

Newly discovered jazz recordings show why copyright laws need to be revisited - afschar
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/opinion/22sun3.html

======
holman
The thing that's just so frustrating about this is that this is _our_ culture.
Jazz (and its precursors) formed the foundations of pop, of rock, of rap. It's
easy to think of culture as abstract concepts like our "freedom" or
"ambition", but in the last century we've broadened our culture to be, in
part, rooted in commercial entities. It's not bad, it's not good, it just is.
The unfortunate effect though, as demonstrated by this find, is that we've
permitted that part of our heritage to be legally locked away from us.

------
klang
Copyright holders are supposed to release the works to the public domain in
return for protection for a limited time.

For many years there there have been no payment and effectively no
limitations.

~~~
lutorm
Sounds like you're thinking of patents.

~~~
yummyfajitas
No, he isn't. Copyright used to be 14 years, patents 17.

Patents were designed for a person to publicize their invention rather than
using it secretly (see, e.g., forceps). Copyright was designed to give people
an incentive to produce creative works, which would eventually be available to
the public for free.

~~~
tiles
I'm curious, is there historical evidence of whether short-term copyright
protection (14 years) allowed greater innovation in society than no copyright,
or the current artist life + 70 (no doubt)? In an ideal legal system, what
would be the best approach to copyright?

~~~
mjgoins
I don't think strict 14 year copyright was in effect anywhere where
industrialized printing and reproduction was also extant.

On the other hand, there have been documented instances where simply
_ignoring_ copyright led to economic boom. There have been plenty of recent
articles on that.

~~~
meric
Hmm how would you know if simply _ignoring_ copyright isn't just killing the
goose for the golden eggs? If patents and copyrights really do promote
innovation, you could be stunting innovation for the long term, even if you
could put already-made discoveries to good use in the short term. It'd have
been nice to see what specific examples of recent articles you're talking
about.

------
naner
The original "Copyright Clause" from the US Constitution:

 _To promote 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._

I think we've strayed a bit far off the mark.

------
masklinn
> Copyright laws are designed to ensure that authors and performers receive
> compensation for their labors without fear of theft and to encourage them to
> continue their work. The laws are not intended to provide income for
> generations of an author’s heirs, particularly at the cost of keeping works
> of art out of the public’s reach.

How are they not, when they're set at decades past the author's death? The
Berne Convention mandates that all works other than photography and
cinematography are to be copyrighted until at least 50 years past the author's
death.

And as usual countries are free to go even further: the European "Copyright
Directive" (2001/29/EC) extends it to 70 years (as does the Sonny Bono
Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 in the US).

How is this anything but providing income for generations of an author's heir
exactly?

~~~
CoreDumpling
Providing income for heirs is not unreasonable. Former U.S. President Ulysses
S. Grant did exactly that with his memoirs, which saved his family from
poverty after his death [1].

That said, 70 years is still beyond excessive.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_Ulysses_S._...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Memoirs_of_Ulysses_S._Grant)

~~~
masklinn
> Providing income for heirs is not unreasonable.

I am not saying anything about it being reasonable or not, I'm just pointing
out that the article is obviously incorrect on that point.

------
jacquesm
The law could be changed without any effect to anybodies bottom line by making
it mandatory to release in to the public domain any work that is no longer in
print.

------
bugsy
These aren't works from the 19th century. Some of the performers are still
alive, and those who are not their estates are entitled to control over their
output.

Why the hell should big outfits like Disney be the only ones with proper
protection of their work?

It's obscene that articles like this promote the rape of the hard work done by
small independent artists.

~~~
rwmj
"rape of the hard work" ...?

They're literally not being heard at all right now, except by a very lucky few
audio engineers at the museum.

A fixed license fee for orphan works like these would _always_ be a net
positive, since they're starting from $0.

~~~
bugsy
The entire premise of orphan works is a scam. The issue is not even of
releasing the recordings for all to enjoy. It's of a company or organization
wanting to sell works still in copyright without obtaining permission from the
legitimate owners, compensating them, or even having to bother trying to find
them.

Works owned by large corporations are never orphaned. It's only the small
independent artists and their heirs that get shafted by this scam.

~~~
GiraffeNecktie
The article clearly states that a reasonable effort must be made to locate the
owner of the work AND if the owner eventually comes forward that they would be
able to claim a reasonable compensation. They wouldn't, however, be able to
seek huge damages. Seems like common sense to me.

~~~
bugsy
Reasonable efforts is not defined. Spending 5 minutes on the internet googling
their name is a reasonable effort. So is spending 1 minute. So is spending 0
minutes and saying you tried your best.

But if I decide to reprint Disney works I get my ass sued off.

You guys support shafting small independent artists but have no problem with
protections intact for large corporations with armies of lawyers.

"Claiming compensation" is another scam. It is set up as an "artists rights
organization" taking royalties from the publisher. They then spend the money.
If the artist later shows up, engages a lawyer to prove they are his works,
and signs a contract with the rights organization giving up control over his
work, then he gets to receive a percent out of what they have collected, which
was a minuscule portion of the publisher's profit to begin with.

Why the fuck should the artist have to give up their rights to claim royalties
for works they never authorized the publisher to sell? It's completely
outrageous and those supporting this corporate fuckover of little guys are
immoral assholes who should be shot in the head.

~~~
VBprogrammer
If you wish to use language like that in a way which does not enhance or
support any point you are trying to make then please make your way to the
comments section of digg or reddit. The rest of the grown-ups here don't need
to hear it.

