At 12:57 PM -0400 10/23/07, Martin Banner wrote:
If someone creates something, physical or intellectually, shouldn't that person be entitled to some sort of financial benefit for his/her entire lifetime, regardless of how long?
A very meaningful question, but unfortunately one that has no obvious or universal answer. ALL copyright terms are arbitrary because they are based on statutes adopted by governments.
I've picked up some surprising information from the 18th century Interdisciplinary List, information not generally understood by those involved in modern copyright matters. The Statute of Anne (1707 or 1710, right in that time frame) in English law was actually the first copyright law to assume that specific rights to control a work existed without resorting to the older system of royal privileges (monopolies granted on payment of suitable bribes). But that statute did NOT protect the creators of the works, but the stationers (we would say publishers) who made them available. And there were ongoing debates in Parliament as to whether there should be a time limit on that protection at all, or whether it should be in perpetuity. No joy there for composer or author at all!! It was only toward the end of the century that decisions were finally made that did put a limit on the length of protection, and finally did recognize the rights of the creators of the works. And that's what was on the books when the U.S. Constitution instructed Congress to write copyright and patent laws.
Oh, and music was included under copyright in England by the end of the 18th century, while in the U.S. it was not added to the original items (literature and maps) until the copyright revision of 1831. U.S. copyright protection lasted for a fixed period of 14 years, with a 14 year renewal possible. That was not changed until the periods were doubled in the copyright revision of 1909.
It's worth noting that U.S. law has always treated copyrights and patents as property rights, and it's because of that that the various sub-rights can be freely sold, assigned, or otherwise disposed of individually. (It's also honest to point out that slavery was also treated under the law as property rights, which I'm sure also had its European background.) European copyright law has, I believe, always been based on something other than straightforward property rights, but I've never been able to unravel that to my satisfaction.
In the meantime (and I don't know the details of this), European law was already protecting not just for the author's entire lifetime but for life plus. (I believe the original was life plus 50 years, although there may have been earlier versions.) And if I recall correctly, that's what was adopted in the U.S. copyright revision of 1976. But then the pressure started to build up to extend the "life plus" length, driven by publishers and corporations rather than creative individuals. And it was primarily the Disney Corporation, with a long history of aggressively protecting their copyrights, that bought the "Mickey Mouse" extension from a receptive Congress, since they simply could not envision life without having Mickey in their firm control. "The Mouse that Roared," indeed!
I repeat: it's all arbitrary and equally good arguments can be made for every variation that exists and has existed. Or against them.
John -- John R. Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music College of Liberal Arts & Human Sciences Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
