Interesting article on copyright

[PeterAit]

In the Oct 20 New Yorker, presenting some history as well as arguments that current copyright laws are too strict. Interesting anecdote - the Girl Scouts were once asked to pay fees for copyrighted songs they sang around the campfire.

[Chrisso26]

These supposed stories of public groups and charities being hit by copyright are legion, mostly on the web.
It's an easy way to attack copyright. Not that the stories are completely without foundation, but I believe copyright does far more good than harm.
The music industry is particularly under attack by anti-copyright activists. As a musician I've never been able to understand how copyright is holding back creativity, except perhaps in one small aspect of the industry - sampling.
For the most part musicians are best rewarded for innovation and creativity - think of the most revered artists, almost all did something new (Elvis, Miles Davis, The Beatles, Stravisnky etc), they weren't revered because they copied someone else's idea.
In addition, no one is compelled to copyright their work. Anyone can give their ideas away if they want. Creative Commons is a well established and perfectly legal way to share your work.
So, in my view, copyright is only an issue for someone who wants my ideas, when I don't want to give them away free.
That's bullying.

[Schewe]

So, in my view, copyright is only an issue for someone who wants my ideas, when I don't want to give them away free.
That's bullying.

And that is an enlightened view...look, Copyrights were put into the original US Constitution (the only rights included in the original Constitution–all other "rights" came in bill or rights amendments). The original copyrights were intended to fight England's approach of having the publisher/printer owning the rights to intellectual properties. Both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin fought for inclusion of the author owning the rights to exploitation because they were both authors. They wanted to invigorate both creators and inventors to create & invent and thus prosper from their works.

The fact that big companies have taken copyright in a direction the original authors of the constitution didn't expect is not a valid attack on the importance of authors, creators and inventors benefits from their creations. It's really an extension of copyrights...all those copyrights that big companies sue over started wit the creators selling those rights (often far too cheaply) to the big companies. But that is not the fault of the copyright laws...that's the fault of creators being hoodwinked out of selling their right too cheaply. Which is not a problem I have...if somebody wants the copyrights to my images, they come very dearly.

[Deardorff]

These supposed stories of public groups and charities being hit by copyright are legion, mostly on the web.
It's an easy way to attack copyright. Not that the stories are completely without foundation, but I believe copyright does far more good than harm.
The music industry is particularly under attack by anti-copyright activists. As a musician I've never been able to understand how copyright is holding back creativity, except perhaps in one small aspect of the industry - sampling.
For the most part musicians are best rewarded for innovation and creativity - think of the most revered artists, almost all did something new (Elvis, Miles Davis, The Beatles, Stravisnky etc), they weren't revered because they copied someone else's idea.
In addition, no one is compelled to copyright their work. Anyone can give their ideas away if they want. Creative Commons is a well established and perfectly legal way to share your work.
So, in my view, copyright is only an issue for someone who wants my ideas, when I don't want to give them away free.
That's bullying.

You can't copyright ideas, only the physical manifestation of them.

Any and all Artists should have say over who and how their work is used. If it means a High School Band has to pay for the right to perform, so be it. If it means I go after someone online who steals my images - so be it.

[PeterAit]

So, in my view, copyright is only an issue for someone who wants my ideas, when I don't want to give them away free.
That's bullying.

This does not make sense because you cannot copyright ideas.

[Chrisso26]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a creative professional.
How's this - -
I start with a blank tape. I write and record an idea for a piece of music. From scratch on my own.
It doesn't belong to anyone but me. I don't have to share it for free.
I can if I want to. Or I can copyright it.
It's remarkable how these copyright debates descend into meaningless wordplay so quickly.
From the UK Copyright Centre:
'You cannot ‘copyright an idea’, but copyright will apply to a recorded work that realises your ideas.'

I think that was obviously what i was expressing before.

[PeterAit]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a creative professional.
How's this - -
I start with a blank tape. I write and record an idea for a piece of music. From scratch on my own.
It doesn't belong to anyone but me. I don't have to share it for free.
I can if I want to. Or I can copyright it.
It's remarkable how these copyright debates descend into meaningless wordplay so quickly.
From the UK Copyright Centre:
'You cannot ‘copyright an idea’, but copyright will apply to a recorded work that realises your ideas.'

I think that was obviously what i was expressing before.

It's obvious you didn't read the article. No one is claiming that folks should not be able to copyright and control their works. The question was: for how long and how strictly? Long copyright periods with strict interpretation tends to benefit the copyright holder, while shorter periods and looser interpretation benefits society at large. Where's the proper balance? You should read the article - you might learn something.

[Chrisso26]

I've been active in the copyright debate for several years. I've seen the same point being made dozens of times.
The reality of the internet is that many more creative people own their own copyright than was common ten/twenty years ago. Artists themselves are more and more the 'copyright holder', and artists are benefitting.
The anti-copyright lobby bang on about Disney constantly, but attacking the terms of copyright attacks the rights of artists to protect their work.
Photographers publish their own work, using new software and the internet. They don't rely on National Geographic or Magnum. Millions of musicians release their music independently online and very few rely on major labels any more.
The bottom line, criticising big media is a sucker punch. It's popular with the masses. The free sharing lobby shy away from mentioning independent artists, because they don't want to admit weakening copyright will damage the finances of already marginal businesses. Fact is, some of the most recent extensions to copyright law have been powered by artists themselves, not by mega rich corporations like Disney, but you would never know based on the propaganda of the filesharing/free culture movement.

[Chrisso26]

PS: You didn't link to the article.
I totally accept copyright should evolve and not set in stone of course. But talking of balance, your one line post included the anecdote about scouts being negatively affected by copyright. Co-incidentally one of the well worn bullet points of the anti-copyright lobby. It is an absolute extreme example. Does one base change on extremes or on the mainstream? Copyright works perfectly well for the overwhelming majority in society - unless you want to download Breaking Bad and Thriller without paying for them.