Song Copyrights and Patents

On 2008-07-18, Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 4:38&#4294967295;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.
>>
> crossposting to rec.audio.pro

Why should any of them benefit to their deaths? If I were a plumber and
plumbed a very good kitchen sink do I expect to be paid until my death?
A car mechanic? Any other type of job really? If I could be paid until
death for a month's work rather than having to work another month for
another month's pay....

What does paying people up to their death gain for society that the
original 15 year limit did not? Doesn't it hinder society? After all
the copyright was just an incentive, considered a fair trade for society
to give control over the art work for a LIMITED time. The phrasing of
the American original definitions of copyright and patent recognised
that society was giving up something that was its right rather than that
ownership of an idea was a fundamental right. The whole discussion has
become so twisted.

So what of patents? In the software world that has gone mad because
patents are more abstract. A piece of software is covered by copyright
and currently does have the very long term. That protects the source
code and the object code. It does not protect the basic idea or things
like the file format. Not long ago it was not possible to patent such
things and that was good for the industry. Companies could compete with
each other. They could work to read each other's file formats allowing
users a migration path. Now thanks to file format patents that is being
blocked.

Software patents are like patenting the abstract concept of opening a
bottle of wine. In the hardware world you can patent your individual
corkscrew, but that doesn't stop someone else making a different
corkscrew. Hardware patents for corkscrews are more like copyright
but shorter lived.  The ability to own an abstract idea like "opening a
bottle of wine", the kinds of things we see in the software world, prevent
anyone else even approaching the problem. Software patents are so broad
that the software patent equivalent of opening a bottle of wine would
probably even stop someone smashing the top off against a wall. The cost
of arguing that in court is prohibitive making such patents a nuisance.

Bill Gates once said

  "If software patents existed 20 years ago there would be no Microsoft.
   We'd have not been able to even start to enter the market."

The Internet, Newsgroups, all this we are using only exist because they
were open shared formats without patents. They are free for anyone to
use. Some of the other technology at the time was technically superior,
but proprietary interests prevented it being widely used. If the core
technologies of the internet had been patented we'd have no internet
today.

I believe it's clear that software patents harm society.

 - Richard