javasaurus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
javasaurus) wrote2003-07-23 12:58 pm
javasaurus) wrote2003-07-23 12:58 pm
Intellectual Property
For the most part this term applies to anything that you can copyright or patent. Such things are allowed for (though not required by) the Constitution (Article I, section 8), with the intent of encouraging progress and art by allowing those of creative spirit to profit from their efforts. I wholehearted agree with this idea.
One complaint regarding intellectual property involves prescription medicines. A drug company, after patenting a new drug substance, has 17 years to turn a profit before the generics are sold. A long time? Not really, once you realize that the first eight to ten years of that period will be spent testing the drug for safety and getting it approved for human use by the FDA. The testing is not cheap, and only about 1% of drug substances patented actually make it to market. The drug companies then have only a few years to reap a profit from their testing and research with which to fund future work. Without the few years of monopoly, the research drug companies would quickly cease, as would production of new drugs.
How many professional artists (writers, painters, music composers, etc.) would be able to continue in their profession if they didn’t get paid? Without copyright laws, a low-budget press could mass produce a novel and pocket the profit, the writer getting nothing for their untold hours of effort (a professional writer working full time on a average novel might complete it in about 3 to 4 months). In fact, without copyright laws, the publisher could make unapproved changes to the text, possibly alter the intent of the author, or even leave the author’s name off completely, so the author wouldn’t even get credit. That would leave little incentive for authors to even pick up their pens.
What it really comes down to, is that creators and publishers and consumers enter into contracts of purchase. When you buy a book or sound recording, you are bound by the copyright on it, which means that you cannot reproduce it (except in “fair use” circumstances, which generally exclude excuses like “it is too expensive to buy”). If you don’t like the limitations on the purchase, don’t buy the product. Computer software has gone further by adding another layer to copyright – the user license agreement, which is a more specific contract about what you can and cannot do with the software. Again, if you don’t like the contract, don’t buy the product. I guess copyright law is effectively a Congress-imposed end-user license agreement. Without it, we’d all be forced to sign contracts of intent every time we bought a book.
MP3 music files being swapped over the net: I’ve heard excuses like “the musicians actually benefit from swapping and the exposure it brings” or “they have so much money that it can’t hurt them – the music companies are being petty power giants” and others. However, it’s not about whether the musicians benefit, or whether the companies get money. It’s about the artist maintaining control of their work. If they want to let their songs get swapped, that’s fine. If they don’t like swapping, they should have the choice.
One complaint regarding intellectual property involves prescription medicines. A drug company, after patenting a new drug substance, has 17 years to turn a profit before the generics are sold. A long time? Not really, once you realize that the first eight to ten years of that period will be spent testing the drug for safety and getting it approved for human use by the FDA. The testing is not cheap, and only about 1% of drug substances patented actually make it to market. The drug companies then have only a few years to reap a profit from their testing and research with which to fund future work. Without the few years of monopoly, the research drug companies would quickly cease, as would production of new drugs.
How many professional artists (writers, painters, music composers, etc.) would be able to continue in their profession if they didn’t get paid? Without copyright laws, a low-budget press could mass produce a novel and pocket the profit, the writer getting nothing for their untold hours of effort (a professional writer working full time on a average novel might complete it in about 3 to 4 months). In fact, without copyright laws, the publisher could make unapproved changes to the text, possibly alter the intent of the author, or even leave the author’s name off completely, so the author wouldn’t even get credit. That would leave little incentive for authors to even pick up their pens.
What it really comes down to, is that creators and publishers and consumers enter into contracts of purchase. When you buy a book or sound recording, you are bound by the copyright on it, which means that you cannot reproduce it (except in “fair use” circumstances, which generally exclude excuses like “it is too expensive to buy”). If you don’t like the limitations on the purchase, don’t buy the product. Computer software has gone further by adding another layer to copyright – the user license agreement, which is a more specific contract about what you can and cannot do with the software. Again, if you don’t like the contract, don’t buy the product. I guess copyright law is effectively a Congress-imposed end-user license agreement. Without it, we’d all be forced to sign contracts of intent every time we bought a book.
MP3 music files being swapped over the net: I’ve heard excuses like “the musicians actually benefit from swapping and the exposure it brings” or “they have so much money that it can’t hurt them – the music companies are being petty power giants” and others. However, it’s not about whether the musicians benefit, or whether the companies get money. It’s about the artist maintaining control of their work. If they want to let their songs get swapped, that’s fine. If they don’t like swapping, they should have the choice.
no subject
If the artist chooses to sell their copyright, that's fine with me. The savvy ones tend to get a good price, the naive tend to get screwed (and become "slaves") but that's a different issue.
Also, the issue of whether the artist is hurt by file sharing is not the issue. There is certainly too little data to do other than speculate on that issue anyway. The point I'm trying to make is that the copyright holder has the legal right to control reproduction of the product. To allow it to be otherwise impinges on the ability of creative minds to reap the benefits they have earned.
no subject
Copyright is the sound recording. Publishing right is the lyrics & music. Most RIAA records will assert both. You'll see the circled P right next to the circled C. The amazing thing is how this "standard industry practice" is so entrenched that record labels will assert that on the published CD even when it isn't correct. Many records from Europe on one label, when re-distributed by a different label in America, will have the copyright statement changed to the American label, even though they don't own the rights, having only licensed the distribution rights.
ASCAP is its own nightmare, the largest legal extortion racket in the world. ASCAP may claim that they give 86% of their earnings to the copyright holders, but 14% of 8 BILLION dollars income pays for a LOT of lawyers and lobbyists. Add to that the fact that when it comes to public performance, they collect three times. In the example of a clothing store in a mall that plays a local radio station, ASCAP collects 1) from the radio stations purchase of the CD, which like a rental DVD is more expensive than the store ones that radio stations can't legally play on the air; 2) from the radio station's own broadcast license, and finally 3) from the store itself as the final "public performance" space of that material.
To make matters worse, those collections from stores, restaurants, pubs, stadiums, et al, all placed in the "general fund" don't go to the copyright holders in a fair basis. An Irish pub may have a jukebox with nothing but traditional celtic music in it, but the money ASCAP collects from the pub goes into the general fund which is distributed based on one criteria only : Radio Airplay. All the money collected to "support the artists" of those celtic cds is actually lining the coffers of Britney Spears's record label.
Go read http://www.negativland.com/albini.html .
To quote Robert Fripp: "The history of the music industry is a history of exploitation and theft"; Fripp's take on the Albini article: "my problem with this work is that it paints the music industry in too positive a light."
no subject
The reason I started this was in support of copyright-holder control of duplication of the copyrighted work. I know that current copyright law has problems, and industry practices are not necessarily fair. But that doesn't mean the consumer has a right to make and distribute copies of music albums, text books, or paintings w/o permission of the (c) holder. Do you think the Pyrates Royal would be happy if I started handing out homemade copies of their CDs at RenFest? Not just a couple, but hundreds of them. And how would that be different from distributing their work on the web?
no subject