DMCA: Internet Tab Edition

[Sky]

Blam.

Freedom is dying fast.

[HaemishM]

Wow, what a bunch of cockgobblers.

[bhodi]

It doesn't fit exactly, but since it's topical:

Once in a while maybe you will feel the urge
To break international copyright law
By downloading mp3s from file-sharing sites
Like Morpheus or Grokster or Limewire or KaZaA
But deep in your heart you know the guilt would drive you mad
And the shame would leave a permanent scar
'Cause you start out stealing songs, and then you're robbing liquor stores
And selling crack and running over school kids with your car

So don't download this song
The record store's where you belong
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should
Oh, don't download this song

Oh, you don't wanna mess with the RIAA
They'll sue you if you burn that CD-R
It doesn't matter if you're a grandma or a 7-year-old girl
They'll treat you like the evil, hard-bitten criminal scum you are

So don't download this song
Don't go pirating music all day long
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should
Oh, don't download this song

Don't take away money from artists just like me
How else can I afford another solid gold Humvee?
And diamond-studded swimming pools, these things don't grow on trees
So all I ask is, everybody, please...

Don't download this song
Even Lars Ulrich knows it's wrong
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should
Oh, don't download this song...
Don't download this song
Or you might wind up in jail like Tommy Chong
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should
Oh, don't download this song...
Don't download this song
Or you'll burn in Hell before too long
Go and buy the CD like you know that you should
Oh, don't download this song

[Samwise]

Good thing OLGA is mirrored to hell and back after the last time they ran into legal trouble.   

[Krakrok]

Same as it ever was.

[Righ]

You should den this thread because of the lyrics or report it to the NMPA or something.

[Ironwood]

That's unbelievably retarded.

Wow.

[Big Gulp]

That's unbelievably retarded.

Wow.

Yeah, right.  Your indignation is just a shrewd cover for your rampant piracy of player piano music, and don't think I can't see through it.

Scott Joplin is starving because of you dirtbags.

[Ironwood]

 :-D


 

[stray]

I remember OLGA getting shut down years ago (then back up, and I guess back down again), so I guess it's nothing new.

Half of the tabs I find on the internet are worthless anyways though. Most of them aren't even "tabs", but basic chord transcriptions -- Which any self respecting musician should know by listening to a song in the first place. And when I do find tabs, I find that the one who transcribed them is usually more clueless than I am. Which is pretty sad, believe me.

[Sky]

I agree, internet tab sucks. I usually use it for something I'm stuck on when playing by ear, and most of the time it's either wrong or poorly fingered. And nobody wants a poor fingering, really.

Hmm...I should look up some Scott Joplin tabs online. In my couple of lessons, my teacher said the acoustic blues style I was after was best learned by picking up some ragtime, since early blues guitar was influenced by piano, and ragtime was a huge influence on blues piano.

[Yegolev]

Oh, the years and money I have wasted by purchasing music... I could have just went onlne and downloaded the song notation and saved all the hassle, since I am, in fact, a MUSICAL ROBOT.

The music industry needs a severe shooting.

[Samwise]

Which any self respecting musician should know by listening to a song in the first place.

Very few self respecting musicians are born that way.

[CmdrSlack]

You know, this whole situation is interesting from both sides of the coin -- both the music publishers and the tab sites have good arguments in their favor.  The publishers own the rights to the underlying notation of the music -- legally it is something separate from a performance of the song or a recording of a performance of a song.  ETA -- It makese sense for the owner of intellectual property to protect it.

On the other hand, if someone figures out how to play a song and tells others how to do so, it's arguably a fair use.  ETA -- Isn't it basically reverse-engineering?  If a musician then goes off and makes money playing covers of songs without some kind of license, that's really not the fault of the tab site.  It was just trying to help people help each other learn how to play songs that other folks wrote. 

There's compelling arguments on both sides, IMO.  The ultimate outcome of any sort of action has yet to be seen, so decrying this as another nail in freedom's coffin is premature at best.  If you're all rah-rah for our form of government, I guess any outcome would be a win-win.  Personally, I don't think that tab sites are doing anything wrong, and if someone tried to post scans of purchased sheet music, that could easily be handled via DMCA takedown measures.  Shutting them down in their entirety will not increase the sales of sheet music, nor will it put any extra dough in the pockets of musicians.

What amazes me about people's reactions to this stuff is that you really don't see people making freedom of speech/data/teh intarweb/* big issues come election time.  Congress is the body that establishes the duration and scope of copyright.  If people truly feel that copyright is being abused by corporations that have managed to purchase vast amounts of intellectual property, it would seem the best course of action would be vetting potential candidates based on their commitment to copyright reform.

[HaemishM]

On the other hand, if someone figures out how to play a song and tells others how to do so, it's arguably a fair use.  ETA -- Isn't it basically reverse-engineering?  If a musician then goes off and makes money playing covers of songs without some kind of license, that's really not the fault of the tab site.  It was just trying to help people help each other learn how to play songs that other folks wrote. 

If the music industry actually gave a real shit about "copyright," they'd start shutting down cover bands and bands playing cover songs in bars. But they don't, because seeing how a band or musician plays someone else's music can show some form of competence with that style of music. Not to mention it'd be a pain in the ass, though somehow less of a pain in the ass than shutting down P2P.

But it's an accepted form of the music biz, so having actual principles and sticking to them don't matter, just what you can attach a dollar figure to.

If people truly feel that copyright is being abused by corporations that have managed to purchase vast amounts of intellectual property, it would seem the best course of action would be vetting potential candidates based on their commitment to copyright reform.

Name one. Seriously, name one politician who has actually put their balls on the line for copyright issues that were non-corporate profit related. No one wants to come out publicly on the side of common sense, when they can run with the soundbite logic of RIAA-blessed lobbying bullet points. Most of the Congress have a Ted Stevens' level of Internet savvy anyway.

[CmdrSlack]

I don't think copyright necessarily needs reform due to the advent of the Internet.  I think that the current duration of copyright (lifetime + 70 yrs) is more than excessive.  The Constitution mentions "limited times," and I think it's instructive that the original term was somewhere around 14 years, with one renewal.  It was much harder to have copyright, and there were specific processes for registering, providing notice and renewing.  While some changes in subsequent Copyright Acts made it easier to do some of the stuff, the extensions of the duration of protection are really designed to protect the big IP holders.

I don't honestly see how these periods help benefit the useful arts or science. 

Intellectual property law needs a serious overhaul.  If politicians DON'T do something about it, I predict that we'll have some rather serious problems in the future.  A major first step is taking the duration of copyright protection back down to a reasonable number. 

If the music industry actually gave a real shit about "copyright," they'd start shutting down cover bands and bands playing cover songs in bars. But they don't, because seeing how a band or musician plays someone else's music can show some form of competence with that style of music. Not to mention it'd be a pain in the ass, though somehow less of a pain in the ass than shutting down P2P.

But it's an accepted form of the music biz, so having actual principles and sticking to them don't matter, just what you can attach a dollar figure to.

The thing is that P2P is apparently easier to target.  Hell, my neighborhood bar puts mix CDs that have been burnt by patrons into its jukebox.  This makes it one of the best jukeboxes in the city, but it also is a massive copyright violation. 

Why doesn't it get enforced?  Either the auditors from BMI, et. al. haven't been by and noticed, or perhaps it's viewed as strategically unsound.  I really don't think that choosing battles is necessarily a mark of the beast.  I know that the music industry is fun to demonize and all, and I generally think it's filled with asshats.  However, at the end of the day, since one does not have to actively protect copyright like one does trademark, they're free to choose their battles.  After all, if they sued everyone who violated copyright, there'd be no money left for those poor, starving artists after they paid the legal fees!  /sarcasm 

Would forcing people to defend copyright like it was a trademark (or risk losing protection) really make things better?  Probably not.  You'd see a LOT more lawsuits due to their necessity.  Courts are congested enough as it is.

There's a good number of public policy considerations that apply to any overhaul of intellectual property law, and that is another reason people likely avoid pushing for it.  I really don't think that the entertainment industry has as much clout as people give it credit for having.  A good measure of the lack of reform is laziness too, IMO.

ETA:

Name one. Seriously, name one politician who has actually put their balls on the line for copyright issues that were non-corporate profit related. No one wants to come out publicly on the side of common sense, when they can run with the soundbite logic of RIAA-blessed lobbying bullet points. Most of the Congress have a Ted Stevens' level of Internet savvy anyway.

Well, if people don't make it a major voter, you'll never see one, most likely.  This is partially because teh big IP reform mavens are total nutbars when compared to the political animals we're currently breeding.  They may NOT really be nutbars, but they're too "out there" for the average person to accept.  Take a look at Larry Lessig.  While I agree with some of what he says, his whole "The extension of copyright terms is a conspiracy to keep Mickey Mouse out of public domain" line would sound too tinfoil hat for most people, I would imagine.

[stray]

Which any self respecting musician should know by listening to a song in the first place.

Very few self respecting musicians are born that way.

You're not quoting me all the way. I'm just talking about basic chording, note recognition, and rhythm. No, you're not going to be born with those abilities fully honed, but they are inherent. Toddlers have the ability to replicate sounds and noises in "Simon" like auditory games, and they know how to dance -- And learning the basic elements of music is just building off of abilities like that. To know when you hear a C, to know basic chord shapes, and to hear the beats in a song is definitely someone needs to develop first and foremost. It is nothing but a self respecting enterprise -- if you happen to want to be a musician.

It's not like I'm completely knocking notation. I'm barely knocking it at all. It's just like I said, basic chording, note recognition, and rhythm. Beyond that, it gets a little harder to hear everything accurately when songs are sped up, or when trying to hear every note in a lead part. It isn't a bad thing to find notation to supplement whatever parts you already know.

[HaemishM]

After all, if they sued everyone who violated copyright, there'd be no money left for those poor, starving artists after they paid the legal fees!  /sarcasm 

Would forcing people to defend copyright like it was a trademark (or risk losing protection) really make things better?  Probably not.  You'd see a LOT more lawsuits due to their necessity.  Courts are congested enough as it is.

And why would it congest the courts so much? Because the laws are batshit insane, badly written and no longer address the need they were intended to address at creation, that of the rights of the creator. They address the rights of the copyright holder, which originally WAS the creator, but has been perverted to mean any shitheel who tricks the creator into selling his creations, any slave labor work-for-hire artist or writer, etc.

[CmdrSlack]

After all, if they sued everyone who violated copyright, there'd be no money left for those poor, starving artists after they paid the legal fees!  /sarcasm 

Would forcing people to defend copyright like it was a trademark (or risk losing protection) really make things better?  Probably not.  You'd see a LOT more lawsuits due to their necessity.  Courts are congested enough as it is.

And why would it congest the courts so much? Because the laws are batshit insane, badly written and no longer address the need they were intended to address at creation, that of the rights of the creator. They address the rights of the copyright holder, which originally WAS the creator, but has been perverted to mean any shitheel who tricks the creator into selling his creations, any slave labor work-for-hire artist or writer, etc.

The reason why it would clog the courts is quite simple -- people would be forced to sue first and hope to settle later to protect their copyrights.  This would mean that they would have to sue every infringer, or at least make an effort to do so.  Seems pretty obvious where the clogging would occur.

While some artists have been ripped off by the music industry, I'd argue that anyone signing over their rights these days is pretty damn stupid if they don't realize what they're doing.  Actually, the copyright laws have long envisioned the transfer of the rights to others.  It's not really a perversion, it's pretty much allowing people to make beneficial use of their intangible as well as tangible properties.  How do you think books get published?  Do you see  as many people up in arms because some publishers want to stop the Google Print project?  Most of the hate directed at the music industry isn't without foundation, but damn...it's not the only industry that buys IP from the creators of that IP and sells it, keeping most of the profit and tossing a fraction back to the original creator.   It's also not the only industry that wants to always make the maximum possible revenue from its investments. 

If someone is an employee of a company and creates a work-for-hire, well, tough shit.  That's their JOB.  If you worked for a magazine or newspaper, you'd be creating works for hire.  So, really, how is that bad?  That's part of the goddamn JOB DESCRIPTION.  If people wanted to create their own stuff and try to sell it later as a freelancer, they'd at least be considered the author.  Work-for-hire has always meant that the employer, not the actual creator gets the byline.  If some places do it differently and give their writers bylines, that's out of courtesy, not required by law.

Haem, I think you're right that the music industry sucks, but the stuff you decry is standard practice across all industries that deal with IP. 

I'm not arguing against copyright reform at all, btw.  I believe it's necessary, but I also see the reality that some people bring their own woes upon themselves.

[Samwise]

You're not quoting me all the way. I'm just talking about basic chording, note recognition, and rhythm. No, you're not going to be born with those abilities fully honed, but they are inherent.

I bow to your superior innate musical genius, sir.  It took me years before I could pick out the chords to a song with any degree of confidence.  I probably would have given up on the guitar entirely if I'd had to rely solely on my ear to try to figure out what chords went with a given song when I was starting out.  Sites like OLGA were my best friend.

[Krakrok]

The reason why it would clog the courts is quite simple -- people would be forced to sue first and hope to settle later to protect their copyrights.  This would mean that they would have to sue every infringer, or at least make an effort to do so.

That's happening now. And it's profitable.

[stray]

You're not quoting me all the way. I'm just talking about basic chording, note recognition, and rhythm. No, you're not going to be born with those abilities fully honed, but they are inherent.

I bow to your superior innate musical genius, sir.  It took me years before I could pick out the chords to a song with any degree of confidence.  I probably would have given up on the guitar entirely if I'd had to rely solely on my ear to try to figure out what chords went with a given song when I was starting out.  Sites like OLGA were my best friend.

If there was anything in that post that made you think I was trying to be superior, then I apologize. Not my intentions at all.

Or are you just being a glib again? 

Really though....Years? What songs were you trying to learn anyhow? 20's era, ragtime swing? Zambian hip hop?

Or maybe I should ask, did you really try that much? Of course, no one's going to learn those things when "starting out", but if you had been playing years already, it's hard for me to believe you would have been stumped by the basic template of most songs (pop songs, that is). I have to wonder if you simply weren't giving yourself enough credit.

You mention something else interesting to me: You said sites like OLGA were like your best friend in those years. So the internet was already around by the time you started playing, I take it? I didn't exactly have that luxury or convenience when I started (circa 1990). Besides the occassional Guitar Mag full of lame "Skid Row" or "Mr. Big" tabs, I never ran across transcriptions much, let alone transcriptions I cared about. Maybe if I did, things would have been a little different.

I was going to type a short story about how I learned to play in my first 2 years, but I'll cut it short. Right from the start though, I think I learned "the hard way". From being "abandoned" (heh) by the guy who introduced me to guitars, struggling to learn how to tune a guitar on my own....To even learning how to hold a guitar right (I'm lefthanded, but I learned righty. When I eventually found out about lefty guitars, the damage had already been done). This goes without mentioning the nights just sitting near a tape player, stopping, rewinding, and playing over and over again, absolutely determined to learn Pipeline or Johnny B Goode. I'm sure Sky or any of the other guys who started around or before the time I did can attest to some of these things.

[CmdrSlack]

The reason why it would clog the courts is quite simple -- people would be forced to sue first and hope to settle later to protect their copyrights.  This would mean that they would have to sue every infringer, or at least make an effort to do so.

That's happening now. And it's profitable.

Just imagine if the lawsuits were "use it or lose it" affairs.  While that's a gross over-simplification of how trademark works, if applied to copyright (perhaps to keep people from hoarding and not using IP, or hoarding it to collect royalties off of the licenses) I think it would lead to massive court crowding.  What's going on right now is just dickwaving in comparison.

[Samwise]

Really though....Years? What songs were you trying to learn anyhow? 20's era, ragtime swing? Zambian hip hop?

Or maybe I should ask, did you really try that much? Of course, no one's going to learn those things when "starting out", but if you had been playing years already, it's hard for me to believe you would have been stumped by the basic template of most songs (pop songs, that is). I have to wonder if you simply weren't giving yourself enough credit.

You mention something else interesting to me: You said sites like OLGA were like your best friend in those years. So the internet was already around by the time you started playing, I take it?

Bear in mind I've always been just a dabbler when it comes to music, so when I say "years" it probably equates to "weeks" for someone who actually took it seriously.   

I picked up the guitar around the age of 15 (that's somewhere around 1996-7 for those of you keeping score) because I had recently gotten very into the Beatles and wanted to try to play some of their tunes.  I never had any formal lessons; I learned to play rhythm guitar by sitting down with a chord dictionary and a book of Beatles songs that had chords over the lyrics.  When I wanted to branch out to other stuff, I'd go to the library, find music books that had chords, and make photocopies, or sometimes I'd get my (much more musically-inclined) dad to help me work out chords and/or tab for songs that he knew; I'd try to work out stuff on my own sometimes, and sometimes I'd get it, but frequently I'd end up with a few bits that just didn't sound right despite my best efforts.  (Not knowing anything about chord progressions means that when you're trying to work out a song by ear you end up playing every chord you know looking for the one that "sounds right" -- after doing this about 100 times for one song, it's no longer fun, and everything's kinda mushing together anyway by that point so you're not even sure if what you've come up with so far is right.)

So yeah, OLGA was a godsend.  Nowadays I do tend to work stuff out on my own pretty quickly (esp. since I play a lot of folk tunes, which are even simpler than rock), but I still browse OLGA now and then looking for new takes on songs that are giving me trouble, or for a "quick fix" when I've become suddenly enamored with a song and want to hear something approximating it coming from my hands as quickly as possible.

I have no doubt that people who are more determined, more naturally talented, or more musically educated than I have little use for OLGA.  But there are also many people even less determined/talented/etc than I am, and I for one want them to have access to the same musical crutches that I did.   

[HaemishM]

After all, if they sued everyone who violated copyright, there'd be no money left for those poor, starving artists after they paid the legal fees!  /sarcasm 

Would forcing people to defend copyright like it was a trademark (or risk losing protection) really make things better?  Probably not.  You'd see a LOT more lawsuits due to their necessity.  Courts are congested enough as it is.

And why would it congest the courts so much? Because the laws are batshit insane, badly written and no longer address the need they were intended to address at creation, that of the rights of the creator. They address the rights of the copyright holder, which originally WAS the creator, but has been perverted to mean any shitheel who tricks the creator into selling his creations, any slave labor work-for-hire artist or writer, etc.

The reason why it would clog the courts is quite simple -- people would be forced to sue first and hope to settle later to protect their copyrights.  This would mean that they would have to sue every infringer, or at least make an effort to do so.  Seems pretty obvious where the clogging would occur.

Sure, it's obvious, but the law doesn't have to be written so badly that every single infringer would need to be sued to protect the copyright. In my perfect world, the copyright wouldn't be retarded. It would allow fair use things, such as when the "infringer" is not profiting from the "infringement" and when the infringer clearly states who the original creator is.

While some artists have been ripped off by the music industry, I'd argue that anyone signing over their rights these days is pretty damn stupid if they don't realize what they're doing.  Actually, the copyright laws have long envisioned the transfer of the rights to others.  It's not really a perversion, it's pretty much allowing people to make beneficial use of their intangible as well as tangible properties.  How do you think books get published?  Do you see  as many people up in arms because some publishers want to stop the Google Print project?  Most of the hate directed at the music industry isn't without foundation, but damn...it's not the only industry that buys IP from the creators of that IP and sells it, keeping most of the profit and tossing a fraction back to the original creator.   It's also not the only industry that wants to always make the maximum possible revenue from its investments. 

Books get published by the creator allowing a company to publish the work. That doesn't mean the author has to sign away the copyright to the publisher, only that he gives the publisher the rights to publish in a certain manner. I find the whole concept of work for hire abhorrent, personally. I understand it, I just think it's too open to abuse. Work-for-hire should not be allowed to be used as a club with which to bludgeon the original author, nor should it be allowed to steal money from the creator ad infinitum. If I wrote an article in a magazine, or a comic book or a movie script, there should be a certain minimum percentage of all future royalties the law should guarantee me, in all future transformative media until the copyright expires.

Laws are designed to protect stupid people from exploitation, and that should include copyright laws. Jerry Siegel and Joel Schuster should not have been paupers in the 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, when Superman was a hit TV series, a hit movie and a constant cash cow for DC Comics and Warner, no matter what the conditions of their hire.

[CmdrSlack]

If you're talking about people adding in terms like, "this will be considered a work for hire" into licensing agreements, well, yeah, that's stupid.  If someone works as a writer and isn't a freelance writer, then odds are that it's work for hire.  I just think that makes sense and is, on the whole, more fair to the employer than the alternative -- non-compete agreements. 

As far as non-commercial infringing uses goes -- I can think of several types off of the top of my head that aren't very fair to the creator of the work.  Or the holder of the license for that work. 

Look, copyright laws are messed up because we've been piling amendments on top of underlying statutes on top of underlying amendments on top of underlying statutes.    While it's easy to say that they should be fixed, it's going to be a lot more difficult to convince anyone that the Herculean task of cleaning it all up is worthwhile.  What you're seeing right now is that people are realizing that since licenses are treated as contracts, it is possible to get creators to sign away impossible amounts of rights to publish their work.  Unfortunately, instead of using the contracts in a more equitable manner, people go apeshit and make them as insane as possible.  No amount of fixing the laws will prevent that because it'd be rather difficult to make the Copyright Act supercede the whole "freedom of contract" thing that runs with our legal system.

[HaemishM]

If you're talking about people adding in terms like, "this will be considered a work for hire" into licensing agreements, well, yeah, that's stupid.  If someone works as a writer and isn't a freelance writer, then odds are that it's work for hire.  I just think that makes sense and is, on the whole, more fair to the employer than the alternative -- non-compete agreements. 

My point exactly. Work for hire is more fair to the employer, who often has tons more legal resources than the average creator, which creates an inequitable situation in reality. Incidentally, this is why I have a problem with corporations having the exact same rights as individuals: the corporations have too much more financial muscle to be given the same rights. In these type of fights both sides get a gun, but the corporation's gun is a howitzer with unlimited ammo and the author/worker's gun is a .22 with six bullets.

As far as non-commercial infringing uses goes -- I can think of several types off of the top of my head that aren't very fair to the creator of the work.  Or the holder of the license for that work. 

Sure, but you either go completely draconian and say that the only way someone can experience those creations is through the author's desired means, or you give a little leeway and deal with them on a case-by-case basis. But the creator of the work is the one who should have the last word, not just the copyright holder. If an author wants to let his work be given away, no amount of law should allow someone else to say it shouldn't.

Look, copyright laws are messed up because we've been piling amendments on top of underlying statutes on top of underlying amendments on top of underlying statutes.    While it's easy to say that they should be fixed, it's going to be a lot more difficult to convince anyone that the Herculean task of cleaning it all up is worthwhile.  What you're seeing right now is that people are realizing that since licenses are treated as contracts, it is possible to get creators to sign away impossible amounts of rights to publish their work.  Unfortunately, instead of using the contracts in a more equitable manner, people go apeshit and make them as insane as possible.  No amount of fixing the laws will prevent that because it'd be rather difficult to make the Copyright Act supercede the whole "freedom of contract" thing that runs with our legal system.

I wouldn't want copyright to supercede contracts. But I would like the law to disallow the ability of someone to remove the creator from the decision-making process about copyright infringements, or to discontinue compensation to the author for things which the copyright holder makes money off of. If I sell publishing rights to my book, the copyright holder shouldn't be allowed to make money off of merchandising of characters from that book unless I'm given a fair share as well. The fact that Siegel and Schuster never got a dime from Superman bedsheets is a crime of monumental proportions.

[Sky]

I think that the current duration of copyright (lifetime + 70 yrs) is more than excessive.

[CmdrSlack]

I wouldn't want copyright to supercede contracts. But I would like the law to disallow the ability of someone to remove the creator from the decision-making process about copyright infringements, or to discontinue compensation to the author for things which the copyright holder makes money off of. If I sell publishing rights to my book, the copyright holder shouldn't be allowed to make money off of merchandising of characters from that book unless I'm given a fair share as well. The fact that Siegel and Schuster never got a dime from Superman bedsheets is a crime of monumental proportions.

The problem with a contract/license regime is that you'll only get what your relative bargaining power allows.  For instance, as a first-time author, you'll have less leeway than say a Stephen King or J.K. Rowling.  It's not necessarily fair, but it's part of the whole contract negotiation gig.  That's not to say you can't shop around to find the publisher of your dreams, but it may be a rude awakening later on.  One thing that we don't have in the U.S. that would be useful (regardless of the fact that it's hugely popular in France) would be the concept of moral rights (droit moral).  In a moral rights system, creators can keep the folks to whom they've licensed their work from fagging it up.  Our system only seems to recognize this concept when foreign creators try to enforce those rights on U.S. license holders. 

Heck, there's tons of problems with the licensing regime, actually.  Just look at how screwed some people are when they agree to contracts that involve cross-collateralizing their works and/or accept a repayable advance.  Both of those little bits of ugly language can utterly fuck someone while they attempt to eke out a living.  Not cool, and entirely a creation of licensing, not copyright.

[Sky]

[eldaec]

The problem with a contract/license regime is that you'll only get what your relative bargaining power allows.  For instance, as a first-time author, you'll have less leeway than say a Stephen King or J.K. Rowling.  It's not necessarily fair, but it's part of the whole contract negotiation gig. 

I'm not sure what is so unfair about it.

J.K. Rowling could submit a random string of 500,000 characters and it would be a bestseller. Stephen King regularly does exactly that.

There is exactly zero risk to the publisher and it's employee's pensions as a result of signing these guys. If you'd like to complain about that - address your complaints to the novel buying public. It is entirely the fault of people with more money than taste that Stephen King continues to sell books.

Siegel and Shuster, Superman, yadda yadda yadda

I have a hard time distinguishing between these guys and some random engineer who worked on the '06 Ford Mustang or the marketing exec who invented the CocaCola logo. Noone would ever consider that an engineer/designer or marketeer should be entitled to royalties beyond their contract - I'm not sure what on earth people think the difference is.

And it's not as if the original superman bears any resemblence to the modern day one beyond his costume anyway. The PR bunnies who successfully kept superman alive as a brand probably have a better claim on any royalties.

I don't think copyright necessarily needs reform due to the advent of the Internet.  I think that the current duration of copyright (lifetime + 70 yrs) is more than excessive.  The Constitution mentions "limited times," and I think it's instructive that the original term was somewhere around 14 years, with one renewal.  It was much harder to have copyright, and there were specific processes for registering, providing notice and renewing.  While some changes in subsequent Copyright Acts made it easier to do some of the stuff, the extensions of the duration of protection are really designed to protect the big IP holders.

I don't honestly see how these periods help benefit the useful arts or science.

What he said.

[HaemishM]

Siegel and Shuster, Superman, yadda yadda yadda

I have a hard time distinguishing between these guys and some random engineer who worked on the '06 Ford Mustang or the marketing exec who invented the CocaCola logo. Noone would ever consider that an engineer/designer or marketeer should be entitled to royalties beyond their contract - I'm not sure what on earth people think the difference is.

And it's not as if the original superman bears any resemblence to the modern day one beyond his costume anyway. The PR bunnies who successfully kept superman alive as a brand probably have a better claim on any royalties.

Wow, way to completely degrade the indefinable magic that is the creative process. And you'll excuse me for taking it like a sensitive artist, but fuck you.

Engineering is a science, and while there is some creativity to the discipline, a lot of that can be shortcut by getting the math right. It may not turn a Yugo into a Mustang, but it could turn a Yugo into a decent car that sells well because it stays together well.

On the flip side, the creative process of creating a character with lasting market power like Superman is infinitely less quantifiable. There is no set formula to just create a great, enduring character in entertainment, because not only is the public fickle, they want new and different (or at least different enough to appear new) instead of just retreads of the same thing. If it were so easy to create characters with the staying power of Superman, then the comics field wouldn't be littered with attempts to create new characters that fell flat, or with reboots of characters. Many of the same characters like Superman have spurts where they don't sell well, and that's because the creators aren't up to snuff.

I'm not trying to say that engineers are somehow of less value than creative types, but their disciplines are different, and so royalty payments are going to be different.

As for marketing execs, they are almost always interchangeable, and don't have anything to do with creating things like the Coke Logo. That comes from, surprise, a creative type.

[CmdrSlack]

Honest question:  Where do you draw the line for "a modicum of creativity?"  What is "just math" or "a car design, not a sculpture" and what's the stuff that copyright is there to protect?

That's almost literally the standard for determining whether something has the requisite creativity for copyright protection.  Even architectural designs get some protection under the current copyright laws.  Hell, even though functional things generally don't get protection, the stuff that's protected and the stuff that's not doesn't make a ton of sense.  You know those wave-shaped bike racks?  Not protected by copyright.  It was originally a sculpture.  A very fancy belt buckle?  Possibly protected by copyright, and at least one specific belt buckle enjoys copyright protection.  Blingtastic "Your Name Here" belt buckles?  Probably not.  A fancy, arty one?  Most likely, it would seem.  The big factor in the case of which I'm thinking was the fact that people collected these things as objects de art. 

Yeah.  Even the courts don't always know what the hell is going on.  Thank goodness for lifetime appointments for Federal judges.  It gives them time to figure it out.

[eldaec]

Engineering is a science, and while there is some creativity to the discipline, a lot of that can be shortcut by getting the math right. It may not turn a Yugo into a Mustang, but it could turn a Yugo into a decent car that sells well because it stays together well.

I disagree.


And incidentally when it comes to selling well...

Car that looks pretty >> Car that stays together.


I'm not belittling any creative process; I'm just pointing out that it's just as important to engineers, marketeers, designers, architects, salesman, training professionals, or business execs as it is to people who use it for traditional art. Even ignoring the creativity required by the engineers to make a car do everything it has to, better and cheaper than anyone has previously, designing a car is exactly like a sculpture, and is treated as a sculpture by the designers (who generally still use clay as their primary medium).

If it were so easy to create characters with the staying power of Superman, then the comics field wouldn't be littered with attempts to create new characters that fell flat, or with reboots of characters

I'm not suggesting it's easy to keep Superman going, I'm suggesting that it had at least as much to do with solid corporate management of the franchise, as with the original authors saying "yeah, there's this guy, he's quite strong, can run fast, he's only vulnerable to artillery fire, and he can jump 200 yards; also, he wears his underpants outside his trousers". I appreciate that this is simplifying the contribution of the Siegel and Shuster - but certainly no more than it simplifys and belittles the creative contribution of an industrial designer or inventor to argue that his product will sell fine if he or she does the maths well.

It's hard to see how the guy at 3M who invented post-its could have done so by maths.

For that matter it's hard to see why, even if you could invent post-its by maths, anyone should feel that creative jobs should have some kind of special protection not afforded to those people who's aptitudes make them better at hard maths than traditional art? (And incidentally, maths becomes an incredibly creative discipline once you break through the layers of 'maths already done by other people' anyway.)

[HaemishM]

Because no matter how "creative" the maths get, it's still quantifiable. It's a fairly tangible thing. While the look of a car is certainly a factor in sales, and takes creativity, a great looking car with shitty math behind it is a shitty car. See the Fiero for an example.

Art is so goddamn subjective. There is no formula. The old saying "I don't know art, but I know what I like" describes it perfectly. Sure, any idiot could come up with the idea of Superman, but it's the execution that makes it special or shitty, not the marketing.