was edited by Ken Lang on 11 September 2003 at 09:11 PM.] |
|
|
|
Earnest Bovine
From:
Los Angeles CA USA
|
Posted 11 Sep 2003 8:57 pm
|
|
| Even if you sell a song the day you write it, a 100 year copyright would sell for more cash than a 10 year copyright. |
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 12 Sep 2003 5:13 am
|
|
Hold it there buddy !
You mean there is a law that says if somebody writes a song they can actually own or sell the rights to make copies of it ?
That sounds like big government is trying to mess up my moral right to get stuff I want for free !
Bob
[This message was edited by Bob Hoffnar on 12 September 2003 at 06:19 AM.] |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 12 Sep 2003 6:17 am
|
|
Ok..here's a what if..
What if you write a song..copyright it, self publish it and assign it to ASCAP only for royalities.
then you put it in your MP3 Share folder on Kazza..
Then someone uploads it from your PC and the FEDS find out and then sue you for MP3 file sharing..
Can you be executed for file sharing your own song even though you own all the rights ?
" I'm sorry Mr. Cohen..I understand you wrote the song, hold the copyright and the publishing, but what you did was illegal according to RIAA rules and legislation"
"For your ignorance and direct disobey of the law and for taking advantage of the Internet to furthur your career I fine you $150,000".."oh..and have a nice day "..
" And another thing Mr. Cohen..what exactly is that Instrument you are playing on that illegal MP3 ?"
tp |
|
|
|
JB Arnold
From:
Longmont,Co,USA (deceased)
|
Posted 12 Sep 2003 8:55 am
|
|
Aha! But Tony-you are the owner and the poster! Therefore, no crime has been comitted, as you are the ONLY one allowed to post that song for general distribution!
Being the capitalist pig that I am, I think copyrights should last forever. I may not be around, but my descendants might.
And Earnest is right-the longer the copyright, the higher the price if I should want to sell. I guess I don't understand why I (or my estate) should EVER have to give it up.
JB
------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Fessenden D-10 8&8
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net
http://www.nrpsmusic.com/index.html
|
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 12 Sep 2003 9:25 am
|
|
That's why I think the dependency of the copyright term on the author's life is unfair. That means that if an old author and a young author both write the same song, the older author's copyright will AUTOMATICALLY be worth substantially less than the younger author's copyright because the term of the older author's copyright will most likely be substantially shorter than that of the younger author.
So, if both the young author and the old author were to sell their copyrights immediately, then the young author would be able to sell his for more than the older author -- even if it were the same exact song. |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 12 Sep 2003 6:31 pm
|
|
Social security checks STOP when you die. Your retirement plan (if you have one) STOPS when (or soon after) you die. The old copyright law gave you rights for up to 25 years after your death. That seems plenty long to me. Why shouldn't it last "forever"?
Because nothing else lasts "forever". One other reason to make stuff PD is so others will have the chance to distribute it.
Think about this...
Many times, the original publisher isn't interested in re-releasing old stuff, and that music would eventually all become "lost" to the average present-day listener. Much of the classical music available today would simply not be on the market if it was covered under copyright laws. |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 12 Sep 2003 7:20 pm
|
|
| Hey, Tony! Don't pick on ME! It's not my turn to get picked on, yet. It's still Winnie Winston's turn. I'll let you know when it's my turn, okay, pal? |
|
|
|
chas smith R.I.P.
From:
Encino, CA, USA
|
Posted 13 Sep 2003 11:25 am
|
|
Since I have a connection to everything that I write and since I consider it to be an extension of myself, I want the copyright to still be connected to me when I'm in the grave. That assumes that I enjoyed my stay here on earth and that I still want a connection, which I do.
Another benefit of having the copyright extend beyond the composer's death is it dicourages murdering them to get the copyrights. All if the reasons for killing them to stop the flow of bad music would remain intact. |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 14 Sep 2003 7:34 am
|
|
You don't need to have the copyright term directly dependent on the author's age at death in order to make it more fair AND to make it substantially probable that the copyright will outlast the author.
For example, the current term is the author's life plus 70 years. That means an old guy who writes a damn good song at age 80 will probably get a lot less money for the rights in the song than what a twenty-year old guy could have gotten for the rights in the same song. That's because the young guy's copyright term will likely be twice that of the old guy.
So, if you want the copyright to last 70 years longer than the author (or thereabouts), why not simply make the copyright term a fixed period, like for example, 130 years?
I still don't see any reason why the copyright term should be dependent on the author's age at death. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 14 September 2003 at 08:39 AM.] |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 14 Sep 2003 12:18 pm
|
|
Okay then, let's make it 50 years from the date of copyright. If a song ain't "made it" in the first 50 years, chances are it never will, anyway. IMHO, you have to have a limit, or the list of songs that are PD would never expand.  |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 14 Sep 2003 6:49 pm
|
|
25 years. No renewals. If something is still popular after 25 years, it should pass into the public domain. The original author made his bundle. You can't expect to get paid forever for work that was completed long ago.
------------------
 Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax |
|
|
|
Marc Friedland
From:
Fort Collins, CO
|
Posted 15 Sep 2003 12:28 am
|
|
| Here's why I think b0b's idea of 25 years with no renewals isn't equitable. My wife wrote quite a few original songs back in the late 70's and early eighties. She performed them with an original band back then throughout Sonoma County and a couple of them had minimal airplay at a Santa Rosa radio station. She did copyright them, but never earned any money from them. I think some of them are worthy of being marketable in today's music world. Considering, that NO money has ever been earned from them, I think my wife, the original writer should be able to earn royalties generated today, and not forfeit any earnings just because she wrote music far ahead of it's commercial time, or for whatever reason never marketed it before now. In this scenario I believe the idea of 25 years could only work fairly if it's renewable at least once. -- Marc |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 15 Sep 2003 2:39 am
|
|
guys..thats nuts..
If you write something..you own it..forever..until you sell it..
What would be the logical reason to let ownership expire ?
It's no different than a copyright on a name brand item such as FORD...or EMMONS..
After 25 years can anyone just use the names?
To me it makes no sense..once you own something..you own it..forever..until you do something else with it..like pass it on in a WILL..or sell it.
Why is music different than anything else..
The problem isn't the ownership..it's the way the lawyers facilitated the licensing and royalties.Too many people wanted a piece of the action and had their hand in the till.
" Yes'sir'ee Bobby Lee..You done wrote a hit song and I'm gonna get rich off of that song you wrote "....
" Oh and Bobby..you should expect a royality check in 2 or 3 years "..." Now get on out there and write us another hit song..would ya ! "....
sound familiar..
tp
|
|
|
|
JB Arnold
From:
Longmont,Co,USA (deceased)
|
Posted 15 Sep 2003 5:49 am
|
|
Just because I already made a bundle doesn't mean I shouldn't CONTINUE to make bundles. Why should I have to share with The People after a certain amount of time?
How about this: "Well sir, you've paid for that house, but now it's someone else's turn to live in it. You get to move in under the bridge..."
phooey. It's mine in this world AND the next.
JB
------------------
Fulawka D-10 9&5
Fessenden D-10 8&8
"All in all, looking back, I'd have to say the best advice anyone ever gave me was 'Hands Up, Don't Move!"
www.johnbarnold.com/pedalsteel
www.buddycage.net
http://www.nrpsmusic.com/index.html
|
|
|
|
Ron Page
From:
Penn Yan, NY USA
|
Posted 15 Sep 2003 6:36 am
|
|
It makes sense to me that copyrights extend well beyond the period of patent protections. Most patents become obsolete after a number of years due to technological advances and other such factors. Written works--songs, books, etc.-- seem to stand a longer test of time. 70 years beyond the author's death seems to provide for a generation or two. Seems fair enough.
I know we'd all like free music, but then who would produce it. Remember, we're all in it for the money. 
------------------
HagFan
|
|
|
|
John Macy
From:
Rockport TX/Denver CO
|
Posted 15 Sep 2003 8:41 am
|
|
Tony,
I am often at odds with some of your points, but am in total agreement on this one . |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 15 Sep 2003 9:34 am
|
|
Okay, your lifetime or 25 years, whichever is longer. No renewals.
------------------
Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (C6add9),
Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6),
Roland Handsonic, Line 6 Variax |
|
|
|
Tony Prior
From:
Charlotte NC
|
Posted 15 Sep 2003 12:03 pm
|
|
John..get outta' town..you mean I wrote something controversial that everyone didn't just think was gospel facts ?
I hate that when that happens !!..
tp[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 15 September 2003 at 01:04 PM.] |
|
|
|
