DISQUS

Tom · 11 months ago

Although copyright is often manipulated in the interest of preserving compensation, the intent of copyright is to promote new creative works and the interpretation you present here seems to be in direct opposition of this intent.

Copyright is based on Article 1, section one of the U.S. Constitution which promotes "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." (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constit...)

What copyright limits is the duration during which a creator can claim copyright in order to subvert monopolistic claims on creative and scientific endeavors.

I recommend The Purpose of Copyright Law (http://www.open-spaces.com/article-v2n1-loren.php) by Lydia Pallas Loren who writes:

"Modern-day copyright harbors a dark side. The misunderstanding held by many who believe that the primary purpose of copyright law is to protect authors against those who would pilfer the author's work threatens to upset the delicate equilibrium in copyright law. This misunderstanding obviously works to the benefit of the content owning industries, such as the publishing industry, the music and motion picture industries, and the computer software industry."

Stephen Michael Kellat · 11 months ago

This is one of those cases where it truly sucks having been both a content creator and a librarian. Copyright creates an incentive to a content creator to produce works. By securing this control for a limited amount of time (I find that the current rules in the US are insane where works may become immortal), the content creator can receive financial compensation for the use of a work. This ranges from royalty payments for song air play to reproduction permissions licenses for printed works sometimes costing money and more.

Just because copyright seems abused does not mean you have to throw out the baby and the bathwater. For all its warts, copyright does create an economic realm for action. Seeing people like Dr. Stephens who treat such material as being valueless ephemera is the disturbing aspect to this. If there is no value to a work and no loss if an author's limited control over it is infringed, what incentive is there to create such works compared to flipping burgers? At least in that scenario you would have guaranteed compensation for time worked flipping burgers.

Tom · 11 months ago

I agree that we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I just see a lot of evidence of copyright being skewed in favor of big corporations who are trying to monopolize content. They're the ones who are trying to push the term extensions longer and longer which is quite contradictory to the intent of copyright. And I think this corporations spread a lot of misinformation and use scare tactics to keep people from asking questions.

I'm all for content creators getting fair compensation. I just felt the need to clarify that copyright isn't only about preserving compensation.

Stephen Michael Kellat · 11 months ago

If you've got clout with Dr. Dina Titus (a prof at your school who is on leave), that'll be a start with Congress. Working on Senators Ensign and Reid are next. We're both voters in Clark County so I have no qualms about joining in an effort to lobby our state's senior senator in this matter.

david lee king · 11 months ago

"The way content creators profit from their works is through the sale of rights" - That's how the record companies and licensing agencies make money. The actual content creators still profit primarily from playing, selling their CDs, and selling lots and lots of t-shirts.

Stephen Michael Kellat · 11 months ago

Good morning David. If playing, selling CDs, and selling t-shirts was the way to go then there are plenty of podcasts that could be fully funded. It is not as if the main program we produce has not had materials for sale for over a year now. You conveniently discount the roles in civilized life played mainly by ASCAP, BMI, and the Harry Fox Agency.

We do arrange live events. We have a recurring one month to month featuring local classical guitar talent. Without proper licensing from ASCAP or BMI, some venues are shut out to us unless we are having a singer-songwriter night or are only performing public domain pieces. From the license fees paid to ASCAP or BMI, song writers get paid. The Harry Fox Agency comes into play when it comes to reproductions of a song in one medium or another. The Harry Fox Agency distributes money back for recordings that are in the mass market. This is why podcasts of shows like the Glenn Beck program have to fairly harshly strip out music played on-air as it had rights clearance only for radio broadcast while each discrete podcast download would count as if it were a distributed LP or CD.

One group of entities, houses of worship, have their own clearinghouse to insulate them from all these rightsholders called CCLI. ELP has worked with houses of worship covered under CCLI before and found that it was an effective group that kept song writers happy and churches kosher with copyright. The total annual license fee my local congregation would have to pay if it were a member is only USD$104. See: http://www.ccli.com/WhatWeOffer/LicenseFees.aspx

There is a rich tapestry of interlocking relationships within the realm of semi-pro and pro music between those who write the songs, perform the songs, record the songs, and distribute recordings of them. So far such has served well even if it is not the most ideal or practical. Groups like CCLI already exist so some day a Union of Bloggers, such as that proposed by Ezra Levant, might do the same in the new media realm.

Sarah · 11 months ago

Really????? Copyright exists to preserve compensation for people who make creative works??? Interesting recent post from Kevin Smith at Duke: "What happened to Death Cab for Cutie is that they posted an embedded YouTube video of themselves singing one of their own songs on their own website. Except, of course, that they do not own the rights in their own music, having transferred those rights, in one way or another, to their record label." For the whole story see http://library.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/2009/01....

Stephen Michael Kellat · 11 months ago

The way content creators profit from their works is through the sale of rights. There are many, many rights that can be transferred and sold. When I was working a stringer for a local newspaper in Ohio a few years ago, that is what it meant to get paid. You exchanged rights to whatever you produced content-wise for cash.