Does file-sharing demand a new economic model? (long)

[Snag]

First of all, let me say that I love Google. I did a search to verify the length of time copyrights last in the US and it lead me to a site about crochet.

I had no idea crochet patterns were protected. There’s a nice little overview of the law at the site too. In any case, US copyright law currently lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years.

My understanding of the law, at least in regards to music, is that once the work is published, anyone can play it or use it. As long as they pay a royalty to the author if they are making money on it. A band can cover your song (clubs pay annual fees for this right). Likewise the fee allows clubs to play music when they charge you to come in.

You can record it so long as you are willing to pay the artist to put it on your album (although they could command the full fee allowable by law which could be a lot of money coming out of the pocket of a new artist on 100,000 CD’s). Use it for a movie? You pay for that. Playing it at a party: go right ahead.

As part of my OP, I still propose that like it or not, fair or not, copying is not going to away no matter what restrictions are placed on it. I maintain that replication and current copyright violations are going to go through the roof starting in the next few years in ways we never dreamed of. Cloning anyone?

OK, cloning is another thread; I just wanted to suggest something that seems extreme now that emphasizes my point. Assuming that copy, copy, copy is inevitable, how can everyone be happy? First, I still suspect that automatic royalties are not impossible with where an encrypted key hidden in your work keeps track that someone copied your work 10 times, but their identity is protected. What would be a reasonable a royalty for each copy made? What loopholes are there?

Furthermore, are there other ways besides cold, hard cash that would make it worth your while to share rights? I’d like to find out what rights you all think might be reasonable to share, or to let go of. Or bargain with. How about a clearinghouse for larger usage that gives both parties a range of options? They cut the deal for a small fee and both parties are happy. Perhaps a well-established band covers one of your songs on their album for free and in exchange lets you tour a few cities with them as an opening act? Being allowed to put up some of your work in a gallery for use of a picture of your painting for the cover of the gallery owner’s sister’s book? Or you allow short term licensing to a corporation for your logo in return for some temp work for 6 months?

And then again, where exactly is the point where it just needs to be let go?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by pervert
If I may take the liberty, Mr2001, I think he was talking explicitly about the recent increases in the time that copyrights apply. If I am not mistaken, they were recently extended to almost 100 years. I may be underestimating this. If taken in the context of the recent decisions to extend the period, they are effectively unlimited. As long as Disney et. al. continue to ask that Micky Mous continue to be copyrighted, the Congress seems to have zero inclination to deny them. Recently, of course, the Supreme Court said that as long as Congress does not say explicitly that copyrights are extended indeffinately, then they have not violated the Constitution.

Thank you, that’s what I meant; not just the increased terms, but also the retroactive extensions (pulling things out of the public domain) and legally enforced copy protection. Though I’m not surprised that yosemitebabe chose to interpret it as saying that copyright itself was unbalanced, nor that she is trying to paint this as some kind of contempt or prejudice against artists. (By that logic, she has contempt for consumers, the very people who buy her work.)

I think a copyright term of life + 70 years is simply ridiculous, and even life + 0 years is a stretch. Copyright should be granted for a limited time only… not a limited time from the perspective of a historian, a glacier, or a sea turtle, but from the perspective of someone who was alive when the work was released. The patent terms are much more appropriate, IMO - most people who are alive when something new is invented will still be alive when the patent expires, and they’ll be able to use it without restriction.

[pervert]

I admit, that I would be more comfortable with a fixed term. But I can see the reasoning behind using the artist’s life as a factor as well. Art is different than patentable inventions in this regard. Originally, copyright was intended to cover literature and art and these things were not considered economic tools. It seems that inventions were always considered economic tools. Consider the exemptions to copyright for educational purposes, for instance.

This is one of the reasons that I mentioned software in my last post. There seems to be a crossover in some way with software. It is copyrighted, but it is more like an invention than art.

Unfortunately, the only hope we have of changing the current copyright abuses is to change the mind of the Supreme Court. this may only be possible through a constitutional ammendment.
And just to continue my peacemaking, I do understand why yosemitebabe is so frustrated with this argument. Your last post was not an example, but many people are advocating the complete abrogation of all copyrights. That sort of thing is so ridiculous that it can certainly push buttons. It pushes mine quite annoyingly.