Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

Copyright is sheep\'s clothing: A rebuttal of Copyright, Intellectual Property and Mozart

Copyright, Intellectual Property and Mozart
Published by Prosario_2000 on 2005/6/1 (215 reads)
<
Firstly what is copyright? Suporting of copyright such at Prosario_2000 like to use the term like it means \'The exclusive right of authors to make copys of their works\' but that is not what copyright is. The definition From my Webster\'s Unabridged dictionary of the English Language is \"1. the exclusive right to make copies, license, and oherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc,\" Authorship have nothing to do with it. Again for the more dense among you Copyright is NOT a Author\'s right. Copyright is a Propietor\'s right. This aspect of there deceit is evedent in thier calling The British Statute of Anne, of 1710 as the first copyright act in the world.
While the only first about it is it\'s use of the Author as a Proprietor of a work.

They ingor the Licensing Act of 1662 and the earlier Star Chamber decree in 1637, wich gave copyright to the Stationers\' Company.

They might say Well The British Statute of Anne, of 1710, is the first modren Copyright but that is a lie too sence what seperated the Statute of Anne from the Licensing Acts was that copyrights of the Statute of Anne were not perpetual and they went back to Auther afther the first term. Copyrights never go back to the Author and are for all porposes perpetual.
>

Copyright has a reason for being.
<
Nazi\'s germany\'s Final Solution had a reason for being.
>
In principle, no one should be against copyright.
<
In principle, on one should be against nazi\'s germany\'s Final Solution. \'In principle\' doesn\'t work so go does it?
>
<<
The Final Solution is a solution to te problem or clonfict. Dead people are just naturely peaceful bunch.
The whole is more than the sum of it parts. and even thou the Final Solution is made out of genuinly good principles it\'s whole is more than thouse principles and that extra happenst to be vary bad. The mass don\'t like that. thay wan\'t to beable to throw any good together and not have to worry about the interactions for any badness to come from it. They if A is good and B is good then the combination of A and B to be good.
>>
It is a matter for social justice to some extent within
capitalist relations of production.
<
No excluse or Yes. It\'s not clear what hy means by capitalist.

The definition of capitalistis:
n.
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.

Capitalism is the idea the market, compleatly unreagulated will run itself better than anything else.
There is no such thing as a \'black market\' in capitalism. Copyright says you need permision to sell. Capitalism says you don\'t need permision to buy or sell anything. So if he means capitalism is in some way compatible of supportive of copyright hy is wronge.

If by capitalist hy means the older meaning of an owner of great capital and their micro-mercantilism(Micro-Mercantilism: An economic system based on the premise that personal wealth and power are best served by increasing profits and collecting capital.) ideals I would agree with hy.
>

Copyright was born when the printing press began to exist. It was a very important step with respect to diffusion of ideas and works which was completely unprecedented in history. Copyright in some cases was a kind of censorship,
but it eventually became the means by which an author was paid for commercial use of his or her work.
<
Fisrt that assumes that an Author\'s work are thier proporty. Second I don\'t know of any examples of that happening.
>
In that way, stationaries and companies which published those works gave the author the respective share for the profit.
<
well at least hy used the passtense since it suretantly isn\'t how it works now.
\"I think it\'s bull. I\'ve only had profit-sharing in one movie, and according to the studio it never made a profit *cough*bullshit*cough* . . . so even if it had been pirated, I wouldn\'t have been affected by the loss of revenue. To be honest, piracy hasn\'t hurt me as much as creative studio accounting has\"
Wil Wheaton, Wil Wheaton Strikes Back, Slashdot.org
http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/27/0926218&tid=97&tid=129&tid=192&tid=214&tid=11&tid=10
>

Today\\\'s big corporations which own practically the vast majority of the media today, have actually convinced the public that Copyright is actually \\\"intellectual property\\\", and that one \\\"owns\\\" an expression thanks to Copyright the same way one owns a house or a car.
People,
<
Hy didn\'t inculde Prosario_2000 not that I\'m surprized.
>
usually lawyers, get shocked when it is argued that this view is completely false. People suppose that the phrase \\\"intellectual property\\\" began with copyright and/or patents. In reality it was not until the half of the XXth century that copyright began to be treated in such a way.
<
\"...whereby the Property in every such Book, as is intended by this Act to be Secured to the proprietor or Proprietors thereof,...\" the British Statute of Anne. \'intellectual property\' may be a new phrase it is clear that They regarded copyright as some sort of property.
>
The phrase \\\"intellectual property\\\" was invented in the United Nations\\\' World Intellectual property Organization in 1967. Originally Copyright and Patents were completely dissociated, and had their own history and their own areas of law.
<
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article. I. Section. 8. Clause 8: \"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries\" Not too dissociated there. Now I\'m not too good with roman numerals but isn\'t 1787 I little befor the XXth century?
>

In the case of Copyright, it was originally created to do justice to the author
<
Copyright was created not in the Statute of Anne but in Licensing Acts, not for juctice to author\'s but for censorship. The goverment gave the momopoly of selling book not to the authors but to the Stationer\'s Company in exchange for the Stationer\'s Company not printing anything the goverment didn\'t like.

Justice to the author had nothing to do with it. From The Statute of Anne \"An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in...\" \'Encouragement of Learning\' and \'justice to the author\' mean vary diffrant things.

The Licensing Acts was a greate injustice to the Public and Authors, and authors stopped haveing their works publish. The Statute of Anne doen\'t do justice to Authors, it was merely a lesser injuctice against Authors.
>
and a bit more: to provide an incentive for the arts and sciences.
<
It is not the giving the copyright to the Author that was the incentive for publishing works, Author\'s had that befor by keeping the original copy to himself tell he sold it to the publisher for a flat fee without know how populer it would be. What the Statute of Anne did to get the Authors to publish:
1. It give copyright BACK to the author after the first 14 years. That is why they split the term of copyright up. The Statute of Anne, \"...after the Expiration of the said Term of Fourteen Years, the sole Right of Printing or Disposing of Copies shall return to the Authors thereof, if they are then Living, for another Term of Fourteen Years.\" After the first 14 year the Proprietor didn\'t get anuther 14 year if the Author was still alive the Author did. This secont Copyright is the one where he knows how populer his work is and can set a fair flat fee.
2. It limited the amount of time the work would be exploited by the Propietor.

To recap befor The Statute of Anne copyright alowwed the Propietors(some one other than the Author) to exploit the works forever, after let Author in on the exploitation by giving Copyright back to the Author after 14 year and limited the exploitation to 24 years totol.
>
This latter motive was the sole reason society had Copyright: only as a benefit for the public.
<
Copyright is not about benefiting the public it\'s about benefiting the \"Proprietors of such Books and Writings\"
Then they tact on \"..and for the Encouragement of Learned Men to Compose and Write useful Books;\" They make it sound like copyright for helping the Authors by makeing them the defualt propietor. Which sounds good exept it doesn\'t work, creative people don\'t need to be bribed into being creative and non-creative people are not creative(Who would of thought?) and as such won\'t create anything truely original. now moving to the more modren copyright of Feist Publi-cations, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U. S. 340 (1991). In Feist addressed the core question of copyrightability, i.e., the “creative spark” a work must have to be eligible for copyright protection at all. Explaining the originality requirement, Feist trained on the Copyright Clause words “Authors” and “Writings.” Id., at 346–347.
In Feist, we observed that “[t]he sine qua non of copyright is originality,” id., at 345, and held that copy-right protection is unavailable to “a narrow category of works in which the creative spark is utterly lacking or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent,”

Now while that non-creative work is of some inportance it does not worrent the hendrance on freedom that copyright requires. Even if you where to use copyright to encuarge this non-creative work the copyright would have to be of such narrow scope, allowing derivatived works and translation without autherization as to be non exestant.

Note that just becouse all non-creative works are derivatived works does not mean that all derivatived work are non-create works.
>
Copyright strikes a balance between the author, the publishers and the public.
<

>
Such was the disposition of the Statute of Anne in Great Britain, and such was the disposition of the U. S. Constitution. When it was created, Copyright was
not conceived as a \\\"property\\\"
<
Again the British Statute of Anne, \"...whereby the Property in every such Book, as is intended by this Act to be Secured to the proprietor or Proprietors thereof,...\" They expecatly called it property in the Statute of Anne, which created the auther based limited time copyright and hy just mentioned so clearly knows about, this is vary clear evidence that hy is deliberate intent to be decietfull.
>
but as a temporary monopoly on expressions in order to promote progress. What does this mean? It means that if you wrote a book, and submitted the appropriate documents to the Library of Congress (today you don\\\'t have to), you had a copyright on that book. You had a monopoly on that specific form of expression.
If a stationary wanted to publish your work commercially, they had to pay you, they couldn\\\'t stay with all of the profits. So Copyright was an industrial regulation for the sake of authors and the public.

There are many things that makes Copyright completely different from any kind of ownership:

1. Copyright covers expressions, which are not a physical objects. The \\\"physics\\\" of expressions are different from the physics of physical objects. When I give you a glass of water, then that means that I no longer have it, and you have it. But as a writer, if I write a book expressing myself in a specific way, many readers will grasp it, but I never lose the expression itself, since I grasp it also. So, expressions themselves cannot be owned.
It is only under an extreme capitalist way of thinking, which conceives everything as property, that makes people believe that actually they can own expressions as they can own land, houses, cars, or companies.
<
Notice how hy makes it sound like hy is against the idea of Copyright as proporty when hy repeatly make claims that are only valid if you beliave copyright is the proporty of the Author?
>

2. Copyright is a monopoly that is not an absolute monopoly. Originally copyright was intended to only cover commercial use of expressions. However, there are instances where copyright clearly didn\\\'t cover.

These instances fell under the concept of \\\"fair use\\\".
<
No it is the instances of clear violations of copyright that actualy are not that fall under the concept of \'fair use\'.
\'an instances of clear violations of a right that actualy is not\' is strange idea so I\'ll give an example thou I\'ll have to turn to anther right for clearity.
The famus \"You can\'t shout fire in a crouded theather\" That prohibitation is a clear violation of your right to free speach, \"Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech,...\", yet it is not a violation of your freedom of speech.
>
Can there be \\\"fair use\\\" of my car?
<
Actualy yes, atleast thair was. Law prohibiting Joy Rideing(Takeing a car without permission but with the intent of returning it) are a recent invention. I know they had a push in the U.S.A. around the 90\'s thou I don\'t know how wide spread they are todoy.
>
Can there be \\\"fair use\\\" of your house? Can there be \\\"fair use\\\" of Mary\\\'s computer? Of course this all sounds silly.
If I go to your house, and use your car without your permission, and I say that I use your car under \\\"fair use\\\" because I won\\\'t use it commercially, you should feel outraged.
<
Ok every one say it with me \"Don\'t antropomorphize people!\" People are not basicaly the same. They are diffrant so:
Do not attribution of your motivations, characteristics, or behavior to every one of your ethnic group.
Do not attribution of your ethnic groups motivations, characteristics, or behavior to every ethnic group of your speices.
Do not attribution of your species motivations, characteristics, or behavior to every speices.

Maybe is some If someone went to hys house, and used hys car without hys permission, and they said that they used hys car under \'fair use\' because they didn\'t used it commercially, hy should feel outraged.
>
It\\\'s your car, not mine! There can be no \\\"fair use\\\" of your car in any way. Copyright in this aspect is radically different. The copyright-holder has no power over people who use a specific copyrighted expression under \\\"fair use\\\".

3. Copyright is only temporary. Yes, you can treat it as a kind of \\\"property\\\" in the sense that you can dispose of it the way you want. You can sell your copyright, you can give it away, you can place it under public domain, etc. But the monopoly is only temporary. Why? Because in the end a copyrighted expression should be free (in the sense of freedom) within a democratic stat.
It fascilitates the exchange of ideas, and cultural development in many ways.
<
What it is hy refuring to? The only thing copyright does is hinder the exchange or ideas, that what it was create for.
>
So, copyright is not property. Don\\\'t fall into the big corporations\\\' discourse that without copyright, works are doomed to inexistence, and companies cannot make profit out of them. There is no Copyright on Shakespeare\\\'s works and on Cervantes\\\' Don Quijote de la Mancha, and many companies make profit out of those works. I rest my case!!!
<
Maybe hy would if hy was trying to convence you that copyright isn\'t proporty but since hy try to do that and is only argueing the case that Copyright isn\'t proptery so hy is sure to win the case that it is hy continues.
>

However, this \\\"copyright is intellectual property\\\" stuff leads often to the assumption that copyright is the only way to make culture be richer, that culture can only be developped by \\\"owning\\\" expressions. This is not the case. When copyright began existing, it only covered a commercial use of one sole expression. Today copyright covers, not only commercial use for expressions, but also non-commercial use of expressions, and even non-commercial copies or derivative works. This is done supposedly for the sake of culture. Does this work?

Recently I was watching the movie Amadeus, and I watched the scene where Mozart shows the king that he knows Salieri\\\'s march dedicated to him. He took Salieri\\\'s march, and from that he made a completely (needless to say absolutely wonderful) derivative work: the melody Mozart would use for Le Nozze di Figaro. Of course, this specific case is not historical. However, Mozart did indeed make lots of derivative works. When I was a kid, I remember that my mom gave me a record on the composers, and when it referred to Mozart, the narrator showed several different (needless to say absolutely wonderful) ways that Mozart played the melody \\\"Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star\\\". I was completely amazed. But his derivative works were not limited only to melodies. It included literary works. Mozart used many literary works as basis for his operas. Don Giovanni is an example of this, as well as Le Nozze di Figaro, among many others. No one who has heard Mozart can say that he was not original, and no one can say he didn\\\'t make an awesome job.

What would have happened if Mozart lived today under current Copyright law? Simply, he would have been screwed big time!

If Mozart would have lived in the U.S. by 1790, his situation would have been quite good, because by then, the U.S. copyright law only covered commercial use of only one expression. It didn\\\'t cover commercial and non-commercial derivative works. It would have been possible for Mozart to enjoy composing. Today, he would have had a pain in the .... neck. You see, today Mozart would have to be careful if a company wanted him to pay lots of money to license certain uses of a copyrighted material, specially if performed in public, even if it is for non-commercial purposes. I mean, if the Girl Scouts can\\\'t perform \\\"Happy Birthday\\\" without paying (still a copyrighted material), Mozart would be in serious trouble! I mean, imagine the RIAA sending one of those monitors who have sued restaurants, retailers, hotels, and clubs to one of Mozart\\\'s operas. By Mozart\\\'s time \\\"Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star\\\" had no copyright (it was in the public domain), today, a copyrighted material can last even up to 150 years. Imagine if Mozart wanted to make an excellent derivative work of \\\"Happy Birthday\\\", he would have died of old age before he could make a derivative work out of it.

Of course, I imagine someone saying: \\\"Well, today he would have been contracted by a company, and he would have written his excellent works, because the big labels can negotiate copyright licenses with each other.\\\" Well, then that means that Mozart would be perhaps one of the 90% of artists (even talented artists) who have worked for RIAA labels and would have made more money working in a 7-11. Look at American Idol, there were many winners in their contest (and very tallented winners I might add). Where are they now? Oh yes!!! I remember, William Hung is making millions out of his \\\"talent\\\"! Maybe Mozart would have ended up like the other 10% who have had profit, or even millionaires. But unfortunately \\\"his\\\" works would not have been his. The label would have complete dominion over his works, and would perhaps sell it to the highest bidder. The record label would try its best to screw him, with perhaps 150 years without his work being in the public domain, preventing others to use his works to make MORE derivative works, and enrich those works with more musical ideas and expressions.

So, a completely restrictive copyright, far from promoting culture, arts and science, really represents a serious hindrance to cultural and scientific progress. This is the reason that I not only fight against the RIAA for ethical reasons, but also promote what companies like Magnatune.com and organizations like Creative Commons are doing, which is to promote re-mixing music (commercially or non-commercially) in order for musicians to be creative and build upon other people\\\'s works. Recently I read from Magnatune.com an announcement for its participation in Creative Commons\\\' CC-Mixter, and there is a contest for people who can make derivative works from Lisa DeBenedictis\\\' music. Magnatune.com has offered to the winner the promotion of its music under three conditions: the author must retain his or her copyright, he or she should accept 50-50 profit distribution of that label, and that the music must be distributed under a Creative Commons license so others can also make a remix and share music.

Current copyright schemes made by big corporations won\\\'t allow this type of things because they want to maximize their profits by taking author\\\'s copyright away from them, and punish the public if they ever dare to make derivative works or share music. In order to REALLY promote culture, copyright must strike a balance to benefit authors and musicians and the public interests. Only then, people will have genuine freedom of expression

<
Notice how hy said copyright isn\'t propertie and is all evil and bad and yet does hy addvocate abolishing copyright? No Hy is in support of Creative Commons and only want to redoce copyright down to so resonable terms like the Statute of Anne. We allready tried the Statute of Anne and the results is are current copyright system that is even worst that the Licensing Acts. They didn\'t care about derivative works befor be couse the sole Propietor was the Stationers\' Company. If person A wrote a work and then person B wrote a derivatived work on it. They say to little copyright is just as bad as to much copyright but that is false, for copyright can only be shrunk to no copyright and then you can\'t have any less but even when you have to much copyright that is just as bad as no copyright to have still extend it to worst. Most importantly Just enugh copyright is no copyright.

If we settle for some copyrights that don\'t seem to restrictive they with just wait a generation and start boiling the frogs again.

If you are a frog how do you keep from being boiled? You jump out of any pot of water you find yourself in.
>

Tags: