Less West Side Story in the future?

[MoonHill]

Of course it has. However, the basis of my argument deals in the realm of the intangible. Does a composer have the rights to own something which touches more than himself? Does he own that which he truly can not understand himself? A better question: does anyone?

The answer is no. The true composer is a philosopher which understands that that which is so spiritual and pure can not be possessed by worldly matters.

Incorrect. The true composer is a person who puts sounds together into music.

That's all, nothing else.

The Sinfonians seem to understand that.

And everyone has the right to own the fruits of their own labor, no matter how many other people consider it great.

[euponitone]

Of course it has. However, the basis of my argument deals in the realm of the intangible. Does a composer have the rights to own something which touches more than himself? Does he own that which he truly can not understand himself? A better question: does anyone?

The answer is no. The true composer is a philosopher which understands that that which is so spiritual and pure can not be possessed by worldly matters.

Your argument would seem to apply to all art, would it not? Dance, painting, sculpture, etc.... I am sitting in Paris right now in the 1er arrondisment...about a block from the Louvre (no really, i am...). I think I'll walk over and pull the Mona Lisa off the wall, because I clearly have as much right to own a piece of art that touches me as that hack that painted it, or the museum that payed millions for it.

[skewerz]

Of course it has. However, the basis of my argument deals in the realm of the intangible. Does a composer have the rights to own something which touches more than himself? Does he own that which he truly can not understand himself? A better question: does anyone?

The answer is no. The true composer is a philosopher which understands that that which is so spiritual and pure can not be possessed by worldly matters.

does an inventor have the rights to own the patent of something which touches more than himself? Patents on everything from artificial heart valves to microwave ovens...things which touch the lives of millions of people a day..allowing them to spend more time with their family...

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

Incorrect. The true composer is a person who puts sounds together into music.

That's all, nothing else.

And everyone has the right to own the fruits of their own labor, no matter how many other people consider it great.

Which begs this important question: does John Cage own the rights to silence, since his musical work, 4'23", has 3 Mvts. of multiple measures of silence?

Also, does the gardener who plants an apple tree own the tree he planted? Did he create the whole tree in its entirety? Did he nurture it and care for it? Who owns the tree?

Plato would have fun with the entitlement of art question.

[jmdigmon]

Regarding Cage's 4'33", Cage owns it. Does he own all silence? No - just that appropriated by his piece, and "performed" during the allotted time when one performs that silence, regardless of whether anyone think it is ridiculous or not (the performing or the owning of silence).

Regarding the tree, if it is on the gardener's property, yes he owns it. If he sells the land, then he no longer owns the tree. I own the trees on my land, even if I didn't plant them. When I move and sell my house, I will no longer own them. A composer owns the rights to his/her piece of music until s/he assigns or sells those rights to someone else.

Some composers may create for the sake of creation, but I think it could be argued that most create for the paycheck no matter how principled they are because everyone has to eat. Yes those that are gifted are remembered, and their music lives on. But, if it weren't for commissions, what music would we have today? Does the copyright process aid or hinder the creation process?

[scottgordon]

Of course it has. However, the basis of my argument deals in the realm of the intangible. Does a composer have the rights to own something which touches more than himself? Does he own that which he truly can not understand himself? A better question: does anyone?

The answer is no. The true composer is a philosopher which understands that that which is so spiritual and pure can not be possessed by worldly matters.

Should the author of a book own the rights to it?

You may think that you are arguing on the side of the glory of artistic achievement. But the irony is that by denying reasonable recompense to a composer, you are quite clearly and in a very real way devaluing the arts.

Edited September 20, 2009 by scottgordon

[mobrien]

Does a composer have the rights to own something which touches more than himself?

Yes. If you write/invent/compose something, you have the right to 'own' your creation and do whatever the hell you want with it for as long as the law allows.

This is a concept so simple, your average 4 year old gets it. In my experience, the only people who DON'T get it are freshmen philosophy majors who are laboring under the dual strains of drinking too much cheap beer and trying to keep a spirited conversation going at 2 in the morning.

Plato was smart enough to recognize that if you tell people who are really good at something that others will expect them to give away their services as punishment for being good at it, that those people will soon go do something else.

Edited September 20, 2009 by mobrien

[MoonHill]

Which begs this important question: does John Cage own the rights to silence, since his musical work, 4'23", has 3 Mvts. of multiple measures of silence?

Also, does the gardener who plants an apple tree own the tree he planted? Did he create the whole tree in its entirety? Did he nurture it and care for it? Who owns the tree?

Plato would have fun with the entitlement of art question.

And Platonic Ideals are good for nothing more than intellectual masturbation, just like the question of artistic intangibility.

4'33" doesn't just have "multiple measures" of silence; it is silence, structured and ordered just like any piece of music is structured and ordered, even one that called for complete chaos. Cage no more own the rights to silence than Bernstein owns the rights to the C# Major Chord, but both of them(or rather, the people who have the copyrights) own the pieces that the composers composed utilizing those elements.

Just like how John Grisham does not own the copyright to the words "The" and "when", but he does own the copyrights to the works he has produced.

In the case of the gardener, if he purchased the seed and owns the land he's planting it in, then of course he owns the tree. If the seed comes from another tree he owns, of course he owns it. If someone else paid money for or otherwise legally acquired the seed and owns the land it went into, and merely paid the gardener to plant it as a work-for-hire, then that person owns the tree.

Rules of ownership like that are very, very, very well-established, and logical. You might want to go back to a more Lakota-inspired "no owns the land, or anything of it" type of situation, with regards to music and art, at least, but I tell you, it makes it difficult to enforce any laws regarding theft or fair compensation for work.

The philosophy you're advocating would make it extremely difficult to earn a living as a person who generates music, either as a fully-original composer or as an arranger for Drum Corps and Marching Bands. Why would anyone ever get paid for putting six months of their time, effort, and industry into putting together a piece, when the people who engaged for that piece could claim, at the end, that the music is touching to them, and music is spiritually transcendent anyways, so the composer doesn't own any aspect of the piece they composed, anyway?

The idea that an artist naturally has absolutely no choice in how their art will be used/co-opted/distributed/monetized seems like it would have an incredibly chilling effect on the production of art, in general. Bad call, Ripley. Bad call.

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

And Platonic Ideals are good for nothing more than intellectual masturbation, just like the question of artistic intangibility.

4'33" doesn't just have "multiple measures" of silence; it is silence, structured and ordered just like any piece of music is structured and ordered, even one that called for complete chaos. Cage no more own the rights to silence than Bernstein owns the rights to the C# Major Chord, but both of them(or rather, the people who have the copyrights) own the pieces that the composers composed utilizing those elements.

Just like how John Grisham does not own the copyright to the words "The" and "when", but he does own the copyrights to the works he has produced.

In the case of the gardener, if he purchased the seed and owns the land he's planting it in, then of course he owns the tree. If the seed comes from another tree he owns, of course he owns it. If someone else paid money for or otherwise legally acquired the seed and owns the land it went into, and merely paid the gardener to plant it as a work-for-hire, then that person owns the tree.

Rules of ownership like that are very, very, very well-established, and logical. You might want to go back to a more Lakota-inspired "no owns the land, or anything of it" type of situation, with regards to music and art, at least, but I tell you, it makes it difficult to enforce any laws regarding theft or fair compensation for work.

The philosophy you're advocating would make it extremely difficult to earn a living as a person who generates music, either as a fully-original composer or as an arranger for Drum Corps and Marching Bands. Why would anyone ever get paid for putting six months of their time, effort, and industry into putting together a piece, when the people who engaged for that piece could claim, at the end, that the music is touching to them, and music is spiritually transcendent anyways, so the composer doesn't own any aspect of the piece they composed, anyway?

The idea that an artist naturally has absolutely no choice in how their art will be used/co-opted/distributed/monetized seems like it would have an incredibly chilling effect on the production of art, in general. Bad call, Ripley. Bad call.

Oh, DCP...

You guys are reading to much into what I wrote.

The true owner of art is not the man that composed it. The true owner is mother nature, herself. Mankind wouldnt exist, nor art neither, if we didnt evolve under the conditions that we did or even have life. In that essence, the true owner of music is not even nature, since nature only exists because of very specific conditions that came to be on our little marble. The resulting owner is the Earth and Sun itself, but thats not really correct, which leaves the solar system and galaxy. But, it would have never came to be if it wasn't for the Big Bang, so I hereby name nothing and everything as the true owner of art.

My summation: the true owner of art is the divine being. The collection of souls, living and non, that has always and will always exist in perfect silence (true harmony). So, does the Bernstein Estate own his works? Not anymore than the next man, since we are all connected to the divine being. Did Bernstein, own his works? Yes. On a material state in a very physical way. Any more so to let his heirs control their destiny? No.

[3rd_Star_Brigade]

The philosophy you're advocating

There is no such thing as advocating philosophy. It is a series of questions in which one searches for the truth in all things.