Comments on: Will Lembit have me arrested?

By: Ian Eiloart

Ian Eiloart — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:42:06 +0000

The US constitution explicitly permits copyright and patent rights “for limited Times”, for the explicit purpose of promoting “the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. Hmm, arguably that’s patents and not copyright. The point is that the rights are explicitly incentives.

I’d like to know if there’s anything as fundamental in UK law.

On a separate point, I don’t think the profit motive really drives innovation in the arts. It’s more likely generative of a host of wannabes.

By: David Weber

David Weber — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:54:50 +0000

“so what if someone only creates something that is appreciated later in their life? What’s important is that they reasonably believe when they are creating it that there’s a good chance that it will earn them fame, money and status.”

You make the mistake that I’m approaching this from a perspective of incentives. I’m not — I’ve already stated that from the perspective of incentives and pragmatism, James is almost certainly right — in fact, it could easily be argued that from the perspective of innovation, it would be better not to have copyright law.

I’m approaching this from a perspective of what is equitable. Generally, I think that Berne goes so far as to be extremely *in*equitable, in that descendents of an author can have no logical argument to deserve royalties from the works of a long-deceased person. However, it is fair to have a flexible system of copyright law that allows every artist to be certain of gaining a little for their work. What is important is to prevent the system being abused to gain excess profits.

By: sanbikinoraion

sanbikinoraion — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 22:33:39 +0000

Don’t forget that it’s not profits that incentivize people to create great art, it’s the pursuit of profits; so what if someone only creates something that is appreciated later in their life? What’s important is that they reasonably believe when they are creating it that there’s a good chance that it will earn them fame, money and status.

By: Paul Walter

Paul Walter — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:43:21 +0000

“I thought that all musicians were rich” – well I didn’t say you said that. I was very careful because I know you’re very sensitive But looking back I see – D’oh! – I was very careless with my headline. So I have changed it. All the best, Paul

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:53:03 +0000

I’m not quite sure how you managed to extract from my article that I thought that all musicians were rich, especially given that my argument is that restructuring how we pay musicians will benefit 99% of people.

I’ve written about the death of the ’superstar’ because that’s what I think the major change we’ll see will be and that it is a fear of this fact that is fuelling the resistance to change. Superstars want to remain superstars and sadly too many musicians consider that to be the benchmark of success. Unless we challenge that mindset we will keep going down the destructive path the music industry is doggedly pursuing.

By: Ian Eiloart

Ian Eiloart — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 22:24:01 +0000

Copyright infringing downloading can’t be theft. Theft is a crime, but copyright infringement is only a civil offence. Redistribution *is* a crime, if it’s done for gain, or if it has a prejudicial impact on the copyright holder.

By: Paul Walter

Paul Walter — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:09:37 +0000

Agree with your thrust James. Just think you are slightly over-emphasising the “superstars”. I have blogged about this here:

http://tinyurl.com/musiciansnot-allrich

By: David Weber

David Weber — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:46:14 +0000

Incidentally, I’ve just read the article you linked to. If there’s anything that tempts be to become a raving Eurosceptic, its this directive: http://preview.tinyurl.com/yebgxj7 (referenced in the comments section). It’s the type of thing that could only be written by people who had no understanding of intellectual creation — it’s laughable that copyright legislation that provides “protection for the author and the first two generations of his descendants” can be argued to be “fundamental to intellectual creation”.

Still, it appears that whatever action that should be taken to reform copyright laws cannot be taken unilaterally, and will be much harder to achieve. I had no idea about the Berne convention, I must say — the principles strike me as outdated.

By: David Weber

David Weber — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:25:21 +0000

“Regarding the hypothetical artist whose creation becomes popular late in life, what they might lose in terms of sales they would potentially gain in terms of being able to perform live and exposure to other works.”

I’m not sure I agree. There are some composers, for instance, famous for only one work, and popular exposure to one incredibly popular work doesn’t always translate into a wider popularity. Though of course I would not wish for someone to be able to make a living simply because of one work gaining large popularity, I do think that it’s fair to have a safety-check mechanism that allows someone to benefit from a work that only becomes popular later in life.

In general, I agree with 20 years, I just think there should be a certain amount of flexibility, say with a longer time limit where a work can generate a certain amount of money before it enters public domain.

I think I understand more of what you mean on the latter point. It would still have to be arranged centrally, however? Given how politicised the licence fee becomes, I’m unsure about how much trust I’d want to put in such a system as the main method of reimbursing artists for online distribution, though I can certainly see its merits.

Anyway, I’ve outlined a few of my thoughts in more detail up at http://dingdongalistic.wordpress.com .

By: James Graham

James Graham — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:50:40 +0000

The fundamental problem with long periods of copyright is that it tends to lead to intellectual property being suppressed. Companies have little incentive to exploit it unless it is likely to make them instant profit and the number of orphan works escalates.

The 20 years suggestion is based on patent length. Here, Victor Keegan cites two academic reports, one concluding 21 years, the other 14.

Regarding the hypothetical artist whose creation becomes popular late in life, what they might lose in terms of sales they would potentially gain in terms of being able to perform live and exposure to other works. I’m sure there will be losers, but I’m pretty confident there would be far more winners from such a short period.

I agree with you about selling on IP rights. A lot of the confusion lies in the selling off of rights.

I don’t think the exchequor need get involved for the same reason that he isn’t involved with paying out to the PRS or the BBC licence fee – both of which are more complicated to collect than what I’m suggesting. All it requires is an agency and the law to back it up.