You can buy the single new on ebay for .05 to a few bucks. 
You can buy the whole album for about the same.
True, but there is an implied limitation to these exclusive rights: “as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility”. It isn’t an endless meal ticket for writers, It is (as Jefferson said in RTF’s quote) a state-granted monopoly on information intended to benefit society. It certainly shouldn’t be a way for corporations to control information near-indefinately, and nor should it be confused with true property (as in the term “Intellectual Property.”) It also shouldn’t be a way for works to fall into obscurity because nobody can track down who owns what decades after the author’s death or the company’s failure.
You seem to have a very poor understanding of modern copyright law. Compulsory licensing does not exist for printed works. The issue here isn’t anything as mundane as profit, it’s about copyright holders having the power to completely censor derivative works.
Without express written permission from Brooke or Holingshead, the plays cannot be published. This wasn’t all that much of a problem when copyright only applied to maps and arrangements of words, but the modern interpretation is much more restrictive.
One cannot borrow characters or situations without permission. Or set someone elses poem to music, or write an opera using a modern libretto, Or translate a work to urdu without first locating and getting the permission of the original author.
Coypright isn’t just the a monopoly on profit from a work, it’s the power to censor anything nearby. If you don’t think that creativity is being stifled, then you just aren’t paying attention.
And it’s not like there is a registry of authors anymore. When copyright law was originally written, it was for maps & books only, it lasted 14 years with optional renewal for another 14 and protected and was available only by registration.
Registration is key because it gurantees that a copy of the work is given to the registrar in exchange for the temporary monopoly. The people didn’t have to count on the copyright holder to preserve the work so that it would still exist when the copyright expired and it became part of the public domaign.
Authors had to make a small effort to get their copyright, and if they didnt’ then the work was automatically not copyrighted. So trivial works of no consequence like emails and posts on a message board would not be copyrighted unless the author went to the aditional effort.
Back in (1963? or '72 maybe?) that rule was changed so that copyright is automatic without any effort. But this has a nasty side effect. there is no way to publish directly into the public domain anymore unsigned, undated works are still presumed to be copyrighted, even if noone knows how to get in touch with the author.
In response to the op
The FF got the term correct (14 years + 14 renewal). Changes since then to include music and films and software are also reasonable, though they should have made terms more relevant to the type of work being protected.
A copyright of 14 years on software is effectively the same thing as forever. By the time software hits the public domaign, its usually impossible to even get a copy of the work, much less find a machine that will run it.
Tejota
While I agree with most of your post, I just want to interject one thought. I think artists should have the right to control how their work is distributed. Many artists are quite open to allowing people to use their work. It happens all the time. But I feel I should have the right to not allow my art to be the background music for a douche commercial if I so choose.
I’m sympathethic, but not very. It’s a bad trade. For the right to prohibit certain uses of your work, you give up the right to build on the work of millions of others.
Think about it. Under current copyright law nothing created in your lifetime we be available to you to use as raw material for your own work unless you first get the permission of the author (or use only tiny fragments). If you don’t do parody, then you are basically screwed unless everything you do is completely original (:rolleyes:) or you infringe but fly under the radar.
Every read any fan fiction? Illegal, all of it. Seen any of the underground movies that are basically anime clips to popular music? Also illegal. How about the guy who shot Star Wars using stop motion animation of legos. Brilliant, but also Illegal. How many years was Heavy Metal unavailable because the music copyrights were owned by about 50 different entities and there was no way to force them to give permission for it it be shown.
On the other hand, The constitution comes down clearly on the side of ‘progress’ over your right to preserve the integrity of your work, unfortunately, this is one area where money has bought a lot of bad law in the last 40 years.
Is it any wonder that the younger generation doesn’t respect copyright law? They can’t comment on their own culture without infriging. In their mind, the public domain is and always will be the work of dead white guys. Everything relevant is copyrighted for life. We’ve put them into a world where it’s infringe or shut up, so is it any wonder that the don’t really put the boundaries of how much infringing is too much where you would like them to?
Oh, and for the record, I create copyrighted material for a living. I would never want to completely give up copyright protection. But I think the term should be much less than a lifetime. I think that
the 14 + 14 year original term was correct.
The goal here is to maximize creativity, not to maximize power in the hands of creators. (or in our world, content holders).
Also, I’d like to strip corporations of the right to hold copyrights. Corporations can’t create anything, so why should we give them the rights of authors? Leave the copyrights with the authors and let the corporations sign contracts to license what they use.
It’s not terribly relevant to the current discussion, but I’d like to share this short story by Spider Robinson
tj
You seem to have a poor ability to parse the written word and a willingness to cast insult for little reason.
Here are my words: Whether Shakespeare’s reference of Brook’s poem would be fair use I do not know, since I do not know whether that work is in fact the sole original source of the Romeo and Juliet story, nor do I know the extent to which Shakespeare used Brook’s language. I did find a comparison of usage between Hollingshead’s work and one of Shakespeare’s historical plays, and I think that one would quite definitely fall under fair use. Hollingshead, as a historian, reports the text of a speech. Shakespeare has a historial character making said speech. Hollingshead is neither the creator of Henry V nor the author of the speech. He would have no recourse under modern copyright laws to prevent Shakespeare from using Henry V or the speech in a play. Brooks may or may not have recourse depending upon whether he originated the story/characters in question. He might have a case on different grounds if the characters and story were not “his”, but Shakespeare lifted significant passages of his language and original treatment.
If your point was only that an author can grant permission for use without receiving monetary reward, then yes you are correct.
It is both.
No, I dont. More precisely, I don’t mourn for the loss of artistic expressions which cannot exist except as parasites upon the recent works of others.
Yes, I am.
Key? Key to what? Your argument that quick release into the public domain is necessary to stimulate derivative creativity fall sapart rather quickly when the public isn’t even aware of the work. If the work wouldn’t be preserved by the public, then what possible benefit is there in granting the public rights to use what they don’t know exists.
Published works in any medium may contain grants for reproduction and use if the author so desires. It is still possible to publish into the public domain, it just can’t be done anonymously.
I think that is an excellent trade, but then again I don’t tend to view the work of others as raw materials for my own benefit. Besides, I notice that you keep dropping the qualifier “without permission”. I give up the right to use other people’s work for my own purposes without permission. I have no problem with that.
And if I feel stifled, well, there are millions of dead artists whom I can pillage to my heart’s content.
Bullshit. They just have to be creative about it.
For the record, would that copyrighted material be software? As you have said, A copyright of 14 years on software is effectively the same thing as forever.
Is software covered by patent or copyright?
That’s a pleasant surprise; I hadn’t even looked. I would expect people to set floor prices on eBay merchandise that were high enough to make it worthwhile to deal with the extra hassle of putting it on eBay, and mailing it off to someone, rather than dumping it and other unwanted junk in a box to take down to the Salvation Army. For me, that would be a few bucks, at least.
That still means it’s gonna cost a buck, minimum, for my postage (or PayPal fees) and theirs (which I have to pay for), which still means a lot of songs aren’t worth it. But it makes a lot of stuff available that previously wasn’t, at prices I’d pay.
So that example, while still having some validity, is a bit weaker than I originally surmised.
Well said, Spiritus Mundi
I have spent my entire life developing my craft. I’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars on my musical education. I have zero tolerance, respect, or sympathy for someone who steals other peoples material because he doesn’t have the ability to create his own work. The ability to steal or borrow, (whichever word makes you feel better about it) is not helping anything. Rather, it is making music bland and boring. When I hear a rap over the Police’s “Every Breath You Take” tracks, it bores me to tears. How unimaginative can you get. I should give up my right to control of my own work so others can write a stupid rhyme, say it over my work, and make millions of dollars of which I’ll never see?
I saw Will Smith accept an award for that “Wild, Wild West” tune a few years ago. The song consists of a rap over a Stevie Wonder track. His started his acceptance speech with “When I wrote this song…” Uh, no, you leech, you didn’t write the song. Yes, you came up with some words over what had already been written, but that isn’t all there is to writing a song. Never mentioned Stevie in the speech at all.
Sorry, but if you can’t create any original ideas of your own, then perhaps you weren’t meant to be an artist.
And the youth that steal music today, do it for the most part because;
A) They haven’t been taught that it is stealing.
B) They know they won’t get caught
C) Hi Opal
D) They listen to ignorant people telling them that they have a right to. (???)
TRF
Software is subject to coyright. Algorithms can be patented.
R . . . T . . . F
My posts, of course, are subject to spontaneous typographical error.
Copyright, although there’s a wrinkle or two. Before new provisions specifically covering software were added to the Copyright Code, software was covered under copyright as a “literary work”, strange as that may seem.
As for the wrinkles, one of the most significant I can think of is Amazon’s “One-Click” ordering, which was patented as a “business method”. Remember, patents also cover procedures, not just useful articles. You have to keep separate in your mind that the business method is patented, while the software used in that method is covered by copyright.
Lord, I love intellectual property.