Introduction:
This became an afternoon obsession. In the Astro books section there is a thread titled:
Re Stupid Destruction of Sagan's COSMOS! Post # 413743 There are issues about the re-issue, including problems with copyright material such as the original soundtrack. The reissue will be somewhat different and shorter, without the use of Holst's music.
Replying to a post in the thread I posted: “...but I kinda like the shorter copyright length in the Constitution, rather than the increasing longer periods Congress has added on over the past generation.
How long has Holtz[sic] been dead, anyway?”
I received a personal message about my post:
“......Asking how long Holtz has been dead is just plain silly. The artists who performed the music are entitled to copyright protection. As I stated to Herbert, if it was your property you would probably have [a] different opinion. I have yet to meet someone who has objected to the copyright laws [by] someone who has had intellectual property stolen”
Let me reply to some points in the personal message: my comment about how long Holst has been dead, well, of course it's silly. Or flippant. On the one hand, I was trying to be comedic. I forget that if someone was talking to me in person they'd see the look on my face and know I had one foot firmly planted on the not serious. But, being serious, going back to the US Copyright act of 1790 copyrights only extended at most for 28 years, and could only be doubled from the initial 14 years if the creator was still living. The idea that copyrights became an inheritable property is a 20th century invention.
“The artists who performed the music are entitled to copyright protection.....” Agreed. In my post I stated I “kinda liked the ...length in the Constitution.” I was in error. It isn't in the Constitution, but the power is granted to Congress to deal with it. I haven't an opinion of what it should be. But I think extending it 50 years after the death of the creator is too long.
“If it was your property you would probably have [a] different opinion.” As I stated at the end of my original post, I gave anyone permission to use it--unless it's owned by Herb/Astomart—there I am being silly again! Herb probably does own it!
Actually, if I did create anything I would look into Creative Commons limited free use of some sort. I have created works of art and writings, that I have given away. Some of the writings I invented my own limited copyright: copyright for the world, non-profit reproduction granted to all. Some of my friends who are amateur musicians also are doing similar things. In writing this post I just discovered something: Copyleft. Look it up.
Let's take a semi-random walk through some background. Most of this came out of Wikipedia, a commons encyclopedia.
The British Statute of Anne: copyrights lasted 28 years
US Law
United States Copyright act of 1790--granted copyrights for 14 years. A living author could apply for an additional 14 years.
The Copyright act of 1976 extended the time of a copyright from a fixed time to the life of the author plus 50 years. This extended the copyright after the death of the creator to the heirs. It was seen as dealing with two parties: the artists/creators and the publishers. As Lawrence Lessing has pointed out, there is another party: the public. Part of the initial early law looked into rewarding creators (this overlaps into patents for invention) and the benefits to society as a whole. The benefit to society as a whole has been explicitly stated: “Congress may promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting copyrights and patents..”
I can see arising a Darwinian contest between Western societies and China. China may have an economic advantage over the west by ignoring patents and copyrights, with their attendant costs and inefficiencies.
Sonny Bono ...extension act of 1998
Among other items boat hull designs were given protection for the first time. I leaned something new, today. Sail on (see above about being silly). It addresses digital copying and electronic copying, and further extended the lengths of copyrights. The Supreme Court has not accepted permanent copyrights, but some have noted we have perpetual copyrights on the installment plan by Congress extending the length several time. This troubles me and I'm in agreement with Lawrence Lessing.
In the Future: a publisher/manufacturer has additional expense paying for copyrights or patents. There is also the expense of bookkeeping. I can imagine in the future a 'publisher' or 'distributer' deciding to only disseminate free use material. Imagine if a radio station started playing only free use songs. That station would have an economic advantage over their competitors in the market (ignoring possible legislation such as that which effectively killed off Internet radio).
Example:
circa 2001 singer/songwriter Janis Ian allowed free downloads of some of her music,
breaking with recording industry in general. She noted that despite over 30 albums
including several number one hits and many charting lps, she never received a dime of royalties. In fact,
she only got increasing debt against future earnings, due to charges for promotion and what have you. So much for protecting the artists. After offering free downloads on her internet site, paid sales through her website increased a lot.
Also, look up author Cory Doctorow, who has “published” several science fiction stories freely disseminated over the Internet.
Final points. This was mostly written on Open Office, free software (!). I can see in the future that the “market share' of non-royalty free source, creative commons, or currently unimagined devices may increase dramatically. I do not think that copyright or patented items will go away; there is too much money involved. I can also see attempts to stifle freely offered creations by those with vested interests. If that sounds absurd that someone may try to make giving a song away for free it doesn't mean it won't happen. Did you know that there are Medicare and HIPPA laws that restrict doctors discounts to uninsured patients, for the the purpose of protecting insurance companies? I can see laws against non-copywright material being pushed by the big owners of copyrighted material as 'dumping' or some preversion of anti-trust.
I can also see future wars: the US invading a country to stop their “socialistic” ripping off of copyright material being downloaded by minions of Young Americans.
For other points on the commons see Garret Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons.
Sorry, no, I'm not sorry—if you wanted a firm, pat statement of what I think, what my opinion is, or even what the heck I'm talking about, I'm not interested in doing that. What I want is unbounded, undisciplined, free form thought, that flows anywhere and everywhere. That is the starting point of a new born baby.
“What use is electricity?”
“Madam, of what use is a new born baby?” Benjamin Franklin
Of what use is the sunset? Of what use is a star?
“Do you believe in God?”
“I don't believe in the question.”
“Something wonderful in going to happen, Dave.”
This became an afternoon obsession. In the Astro books section there is a thread titled:
Re Stupid Destruction of Sagan's COSMOS! Post # 413743 There are issues about the re-issue, including problems with copyright material such as the original soundtrack. The reissue will be somewhat different and shorter, without the use of Holst's music.
Replying to a post in the thread I posted: “...but I kinda like the shorter copyright length in the Constitution, rather than the increasing longer periods Congress has added on over the past generation.
How long has Holtz[sic] been dead, anyway?”
I received a personal message about my post:
“......Asking how long Holtz has been dead is just plain silly. The artists who performed the music are entitled to copyright protection. As I stated to Herbert, if it was your property you would probably have [a] different opinion. I have yet to meet someone who has objected to the copyright laws [by] someone who has had intellectual property stolen”
Let me reply to some points in the personal message: my comment about how long Holst has been dead, well, of course it's silly. Or flippant. On the one hand, I was trying to be comedic. I forget that if someone was talking to me in person they'd see the look on my face and know I had one foot firmly planted on the not serious. But, being serious, going back to the US Copyright act of 1790 copyrights only extended at most for 28 years, and could only be doubled from the initial 14 years if the creator was still living. The idea that copyrights became an inheritable property is a 20th century invention.
“The artists who performed the music are entitled to copyright protection.....” Agreed. In my post I stated I “kinda liked the ...length in the Constitution.” I was in error. It isn't in the Constitution, but the power is granted to Congress to deal with it. I haven't an opinion of what it should be. But I think extending it 50 years after the death of the creator is too long.
“If it was your property you would probably have [a] different opinion.” As I stated at the end of my original post, I gave anyone permission to use it--unless it's owned by Herb/Astomart—there I am being silly again! Herb probably does own it!
Actually, if I did create anything I would look into Creative Commons limited free use of some sort. I have created works of art and writings, that I have given away. Some of the writings I invented my own limited copyright: copyright for the world, non-profit reproduction granted to all. Some of my friends who are amateur musicians also are doing similar things. In writing this post I just discovered something: Copyleft. Look it up.
Let's take a semi-random walk through some background. Most of this came out of Wikipedia, a commons encyclopedia.
The British Statute of Anne: copyrights lasted 28 years
US Law
United States Copyright act of 1790--granted copyrights for 14 years. A living author could apply for an additional 14 years.
The Copyright act of 1976 extended the time of a copyright from a fixed time to the life of the author plus 50 years. This extended the copyright after the death of the creator to the heirs. It was seen as dealing with two parties: the artists/creators and the publishers. As Lawrence Lessing has pointed out, there is another party: the public. Part of the initial early law looked into rewarding creators (this overlaps into patents for invention) and the benefits to society as a whole. The benefit to society as a whole has been explicitly stated: “Congress may promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting copyrights and patents..”
I can see arising a Darwinian contest between Western societies and China. China may have an economic advantage over the west by ignoring patents and copyrights, with their attendant costs and inefficiencies.
Sonny Bono ...extension act of 1998
Among other items boat hull designs were given protection for the first time. I leaned something new, today. Sail on (see above about being silly). It addresses digital copying and electronic copying, and further extended the lengths of copyrights. The Supreme Court has not accepted permanent copyrights, but some have noted we have perpetual copyrights on the installment plan by Congress extending the length several time. This troubles me and I'm in agreement with Lawrence Lessing.
In the Future: a publisher/manufacturer has additional expense paying for copyrights or patents. There is also the expense of bookkeeping. I can imagine in the future a 'publisher' or 'distributer' deciding to only disseminate free use material. Imagine if a radio station started playing only free use songs. That station would have an economic advantage over their competitors in the market (ignoring possible legislation such as that which effectively killed off Internet radio).
Example:
circa 2001 singer/songwriter Janis Ian allowed free downloads of some of her music,
breaking with recording industry in general. She noted that despite over 30 albums
including several number one hits and many charting lps, she never received a dime of royalties. In fact,
she only got increasing debt against future earnings, due to charges for promotion and what have you. So much for protecting the artists. After offering free downloads on her internet site, paid sales through her website increased a lot.
Also, look up author Cory Doctorow, who has “published” several science fiction stories freely disseminated over the Internet.
Final points. This was mostly written on Open Office, free software (!). I can see in the future that the “market share' of non-royalty free source, creative commons, or currently unimagined devices may increase dramatically. I do not think that copyright or patented items will go away; there is too much money involved. I can also see attempts to stifle freely offered creations by those with vested interests. If that sounds absurd that someone may try to make giving a song away for free it doesn't mean it won't happen. Did you know that there are Medicare and HIPPA laws that restrict doctors discounts to uninsured patients, for the the purpose of protecting insurance companies? I can see laws against non-copywright material being pushed by the big owners of copyrighted material as 'dumping' or some preversion of anti-trust.
I can also see future wars: the US invading a country to stop their “socialistic” ripping off of copyright material being downloaded by minions of Young Americans.
For other points on the commons see Garret Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons.
Sorry, no, I'm not sorry—if you wanted a firm, pat statement of what I think, what my opinion is, or even what the heck I'm talking about, I'm not interested in doing that. What I want is unbounded, undisciplined, free form thought, that flows anywhere and everywhere. That is the starting point of a new born baby.
“What use is electricity?”
“Madam, of what use is a new born baby?” Benjamin Franklin
Of what use is the sunset? Of what use is a star?
“Do you believe in God?”
“I don't believe in the question.”
“Something wonderful in going to happen, Dave.”
The only thing wrong with censorship is [deleted].
