School me on Intellectual Property and copyright

[flatfinger]

I know quite allot , but probably not enough about it ...

( I know there are lawyers who spend their entire careers doing it so it can't be Simple Simon can it ?)


I know that in the context of music the genesis is when player pianos with paper rolls where introduced and it was a way to compensate composers or musicians for lost income ??

One thing I notice allot is there are comments in various threads about how the recorded music industry is so small a part of the economy by percentage that it will not get legislative help with unapproved distribution or use ...

(You know , I naively thought ten or twelve years ago that these problems would have been ironed out by this time !!)

There doesn't seem to be a connection made about the canary in a coal mine effect and that other industries ( software and audio DAW plugins for example ) are also suffering ill effects ..

I also see allot of post where the whole concept of being remunerated for some years after the creation of a piece is questioned and there seems to almost be resentment in the whole concept ; I.E. If i work today then I get payed for today ... Someone even coined a derisive term "mail box money" or at least that's what I thought it was meant to infer ; negative and undeserved... Seems a little socialist or like class warfare type jealousy or something , but architects don't get payed every time someone looks at a building ..

; What makes ( or made !) music different ??

What were the original legislators trying to accomplish when the made this system up ? Reward innovation ?? Make people pay for stuff to promote commerce ??

I hope that people see that a company that innovates a new widget ( and spends a ton in R& D to get there) needs a chance to recover their investment and That folks are the O.K. with them having some exclusivity ( at least for awhile ) to make some profits then. ) I realize that's patent law but it does seem to be somewhat analgous.

I know that generic drugs are allot cheaper and it would seem that we need that in order to keep things like that available to all who need it ...


I'm hoping we can just stay on the whole concept of Intellectual property and copyright from the standpoint of how it's supposed to work in concept ; a cost benefit analysis if you will .


It doesn't seem like it should be something political or have it's validity brought in to question . But things are changing at light speed lately so what do I know ??

School me TGP




TX !!

.

 

[Scott Whigham]

I tried to follow your line of thought but honestly I just couldn't. I like talking about this sort of thing but (a) there's a lot of rambling in your post, (b) the formatting is tough to follow, and (c) the grammar is tough to follow. I can handle raw formatting or grammar and even rambling but mixing all three together? It's just too much mental work for me to try to make it cohesive. Sorry.

 

[Dereksslide]

Generics are off-patent.

 

[phil_m]

Well, you're asking a whole lot of questions. Originally, though, I'd say copyright was meant more as a way to promote culture within society than it was to ensure that artists or creators received compensation. What copyright did was say that the person or company who held the right for a certain work was the only one who could print or reproduce that work. It was not long after the invention of the printing press that copyright came into existence. The printing press was the first technology that allowed mass copying of written works. So what happened was that anyone with a printing press could print whatever they wanted, could alter it, profit from it, etc. In that environment, you can see how creators would have no control over their work.

So what copyright law does is say, "OK, for this amount of time, only Printer A is permitted to print copies of this book." It's in essence giving that printer a temporary monopoly. It in essence gives the printer an incentive to invest money and capital into the start-up costs needed to start printing that book without the fear that his competitor will all of the sudden undercut him. So, yes, copyright does give some amount of protection to the intellectual property itself, but its inherent purpose was to incentivize businesses to invest in the culture.

The somewhat ironic thing is that with the copyright term being extended longer and longer in the US, you could argue that it actually working against its original purpose to a degree. The fact that works are being prevented from entering the public domain actually means that in some way artists and writers have less access to culture that they would otherwise be able to access and use freely.

 

[gearandguitars]

I'm hoping we can just stay on the whole concept of Intellectual property and copyright from the standpoint of how it's supposed to work in concept ; a cost benefit analysis if you will .

our copyright laws are just fine, it's the enforcement of those laws to protect the individual rights of creators that is lacking.

it is generally recognized that the birth of copyright as we understand it today was established with the statute of anne in 1710. the founders of the US constitution also upheld these values, which had been further refined through copyright acts and recognized as a Universal Human Right by The United Nations in 1948.

this is informative reading:
http://www.copyhype.com/references/

 

[gearandguitars]

yes, copyright does give some amount of protection to the intellectual property itself, but its inherent purpose was to incentivize businesses to invest in the culture.

no, copyright is an individual right granted to the creator as a means of both protection of the creators labor and the vehicle to which the author/creator can barter, sell, or otherwise negotiate those rights for compensation.

again, copyright is an individual right to protect individuals from exploitation without compensation.

 

[A-Bone]

no, copyright is an individual right granted to the creator as a means of both protection of the creators labor and the vehicle to which the author/creator can barter, sell, or otherwise negotiate those rights for compensation.

again, copyright is an individual right to protect individuals from exploitation without compensation.

Yes and no. In the US in particular, it is instructive to look at the specific language used in the clause of the US Constitution that grants congressional authority over creating and maintaing the copyright and patent systems.

"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."

You will note that the clause begins with the phrase "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," which clearly establishes as a primary purpose the societal benefit from securing exclusive rights to authors and inventors for a limited time. To gloss over a primary benefit being societal rather than individual is to be disingenuous at best, and ill informed at worst. In this sense, copyright exists to foster collective growth in sciences and arts. We are better off if inventors and creators are protected such that they are willing to share their creations, discoveries and inventions, as other inventors and creators can build on them in the right circumstances.

Now, where you aren't wrong is that, by necessity the rights covered under copyright are conferred to the rights holder (whether the creator or the corporation that employs the literal creator in certain circumstances). In this sense, a given copyright is "individual" (in quotes only because there are rights held jointly, or corporately and the like).

A broad discussion of IP or copyright might well be beyond the scope of a forum like this, but we certainly can discuss narrower issues raised by the OP or others on the board.

 

[A-Bone]

our copyright laws are just fine, it's the enforcement of those laws to protect the individual rights of creators that is lacking.

Copyright laws are not "just fine." The current landscape demonstrates just how not fine they are. Now, I am not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but both copyright and patent are long overdue for some congressional reworking statutorily. I am a staunch champion of the central tenets of intellectual property more generally (honoring the work of the sweat of the brow and all that), but the current regime is certainly not "fine."

it is generally recognized that the birth of copyright as we understand it today was established with the statute of anne in 1710. the founders of the US constitution also upheld these values, which had been further refined through copyright acts and recognized as a Universal Human Right by The United Nations in 1948.

Definitely the case that the Statute of Anne is regarded as the birth of copyright as we know it, and this was undoubtedly on the mind of the Founders in the US, as well as the Congress that first established the original copyright act in the US. Since copyright is under congressional authority, the laws concerning it have undergone extensive modifications over the centuries, extending rights to new areas (like sound recording), changing the registration process, extending the term, etc.

The US Supreme Court has also contributed case law doctrine to the understanding and enforcement of what the clause in the Constitution means, as well as how to interpret copyright law under the various regimes we have seen. As with all legal areas, it is not as simple as it is sometimes made out to be outside of the IP law arena.

Also, while it is true that copyright and intellectual property generally are recognized as Universal Human Rights by the UN, this does not carry much if any force in a practical sense. As with the UHR charter generally, it seems more aspirational than practical. Note the wildly different levels of respect conferred to IP by signatories to the convention and charter, and equally the inconsistency of those nations in respecting copyrights from other nations.

 

[A-Bone]

The somewhat ironic thing is that with the copyright term being extended longer and longer in the US, you could argue that it actually working against its original purpose to a degree. The fact that works are being prevented from entering the public domain actually means that in some way artists and writers have less access to culture that they would otherwise be able to access and use freely.

Indeed. The public domain is a crucial element of copyright as envisioned from its inception, as well. Hence the included language about limited time for copyright in the Constitution.

It is worth noting that the vast majority of copyrights of substantial monetary value are held by corporations, rather than individual creators, and it has been industrial lobbying that has extended the term to where it is now, rather than a desire to look out for individual authors and their ability to recoup their intellectual investment in the creation.

Also, outside of sophistry, it strikes me as pretty ridiculous to extend the copyright term well beyond the lifespan of the creator and still consider it "for a limited time" (which is a constitutional requirement), but a majority of the Supreme Court clearly felt otherwise when they heard arguments about this.

 

[Echoes]

who exactly 'owns' what on this ridiculous globe?

 

[phil_m]

again, copyright is an individual right to protect individuals from exploitation without compensation.

I don't really outright deny that this is the case at the current time, but if we're talking about its inception, that really wasn't its purpose. Its purpose really can be found in its name - it was law that spelled out who was authorized to make copies of works. To borrow a phrase from Wikipedia, "Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed."

I also would say this, to echo what A-Bone already said. I don't think we can say that copyright exists necessarily as an individual right when a large portion, perhaps a majority even, of the copyrights now existing are held by corporations. The fact that you can sell the rights to a created work to a company or someone else actually works against the idea that copyright is something like an inalienable human right. If were an inalienable right, it would be invaluable and not be available to be bought or sold. It's a mechanism that was created to allow creators and publishers to monetize works and give them protection while doing so.

 

[burningyen]

I like A-Bone's summary. One thing that's not immediately obvious to modern readers of the Constitutional language is that "Science" in those days meant knowledge generally, not just scientific knowledge, and "the useful Arts" meant technology.

 

[Echoes]

would it be possible to redefine the current copyright law into one or two sentence simple 'principle?' a 'principle' that includes esoteric things like art, design, music and certain 'social network' literature.

Seems the basic law just needs a simple 'facelift' as opposed to a total foundational basis rewrite IMO.

 

[flatfinger]

Thank you for these responses warning although I wasn't expecting the grammar- sentence- structure/ copy editor- police to show .....!! )

I was trying to cast my net wide so I guess that explains some of the rambling tangental side bars... anyhow please forgive me if I mangle the language a little...


When this thread was of the front page after only a half a day I was sliding into negative thinking because this subject should be important at a so called musicians page ( although I know gear is first and foremost ; getting some income would sure grease the skids toward financing the GAS ..)


SO am I right in making a connection between player pianos and mechanical liscensing ?? If so , it would seem that the world has change allot since the turn of the last century and a rebuilding is in order .... there is no denying that physical media is kaputz ... ( I know vinyl lives a undead existence and some want hardcopies , but long term how big of a percentage will that be ??)





Also , since I am hoping for enlightenment , could some of you more knowledgeable types compare and contrast what the differences in intent and desired outcomes are between copyright and the new fangled Creative Commons ?? The latter one seems to be a little toothless and overly Dependant on the " avoid obscurity " mantra .....




TX again guys

 

[flatfinger]

Also, while it is true that copyright and intellectual property generally are recognized as Universal Human Rights by the UN, this does not carry much if any force in a practical sense. .

Yup , very big difference between making a law and enforcing it .....
The History Channel has a show that plays footage from the pre WWII League of Nations where the Japanese representative just says " this is not acceptable " and walks out after the members censured Japan ( or whatever it was they do ) about there activities in China throughout the 1930's.

And we know about prohibition and how well that worked out....



.

 

[gearandguitars]

Thank you for these responses warning although I wasn't expecting the grammar- sentence- structure/ copy editor- police to show .....!! )

I was trying to cast my net wide so I guess that explains some of the rambling tangental side bars... anyhow please forgive me if I mangle the language a little...


When this thread was of the front page after only a half a day I was sliding into negative thinking because this subject should be important at a so called musicians page ( although I know gear is first and foremost ; getting some income would sure grease the skids toward financing the GAS ..)


SO am I right in making a connection between player pianos and mechanical liscensing ?? If so , it would seem that the world has change allot since the turn of the last century and a rebuilding is in order .... there is no denying that physical media is kaputz ... ( I know vinyl lives a undead existence and some want hardcopies , but long term how big of a percentage will that be ??)

Also , since I am hoping for enlightenment , could some of you more knowledgeable types compare and contrast what the differences in intent and desired outcomes are between copyright and the new fangled Creative Commons ?? The latter one seems to be a little toothless and overly Dependant on the " avoid obscurity " mantra .....

TX again guys

creative commons serves no practical purpose that can not be achieved through any other means of licensing. the two biggest issues with creative commons are 1) that it is non-revokable, and 2) you work can be used in any context without your permission including political messaging, hate propaganda, snuff films, violence towards women, etc.

personally, I wouldn't want to endorse any of that stuff, and once you put your work into creative commons it can be used for any of that… not cool.

it's also important to note, that if creative commons is really a solution, and so much great stuff is being given into creative commons and given away freely then why is there so much energy being put into that which is not being given?

 

[Whiskeyrebel]

To turn this question toward a more specific aspect, does anyone know whether Facebook's terms of use allows Facebook to sell the rights to perform or record a song that I place on my FB page? I'm leery of using FB to share my songs for this reason.

 

[phil_m]

To turn this question toward a more specific aspect, does anyone know whether Facebook's terms of use allows Facebook to sell the rights to perform or record a song that I place on my FB page? I'm leery of using FB to share my songs for this reason.

Well, here's what Facebook's terms of service says about IP content.

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
3. When you use an application, the application may ask for your permission to access your content and information as well as content and information that others have shared with you. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, including how you can control what information other people may share with applications, read our Data Use Policy and Platform Page.)
4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
5. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

How I interpret that is that they could only do that if the music you put up there was not copyrighted in the first place. So if you aren't registered with BMI or ASCAP, I suppose there is a chance they could use it in that sense. However, if you put something copyrighted up there, they still have to abide by the copyright statute. They can't use it without paying for it.

I would say that if you want to share music on Facebook, rather than actually uploading it on Facebook, you're probably better off using a third party like SoundCloud or BandCamp and than just post the link.

 

[izzy]

To turn this question toward a more specific aspect, does anyone know whether Facebook's terms of use allows Facebook to sell the rights to perform or record a song that I place on my FB page? I'm leery of using FB to share my songs for this reason.

Here's some answers - done by The American Society of Media Photographers for their members-

http://asmp.org/fb-tos#.UvOcjf3qU-Y

For the record I only link to work now on FB.

 

[gearandguitars]

Well, here's what Facebook's terms of service says about IP content.

How I interpret that is that they could only do that if the music you put up there was not copyrighted in the first place. So if you aren't registered with BMI or ASCAP, I suppose there is a chance they could use it in that sense. However, if you put something copyrighted up there, they still have to abide by the copyright statute. They can't use it without paying for it.

I would say that if you want to share music on Facebook, rather than actually uploading it on Facebook, you're probably better off using a third party like SoundCloud or BandCamp and than just post the link.

pretty much the only music that would not be copyrighted is that which is in the public domain (which would have to extend to both the master recording the underlying composition). any original work is copyrighted at inception and does not require registration with the us copyright office or any PRO to be copyrighted and to afford protection under the law.