Jump to content

Copyrights And Common Sense


Recommended Posts

OK - my $0.02

Do copyright holders have the right to be compensated for their creative works - darn tootin' they do.

BUT

The length of time they are granted those exclusive rights is simply ludicrous. I mean, c'mon - as much as 120 YEARS???

Let's compare to the pharmaceutical industry. New drugs are granted exclusivity for 20 YEARS AFTER INVENTION. That's INVENTION, not for sale on the market. Your average drug takes 8-10 years and millions (and sometimes tens of millions) of dollars to develop and bring to the market. That is 8-10 years of the exclusivity gone during development. And the vast majority of compounds being developed never come to market so the millions invested in them go down the toilet.

Now don't get me wrong - this isn't to say that pharmaceutical companies aren't obscenely profitable with what they do, they are. But to suggest that composers should have up to 120 years of exclusivity for their compositions but pharmaceutical companies only get 10-12 years (which is all that is typically left of the 20 years if/when a drug gets approved for sale) on a drug they expended years of research and millions of dollars to develop is beyond insane.

The essential difference here however is that the 20 year protection woth these new drugs seems fitting, as within those 20 years, oftentimes new drugs come in that are a newer generation, and have been refined, improved, etc in some way. Music compositions are quite different in that they are not replaced with newer generation compositions. They naturally need longer time protections. There are few new drugs today that need a 120 year patent protection, unlike the music compositions that in some cases can even be deemed as timeless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of excerpts from an article written by critic at large Louis Menand from New Yorker Magazine, Oct 20, 2014:

Lawyers remember that ASCAP once demanded that the Girl Scouts pay royalties for copyrighted songs sung around the campfire, and that Warner Bros., the producer of “Casablanca,” went into action when it learned that the Marx Brothers were making a movie called “A Night in Casablanca.” (Groucho, in turn, wondered whether Warner Bros. had the rights to the word “brothers.”) You think these laws don’t affect you? Warner/Chappell Music claims to own the copyright to “Happy Birthday to You.”

...

Cultural consumers are not organized at all. They can speak only through their elected representatives, but most of those people will be listening to the money—to the lobbyists for the content industries, new and old, as those industries search for more reliable ways to squeeze profits...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are still two points of emphasis here:

1. Owners of copyright protection DO NOT have to be compensated..... they merely must extend permission.

2. Our discussion has not mentioned the most important point: ALTERING the original composition. Holders vary as much in their approach to this as they do to a need for compensation.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of Crown, is Beethoven's music copyrighted? If not, what copyright laws are we violating watching their show?

I'm just wondering, I really don't know how this all works.

Doubt that the Beethoven has any copyright, but I'm sure the Copeland does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of Crown, is Beethoven's music copyrighted? If not, what copyright laws are we violating watching their show?

I'm just wondering, I really don't know how this all works.

The original copyright law protected music for 14 years from publication, plus another 14 years if renewed. The length of protection has been continually lengthened and now is:

  • For original works created after 1977, copyright lasts for the life of author/creator + 70 years from the author’s death for his/her heirs.
  • For “works made for hire” corporate works and anonymous works created after 1977, copyright can last from 95-120 years from publication.

That's why classical music, such as Beethoven's, is in the public domain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

over60, on 11 Aug 2015 - 7:15 PM, said:

2. What you have in mind would entail a major revision of the principles of copyright law. It's politically unworkable. All the music, TV, and movie interests, all of whom contribute heavily to US politicians, would stop this deader than a corpse. It wouldn't get out of committee in Congress.

...and it shouldn't either, imo. Many of these artists were not rich in some cases when they wrote the piece. It was they that took the heavy risk to continue in their craft when others told them to abandon Music or the Arts for something less insecure as an occupation. Most artists, composers, etc in the Arts die penniless, or in need of their fellow citizen's benevolence to allow them to have a roof over their heads, and not starve to death. Some composers don't fit this profile, of course, but many do. Besides, it is the very existence of the US Constitutional protections of copywrites of the invention that allows people to pursue risky careers in the Arts, Music, etc in the first place. ( or entrepreneurs in self employment small businesses to devise a new wackadoodle ) Take away or diminish the protection rights of the inventor to control the revenues and the rights to his invention, and we'd have less inventors, and more people sitting in small cubicles at Fortune 500 Companies drawing a stable, but small paycheck, while losing functional brain cells with each boring year. Remember, it is the writer of the music, or the inventor of the invention, that worked tirelessly in that risky endeavor.. not the guy who comes along later and wants to use that guys creation willy nilly, and then complains that it costs too much, or the creator is selfish or whatever. If some less risk tolerant person does not want to use somebody's else's hard work piece and pay for it, then let them write their own music and use that, and stop whining and complaining. ( and several DCI Music Composers do precisely that already, ie write their own music. ).

Edited by BRASSO
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and it shouldn't either, imo. Many of these artists were not rich in some cases when they wrote the piece. It was they that took the heavy risk to continue in their craft when others told them to abandon Music or the Arts for something less insecure as an occupation. Most artists, composers, etc in the Arts die penniless, or in need of their fellow citizen's benevolence to allow them to not starve to death. Some composers don't fit this profile, of course, but many do. Besides, it is the very existence of the US Constitutional protections of copywrites of the invention that allows people to pursue risky careers in the Arts, Music, etc in the first place. ( or entrepreneurs in self employment small businesses to devise a new wackadoodle ) Take away the protection rights of the inventor to control the revenues and the rights to his invention, and we'd have less inventors, and more people sitting in small cubicles at Fortune 500 Companies drawing a stable, but small paycheck, while losing functional brain cells with each boring year. Remember, it is the writer of the music, or the inventor of the invention, that worked tirelessly in that risky endeavor.. not the guy who comes along later and wants to use that guys creation willy nilly, and then complains that it costs too much, or the creator is selfish or whatever. If some less risk tolerant person does not want to use somebody's else's hard work piece and pay for it, then let them write their own music and use that, and stop whining and complaining. ( and several DCI Music Composers do precisely that already ).

BRASSO, I greatly enjoyed this post (as well as your former one, #41). I find it rather amusing that there are those who think enough of their abilities that they may take musically artisitic creations of the past and, through their more informed ability or sense of propriety, may further "refine, improve, etc." them in some way (quoted words being yours from post #41.) Further, I would hazard to guess that those who question or bemoan the rights money they have to pay to make such alterations are far more concerned with the remunerative aspect of the art then those, themselves, who originally created them. If I were to hold that I possessed the ability to "refine" a composition of Bernstein, Copland, Bruckner, Mahler, or Shostakovich, et. al., then maybe I should be more concerned with producing an original work from the mind of my own, rather than simply "refining" the work of one already known and accepted to be, in the "musical" world, as a "master." In any case, if nobody else steps forward in agreement with you...I do. But then again...I'm just a suck-up. ( :sarcasm: )

Edited by HornTeacher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and it shouldn't either, imo. Many of these artists were not rich in some cases when they wrote the piece. It was they that took the heavy risk to continue in their craft when others told them to abandon Music or the Arts for something less insecure as an occupation. Most artists, composers, etc in the Arts die penniless, or in need of their fellow citizen's benevolence to allow them to have a roof over their heads, and not starve to death. Some composers don't fit this profile, of course, but many do. Besides, it is the very existence of the US Constitutional protections of copywrites of the invention that allows people to pursue risky careers in the Arts, Music, etc in the first place. ( or entrepreneurs in self employment small businesses to devise a new wackadoodle ) Take away or diminish the protection rights of the inventor to control the revenues and the rights to his invention, and we'd have less inventors, and more people sitting in small cubicles at Fortune 500 Companies drawing a stable, but small paycheck, while losing functional brain cells with each boring year. Remember, it is the writer of the music, or the inventor of the invention, that worked tirelessly in that risky endeavor.. not the guy who comes along later and wants to use that guys creation willy nilly, and then complains that it costs too much, or the creator is selfish or whatever. If some less risk tolerant person does not want to use somebody's else's hard work piece and pay for it, then let them write their own music and use that, and stop whining and complaining. ( and several DCI Music Composers do precisely that already, ie write their own music. ).

I agree up to a point. I don't see the need for the composers great-great-great grandkids to keep exclusive rights. Earlier I gave the example of pharmaceutical patents. Being that drug companies are in general multi-billion dollar behemoths maybe that comparison while apt may not have been best example.

The same concept would apply to small time inventors. Like composers most probably struggle financially and are "encouraged" to get "real jobs". If they get lucky and come up with something that is actually viable and lucrative they will receive a payday - the size depending on the marketability of the product. They are protected by patent exclusivity for a time when no one else can copy the product without compensating them (except the Chinese of course who pirate everything). When the patent expires - it's up for grabs - just like public domain music. Unlike music, their exclusivity is generally 20 years total with no chance of extending it except in few instances. With current music copyright laws, music exclusivity lasts ###### nearly forever.

Just seems out of whack to me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree up to a point. I don't see the need for the composers great-great-great grandkids to keep exclusive rights. Earlier I gave the example of pharmaceutical patents. Being that drug companies are in general multi-billion dollar behemoths maybe that comparison while apt may not have been best example.

The same concept would apply to small time inventors. Like composers most probably struggle financially and are "encouraged" to get "real jobs". If they get lucky and come up with something that is actually viable and lucrative they will receive a payday - the size depending on the marketability of the product. They are protected by patent exclusivity for a time when no one else can copy the product without compensating them (except the Chinese of course who pirate everything). When the patent expires - it's up for grabs - just like public domain music. Unlike music, their exclusivity is generally 20 years total with no chance of extending it except in few instances. With current music copyright laws, music exclusivity lasts ###### nearly forever.

Just seems out of whack to me.

I) While Alexander Graham Bell's successfully working rendition of the telephone might be termed as being "fortuitous," I would hardly call it "lucky."

2) For how long should the creator of a work of art receive his (or her) deserved "payday?" And tell me...who is to determine when the amount which they receve is considered to be "lucrative?)

3) I WILL, however, support your contention that all of this seems out of whack. To the extent, however, that the creator never receives a just reward which is commensurate with the days, years, decades, and centuries which mankind is able to enjoy and be inspired by that one person's vision and labors. And while it may be true that a composer's "great-great-great-grandkids" shouldn't be in receipt of the fullest extent of earnings from their ancestor...neither should some face-less company who just happens to have fortuitously found itself in possession of the rights to the work of art in the first place.

Edited by HornTeacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...