The Record Lady's site was illegal, but as Dave Mudgett put it so well, "I only argue about the merits of the legalities".

That's the grey issue.

If everything Donny listed were actively pursued as Copyright Infringement, it would be Orwelle's 1984 for sure. Hope it never comes to that, but it seems to me we're getting closer all the time.

[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 04 August 2005 at 02:58 PM.]

I love Jazz. Would it be okay if I posted all my Blue Note CD's for free download. After all all those jazz guys are dead most likely. How about if I posted all my Miles Davis CD's (I have everything) on line for free download. He's dead and I hear he didn't leave anything to his son, so why should Columbia make any money on his records. They should all be free.

And what about the musician who was so poor that all he had to bequeth his family was the catalog of his recordings. Can I put all his work up for sale for free?

Or maybe the record producer who paid for all the recording sessions, musicians, marketing and distribution costs for hundreds of artists in hope that a handful would make enough money to make it all worthwhile. Let's put his legacy up for free as well.

How about all the Dave Van Ronk recordings. I took lessons from him and I know his wife still makes money from the sale of his recordings. But that's okay, - It's from the 60's after all and I'm sure putting all of Dave's CD's up for free download won't affect his widow.

Or maybe it's okay as long as heirs aren't dependant on the earnings. I've got it. You put up everything for free and if an heir complains they can come to you with their tax returns so they can prove they derive income from those CD's. Once they prove it to you, with proper documentation of course, you can pull those CD's from your tribute site.

But let's not stop there. How about putting the Jeff Newman teaching materials up for free download as well. I'm sure they have educational value.

Tell me where do you stop. Who decides? You. Is it okay as long as the person doing it is good hearted and you like being reminded of the good old days?

When I posted:

"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."

...that was also in reference to the subject in general, not just the record lady. I thought that was obvious but maybe it wasn't. I certainly was never suggesting that anyone should be able to give away anything they like on the internet.

I think Bill's last post makes my full allowance of sarcasm , so the rest of you can take it from here.

[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 05 August 2005 at 12:04 AM.]

I also don't think anyone should be able to just stop distribution of 'classic' works, as has happened with most of the old country records TRL posted.

...we all love pedal steel, and I'm certain many of us have a few favorite instrumentalists. In my case, Red Rhodes. Now, I am lucky to have all of his solo LPs. If I didn't, I would love to still hear all the music. Fact is, though, that whoever owns the rights to his old Crown LPs (if master tapes are even still in existence) will undoubtedly never reissue those tracks. What good does it do to prohibit posting mp3s of HIS music in particular, especially as it is ALL out of print and will almost certainly never see re-release?

I also have one further argument....there are songs I see out there that I like to hear once...maybe twice. I would NOT (and yes, I repeat "N-O-T") care enough to ever buy the particular song. So, in other words, I download it out of curiousity and/or mild interest, and then forget about it for the next few years. In my opinion, there is no "lost revenue" as I know that I would not have bought the song anyway.

On the other hand, I am a huge Michael Nesmith fan and he has begun selling live material of his from the '70s via his website. In this instance, while I COULD retrieve this music for free, I DO NOT. I always pay for it, because I know this is music that I DO want, and WILL listen to over and over again.

Again, everyone will have their different opinion about what is "right" and "wrong." And while I agree that it is wrong to, say, download a full album of music you *know* you would have purchased otherwise, I don't feel that it is wrong to download, say, Jim Nesbitt songs if they are not in print (and never will be back in print) or if you are wanting to hear them just once just for the heck of it.

Joe

[This message was edited by Joe Alterio on 05 August 2005 at 06:39 AM.]

quote:

---

"so, technically, a person walking down the street, whistling a copyrighted song is breaking the law?" and his answer was "yes".

---

IMHO the issue of the copyright office giving Disney 75 more years on their music (on top of the original copyright lifetime) is a sell out to big business.

[This message was edited by Ray Minich on 05 August 2005 at 08:04 AM.]

Originally, copyrights were good for 14 years, and could be renewed only once. Taking into consideration that people back then didn't live quite as long (a ripe old age was about 55), one might say that some extension was resonable. However, we've passed the point of "reasonability", and now new works are protected for 95 years, thanks to Sonny Bono. That's where we are now, and that means things can be kept secured for almost 5 generations, and in a country based on freedom and fairness, there's nothing fair about repression and hoarding of anything, which is what these laws now permit. They're equivilent to a statutory monopoly, and the driving force isn't the protection of an individual's rights (which so many of you seem to think), but rather the expansion and welfare of big business. They have an agenda, big business now virtually controls our government and our country, and you only have to watch the TV, or listen to the radio, or read the paper, to see what happens when just a select few "run the show".

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. Either the works aren't popular, or no one's going to invest money where there's little or no return. This is what Rose, the Record Lady was doing. Art is for everyone, and shouldn't be restricted just because the one who owns it has a cashflow problem or an ego complex. Was Rose's site illegal? Technically, yes. But I seriously doubt her little site hurt anyone, and I'd be very interested if anyone could prove otherwise. (Maybe Kitty Well's record sales will skyrocket, now? Somehow, I doubt it.) Yes, it's illegal, but so are you when you take your radio to the ball game or race track. So are you, when you'd like them to play steel music at your funeral, but your relatives haven't paid an ASCAP licensing fee. So are you, when you copy and post a joke on the Forum, or on the bulletin board at work. Laws are laws, but ridiculous is still ridiculous. (Did you know it's illegal to even walk on a road when the signs say "ROAD CLOSED"?)

Anyhow, I'm old enough to remember the early days of television, and Hollywood thought that could be a problem. Then, when VCR's came out in the '70s, there was untold wailing and gnashing of teeth by the theatre owners, the movie companies, and even the stars themselves. You see, in 1978, everyone was certain that movie theatres would be gone in 20 years, and Hollywood shuddered. People would just make their own free copies of anything on cable TV, and just stay home! But instead...what happened? Fast forward to the present, and theatres are bigger and more popular than ever! (There's a new 24-screen "mediaplex" near my home.) Stars are making 10-20 million per picture, and the studios are making from 25 to several hundred million on their pictures. Who would'a figured? Video sales and rentals now produce half of their income. Yes, they removed restrictions on the media, forgot about goofy laws to ban VCR's, and just let capitalism run it's course, and we all lived happily ever after.

In any "pirating" operation, price and availability are the causal (driving) factors. Hardly anybody bothers to make copies of movies anymore. Why bother? You can buy them almost anywhere, and they're almost as cheap as music CD's, even though a movie can easily cost 100 times as much to produce as a music CD. (I wonder why that is? ) In the end, if you make entertainment available and cheap, no one bothers to copy or pirate it at all. They enjoy it, put it (or throw it) away, and just buy more! I've made an analogy before about newspapers and magazines. They're more popular than any other media (most people get a paper every day, and a few magazines a month), but NOBODY copies or pirates any part of them...not even the centerfolds or the comic strips!

Hmmm...do you wonder why? Probably because they're not $15-$20 each.

Make it available and cheap, and guess what?

No one pirates. No one steals.

Everyone benefits.

Sounds good to me!

I'm done. If I've talked too much, I'm sorry.

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 05 August 2005 at 02:34 PM.]

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes, nor is it desirable for a small number of oligopolistic corporations to consolidate control of everything either, which is what is increasingly happening. Stopping this was the point of anti-trust legislation at the beginning of the last century, which has been largely gutted since the early-mid 80s.

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.

[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 05 August 2005 at 02:33 PM.]

"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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

[This message was edited by Dave Mudgett on 05 August 2005 at 05:49 PM.]

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.

[This message was edited by Mitch Drumm on 05 August 2005 at 06:33 PM.]

no you were'nt Donny
you've got the "chic" fer nailin' it

[This message was edited by CrowBear Schmitt on 06 August 2005 at 02:36 AM.]

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. ) 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

[This message was edited by Fred Shannon on 07 August 2005 at 06:36 AM.]

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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 jewelry 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.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 17 August 2005 at 12:13 PM.]

quote:

---

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???

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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 all 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.

quote:

---

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!

---

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.

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

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.

That's how I work.

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

quote:

---

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

---

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...

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.

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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 buy 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.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 23 August 2005 at 11:32 AM.]

quote:

---

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

---

Dave, OK -- how about my argument below?

But, first--

quote:

---

Surely nobody expects a serious answer from them, do they?

---

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.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 23 August 2005 at 12:17 PM.]

quote:

---

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

---

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 buy cheaper CD's and so you can play another person's music 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 music 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 music less than 10 years old costs $20 and a CD of 10-year old or older music costs $3. How many $20 CD's would you buy and how many $3 CD's would you buy? 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 buy 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.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 23 August 2005 at 05:51 PM.]

You're not recouping the R&D costs of the successful patent in 20 years. You're recouping the R&D costs for all the unsucessful patents as well. It is the successes that let you afford to experiment and have a lot of failures. That is how progress is made.

quote:

---

You're recouping the R&D costs for all the unsucessful patents as well.

---

Bill, very good and very valid point.

Ken, I probably tend to agree with at least the basic idea of what you are saying. However, one issue that comes to mind while reading your post is, "where do you draw the line" in regard to a copyright owner's right to enforce the copyright laws?

I would argue that the line must be as clear as possible, or we might as well have no copyright laws at all. Unfortunately however, in order to have a clear line, not everybody is going to be satisfied. In a perfect world the laws could be tailored for every conceivable situation -- but as everyone knows, we don't live in a perfect world. So, I'll admit that sometimes the enforcement of the law doesn't seem fair or right. But, I'd counter that with the argument that it's better than no law at all.

But, in any case, there's still ample opportunity to listen to older music that you might be interested in buying. For example, many on-line music stores (such as Amazon.com) offer the opportunity to listen to a portion of most CD's that are available for purchase.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 23 August 2005 at 09:35 PM.]

edited for missing words

[This message was edited by Ken Lang on 25 August 2005 at 05:13 PM.]