Re: Song Copyrights and Patents

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?

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.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯