Copyright Issues

[84BDsop]

I'm now calling a truce. (Remembering, of course, that you're the one with the sharp pointy thingie.)

And people wonder why I still go on about the 84 results....just look at how much fun I get out of it now!

[TheBattman]

Copyright has a legitimate purpose - and I have no issue with drum corps (or bands) obtaining permission for arranging/performance - but it makes no real sense for there to be so many layers of rights to wade through for something as simple as the recording of said performances - even if sold "for profit".

As far as the Bowie sampled segment in the Cavies show - that demonstrates a pretty large stretch of the copyright (though I'm certain perfectly "legal"). I particularly scratch my head at such a "positive' use - that gives further exposure (and for some, even enlarges the prospective audience) to an artist/composer. For example - there have been a few shows in DCI history that have intruded me to new music/composers that I have laters spent money buying recordings of - composer that I might not have ever been acquainted with were it not for the corps performing/using the music.

[MikeN]

For you and I as music fans, we like when drum corps cast wide nets for that very reason. But, for example, the composer in Phantom's Spartacus show that revoked his permission could care less about becoming a "mainstream" composer - to him, the integrity of his work was paramount. Which for us sucks, but it is still his right.

Mike

[N.E. Brigand]

It's only his right because we've agreed to define it that way. Copyright is a concept that developed over time. (I happen to think it's gone too far.)

[Stu]

It's only his right because we've agreed to define it that way. Copyright is a concept that developed over time. (I happen to think it's gone too far.)

While Copyright Laws have and can change, the foundation for Copyright law is not a concept that we frivolously agreed to, nor is it a concept that has developed over time based on fads or whims. The concept is a Constitutional 'Right' grounded in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; "The 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 writings and discoveries". Madison and Jefferson both went into great detail when weighing the Rights of the Individual Creator's ownership vs. the Rights of the Public to have access to their works; and this clause was a compromise which gave credence to each view.

Edited December 21, 2016 by Stu

[AlexL]

While Copyright Laws have and can change, the foundation for Copyright law is not a concept that we frivolously agreed to, nor is it a concept that has developed over time based on fads or whims. The concept is a Constitutional 'Right' grounded in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; "The 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 writings and discoveries". Madison and Jefferson both went into great detail when weighing the Rights of the Individual Creator's ownership vs. the Rights of the Public to have access to their works; and this clause was a compromise which gave credence to each view.

Of course that exclusive right used to be for a much smaller period, so that things actually entered the public domain relatively quickly. That's the tradeoff- we grant a limited exclusive license so that the public might ultimately benefit. One might argue that that transition should be at least that fast if not faster tody as the world has increased in pace. Instead that right is now almost perpetual as corporations (disney) have bought increases in the copyright term.

[N.E. Brigand]

It's only his right because we've agreed to define it that way. Copyright is a concept that developed over time. (I happen to think it's gone too far.)

A missed opportunity. I gave serious consideration to ending that post with "Cue response from Stu"!

[tesmusic]

While Copyright Laws have and can change, the foundation for Copyright law is not a concept that we frivolously agreed to, nor is it a concept that has developed over time based on fads or whims. The concept is a Constitutional 'Right' grounded in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution; "The 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 writings and discoveries". Madison and Jefferson both went into great detail when weighing the Rights of the Individual Creator's ownership vs. the Rights of the Public to have access to their works; and this clause was a compromise which gave credence to each view.

Copyright is not simply an American idea set forth by the government. It is a global concept, and laws vary greatly. Things that are PD in the USA may not be elsewhere, and vice versa.

One of the many reasons it is such a difficult practice.

[Stu]

Copyright is not simply an American idea set forth by the government. It is a global concept, and laws vary greatly. Things that are PD in the USA may not be elsewhere, and vice versa.

One of the many reasons it is such a difficult practice.

I posted within other threads on DCP that Intellectual Property ownership is an Inalienable Right bestowed by our Creator and not something granted to us by any government; but I was also ridiculed and called a tin-hat wearing buffoon.

[Stu]

Of course that exclusive right used to be for a much smaller period, so that things actually entered the public domain relatively quickly. That's the tradeoff- we grant a limited exclusive license so that the public might ultimately benefit. One might argue that that transition should be at least that fast if not faster tody as the world has increased in pace. Instead that right is now almost perpetual as corporations (disney) have bought increases in the copyright term.

The language within the clause dealing with how long the time limit of exclusivity should be was meant to be vague so that it could be adjusted as needed. For example: exclusivity remaining for a time period after death was, in part, implemented not only to allow bequeath-ownership to a family member but also to discourage people from knocking-off the original author/composer in order to get their work quicker into the public domain.