Re: Song Copyrights and Patents

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?

Laurence Payne wrote:
> 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.
>

This may or may not be true. It depends on the legal traditions
where the land is located. And it's never without some sort of
tax structure to pay for the protection of the property.

If you don't make the tax payments, you lose the land. So it's
not an absolute.

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

They're justified by the accretion of case law. Roughly, governments
primarily exist to protect property rights and provide for
defense of them. That started with land and has been extended to IP.

--
Les Cargill

On 2008-07-19, Les Cargill <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> However "intellectual" property - a musical work, a book - is taken
>> away from you after a certain number of years.
>>
>> Justify the difference?
>
> They're justified by the accretion of case law. Roughly, governments
> primarily exist to protect property rights and provide for
> defense of them. That started with land and has been extended to IP.

Is it valid to compare the recent increase in "IP" to the loss of common
land (at leas in the UK) all that time ago?

Supposedly we can thank the loss of common land for a lot. I'm not sure
if IP, or all forms of IP, will play out the same way.

- Richard

On 2008-07-19, Laurence Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>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?

Intelectual "Property" is a misnomer. It's not property in any sense.
It's a trade between you and the government for a time limited right.

My ownership of my house does not stop someone building an identical
house next door (planning permission might) and renting it.

- Richard

On Jul 19, 5:24 am, Laurence Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<snip>
> 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?

The idea behind intellectual property protection via patents and
copyright is that in exchange for a limited government-granted
monopoly, the creator of the work agrees that the work will enter the
public domain after a designated period. This provided sufficient
motivation to the creator and has been very successful. However, it is
not clear how much Walt Disney is motivated by extending the length of
copyright for Mickey Mouse, especially since he is no longer with us.
Limited copyright worked very well in the past and there was no
justification for extending the length of copyright. Rest assured that
the media companies will go back repeatedly to congress and demand
that their monopolies be extended ad infinitum so creators have
sufficient motivation.

Richard Corfield wrote:

...

> 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....

That's a red herring. When I worked for pay, everything I created
belonged to those who paid me.

...

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 2008-07-19, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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....
>
> That's a red herring. When I worked for pay, everything I created
> belonged to those who paid me.

When you wrote your music what happened to the physical or recorded
copy?

Some of our jobs are also creative. Should we own the way we do things?

- Richard

Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2008-07-19, Jerry Avins <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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....
>> That's a red herring. When I worked for pay, everything I created
>> belonged to those who paid me.
>
> When you wrote your music what happened to the physical or recorded
> copy?

My engineering notebook was the property of my employer.

> Some of our jobs are also creative. Should we own the way we do things?

If you are paid to do those things, they belong to the one who paid you.
An architect is pais well, but his client owns both the building and the
plans. (Most architects negotiate the right to keep and use copies of
the plans they are paid to create.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯