Sticking up for copyright?

[michael.mccartney]

Hello everyone,

First of all, thanks to everyone for replying to my initial post.

I certainly did not wish to imply in any way that IMSLP does not uphold copyright, or was trying to subvert it in any way. I use this site and encourage many others to do so, and I fully support the noble effort which goes into it.

My post was directed more at those who contest copyright very aggressively (yes, that means the 'Pirate Party'), and I only wished to point out that there is a good side to even the 'life + 70 years' rule (although personally, I think life + 50 years should be sufficient). If that law had not been in force, then the revenue generated by Holst, Elgar, Vaughan Williams, etc. would not have been reinvested in the likes of Elliott Carter, Harrison Birtwistle, Simon Bainbridge, and so many more. The revenue from deceased but copyright-protected composers' estates also often goes directly into supporting the performance, promotion and commissioning of new music, and this would also suffer if that revenue was severely reduced. Performers have a very difficult job if they want to devote themselves to new music, and they really need whatever help they can get. I think of it as the composers of the past funding the performers and composers of the future.

So my point is that there's more to copyright and the revenue it generates than putting money in corporate executives pockets, and that should be remembered and acknowledged when discussing it. Too often it isn't.

I will refrain from replying directly to Odin's many points, because I do not have the time to do so as thoroughly as I would like. I will only say this - if you "do not longer accept any legislation which has been based upon non-democratic ways of law-giving procedures and upon lobbyism and upon the personal corruption of the elected politicians" then you don't accept much of anything! It seems that very few laws indeed are free from politicians' corruption, bias, and vested interests. The kind of democracy of which you speak is an idealised one, but not a real one. If you want to be an activist for a truer, better democracy, then copyright does not seem to me to be the most important or significant issue to pursue.

With best wishes, to all,
Michael

[Lyle Neff]

It would be nice if copyright law would require that the profits go not into the publishers' pockets, but to the composer, and then after s/he dies, to philanthropic activities of supporting performance and publication of new music.

However, one assumes that such is not state of current law(s).

[Odin]

Hello

I still cannot see any legitime reason why the protection terms in the copyright
are as long as they became during the last 50 years.

For me the copyright which we have now is a violation of two important principles
in democratic legislation

- equal treatment of equal issues

- legitimacy by common consent (to represent the will and interests of common people)

It is correct that the second point is violated by many other laws, but in these cases
there are already existing political movements to adress this illegitime legislation.
The Pirate Parties are the only ones doing so in the field of immaterial rights.

The first point: I think that the creative work of inventors (creating technical progress)
and of artists (painters, book writers, composers, performers a.s.o.) is comparable.
Therefore I claim that the legal protection of artists and inventors should be similar
or identical. That would mean that the protection terms for artistic work should not
exceed those for inventions (which is about 20 years from application). That would
mean that an artistic work would be protected during 20 years from the date of its
first publication.