kronecker@yahoo.co.uk writes:> > Nevr mind the musically inept,,,what about Mozart and even Schubert? >They're not supermen. Ciao, Peter K. -- "And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended And at night the wondrous glory of the everlasting stars."
Song Copyrights and Patents
Started by ●July 17, 2008
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Fred J. McCall wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:...> :I agree that copyright should eventually expire, but certainly not > :during the owner's lifetime and probably not during his/her spouse's. To > :do otherwise is like assessing death duties while the owner is still alive. > : > > And the same could be said of any patentable invention.Indeed it could. The justification for expropriating inventions after a time is that the benefit to society outweighs the cost to individuals, and that allowing the eventual free use of ideas benefits even those inventors who must finally surrender ownership of their creations. That doesn't apply to copyrightable material. I don't intend to continue this thread. I think we've all expressed and clarified our opinions. I have nothing useful to add. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
kronecker@yahoo.co.uk wrote:> On Jul 18, 4:24 pm, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:>> ... Jerry Siegel and Joe Schuster might not >> have died impoverished if that were the case....> Nevr mind the musically inept,,,what about Mozart and even Schubert?What copyright laws applied to them? Whatever, both died young and modern-style copyright would have been in effect at their deaths. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
On Jul 17, 6:25�pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:> On Jul 18, 7:44 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > > > > kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: > > > Greedy song-writers and performers are negotiating an extension of the > > > 50 years (yes 50 years should be enough! - patents get 20 years after > > > all). > > > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7511224.stm > > > > Ageing rock stars and session musicians will keep receiving royalties > > > for their old recordings for the rest of their lives under a European > > > Union plan. > > > > Performers currently lose the rights to their recordings after 50 > > > years. > > > > Veteran artists like Sir Cliff Richard and Roger Daltrey are among > > > those who have campaigned for it to be extended. > > > > The EU has now announced a scheme for copyright on recordings to last > > > for 95 years. EU governments and the European Parliament still need to > > > give approval. > > > > Under the current regime, the first rock 'n' roll recordings will go > > > out of copyright in the coming years. > > > > That means performers, producers and record labels would no longer get > > > paid for sales or airplay, and the songs could be released cheaply by > > > any record label. > > > > Sir Cliff's first hits will go out of copyright on 1 January next > > > year, while The Beatles' catalogue will start to enter the public > > > domain in 2013. > > > > Sir Paul McCartney and U2 have also spoken out in favour of extending > > > the copyright. > > > > But the EU plan is potentially more important for the thousands of > > > lesser-known band members, session musicians and producers who may be > > > in greater need of an income during their retirement. > > > > The proposals were unveiled by European Commission Single Market > > > Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. > > > > "A 95-year term would bridge the income gap that performers face when > > > they turn 70, just as their early performances recorded in their 20s > > > would lose protection," his scheme said. > > > ................................................... > > > I would like to think that ownership of my house will extend at least as > > long as I and those who inherit it live. A song is private property. Mao > > wrote that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Should > > ownership rights also belong to those who can wrest them? > > > Jerry > > -- > > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > > ����������������������������������������������������������������������� > > I beg to disagree. By a similar though extended argument we should be > paying Mozarts relatives and Beethovens for their work used daily in > TV ads and radio world-wide. When the rich get richer they want to > change the rules in their favour. I am all for protecting copyright, > but it should like everything else have a reasonable shelf-life. > Twenty years is enough and should be the same as a patent. > > K.-There are some strong differences between copyrights and patents in that technology quickly loses its novelty - novelty is what is needed for a patent. Most inventions from Mozart's day if still used today are very likely modified quite a bit from their original versions. However one of Mozart's works is likely to be performed today very closely (as best as people today know how to) to his original forms. And modern recordings like that of the Beatles are the same as it was during the 1960s. So in this case you are not only enjoying the music as composed but also enjoying their performance. Temporal limitations make sense but the work's creator should enjoy the benefits of his creation during his lifetime or expected lifetime. Really "the rich get richer" Wealth envy???? Why do you care if one profits from their own work? Do you get upset if someone takes a second job or works longer and harder at their 1st job to obtain more? The reason patents have 20 years (USA) is that the slowness of the patent office had gotten really bad and patents were extended by 3 years to compensate for the delay. Patents not long ago had only 17 years. And when you have to file for your patent within one year of disclosure and yet the complete development of the idea to become marketable make take years, one can easily argue that even 20 is not enough. Many drugs require 5 years of testing to come to market. This eats up a good chunk of the 20 years! On the subject of patents that shouldn't be issued, the PTO is now rejecting the majority of applications. Most rejections involve comments saying that your idea is anticipated by some prior patent. So a patent attorny has to make salient arguments as to why your idea was not anticipated by prior patents. Even though I'm not an attorny, I work with them all of the time doing just these things. Also there are rule changes affecting the number of claims carried forward to a continuation patent. So the PTO is effecting policy changes in an attempt to rein in the BS. Clay
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
clay@claysturner.com wrote: ...> There are some strong differences between copyrights and patents in > that technology quickly loses its novelty - novelty is what is needed > for a patent. Most inventions from Mozart's day if still used today > are very likely modified quite a bit from their original versions. > However one of Mozart's works is likely to be performed today very > closely (as best as people today know how to) to his original forms. > And modern recordings like that of the Beatles are the same as it was > during the 1960s. So in this case you are not only enjoying the music > as composed but also enjoying their performance. > > Temporal limitations make sense but the work's creator should enjoy > the benefits of his creation during his lifetime or expected lifetime. > > Really "the rich get richer" Wealth envy???? Why do you care if one > profits from their own work? Do you get upset if someone takes a > second job or works longer and harder at their 1st job to obtain more?I took that remark to be about publishers, not writers and artists. E.P. Dutton holds the Winnie-The-Pooh copyrights, not Alan or even Christopher Milne.> The reason patents have 20 years (USA) is that the slowness of the > patent office had gotten really bad and patents were extended by 3 > years to compensate for the delay. Patents not long ago had only 17 > years. And when you have to file for your patent within one year of > disclosure and yet the complete development of the idea to become > marketable make take years, one can easily argue that even 20 is not > enough. Many drugs require 5 years of testing to come to market. This > eats up a good chunk of the 20 years!I understand about drugs, but not about other inventions. Delay in issuing is to the inventor's benefit. A patent's life begins when it issues, not when it is filed. If a patent took three years from filing to issue, that was three years of "Pat. Pending" protection in addition to the statuary 17. Now, inventions get 23 years of protection.> On the subject of patents that shouldn't be issued, the PTO is now > rejecting the majority of applications. Most rejections involve > comments saying that your idea is anticipated by some prior patent. So > a patent attorny has to make salient arguments as to why your idea was > not anticipated by prior patents. Even though I'm not an attorny, I > work with them all of the time doing just these things. > > > Also there are rule changes affecting the number of claims carried > forward to a continuation patent. So the PTO is effecting policy > changes in an attempt to rein in the BS.Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
> > > The reason patents have 20 years (USA) is that the slowness of the > > patent office had gotten really bad and patents were extended by 3 > > years to compensate for the delay. Patents not long ago had only 17 > > years. And when you have to file for your patent within one year of > > disclosure and yet the complete development of the idea to become > > marketable make take years, one can easily argue that even 20 is not > > enough. Many drugs require 5 years of testing to come to market. This > > eats up a good chunk of the 20 years! > > I understand about drugs, but not about other inventions. Delay in > issuing is to the inventor's benefit. A patent's life begins when it > issues, not when it is filed. If a patent took three years from filing > to issue, that was three years of "Pat. Pending" protection in addition > to the statuary 17. Now, inventions get 23 years of protection. >Drugs are of course the easy example. But there are other issues. Stating your product is patent pending only allows you to sue for infringment after your patent is issued. I know of some situations where the you put out a product and then quickly the imitators, using your idea, follow you to the market and by the time the patent is issued the market is gone. Yes at this point you can sue the infringer or even sue the purchasers of the infringing product, but by this time the money will be gone. To reduce the time delay, when you file, you plunk down the money for an expedited application. This is where the costs go up significantly for your patent since you now have to pay an attorney to do a proper patent search. Most little guys can't afford this process. Where I work now, we can't afford the delay and therefore ante up the money for the faster method. Certainly for most of what we are doing 20 years is likely more than enough for us to consume the market. But other things such as Seaborg's patent for Americium (assigned to U Cal in Berkely) likely didn't make any money because the commercial application for Am did'nt come around for many years after the invention of the element itself - its current main use is in smoke detectors. His patent has one of the tersest claims I've seen. He simply claims the element! Similar scenarios (long delay from invention to product) occur with plant patents (i.e., farming) and now the commercial fruits (pardon the pun) for recombinant DND take many years to mature qafter the genesis of the basic techniques. So the proper number of years, I would say, is quite nebulus and highly dependent on the invention itself. This is not unlike the problems with static speedlimits on highways without regard to weather and time of day and other traffic safety affecting conditions. Clay
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: :Fred J. McCall wrote: :> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote: : : ... : :> :I agree that copyright should eventually expire, but certainly not :> :during the owner's lifetime and probably not during his/her spouse's. To :> :do otherwise is like assessing death duties while the owner is still alive. :> : :> :> And the same could be said of any patentable invention. : :Indeed it could. The justification for expropriating inventions after a :time is that the benefit to society outweighs the cost to individuals, :and that allowing the eventual free use of ideas benefits even those :inventors who must finally surrender ownership of their creations. That :doesn't apply to copyrightable material. : Of course it does. In fact, if the argument is made that 'cultural' things are of value, then doesn't society suffer damage because of all the folks who cannot access them? So your essential claim is that society derives no value from: http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page : :I don't intend to continue this thread. I think we've all expressed and :clarified our opinions. I have nothing useful to add. : I still don't see why copyright and patent should be treated differently. -- "It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point, somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me.... I am the law." -- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
On Jul 19, 4:35 am, c...@claysturner.com wrote:> > > The reason patents have 20 years (USA) is that the slowness of the > > > patent office had gotten really bad and patents were extended by 3 > > > years to compensate for the delay. Patents not long ago had only 17 > > > years. And when you have to file for your patent within one year of > > > disclosure and yet the complete development of the idea to become > > > marketable make take years, one can easily argue that even 20 is not > > > enough. Many drugs require 5 years of testing to come to market. This > > > eats up a good chunk of the 20 years! > > > I understand about drugs, but not about other inventions. Delay in > > issuing is to the inventor's benefit. A patent's life begins when it > > issues, not when it is filed. If a patent took three years from filing > > to issue, that was three years of "Pat. Pending" protection in addition > > to the statuary 17. Now, inventions get 23 years of protection. > > Drugs are of course the easy example. But there are other issues. > Stating your product is patent pending only allows you to sue for > infringment after your patent is issued. I know of some situations > where the you put out a product and then quickly the imitators, using > your idea, follow you to the market and by the time the patent is > issued the market is gone. Yes at this point you can sue the infringer > or even sue the purchasers of the infringing product, but by this time > the money will be gone. To reduce the time delay, when you file, you > plunk down the money for an expedited application. This is where the > costs go up significantly for your patent since you now have to pay an > attorney to do a proper patent search. Most little guys can't afford > this process. Where I work now, we can't afford the delay and > therefore ante up the money for the faster method. > > Certainly for most of what we are doing 20 years is likely more than > enough for us to consume the market. But other things such as > Seaborg's patent for Americium (assigned to U Cal in Berkely) likely > didn't make any money because the commercial application for Am did'nt > come around for many years after the invention of the element itself - > its current main use is in smoke detectors. His patent has one of the > tersest claims I've seen. He simply claims the element! > > Similar scenarios (long delay from invention to product) occur with > plant patents (i.e., farming) and now the commercial fruits (pardon > the pun) for recombinant DND take many years to mature qafter the > genesis of the basic techniques. > > So the proper number of years, I would say, is quite nebulus and > highly dependent on the invention itself. This is not unlike the > problems with static speedlimits on highways without regard to weather > and time of day and other traffic safety affecting conditions. > > ClayI 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. K.
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
On Jul 18, 4:38�pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:> On Jul 19, 4:35 am, c...@claysturner.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > The reason patents have 20 years (USA) is that the slowness of the > > > > patent office had gotten really bad and patents were extended by 3 > > > > years to compensate for the delay. Patents not long ago had only 17 > > > > years. And when you have to file for your patent within one year of > > > > disclosure and yet the complete development of the idea to become > > > > marketable make take years, one can easily argue that even 20 is not > > > > enough. Many drugs require 5 years of testing to come to market. This > > > > eats up a good chunk of the 20 years! > > > > I understand about drugs, but not about other inventions. Delay in > > > issuing is to the inventor's benefit. A patent's life begins when it > > > issues, not when it is filed. If a patent took three years from filing > > > to issue, that was three years of "Pat. Pending" protection in addition > > > to the statuary 17. Now, inventions get 23 years of protection. > > > Drugs are of course the easy example. But there are other issues. > > Stating your product is patent pending only allows you to sue for > > infringment after your patent is issued. I know of some situations > > where the you put out a product and then quickly the imitators, using > > your idea, follow you to the market and by the time the patent is > > issued the market is gone. Yes at this point you can sue the infringer > > or even sue the purchasers of the infringing product, but by this time > > the money will be gone. �To reduce the time delay, when you file, you > > plunk down the money for an expedited application. This is where the > > costs go up significantly for your patent since you now have to pay an > > attorney to do a proper patent search. Most little guys can't afford > > this process. Where I work now, we can't afford the delay and > > therefore ante up the money for the faster method. > > > Certainly for most of what we are doing 20 years is likely more than > > enough for us to consume the market. But other things such as > > Seaborg's patent for Americium (assigned to U Cal in Berkely) likely > > didn't make any money because the commercial application for Am did'nt > > come around for many years after the invention of the element itself - > > its current main use is in smoke detectors. His patent has one of the > > tersest claims I've seen. He simply claims the element! > > > Similar scenarios (long delay from invention to product) occur with > > plant patents (i.e., farming) and now the commercial fruits (pardon > > the pun) for recombinant DND take many years to mature qafter the > > genesis of the basic techniques. > > > So the proper number of years, I would say, is quite nebulus and > > highly dependent on the invention itself. �This is not unlike the > > problems with static speedlimits on highways without regard to weather > > and time of day and other traffic safety affecting conditions. > > > Clay > > 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. > > K.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -crossposting to rec.audio.pro
Reply by ●July 18, 20082008-07-18
On Jul 18, 1:38�pm, kronec...@yahoo.co.uk 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. > > K.Except of course, patent already provides far more. In case of musical scores, if I can prove that I have not seen or heard about the "original" composer's piece before writing my own (this is assuming that the two are similar enough to merit the accusation in the first place), I am not guilty of copyright infringement. With patent, such things as "independent discovery" does not matter (although if you have prior art, you could try and get the patent invalidated). Patent gives you a real monopoly on an idea or design, which is why making it perpetual would be so much worse---just imagine that the original inventors of computer hard drives are the only ones allowed to make hard drives to this day! Having said this, I think copyright laws are pretty horrible too---we should, at the very least, get it down to the original length of 14 years or so (shorter for technology-related items, like software) with required renewals. If I really had my wish, the copyrights on everything would expire in a year unless the author renewed it annually (up to a generous length of 30 years).
