Re: Song Copyrights and Patents

Don Pearce wrote:

> Suppose you were not a plumber, but made baths. Someone could pay you
> for the first bath you made, but after that you would be expected to
> send them to people for nothing. That would be nice.

Totally absurd example. A better example would be that you made baths.
Someone buys the first one you made, makes a thousand just like it, and
offers them for sale for half what yours cost. Would anyone buy another
one from you? That's what patents are about.

Music copyright is a different story. Suppose you write a song and
record a dreadful version of it that nobody buys except George Martin
who takes it to this new band he's producing called The Beatles, they
put it on their record doing it their way, and their record is a million
seller. Are you entitled to a share of the profit? Probably. Are you
entitled to the share of the profit on records that are still selling 20
years after it first came out? That's probably when The Beatles (whoever
the entity is now) should stop sharing the profit because it's not
selling because it's your song they chose to record, it's selling
because it's their record.

But try to put that argument to a struggling songwriter, or even one who
had a hit that's still going for 90 years, and you'll get no sympathy.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

In article <BDtgk.94$X2.32@trnddc03>, [email protected] says...
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
> > Suppose you were not a plumber, but made baths. Someone could pay you
> > for the first bath you made, but after that you would be expected to
> > send them to people for nothing. That would be nice.
>
> Totally absurd example. A better example would be that you made baths.
> Someone buys the first one you made, makes a thousand just like it, and
> offers them for sale for half what yours cost. Would anyone buy another
> one from you? That's what patents are about.
>
> Music copyright is a different story. Suppose you write a song and
> record a dreadful version of it that nobody buys except George Martin
> who takes it to this new band he's producing called The Beatles, they
> put it on their record doing it their way, and their record is a million
> seller. Are you entitled to a share of the profit? Probably. Are you
> entitled to the share of the profit on records that are still selling 20
> years after it first came out? That's probably when The Beatles (whoever
> the entity is now) should stop sharing the profit because it's not
> selling because it's your song they chose to record, it's selling
> because it's their record.
>
> But try to put that argument to a struggling songwriter, or even one who
> had a hit that's still going for 90 years, and you'll get no sympathy.
>
>
Is the law 75 years then public domain? It's something like that.

I think that's too long myself. It should be 50 years IMHO, if not
less. But 75 is reasonable -- covers the life of the creator in most
cases.

Disney Corp. gets no sympathy from me. Mickey Mouse belongs to all of
us now or he should.

--Nick

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:29:17 -0700, Nick Delonas <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Is the law 75 years then public domain? It's something like that.
>
>I think that's too long myself. It should be 50 years IMHO, if not
>less. But 75 is reasonable -- covers the life of the creator in most
>cases.

Why shouldn't the period cover the life of the creator in ALL cases?

Laurence Payne wrote:

> Why shouldn't the period cover the life of the creator in ALL cases?

Why should it cover the period of life of the creator in ANY cases? The
idea of the royalty system (and its protection by copyright) is to
encourage creativity. If someone writes one song that's a big hit and
lasts a long time, where's the incentive to write another song if he's
collecting a decent wage from one for his whole life?



--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:16:34 GMT, Mike Rivers <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>> Why shouldn't the period cover the life of the creator in ALL cases?
>
>Why should it cover the period of life of the creator in ANY cases? The
>idea of the royalty system (and its protection by copyright) is to
>encourage creativity. If someone writes one song that's a big hit and
>lasts a long time, where's the incentive to write another song if he's
>collecting a decent wage from one for his whole life?

I think you're reading too much moral intention into that law.

On 2008-07-20, Laurence Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Why shouldn't the period cover the life of the creator in ALL cases?
>>
>>Why should it cover the period of life of the creator in ANY cases? The
>>idea of the royalty system (and its protection by copyright) is to
>>encourage creativity. If someone writes one song that's a big hit and
>>lasts a long time, where's the incentive to write another song if he's
>>collecting a decent wage from one for his whole life?
>
> I think you're reading too much moral intention into that law.

You're not saying our law makers are immoral are you?

I was under the impression that at the beginning there was moral
intention. After all, you'd just got rid of something that was meant to
be immoral. In the case of the US aren't the founding fathers seen as
moral? Their constitution is said to be what makes America morally
great.

- Richard

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:10:41 GMT, Mike Rivers <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Music copyright is a different story. Suppose you write a song and
>record a dreadful version of it that nobody buys except George Martin
>who takes it to this new band he's producing called The Beatles, they
>put it on their record doing it their way, and their record is a million
>seller. Are you entitled to a share of the profit? Probably. Are you
>entitled to the share of the profit on records that are still selling 20
>years after it first came out? That's probably when The Beatles (whoever
>the entity is now) should stop sharing the profit because it's not
>selling because it's your song they chose to record, it's selling
>because it's their record.

That's not an argument for or against intellectual property rights -
you're admitting that SOMEONE should continue to profit. You're just
questioning how it's shared between writer and performer.

Laurence Payne wrote:

> That's not an argument for or against intellectual property rights -
> you're admitting that SOMEONE should continue to profit. You're just
> questioning how it's shared between writer and performer.

I'm all for intellectual property rights. When an artist makes a song
his own, though, it's really not the original songwriter's any more,
it's more like a real product than intellectual property. The guy who
makes the bathtubs gets paid to sell them. The guy who designed the
bathtub 50 years ago should have designed something else by then.
Otherwise, he's not really a designer, he just got lucky (just like some
songwriters). Should luck be rewarded? I suppose so. People win lotteries.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me here:
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
([email protected])

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:22:11 +0100, Richard Corfield
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I just feel that what is good for musical scores should also apply to
>>> patents - nothing more. If you write an excellent piece of software
>>> for example why should the owner not benefit to his/her death just as
>>> the musician? I am looking for equality only.You cannot put one above
>>> the other. It's not as if these composers are short of a bob or two in
>>> any case.
>>>
>> crossposting to rec.audio.pro
>
>Why should any of them benefit to their deaths? If I were a plumber and
>plumbed a very good kitchen sink do I expect to be paid until my death?
>A car mechanic? Any other type of job really? If I could be paid until
>death for a month's work rather than having to work another month for
>another month's pay....

If your property is "real" - a house maybe - you have perpetual
ownership and can rent it out as long as anyone wants to live in it.

However "intellectual" property - a musical work, a book - is taken
away from you after a certain number of years.

Justify the difference?