Re: [ARSCLIST] land--was: Letter on British Copyright Term Extension

[steven c <stevenc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Further thoughts (again, see end...)
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karl Miller" <lyaa071@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Mike Csontos wrote:
> > That being said, I would argue that intellectual property is
qualitatively
> > different from real property (land). You don't purchase it from the last
in
> > a line of entities emanating from that original act of claiming or
theft.
> > It's something created from one's own effort and cleverness, and as such
> > should properly belong to the creator. The issues arise when the creator
> > passes away. The creation, if worthy, will have a lasting value. To whom
> > does this belong? The concept of public domain should exercise a
powerful
> > claim when the creation is a part of the public's cultural heritage.
>
> I believe one can go further...is there any original thought? Should John
> Adams sue Richard Danielpour when Danielpour borrows gestures from the
> music of Adams.
>
> It was about 20 years ago I wrote TV Guide a letter. I suggested that they
> put their listings online and provide keyword searching. We now have such
a
> system available from several suppliers. So, was I the first to think of
it?
> Probably not, but who knows. Should I have copyrighted my "idea." But my
> idea was not anything other than using available technology to
> facilitate the use of information. So, at what point does an "idea" become
> intellectual property.
>
> It seems to me that the notion of intellectual property and patent might
very
> well have reached the point where they should be merged. For me, if we are
to
> think of intellectual property as an object and, more and more, invention
> has become ideas, why do we make a distinction and I wonder, how can we.
> I really don't know and would like to know what others might think.
>
> I just encountered www.intelproplaw.com  I found it most telling in an odd
> way...it features a daily calendar of Intellectual Property
> Events..remember when the "Weather Channel" seemed liked an odd
> notion...How about an "Intellectual Property Channel" a 24 hour channel
> which will give you the most recent news on the subject...I recall a
> parody in Mad Magazine...following on the lead of the "Weather Channel"
> they had a "Time Channel." No, it wasn't one of those things which said,
> "on this date in history," basically it was just about watching time go
> by...
>
But...
Music, considered as "intellectual property," does have an implied
"Best Before" date. This may not be entirely true of classical music
(where the writings of former centuries have essentially taken
precedence over any new creations to the point the latter usually
languish unknown and unheard)...but is certainly true of 99% or
more of popular music in its various guises! I happen to enjoy
the popular music of an era well before my own...and, as a result,
can find very little of such on currently-available recordings,
Worse yet, the current aims of the music industry will make it
effectively impossible to enjoy most or all (depending on the
country, worst in the USA) of the still-extant-on-record archive
of music history!

Because about 1% of 1% of this material is still commercially
viable, the other 99.99% is going to stay forever (or slightly
less...final figures aren't in) unavailable, unless someone is
willing to risk lawsuits or worse by flagrantly violating the
revised copyright legislation!

What might be useful is some form of "mandatory license" for
sound recordings similar to their content! Should I decide to
reissue in some form my Grey Gull record of "Since Willy Got
a Whippet" (1929)...I can't do so without violating US copyright
law (which will, unless re-amended, put it in the public domain
in 2067 [I'll be 126 years old then...]). However, the people
who have other financial interests in the recording (composer,
publisher...insofar as they are known and still exist) MUST
allow me to reissue the recording of the tune, as long as I
cough up the dough for its (re-)use.

I have no qualms about NOT being able to reissue a sound
recording...and thus threatening the income of the rightful
owner of said recording...as long as this owner is actually
obtaining income from the aforesaid recording!

So, my more general redefinition of my potential soluntion...

"As long as the rightful owner of the copyright to a given
item of intellectual property is obtaining any gross income
through making said property available to the general public,
he/she/it shall retain the right to control and/or obtain
royalty income from any other use of the said property."

Steven C. Barr